How would you define democracy?
How would you define democracy? Is it simply a way of choosing governments, or is it something else?
Theorists have been reluctant to attempt any formal definition of democracy, this could be because it is a concept that can mean different things to different people. At its most simple it is an idea that can be defined in terms of its constitutive words – demos (people) and kratein (to rule or govern). In this sense democracy is seen as a people ruling itself. However, even this simple definition contains complications. For instance who or what constitutes the people and what does it mean for them to rule. When looking to define democracy it is important to look both at its manifestations in the real world and its standing as a concept. By combining the two sets of ideas it may be possible to define the term and see whether democracy is more than just a way to choose a government.
Before looking at what democracy means it is important to understand why we should seek to define such a concept. Abraham Lincoln once warned that his fellow countrymen should seek a definition for freedom as:
“we are all in favour of freedom, although we do not always have
the same thing in mind when the word leaves our lips.” (1)
Following the numerous transitions from dictatorial and authoritarian regimes to more democratic ones, democracy can now be taken to be a model regime which is viewed as an ideal for society. However, given the difference between the numerous ‘democratic’ institutions throughout the world the idea remains vague and so, without definition, the idea of democracy can be open to distortion. For example the Democratic Republic of Germany (DDR) openly described itself as being democratic. However, in reality the democratic tag proved little more than rhetoric used to justify the existing power structure. Today it may be important to find a definition for democracy to help both developing nations in Africa and Latin America as they seek to democratise and to assist the western world as globalisation changes the scope of procedural democracy and law making. With Europe being the most obvious arena for such change with the expansion of the European Union (EU), the need for a democratic theory becomes clear. With some proposals for reform already being viewed as serving to consolidate existing power structures it is important to find an agreed democratic theory to avoid the risk of democratic practice being warped into something that merely uses democracy as a label.
Democracy can be an emotive word and has often become blurred with the ideals of a good society. Karl Popper looked at the moral standing of democracy in an interesting way:
“Democracy can do nothing – only the citizens of the democracy
can act. Democracy provides no more than a framework.” (2)
Therefore some feel that it may be best not to give democracy any political value, or indeed definition, but instead to regard it only as an important tool in the construction of a good society. In his study of democracy, Herbert Tingsten looked at a democratic super ideology, a theory suggesting that everyone in society was primarily a democrat and then in addition to that they held their own secondary political beliefs. Creating a definition of democracy that discards political content can be helpful as it means that opponents of certain ideas will not be wrongly labelled as being non-democratic and debate would remain centred around the question of whether you were for or against an issue rather than being distorted into something else. This is the approach naturalistic definitions of democracy have taken. These use descriptive and non-emotive or value-neutral terms. Such theorists hold the common view that existing definitions of democracy tend to express an evaluation in political terms.
“Any attempt to define democracy…must involve commitment
to political positions, some positive evaluation of the justifications
proffered for different political systems.” (3)
By seeking to avoid confusion of a pure descriptive analysis, naturalistic concepts of democracy look to apply a definition of democracy separate to descriptive analysis of institutions. Jack Lively, in his work Democracy attributes a meaning of political equality to democracy. While he does not embrace this fully, his approach shows the difficulty in finding a single, overarching definition for the term. Some see political equality as being more of a state of affairs or principle and so have claimed that it cannot be the empirical measure that naturalistic theorists seek.
One aspect that these theorists do agree on is that one concept of democracy has remained unaltered – this being that it relates to rule of the people. To define democracy in this way remains vague and still uses some descriptive elements, meaning that to find a definition in naturalistic terms may not be entirely possible. The fact that this concept has not evolved since early theories of democracy means that it cannot take into account more recent changes to the doctrine of democracy, for example the doctrine of representative government. Other naturalist writers, such as Joel Schumpeter, have tried to reconcile this by looking at democracy in terms of a competitive struggle for people’s votes. This could be taken to hint that democracy amounts to far more than just being a good way to choose a government as such competition would mean people could secure rights and freedoms, as they would not vote in a way that would harm either their own interests or those of the community around them. Such a line of thought could lead into a theory based around self-rule. Therefore theoretical attempts at a definition of democracy offer some help in finding meaning for an elusive term, however, as many of these are somewhat contradictory, the law and concrete manifestations of democratic institutions might offer a clearer meaning.
Democracy plays a pervasive role in the law, functioning as a principle and guideline that inspires judges and administrators, but it is rarely given any opportunity to command clear-cut solutions. For example the EU was founded upon the principle of democracy (Article 6, TEU) and this principle has been used by the courts to determine the scope of rights and obligations under European Law. In Roquette Freres SA v Council (i) a regulation of the European Council was annulled because, although Parliament’s opinion had been sought, the regulation had been passed by the Council before that opinion had been obtained. Therefore, it is possible to see how the concept of democracy is used and upheld when making laws, with the rule of law playing an important part in this. However, even a constitution based democracy like the EU or indeed the United States offers a precise legal definition of democracy. In order to prescribe any definition to the concept it is necessary to examine its role in more practical terms.
