Introduction
“That’s undemocratic!” This is a phrase often used in the modern western world and is seen as the ultimate nail in the coffin for the subject of the accusation. When one is able to class something as ‘undemocratic’ it becomes unfair, potentially dangerous and ultimately unacceptable. As a society, we place democracy as one of the most valuable and fair constructions, as the best means to maintain a fair and stable environment. Indeed, I am not about to argue that this is not the case. It is of course of great importance that we uphold the principles associated with democracy and be aware of what goes against those principles and can potentially erode our freedoms. However, similar to most things, in particular regarding the governing of society, democracy is complicated, and what is ‘democratic’ is not so very easy to identify in a simplistic manner. What actually constitutes a democracy? The Oxford English Dictionary describes democracy as ‘government of a country by representatives elected by the whole people’ . Although, such a phrase does not cater for the particulars of how a democratic country should be governed, how the people should elect their representatives and who constitutes ‘the people’. The modern individual would probably assert that absolutely every citizen counts as one of ‘the people’. If that is our definition of what is democratic, in that case in the UK we would fail to be a wholly democratic nation. Indeed, we have prisoners that are still citizens of this country, yet Section 3 of the 1983 Representation of the People Act states that ‘A convicted person during the time that he is detained in a penal institution in pursuance of his sentence, or unlawfully at large when he would otherwise be so detained, is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local government election’. Although, should those who live outside the laws of society, not working cohesively within it, be allowed a say in how it should be organised? In questioning whether clauses such as these are right, we should surely look upon them morally, rather than simply looking to what is ‘democratic’ or not. To fixate on ‘democracy’ in this manner would potentially muddle the pursuit of a fair outcome, given the nature of democracy being so very debatable. Democracy is not one clear set of standards; it comes in many different forms.
The Origins of Democracy
The first known democracy in the world was in Athens. Athenian democracy developed around the fifth century B.C. The premise of the idea was that the people have a voice. The notion of what is democratic has grown from this basis to ensure that the burden of power does not rest with a select group, but with the many. Interestingly, however, when Athens first developed democracy, only free men were considered citizens and therefore able to vote. Hence, despite being a democratic state, large swathes of the populace were excluded from voting. Modern standards of equality; gender equality being pertinent here, would judge this as unfair and undemocratic. However, this was what democracy was founded on. Considering this, we should not be relying on the idea of what is ‘democratic’ to uphold fairness. Indeed, the notion of democracy; ensuring that the people have a voice, can be twisted when questions around who constitutes ‘the people’, and how we, the people, articulate our voice, arises. The origin of the word ‘democracy’ and its meaning is that it combines two shorter ancient Greek words: ‘demos’ meaning whole citizen living within a particular city-state, and ‘kratos’ meaning power or rule. Thus, again, there is space to question who ‘the citizens’ are and what giving power to them looks like, and how that works in practice. Regarding the latter, modern society has adopted a voting system. However, even within that, comes challenges, the specifics of which I shall come to address.
Democratic Principles
To further explore this question, and understand more about what constitutes a democracy, we need to be more specific in considering certain ‘democratic principles’. Three words many would associate with democracy are liberty, equality, and justice. When furthering my research, I found some even more specific democratic pillars. For instance, Jonathan Day’s article, ’14 Principles of Democracy’1, states that the following are democratic principles; participation of the citizen, equality, accountability, transparency, political tolerance, multiparty system, control over the abuse of power, freedom of economy, bill of rights, human rights, free and fair elections, free courts, accepting election results, and rule of law. However, despite how specific this is, democracy is still too evasive to pinpoint and make singular. This is what I mean when I say ‘Democracy is plural’. Democracy is perceived differently among the masses, just as liberty, equality, and justice mean different things to different people. Indeed, the political left would argue that economic equality is crucial to equality, yet the political right would assert an overly controlled state does not constitute liberty, economic liberty particularly. Turning to Day’s assertion of democratic principles, there are complications. How can we ensure we have free courts? What constitutes a free economy? Once again, the answers come in plural.
