PRINCIPLES FOR A FREE SOCIETY DEMOCARACY

Principles for a Free Society
Democracy
Democracy
“Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world
of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed
it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all
those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Winston Churchill
What is democracy?
Democracy is now the wave of the future, as more and more nations
adopt democratic systems. This is a development to be welcomed.
However the word democracy did not always have positive connotations.
‘Democracy’ comes from the ancient Greek, ‘rule by the people’, and
they used the term as a system to be avoided. Democracy was contrasted
with monarchy (rule by one), oligarchy (rule by a few) and aristocracy
(rule by the best). For the Greeks, democracy was associated with three
major defects: the majority could use their power to oppress the minority;
the people could easily be swept along in a wave of emotion and passion,
and not guided by reason; and the people might be motivated by
their own special interests at the expense of the interests of society as a
whole. A specific form of democracy, called liberal, representative democracy,
therefore was developed to seek to combine the advantages of
democracy whilst avoiding or minimising the potential dangers. It is this
form which is sweeping the world.
Abraham Lincoln provided the classic definition of democracy in his
famous Gettysburg address during the American Civil War. Democracy
was “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” His
definition raises four questions, which liberal democracy answers in a
particular way.
Who are the people?
The obvious answer is everyone in a society. The ideal therefore would
be that decisions should require the agreement of everyone. However
this would be extremely difficult to achieve, would be very time con-
- 11 -
suming, and would give a great deal of veto power to one person.
Liberal democracy usually adopts the principle of majority rule, that the
people are best represented by the votes of a majority, 50% plus one. In
liberal democracies certain major decisions may require supermajorities
(such as two thirds). However there is a recognition that simple majorities
could be oppressive to minorities, so some form of protection for
minority rights usually exists. Liberal democracy has sometimes been
described as ‘majority rule and minority rights.’
Government of the people
The second question involves “of the people”: over what should the
people rule? Which decisions should be taken by the people as individuals,
families, firms and associations, and which should be decided by the
state collectively? If all decisions would be democratically decided by the
collective, then there would be no freedom. Society would be under a
totalitarian regime which ruled everything. It would be a ‘totalitarian
democracy,’ to use J. D. Talmon’s phrase. In a liberal democracy, the role
of the state is limited, with most decisions being left to the private realm.
So liberal democracy believes in limited government. The majority
should not be allowed to decide whatever it wishes. Liberal democracy
therefore opposes unlimited rule by government, even so-called democratic
ones.
Government by the people
The third question is on “by the people”: how should the people rule?
Some argue that the people should rule directly. This could be done in
a referendum, or a general meeting, or in a form of participatory
democracy. In theory it would be possible to provide every citizen with
a computer in which they could register their vote on every issue and
the majority of voters could decide government policy. However, the
state should exist to serve the people. The people do not exist to serve
the state. In a direct democracy, people would have to spend their
whole lives researching, debating and voting on every collective decision.
They would have no time to make decisions about their own lives.
Therefore in a liberal democracy, the voters elect representatives to a
- 12 -
legislature (and sometimes the executive) to make decisions on their
behalf. These representatives should have the time, ability and character
to consider collective decisions, debate the merits and demerits of particular
actions, and make a decision on behalf of the interests of the
people as a whole.
Accountability of these representatives is achieved through regular elections.
If the representatives neglect the interests of the people they can
be removed from office. The goal is to obtain a balance between representative
and responsible government: representative of the interests and
opinions of all the people, and responsible to consider the long term
consequences of government actions in a spirit of calm and reasoned
debate. Liberal democracy is sometimes described as representative
democracy, or indirect democracy. In some liberal democracies referendums
may be held when changing the nature of the constitutional system,
or the basic rules under which the people are governed.
Government for the people
The fourth and final question is: how to decide what is “for the people?”
How does one identify the interests of the people? Everyone’s interests
should be considered in making decisions, although not all can be satisfied.
