Democracy Democracy is a word frequently used in British Politics.

We are constantly told that we live in a democracy in Britain and that our political system is "democratic" and that nations that do not match these standards are classed as "undemocratic". D Robertson, writing in 1986, stated that: "Democracy is the most valued and also the vaguest of political terms in the modern world." Robertson continued by stating that the word only starts to mean something tangible in the modern world when it is prefixed with other political words, such as direct, representative, liberal and parliamentary. Direct Democracy This belief is based on the right of every citizen over a certain age to attend political meetings, vote on the issue being discussed at that meeting and accepting the majority decision should such a vote lead to a law being passed which you as an individual did not support. Part of this belief, is the right of every one to hold political office if they choose to do so. Direct democracy also believes that all people who have the right to, should actively participate in the system so that it is representative of the people and that any law passed does have the support of the majority. Direct democracy gives all people the right to participate regardless of religious beliefs, gender, sexual orientation, physical well being etc. Only those who have specifically gone against society are excluded from direct democracy. In Britain, those in prison have offended society in some way and, therefore, their democratic rights are suspended for the duration of their time in prison. Once released, and having learnt a lesson, their democratic rights are once again restored.

Direct democracy is fine in theory but it does not always match the theory when put into practice. Direct democracy requires full participation from those allowed to. But how many people have the time to commit themselves to attending meetings especially when they are held midweek during an afternoon? How many wish to attend such meetings after a day work etc? If Britain has 40 million people who can involve themselves in politics if they wish, how could such a number be accommodated at meetings etc? Who would be committed to being part of this system day-in and dayout when such commitment would be all but impossible to fulfil? How many people have the time to find out about the issues being discussed whether at a local or a national level ? How many people understand these issues and the complexities that surround them? How many people understood the complexities of the problems surrounding the building of the Newbury by-pass, the installation of Tomahawk cruise missiles at Greenham Common etc? If people are to be informed on such issues, who does this informing? How can you guarantee that such information is not biased? Who would have time to read all the information supporting the building of the Newbury bypass and then read the material against it, before coming to a balanced personal decision? Because of the realities of direct democracy, few nations use it. Some states in New England, USA, do use it at a local level but the number of people involved is manageable and the culture of the towns involved actively encourages participation. The issues discussed are relevant purely to the town and ,therefore, there is a good reason for involving yourself if you want your point of view heard. Meetings are held in town halls across New England - which, apart from cities such as Boston, is not highly populated. But how could the system work in heavily populated areas?

In the recent mayoral election in London, the small turnout of voters indicates that one aspect of direct democracy was not there - active participation by those who could have participated. Of those who did vote, how many will actively participate in the running of the city? Is the mechanism in place for people, other than those appointed by Ken Livingstone, to involve themselves in day-to-day decisions? This will be done by a cabinet selected by the mayor. The people of London will have no choice as to who sits on this city cabinet (just as the national electorate has no say in who sits on the governments cabinet when it is picked). Is it physically possible to have a system that involves all those in London who wish to do so? How many Londoners understand the complexities of the issues which the city government will have to deal with? At this moment in time, London cannot be run by a system of direct democracy. Technological developments in the future may change this. The expansion of the Internet and the speed with which communication can now be achieved, may favour direct democracy. The present government set-up a system in 1997, whereby 5,000 randomly selected members of the public (the so-called "Peoples Panel") are asked about their reactions to government policy. However, there is no system in place which allows the public to help formulate government policy, and critics of the "Peoples Panel" have called it a gimmick with no purpose. Representative Democracy Several off-shoots have grown out of representative democracy : participatory democracy and liberal democracy. Britain is a representative democracy. This is where citizens within a country elect representatives to make decisions for them. Every 5 years in Britain, the people have the chance to vote into power those they wish to

represent us in Parliament. These MPs meet in the House of Commons to discuss matters and pass acts which then become British law. Within the House of Commons, each elected MP represents an area called a constituency. The voters in this constituency passed on the responsibility of participating in law making to this MP who, if successful within the Commons, could be re-elected by that constituency at the next general election. However, in stark comparison to direct democracy, the people hand over the responsibility of decision making to someone else who wishes to be in that position. For five years, MPs are responsible to their electorate. In this way they are held accountable to them. If they fail to perform (or if the party has done badly during its time in office) they can be removed by the people of their constituency. In this way, the people exercise control over their representatives. However, by handing to their MPs the right to participate in decision making within the Commons, the electorate is removing itself from the process of decision making. Though MPs have constituency clinics where the people can voice an opinion on an issue, the electorate play no part in the mechanism of decision making - that process has been handed to MPs and the government. Within representative democracy, usually two types of MPs emerge. There are those who believe that they should act and react to what the party and electorate wish - they believe that they have been elected to represent both; though an argument would be that the party wants the best for the electorate so the two are entirely compatible. The other type of MPs are the ones who believes that they should act in accordance to their conscience regardless of party and electorate stance. This gives such a MP the flexibility to ignore the wishes of both his party leadership and his constituency - therefore allowing himself to do as he/she sees fit. Is this democratic in any

