As we know in today's globalised world many democracies in all over the world are not functioning entirely on democratic principles. There are challenges to dissent, freedom, dignity, equality and justice, and corruption is rampant etc. In this scenario can we say that democracy remains democracy or it is simply in theoretical experience only. However, I would believe sometimes the experience in democracies becomes so unexpected which hurts those who believe in democratic ethos...need your comments.
I can concur with your perception that democracy is turning to be a theoretical experience and in some cases it worsening especially in those countries which started to adhere to the key fundamentals of democracy but later those who have elected into power abuse their positions and turned against those who voted for them
Dear Bariki, u r right in ur perception that democracy has to work according to aspirations of the people. At the same time it should not be a tool in the hands of chosen few who are destroying it becoz they use it for their own self interest whereas majourity lives in deprived conditions.
Democracy is a matter of degree - like every thing that human beings do. You can imagine a scale from perfect democracy to perfect tyranny and every polity fits somewhere on it.
There would be 30-odd countries most people would refer to as "democracies" but in the best of them (Switzerland, Holland, Scandinavia, New Zealand) there are undemocratic aspects and, of course, there is some corruption.
Democracy means rule by the people. The extent to which the people rule is the extent to which a country is democratic.
I think to make question about democracy more robust and rigours we should differentiate between real democracy which means the way to prevent emerging of tyranny and its prerequisites.
Sometimes we saw democracy with many prerequisites , on the other hand, we saw many prerequisites of democracy but without real democracy.
For example, we have a parliament , courts, .......but these tools not help in build a sustained democracy.
Hence, we should study theses philosophical issues at that level of systematic anaysis.
Dear Hilal,
You raise several important and complex questions. While many would agree that democracy is the best way to sustain efforts to secure social justice, democratic decision-making does not always deliver just outcomes. The relationship between justice, human rights and democracy is complex. To start, one needs to clarify the conceptions of democracy and justice (procedural? substantive?) to build an argument. One may conceive of democracy as fair processes, without robust citizen engagement and without economic equality. But in my view, a governance structure that lacks these attributes undermines both democracy and justice.
Democracy can be seen not as an end in itself, but as an instrument in efforts to attain the ideals of justice. Justice and democracy may clash and an argument can be made for adhering to justice and sacrificing democracy (see Van Parijs, 1996, Justice and Democracy: Are They Compatible? The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol.4 (2), 101-117). From your introduction, I gather that you support the argument that democratic process is intrinsically fair, i.e., democracy cannot violate justice and still be a democracy, and while unjust outcomes happen, they are mistakes, for which a corrective mechanism can be created to avoid similar errors in the future (for more, see Dahl, 1991, Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven and London: Yale University Press; Cristiano, 2004, The Authority of Democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 12 (3), 266-290).
Democracy and human rights have increasingly been linked by human rights agencies, activists and many Western governments as part of their foreign policies. Here too, an adequate understanding of the relationship of human rights and democracy depends very much on the way one defines democracy and human rights. Many scholars assume human rights and democracy are symbiotic (promoting democracy also enhances human rights or that encouraging human rights also fosters democracy, see, for example, Goodhart, 2005, Democracy as Human Rights: freedom and equality in the age of globalization. New York, NY: Routledge; Gould, 2004, Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), while others suggest that democracy does not necessarily promote human rights protection (see , for example, Carothers, 1994, Democracy and Human Rights: Policy Allies or Rivals? The Washington Quarterly, Vol.17 (3), 109-110; Evans, 2001, If Democracy, Then Human Rights? Third World Quarterly, Vol. 22 (4), 623-642, among many others).
We see how many existing democracies have sought to protect human rights by providing for them in a written constitution. Arguing from a rights-based approach, one may critique these attempts to provide for constitutional protection of rights, considering judicial protection of rights as ultimately undemocratic (see, for example, Waldron, 1993, A Right-Based Critique of Constitutional Rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 13 (1), 18-51). The reasoning here is that institutionalizing basic rights leads to removing human rights issues from public deliberation where there are presumably both horizontal and vertical accountability mechanisms in place. However, constitutional protection of basic rights helps to ensure that those claims will not change on a majority whim and thereby provides a measure of stability.
In sum, the questions you raise need significant time and space to unpack and deliberate, and this can be a good start.