DEMOCRACY: a variation of autocracy?

 Lebogang Tlou

Democracy

A democracy is “A system of government by the whole population; or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.” The first part of the dictionary meaning for the term democracy is as broad and impractical as the actual practice and application thereof. A state cannot be governed by all within it. All can have a say, but not all have the opportunity to “exert will” or “improve” on their lives – as Amartya Sen suggests. There lies a great chasm between having the right to speak your voice and having the means to follow up on what you voted for – especially in the context of Democracy.

There are no guide books or directions to applying democratic practise in a socio-political atmosphere. Amartya Sen argues that ” in any age and social climate, there are some sweeping beliefs that seem to command respect as a kind of general rule--like a “default” setting in a computer program; they are considered right unless their claim is somehow precisely negated” (1999: 2). This argument applies to democracy. Democracy dates back to 1215, when the Magna Carta was first signed (Sen: 1999). Even then it was an initiative driven by a people in dire need of change in the way the socio-economic system was constructed. The sole difference between those who fought for the independence in 1215 England and those currently living in Brazil and India in the present day is time – time in that the only thing that has changed is the date at the end of every year. In essence, while a majority has a say, the final decisions will be officially discussed and, if deemed necessary, implemented by a minority which: by ‘elected representatives’ who actually do have the ‘the opportunity to exert will and improve lives’. Although questions as to whether they do this or not; or whose lives are improved or not lies at the complete discretion of the elected minority.

In any democracy, then, there exists a social food-chain – a hierarchy of worth which stipulates who has a say where and when. Democracies therefore thrive best in the corporate world where a system of autocracy is pivotal in creating a thriving atmosphere. The notion of democracy as a system of autocracy is not entirely unknown in that “it might seem redundant to use indicators of democracy and autocracy … since one is for the most part a mirror image or the compliment of the other… Many polities have mixed authority traits, and thus have middling scores on both Autocracy and Democracy scales” (Ray, 1998: 66 – 67). However, this proves problematic in where there are men, women and children from all boardwalks of life looking to thrive and survive in a state driven by the promise of a non-existent equality. Democracy does not in any logical manner equate to a sense of equality, nor does it in any way mean a better life for the poor. It simply means a system where all recognised as members of a state have a say on who will represent them and, ultimately, make decisions for them. It is, in that respect, simply an extension on autocracy. Sen (1999) states that:

Throughout the nineteenth century, theorists of democracy found it quite natural to discuss whether one country or another was “fit for democracy.” This thinking changed only in the twentieth century, with the recognition that the question itself was wrong: A country does not have to be deemed fit for democracy; rather, it has to become fit through democracy. This is indeed a momentous change, extending the potential reach of democracy to cover billions of people, with their varying histories and cultures and disparate levels of affluence. (1999: 2)

The only possibly way any country can become ‘fit through democracy’ is if those at the forefronts of this revolutionary progression forward are ‘fit for democracy’ and its ideological principles. Democracy is about working with people – not dictating terms. That is where Brazilian President Ms Dima Rousseff went wrong in her slightly dictatorial manner. Democracy is about thriving with the people, not from their hard toils – which is where Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh fumbled. States need not, ultimately, aspire to democracy – simply a system which works well enough to ensure that those who dare to or work hard toward thriving actually do thrive. In any democracy, there will always be an elite class, a middle-class, a lower to working class and a ‘too far down at the bottom for us to care about you – so God Bless your soul’ class. Democracy, therefore, should not mean or pretend to mean anything at all. What matters in the end is thriving and who thrives on both socio-political and politico-economic platforms. Inequalities will, therefore, exist, so long as others strive to thrive and achieve more than others – and that is the one thing the principles of Democracy promise: a chance for those who dare.

References:

Ray, J. L., 1998. “Democracy and International Conflict:An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition.”, South Carolina, University of South Carolina Press.

Sen, A., 1999. Democracy as a Universal Value in “Journal of Democracy”., Baltimore, National Endowment for Democracy and the Johns Hopkins University Press., 10.3: 3-17.