Legal scholars argue that democratic governance is a basic human right, an argument backed up by the fact that legal instruments enshrine rights designed to ensure political participation, for example Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. In this way democracy appears to be a necessary condition for political regimes to ensure the support of those subject to the regime as well as the international community on a lasting basis. Therefore democracy can be seen to have an increasingly universal value which is linked intrinsically to legitimacy, after all democracy is now seen as the only remaining form of legitimate government in the developed world. This legitimacy is based in the concept of the self and it is this concept that I believe is important in making democracy far more than just a good way to choose a government.
Assuming that all humans are considered autonomous and equal, then, the power of any ruling elite must be able to justify its existence and decisions to those subject to it. Therefore it is democracy that provides the ultimate foundation of the power of the state because this power is legitimate as it is derived from the freely expressed consent of all citizens. Legitimacy allows us to move beyond the theory that states democracy amounts only to periodic elections to choose a government who hold all decision-making power. To be legitimate political power must be derived from free and equal men, as while consent can be taken to mean choosing a government, to be truly democratic that government must act to ensure that the citizens under it remain free and equal. Such a perspective is, I believe, a far more useful way to look at the concept of democracy than the naturalist perspectives described earlier.
Some theorists, like Alexis de Tocqueville have looked to take this idea of legitimacy further by adding the empirical observation that freedom and equality are the two fundamentals in which a society’s belief in and adherence to democracy are vested and so have formulated a basic idea along similar lines to Rawls in Justice as Fairness of society ‘as a fair system of co-operation between free and equal people’. One could add the idea of community as a foundation for democracy as this would then recognise the importance of different groups and relationships in the life of an individual. It is possible to see how by consenting to be governed and obey the laws of society the citizens of that society can consider themselves to make those rules in one way or another. It is this aspect of legitimacy that should underpin any concept or definition of democracy. It is worth remembering that legitimacy can take two forms. It can be formal, in which case the law must come from the will of the people or there is social legitimacy which is more of a loyalty to the system. For either to work and be considered truly legitimate there must be an identification between the rulers and the ruled which requires a form of active participation beyond merely voting.
The idea of active citizenry is not particularly easy to comprehend in today’s developed democratic states where it is understandable that people feel democracy only equates to a choice of government. However, it is worth considering the problems of democratic deficit that the EU faces to show that participation in the democratic process may stretch further in nation states than is immediately clear. The problem of democratic deficit for the institutions of the EU has its roots in the mismatch between how democracy is traditionally understood by citizens in European member states and the self-understanding of those citizens. Finding a public philosophy has not been easy for the EU as its politics have been largely rooted in pragmatism. However, in order to be seen as a truly democratic enterprise in the same way that state are considered democratic, the EU will need to find and reflect a public philosophy. For example, many of the treaties from which the European constitution flows confer individual rights, freedoms and values. These treaties repeatedly refer to ‘shared values’ but at the present time they could not be considered to be a true emanation of the popular will, but are more mediated by national governments. Therefore it is possible to see how not all voting will lead to fully legitimate institutions and thus how democracy itself must be based on more than just being a way to choose a government.
Overall democracy can be defined as an ideal of self-rule with its roots lying in the idea of the citizen aspiring to realise freedom, equality and power in the political sphere. In this way it is fair to see democracy as legitimate political power as it brings the power of a ruling elite into line with the aspirations of those who live under it. While democracy remains a good way to choose a government it would be far too simplistic to suggest that the concept went no further than the mere act of voting. It is true that democracy is about participation, but as the example of the EU shows, certain conditions must be met for this to be meaningful and fully democratic.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ENDNOTES
SOURCES:
Democracy – Jose Nun
Democracy in the EU – Alex Warburgh
Democratic Theory Today – April Carter & Geoffrey Stokes (Eds)
Post-democracy – Colin Crouch
The Oxford handbook of Jurisprudence & Philosophy of Law –
Jules Coleman & Scott Shapiro (Eds)
Democracy & the Rule of Law – Jose Maria Maravall &
Adam Przeworski (Eds)
Democracy – Jack Lively
The EU in search of a Democratic & Constitutional Theory – Amaryllis Verhoven
Why Constitutions Matter – N Berggren, N Karlson & J Nergelius (Eds)
Conjectures and Refutations – Karl Popper
QUOTATIONS
1. Abraham Lincoln – cited in Democracy, Jose Nun, pg 1.
2. Karl Popper – Conjectures and refutations, 1972, pg 350.
3. Jack Lively – Democracy, 1975, pg 2
CASELAW
Roquette Freres SA v Council (138/79), [1980] ECR3333
Related politics law essays
Back to Free Law Essays