form? However, is it realistic for a MP to do what his/her constituency electorate wishes all the time? If he/she always follows the wishes of the majority within his/her constituency, what happens to those in the minority? Are they condemned to five years in which their views may be heard but are not acted on? Does a representative within the boundaries of "representative democracy", only represent the majority view and thus state that the wishes of a democratic society have been fulfilled? The "Tyranny of the Minority" is something that pure democracy is meant to prevent. One way of expanding the participation of the electorate and therefore the whole ethos of democracy would be to initiate more mechanisms whereby the public can participate, should they wish, in the decision making process. Such mechanisms could be the greater use of public enquiries and referendums. Both would allow the public the ability to participate in the complete process of examining an issue, but they would not guarantee that the public would have any say in the final decision made by government. Liberal Democracy Britain, as well as being a representative democracy, has also been labelled a liberal democracy. Historically there are five main points behind liberal democracy : the government should be limited in its impact on the person and the government should not enjoy arbitrary power. Elections must be free and fair.the government should do what it can to remove obstacles limiting the well being of people. This includes all groups with none excluded.the governments involvement in the economic market of a country should be minimal.the government should be there to deal with problems when neededthe right to vote should be extended to all (no longer applicable to Britain).

A country that claims to be a "liberal democracy", embraces the whole issue of civil liberties. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly freedom of religion etc. (within the confines of the law) are of paramount importance. Within Britain these have been safe guarded by what is called the "rule of law". This guarantees someone equality before the law and it also ensures that the powers of those in government can be curtailed by laws that are enforceable in courts. This has been further developed by the growth of the impact of the European Court which can act as a check and balance against the governments of member states. Democracy is a form of government in which people are governed by their own elected representatives. It is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. In this system of government, it is the people who are supreme and sovereign. They control the government. They are free to elect a government of their own choice. Freedom of choice is the core of democracy. Democracy existed in ancient Greek and Roman republics but with little success. It had very little scope in ancient India. Democracy entered its golden stage in he twentieth century. Many countries in the world today follow the democratic form of government. Democracy depends on the following conditions (i) co-existence of ideas and of parties; (ii) the right to free discussion; (iii) universal adult suffrage; and (iv) periodic elections. Indian is the largest democracy in the world. The Constitution of Indian was enforced on 26 January, 1950. It ushered in the age pf democracy. India became a democratic republic infused with the spirit of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. The Preamble, the Directive Principles of State Policy and the Fundamental Rights reflect the Indian ideology as well as the caste, creed, religion, property, or sex have the right to cast their vote. After and election, the majority party or coalition forms the government and its leader become the Prime Minister. Political parties are the vehicles of ideas. Parties act as the bridge between social thought and political decision in democracy. The Indian politics system is a multiparty system. However, gradually politics has become a game of opportunism and corruption. Most

political parties are only interested in coming to power. Every party adopts different caste politics. Some try to influence the people thought caste politics. Some try to raise the religious sentiments of the people. The Indian ideology today is replaced by caste and religion. We enjoy every right in theory, but not in practice. real democracy will come into being only when the masses are awakened and take part in the economic and political life of the country. There is inequality in every sphere- social, economic and political. Illiteracy is the main cause of inequality. The illiterate masses get easily lured by money during such an event. Also some of our legislators have criminal records against them. The people who make the laws themselves break them. Even after more than sixty years of Independence, one forth of the population today goes to bed with an empty stomach, live below the poverty line without access to safe and clean drinking water, sanitation or proper health facilities. Governments have come and gone, politics have been framed and implemented, crores of rupees have been spent, yet many people are still struggling for existence. Casteism today is more pronounced that it even was. Untouchability remains abolished only in theory with frequent newspapers reports of Dalits being denied entry to temples or other public places. Violence has been taken a serious turn in country, Bandhs, strikes and terrorist activities have become a common affair. Every sphere of national life is corrupted. Our democracy is capitalistic. Here, the rich exploit the poor who have no voice or share in the democratic structure. For a successful democracy, all these need to be checked. But India, as a democratic country, has progressed in many aspects. It has archived self-sufficiency in food grains as a result of the green revolution. People vote for change whenever a government fails to come up to the expectations of the people. India has been a successful democratic country only because the people are lawabiding, self-disciplined and have the sense of social and moral responsibilities. For a democracy to be fully successful, the electorate should be literate and politically conscious. They should be fully aware of their rights and privileges. The illiterate masses of India should be given education so that they can sensibly vote for the right leaders. The U.S.A, Britain, Germany and Japan are successful democratic

