Will Democracy Grow Up Before It Grows Old?

2012040365

The person writing this paper had come across reading a book entitled, “Will

America Grow Up Before It Grows Old?” This book had created a witty question that

somehow considers the future of each and every Americans living today. The author,

Peter Peterson insisted on the book that if Americans continue to ignore low savings

rate, their ballooning federal deficits, and enormous unfunded and unsustainable

commitments to retirees a disaster lies ahead to them1. For the sake of limiting this

introduction the idea that this book has, resembles the same ideas to where democracy

will go if it will be left behind.

This paper will focus on facing the challenges to democracy – how to sustain

development amidst its fragmented characteristics. Looking on different aspects that

would enable democratic systems function effectively might as well deliver

contributions for keeping the faith on it. Throughout this paper the demos will be

stressed, since in comparison with the aforementioned book, this idea will look upon

the actions of mankind. What did he do in order to endure the pressures within

democracy? Answering this question will be provided at the last part of the paper.

Not all democratic countries emerged in a snap of a finger. They attained

democracy through several struggles from shedding of bloods to change of regimes. It

is not an easy to go way in order for a country to feel democratic. United Kingdom as an

example in mind did not experience people power because of their royal’s inheritance.

Not until Oliver Cromwell shut down the monarchy and tried to refurnish their
1
This phrase can be found at the cover of the book.
government. This case means that challenges arise for everything – even democracy. If

one thinks democracy is the final stage where all struggles are put to end, that thinking

is wrong. It is as if conquering a rich island and protecting it from all threats that may

occur. If we could identify these threats, it would be necessary to provide certain

solutions to address that idea of maintaining it from external dangers.

The first challenge that should get into every democratic country is to dissect

every human of politics in the so-called “participation”. Assessing human participation

to every political event, as an introductory part of this discussion will provide a domino

effect to the overall democratic performance of a country.

Theories on how man came to be a machine (or the First Man in Fukuyama’s

lecture) in the system were clearly stated by these Contractarians, Thomas Hobbes and

John Locke. At a first glimpse, Fukuyama identified the ideal type of tolerance made by

the government by saying that “[f]or it was Hobbes who first established the principle

that the legitimacy of government stems from the rights of those governed, rather from

the divine right of kings” (Fukuyama, 2006, p. 154). One can depend on himself is the

only thing that can be extracted from the ideas of Hobbes. That should be also the

rationale for societies today to be more functional. Hobbes did not say that it is of

necessity that government should decide and work for the society, but instead the

sovereign, the people has also the capacity to rule for themselves also. John Locke on

the same side concerns to human as to be a dynamic mover for the society. The ideas of

Locke analyzed as “while he (first man) struggles . . . in the state of nature, he must be

educated to subordinate his desire for recognition to the desire to preserve his own life”
(Fukuyama, 2006, p. 158). If will be pressumed, education for Locke would meant

acquiring formal mentoring on ideas and knowledge. This would entail so much

preparations for man in order to succumb from the powers that is truly inherent to each

and every one.

But today, mankind faced several inconsistencies and misconceptions toward

governance – pressures from authoritarian regimes, lack of monitor to the government,

and the like. This would totally impede the essence of man as the prime mover of

change in which everyone has the capacity to identify the bottlenecks of government.

However, this challenge were people were fascinated by the word direct democracy but

never understands the gist of this mechanism would entirely provide exceptions which

would in the long run shift the idea of what should direct democracy be. It turns out in

the literature made by Bowler, Donovan, and Karp made a clear example of it. If the

mindset of people revolves around like this in the idea of direct democracy: “we find

most Californians do not think that the voting public is well suited to create high

quality legislation, but they approve of direct democracy as a means to make elected

officials more attentive to public opinion” (Bowler, Donovan, & Karp, 2007, p. 360) the

essence of direct democracy seemed to be evolved. But the doubt of putting an evolved

idea of direct democracy which was created by the people as a principle of democracy

can be inflicted and rejected the ideas being made by the persons discussed before. The

power of the people to participate is not depicted as if the body should keep an eye for

these elected officials – it should be us analyzing their crafted policies and services that

they provide which is of course in-line with their duties as indicated in the Constitution.
In short, let official’s role be based not on their personal note but on their personal

performance as a civil servant. An abused representation of people power should be

limited as to how they administer their surveilance over their elected officials. The

citizenry should be a watchdog of policies and not by personal affiliation, if may

reiterate again in a different manner. Thus if every man shifted its views to rigorously

analyze what should and should not be indicated as to what needs to be evaluated, the

system itself might be the other challenge that needs to be addressed.

The idea of how maneuvers another is a theme that will be put forward in this

part. Thinking of man created system, but the system manipulated man somehow

projects the irony of this situation. Thus, stressing the sensitivity of the system created

by man as the second challenge. One might ought to blame why does the system needs

to be harsh to its people – this is not really the case after all.

The fall of Communism as democracy’s contender reflected the very nature of

systems: it will be fragmented once not taken with precautions. But the downside of it

also created a mysterious force that is not observed by most of the people. If one could

notice it is turning the face out of the system putting civilizations down. This is not a

mere case after all – it can be seen during the Soviet fall. Emmanuel Todd, considered

on his basic conclusion on the Collapse “[b]ut any reform of the centralized communist

system would bring with it the disunity of the Soviet empire” (Revel, 1993, p. 60). This

statement indirectly been supported by the discussion whereas stated, “As one would

expect in a majority-dominant democratization, Gorbachev’s political opening at first

had little to do with ethinic issues . . . ‘nationallity issues’ were viewed as largely
irrelevant to Soviet democratization until the large-scale minority mobilization from

below that his opening unleashed pushed them onto the political agenda” (Beissinger,

2008, p. 91).

