Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. This was just a definition given by ABRAHAM LINCOLN, however, has been demonstrated for all intents and purposes by the general population who live in a democracy. Well, why democracy?

The answer is since we like living great lives. Democracy is good for everyone, but there are quite a few countries that have been cobbled together artificially or are far too big and can only be ruled dictatorially in their present form - Iraq, Congo and Sudan, for example. The only thing to do is to break them up into smaller units that are capable of supporting democratic rule. Yugoslavia was a prime example: out of one dictatorship, lots of smaller democracies. The reasons why democracy is better are legion: democracies don't fight one another; accountability and participation are good in themselves; they're more likely to be humane and, on the whole, they'll take better decisions - Churchill and Roosevelt made far fewer mistakes than Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, and their casualty lists were far shorter. Anyway, since we all think democracy is best for ourselves, on what basis are we going to prefer lesser systems for others?

Democracy also forces both voters and leaders to be more mature, because they have to value the system more than any particular result. There's a story about an upper-class lady exclaiming in 1945, 'Good God, they've elected a Labour government. The country will never stand for it.' She came from a class that was used to having its own way, and just as spoilt children have to learn they can't always have their way, so did she. Nothing is better for people than that. You can see this more clearly in developing countries (I live in one - South Africa) than in developed ones.

Where democracy is a recent growth you get lots of uncontrollable egos, both at voter and leader level - parties and people that are simply not willing to accept electoral defeat or, often, can't even bear to see their side being criticised by a free press. These are so-called 'illiberal democracies', where majoritarian rule often swamps the normal democratic freedoms. They are inherently unstable since there are no real boundaries as to what the political elite might get up to, and usually the rule of law is the first casualty.

What occurs if the pioneers deceive you or don't regard their guarantees? Nothing. Tragically in many majority rules systems on the planet pioneers can mislead win their place in the workplace. I for one imagine that for each competitor, both president and gatherings, should sign an official archive where they are recorded astutely (particular, quantifiable, achievable, applicable and time-bound) and in the event that they don't accomplish even one of them when they achieve the time-bound that they themselves set, they are required to leave the workplace, by law. I'm not saying this is an ideal law, it needs a great deal of reasoning through, there will dependably be exceptional cases and we should stay away from maltreatment, however, it's a start.

Democracy is the main framework we've attempted so far that guarantees capacity to the general population and still a powerful government. When at regular intervals, the general population pick their pioneer and the parliament. Every pioneer and gathering has a dream about the nation, a dream (guarantees) that a large portion of the general population can concur or differ on, the ones that get the help of the vast majority get the chance to be in control.

Fundamental rights, well just 6 in no (discussing India), can you imagine your existence without them. Equality is the word insufficient to clarify everything, practising any religion, is this not God's blessing? Even you have a small populace having a place with your religion, freedom the thing everybody demands, etc. Would anyone be able to try and expect this in a dictatorship world or from a brutal ruler? Democracy has a significance which one can't discuss yet just acknowledge and afterwards respect.

Yes, there are numerous problems in democracy as well, corruption, poverty, development and so on are some of the issues, however, the general population extremely surely understand how to roll out an improvement by pressuring the government and notwithstanding changing the govt through the most intense device of UNIVERSAL ADULT FRANCHISE.

An Indian can't envision his world without democracy, that's the reason INDIA is always alluded to as "WORLD'S LARGEST DEMOCRACY". We require democracy just with the end goal to approach our basic rights, our basic requirements.

DEMOCRACY may not be the best type of govt. everything being equal yet democracy surely has no match in the advanced world. Ask the general population living in non-democratic govt and doubts surely will be cleared.

Be that as it may, the triumphant party doesn't have total control except if they get larger than 50% part, in light of the fact that dependent on what number of individuals will host the help of alternate gatherings a restriction will be framed, and notwithstanding when one gathering gains outright power their capacity is constrained by law and constitution.

The thought behind democracy isn't that everybody cast a ballot each law, such practice albeit prompting significantly more portrayal can demonstrate extremely inadequate on an extensive scale since a few choices should be made quickly, and as a rule, casting a ballot takes a considerable measure of time. Such a framework is utilized and works in Switzerland and despite the fact that Switzerland is a little nation with 8 million individuals, regardless it gets feedback for being moderate, envisions if such a framework was connected in France. The thought behind democracy is that the general population picks their pioneers and that their pioneers don't have supreme power. The previous is called coordinate democracy while the last is called representative democracy; most nations have a representative democracy.

The sad fact is that there's no way for a country to become properly democratic except by living as a democracy over time, with all the ups and downs that means. France got its first democratic regime in 1789, but its first stable democracy was achieved only in 1871, and even that was extremely uncertain for a generation. Even in the West, democracy is quite recent - women only got the vote in 1945 in Italy and France, and in Switzerland not until 1971.

So, it is important to live in a democracy as in a democracy, there is always a chance of challenging the constitutionality of any morally outrageous law and moreover, the power is vested among all divisions of society and since we like living great lives, Democracy is the best we can get. No compromise of self-respect and liberty.

 

Submitted by:

Rudra Shandilya

1st year, B.A. LL.B. (Hons), Undergraduate student.

University- Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India.

#essaycontest2018.

Views: 66

Tags: #essaycontest2018.

Comment

You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Carnegie Council

Myanmar and the Plight of the Rohingya, with Elliott Prasse-Freeman

The Rohingya are seen as fundamentally 'other,' says Prasse-Freeman. "Hence, even if they have formal citizenship, they wouldn't really be accepted as citizens, as full members of the polity." Could Aung San Suu Kyi have done more to prevent the persecution? How important was the hate speech on Facebook? How can the situation be resolved? Don't miss this informative and troubling conversation.

Global Ethics Weekly: The Right to Science, with Helle Porsdam

The right to benefit from scientific progress was enshrined in the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, explains University of Copenhagen's Professor Helle Porsdam. Unfortunately, many people, including scientists and policymakers, don't know much about it. How was the right to science developed? What are examples? And, with an anti-science administration in the White House today, what are the contentious issues?

Internet Trolls in the U.S. and Mexico, with Saiph Savage

Professor Saiph Savage is an activist scholar and technology expert who is using large-scale data to study the sophisticated ways in which trolls target certain groups and bombard them with misinformation--for example U.S. Latinos were targeted in the 2018 midterm elections as were Mexicans in their 2018 presidential election. But her message is one of hope. In Mexico, citizens eventually saw through misinformation campaigns and others can too.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

VIDEOS

SUPPORT US

GEO-GOVERNANCE MATTERS

© 2018   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service


The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.