Democracy is subject to government and its people. It is believed to be the heart of successful political transitions because it represents the will of the people. A democratic institution is established by the opinion of the majority. A determination to whether democracy can be detrimental lies on the rational and irrational decisions of many. Due to the ambiguity of democratic procedures, essential or detrimental results may be achieved.
Government
Clay and Sons (1891) states that the Athens constitution was oligarchical and poor men together with their families were servitude to the Rich. Oligarchical system is one that the highest level of magistrates identifies the constitution with government. Top magistrates determine the rules applicable and act as a guideline for running of government activities. Citizens in a government that is oligarchical are normally oppressed and do not have a say in government activities. More often, they are subject to their Kings and their fate is in the hands of government. A government can determine the level of democracy and the extent to which citizens can enjoy their rights and freedoms. In some cases, it can be autocratic or representative. Peonidis (2015) says that a representative government involves leaders who have authority to make ideal decisions according to their own best judgement. A democratic government is where power is in the hands of the people implying that leaders are validly elected. The elected representatives then act on behalf of citizens in matters of governance, economic development, and other issues affecting the society. That being so, democracy is beneficial for both the government and citizens in realization of their goals.
Tocqueville (2012) notes that laws in a democratic system tend to be good for the majority. The legislator becomes a crucial component in the democratic process. Many a times, he or she is close to citizens and takes their opinions and concerns to address them. Therefore, democracy serves to favor the affluence of all citizens in a country. It is a fair practice because it caters for the interests of all individuals.
Secondly, democracy inspires public spirit. It steers the voice of all citizens towards the realization of their agenda. A democratic government will embrace unity for all and provide equal opportunities to its citizens. It also dispenses a long-term benefit for both the government and its people. Cases of corruption, tribalism, racism, poor management and embezzlement of funds can be minimized by a democratic system. Antecedently, democracy denotes the liberty of citizens. Mill (1859) indicates that in the ancient times, liberty meant protection against the tyranny of political rulers. Citizens who are free to do their own things and express their views and concerns can raise alarm whenever they feel a certain system of government is not working. The ill practices by government officials can be tamed by a democratic system where people will act as a check to the government. Also, chances of a conflict in a democratic state are minimal compared to other forms of government like anarchy. Citizens are often represented by leaders of their choice whom they have vetted and proofed to be qualified for government positions. The leaders will always work towards the agenda of the electorates to avoid disappointments. Through democracy, the government can find it easier to implements projects for its citizens and heighten economic development. On that note, I surmise that democracy essential and key to a working government that takes all its resources and its people into consideration.
Scrapping democratic process
Scrapping the democratic process to enhance social progress is not worthy. Social progress is determined by the improvement of both social, political and economic structures of a country. Rousseau (2017) describes social order as a sacred right on which all other rights are established. Social order is based on agreements before it comes to pass. Democracy is hinged on individual’s liberty and the utmost role to ensure that all people have got systems that are friendly. Mill (n. d) argues that the spirit of progress is not always a spirit of liberty. Adjusting the democratic process will mean forcing improvements on people who are not willing. It may cause a conflict between people and the ruling government. A democratic system will represent citizens who are satisfied with the way government runs its activities and thus happy. On that account, I believe that social progress necessitates a predicament of mindfulness in people’s welfare. Scrapping the democratic process convey that there is no agreement between people and government. Such system essentially becomes a totalitarian regime.
Voting
Private interest provided a sentinel in the public right as it was served through civic engagement in federal designs. Voting is a democratic process and a way through which leaders get to power. It proffers a plausibility for the electorates to exercise their constitutional mandate in determining who leads them. In America, Interest has been stated to be widely manifested in the campaigns and the voting process. The essence of voting is for the citizens to bring leaders of their choice to power. Accordingly, democracy does not guarantee rational and intelligent determinations in voting. Tocqueville linked interest to material gain. Citizens usually consider friends, rich politicians, and relatives when voting. Additionally, a problem of tyranny of numbers will emerge. Politicians with more friends and relatives are likely to be elected into government positions. Irrational and selective decisions have been a major hindrance in the voting process. It is impossible to expect citizens to make rational decisions when voting because of the ill practice of selfishness and personal interest.
Massive political participation
A system of massive political participation is beneficial because it embodies the quintessential act of democratic citizenship. It is not a danger to human species because the will of the people takes the center of political processes. Further, the individuals’ voice can be raised in massive political participation to enable their needs be addressed effectively. Arguable, there has to be a clear distinction between the teleological and paraxial nature of political participation. Massive political participation can only be useful to human species if it involves ; attending political briefings that are not promulgated by hate speech, giving heartily suggestions to authorities in an amicable manner, and also conducting peaceful demonstrations.
A small ruling elite possesses many dangers emanating from tyranny. In most cases, tyranny occurs when absolute power is granted to one person (Tyranny, 2010). Primarily, a state with a few ruling class involves massive corruption, and misuse of power. The few ruling class enjoys monopoly of power and in most cases have personal interests. The collective responsibility of representing the will of the people by selfish leaders becomes second. In consequence, this depicts a system of oppression and causes harm to human species.
Inequalities
Faricy (2016) affirms that income inequality in the united stated states has grown exponentially reaching historic levels. Economic inequality measures an individual’s economic position in relation to others. It is the fiscal gap between the richest and poorest individuals. Social inequality on the other hand, is the gap between age and other physical characteristics. As a result, we don’t need inequalities because they make a country to experience less long term growth. Economic inequality makes people to be greedy by meditating to accumulate wealth so that they can feel superior to their peers. Inequalities can be corrosive to democracies for reasons like unemployment, social problems, and monopoly of power. Therefore, inequality is a type of market failure that signifies inefficient allocation of resources in a country. It can lead to disputes that may be fatal if not solved in advance.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I reckon democracy to be harmful to the society if misused. In fact too much democracy is a problem to countries. Good democracy should cater the interest of citizens collectively. It should not be based on numbers alone. Hence, having freedom to choose leaders of your choice result to personal choices which can be biased. It can also open a window for having corrupt and incompetent officials in power. On average, democracy favors the majority because it locks out the few who could be having rational decisions on voting. Another consequence of democracy is that the ruling regime can always take advantage to manipulate numbers and stay in power as they wish. On that note, democracy can be a menace to society if not practiced responsibly.
chris10 answered the question on March 28, 2018 at 14:11