Government Systems: Democracy

This paper will take a closer look at the concept of democracy, and provide examples of democracies in the post-industrial 21st century international community.

Keywords Authoritarianism; Democratization; Free Market; Regime; Stratification

Sociology > Power & Authority: Democracy

Overview

In 1804, President Thomas Jefferson hosted a visit from the eminent German scientist and explorer, Baron Alexander von Humboldt. During his stay, Humboldt noticed a newspaper in Jefferson's possession. It was filled with venom, as the writers criticized Jefferson's performance and professional conduct as the nation's third president. The Baron was appalled to see such railings against the most powerful leader in the country. "Why do you not fine the editor, or imprison him?" he asked Jefferson. The President invited him to take the newspaper home with him, "and if you hear the reality of our liberty or our freedom of the press questioned, show them this paper and tell them where you found it."

Indeed, the American Revolution, in which Jefferson played an integral role, was not a revolution in the traditional sense. After all, while the War for Independence was clearly a military endeavor, the Revolution was truly about replacing the British Empire's form of regional government with a set of democratic institutions and infrastructures that would truly represent the interests of the American

Government of the People

Throughout history, the philosophy of democracy and the practical application of it have proven hard to balance. In the 5th century BC, ancient Greeks explored how to make their government institutions more representative of the people. Political leaders and political philosophers of the time were distrustful of the idea of giving great power to the masses out of fear of ignorance and inexperience. In fact, many philosophers viewed the fledgling notion of democracy as corruptive, whether it was giving power to the uneducated masses or those masses giving legitimacy to imperialists. It was the philosopher Plato who would ultimately suggest that the issue with implementing a democracy was that a balance needed to be struck: power, knowledge, and philosophy, he said, needed to be brought together in order for the notion of a people's government to be successful (Net Industries, 2008).

More than two thousand years later, there remains a philosophical and sociological link between democratic governments and the societies they represent. Thomas Mann, however, would claim that although there are elements that could corrupt a democratic system, there is great potential with implementation of a democracy, "Democracy is timelessly human," he wrote, "and timelessness always implies a certain amount of potential youthfulness" (Columbia World of Quotations, 1996).

To study democracy is to study the societies and cultures that implement them. To be sure, there are fundamental characteristics inherent in democratic institutions: leaders are elected by popular vote, basic human rights are guaranteed, and human liberties (such as the freedom of religion) are not just encouraged, they are protected under law. However, a society's distinctive social and cultural composition means that its system of democratic representation will reflect that distinctiveness and, therefore, democratic systems are often different in many ways from one another. Some differences are semantic (Great Britain's House of Commons versus the United States House of Representatives). Others are more significant, such as an emphasis on law and order or individual rights.

This paper will next turn to an analysis of these varying elements between democratic systems as well as the sociological forces that create them.

Basic Rights

It can be said that the Bill of Rights as it appears in the U.S. Constitution was not simply crafted by the framers of that great document — it was demanded by the people of this fledgling nation. For nearly two centuries of living within the British Empire, American colonists endured a number of inequities, including a lack of political representation, overtaxation and social stratification. British leadership applied tax rates without consultation with the citizens, suspected criminals were searched and detained without proper due process and social order was maintained with an iron fist.

When the British were expelled from the newly formed United States of America, therefore, it was no surprise that individual liberties took center stage as the Constitution was being formed. One of the most prominent advocates was James Madison, who in 1787 and again in 1788 argued that the federal government's powers should be limited to avoid threatening individual liberties in the manner by which the British crown ruled (Bowling, 2007).

Limited government is a familiar theme in democracies, for less government intrusion means greater civil liberties. Affording people the right to exist without fear of repression or repercussion has helped facilitate political equality, and it has allowed many individuals to prosper socially and economically (Forbath, 2008).

Undoubtedly, the United States Constitution has been an iconic vehicle for others to emulate in terms of strengthening democratic governments by underscoring the importance of human rights. Many newly independent nations throughout the 20th and early 21st century have followed suit in emphasizing the basic rights of the individual. Australia, for example, ratified its Constitution in 1901. However, that document did not include a Bill of Rights in the vein of its U.S. counterpart. Still, the fact that a Bill of Rights did not exist in the Australian Constitution does not mean that this important component of a democracy was eschewed by its framers. Rather, the Australian people, who as a collective culture believe strongly in human rights, had faith that the Ministers of Parliament they sent to Canberra and the Australian common law they serve would be sufficient to protect the rights of the people of that nation (Roberts, 2007).