countries and gave progressed in every sphere because the masses are literate. There should be quality in every sphere of life. The politicians should also respect the true sprit of democracy. They should refrain from corruption caste and communal politics. The citizens should elect leaders with good moral values and integrity. People should be guided to choose their representatives. They should not be influenced by anyone in this respect. Individuals should learn tolerance and compromise and understand that freedom in not unbridled but dependent on not harming another individual's well being. Democracy demands from the common man a certain level of ability and character, like rational conducts, an intelligent understanding of public affair, independed justice and unselfish devotion to public interest. People should not allow communalism, separatism, casteism, terrorism, etc to raise their heads. They are a threat to democracy. The government, the NGOs and the people together should work collectively for the economic development of the nation. Changes should come through peaceful, democratic and constitutional means. The talented youth of today should be politically educated so that they can become effective leaders of tomorrow. Democracy is not a government; it is a way of thinking, a responsibility. In a democracy there is no corruption in power because it is a transparent system: the governing doctrine states that citizens have the right to access the documents and proceedings of the government, which allows for effective public oversight. Like a sculptor, democracy grows with its work and appreciates its art. In life there is no greater pursuit than that of equal voice. Every day people are fighting for the right to be heard. Democracy is that right on a grand scale. Democracy is not only being heard, but being listened to. Democracy is when you are given an equal vote on decisions that directly affect you. And when given this tremendous responsibility, people will surprise you. They rise to the occasion and educate themselves on the issues at hand. They

also work hard to ensure that the next generation is knowledgeable. In a democracy, the youth are educated. From birth they are taught that their voice matters and their vote counts. These are rights they must fight to maintain and will prosper from. No, democracies are not free of flaws; some say that there is no way that something as simple as a popular vote could null the evils of unlawful power or social inequality. These woes are valid, but democracy can work. There are still consequences to right wrongs, and laws to help keep peace and balance. There is a difference between freedom and chaos. Without democracy, society suffers. In dictatorships there is no celebration of thought or creativity. A country cannot thrive if others' opinions are not appreciated. With only one opinion adhered to, the country will be at a standstill. As patience begins to wither, anger begins to rise like mercury in a thermometer. Each decision made with no consideration for those affected, every failed law, every time the system overlooks another citizen, every personal right stolen, adds a degree to that temperature. Finally it becomes so hot that the citizens, like an overheated thermometer, explode in anger; the people will revolt. This has happened many times in history. Our own country was built from this frustration and the fight for freedom. Without democracy, we lack progress in thought, technology, and polices; society is halted. The U.S. has thrived from our ability to create and then take said creations and improve them. Is this not the age of today? We do, want, communicate everything now. Without the right to improve, we would never have developed the

technological world we live in. Without the voice to express innovative ideas, without the freedom to explore, we would never have achieved what we have. Stuck in the past we would stay. What would we do without progress? Democracy, like a car, gives you what you put into it. If you build it to be unhealthy, then it will pollute the air with poison. If you do not maintain its engine, it will fail you. The power of education fuels it forward, and most importantly, people decide its fate Since the end of cold war, many countries across the globe have chosen democracy as the form of government. Today, most of the world's powerful countries, international organizations and political science experts see democracy as a natural choice in comparison to dictatorship. Yet democracy remains a far more complicated form of government as compared to dictatorship. Some decisions that for the common good of the entire community might require some group of people to make some sacrifice e.g. farmers might have to leave their family land and go to some other place in order to make space available for some new industry. While this new industry can bring prosperity to the whole area and can offer better jobs and standard of living to the farmer's own children, many farmers would be reluctant to leave the land that has been ploughed by their forefathers, espacially if the land is fertile. Convincing them to accept monetary compensation or another piece of land can be a very difficult task in a democracy as compared to a dictatorship. Displacing millions of people for building a dam, as the the case when constructing the Three Gorges Dam in China, might have been much more cumbersome in a democracy. Democratic system of governments generally have an extensive system of election of government. Dictatorships do not need to spend effort in

developing and mainitaining such proceses and are hence free from this hassle. A comparison of recent elections in Zimbabwe with the current ongoing US presential campaign clearly shows the former to be much simpler than the latter. Democratic systems by nature prefer to have a system of check and balance so that all power is not rested in one indivdual. This can sometimes lead to situations where doing any legislation becomes very complex or nearlly impossible. In a parilamentary form of government a hung parlaiment or in a presidential form of government a President and Parliament from different political parties are examples of such complicated scenarios. A dictator can however carry out this action throught a decree. The problem faced by Indian governemt in convincing its coalition partners to accept the nuclear deal with US is an example of such complication. Democracy can bring even more complications to the developing nations, where resources are scarce and political infrastruture might not be developed enough to help people make the right democratic choice. In order to increase their chances of victory politicians sometimes play up the racial sentiments of a community. Such actions can produce big problems in the long term and can lead to cracks in the social fabrics that can be very complicated to hear for the government. Many democracies agree to this arguemnt of complexiteis in a democracy. Hence many democracies provide options whereby head of state or parliament can suspend goverments and granting powers to one person or group of people under special situations. During the second world war, Norwegian pariliament disoveld itself and handed over all the powers to the cabinet. While democracy today apperas to be the most popular choice when it

comes to choosing a form of government, it brings with it many complications that would be absent in a dictatorship. Making bold decisions for long term proposerity, executing controversial decisions and making bitter choices for the common good can be very complicated processes in a democratic form of government. Topic "Democracy is far more cumbersome form of government than dictatorship"

