In political discourse, the term ‘democracy’ has multiple uses. Not only is it used theoretically but also practically. It encapsulates an ideal and an achievable aim, both of which guide the purpose of government. The first task that must be set when addressing this irrefutably important topic is to attempt to define what ‘democracy’ actually means.
The word democracy itself is derived from the Greek words demo and kratos, which mean ‘the people’ or ‘ the many’ and ‘rule of’ respectively. However, there is more than the simple linguistic derivative to the problem of defining democracy and it is possible to provide many definitions of democracy, far too many to be entered into here. It is however possible to offer a number of models of democracy to demonstrate the development and importance of systems of government.
The Greek city-state of Athens is often seen as the first model of democracy. The form of democracy that was practiced there is often referred to as direct democracy. In this system all major decisions were taken by an Assembly, to which all Athenian citizens belonged. This Assembly met at least 40 times in a year but was not the only body involved in governance of the city-state, full-time public officials were also required. These officials held office for relatively short periods and were chosen by a process of lot or rota. This ensured that the officials comprised a representative selection of the citizenry. The executive body of Athens was the Council, which comprised 500 members and took decision on proposals from the Committee, which numbered 50 citizens; the President of this Committee holding office for only one day in his entire lifetime. The only exception to this system of allowing all citizens the opportunity to govern at all levels was in the case of the military, where the need for training and experience was recognised as vital, making the ten military generals the only officials eligible for re-election. This form of democracy entailed wide participation in the processes of government, not simply by attending Assembly meetings regularly but also by willingness to hold public office.
However, although this may be taken as a democratic ideal wherein all citizens are afforded the opportunity of participation, there were a number of flaws in the system. The most obvious of these is the matter of who the ‘citizens’ were. In Athens citizenship, and therefore the opportunity to participate, was limited to males born in Athens over the age of 20 years. This definition meant that the majority of the population was denied the right of participation in political activity, with slaves, females and foreigners being excluded. Another flaw, though this would not have been apparent at a time when slavery was considered the norm, was, that because of its time consuming nature, this form of democracy would be almost impracticable if it were not for slaves carrying out the more arduous tasks of daily life. The position of women in the society of Athens is another flaw that is given relevance only with the perspective of history.
Apart from the practical example of Athens, another model of the democratic ideal can be identified as Rousseau’s theory of direct democracy, in which all members of a society would have the opportunity to represent themselves in any major decision. The idea of each individual citizen having the opportunity to represent themselves in the decision making process, matches the Athenian model but a great difference exists in Rousseau’s theoretical espousal of the Social Contract.
Central to Rousseau’s democratic theory was the idea of the ‘Social Contract’, which can be defined as “the agreement of individuals to come together to form a state held together by their common interests.” (Warburton 1998:105) This idea of individuals ‘agreeing’ to form a state introduces two highly relevant concepts, firstly, the surrendering of some personal freedoms in return for state protection and secondly, the idea of compromise being a necessary feature of a democratic system.
The most integral part of the social contract for Rousseau was the general will. Basically the general will is whatever is in the common interest of the state as a whole. By agreeing to become part of the state, individuals agree to become subordinate to the general will, if they act in a manner that contradicts the direction of the general will, they should be ‘forced to be free’. Freedom in Rousseau’s terms is not freedom as in liberty but rather a form of autonomy, as part of the state, that respects the right of the individual to follow any course of action that does not contradict the general will but entails ‘obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself’.
The general will is what each and every citizen would will if they were to act selflessly and independently of the others in the state. For the true general will to be reflected, it would be necessary not only to allow all citizens to participate in the decision making process, but also that the entire citizenry be educated and informed to a reasonable level of equality and that there was economic parity among the decision makers. The only problem is how to determine the general will?
Rousseau’s argument for determining the general will is that if a vote is taken on an issue, without the participants consulting each other beforehand, whatever the majority of the vote indicates is the general will. Theoretically this proposition is fine, in practice it would be quite a different situation. It is unrealistic to expect that any group of people, who have already come together to form an agreement to enshrine their protection, would not also consult on some level about decisions taken to determine the course of action that the state should undertake. If cooperation is required to from the state, it would follow that this cooperation would continue as the state functioned, making it almost impossible to identify the true nature of the general will.
A system of representative democracy is what Rousseau would have identified as an elective aristocracy, that is, a system of government in which people are elected to govern on the grounds of their ability to carry out the tasks of government. The point of the election is that it minimises the risk of lengthy governance by a group or individual who put their private interests before the needs of those they govern.
In modern times, the method by which these elections take place has gained importance and can be seen as fundamental in determining the legitimacy of those people who wield executive and legislative power on the behalf of an electorate.
For any government to hold power over an electorate legitimately, it is necessary for as many people as possible to have influenced the composition of that government. This requires political equality. It is possible to identify five criteria for political equality,
· Effective Participation
· Equality in Voting
· Gaining Enlightened understanding
· Exercising final control over the agenda
· Inclusion of Adults
(Dahl, 2000:38)
These criteria are interlinked and different electoral systems would allow for greater focus to be placed on some but not all. A system of Proportional Representation (PR) allows for almost equal focus to be placed on all the criteria.
Effective participation is achieved by ensuring that Parliamentary seats are allocated according to the share of the vote that each party or candidate receives. Plurality systems do not allow for effective participation as the only candidate/party to gain a seat is the one that gains the largest percentage of the vote. As this system is non-compensatory and literally awards no prize for second place, a significant proportion of the votes cast can be deemed to be wasted resulting in ineffectual participation.
Equality in voting is linked very closely to the inclusion of adults and most modern democracies, whether they have plural or proportional systems of election, afford all adults of a certain age the right to vote, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexuality.
The point of enlightened understanding is probably the hardest criterion to guarantee. Open access to the details of Parliamentary debate, via a number of media, means that most people are afforded the opportunity to learn about what is being debated, but the likely outcomes of pursuing a particular policy are harder to discover as many countries, for example, Britain, New Zealand and the USA, use committee systems to debate this issues, committee being more complicated to access, and less well reported in the popular media, than Parliamentary debate.
The ability to influence the agenda involves the introduction into representative democracy of a feature of direct democracy, the use of referenda. Referenda are used for a number of purposes; they can be used to inform a government of public opinion on a particular issue or to determine binding policies with regard to constitutional change. Referenda can be held either at the behest of a government or the electorate, the latter being known as a Citizen Initiated Referenda (CIR).
It is unlikely that all of these criteria can be fully met in the modern political world. The purpose of election is to allow for a division of political labour, with those most suited to the job of governance being elected to do so. Attempting to meet all the criteria would seriously undermine the political system as the chosen representative would have to spend so much time in maintaining the standards of absolute democracy, that they would not be able to focus fully enough on the job of government. As a result of this, a certain degree of democratic deficit must be expected in order to allow for a stable and effective government.