In a typical democracy, government is established based on the social constitution and culture of the country in question. In South Africa, the adoption of a democratic system and a revised Constitution were spurred by a desire to move away from a long-standing social order and culture. Decades of apartheid meant that millions of black South Africans were disenfranchised from their government and relegated to a consistently lower social and economic stratum than that of the white ruling regime.

In 1994, the regime left power in a major electoral shift. Within two years of that change, a new Constitution was in place. However, the South African people, especially blacks who had become newly empowered, were understandably cynical about the leadership who would represent them in Parliament. After all, the South African government infrastructure was still in place, and was based on a model introduced by the British system in which that legislative body held total power in making new laws.

South Africans' response to this skepticism was to install within that infrastructure protections that Ministers of Parliament could not easily undo. The 1996 Constitution featured an extensive Bill of Rights, which gave all South Africans a wide range of civil liberties they could not enjoy under the previous regime. South Africa now defers to the Constitution, not the Parliament, as the ultimate authority in protecting the interests of the citizens of the reemerging nation (Country Profile: South Africa, 2005).

Law & Order

An interesting characteristic of democracies is that they are a dynamic lawmaking infrastructure. Because the people are heavily invested (and participate in large rates) in democratic institutions, they look upon their elected officials to respond to their needs and demands. An important characteristic in democracies, therefore, is that such systems are rooted in service to the people, defending them from illegal acts. A study of South Africa makes the point succinctly:

It is indeed a fundamental characteristic of democracies that they protect the citizens, but it is also fundamental that this protection be a reflection of the society's norms and respectful of the population's diversity. In some countries, former totalitarian or authoritarian regimes are replaced with de jure democratic systems, but the people are the ones that modify such institutions to reflect the attitudes and beliefs of the society. In Georgia, a constitutional democracy was installed after the Soviet Union disintegrated. However, the regimes that would govern post-Soviet Georgia would have difficulty unifying that country, and the 1990s would be marked by pseudo-authoritarianism and political instability. In recent years, however, the "old guard" of Georgia has given way to the thinking of younger lawyers who have been drafting a new constitution and codified law more reflective of the needs of modern Georgians. It is this recent turn of events that is largely credited with the galvanization and fledgling success of post-industrial Georgia's democratic institutions (Triedman, 2008).

Under most circumstances, democracies, by reflecting the needs and interests of the people, are considered likely to remain transparent and beneficent. Then again, how the leaders chosen by the people to govern under their own constitutional rules themselves choose to conduct themselves is a rather different situation. This paper will next turn to a common condition that becomes manifest in modern democracies.

Democracy's Underbelly

In theoretical ideals, more democratic influences lead to less corruption and crime. The model of democracy, after all, is built on the notion of trust in the power of the people. Then again, democracy allows the freedom of thought not just of the citizens, but of the leaders as well. Should a legislator or leader choose to use his or her power to serve himself or herself for monetary gain, he or she may become embroiled in corruption rather than public service.

In Latvia, such a situation has occurred. The leading KNAB party has held power since 2002, and has during its brief reign consolidated its power by intimidating and undoing the work of minority parties. One major political candidate for Prime Minister was arrested for bribery, money laundering and tax evasion. Other high-level leaders have been arrested or indicted on similar charges of corruption. As Latvia expands economically and deepens its relationships with the rest of the international community (thereby bringing greater growth and potential prosperity to Latvia), social reform movements, while certainly not welcoming to such behavior, appear to be stopping short of seeking to create a national backlash against corruption, writing it off as a natural evil of democratization (Galbreath, 2008).

That political corruption can exist and even thrive in a democracy comes as no surprise. Particularly in the case of those nations that have transitioned away from non-democratic regimes, corruption is often prevalent, as newfound economic success can create temptations for those charged with overseeing it.

Then again, such corruption is even more illuminated when the new democracy proves ineffectual in addressing the needs of the people. When poverty, unemployment and economic woes persist, public sentiment tends to turn negative over the shortcomings of the government, and can turn negative on the concept of democracy in general. In some societies, incidents of corruption and perceived ineptitude in their leadership have led them to reconsider returning to authoritarian or totalitarian governmental systems. Multiple examples of this situation can be found in Latin America, where a number of societies are faced with such a choice. Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo, who replaced heavy-handed Alberto Fujimori, is being taken to task by the voters over a lack of attention to a 60% poverty rate during the last three years. Mexican legislators are also becoming disillusioned — the Mexican Legislature has only a 28% approval rating among voters. Additionally, four of the region's democratically elected Presidents were removed not via election but through violent means (Smith, 2004).

