Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The Oxford dictionary describes democracy as Democracy is all a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting . Democracy existed in pre-agricultural societies, it was first seen in Greece, in Athens in the 6th and 5th centuries BC. Democracy first made an appearance in the form that we know, as representative democracy, in the 18th century, as the French and American revolutions occurred. There are three main pioneers with different views on democracy, John Stuart Mill(1806;1873), Plato(360 BC;1974), and Hobbes(1651; 1968), which I will be mentioning and talking about throughout this essay. The question of whether democracy is the best form of government includes both Philosophy and Politics in its span of inquiry. Philosophy involves itself with which form of government is theoretically acceptable, whereas the political approach determines if democracy is acceptable in practice. Even if there is overlap between these approaches, either area of study comes to a differing conclusion. Finding out if democracy is the form of government that gives the most benefits from a philosophical point of view reveals that democracy is theoretically better than other types of governmental systems as it’s in line with human dignity. In reality, on the other hand, democracy is a bit more problematic, as it can be hard for leaders to please a whole population, which is a goal that a totalitarian government, for example, doesnt aim to fulfill.
We can explain democracy along at least two different ideas. The first one is instrumental, by reference to the different results of using it in contrast with different methods of political decision-making. The second one is intrinsic, by reference to qualities that exist in the method for example, whether there is something fair about making democratic decisions about matters on which people dont agree.
Two types of instrumental pros are usually attached to democracy: good laws, and policies and the betterment of the characters of the participants. John Stuart Mill (1861;1991) said that the democratic method of making legislation is better than non-democratic methods in three different ways: epistemically, strategically, and through the betterment of the characters of democratic citizens.
Strategically democracy has an advantage, as it forces decision-makers to consider the interests, human rights, and views of most citizens within society. Democracy gives a bit of political power to more people in society than to those under the rule of aristocracy or monarchy. One contemporary statement of this instrumental argument is given by Amartya Sen, who says, for example, that no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press (1999:152). The understanding of this argument is that politicians in a multi-party democracy, with free elections and a free press, have plans to respond to the expression of the needs of poorer people in society.
Epistemologically, democracy is said to be the most beneficial decision-making method, on the idea that it is usually more trustworthy in assisting people to make the correct decisions. As democracy involves a lot of people in decision-making, it can take advantage of many sources of info, as well as an assessment of polices and laws. Democratic decision-making is usually more informed than other ways about peoples interests, and the things in place that are necessary to advance their interests. Also, the debate that is usually of democracy enhances the judgment of the multiple ideas that lead decision-makers (Estlund, 2007).
A lot of people support democracy as it has many positive effects on the character of citizens. Many have said, with Rousseau and Mill, that democracy, more so than other types of ruling, makes citizens stand up for themselves as its decisions are down on what people want rather than those made under aristocracy or monarchy. Consequently, in democratic countries, people are influenced to be self-ruling. Furthermore, democracy, compared to other methods of rule, makes citizens think rationally and carefully, since if they do or do not will make a difference in their lives. Lastly, people have argued that democracy sometimes influences the morality of people: when citizens are involved in their country’s decision-making, they are forced to listen to what others opinions are, explain their own opinions to each other, and take into consideration the interests of others as well as their own. When citizens of a country are put in such a situation, they start thinking in terms of the common and aggregate good, which is in fact what leads a society to live and work well together, which would further lead to enhanced autonomy, rationality, and morality of people, which is essential for a society for a country to work together and prevent conflict.
Not every instrumental argument agrees with democracy. Plato (360 BC;1974) was a Greek philosopher who was very pessimistic about the idea of democracy. In book 6 of the Republic Plato describes Socrates falling into a conversation with a character called Ademantos and trying to get him to see the floors of democracy by comparing society to a ship. He said if you were heading out on a journey by sea who would u ideally want to be in charge of the vessel, just anyone or those educated in the rules and demands of sea demands of sea fairing?
Quite clearly, we would the second option. Plato then linked this back to democracy and said voting in an election is a skill and not a random intuition, therefore people must be educated in this skill before being allowed to vote, or another solution would be putting someone in charge who is already educated in this skill. Plato argued that democracy is worse compared to various types of aristocracy, monarchy, and oligarchy, on the grounds it dismisses the intelligence that is needed for properly run societies. But to pass laws in a democracy, politicians must appeal to the majoritys idea of what they believe is right or wrong. So, this would mean expertise of law and policy is not taken into account leading the state to be run with poorly guided political ideas.
Hobbes (1651-1968) said that democracy is worse compared to monarchy as democracy fosters disagreements between citizens. His main idea is that due to the fact that there are many voters, no single voter has a key influence on the result of the vote. This may lead people to feel like they do not have much responsibility for the result of the vote outcome, which may lead the people of the country to not think about politics, leading them to ignore factors such as the common, and aggregate good, which is in fact what people aim to improve through voting.
In conclusion, For the country to develop, or to keep in line with the rest of the modern world and the institutions, it should have certain standards, and one of the most important is democracy. I believe that even though it may seem like it may not be prudent to have a democratic government (according to Plato, and his ship theory), people still have the right to have a say in how the country they live in should be run. Also, not having a democracy and having one person decide upon the rules and legislation of a country due to their expertise, could lead the country to run in a very dogmatic and robotic manner, this could lead to morality, sympathy and other similar factors to be ignored. Democracy places the right level of faith in humanity, gives us the autonomy to choose how we want to be ruled, and respects our rights of equality and freedom. The political argument for democracy is also the most suing, although democracy today can be improved (through educating society on politics, for example), and still faces some downfalls, it is more functional than dictatorial forms of government. Democracy is important for social, political, and individual welfare and, hence is the ideal form of governmental system.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.