The Citizen – ‘Demos’
Surely one can easily transgress the principle of universal suffrage by defining ‘citizen’ as it suits us. Even within the bounds of ‘citizen’ do we have complications regarding the matter of universal suffrage. We’ve already considered those incarcerated, but what about age groups? Is it undemocratic that children don’t get a vote? The notion may seem ridiculous to even question, but ultimately it is a serious topic with much substance to it. We say that children do not vote because their understanding of the world is more limited than an adult’s, and the issues at stake are generally things that would not be on their minds. However, where do we draw the line? When is someone ready to vote? In this country, the voting age is 18, but why then, why not 16 or 17? It is often in one’s teenage years that one’s interest in politics, (if they are to develop on), comes into play. Therefore, why should teenagers, younger than 18, not have the vote? Arguably, they still have to develop further understanding. However, all age groups can develop further understanding, and some teenagers would be much more considered in the way they vote than a significantly older adult. Furthermore, if children and young people are deemed too young to vote, then why do we not have those deemed too old to vote? As individuals age, their decision-making faculties may be affected. Some would even assert that younger citizens have more of a right to vote than the aged, due to their stake in the future of society being greater. However, at what age does it become acceptable to draw the line? Often, political views can be generally divided by age; overall, the young more left-leaning and liberal, and the old more right-leaning and conservative. Let’s imagine a very right-leaning government who are looking for ways to win the next election. A poll says that those under the age of 30 are far less likely to vote for them than they are the opposition. Therefore, the government introduces a law that raises the voting age to 30, hence, reducing the electorate significantly, silencing a part of the population. Is that undemocratic? It would be undemocratic in that it takes away the voices of some citizens, young citizens. However, we live in a society where the age to vote is 18, is that not the same with a different age limit? One can assert that the two are not the same, 30 being an extreme. Although if normalised, it wouldn’t seem so. We see how this notion of something being ‘undemocratic’ is difficult to use when considering fairness within a society because nothing is as clear-cut as that. With many topics, we have to attempt to find a balance and avoid extremes, thinking critically about what constitutes an ‘extreme’. To attempt to box issues into what is ‘democratic’ and what is not becomes challenging, given democracy’s elusive and variable nature. On the basis that we want a democracy, we want universal suffrage, does that mean we should give the toddlers of the nation a vote? How do you feel about a 2-year-old determining the future of society, potentially voting on the basis that they like a Party’s colour?
The Power – ‘Kratos’
We’ve discussed the challenges surrounding defining ‘the citizen’, now we reach similar challenges in defining what ‘power to the citizen’ is. Modern democracies use voting and the principle of universal suffrage to ensure this, holding the notion that, representation of views maintains the balance of power in the hands of the people. However, does voting really allow for true representation? That would surely depend upon the nature of the voting system. We can see most clearly the plural nature of democracy through looking at the differing political systems of various democratic nations. In Britain, we employ ‘First Past the Post System’. Before I continue, I would like to make clear that my aim here is not to launch an attack upon our system of government but instead to point out the challenges with the ‘arguable’ nature of democracy in which anything can be referred to as ‘undemocratic’. Whichever party gains the most votes is then in government, occupying the Cabinet, with the Party Leader becoming Prime Minister. This is the party that runs the country on the premise that they are who the electorate voted for. If democracy is representing the people, one could assert that the ‘First Past the Post’ system does not fulfil this. Indeed, it may be that the majority of the country did not vote for the party in power, but that party gains a political majority in government due to the fact that votes are spread across many other parties. If such other parties had similar beliefs that differ from the governing party, then it would be right to say that the party in government does not accurately represent the views of the people. Furthermore, when deciding who governs, ‘strategic voting’ may be undertaken. Some may not vote for the party they would genuinely want in power but simply the ‘lesser evil’ of those they believe would have a chance at winning, in order to counteract the potential of the least favourite party obtaining office. Hence, this is arguably not truly reflective of the people’s will, despite the decision being undertaken by their own volition.
