Is Democracy Always Preferable To Dictatorship?Essay Preview: Is Democracy Always Preferable To Dictatorship?Report this essayDemocracy is defined as the government of the people. In time this definition has withered into a term no longer befitting to the voice of the people. No longer does it fit to be called a protection of liberties and equal rights. Todays democracy vaguely promises freedom and equality, but is yet to deserve the actual title. Instead of already savouring the rights to make lawful decisions, the people of democracies challenge the extent to which the government fulfills its promises and questions the actual intentions of the authorities. Democracy, as many argued, has turned into an overrated sham fit to mask the true face of the government. Through its many flaws and surreal promises, democracy has proved itself not preferable to dictatorship and to some extent is a subtle dictatorship in disguise.
[quote=FeministDiversity]
Yes, it is true that it always has become a sham and a joke. But, on the basis of its power and position, it will continue to be popular, popular to a large extent: it will never be a dictatorship.[/quote]
So it is not enough to say that “democratic” does not mean “legitimate democracy”; it must also be the government of the people: they must be the ones who truly and unequivocally recognize the democratic value of their political bodies on a daily basis
They are free, they can exercise their will, and they can live according to their will; they have access to information, they can exercise their rights, they can exercise their will. But, because the government is still a sham, it is not the legitimate power that must be exercised. It is the power of individuals to make themselves sovereign. It can be the “empowerment” of individuals through a democracy, but it is not necessary for a democracy to be legitimate or it must also be the “empowerment” of individuals through their exercise of their self-given will.[/quote]
“Democracy” is a system that is often confused with “rule of law” or democratic governance in any relevant sense. Democracies often have different definitions of democratic rights and they can be easily confused between “dictatorship” and “democracy.” Democracy is the power of individuals to make themselves rulers of a society regardless of whether the people in question actually do it. Democracy isn’t something that is a state or a “society” – it is an entity.
We will take a fundamental example from democracy itself: the right to vote. Democracy is the fundamental rights of the people and the right to participate in the democratic process. Many of us are simply not aware of these basic rights when we read about them. Instead of reading about them all at once, I will summarize some of the commonalities and nuances of democracy through a little-known list of concepts:
“democracy is the ability to form opinions, decide upon government matters and enact legislation or adopt reforms to government and to the rule of law. In other words, democracy is a system based on individual and collective knowledge, freedom of speech, the ability to think and to express itself without coercion, and individual freedom of opinion. To paraphrase John Locke: not only are we human beings, we are also the people who share our ability to think, express ourselves, and decide for ourselves how to live. Democracy means our ability to participate in the democratic process by having an association, to exercise your choice, express your choice that you wish to make, and to learn together or by having others make their own choices. Democracy requires the individual to participate in the process through their participation in democratic processes. Democracy requires that you have a good or strong democratic position, that you have strong opinions. Democracy means that you have strong views on government should any and all laws be passed. Democracy means that you have strong views on taxes should any and all laws be passed. Democracy requires that you have strong views on the rules of commerce and their interpretation ought be clear and the value of our money is not an absolute and an absolute. Democracy requires strong and firm opinions and firm opinions about the right of individual citizens to express their opinions and determine their own destiny. Democracy means strong individual democratic views regarding the right of individuals to select institutions, to conduct trade or business, and to do other things that we humans can do, such as vote. Democracy means strong individual democratic views about what government should do. Democracy means that there is strong democracy in both the sense of being democratic and being a
Democracy, coming from the Greek words demos, “people,” and kratos, “rule”, literally means “rule by the people”. The first democratic system was established in Athens as a mean to overthrow tyranny and share law-making decisions with the public by giving then daily access to civic affairs and the duties to make and enforce laws. Citizens in Athens enjoyed the rights to vote weekly on important issues involving the state. The citizens of Athens were directly involved not only in government matters, but also in matters of justice, as there was no separation of powers in ancient Athens. As the famous historian, Thucydides once said, “we judge the men who take no part in public affair useless.” And therefore direct involvement in the state was essential; where the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right. Todays democracy strays far from the true democracy that once developed in Ancient Athens in more ways than one. Where as in Athens there would be no different side of government representatives, present day elections recalls a line-up of government representatives that are elected based on image and status alone. Where in Athens the people are the government, today, we elect representation through a superficial system of party members campaigning, advertising and promoting themselves. Democracy has deviated from the true democracy in Ancient Athens to such an extent that the voice of the people, the basis of demos, is not always heard.
The concept of Democracy, based on the law-given power of citizens taking part of decision-making and decision-enforcing only applies to Canada to a limited extent. The highest court of Canada, the Supreme Court, is composed of nine judges who grant decisions that are binding upon all lower courts of Canada. These nine judges who make up the final court of appeal in the Canadian justice system is simply not a fair representation of all the people. Views may be very narrow, if not biased, by the limitation of having only a select nine judges to represent the millions of citizens in Canada. In Platos The Republic, the famous philosopher expresses his belief in Philosopher Kings:
Whether it is a matter of art, music or politics, it is only the best men who are capable of true judgment. The true judge must not allow himself to be influenced by the gallery nor intimidated by the clamour of the multitude. Nothing must compel him to hand down a verdict that belies his own convictions. It is his duty to teach the multitude and not to learn from them.
His personal description of a dictatorship ruled by an elite class bears an unfortunate resemblance to the democracy we have today. Excluding the multitude by having only the “best men” rule and deeming the average person not capable of true judgment is something that questionably exists in the present day political system.
Limits are put on the Government in how much power they have within a Constitution. However the Constitution that promises to “fulfill peoples rights”, looks impressive on paper but only gives citizens another reason to rely on a judicial branchs interpretation. The more written it is, the more interpreted it becomes, often translating to more court authority. This allows political leaders to bend the rules while masking their true intentions behind false promises. Although the constitution promises an individual their liberties, the average person does not have a say in important issues affecting the state. We see the rise of defaming scandals where political leaders chase after their selfish interests at the publics loss. We witness leaders excusing responsibilities for their own actions and often the lack of accountability shows through. As English philosopher John Locke once said, “The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves.” Therefore, it is in each own duty to realize the mockery in democracy, in which supposed democratic leaders compromise the law. And it is debatable whether this piece of binding legislative is the foundation of a proper government system or just faÐ*ade in which permits the government to gain control.
Political leaders may disguise their dictatorial regimes as a democracy for the people. The quest for or preservation of “democracy” is often used as a justification for war. A key example would be George W. Bushs decision to invade Iraq in the year 2000. Daniel Pipes of the New York Post notes:
But the coup by the plutocratic supporters of George W. Bush in the year 2000, coupled with the invasion of Iraq, changed all that, revealing how easily Americans can be manipulated, how willing they are to be lied to, and how vacuous the freedoms of speech and press have become when the bulk of information is filtered through corporate-controlled