The statement that democracies are naturally susceptible to corruption, however, is a gross overgeneralization. Most governments, whether democratic or non-democratic in composition, run the risk of mismanagement by their leadership. The degree to which this corruption becomes manifest is not dependent on the type of government, however, but the amount of opportunities that exist for bribery, kickbacks and other forms of illicit activity to occur. Thriving economies in new democracies, for examples, create temptations for would-be miscreants. This shortcoming is not political — it is human.

There is positive information to be gleaned as well. Studies of democratic institutions and corruption have established a strong inverse link between the two elements. However, the turning point in the relationship between corruption and the long-term health of a democratic government occurs within only a few years of the system's implementation. In other words, many new democracies have been able to weed out corruption in their political systems within four to 15 years (Rock, 2007).

Transitioning governmental infrastructures, particularly changing from an authoritarian regime to a democratic system, is no simple undertaking, and the result of democratization is not always comprehensive or fully inclusive. To be sure, most transitioning national systems have embraced the political and philosophical ideals of a modern democracy. However, another important aspect of democratic systems has been welcomed with open arms as vital to the success of these new democracies, but has created undesired consequences for the people.

The issue in this case is sociological in nature. Reformers highlight the great potential returns associated with the open market system that is commonly associated with democratic regimes. Without government interference or overly burdensome regulations, businesses are typically able to fully develop and thrive, creating lucrative returns. Political scientists often therefore gauge the success or failure of newly democratized nations in terms of gross domestic product (GDP). However, economic output in such cases fails to underscore the issues that need to be addressed for true long-term success.

The emphasis transitioning countries make is on the generation of revenues; the so-called "welfare state," however, is not considered a priority. Hence, many systems may have stronger GDPs as a result of democratization, but those who were previously mired in poverty tend to stay poor. Thus, an unanticipated result of democratization is pronounced social stratification. Whereas GDP may show economic progress, a sociological analysis of a newly democratic system often reveals the persistence, if not increase, of crime, poverty and other social issues (Petrovec, Tompa & Sugman, 2007).

Conclusion

In the latter years of the Cold War, Russian General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev helped open the crumbling Soviet Union both to the rest of the world and to the people of Russia itself. The corrupt, rigid hierarchical Communist regime was being slowly broken down to allow for diversity, both of the political and social variety. His successor (who was elected in one of the former Soviet Union's first contested election), Boris Yeltsin, took Gorbachev's reforms to the next level, adding stability and economic development to the evolving system. Democracy has been welcomed into the Russian way of life, its benefits and negative influences alike manifest.

The case of the former Soviet Union encapsulates the points raised in this paper regarding democracy in the modern world. Democracy is, first and foremost, government by the people. Its shape is the configuration with which the people are comfortable. Gorbachev's loosening of the Soviet Communist infrastructure was a welcome move for the Soviet citizenry, but it also created discomfort among Yeltsin's reformers as being too slow and lacking in effectiveness. When Yeltsin stood face to face with Communist hardliners who had cornered Gorbachev in his summer home in 1991, he was able to muster the support not just of his loyalists, but the rest of the Russian people as well. Under Yeltsin's tenure, government reforms and economic transitioning occurred at a pace with which the people were not uneasy.

One of democracy's central elements is respect for the people who created it. This concept involves respect for diversity in every aspect of government and the body politic. Yeltsin, for example, was elevated in a contested election, with several other parties representing different interests in direct contention with his party. Few democracies are installed in homogenous settings, for diversity is arguably paramount in every modern society.

Then again, the loosening of government grips (as well as the sudden introduction of great quantities of wealth) can also hinder a democracy's effectiveness as the government of all people. As shown in this paper, many societies may embrace the ideological tenets of democracy, but many do so with the promise of economic profit in mind. Such a viewpoint can lead to corruption or crime, especially when such behavior (and the social forces that foster it) goes unchecked.

