Kristina Safonina

Rebuilding a Democracy

Word Count: 2206

 There will always be a critique of a Democracy truly is and what its characteristics are.

The average citizen will more than likely believe that their democratic rights is simply having

“freedom” and set of “rights”. Democracy’s most definitive characteristic is that it has been tried

around the globe, driving the neo-liberal Western perspective which has permeated the modern

world. Improving human rights, and driving the world economy, democracy has advanced, and

receded, over many regions of the globe, but defines the current world order. ​The backbone to

the democratic and even way of life that the recent generations have come to grow accustomed to

the principle that no matter your stature, beliefs, or even positioning. Everyone is equal and

possess the same abilities and rights; the people participate in the nation state. ​That is what

makes a Democracy. For my democracy, it would be more than just being free and having rights

that will protect the individual, it will allow for the power to come back to the people directly.

It has adapted throughout time and remained in power for generations. Democracy is

officially defined as “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and

exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving

periodically held free elections (merriam-webster)”. That is the democracy officially defined

and I absolutely agree with this. The most considerable characteristic of democracy in my view

is representation of the individual citizen, as well as the individual liberties of the citizen.

Freedom and equality is what defines and exemplifies a democratic state. Democracy seems like

a utopian way of life, as long as you do not think of it too deeply and consider the potential

flaws.. Examining a “democratic” nation’s actions is perhaps the best way to understand the

shortcomings and flaws of a democracy, also the best way to learn from mistakes and start over.

In my Democracy I would give the people a real voice and abolish the idea of an elected
president. Policies will be voted in by the nation’s citizens. This is what it means to be a

democratic nation and this is what I would have in my ideal world. There is nothing more tragic

today than somebody not voting because they believe their vote doesn’t matter, and in some

cases it really doesn’t, so giving the power directly to the people will help in fulfilling the

promise of a democratic state.

Freedom and equality of crucial for a democracy and overall, a society, but that is not

always the case. Equality of all is an undeniable right that has evolved over time, I do not see

that right regressing, hopefully that is. I think that much of the hesitancy of democratic rule can

be justified, but an alternative has not fully been given. The idea of democracy is that it is in

favor of the deposing of Monarchical leaders who had forgotten about their people and their best

interests. Philosophers have often warned of the potential evils of a government run by the

whims of the people rather than the professionals who could do so best. What about a

combination of both? I think with the people having a real voice and having professionals that

implement these policies could work well. These professionals would be educated professionals,

almost like a Parliament if I had to choose something similar. Modern day populism is sweeping

across the world, using the negative effects of democracy, to show the flaws of leadership to

consolidate power.

The greatest critique that I have is that we give our elected leaders too much power. This

is not democratic that these people make decisions for the nation. Let the nation’s citizens make

their own decisions, they’re the ones that will have to live with them. These leaders overseeing

the nation would be present to make sure the citizens are not attempting to do anything too

horrible (like implementing racist policies). They would be present to defend equal rights and
national security. The world is witnessing the rise of democratically elected leaders who begin to

become authoritarian leaders, or democratically elected leaders being overthrown in the name of

the progressive liberal order. Is this current political order a Democracy? I would say it is and at

the same time it isn’t. There are most certainly degrees of Democracy or else certain nations

would never be considered “hybrid” regimes.

The majority of the people will claim that they love the idea of a democracy as it offers

them a set of rights” and certain freedoms. They will always support what they believe is a

“democracy” as long as the terms are beneficial to them. The moment any freedom is taken

away, chaos can potentially ensue. This is when a democracy can run into problems if it is

focused on achieving any set of “results”. Certain democratic nations will act undemocratically

towards foreign nations. That is perhaps, the greatest most undemocratic act of all. It could

benefit some in a sense, but could harm much more. Yes, ideally a democracy will treat all with

dignity, consideration, and respect, but shouldn’t that set of values be applicable to foreign

nations as well? Is the invasion of Iraq an example of a leader defending his nation’s democracy

or is it an example of a nation impeding on another nation’s way of life? This appears to be more

of a system of domination. In contrast, it could also be justified that the nation is merely

defending its own democracy.​ ​After much thought I have come to the conclusion that the nation

would still be considered a democracy. It’s not so democratic with other nations, but as long as

it’s treating its citizens democratically, it’s still a democracy. It would just be bad behavior that

most would turn their backs to and try to look passed it, myself included. For my democracy, I

would ideally stay out of wars unless it is absolutely necessary and even then this would be put

to a vote for the citizens. Politicians are not the ones going to war, it is the citizens, therefore
they should have a say. To make matters even more equal, the nation’s leaders would not be

exempt from fighting in wars. This would make everyone think twice before starting conflict.

