Introduction:-
Democracy is a tender topic for a writer: like motherhood and apple pie it is not to be criticized. One will risk being roundly condemned if he, or she, points out the serious bottleneck that is presented when a community attempts, through the democratic process, to set plans for positive social action. A man is not permitted to hesitate about its merits, without the suspicion of being a friend to tyranny, that is, of being a foe to mankind?2
Democracy is a tender topic for a writer: like motherhood and apple pie it is not to be criticized. One will risk being roundly condemned if he, or she, points out the serious bottleneck that is presented when a community attempts, through the democratic process, to set plans for positive social action. A man is not permitted to hesitate about its merits, without the suspicion of being a friend to tyranny, that is, of being a foe to mankind?2
The
notions of government and of democracy are
independent notions and do not, from what I can see, depend on one another.
What is likely required for the masses of people, as we see in
"modern" world societies, is an established system of government.
Where there is a need for an established system of government, it will likely
naturally come about; and do so, whether, or not, it has the consent of the
people, -- real or imagined. Putting aside, for the moment, the arguments
of Hobbes and Locke,
I believe, on the basis of plain historical fact, that governments come about
naturally and maintain themselves naturally without the general will of the
people; indeed, I believe, with many others I suspect, that our long established
democratic governments in the world (the United States and Canada being among
them) did not come about by the general will of the people, at all; nor is it
necessary that it should it be maintained by the will of the people.3 One
should not conclude, therefore, that democracy is necessary for good
government: It may not be. What is necessary for optimum prosperity is a state
of acquiescence, which, as it happens, is the hallmark of western democracies.
It may be, that the only thing needed is but the trappings of democracy.
An individual or group
of individuals may take and maintain power by the use of coercive force.
From history we
can see that this is the usual way by which power is gained, and maintained.
However, it has long been understood that people might come together and
explicitly agree to put someone in power. The best of the thinkers saw a process,
-- call it democracy -- by which groups might bloodlessly choose a leader. That
each of the governed should have a say, or least an opportunity to have a say,
is a high flying ideal; but any system by which the peace is kept is an
admirable system and democracy, such as it has evolved, has proven, in many
cases, to be just such a system.
A precise definition
of democracy might be had by consulting the OED. Democracy is government by the
people; a form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people
as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics
of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In modern use it vaguely denotes
a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary
differences of rank or privilege. Walter Bagehot gave it a more uncelestial
definition: "Each man is to have one twelve-millionth share in electing a
Parliament; the rich and the wise are not to have, by explicit law, more votes
than the poor and stupid; nor are any latent contrivances to give them an
influence equivalent to more votes."4
It is from the suffix, "-ocracy" by which we might
determine the operative meaning of the larger word, "democracy"; it
is the indicator of the dominant, superior, or aspiring class who would rule;
it is derived from the Greek word kratos, meaning strength or
power. Any word might be added to this suffix, which will then indicate the
type of rule, such as: plutocracy (rule by the wealthy), ochlocracy (mob-rule),
angelocracy (government by angels), etc. Democracy is the rule by, or the
dominion of, the people; it comes from the Greek word, demos. It is
often referred to as popular government. Democracy, historically speaking, is
to be compared with monarchy, rule of one; or with aristocracy, rule of the
"best-born," or rule of the nobles.
Whatever its origins (and we will consider its origins)
democracy has come to mean a principle or system to which most all political
parties of the western world, no matter their political beliefs, would
subscribe. It is politics. It goes beyond the periodic act of voting; it is
characterized by participation in government, viz., involving members of the
community in governmental decisions, allowing them to take part in anything at
all which amounts to a public demonstration of popular opinion.


کوئی تبصرے نہیں:
ایک تبصرہ شائع کریں