Democracy: Encyclopedia II - Democracy - Advantages and disadvantages of democracy

Democracy - Advantages and disadvantages of democracy

All democracies (and every other form of government) have certain structural defects, which are related to the nature of democracy. Although all forms of government have defects, supporters of democracy are often reluctant to concede that it is less than perfect, which in turn may hinder its reform. Two prominent defects are related to the territory and membership of the demos itself.

Democracy - Immigrants and 'the people'

Many democratic constitutions explicitly state (or imply) that power belongs to, or derives from, the people. One example is Article 20 of the German Constitution: Alle Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus - All state power derives from the people. The German example illustrates a recurrent problem with this ideal, because in German, as in English, the word people has a double meaning. It can refer to the population as an inclusive unit, or it can refer to an ethnic group - which by definition excludes non-members. If 'the people' are the German people, should immigrants be allowed to vote? The issue remains controversial in Germany, and in other countries where naturalisation of immigrants and their children is a disputed issue.

The European Union requires that resident EU migrants are given the vote, at least in European Parliament elections. In some member states, they are allowed to vote in local and regional elections.

An immigrant who is still a citizen in another country has the right to vote in his home country, in the government elections. That is why he is not allowed to vote for a government in the country where he is living. The principle behind this rule is that one person should not have two votes. If he becomes a citizen of the new country, and no longer is a citizen of the old country, he can vote for the government in the new country. In most european countries an immigrant worker has the right to vote in local elections and in european parliament elections, but he can only have one vote, not two votes.

In practice this system creates a massive population of people who cannot afford the often expensive, bureaucratic and lengthy process of becoming a citizen. For all practical purposes they are a citizens of the country they have immigrated to They work, live, raise families and contribute immensely to economic and social growth. However they are denied the basic right to participate in government.

Democracy - Ethnic and religious conflicts

Democracy, and especially liberal democracy, necessarily assumes a sense of shared values in the demos (otherwise political legitimacy will fail). In other words, it assumes that the demos is in fact a unit. For historical reasons, many states lack the cultural and ethnic unity of the ideal nation-state. There may be sharp ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural divisions. In fact, some groups may be actively hostile to each other. A democracy, which by definition allows mass participation in decision-making, by definition, also allows the use of the political process against the 'enemy'. That is especially visible during democratisation, if a previous non-democratic government suppressed internal rivalry. However, it is also visible in established democracies, in the form of anti-immigrant populism.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the democratisation of Soviet bloc states led to wars and civil war in the former Yugoslavia, in the Caucasus, and in Moldova; wars have also continued in Africa and other parts of the Third World. Nevertheless, statistical research shows that the fall of Communism and the increase in the number of democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons [5].

Democracy - Bureaucracy

A persistent libertarian and monarchist critique of democracy is the claim that it encourages the elected representatives to change the law without necessity, and in particular to pour forth a flood of new laws. This is seen as pernicious in several ways. New laws constrict the scope of what were previously private liberties. Rapidly changing laws make it difficult for a willing non-specialist to remain law-abiding. This may be an invitation for law-enforcement agencies to misuse power. The claimed continual complication of the law may be contrary to a claimed simple and eternal natural law - although there is no consensus on what this natural law is, even among advocates.

Democracies are also criticised for a claimed slowness and complexity of their decision-making.

Democracy - Short-term focus

Modern liberal democracies, by definition, allow for regular changes of government. That has led to a common criticism of their short-term focus. In four or five years the government will face a new election, and it must think of how it will win that election. That would encourage a preference for policies that will bring short term benefits to the electorate (or to self-interested politicians) before the next election, rather than unpopular policy with longer term benefits. This criticism assumes that it is possible to make long term predictions for a society, something Karl Popper has criticized as historicism.

Besides the regular review of governing entities, short-term focus in a democracy could also be the result of collective short-term thinking. For example, consider a campaign for policies aimed at reducing environmental damage while causing temporary increase in unemployment. However, this risk applies also to other political systems.

Democracy - Electorate Intelligence

The electorate must often make decisions based on campaigns and propaganda. Some of the issues raised could be beyond the interest or competence of a substantial portion of the voters. This is particularly apparent when a special interest group collects support (often a constitutionally set number of signatures) to force a general referendum. In this case, faith (even if implicitly) is placed in the superiority of a majority opinion, at least in the sense that fair is good.

Democracy - Public choice theory

Public choice theory is a branch of economics that studies the decision-making behavior of voters, politicians and government officials from the perspective of economic theory. One studied problem is that each voter has little influence and may therefore have a rational ignorance regarding political issues. This may allow special interest groups to gain subsidies and regulations beneficial to them but harmful to society.