We are happy with our democratic government only because we are allowed to do as we

please. The moment any freedom is taken away, the people will have a completely different

view. Ideally, a democracy is concerned with the process, procedure, and outcome. Democracy

has been the engine of the liberal Western order for quite some time now, and slowly people are

beginning to prop up leaders in a monarchical sort of way. People love the idea of democracy,

but it also appears that they secretly crave monarchy at times, especially when they favor a

particular leader in the current order. This would be the first step towards a democracy losing its

defining characteristics. When the people themselves are responsible for their own policies, the

nation will stabilize and no longer need a president or monarch. At this point, if there even was a

president, he/she would be purely symbolic and wouldn’t reign supreme over the nation. When

the people want something that is not democratic or potentially racist and endangering, then the

nation’s leaders should uphold their part in preventing such undemocratic acts. Consequently,

this could backfire in numerous ways. Most will not view not getting what they want as

protecting democracy and this could lead to violence. In that case, the people have the right to

protest as long as no one is hurt. Sometimes, it is beneficial for society to learn from its mistakes

and protests can aid in the realization of what those mistakes are.

Looking at the Democratic society we live in today, we too have a social contract, we

have the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Civil Rights Act for a

more recent contract.We all live under a set of laws that if we break, we are punished. These

contracts is what keeps our society out of war (internally that is), but they have not always kept
everyone ‘equal’, therefor it was not always democratic. America was not always a true

Democracy, these contracts were not written for all citizens in mind. Women and African

Americans were only later given the same rights so it is crucial for the social contracts to be open

for change as society evolves. That is one of the defining characteristics of a Democracy, and I

would say, one of its crowning achievements. I would keep these old social contracts that have

been established, but have it become more adapted to the current society.

The ideal way that citizens will participate in the common life of democracy is by

incentives. In this democracy, the incentive is that you are making decisions that will affect your

daily life, anyone that doesn’t participate simply careless. If there is a policy in place that one

may not like, make your voice heard, debate if you have to. Have a town hall meeting and

display the two sides debating. If you want to change a policy or implement a new one, make

your argument heard, put it to a vote. If majority rules in your favor then you have done your

part and will now live with the decision of your new policy. Citizens need to communicate, that

is crucial for this democracy. I would never have a presidential campaign ever again. All of those

promises are manipulative and can instil fear in the public because they want something in

return. A candidate makes promises that appeals to certain citizens like improving healthcare or

free college and that motivates people to vote, therefor participating in democracy but they may

never carry this promise out. They will also participate out of fear if they reject a particular

candidate. They might not like one, but fear the other so they will vote for the lesser of two evils.

This is simply not right. Fear should never determine the leader. You can either have a

government so powerful that people would never dare to rise against it, or you can have it
through the form of a democracy. In theory, to change the system you can vote and replace the

leaders. For that, participation is needed. You need to incentivise the people to elect their leaders,

not many will give a second thought to this unless it will benefit them in some way. An

important aspect of and election is how exactly is it determined who is the best, and most capable

of leadership is. In the end, it is impossible to foresee who is best to lead until they are in power.

Eliminating this all together would return the power to the society, and potentially would

eliminate fear.

Being in a state of freedom can simply mean not having any external impediments. No

one to stop you from going about your normal day and pursuing your goals. I could argue that as

long as the people are in this state of freedom they will be content with the state of democracy

they are living in. If the people are treated with dignity, consideration, and respect, they will

most likely support the democratic state they are living in. Even if they are not participating in

elections that could affect their future, many may be happy with simply being allowed to go on

with their everyday lives. An democratic state would have the collection of citizens that are like

this and citizens that are actively participating in elections; this is one of the freedoms that a

democracy will allow: people that participate and people that simply exist.

A democracy is far from perfect and so are the nations that are considered as such. A

democratic nation will not always act democratically to others, and there will be always be

degrees of democracy. The basic concept of a democracy is to allow the freedom of the

individual and to hold free elections, yet when it is examined through time, the entire practice of

a democracy can contradict itself. People surrender themselves to a government that holds the

nation together and hope that the set of laws are beneficial to them. Realistically, even with all of
the critiques of democracy, it will be nearly impossible to propose an alternative form of

government that will suite all of the people. In my democracy the people will be in control of

their own fate. There will be a “helping hand” of members that oversee policies and procedures,

but they are also in place to defend the fundamental human rights and the safety of the society.

They will make choices that will be both good and bad, but that is the point.They are free to do

so, and they are also free to learn from mistakes and better their community in the end. There

will most certainly be a period when mistakes are made but this will strengthen the people and

will be a reflection of what a true democracy really is.