Ever since the nations have formed the governments to run them, both the types of govts have come and gone. No single form of government has emerged as a clear better option. Both have had their pros and cons. But the given statement is agreeable since implementation of democracy has been a herculean task wherever it has been tried. The primary issue with democracy is that every act has to be passed by the representatives of the people. Now in a vast group, every decision will have some opposers to it - some due to ideological differences - hence no major proposals are implemented. For example, big countries like Inida, have people of different castes, cultures, races,and demographies in the govt. Hence different ideologies makes it difficult to implement hard decisions. these nations are facing great difficulties in taking big strides towards development due to their democratic form of government. India, for example, has not been able to implement stern actions which it so badly needs to overcome poverty and over-population. In sum, democracy might be a favored form of government due to its transparency but it certainly is more cumbersome and poses great challenges in implementing decisions

Another issue with democracy is that it is a form oof government which is for the people,by the people and of the people. Since today's ever growing population has created nations with vast no of people, hence these democracies are becoming difficult to be managed properly by the representatives of the people who are answerable to the people for their every single decision. An independent form of government is needed to run these nations successfully. On the other hand, some may argue that there are examples of big nations being run as democratic countries but the fact is that . Dictatorship on the other hand, gives far more freedom and independence to the government. Not all instrumental arguments favor democracy. Plato (Republic, Book VI) argues that democracy is inferior to various forms of monarchy, aristocracy and even oligarchy on the grounds that democracy tends to undermine the expertise necessary to properly governed societies. In a democracy, he argues, those who are expert at winning elections and nothing else will eventually dominate democratic politics. Democracy tends to emphasize this expertise at the expense of the expertise that is necessary to properly governed societies. The reason for this is that most people do not have the kinds of talents that enable them to think well about the difficult issues that politics involves. But in order to win office or get a piece of legislation passed, politicians must appeal to these people's sense of what is right or not right. Hence, the state will be guided by very poorly worked out ideas that experts in manipulation and mass appeal use to help themselves win office. Hobbes (1651, chap. XIX) argues that democracy is inferior to monarchy because democracy fosters destabilizing dissension among subjects. But his skepticism is not based in a conception that most people are not intellectually fit for politics. On his view, individual citizens and even politicians are apt not to have a sense of responsibility for the quality of legislation because no

one makes a significant difference to the outcomes of decision making. As a consequence, citizensconcerns are not focused on politics and politicians succeed only by making loud and manipulative appeals to citizens in order to gain more power, but all lack incentives to consider views that are genuinely for the common good. Hence the sense of lack of responsibility for outcomes undermines politicians concern for the common good and inclines them to make sectarian and divisive appeals to citizens. For Hobbes, then, democracy has deleterious effects on subjects and politicians and consequently on the quality of the outcomes of collective decision making. Many public choice theorists in contemporary economic thought expand on these Hobbesian criticisms. They argue that citizens are not informed about politics and that they are often apathetic, which makes room for special interests to control the behavior of politicians and use the state for their own limited purposes all the while spreading the costs to everyone else. Some of them argue for giving over near complete control over society to the market, on the grounds that more extensive democracy tends to produce serious economic inefficiencies. More modest versions of these arguments have been used to justify modification of democratic institutions. 2.1.3 Grounds for Instrumentalism Instrumentalists argue that these instrumental arguments for and against the democratic process are the only bases on which to evaluate democracy or compare it with other forms of political decision making. There are a number of different kinds of argument for instrumentalism. One kind of argument proceeds from a certain kind of moral theory. For example classical utilitarianism simply has no room in its fundamental value theory for the ideas of intrinsic fairness, liberty or the intrinsic importance of an egalitarian distribution of political power. Its sole concern with maximizing utility understood as pleasure or desire satisfaction guarantees that it can provide only instrumental arguments for and against democracy. And there are many moral theories of this sort.

But one need not be a thoroughgoing consequentialist to argue for instrumentalism in democratic theory. There are arguments in favor of instrumentalism that pertain directly to the question of democracy and collective decision making generally. One argument states that political power involves the exercise of power of some over others. And it argues that the exercise of power of one person over another can only be justified by reference to the protection of the interests or rights of the person over whom power is exercised. Thus no distribution of political power could ever be justified except by reference to the quality of outcomes of the decision making process (Arneson 2002, pp. 96-97). Other arguments question the coherence of the idea of intrinsically fair collective decision making processes. For instance, social choice theory questions the idea that there can be a fair decision making function that transforms a set of individual preferences into a rational collective preference. No general rule satisfying reasonable constraints can be devised that can transform any set of individual preferences into a rational social preference. And this is taken to show that democratic procedures cannot be intrinsically fair (Riker 1980, p. 116). Dworkin argues that the idea of equality, which is for him at the root of social justice, cannot be given a coherent and plausible interpretation when it comes to the distribution of political power among members of the society. The relation of politicians to citizens inevitably gives rise to inequality, so it cannot be intrinsically fair or just (Dworkin 2000, ch. 4 [originally published in 1987]). In later work, Dworkin has pulled back from this originally thoroughgoing instrumentalism (Dworkin 2000, ch. 10 [originally published in 1999]). The ancient Greek word democracy means literally rule by the demos. Demos actually mean the people and the people implies the whole population or adult population of a tribe or nation in a territory or area. The government of the people, but the people is the next definition. In fact, it is the rule of the people, by the people, for the people is