Democracy - Plutocracy

The cost of political campaigning in representative democracies may mean that the system favours the rich, who are only a very small minority of the voters. It may encourage candidates to make deals with wealthy supporters, offering favorable legislation if the candidate is elected. However, American economist Steven Levitt claims in his book Freakonomics, that campaign spending is no guarantee of electoral success. He compared electoral success of the same pair of candidates running against one another repeatedly for the same job (as often happens in US Congressional elections), where spending levels varied. He concludes:

Private ownership of the media may lead to more specific distortion of the electoral process, since the media are themselves a vital element of that process. Some critics argue that criticism of capitalism tends to be suppressed by such companies, to protect their own self-interests. Proponents respond that constitutionally protected freedom of speech makes it possible for both for-profit and non-profit organizations to debate capitalism. They argue that media coverage in democracies simply reflects public preferences, and not censorship.

Democracy - Tyranny of the majority

Thomas Jefferson once said: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Probably the most quoted criticism of democracy is the fear that it is "tyranny of the majority". The expression was coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in his book, Democracy in America (1831). However the phrase is more popularly attributed to John Stuart Mill's On Liberty (1859)- not then referring to democratic government, but to social conformity. The issue of majority dominance was however known during the ancient Greek democracies. It is independent of universal suffrage, but it implies a broad franchise (otherwise there would be conflicting minorities). It can apply in both direct democracy or representative democracy. 'Tyranny of the majority' implies that a government reflecting the majority view can take action that oppresses a particular minority. Typically, this majority is really only a relative majority of the voters and therefore only a minority. It may therefore be argued that one minority tyrannizes another minority in the name of the majority. This politically active and dominant group might decide that a certain minority (religion, political belief, etc.) should be criminalised (either directly or indirectly). This undermines the idea of democracy as an empowerment of the electorate as a whole.

Possible examples include:

• several European countries have introduced bans on personal religious symbols, aimed at those considered symbolic of Islamism - the hijab or 'Islamic headscarf', the burqa, the niqaab. In France, they are banned in public schools under the law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols. Opponents see this as a violation of rights to freedom of religion.
• prohibition of pornography is typically determined by what the majority is prepared to accept. In the United States distribution of pornography is declared illegal if the material violates "community standards" of decency.
• the law on abortion is typically determined by the religious attitude of the majority. For "pro-life" (anti-abortion) activists, unborn children are an oppressed, helpless and disenfranchised minority, and a ban on abortion is a proper use of state power: their opponents disagree.
• recreational drug use is also typically legalised (or at least tolerated) to the degree that the majority finds acceptable. Users may see themselves as an oppressed minority, victims of unjustifiable criminalisation. In one country, USA, those convicted of drug use also lose the right to vote.
• society's treatment of homosexuals is also cited in this context. Homosexual acts were widely criminalised in democracies until several decades ago, in some democracies they still are, reflecting the religious views of the majority.
• Slavery of a particular race or ethnicity can occur as a result of majority rule if the majority is of a unified race.
• in the United States, the draft early in the Vietnam War was criticised as oppression of a disenfranchised minority, 18 to 21 year olds. In response to this, the draft age was raised to 19 and the voting age was lowered nationwide (along with the drinking age in many states). While no longer disenfranchised, those subject to the draft remained significantly outnumbered.
• the majority often taxes the minority who are wealthy at progressively higher rates, with the intention that the wealthy will incur a larger tax burden for social purposes. However, this is generally offset to some degree, by their better access to relevant expert advice (tax consultants and lawyers).
• in prosperous western democracies, the poor form a minority of the population, and may be disadvantaged by a majority who resent transfer taxation. Especially when they form a distinct underclass, the majority may use the democratic process to, in effect, withdraw the protection of the state.
• classical Athenian democracy executed Socrates for impiety, i.e., for dissent, although the relevance of this example to contemporary democracy is itself a matter of dispute.
• An often quoted example of the 'tyranny of the majority' is that Adolf Hitler came to power by legitimate democratic procedures. The Nazi party gained the largest share of votes in the democratic Weimar republic in 1933. Some might consider this an example of "tyranny of a minority" since he never gained a majority vote, but it is common for a plurality to exercise power in democracies, so the rise of Hitler can not be considered irrelevant. However, his regime's large-scale human rights violations took place after the democratic system had been abolished. Also, the Weimar constitution in an "emergency" allowed dictatorial powers and suspension of the essentials of the constitution itself without any vote or election, something not possible in most liberal democracies.

Proponents of democracy make a number of defences concerning 'tyranny of the majority'. One is to argue that the presence of a constitution in many democratic countries acts as a safeguard. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, or two different votes by the representatives separated by an election, or, sometimes, a referendum. These requirements are often combined. The separation of powers into legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch also makes it more difficult for a small majority to impose their will. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but such a minority would be very small and, as a practical matter, it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions.

