Democracy the Most Viable Form

¶ … Democracy the Most Viable Form of Government?

There are numerous forms of government, especially when we consider our global population. There are dictatorships, socialists, communists, and then, those who follow the political bearing of democracy. The prosperity and of some governments are begging the question of whether or not democracy is the most viable form of government in today's world. In this analysis, the first section will argue that democracy is in fact the most viable form of government, attempting to reveal the key indicators that support this theory. It will then discuss the opposing view. In summary, the goal is to leave the reader processing, and pondering upon both perspectives. As democracy can vary within different contexts, for the purpose of this paper, we will take democracy as meaning, a government where constitutional rights guarantee basic personal and political freedoms, including free elections and a fair judicial system.

In order to establish consensus, democracy proves to be a viable form of government as the majority rule. "Democratic institutions, however, may be necessary…to produce a political consensus as well as an adequate policy performance at all times and under varying (social and economic) conditions," (Keman, 6). This form of government was not always accepted as a practicable source of rule. It wasn't until the past couple centuries was it evident that this form of government became sustainable, even though the structure has been around for quite some time in different contexts. The understanding of democracy as a representative system, instead of direct rule, helped it in becoming a valuable and acceptable approach. In democratic societies, people can have the right, the will, and the desire to be active members of the nation or organization. The freedom of choice, the power of representation, and the access to courts and justice are essential principles that make democracy the most viable form of government. There are few other forms of government or organizational structure that allow such access to these values. "In a democracy, people have the right to choose their leaders in regular, free, and fair elections," (Diamond 21). They are encouraged to represent themselves by voting, campaigning for, and supporting congressman, representatives, presidents and other leaders by a system of equal representative choice. Elected leaders by the citizens of a society, then are able to make decisions based on the will of the people. Democracy also ensures some inevitable freedoms that other forms of government do not emphasize. Citizens within a democratic state have the freedom of belief, opinion, speech, religious affiliations, legal representation, and the right to vote, to name a few. There is also a system of checks and balances within the legislative branches, thus disallowing select individuals from becoming overpowered. In both modern and classical democracy, this form of government allowed representation that was created to limit the abuse of power by governments. Because of this considerations raised here, democracy continues to be a viable form of government.

On the other side of the fence, there are several considerations to take into account to why we should rebuff democracy as a viable form of government. If there is a higher will from the government than that of the desire of the people, then democracy fails to serve as a representative form of government. As a government by the people and for the people, the people are essential in order for democracy to function appropriately. If the context, nation, or order centers on a group of people who have either lost interest in political ideology, or desire to share in the common decision process, then they are not truly represented. This could result in the lack of an appeal of voting, to be involved in litigation, or the lack of proper representation. "In societies where some form of elitism is institutionalized, there democracy cannot breathe easily," (Lane & Ersson 10). This can be common in industrialized societies where a family, a system, or socioeconomic presence of a class is evidenced. Democracy can create a depressed economy, environment, or nation, if the common members feel as though the elitist individuals are using the form of government to benefit those within certain classes or families in society. This was seen historically when the stock market crashed in 1929. Nash states, "The search was to dominate Americans throughout the course of the twentieth century as they sought to achieve the elusive goal of economic and social stability" (Nash 1992, 10-11). Because of the goal of stability through the dominance of the populous, the tension created economic and national strife. A democracy could also struggle in the presence of an extremist theocracy. If there is a national religion, or even the appearance of a national religious value system, broad representation from the residents of the nation cannot be fully realized as the government will be directed by the tenants of the national theocracy. A democracy can also struggle with sub-contexts of a system forming often recognized by a party system. Groups will incorporate based on a political agenda or platform and develop a structure, party, group, organization, of like-minded people, who attempt to influence the decisions or direction of a country based on their personal and corporate agendas or ideologies. Other groups form in counter to these organizations, and thus the broad representation that a democracy should represent, becomes narrowed to the perspectives of the proposed parties. "As a result, party systems and governments appear to be in a situation of flux, both in terms of their partisan composition and in terms of public governance," (Keman, 1).