Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Democracy
Section A. Philosophy/political theory
Those who live and have grown up in democracies tend to assume that it is the only viable system of government. It is important to question that premise, and challenge the system in which many of us live; there may be many circumstances in which we want to constrain democracy, or perhaps we should genuinely look to a completely different system of government, which leaves that behind altogether in favour of government by an expert elite.
Pros
[1] A country should be governed by representatives — chosen by every (adult) member of society — who are answerable to, and removable by, the people. This way, a minority, wealthy, landowning, military or educated elite will not be allowed disproportionate power. This ideal of the liberal democratic society was established by the French and American revolutions and is endorsed as the ideal method of government around the world.
[2] Certainly, modern democracies could be made more truly democratic, and this is happening through increased use of referenda (e.g. the French and Dutch referenda on the Lisbon Treaty (2005), the UK’s referendum on the Alternative Vote (2011) and American states’ referenda on gay marriage) and proportional representation (e.g. in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly). Democracy is brought closer to the people by devolving power to local government. People also have a direct voice through access to representatives throughout their term of office (in Britain, through MPs’ weekly ’surgeries’). A genuinely democratic system is very much a possibility, and not something we should eschew just because it cannot live up to an ancient idealised system.
[3] Democracy undeniably does not give the population absolute control of every decision made in a society, but that is an impossible ideal. Rather, democracy’s value lies in the possibility of the populace removing the government every four or five years. This serves two purposes. First, it trims the worst excesses of government policy; if governments do truly unacceptable things, they will be stopped (for instance, George W. Bush’s foreign policy, including the use of torture, was a key factor in America’s swing to the Democrats in 2008). Second, it means that on a general level, public policy will reflect the will of the people, even if that is just a general choice between left and right.
[4] Democratic transitions are undeniably painful, but it is always a good idea to start on the road to democracy; imperfect democracy must always be compared with the human rights violations of a strong authoritarianism; it is not plausible that the Kenyan people are worse off now, even with the 2008 violence, than they were in the early 1990s under a one-party regime. It is also noteworthy that few of these problems lie with democracy itself; rather, they relate to the specific configurations of institutions adopted, which can rightly vary according to context to contain these problems. South Africa, for instance, after apartheid ended in 1994, adopted a well- designed Constitution that has prevented political competition falling back into violence.
Cons
[1] Modern ’democracies’ are a sham. Such a system is impossible except on a very small scale. For a large country, decisive and effective leadership and government are incompatible with true democracy. Therefore, we have supposedly democratic systems in which the people have a say every four to five years, but have no real input into important decisions. Thus, the principle of democracy is not one we all really believe in at all.
[2] These measures are mere tokens — rhetorical gestures required to keep the people happy and to satisfy proponents of democracy. But the truth is still that real power is isolated within an elite of politicians and civil servants. It is the political parties that decide who will stand for election and who will be allocated the ’safe seats’, thereby effectively, undemocratically, determining the constitution of parliaments. There are rarely provisions to ’recall’ elected politicians if they fail to live up to their promises.
[3] Modern politics is simply too complex for democracy to offer any meaningful choice to individuals. We do not select stances on individual issues, but pick from a predetermined ’bundle’ of choices offered by a party or candidate, which means we exercise almost no choice over any given policy. This leads instead to a distortion by rhetoric, as politicians compete to position their ’ideology’ in voters’ minds, rather than actually engaging in honest debate. We would be better to seek alternative methods of accountability, rather than deluding ourselves that a modern, sound-bite-driven and highly financed electoral campaign works as one.
[4] On a more practical level, democratic transitions are often not a good idea for countries that currently have an alternative system of government. Democracy explodes political competition, and it may be that a society is simply not ready for it. Where institutions like the police and courts are weak, violence may ensue; the ’Ocampo Six’ who were indicted in 2011 by the International Criminal Court (ICC) over electoral violence in Kenya represent the worst excesses of this tendency. In addition, where political parties and the media are weak, politicians turn to tribal ethnic groups, which can in turn spiral into violence and oppression; for instance, Malaysia, which is democratic in a formal sense, still hugely oppresses its minorities.
Possible motions
This House believes that democracy is the best system of government for every nation.
This House would prefer a benign dictatorship to a weak democracy.
This House believes that ’democracy is the worst system of government apart from all the others that have been tried’ (Winston Churchill).
Related topics
House of Lords, elected v. appointed
Proportional representation
Referenda, increased use of
Monarchy, abolition of
Voting, compulsory
Voting age, reduction of
Term limits for politicians
Democracy, imposition of
Judges, election of
Social movements: courts v. legislatures
State funding of political parties