There are few systems left in the world that feature a political system other than some form of democracy. Of course, there is a wide range of forms of democracy, some more liberal than others. Russia remains a democracy, despite suggestions by many that Boris Yeltsin's successor has been steadily returning the country to a Soviet-style form of governance. Even traditional Communist, theocratic and other authoritarian systems have shown signs of assimilating at least some of the basic concepts of the democratic model as well as the economic liberties associated with such regimes, including China, Cuba and many Middle Eastern states. Several thousand years after the notion was introduced in ancient Greece, democracy remains the political system of choice for the people who created it.

Terms & Concepts

Authoritarianism: Political system in which ultimate power is centralized around one leader or group thereof.

Democratization: Transition to a liberalized, representative form of government.

Free Market: Commerce system in which government intervention is minimal or nonexistent.

Regime: Political institution within a national government system, such as a presidency.

Stratification: Separation of people into social and economic classes.

Bibliography

Arvanitidis, P. A., & Kyriazis, N. C. (2013). Democracy and Public Choice in Classical Athens. Peace Economics, Peace Science, & Public Policy, 19, 213-248. doi:10.1515/peps-2012-0018 Retrieved November 1, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90536020&site=ehost-live

Berk, G. (2012). Discussion Forum: Christopher K. Ansell Pragmatist Democracy: Evolutionary Learning as Public Philosophy: The Pragmatist Promise of a Workable Democracy. Socio-Economic Review, 10, 581-585. Retrieved November 1, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=86641361&site=ehost-live

Bowling, K.R. (2007, November). James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights. Journal of Southern History, 73, 880-881. Retrieved May 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27375339&site=ehost-live

Columbia World of Quotations. (1996). Retrieved May 13, 2008 from: http://www.bartleby.com/66/96/37796.html.

Country Profile: South Africa. (2005). Constitutions, institutions and administration. Retrieved May 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=31124887&site=ehost-live.

Forbath, W.E. (2008, March). Social and economic rights. WorkingUSA, 11, 145-156.

Galbreath, D. (2008). Still treading air? Demokratizatsiya, 16, 87-96. Retrieved May 17, 2008 from EBSCO online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31161354&site=ehost-live.

Jefferson. (2008). Retrieved May 12, 2008 from: http://anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=6482.

Metz, T. (2004, December). The justice of crime prevention. Theoria, 105, 104-128. Retrieved May 16, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15270802&site=ehost-live.

Net Industries. (2008). Democracy. Retrieved May 13, 2008 from: http://science.jrank.org/pages/7619/Democracy.html

Petrovec, D., Tompa, G. & Sugman, K. (2007). Poverty and reaction to crime. Sociologija: Mintis ir Veiksmas, 2007, 32-42. Retrieved May 19, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=28107847&site=ehost-live

Roberts, H. (2007, March 19). The Australian Constitution and the protection of human rights. Legaldate, 1-4. Retrieved May 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24522917&site=ehost-live.

Rock, M. (2007, August). Corruption and democracy. Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved May 17, 2008 from: www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2007/wp55%5f2007.pdf

Smith, G. (2004, May 17). Democracy on the ropes. Business Week. Retrieved May 18, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13083772&site=ehost-live.

Tamas, G. M. (2000). Democracy's triumph, philosophy's peril. Journal Of Democracy, 11, 103. Retrieved November 1, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=2744164&site=ehost-live

Triedman, J. (2008, March). Law and disorder. American Lawyer, 30, 122-123.

Whitty, M., & Biberman, J. (2012). Theocracy: A Continuing Challenge to Post-Modernism. How Democracy Requires a Post-Modern Attitude for the Positive Evolution of Global Society. Tamara Journal For Critical Organization Inquiry, 10, 53-58. Retrieved November 1, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87911977&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Acemoglu, D. & Robinson, J.A. (2007, December). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 40, 1026-1029.

Aligica, P. (2013). Pragmatism, Institutionalism and Democracy. Society, 50, 408-414. doi:10.1007/s12115-013-9678-5 Retrieved November 1, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88154756&site=ehost-live

Aolain, F & Campbell, C. (2005, February). The paradox of transition in conflicted societies. Human Rights Quarterly, 27, 172-213.

Heinz, W. (2005). Military and transition to democracy in Latin America. Welt Trends, 49, 103-115.

Huang, M-H. (2008, March). Identifying sources of democratic legitimacy. Electoral Studies, 27, 45-62.

Ulfelder, J. (2008, April). International integration and democratization. Democratization, 15, 272-296.