The question of democracy

de·moc·ra·cy noun, plural -cies.

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

The above is an entry for the word "democracy" which is being so freely thrown about these days that it has almost lost its meaning. What is democracy? What does it mean? Technically and spiritually? In short it is the rule of the majority, where what the majority says goes but then again that makes one wonder about the adage "might is right". Wouldn't that be an example of exerting undue influence on some other party, the minority? Some people say 51% is a majority others put it at two thirds of the constituency. Are both majorities? In their own right they are. How do we go about defining what democracy is.

I would like to say that democracy is what the people want whether implicit or otherwise. By not voicing your opinion or choice you are tacitly agreeing with the majority. There is no enforcement of the majority's opinion in such a case. What if the majority seeks to impress upon the minority a law that the minority do not agree to? At that point democracy ceases and an autcracy reigns. Though on paper such a system maybe termed as a democracy it is in spirit not a democracy any longer. Though in line with the definition of the majority rule, this interpretation forgets to include the humanistic aspect of governance; because after all we are dealing with human beings and to try to think of anything related to humans without an empathetic and humanly touch is gross misinwhen ice water is splashed across his face. Another example is how the US and Israel is not recognising the Hamas government even though they were elected democratically. What I am trying to get at is that in all these examples the people were/are happy with the forms of their government and for other powers to intervene and tell the people "No, we know what is better for you" is not right and is not at all democratic. It goes against the very spirit of democracy to deny these minorities if they do not want to be governed the democratic way. If a country says we want to be governed by the age-old monarchy then so be it, the majority has spoken in this case and the monarchy was democratically "elected".

So in short, I want people to take a harder look at this concept and redefine it because democracy doesn't mean elections, a premiership, a senate, etc. democracy may lead to rule that is undemocratic as per the definition just like the example I gave above of the elected monarchy.terpretation of the issue and also a very cold system indeed. So indeed there must be checks and balances that ensure that the minority are not overlooked and their rights are not subjected to exploitation, and they are given respect and equality in all manners.

This is one of the reasons why the world is in such shambles. We have certain majorities trying to impose their will on the will of others whether these subjected people agree to this plan or not. Consider for a moment how the US is trying to invest so heavily in marketing "democracy" to Afganistan and Iraq. It will be without a doubt a massive undertaking as most of these people have had no experience with democracy as such and to impose suddenly upon them democratic rule is like a drugged man woken up

Lend me Your Ears

A long time ago, well not too long but long enough in the context of my life my friend had given me some very good advice regarding groups and decision making. We all know of the one individual who disrupts every groups plans by being the only one to not agree with the majority. Not only would this individual disrupt everything but they also would have no idea as to an alternative. I used to be one of those people who would not want to do something but had no idea what else to do so my friend lay it down very clearly for me when he said (and I am paraphrasing here) "If you don't agree with a common decision then you should be prepared to offer an alternative otherwise you should not disagree." Very insightful and looking back now I must say I can not agree more with his advice. I always value the other side's opinions but for me to value them they must present me with two crucial pieces of information a) what their basic theme is b) and the reasons for them supporting this theme. But if someone will not offer either of those two pieces then I will be forced to render their voice inconsequential. So anyone who disagrees must be ready to offer a counter-argument or counter-proposition and why they are doing is if not then the basis of their dissension would be rendered very flimsy.