Furthering our consideration of strategic planning coming into play in democracy, we can assess the ‘Two-Round System’, used by France. If the candidate wins at least 50% of the vote, they are elected, otherwise, a second ballot is held. The candidate who wins the most votes in the second ballot is elected. Arguably, this ensures that those in power have actually won the majority of the population’s support. However, one can assert that it becomes undemocratic as parties that get through to the second round trade with those who didn’t, to solicit their support for their candidate in the run-off. This can take power away from voters, as parties may agree to stand down candidates in future elections, in exchange for support.
Arguably, a system such as ‘Proportional Representation’ would be more effective at truly representing the views of the people, as it caters for all the Parties voted for to be represented in correlation with the amount of votes they achieved. However, such a system comes with its own issues, including a more divided governing body, resulting in potential trouble reaching a conclusion for action, and the threat of more extreme parties entering the governing forum. Although, one can of course assert that a more diverse range of opinions is a positive feature, as it ensures that actions undertaken by the government are measured and considered in a way that they cannot be when set by a group of similar-minded individuals. Indeed, it would depend on the nature of the group whether they would be able to work cohesively together or simply clash over every detail. For some, democracy is the rule of the winning majority, and hence the First Past the Post System would be the most democratic. For others, democracy is ensuring that everyone is represented and heard, in more than just having a vote, in which case Proportional Representation would be more fitting of the description.
Regardless of the particulars of the democratic system, the common theme is that we ultimately act on a majority basis. (Even with Proportional Representation, the party with the largest proportion will have the most power). Therefore, arguably, those in the minority do not have real power, as their wishes are not acted upon. Indeed, one person’s utopia is another’s dystopia. If we are to run a cohesive society, we cannot do it in a way that pleases everyone – we certainly would not get anything done and achieve what we are able to when we decide on a path that suits the majority. The best way to work cohesively, while allowing the people some power, is to give them the chance to raise their opinion. The notion of ‘power’, too, has complications; it is not the case that one either has power or does not, but rather a proportion of it. The context affects the level of power held by an organisation or individual. It is maintaining balanced proportions where we should focus our concerns. Given the complications of the various levels of power, it is no surprise that what ‘power to the people’ means is also complex, with questions raised around how much power an individual should and realistically can hold within a modern society, and whether that level constitutes any ‘real power’.
Similarly, regarding the particulars of political structures; there’s the debate between the political and the legal type of democracy that Jonathan Sumption considers in his book ‘Trials of the State’2. Although, this is where the democratic notion of acting on a majority basis is questioned, with an even more complicated nature to the concept. Sumption explains that Britain is the archetypal ‘political state’ and America, the ‘legal constitution’, given the weight the US gives to judges making decisions in the Supreme Court. One could argue that the ‘legal state’ is undemocratic as it leaves some legislation to judges rather than the populace. Indeed, in his book Sumption considers the issues with the legal process, and the increasing reliance on law and judges in modern society. Within this wider debate, he discusses arguments surrounding the ECHR. Indeed, the idea of legally created legislation as undemocratic is something that those wishing to leave the ECHR would use. It is the debate between whether certain rights are fundamental in law or if everything should be decided by the populace. In the former case, the question of what rights this covers arises. This demonstrates further debates within democracy that make it so very arguable and undefinable to one model in every detail.
Conclusion
Even democratic systems can be said to be ‘undemocratic’ in their nature. One can argue any case where the nature of the subject is more elusive, and the notion of what is ‘democratic’ certainly falls under that bracket. The reason for its elusive nature is that it takes many forms and is unspecific. This is not only in the more obvious sense that democratic governments vary from one another, each one more or less democratic in the eyes of varying individuals, but also in the more conceptual sense. What is ‘democratic’ has come to be bound up with concepts of liberty, justice, and equality, each of which is elusive and plural themselves; each with differing meanings to different people. With democracy, there is plenty of room for argument over what it means and the practical ways in which we can put it into place. Hence, rather than relying solely on questioning whether something is democratic, it is better to decide whether it is desirable, or alternatively not to simply look at the circumstances and whether they seem fair.
References