the next meaning. They may differ on some or all the issues but still the traditional democracy leads them towards a governmental goal. In practice, people depict majority of the population which has vested powers to take decisions in the matters. They very resolutions are carried and obeyed by the masses of the country. The concept does not permit the enforcement of the decisions on minority by majority. Rather, democracy thrives on the willing co-operation of minority with the majority. In other, words minority and opposition parties to have a vital role in the working of a democratic set up. Democracy guarantees some basic rights and freedom for individuals and its voters. These rights are known as fundamental rights. Democracy imposes rule by the adopted President of India. The practice continues for all the matters pertaining ruling in democracy. The system guarantees freedom for speech, equality and right for worship among other rights to the people. Although, democracy permits a complete value of freedom for its people, yet it has certain serious drawbacks in the imposition. It is a little cumbersome process. The output achieved is also slow and costly. Molding masses for a common solution is not an easy work. It is more of weighing the frogs in a common pan. Each one of the people have their, own opinion and it presents and antispeed process to enforce it easily. It is more of a very costly process. People occupying the ruling seats evaluate the powers with term of their stay on the seat of authorities. Replacements, elections and by-elections are in common phase in democracy. The entire process involves a lot of finances and indirectly the funds are taxed on the normal taxpayers. This breeds corruption in the employees and politicians and they misuse the powers. The minority rule tempts the party politics to grab votes. They tend to adopt

unfair methods to capture seats/booths and votes. Thus, a bad element is steamed to capture control. A part of the human energies is spent in maintaining clear grouping with the leaders and, thus, very little remains in balance for fulfilling the needs of the people. Justice in democracy is more like supervision. Judges are more people voice minded and they take extra care in deciding the issue. The political protection inhales an air of favoritism and choicest bestowing these spoils less the peoples faith in this channel. Despite these drawbacks, people find better results in adoption of this change in setup and they willingly wish to adopt it with all the lacking in it. The system has better popularity when we find the failure for other channels. Let us hope that this will improve and will produce better sent in course of time. Let people be the best judge and let them be decisive about the next shape of democracy.

In the words of Oscar Wilde, "Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people". True, democracy is a form of government wherein the supreme power is in the hands of the people. The word 'democracy' hails from the Greek word meaning 'popular government'. Let us look at the definition of democracy and its advantages and disadvantages. Definition Democracy, by definition, is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. It can also be defined as the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives.

Advantages Democracy can provide for changes in government without violence. In a democracy, power can be transferred from one party to another by means of elections. The jurisdiction of the citizens of a nation determines its ruling authority. Moreover, any government is bound by an election term after which it has to compete against other parties to regain authority. This system prevents monopoly of the ruling authority. The ruling party has to make sure it works for its people for it cannot remain being the authority after completing its term unless re-elected by the people. This brings in a feeling of obligation towards the citizens. The ruling authorities owe their success in the elections to the citizens of the nation. This results in a feeling of gratefulness towards the people. It can serve as their motivation to work for the people for it is the common masses that have complete power over choosing their government. Another important advantage of democracy is that the people gain a sense of participation in the process of choosing their government. They get the opportunity to voice their opinions by means of electoral votes. This gives rise to a feeling of belongingness in the minds of the people towards their society. Disadvantages In a democratic nation, it is the citizens who hold the right to elect their representatives and their governing authorities. According to

a common observation, not all the citizens are fully aware of the political scenario in their country. The common masses may not be aware of the political issues in society. This may result in people making the wrong choices during election. As the government is subject to change after every election term, the authorities may work with a short-term focus. As they have to face an election after the completion of each term, they may lose focus on working for the people and rather focus on winning elections. Another disadvantage of democracy is that mobs can influence people. Citizens may vote in favor of a party under the influence of the majority. Compelled or influenced by the philosophies of those around, a person may not voice his/her true opinion. Every form of government is bound to have some shortfalls. Different people have different views about the various political systems. The advantages and disadvantages of any political system have to be weighed carefully in order to arrive at any conclusion. Being the most popular form of political governance, the democracy is often described as liberating, equality providing and superior from one side and as controversial, economically inefficient and suitable for manipulations from the other. Nevertheless, the discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of democracy has ever been a topic of vital importance for every single country in the world. The definition of democracy includes equality of all citizens, freedom and common rights and obligations. All these ideas present the positive side of this concrete political form of governance. First of all, equality of all citizens means that the whole population of a given country is considered to be of an

