“Democracy means more than having the right to vote.” Discuss.
A democracy is defined to be a system of government by the whole population or all the
eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. From this definition
alone, it may seem that a democracy is nothing more than having the right to vote. However,
when countries China, Myanmar and even Singapore are considered to be flawed
democracies, it goes to show that a democracy is more than holding elections. The key
differences between flawed democracies and true democracies is not just fair elections, it is
also about how informed their voters are, how free the press is, and how the minorities are
treated. Hence, I believe that democracy means more than having the right to vote.
Prima facie, it certainly seems that the right to vote is all there is to democracy. It is about
giving power to the people, where citizens elect leaders to act as their voice in legislative
bodies in representative democracies. It is a system of governance where political leaders
are directly accountable to their electorates for their actions, and must at least take account
of their views of the people while making decisions, as they will otherwise be voted out and
lose their legitimacy to rule. For instance, in the years before the Eurozone crisis, Greek
voters elected governments which promised them generous pensions and handouts.
However, when this finally resulted in the collapse of a debt-ridden Greek economy, a fresh
election ousted the incumbent government which claimed to be capable of resolving the
country’s economic woes. Representative democracies also hold referenda on key issues for
the people to vote and make direct decisions. All of these are representative of what a
democracy is and hence, it can be argued that democracy simply means giving the people a
voice and allowing them the right to vote.
However, this is a very narrow view of democracy as there are other factors that can
undermine a democracy. A well-informed public is a necessary condition for democracy.
Incumbent parties can manipulate the media to serve their own political agendas. Rabble
rousing leaders can sway gullible voters using strongly-worded speeches peppered with
emotion-inducing taglines, or even smear a political opponent’s name by spreading false
rumours. As a result, members of the public must possess discretionary abilities and
skepticism to be knowledgeable enough about what the country needs and to better judge
the performance of the ruling party. In the USA, for example, fear mongers have attempted
to discredit Obama by spreading rumours among the electorate that he is a Muslim. A poll in
2012 showed that 16% of Americans are taken in by this line and within the Grand Old Party
(GOP), 30% believe that Obama is a Muslim. Blatant untruths were designed to incite fear
given the recent rise of Islamic terrorism. The fact that voters were uninformed undermined
the integrity and legitimacy of a democracy, showing that democracy is more than the action
of allowing its people to cast their votes. In another example, despite Hugo Chavez
mismanagement of Venezuela, which resulted in disastrous business and property
expropriations and saddled the country with one of the highest crime rates in the world and
Latin America’s highest inflation rates, he was re-elected as President. This shows that when
members of the public are not fully aware of the actions and hence consequences of their
political leaders, it can undermine democracy through their failure to elect the best leaders to
serve in the interests of the nation. Hence, democracy should also be about an educated
electorate that is able to make well-informed choices in elections.
A democracy is defined to be a system of government by the whole population or all the
eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. From this definition
alone, it may seem that a democracy is nothing more than having the right to vote. However,
when countries China, Myanmar and even Singapore are considered to be flawed
democracies, it goes to show that a democracy is more than holding elections. The key
differences between flawed democracies and true democracies is not just fair elections, it is
also about how informed their voters are, how free the press is, and how the minorities are
treated. Hence, I believe that democracy means more than having the right to vote.
Prima facie, it certainly seems that the right to vote is all there is to democracy. It is about
giving power to the people, where citizens elect leaders to act as their voice in legislative
bodies in representative democracies. It is a system of governance where political leaders
are directly accountable to their electorates for their actions, and must at least take account
of their views of the people while making decisions, as they will otherwise be voted out and
lose their legitimacy to rule. For instance, in the years before the Eurozone crisis, Greek
voters elected governments which promised them generous pensions and handouts.
However, when this finally resulted in the collapse of a debt-ridden Greek economy, a fresh
election ousted the incumbent government which claimed to be capable of resolving the
country’s economic woes. Representative democracies also hold referenda on key issues for
the people to vote and make direct decisions. All of these are representative of what a
democracy is and hence, it can be argued that democracy simply means giving the people a
voice and allowing them the right to vote.
However, this is a very narrow view of democracy as there are other factors that can
undermine a democracy. A well-informed public is a necessary condition for democracy.
Incumbent parties can manipulate the media to serve their own political agendas. Rabble
rousing leaders can sway gullible voters using strongly-worded speeches peppered with
emotion-inducing taglines, or even smear a political opponent’s name by spreading false
rumours. As a result, members of the public must possess discretionary abilities and
skepticism to be knowledgeable enough about what the country needs and to better judge
the performance of the ruling party. In the USA, for example, fear mongers have attempted
to discredit Obama by spreading rumours among the electorate that he is a Muslim. A poll in
2012 showed that 16% of Americans are taken in by this line and within the Grand Old Party
(GOP), 30% believe that Obama is a Muslim. Blatant untruths were designed to incite fear
given the recent rise of Islamic terrorism. The fact that voters were uninformed undermined
the integrity and legitimacy of a democracy, showing that democracy is more than the action
of allowing its people to cast their votes. In another example, despite Hugo Chavez
mismanagement of Venezuela, which resulted in disastrous business and property
expropriations and saddled the country with one of the highest crime rates in the world and
Latin America’s highest inflation rates, he was re-elected as President. This shows that when
members of the public are not fully aware of the actions and hence consequences of their
political leaders, it can undermine democracy through their failure to elect the best leaders to
serve in the interests of the nation. Hence, democracy should also be about an educated
electorate that is able to make well-informed choices in elections.