The idea from those points is that systems are actually reactionary-created. In the

first place, systems are designed for structured operations and limited roles for officials.

Systems are itself contradictions to the reverse flow of society. Nevertheless, the

problem at hand is that it has been counter-contradict by the influence of minority

whose influence has been in the power. That being said, created a problematic wave

which of course led to their downfall. The Soviet system itself is weak by nature in the

sense that it poorly institutionalizes their policies – which probably puts in a chess-

termed, ‘touch move’. Anyone who tries to reform the system is not applicable in this

kind of system – it would be necessary to crack down the system than to change it.

But what it has got to do with democracy after all? Democratic system are

foremost the system which man has created. Not at all far from the Soviet system, it is

still prone to fragmentation if and if, wrong decisions and movements are applied. The

system differs however in the previously discussed system on its adaptability to reform.

Democratic institutions are too broad to limit itself, thus a flexible system. If this

flexibility causes too much pressure within its sectors, it can retain to its original form.

This idea would in fact bear a resemblance to an elastic piece of material. No matter

how streched this material is, it can be brought back to its original form.

But the real challenge on democratic system is this: in addressing the needs of the

people, it may either be of great importance or less, how should this system deal with
certain atrocities – starting from conflicts within societies up to, let say, war. Since it was

described that “[d]emocratic political systems are characterised by an elaborate set of

checks and balances – between the executive and the legislature, between political

system, interest groups, and public opinion etc” (Risse, 1995, p. 497). Indefinite

allocations among priorities as well as pail-full of opinions and debates are constraints

to carry on the ends of this system. And the worst part of it would be the more time that

the operation within this system is wasted, the same degree of disappointment from

various collective systems will be expected. The structure of the system indeed is too

much concrete yet it has loopholes. It only proves that how the system within is being

manipulated, counterreacts only to its precedence. That is not the case after all; it will be

also linked to another sphere, which will expand the interaction of democratic systems

to other rising system – which is of course a great threat, or might be another contender

after twenty or thirty years since the fall of Communism.

It is prevalent – but not put into consideration – that failed democracies tend to

shift to other type, most of it modified themselves are authoritarian as their identity.

This is not the case as a whole; it was been noted by Ottaway (2003, pp. 4-5) that “[i]n

many countries that experienced a political transition since the early 1990s, unfavorable

conditions – including weak democracies institutions and political organizations,

persistent authoritarian traditions, major socioeconomic problems, and ethnic and

religious conflicts – create formidable obstacles to the establishment and, above all, the

consolidation of democracy”. She added also “citizens everywhere have shown their

disillusionment with authoriatian regimes, and a widespread return to the unabashedly

top-down forms of government so common in the past is improbable” (Ottaway, 2003,

p. 5). It is noteworthy that the failure of a system to strengthen its own will lead to a

misdirection. This misdirection is unpredictable, but it can be speculated at the very

most degrading degree.

Having said the challenges for a democratic country that needs to be faced, the

essence now is how to provide a solution to it. A bottom-up approach in discussing the

challenges will be responded by giving solutions in top-bottom. In this way, it will be

significant to interrelate how solving the influence of other rising regimes will affect the

solution to man as a participative creature in the sphere of politics.

In this case, threats to the stability of states in democracy should be solved by

carefully analyze the situation per se. Just like solving criminal cases, pieces of

evidences are indeed essential to describe the whole scenario. Similarly, nation-states

can also impart this by reflecting on its struggles, conflicts, and other descriptions that

resembles misunderstanding of every situation. As to back this claim, Ottaway (2003, p.

252) included in her final words that “ it is the specifics of the situation that determine

whether an outside initiative is helpful, pointless, or counterproductive. Conditions do

matter, and they matter a great deal.” It goes to show that intrinsic analysis of the

events will eventually be given legitimacy over the causes of misdirection of states in

the hands of democracy’s contenders. The stability that the states at misguidance have

truly lies on how the next object being challenged sturdily paved.
 References
Beissinger, M. R. (2008). A New Look at Ethnicity and Democratization. Journal of
Democracy , 19 (3), 85-97.

Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Karp, J. A. (2007). Enraged or Engaged? Preferences for
Direct Citizen Participation in Affluent Democracies. Political Science Quarterly ,
60 (3), 351-362.

Fukuyama, F. (2006). The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.

Meyer-Resende, M. (2011). International Consensus: Essential Elements of Democracy.

Berlin: Democracy Reporting International.

Ottaway, M. (2003). Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-Authoritarianism.

Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Peterson, P. G. (1996). Will America Grow Up Before It Grows Old? New York: Random
House, Inc.

Revel, J.-F. (1993). Democracy Against Itself: The Future of the Democratic Impulse. (R.
Kaplan, Trans.) New York: The Free Press.

Risse, T. (1995). Democratic Peace-Warlike Democracies? A Social Constructivist

Interpretation of the Liberal Argument. European Journal of International Relations ,
1 (4), 491-518.