Conditions of Modern Democracy - Essay Example

Modern Democracy

Introduction

Democracy denotes a system or governance or rule whose focal point is the people. In this context, people have the right and freedom to air their views on state matters that impact on their lives. The matters encompass political, economic and social issues. In other words, it accounts for an environment in which people actively participate in directing state activities. Additionally, the people may act directly or indirectly through democratically elected representatives; this is the philosophy that guides the onset of democracy in the nations that ascribe to the practice. From its evolution, democracy has been dynamic as a result of the changing political environment, social needs and economic concerns. The development of the contemporary world, in this case, modernism, depicts significant changes and development regarding democratic principles. However, modern democracy still focuses on most of the principles that constituted its initial founding. The pertinent philosophy values equality and the freedom of people; this limits inappropriate restraints that characterize dictatorial systems; the imposition of restraints must adhere to the consent of the majority. Markedly, before discussing the particular issues eminent in modern democracy, it is imperative to assess its rise.

Modern democracy has its roots in early political, economic and social conditions that led to its constitution and application. Over the past years, democracy has been depicting remarkable growth. The fact that it spread to most countries around the globe accounts for its substantial influence in shaping modern political practices regarding governance and upholding constitutional provisions. For instance, in the antique times, few countries ascribed to democracy with practices such as dictatorship and colonialism (Hayek, 2012). Conversely, the modern times have seen many countries adopting the practice. An imperative question, in this case, is how democracy achieved success to this extent. An explicit comprehension of democracy is its entirety and in relation to the contemporary world.

Notably, modern democracy depicts two primary political practices; they are liberty and popular sovereignty. Liberty is attributable to individuals while sovereignty is a principle that is applicable to communities and not limited to solitary persons. Liberty guides practices by the government regarding the treatment of their people. In this case, government has to act in a manner that does not compromise the interests of its people. It has a responsibility to preserve the freedom of the citizens and to avoid unconstitutional restrictions. In most democratic nations, the principle of liberty constitute an integral part of the constitutional provisions regarding human rights; individual freedoms are fundamental in this case, and not even the government can abridge the pertinent facts. Importantly, the aspect of self-government accounts for the individuals that govern the state. Conversely, liberty prescribes the regulations for how those responsible for governance should exercise their duties. Liberty accounts for the rules that impose limits and regulations on what the governing body can or cannot do. Therefore, liberty provides a protocol for conducting checks and balances on the extent to which the government adheres to its responsibility to citizens and its willingness to operate within the limits set by the Constitution regarding the requirements of democracy.

To constitute a comprehensive understanding of sovereignty and liberty, it is imperative to explore the history behind the development of these approaches. Historical backgrounds depict vital facts about contemporary democracy. Liberty and sovereignty emerged from different historical events. For instance, sovereignty spread across the globe in the aftermath of the 1789 French Revolution. The insurgency and revolutionary changes denoted the fact that power should be vested in the people rather than on monarchs. Monarchs could tailor matters that should reflect public interests to suit their personal needs and this compromised; without the provisions of liberty, monarchical power had no limits. In this case, the onset of liberty fostered the development democracy by introducing the need for inclusive involvement of all people in decision making and the government acting in a manner that is acceptable to the relevant majority (Woodard, 2015).

Subsequently, the fact that citizens had to take part in the governance of their regions facilitated the emergence of sovereignty which upheld their rights to handle and manage their own affairs but with the aspect of representative democracy. In this context, it was not possible for everyone to air their views concerning the handling of all state matters; they had to elect representatives that would present their interests and concerns to the governing institutions. Notably, this process led to the development and adoption of democratic elections. Elections still constitute an integral part of modern democracy. However, with the development of modern democracy, some concerns asserted that popular sovereignty could possibly exterminate liberty. Liberty accounts for a ruling approach that accounts for the interests of all people by setting the powers of the ruling institutions within particular limits.

Sovereignty tends to give absolute power to the majority groups of societies which are likely to enforce their preferred social conformity ad political ideologies on everyone. In this case, the process compromises the interest of minority groups because the rule of the majority applies to all. Deductively, to some extent, sovereignty can limit the full potential of liberty with regard to the inclusion of all pertinent or concerned parties (Galligan, 2013). However, various factors facilitate successful implementation of both sovereignty and liberty without contradictory results. For instance, the formulation of government programs that support social protection facilitates the successful merger of the two political aspects to constitute a democratic environment. Social protection encompasses healthcare benefits, insurance, and retirement pensions. In this case, every citizen has some entitlement to the benefits this ensuring that the even distribution of wealth is universal making the institution of private property acceptable to all. Therefore, the combination of liberty, sovereignty, and social welfare made democracy more appealing regarding its capacity to adhere to the universal interests of the citizens.