equal quality, capabilities and respectively must not be divided into groups of different treatment. That is why in most countries equality before the laws, equal access to resources, equal right of treatment are embodied in their constitutional law. However, when talking about the advantages and disadvantages of democracy it must be discussed the downside of the equality. Probably, the most used argument of the negative impact of the equality, granted by the democracy, is that of moral degradation and distortion of the common values. Being equal provides people with power to disrespect and disobey to the cultural norms and traditional family values. No-one is obligated to respect seniority of the society. This is considered to be driving force behind for example divorces, workers disobedience and political riots. In a simple way of expression, it is considered that the equality embodied in the democracy leads to instability and moral recession. Secondly, in every discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of democracy, the freedom which it represents is brought into consideration. Basically, in the democratic countries, population is granted to the so called political freedoms- freedom of confession, freedom of speech, freedom of choice being a typical example. The positive side of granting freedom is undisputed. Via this instrument of democracy people are provided with a desired degree of independence and capabilities. In such way, citizens have to obey their own will and create a life path. Being free in their choices and believes, individuals are expected to act in favor of themselves and the society as a whole. Nevertheless, when naming advantages and disadvantages of democracy, exactly this expectation is considered as the most convincing downside of the freedom embodied in the democracy. Being free to choose, citizens are free to make mistakes. From economic point of view, this freedom of making mistakes describes individuals as irrational, resulting into the failure of the political form democracy to fully utilize all the resources available. In other words, individual

choices of people result in waste of resources, which makes the democracy economically inefficient. To finish the brief discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of democracy, the rights given to the individuals must be taken into consideration. Undoubtedly, the individual rights such as right of property, right of privacy and right of political entity are foundations of the democratic process. Basic freedoms are strongly connected to those individual rights. There can be no right without freedom and vice versa. That is the reason why in most democratic countries, individual rights are given as a starting point of their civil laws. The most important advantage of the personal rights is that they are also connected to the equity embodied in the democracy. This implies that people are equal in their rights and no-one can suppress or violate the rights of other citizen. This principle provides personal safety, equal treatment in justice or injustice. Nevertheless, the whole topic of advantages and disadvantages of democracy is based on contrasting sides of all the aspects of the democracy. When talking about personal rights, it should be considered the right of political entity as one example of negative side of democracy. Every single citizen has the right to vote, elect and to be elected in a political party. However this principle creates an open space for corruption, vote buying and political instability as a whole. Basically, the governing part of the population is tempted to assure their election win at any praise available. To maintain their political influence and power, the governing elite has strong incentive to manipulate the individual rights of the citizens. The advertising election campaigns, political speeches and electoral promises are just the upper layer of a whole body of instruments. Vote buying, terror and suppression are used hand-in-hand with the above mentioned legal instruments. Whenever talking about advantages and disadvantages of democracy it must be confessed that legal and democratic process is often violated in order to retain power. Nevertheless, every single individual has right to be elected, so every single individual is free to seek power in democracy and must treat all

the other people equally no matter whether in justice or injustice. The biggest difference between communism and democracy lies in the economic aspect of the society. While in communism all production and distribution is under direct control of the government, in democracy each person has control over the production of goods and distribution as well. To make it clearer, in communism, all goods produced are for the government, therefore the government also has the rights to distribute them. However, in democracy, a person can choose to produce goods according to his wish and distribute or sell them according to his wish and prevailing market conditions. Due to this fact, in democracy one can see there is a wide and ever-increasing gap between the have's and the have-nots. However, in communism, no single person is able to go to the higher position and become rich, due to production and distribution policy. When it comes to communism or democracy in terms of political scenario, one will have to understand the government structure. In communism there is only a group of people, where all the powers lie. Therefore, they are the ones who always have command over the course of action. In other words, it can often become dictatorial in nature. On the other hand, in democracy since there are representatives ruling the state, they have to take the expectations and wishes of the citizens into consideration before any form of action is decided. Also for a resolution to be passed, the government needs the mandate. Depending on the state democracy is practiced in, there may be rights given to the citizens to demand changes as well.

From the communism vs. democracy debate, one can say that there are advantages and disadvantages of each of the system. However, with the collapse of the communist governments in different parts of the world, people have come to believe that democracy form of life better suits people and containing people on all walks of life does not really prove to be useful. "For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost." - Aristotle Democracy originated from the Greek word demos (people) and kratia (power); Democracy is the thought that leads a country to give an atmosphere that unites equivalent gains and prospects (in the political, social, and economic spheres) for the common man. There are many advantages to this political scheme; the masses are given rights and liberty. An additional advantage of democracy is that it permits common man to play a dynamic part in the political actions of the nation. Nonetheless, there are disadvantages also. One of the prime disadvantages of democracy is the power of the masses which can also be distorted and become the autocracy of the masses. Therefore this can become a treacherous matter in democracy. An added downside of the ruling of majority in democracy is that it lifts barriers in the liberty of idea or the freedom of outlook. Advantages of Democracy Peaceful Modifications in the Government Democracy can offer modifications in government without hostility. In a democracy, authority can be reassigned from one party to another by the mode of elections. The power of the general public of a country decides its ruling power. Averting Monopoly