However the goal should be to identify those interests which are
general for the population, for example peace and prosperity, and not
to adopt policies which favour particular groups in society. One problem
is that groups will promote their own particular or ‘special interests’,
which all deserve consideration. However policies should reflect a
wider or general or ‘public interest’. Representative democracy allows
that all groups should have the opportunity to express their interests
and opinions, but decisions should not simply be a reflection of these
special interests. Another problem is how to identify interests when
views may be based on emotions and passions. A considered and
thoughtful identification of the general interest is required. So in a liberal
democracy interest groups are encouraged to present their interests
and opinions, but they should not themselves be the decision makers.
That should be left to elected representatives who are accountable to
the people as voters.
Democracy protects freedom
Political power is always open to abuse by those who exercise it.
Democracy is the system most likely to defend the natural rights and
liberties of the people, and prevent such abuse. Aristotle asked the
question in response to Plato’s call for rule by the wisdom of philosophical
guardians. “Who shall guard the guardians?” How can we ensure that
the rulers do not use their power for their own interests rather than that
of the people? The strongest safeguard against abuse is that the people
have the power to remove those in office through elections. It is the
knowledge that they can be removed from positions of power that acts
as the strongest check on the abuse of power by rulers.
The people themselves however can also be a threat to freedom. The
French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville described the greatest danger
from democracy as coming from “the tyranny of the majority.” The
Founding Fathers of the USA were fully aware of the threat to freedom
from all who possess power. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The
Federalist Papers in 1787, “Men love power ...Give all power to the
many, they will oppress the few. Give all power to the few, they will
oppress the many.”
Lord Acton, the British historian, identified the same fault in democracy.
“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority,
or rather that of the party, not always the majority, that succeeds,
by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” Liberal democracy is therefore
limited democracy, which places limits upon the powers of government
even when exercised with the consent of the majority. The rights of
minorities, and the individual, should be protected.
Democracy promotes the interests of the people
How does one ensure that the interests of the people are promoted and
not just those of the rulers? By regular elections, the politicians know
that, if they neglect the interests of the people, they will be ejected from
office. Jeremy Bentham was the inventor of the concept of utility, now
the basis of modern economics. He wanted “the greatest happiness of the

greatest number.” He became an advocate of democracy as he saw it as
the only means to ensure that the interests of the people would be served.
Democracy seeks to ensure that interests are maximised. Although not all
can be satisfied, all interests will be considered because everyone is a
potential voter that can contribute to the retention or winning of elective
office. “As the happiness of the people is the sole end of government, so
the consent of the people is the only foundation of it, in reason, morality
and the natural
Realistic political participation
Most people are not very interested in politics. They have better things
to do with their lives: earning a living, spending time with their loved
ones, or enjoying the pleasures of life. Democracy does not require the
people to give more attention to politics than they wish. The minimum
is the exercise of the vote. Voters are encouraged to follow political
debate but are not required to do so.
However for the minority interested in politics, the attentive public,
there is plenty of opportunity to become involved. Democracy provides
for participation through public debate and discussion, the exercise of
the vote and by standing for office. John Stuart Mill thought that political
participation was highly desirable because it fostered in those
involved intellectual development, moral virtue, and practical understanding.
Politics is undertaken by those with the time, interest and
energy to devote to politics. The problem with direct or participatory
democracy is the same as that expressed by Oscar Wilde on socialism: it
takes up too many evenings. However ordinary voters can take advantage
of the debate amongst the politically conscious when they wish and
when exercising their vote. The value of political education was extolled
by Thomas Jefferson, US President and author of the Declaration of
Independence. “I know no safer depository of the ultimate powers of
society, but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened
enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy
is not to take it away from them, but to inform their discretion by
education.”
- 15 -
Reason, not passion
The Greek skepticism towards democracy was partly based on the
fear that the demos, the uneducated masses, were the least qualified
to take decisions. The masses would be driven by passions, emotions
and instincts, such as envy and anger, rather than reason and thoughtful
deliberation. Representative democracy is designed to ensure that, before
decisions are taken, the implications and consequences are fully considered.
The public should consider the issues carefully and present their
various opinions. The elected representatives should have the time, the
education and the wisdom to debate and consider laws and decisions
made on behalf of the people. This is why democracy should be representative
and not direct.