Another notable issue is the eminence of modern democracy is the difficulty to establish a feasible democratic systems. Such systems are complex and adhere to specific constitutional provisions. For instance, it would be comparatively easier to implement popular sovereignty than enacting liberty. Free elections constitute the basis for popular sovereignty. However, liberty requires the establishment of complex institutions running on the basis of a viable legal system. Liberty can only be eminent in a society or country that upholds the values that support the pertinent institutions; the primary value, in this case, is respecting the rule of law; democracy bases its facts on the laws enshrined in the relevant constitution. In sum, for countries to achieve modern democracy, most of them have had to develop the relevant institutions and legal frameworks that facilitate liberty and link the same to popular sovereignty.

From the economic perspective, free markets tend to foster modern democracy; this is possible in four ways. Foremost, every free-market economy accounts for private property; this is a form of liberty. Deductively, a country with a feasible free-market economy already has liberty which is a primary constituent of political democracy (Wolff, 2012). In this case, citizens enjoy the liberty of accumulating personal wealth without unwarranted interference from federal or government authorities. Second, free market economies constitute civil societies composed of groups and organizations that are independent of the government. Such groups include professional associations, workers’ unions, and religious groups among others. The civil society constitutes a mediator between the government and individuals; they restrain the government’s power and create a platform for people or groups to act independently from the government. Modern democracy would not be viable without the mediation by the civil society which is in turn dependent on the existence of a free-market economy.

Third, free-market economies create a capacity for people to generate wealth. From research, wealthy nations are likely to experience democratic governance than underdeveloped countries. For instance, most of these countries in the world depict high corruption rates involving government institutions. The involvement of government institutions in graft cases indicate a substantial threat to the prominence of democracy in the country in question. Also, a wealthy population has more time for the imperative active participation in governance as stipulated by democratic protocols than poor individuals who have several constraints and issues to deal with; they may not consider politics and democratic processes in their list of priorities. The middle class depicts a vital component of democracy that emanates from the accumulation of wealth through free-market economies.

Lastly, free market also creates an environment for the cultivation of trust and compromise which are imperative for democratic politics in the contemporary world. In the context of trust, as a result of the fact that free-market economies foster liberty, citizens can trust the government not to breach their democratic rights; the minority also trust the majority not to pass legislations that disorient or harm them. Therefore, democracy thrives in an environment where trust is eminent. In the context of compromise, democracy accounts for a political system that depicts peaceful compromise to settle differences in society (Whitty & Biberman, 2012). The other option to settling such issues would be coercion and violence both of which oppose democracy. In this case, citizens learn how to compromise through free-market economy activities. For example, a buyer and seller must always reach a unanimous agreement regarding the price of a particular products for sales to prevail. Deducing from the same, in a democratic environment, people, especially those in conflict, will try to compromise until they adopt a unanimous pact.

Democracy and Oligarchy

Before discussing the correlation between oligarchy and democracy, it is imperative to make a definitional distinction between the two concepts. As already mentioned, democracy constitutes a system of governance that focuses on the people. Conversely, refers to a small group of people tasked with the responsibility of governing a nation. Particular characteristics distinguish this group from the rest of the society (Barker, 2013). For instance, they may be more educated than the rest, religious, having some form of military control, royalty or may be belonging to the highest class of the wealthy. Therefore, unlike democracy which focuses on the people through freely elected representatives, oligarchy vets power on a few individuals who make the political, economic and social decisions for the rest of the society. In most cases, prominent or influential families rule and power are hereditary; it is passed on to the subsequent generations. In this case, a single family stays in charge for as long as the oligarchy is in place. When discussing modern democracy, oligarchy is an imperative aspect to mention.

In the recent times, modern democracy is more prominent compared to oligarchy. Notably, the advantages of modern democracy denote the weaknesses of oligarchy and vice versa. A similar trend is notable when focusing on the disadvantages of both. The foremost advantage of democracy is the fact that it protects the citizens’ interests. For instance, citizens in democratic countries have a say on political, economic and social issues through the representatives the elect. Conversely, oligarchy concentrates power within a single group and may not necessarily reflect the will of the people who actually constitute the majority. Modern developments, especially regarding politics, have seen many nations demanding their democratic rights and oligarchy is not as common because to many; it does not portray the true nature of a democratic stance (Bodislav, 2012). Examples of insurgencies include the Egyptian revolution and the Syrian situation. Egyptians revolted against their former president, Morsi Mubarak because of alleged abuse of power and ignorance of the guiding principles of democracy.

Modern democracy also presents equality and prevents monopoly of authority. As already mentioned, the constitution of an oligarchy comprises specific people with particular characteristics that set them out from the rest. From the definition, a sense of inequality is notable. It constitutes one of the disadvantages of oligarchy. The ruling group that constitutes an oligarchy can make decisions that do not reflect the desires of the majority. However, democracy preserves the interest of the majority while considering the minority groups to some extent. The aspect of monopoly of authority is eminent in oligarchies. Democracy repeals this characteristic by providing for elections held at specific intervals to ensure to ensure that power is rotational, that is, it does not appear to be the sole property of particular individuals. The most common manifestation of this provision is the aspect of presidential elections in which most presidents have to seek re-election after being in office for a constitutionally set number of years. Elections allow citizens to bring in new representatives if the previous ones were ineffective; they can also re-elect those that they feel deserve to retain authority. The initial decisive authority is on the people.

