Democratic Theory (1): What makes a democracy ‘democratic’?

Sharing is caring!

Given the many varieties and claims to democracy today and throughout history, it is important to have a clearly defined understanding of what the core differentiating characteristic of democracy is, if the word is to have any meaning – i.e.  what defines it distinctively from other potential forms of government.

Our objective here is to understand what is democracy, meaning to understand what makes it unique, what makes a democracy … democratic.

Free elections, representative government, regular and a regular peaceful transfer of power are all characteristics that are commonly claimed as being an essential part of what makes a government a democracy. Other elements more closely linked with “liberal democracies” may include protection for human rights and minorities, pluralism rather than majoritarianism and checks and balances, as well as a strong civil society.

Though the above may provide democratic theorists with the characteristics of their own idealised or preferred form of democracy, it does not get to the essence of the idea of democracy. As an example, in theory a society could hold elections to elect an authoritarian dictator who would rule absolutely until their death – or even for a limited, defined period – at which point another free, open and fair election could be held. Such a system would not be understood as a democracy, even though it included free and fair elections, and even a regular, peaceful transfer of power, which are considered key characteristics of a contemporary, representative democracy (and any modern democracy which did not hold such elections would be considered deficient).

Similarly – a benevolent monarch could implement all kind of human rights legislation and protection of civil liberties. This decision would be enacted as a result of his choice as sovereign. Again – this would not be considered a democracy.

Conversely – a small unit of people, such as a minor city-state, could make all decisions by direct votes. No elections would be necessary, since there was no representation. And it may be that the laws enacted, while being endorsed by the majority, may inflict a disadvantage on either the minority, or those who do not make up the “people” of that city-state. Such a system would be considered democratic (albeit not a representative democracy), even if it was considered repugnant by advocates of “liberal democracy”.

So, what does Democracy mean?

Democracy literally means “rule by the people” –  dēmokratiā, which was a composition of the two Greek words dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”). Using a common typology, ‘democracy’ can usefully be contrasted with ‘monarchy’ (or dictatorship) and ‘aristocracy’ (or oligarchy). In such a typology – ‘democracy’ represents rule by the people, as opposed to ‘monarchy’ which is rule by a singular monarch (or dictator, autocrat) and ‘aristocracy’ which is rule by the few, the elite (whether an aristocratic, business or other type of elite). All of these systems of government are based upon man being sovereign (i.e. has the supreme power in decision making and government) – as opposed to, for example, a theocracy where man rules in God’s name, or a religious nomocracy such as an Islamic system where God’s law is considered sovereign.

The theoretical difference between them is that sovereignty can either belong to a singular person from the “people” – the monarch, to a small subset of the “people” – the elite, or to the “people” as a whole – in a democracy. In the case of a monarch or autocrat, that sovereignty is expressed by their individual will and desires, whereas in a system where sovereignty belongs to an elite or to the population as a whole, that sovereignty would be expressed by the will of the majority (of either that elite, or the population as a whole).

This is the simple essential element of democracy that sets it apart from other ideas of government – that sovereignty lies with the “people” as a whole rather than a single individual or a tiny subset, and that this popular sovereignty is then expressed through the will of the majority of that population.

While differences exist over extrinsic issues such as how the sovereignty of the people should be enacted (whether directly, via representation, and the various mechanisms for that etc.),  this essential tenant of “rule by the people” or popular sovereignty is the non-negotiable core of what defines a democracy.

Republics vs Democracies – Compatible or contradictory?

The difference between a democracy and a monarchy or absolute dictator is clear in the difference between ruling by individual whim and desire and ruling by the majority view of the masses. However, the difference between democracy and an aristocracy is not necessarily so apparent. This is because an idealised form of democracy – known as ‘direct democracy’, where all of the people are directly involved in decision making – is clearly impractical for anything larger than a small city state. Most democratic theorists therefore support the idea of a republic, where government is treated as a public matter rather than the purview of private concerns or the rulers, and (in a democracy) with elected representatives to enact the sovereign will of the people.

Both democracies and aristocracies can be republics. However, some political theorists believe that democracy is incompatible with representative government. Therefore there can be no such thing as a democratic republic in their conception of democracy, and only direct democracy was democratic. The reason for this was the belief that the sovereignty of the people could only be expressed directly – and once representation takes place, that sovereignty had been compromised.

In this vein Rousseau stated:

“Sovereignty, for the same reason as makes it inalienable, cannot be represented; it lies essentially in the general will, and will does not admit of representation: it is either the same, or other; there is no intermediate possibility. The deputies of the people, therefore, are not and cannot be its representatives: they are merely its stewards, and can carry through no definitive acts. Every law the people has not ratified in person is null and void — is, in fact, not a law”.

This is a minority view, and for all intents and purposes would render any discussion of democracy irrelevant today. Yet I highlight it to again stress the point that the essence of the meaning of democracy is that sovereignty lies with the people, and is expressed through the will of the majority. The fact that some theorists would reject anything that impinged upon that sovereignty, with even the mere act of representation taking it out of being a democracy, emphasises this point. (How practical this is – is a separate discussion which will be addressed under a more full comparison of direct and representative democracy; suffice to mention here that Rousseau’s concerns were very real and have arguably been proven correct when surveying the history of representative democracy in the West).

“Rule by the people” vs “Choice of the people”

This returns us to the point that there is nothing inherently democratic about elections. It is worth stressing upon this as it is one of the great confounding issues today – with all kinds of systems claiming to be “democratic” simply because an election is held, or the government or leader was elected.

But elections, and even representation, are not fundamental elements that define a democracy apart from other systems. Rather they are processes of how to implement the idea of democracy and are therefore extrinsic rather than intrinsic to it; as shown they have even been considered as being anti-democratic.

There needs to be a clear distinction between democracy – which is “rule by the people” where the people are sovereign, and the “choice of the people”, which is simply a mechanism that gives the people the authority for selecting the ruler who could be chosen to rule within a system where sovereignty resides in specific individuals (monarch or autocrat), groups of individuals (aristocracy or elites) or other sources (such as God and the law of God, as understood in Islamic political theory).

In sum, anything short of the full expression of the people’s free will in legislation, cannot be considered democratic, irrespective if those who ruled were elected or not.

This initial introduction to democratic theory opens a lot of other questions.

Who are the “people”? How should differences in a democracy be resolved? Must it be by majority rule? Is the popular will, or the will of the majority, limitless? And if not, does that take away from it being democratic? Tyranny of the majority versus liberal democracy – which is more democratic? Is there a difference between government by elites, and representative democracy?

These questions and others will be addressed in further short articles in this series on democratic theory.

Dr. Reza Pankhurst is the author of The Inevitable Caliphate (Oxford University Press, 2012) and The Untold History of the Liberation Party (C Hurst & Co, 2016)

Leave a Reply