This is also why the elected official is a representative and not a delegate,
bound by the opinions of his voters. Edmund Burke expressed this in
his speech to the electors of Bristol. “Your representative owes you not
his industry only, but also his judgment, and he betrays, instead of
serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” A parliament should not
act as a Congress of Ambassadors representing various interests but “ is
a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the
whole.” Representatives are there to consider the interests of the society
or nation as a whole and not only the interests of those who have elected
him or her.
Stability and legitimacy
Political systems require stability, with the ability to make decisions
over the long run. Stability is best achieved through legitimacy, the
authority to make decisions, or ‘the right to rule’. The state needs the
acceptance of its rule by the people, even when they disagree with a
particular decision, and especially acceptance by those out of power.
The people do not need to consent to every decision, but to how decisions
are taken, the process, not the result. Liberal democracy is more
likely to provide legitimacy then any other system because power is
exercised with the consent of the people. Everyone has the opportunity
to present their opinions and interests, to participate in the process,
- 16 -
and seek to obtain power. Consent is provided by regular and open elections.
Democracy is more stable than any other regime because it has
legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
Characteristics of liberal democracy
Democracy involves more than one person, one vote. It requires certain
characteristics to be a functioning democracy.
Almost everyone should have the vote, universal suffrage. If one is to
ensure that the interests of everyone are at least considered, then everyone
is entitled to the vote. Any exceptions must be justified with strong
arguments, for example children.
There must be free, open and periodic elections. The elections must
be free in that voters should be able to exercise their vote without undue
pressures. This is why the ballot is usually secret. It must be open, in
that anyone should have the opportunity to be a candidate for election
and to present their appeals to the voters. It should be periodic. There
should be elections every 3-5 years, to provide a balance between ensuring
responsiveness, so not too long a period between elections, and
responsibility, so that the results of government actions should have the
opportunity to be revealed to the people before they exercise their verdict
on the performance of the government.
There must be a choice of parties. Despite the claims of some communist
and African countries, there cannot be a one-party democracy.
If parties are to be made responsive to the wishes of the voters and
tyranny avoided, then it is essential that the voters should have the
opportunity to remove the parties in office and replace them with
another party. A choice of parties also ensures that the weaknesses of
all the parties are discussed and available to the public before exercising
the vote. There is a central role for constructive opposition.
There must be freedom of speech and association. Everyone should
have the opportunity to express their views. How else are the representatives
to be able to decide what is in the interests of the people? Anyone
- 17 -
should have the opportunity to combine with others to forward
their opinions and interests, so there must be freedom to form
parties and interest groups.
There must be checks and balances. To avoid the danger of majority
or minority tyranny, power should not be concentrated into the hands
of any one individual or institution. Therefore in a liberal democracy,
checks and balances are in place to prevent the concentration of power,
especially in the executive. The legislature must make the executive
accountable for its actions. Legislatures are usually bicameral, with two
chambers chosen in different manners. The judiciary should be independent
of the executive. There should be strong local government.
There must be a constitution which sets out the rules and procedures
of government. Usually this is done in a single document, but every
system is based on a mixture of written rules and implicit understandings
or conventions. There should be the rule of law, and not the rule of
men, so that everyone could know the rules by which they are governed.
Liberal democracies usually avoid having too detailed a constitution,
which is inflexible, nor one that prescribes policies, which can become
dated.
Representative and responsible government
Liberal democracies are imperfect because they seek to balance representation
and responsibility, to be responsive to the wishes and interests of
the voters while ensuring good decisions with positive long term consequences.
Inevitably that balance will never be fully achieved. However
there is no other political system which shares these two objectives. The
price of democracy is eternal effort to ensure both representative and
responsible government.
- 18 -
Reading
A.H. Birch, The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy, London,
Routledge, 1987.
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, The Federalist Papers,
New York, New American Library, 1989 (1787), Number 10.
John Locke, A Second Treatise on Government, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1960 (1690), chapters 7-10.
Diane Ravitch & Abigail Thernstrom, A Democracy Reader, New York
Harper Collins, 1989.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, New York, Fontana,
1968 (1840), Volume 1, Part 2.
Questions for thought
1. Should elected politicians pursue policies supported by the majority
of the people, as reflected in opinion polls, regardless of what
they think is right for the country?
2. How do we prevent the tyranny of the majority?
3. Should we ever have referendums, and if so, when?