Furthermore, any government is confined to an election tenure after which it has to contend against other parties to recover power. This method averts monopoly of the reigning party. The reigning authorities have to ensure it functions effectively for its people as cannot continue being the authority subsequent to carrying out its term unless re-elected by the people. Feeling of Gratitude This inculcates a feeling of responsibility towards the citizens. The reigning party owes their accomplishment in the elections to the people of the country. This leads to a feeling of thankfulness towards the citizens. It can act as their inspiration to function for the people for it is the general masses that have absolute authority over selecting their government. Social Responsibility of the Citizens An additional vital advantage of democracy is that the citizens achieve a sense of contribution in the procedure of selecting their government. They get the chance to speak out their views by method of electoral voting. This gives ascend to a feeling of belongingness in the brains of the masses towards their society and its well being. Disadvantages of Democracy Making the wrong choice In a democratic country, it is the common man who has the supreme right to choose their legislature and their prevailing authorities. As per a general study, not all the people are completely conscious of the political circumstances in their nation. The common masses may not be acquainted of the political matters in their society. This may lead to common man taking an erroneous selection during election.

Authorities May Lose focus As the government is bound to changes and modification after each election tenure, the authorities may function with a interim objective. Since they have to go through an election procedure after the conclusion of each tenure, they may lose focus on functioning effectively for the citizens and instead might concentrate on winning elections. Hordes Have Influence A further disadvantage of democracy is that hordes can manipulate citizens. People may vote in support of a party under the pressure of the bulk. Constrained or influenced by the ideas of those around, an individual may not put across his/her accurate judgment. Democracy averts radicalism and encourages teamwork and synchronization. It also slows things down, stops those in authority doing what they wish regardless of the majority's desires

advantages: - government is more decentralized, which means people are free to have a society build on the wants and values of the majority - you're free to move around and do whatever you want as long as you dont break the law, which is not too strict compared to communist countries. i was in china about 10 years ago, and people there report to local authorities whenever they move or sleep in their relative's house, esp in the rural areas. but i love it there than staying in new york. i dont think anyone will hurt you in the middle of china; but it's a different story in usa or in great britain,

which i also spent about year. disadvantages: - society has higher crime rate; just look at cho gunning many students; criminals have more access to guns and other resources to do their crimes - there are more poor people. bec of capitalism, which thrive in democracy. there is an unequal distribution of wealth - the rich becomes richer, while the poor becomes poorer. - violence bec of intolerance of differences like racism, gay bashing, etc.; also about 10 years ago, i went to blandform forum in england. i am asian, and i was shopping at the local grocery. people actually stared at me for hours. later, someone told me that the locals there knew that i am new to the area. since it is a small town, everybody knows how many asians were living there at that time. i just thought that they were rude. another, i was in las vegas in 2006. i went to shop at the fashion show mall. i went to about 6 stores, and no (caucasian) sales person assisted me, even if i was talking to them. they just ignored me.; i went to new york i think in 2005, i was in a khiel store. i waited for my turn for the sales lady, but again she just stood there and ignored me. - this is just my observation. but do you think that americans, bec of their freedom, think that they have the right to change the world according to their values. i have a relative, who is an american citizen. she also does this thing to the family. she always has her way, and if she doesn't like something, she'll change it. i think most americans are like this. okay, sometime ago, i went to

london to study. our class was international i think, there were about 3 of us from asia, a couple from south america, a group from canada, and some from the usa. and again an american guy turned off an equipment, which he was sharing with my malaysian friend. and at that time, when he turn it off, my friend wasnt finished using the equipment. i just dont think that americans have the right to act this way.i mean the canadians were not behaving like this. the canadians are also caucasians, but they are friendlier. is this the price of too much freedom? Advantages: * Everyone gets input into the process, without special qualifications. * By defintion, the majority of people who participate will like the results. Disadvantages: * It's a form of might-makes-right mob rule, where laws are imposed on the minority by the majority. * If you are in the minorty, and no higher rules protect you (like a constitution), you are utterly subject to majority rule. * It allows every member of the society/group to participate in the process, whether they understand the issues being decided or not. The biggest advantage to direct democracy is legitimacy. Under that system, citizens can't blame politicians for the problems of government--the citizens have taken control and responsibility.

The government is truly theirs. The biggest disadvantage of direct democracy is the potential for tyranny of the majority. This is the idea that, in a democracy, the majority can make whatever laws they like, regardless of whether these laws are fair to everyone. Another problem is the ignorance of common people. In a representative democracy, you choose people who you hope will follow politics and act in your best interests. In a direct democracy, each citizen has to follow politics and make up their own mind on every issue. This sort of system would be wide open to manipulation by the media. Also, you'd have some people who would vote without understanding the issues fully, because pressures of life haven't left them enough time to study political issues well enough to decide them, yet they still feel a patriotic duty to cast a vote. (Call-in political shows really scare me--there are a lot of dumb, but opinionated people out there.) by GAD&OCD_... Member since: October 24, 2006 Total points: 76,809 (Level 7)

