What is democracy?

#9

“A functioning, robust democracy requires a healthy, educated, participatory followership, and an educated, morally grounded leadership.” – Chinua Achebe

Dear Friends of Democracy,

Today, a central and supposedly easy question: What actually is democracy?

What comes to your mind when you think of democracy?

You might think of ancient Greeks, who invented democracy in a way. And you probably know that this is where the word "democracy" comes from.

The Greek word “dēmokratia” combines the elements “dêmos”, traditionally interpreted as" people", and “krátos”, which means "force" or "power", and thus democracy literally means "people power".

But, I guess most people will not only think of the ancient Greeks when they hear the word democracy but also of a central instrument of democracy, namely majority decisions.

For many people, majority voting is the core element of democracy. And that is a problem. Why?

Simply put, because majority decisions come at the expense of the minority.

To put it more bluntly: An unrestricted majority rule can be as totalitarian as autocracy. The history of the Nazis is the "best" example of this.

So let’s dive a bit deeper, into the core of democracy.

Democracy means the rule of all people. The idea that everyone has a say is based on the conviction that every human being has (the same) dignity. This dignity can only be lived if everyone is allowed to determine their own life. This, in turn, is only possible if social rules are not established against the will of individuals but by consensus.

Does that make sense to you, so far?

The problem with all that: reality! How to establish rules that everyone agrees to? How are millions of inhabitants of a country supposed to agree on common rules and regulations without any dissenting voice?

So, again, how do you solve the problem in practice that democracy, at its core, relies on the consent of all?

Here is the answer. Real democracies are just approaching the ideal. Democracies try to give themselves rules that approximate this idea of consensus.

But, what kind of rules?

For example, individual veto rights against collective decisions. They are one way to strengthen the individual against majority decisions. Thus, in many states, any citizen can file a lawsuit with the Constitutional Court.

The separation of powers is another way. It means dividing a state's government into "branches", each with separate, independent powers and responsibilities.

The typical division is one of three branches of government, sometimes called the trias politica model, which includes a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. The Legislature makes laws. The Executive puts those laws into effect and plans policy. The Judiciary administers justice by interpreting the law when its meaning is in dispute, ensuring it is upheld.

A third way to come close to the consensus idea of democracy is the rule of law. It means all citizens and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers and leaders.

Conclusion, please!

Majority voting is one of many instruments that make up democracy. Taken on its own, however, it tends to run counter to the idea of consensus, which is the core of democracy.

That’s it?

Here is, at least for me, the most interesting lessons. When you think of all these populist and autocratic tendencies around the world, some could argue that it would be legitimate, even from a democratic point of view, to use the mechanism of majority voting to curtail, even abolish, democracy. But that is precisely what it is not.

Democracy is much more than majority voting.

Only using further constituent elements does real democracy approach the ideal of a society, the ideal, that rules are made by unanimity.

The idea that one can do anything in a democracy with a parliamentary majority is erroneous. Majority voting on its own could violate human dignity. We should fight for the dignity of every human being. 

See you,

Johannes Eber