“The cure for the problems with democracy is more democracy” – John Dewey (Philosopher). Discuss
...c outcomes stronger, proportional representation would eventually have to be enforced so as to ensure a fair outcome. This system is used in many countries, including New Zealand and Germany. Using this system ensures that the minority vote is heard for the percentage of seats given to a parliament is the percentage gained from the election. This reassures the voter that their voice will be heard and so will be more encouraged to vote and consequently election turnout should go up. Problems with proportional representation include that very often coalition governments are set up which might not reflect the views of the electorate and might also slow down the process of decision making but again in its favour is that the chance of single party domination is very much reduced. A system of voting has been in use in recent years which seems to have greatly increased democracy and this is in the way of referenda. This is when normally a government has a big decision to make and it lays the decision in the hands of the electorate so as to maximize the chance of a democratic decision. This seems the best way any large community can come to a decision. One of its failings is that it is very much a way of majority rule and even if the result is close then the minority vote still counts for nothing. This seems the best way of making decisions nationally such as the future referendum that has been proposed to be held over the EU constitution. Since the Ancient Greek era there have been four main models of democracy and each one has tried to cure the ailments of the former, in order these models have been classical democracy, protective democracy, developmental democracy and the people’s democracy. Classical democracy is based on the Ancient Greek theme of the polis, or city state which was mainly developed in Greece’s biggest and most powerful city of the time, Athens. This was once believed to be one of the only pure systems of popular participation but has only had a very limited amount of influence in the way democracies are ran today because of they had a direct way of ruling and was not fair on the masses for not everyone was allowed to participate. Athenian democracy was seen to be a form of mass meeting and this is the way that government was upheld there. Major decisions were made by the Ecclesia (Assembly) to which all citizens (excluding slaves, women and foreigners) of Athens belonged to and this met on average about forty times a year. When full time public officials were needed they were chosen on a basis of a rota so as to ensure a maximum sense of participation in the decision making process. There was a council which was 500 strong and acted as the executives to the Assembly and there were also another 50 which acted as a Committee which again held higher status then both the former categories. The president would only hold this post for one day and then power would be passed on without it being assumed again throughout their lifetimes. So an Athenian could only govern for one day throughout his whole lifetime. The only concession for this rule was for the military generals which could get reinstated if so they wished. What was really fascinating about the Athenian model was the amount of responsibility every citizen took upon themselves to do the decision making of the state. One man against this at the time was Plato who went on to say “Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike”. This is a very condemning statement from a man who thought that the mass did not have the adequate wisdom or experience to represent them and he proposed that government should be upheld and governed by a group of philosopher kings and they would govern as an “enlightened dictatorship” (Heywood, 2002, p72). Because of the exclusion of so many people in the Athenian model some people say that this system can not have been a democracy at all and as Aristotle had said that any state which is ruled by the rich minority can not call itself a democracy. The basis of the system though is sound and could be used as a cure for today’s failings of democracy were it not so difficult to implement and for people’s growing apathy for politics. Clearly though this version of politics was not fair on everyone and the majority were oppressed so we have to cure this version of democracy by adding to it and making it more democratic so that it can evolve. Satori said “There is little than the word in common between democracy in its original and modern carnation” (Parry and Moran, Democracy and Democratization, p3). The original thoughts of democracy vary greatly as times have changed and protective democracy is very different to that of classical democracy of Ancient Greece. Democratic ideas were revived in the 17th and 18th centuries but the thinking behind it was not for the public to participate in political thought and life but they looked to use it as a means to protect themselves from being persecuted by government, hence the phrase ‘protective democracy’. John Locke argued in the 17th century that the right to vote was based on the existence of natural rights and most importantly of all the right to own property. He argued that if government taxed those with property, then the people who are being taxed should have a say in the makeup of the tax setting. So, essentially a government by consent was ruling through a representative assembly. Again by modern standards though, this form of democracy fell short because it was Locke’s belief that only those who owned property had any ‘natural rights’ and therefore they should be the only ones that should vote. The radical and almost revolutionary idea of universal suffrage was not heard off till the late 18th century where theorists such as Bentham and Mill used their utilitarian views for democracy which were based on the right to protect all individuals which is a stage ahead of Locke’s theory. This is a classic example of democracy advancing itself by more democracy. Protective democracy ultimately gives the individual the right to depend on themselves economically and no one else and to live their own lives as they please without harming anyone else. This is why in modern times protective democracy has tended to be supported by the classical liberals and more recently the New Right who believe in small government and people fending for themselves. Developmental democracy was the next stage of the democracy chain, again this being the natural evolved process where theorists were using what they perceived as more advanced democracy to better the former theories. One of the key thinkers that developed the theory of developmental democracy was Jean-Jacques Rousseau. His ideas encouraged the impact on the Marxist and Anarchist theories and left behind the old theories such as the dominant, liberal conception of democracy. Rousseau suggested that democracy should be a way for an individual to express their freedom by participating in the shaping of their communities. His theory proposed far more then just electoral democracy which he went on to criticize England for; he suggested a far more radical idea of direct democracy. Rousseau said that each individual consisted of two different wills, one being a general will and the other being the private (selfish) will. He went on to say that if every individual went onto obey the general will of their thoughts then they would be acting selflessly and not selfishly which would encourage everyone to be of like mindedness. For this to work a high level of equality would need to be established both politically and economically. Wit...