Add Contact Block

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters The greatest advantage of the democratic system is that it provides for changes of government without violence. Instead of power transferring to the group with the greatest number of soldiers prepared to fight and die for a cause we submit to the ideal that the number of votes will suffice in substitute. Of

course this much better reflected the reality of the situation before weapons of mass destruction and the frailty of a integrated interdependent society reliant on its infrastructure and the threat of terrorism tipped the balance of numbers of feet on the ground towards those with the advantages of money, determination, or blinding ideology. The obvious advantage of democracy is that the majority of people living under a democratically elected government are happy with that government or at least participated in its rise to power and therefore they must shoulder part of the blame for its failings. Another advantage is that typically there is an election term, which means that a government can only do so much damage before the opposition get a chance to undo it. At its worst, unchecked it is mob rule. It is a system that delivers power to the greatest number over the minorities in a community and entrusts the majority to care for those minorities even though it is likely counter to their interest to do so. This is an expectation that works against human nature and is therefore an unreasonable expectation. This is a state that is sometimes termed the "tyranny of the majority" and it was feared that democracy would replace the tyranny of the ruling class with this new tyranny that would be even less ruely. This was a fear that was well and widely held in the formation of some of our oldest democracies and most countries put in place mechanisms to bridal unchecked power of the majority over the minority. This is the basis of the constitution in the USA, separate houses, presidential veto power, and the courts, In the UK it is the purpose of the house of lords in the UK. Other disadvantages are the necessity to develop policies to

win a majority not to do what is right or needed. In effect all public policy becomes a compromise that is often so befuddled by the time it has been negotiated to the middle ground it no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended or worse it does harm.

by squeaky guinea pig Member since: February 19, 2007 Total points: 45,210 (Level 7)
o o

Add Contact Block

Advantages: People have greater input into decisions which affect their lives and are better informed. Less institutionalised, less centralised, less bureaucratic and therefore less expensive to run. More egalitarian and equitable. Better able to reflect people's wishes. Disadvantages: Decision-making process can be time-consuming. Danger of deadlock due to clash of interests.

Danger of apathy and disinterest among participants. Unwillingness to take responsibility. Not everyone is able or willing to participate. Cliques taking control due to the above. Cliques in turn can be manipulated by 1 person. Lack of standardisation in working practices (though this can be countered by efficient networking) NB the above drawbacks apply to other forms of democracy as well. In short direct democracy works best when you have people with common interests and goals who are willing and able to take responsibility for running their own affairs. You may be wondering exactly what Direct Democracy is and how it works. Direct Democracy is a form of government that is said to be by the people, but also for the people. It is a type of government that the people will make the decisions for themselves rather than to have the decisions made by representatives. Another term used to describe Direct Democracy is pure democracy or true democracy. Some like to argue that democracy is empowering in a sense that it enables one to exercise control over their own life and act together with others to change the direction it is going in. Democracy also requires one to be accountable. The politician that is elected must be accountable for their decisions. It also requires them to have effective representation. There are many advantages and disadvantages to Direct Democracy:

Advantages

Raises issues that others may want to hide Restores authority to the people, and makes them responsible, not the parties. Curbs the imbalance of power, makes politicians responsible to the people Gets the community involved Makes for better legislation Politicians are forced to act on petitions instead of throwing them out right away. Helps to gain control over Parliament and the direction of the country. Restores parliamentary government with representatives Makes politicians be accountable

Disadvantages

Cost The media and government may attempt to influence the decisions made by the people. Increase in referenda Some people may be more politically active than others

Direct democracy gives the steering wheel for government to the people. As you noticed above there are both many advantages and disadvantages to direct democracy. This form of government is already in effect in Switzerland and some states in the United States. Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equallyeither directly or through elected representativesin the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. It originates from the Greek: (dmokrata) "rule of the people",[1] which

was coined from (dmos) "people" and (kratos) "power", circa 400 BC, to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens. Other cultures since Greece have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome,[2] Europe,[2] and North and South America.[3] A democratic government contrasts to forms of government where power is either held by one, as in a monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy or aristocracy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.[citation needed] Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of citizens the sovereign power in any variant of democracyexecutes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages and the Age of Enlightenment and in the American and French Revolutions.[4]

While there is no universally accepted definition of "democracy,"[5] equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.[6]

These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.[7][8] Many people[who?] use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.[citation needed] In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty (while maintaining judicial independence).[citation needed] In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles also are applicable to private organizations. Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy.[according to whom?] Hence, democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[9] and procedurally.[10] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential rights that allow citizens to be adequately informed and able to vote according to their own interests.[11][12] It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of individuals to participate freely and fully in the life of their society.[13] With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the people, democracy can also be characterized as a form of political collectivism because it is

defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.[14] Democracy is often equated with the republican form of government. The term "republic" classically has encompassed both democracies and aristocracies.[15][16] Other definitions make "republic" a separate, unrelated term.[17] Economists since Milton Friedman have strongly criticized the efficiency of democracy. They base this on their premise of the irrational voter. Their argument is that voters are highly uninformed about many political issues, especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which
they are fairly knowledgeable.