Modern democracy adopted the various trends that reflect the major developments in the world for examples advancements in technology. Technology has revolutionized the aspect of freedom of speech that forms an essential component of modern-day democracy. In a democratic nation, people are free to air their views on state issues. Currently, people can do that on social media and other technological communication platforms. The freedom of the press is another contentious issue that has seen various countries including Egypt being condemned for gaging the press despite being in a democratic era (Andersen & Loftager, 2014). Oligarchy tends to support the opposite of what constitute the primary principle of democracy, that is, the people’s freedom of expression. In this case, there is no guarantee of the freedom of speech as the elite suppress any uprisings or revolts by the subjects. Free speech is an imperative factor in the modern world with most nations being under the compellation of acting constitutionally by allowing their citizens to express themselves. Some cases have led to mass action that subject citizens to violence in the quest to fight for their democratic rights.

A considerable advantage of the oligarchy form of governance is the fact that it can accord women power. Women are likely to ascend to power especially through family lines. In this case, some aspect of gender balance is eminent. In most democratic nations, as evident today, there are few female heads of state. Males dominate the democratic political arenas in most of these nations. People in democratic settings are not subject to coercion to elect women leaders, they choose freely and can end up electing men for eternity. Very few countries have a substantial history of women leaders, especially presidents. Conversely, oligarchies accounts do not conform to the majority’s preference for male leaders; the system allows women to take up substantive positions of governance including the top authority. The Queen of England is a credible example in this case. Conclusively, modern democracy and oligarchy show significant differences that explain the reason for the prominence of democracy over oligarchical systems. The modern world is more accommodative of democracy than oligarchical forms of governance.

Democracy and Capitalism

Capitalism is also a vital concept to consider when focusing on modern democracy; it depicts a political and economic system in which private owners control a state’s industry and trade to accrue profit without. Therefore, the state does not exercise such control. Economic liberty accounts for the relationship between capitalism and democracy through democratic capitalism which combines the capitalist economic structure and the democratic political approach. Notably, both concepts ascribe to the fact that human beings have the right to manage their own affairs without inappropriate coercion. The concept of free economy dates back Adam Smith’s accounts on the same.

The concept of democratic capitalism in the modern world raises some extent of political and moral opposition. Some democratic societies chose to set limits on free market economy and to restructure wealth characteristics while considering it as a form of equality. Other societies maintain democratic principles without the necessity of capitalism; Israel is a credible example of such states. Also, some autocratic governments attempt to incorporate capitalist wealth into the governance process; such activities tend to limit liberty (Schumpeter, 2013). Therefore, the primary question is whether the correlation between democracy and capitalism can yield positive results and to what extent does capitalism promote or degrade modern democracy.

Some positivity in the correlation is eminent in the fact that capitalism supports the logic of private ownership of wealth or property. Democracy defends the same logic by providing for the right of every citizen to manage their own affairs as long as they are acting within the confines of the generally accepted constitutional requirements. Capitalism enables private businesses and organizations to grow and accrue adequate returns on the capital invested. Such a concept cannot thrive in a society that does not ascribe to democratic principles (Andersen & Curtis, 2015). In this context, capitalism presents an approach that promotes individual principles as opposed to other approaches that may prioritize state interests at the expense of the citizens that constitute the majority. Other approaches such as communism promote collective ownership of property and tend to contradict the democratic principles that protect individual freedoms regarding the management of personal affairs.

Some arguments assert that democratic capitalism can only yield positive results in the course of its development stage until it attains full status; that is the position of a developed state. At the advanced stage, capitalism can compromise democracy. For instance, it can lead to immense competition that can foster negative disparities. When individuals and businesses exercise their capitalist rights, competition is inevitable. Competition is only healthy until it becomes severe and lead to major differences among the people. The division of the majority poses a negative effect on democracy because the majority constitutes the major driving force for democratic principles. In sum, the relationship between democracy and capitalism depicts some aspects that promote the freedom of the citizens while others seem to derail democratic principles.

Conclusion

Conclusively, modern democracy depicts a considerable development from the initial practices that constituted the foundation of the concept. Democracy accounts for autonomous power vested on the people as opposed to the absolute power vested in the government in other systems of governance. Liberty and popular sovereignty account for the political aspect of democracy while free market economies and private ownership of property account for the economic issues. It also accounts for the social aspect. For instance, people can air their social concerns to the government using the provision for freedom of speech and association. Oligarchy and capitalism are also vital factors to consider in this context. Oligarchic approaches seem to contradict most of the common democratic provisions. Oligarchy tends to vest power on a small group of people as opposed to democracy which stipulates that power should be in the hands of the majority. Conversely, capitalism tends to support some aspects that are eminent in modern democracy, particularly the right to manage personal affairs and own private property without unnecessary interruptions from state authorities.