Another argument is that majorities and minorities can take a markedly different shape on different issues. People often agree with the majority view on some issues and agree with a minority view on other issues. One's view may also change. Thus, the members of a majority may limit oppression of a minority since they may well in the future themselves be in a minority.

A third common argument is that, despite the risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is in any case an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and democide. This is sometimes formulated as Rummel's Law, which states that the less democratic freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them.

Democracy - Political stability

One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence.

Political stability may be considered as 'excessive' when the group in power remains the same for an extended period of time. This can take the form of Bipartidism, where power is shared only by two parties, alternating the roles of governing and opposition. This is common in democracies where the electoral system favors two-party systems.

Democracy - Effective response in wartime

A pluralist democracy, by definition, implies that power is not concentrated. One criticism is that this could be a disadvantage for a state in wartime, when a fast and unified response is necessary. The legislature usually must give consent before the start of an offensive military operation, although sometimes the executive can do this on its own while keeping the legislature informed. If the democracy is attacked, no consent is usually required for defensive operations. The people may vote against a conscription army. Alfred Thayer Mahan would add that democracies do not prepare well for wars either; particularly, that they will not maintain navies without strong and foresightful leadership. Monarchies and dictatorships can (in theory) act immediately and forcefully.

However, actual research shows that democracies are more likely to win wars than non-democracies. One explanation is attributes this primarily to “the transparency of the polities, and the stability of their preferences, once determined” by which “democracies are better able to cooperate with their partners in the conduct of wars”. Other research attributes this to superior mobilisation of resources, or selection of wars with a high chance of winning.[6]

Democracy - Corruption

Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption: democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption [7]. Nevertheless, there are numerous examples of corruption in established democracies.

Democracy - Poverty and famine

Statistically, more democracy correlates with a higher GDP per capita, a higher score on the human development index and a lower score on the human poverty index.

However, there is disagreement regarding how much credit the democratic system can take for this. Various theories have been put forth, all of them controversial. One observation is that democracy become widespread only after the industrial revolution and the introduction of capitalism. Evidence in peer-reviewed statistical studies support the theory that more capitalism, measured for example with one the several Indices of Economic Freedom which has been used in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies by independent researchers [8], increases economic growth and that this in turn increases general prosperity, reduces poverty, and causes democratization. This is a statistical tendency, and there are individual exceptions like India (which is democratic but arguably not prosperous) or Brunei (which has a high GDP but has never been democratic). There are also other studies suggesting that more democracy increases economic freedom although a few find no or even a small negative effect. [9] [10][11][12][13][14]. One objection might be that nations like Sweden and Canada today score just below nations like Chile and Estonia on economic freedom but that Sweden and Canda today have a higher GDP/capita. However, this is a misunderstanding, the studies indicate effect on economic growth and thus that future GDP/capita will be higher with higher economic freedom. It should also be noted that Sweden and Canada are among the world's most capitalist nations according to the index, due to factors such as strong rule of law, strong property rights, and few restrictions against free trade. Critics might argue that the Index of Economic Freedom and other methods used does not measure the degree of capitalism, preferring some other definition.

It should be noted that correlation is not causation - in other words, if two events happen at the same time (for example democracy and lack of famine), that does not mean that one must cause the other. However, such a causation has been established in some studies of the Index of Economic Freedom and democracy, as noted above.

Even if economic growth has caused democratization in the past, it may not do so in the future. Some evidence suggests that savvy autocrats may have learned how to cut the cord between growth and freedom, enjoying the benefits of the former without the risks of the latter[15][16].

A prominent economist, Amartya Sen, has noted that no functioning democracy has ever suffered a large scale famine [17]. This includes democracies that have not been very prosperous historically, like India, which had its last great famine in 1943 and many other large scale famines before that in the late nineteenth century, all under British rule. However, some others ascribe the Bengal famine of 1943 to the effects of World War II. (It should be added that the government of India had been becoming progressively more democratic for years; and that provincial government had been entirely so since the Government of India Act of 1935.)

Democracy - The democratic peace theory

Numerous studies using many different kinds of data, definitions, and statistical analyses have found support for the democratic peace theory. The original finding was that liberal democracies have never made war with one another. More recent research has extended the theory and finds that democracies have few Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs) causing less than 1000 battle deaths with one another, that those MIDs that have occurred between democracies have caused few deaths, that democracies have few civil wars, and that democracies have little democide.

There are various criticisms of the theory, including specific historic wars and that correlation is not causation.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Advantages and disadvantages of democracy", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki