Democracy in the current age is the most widely accepted
form of governance. Most of the countries in the world are democratic states.
The word UN-democratic in today's world is considered evil and against the very
basic rights of the individuals. However
it is a system of governance among many others. Aristotle and Plato were
against democracy, terming it mobocracy. It referred to the rule of the mob.
The world in its current state can see a lot of countries where the system of
democracy does not harness the effect that is required.
Looking at democracy we see a system where the majority vote
for people to attain a government. The people vote for candidates whose
ideology is shared by the majority of the masses. Western countries have
prospered in the system. The fact that the majority was educated plays a big
role in the overall prosperity and ultimate development that these countries
encountered.
The question however arises when you deal with countries
that do not consist of an educated majority. A poverty stricken country can be
easily manipulated into supporting a candidate who should not be given power. Ultimately
in this scenario, the uneducated majority lays claims to complex policy making
that they are not qualified to handle. Furthermore the educated minority is
left without a forum whereby they could voice their opinion.
In a scenario like this the term mobocracy becomes more
important. The tyranny of the majority that was predicted comes into play. In a
place like this the tyranny of the majority is at full display. In Pakistan
there are numerous examples of laws and rules that oppress the minorities. The
oppression faced by the Shia and Ahmadi sect are prime examples of how the
majority could wreak havoc upon the minority who are also citizens of the
state. All over the world we see the minorities being targeted and not be
given equal rights in third world democratic countries.
Democracy as a system has flourished in some regions. However
it has brought about a lot of bad things in some regions too. The question here
is simple. Is a democratic system the only universal form of governance as it
is portrayed or should alternative forms of governance be applied to different
scenarios?
1 comment:
Kamil - There is a lot of debate on whether democracy is the universal form of government or not and you have summarized aspects of this debate very adequately. Drawing from your point about how democracy malfunctions in poverty stricken countries, there are a few perspectives about the origins of democracy that suggest that prosperity is an important prerequisite for democracy to work; Without economic prosperity and structural equality democracy is not workable and till these conditions are achieved an authoritarian ruler should preside over the order. Would you agree with this perspective?
Post a Comment