Game of Words: View vs Counter View 2.13

IS DEMOCRACY A GOOD FORM OF GOVERNMENT?

Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Essentially that democracy has many flaws and problems, but all the others have more problems. Authoritarian countries like China are now challenging this assumption by proving that authoritarian regimes are better at creating economic growth. Is Democracy still the best form of government?

VIEW 

Freedom: Democratic states nearly always have more free people than autocratic states. Since they have the right to vote for their government they also have a say while deciding the policy of their nation and what their nation should be like. Their freedom of speech and expression is more than that in autocracies. They are free to criticize their own government. 

Represents The  People: The biggest virtue of a democracy is that it is by the people, of the people and for the people. The government is a representative and holds the views of the people who elect them and can also be thrown out if they do things that the people do not like. Unlike other forms of government, democracy is about all the citizens and not only the rich who are often disconnected from how everyone else leads their lives.

Transparency: Democracy is as much about having checks and balances and having transparency of decision-making as it is about elections and the populace being able to throw governments out of power. In a democracy the parliament, the media and the judiciary all keep an eye on the executive and what is being done with the money of the people. They are therefore able to see if the executive is doing things that are bad for the country, are immoral, or even illegal. This can then be brought to a halt. Even where such actions are not visible on the surface there are separate institutions that have the power to investigate the executive and watch any ‘secret’ deals or actions that are going on away from public view.

Respect of Human Rights: Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. If a democracy functions at it is meant to then all facet of human rights is respected. The citizens would have the right to exercise freedom of speech with regard to matters of the economy, education, health, infrastructural development, etc. The ability of the people to have a say in the running of the State, in the economy, education, health, infrastructural development, etc creates a balanced environment for governance to thrive in. This can only be achieved in democratic governance.

Economic Growth: The most developed and richest countries are all democracies. While they may have been developing their democracies during their initial industrialization, democracy and the freedom it brings increases the economic growth once the country has moved to being dependent upon services rather than natural source exploitation and manufacturing. Once this occurs creativity becomes important and the freedoms associated with democracy are needed to foster this creativity that is needed for industries such as information technology, creative arts, research and development etc.

SIDDHARTH S NAIR 

1 BBA C

COUNTERVIEW

Freedom: Except for the freedom to choose the government there is no reason why people cannot be as free under an autocracy as in a democracy.

Representative nature: A democracy does not do very well at representing its people. A democratic government may not necessarily have the support of a majority of its people including those who have voted and have decided to switch parties and many more who have not voted. This means that it is often a small minority of the population who determines which party forms the government. Once they are there, they are rarely a representative of the people as they have several years to do what they like. There is a need to think about re-election but that simply means they need to do more that pleases the citizens or else have a good advertising campaign.

Transparency: While this is mostly found in a democracy it is not something that has to be exclusive to them alone. Autocracies can potentially be transparent and have checks and balances. However, often they do not simply because an autocracy has the time, and the willingness to use force to prevent these from occurring.

Human Rights for Minorities: It is not possible for a state to accommodate all conflicting views on a subject. Thus, a majority rule prevails while the rights of minorities are put into jeopardy.

Economic growth: Autocracies are better at big projects, they can get things done and as such they are likely to be better at creating economic growth. In an autocracy there are no methods for disagreement that can block building projects and the police or troops can be used to clear protests that in the west would slow down large infrastructure projects. Because of this all the infrastructure that is needed to create a modern economy can be produced quicker and cheaper than would be the case in a democracy. The resources of the country can also be accessed faster and used more efficiently

Increasingly about money: In some countries democracy seems to be increasingly about money. The U.S. is the obvious example where millions of dollars are spent on elections, hosting big events and having glitzy advertising campaigns. This is not what democracy should be all about as it discourages other countries from moving along the path to democracy. Indeed, it undermines the very idea of democracy. Democracy when money is involved to the extent that it is in the U.S. becomes elitist and corporatist because only the elite and rich can afford to fund the campaigns for congress let alone for the presidency. The 2008 campaign for the White House cost $1.6 billion and the whole 2008 election including senate and house of representative’s races cost $5.3 billion. Autocracies thereby avoid this immense expense by avoiding elections.

Lack of electorate motivation: You can drag the electorate to the ballot box if needed but you cannot make them interested in most of the topics. It's an idea that seems appealing if you are one of those people who is interested (I would love it), but if you try to discuss political issues with most people they either tend to change the subject or nod politely without comment.

A lot of people are keen to express their views, but clearly have not done any research to prove their validity. An elected representative can take more time to consider the idea, discuss it with peers, and explain themselves if it is contrary to popular opinion. Of course, most politicians will support popular opinion over educated opinion, but the result of this is no worse than direct democracy.

Thus, through these points and views, we can conclude that Democracy is not a good form of governance.

Emmanuel Siby 

1 BBA C