The Concept Of Democracy And Non-democracy

With the birth of the State, the concept of democracy and non-democracy was born. In 508 BC, democracy was introduced. It made the distinction clear. Cleisthenes introduced democracy’s first form, the Athenian Democracy. Cleisthenes introduced the first form of democracy, which is now known as Athenian Democracy. Abraham Lincoln described democracy in his Gettysburg Address. It was described as “government by the people, for and by the citizens”. While the concept of Non-Democracy was popular for many years, its forms have changed. Non-Democracy does not place power in the hands of the people. It is held by one individual or one group. All States were once Non-Democracies in the past, with Monarchies being the most prominent. Over the years, different Non-Democracies have emerged, including Authoritarian Regimes and Dictatorships. As governments and states become more complex, so does democracy and non-democracy. What constitutes these two distinct concepts?

The definition of democracy is a political system or government that is run by citizens. A democracy has citizens who have some power and authority and participate in the decision-making and political process. The four main elements of democracy as a government system are:

“A political system that allows people to choose and replace their government through fair and free elections.

Active participation by citizens in politics and civil life.

Protection of all human rights

A rule is one that applies all laws and procedures equally to everyone.

Democracy is founded on consent. Many western political scientists consider America the greatest example of democracy. It has direct and indirect elections that allow citizens to participate in the decisions of the government. The people in democracy are sovereign. They have the highest degree of political power. The people are the ones who give the power of government to the leaders in the State. This power is only temporary. The majority vote is required to pass laws or policies, but minorities have different rights. This includes the right to criticise their elected representatives and leaders. They can also observe the various procedures followed by parliament and government. The citizens electing them are required to listen to and be reviewed by them. The citizens are able to check and balance the government’s progress.

Elections are necessary to maintain a steady rotation of government officials. They must be held at regular intervals according to the laws of each country. The people must consent to extend the terms of those in power without their consent in order to continue in office. These elections are supposed to be administered impartially, fairly and professionally by an organization that treats all candidates and parties equally. The Election Commission of India is one example. These bodies enable voters to vote secretly, without fear of violence or intimidation. The process must not be corrupted, intimidated, or fraudulent. To ensure that there is no corruption or intimidation during the voting process, independent observers are present to observe and count votes. Democracies have an independent and impartial tribunal that can resolve any disputes regarding the election results. It takes time to organize a democratic and fair election. While any country can hold an electoral vote, it takes a lot of planning, preparation, and training to ensure that the election is free and fair.

Democracies must work if citizens are to participate in and exercise their rights. They also need to follow certain rules and principles of democratic conduct. The Rule of Law is an example. Citizens of the State have the right to question government decisions, but not to reject it. A compromise is an essential requirement of Democracy. Groups from different viewpoints and interests must be open to negotiating with each other. Even though there may be different types of Democracy available, these are the core elements of any Democratic State. The ideal example of a Modern State can be called the Democratic States. But, the practice is not perfect. Winston Churchill stated, “Noone pretends that democracy can be perfected or all-wise.” Many critics have criticized democracy for its inefficiency, political unrealism as well as dysfunctional ideas, practices and moral corruption.

Non-Democracy refers to many forms of government like Authoritarianism or Monarchy, Dictatorship or Totalitarianism. Non-democracy can be described as the opposite to Democracy. The Head of State is in complete control of all aspects of the state and government. The people no longer have the power, but one individual or one group who makes all decisions without the consent from the citizens. Non-Democracy must be understood through a look at the different forms. There are eight fundamental forms of Non-Democracy. These include Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism as well as Dictatorship, Sultanism. Technocracy is also available.

Authoritarianism refers to a social system that requires people to submit to and be administered by authority. An authoritarian regime is one where power is concentrated and centralized and that excludes any challengers. To unite people behind the regime’s goals, it uses mass organisations and political parties. Authoritarianism emphasizes the use of arbitrary laws over the rule. This includes election manipulation and political decisions being made privately by a few officials. Authoritarianism can be defined as “indefinite political tenure” in an autocratic or ruling-party state.

Totalitarianism refers to an extreme form or authoritarianism. Authoritarianism, on the other hand, is free of government control. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, is a political system in which the state has complete authority over society and attempts to control every aspect of private and public life. An authoritarian state is one in which the sole power holder, a single ‘dictator’ or a small committee, or junta, has complete control over political power. A totalitarian regime tries to control all aspects of society, including the economy, science, private lives, and morals. This concept was prominently used in anti-communist Western political discourse during Cold War era to emphasize similarities between Soviet communism and Nazi Germany.

A dictatorship describes an autocratic form or government where the government is controlled by one individual: a ruler. Modern usage of dictatorship means an autocratic form unrestricted in law, constitutions, and other factors. A dictatorship refers to a form government that can rule without consent from the people it is being administered to (similar to authoritarianism).

A monarchy can be described as a government that places sovereignty in the hands of a single person, usually the monarch. This is when a state or political entity is controlled or ruled by an individual. The monarch usually inherits the title by birth and rules until death. Monarchs could be either absolute monarchs (autocrats) or ceremonial heads. They have no or little power but reserve power. Actual authority is held in a parliament, or any other body like a constitutional Assembly.

An oligarchy can be described as a power structure that places power in the hands of a select few. These people can be distinguished by their wealth, family ties and education. They are often controlled and influenced by a few wealthy families. Aristocracy is often associated to oligarchy. These include the meritocracy (plutocracy), meritocracy (plutocracy), technocracy (technocracy), and theocracy.

Non-democracies now dominate the discussion about whether or otherwise Western Democracy, particularly Western Democracy in regard to the intrusion of other States’ workings, is an ideal in a World where there should not be an ideal regarding how Democracy should operate.

Freedom House says Singapore is not a democracy. “Singapore is governed using a parliamentary structure, which ensures that elections are free of any irregularities or vote rigging. However, the ruling PAP has a strong hold on the political process. The Elections Department is still controlled by the prime minster, and there is no independent structure for determining who the election authority should be. Opposition campaigns have always been hindered by a ban against political films and TV programs, the threat libel lawsuits, strict regulations about political associations, and PAP influence on media and courts.” But Singapore is now a sight to marvel at and applaud. Its success in the contexts of economy and economic development is a direct attack against the notion that democracy of Western-Style is the best form.

If one examines statistics and asks Singaporeans, it is clear that the government of Singapore is producing positive results. It is evident that Singapore’s governance system fails to meet many traditional criteria of “good government.” As most theories of governance state that good governance requires a Western-style democracy, Singapore has had a difficult record of governance over the past five decades. Since it was independent in 1959, Singapore’s history has seen three Prime Ministers. In the past, the party with the highest number of votes in each GRC won all the seats. This effectively strengthened the majority party. Since British independence, the PAP was the dominant party.

Singapore consistently ranks at the top on all major lists of freedoms from: “It ranks internationally first in The World Bank’s measure for “regulatory qualities” and second on The Heritage Foundation’s scale economic freedom. The U.S. is thirteenth. Gallup’s 2014 World Poll showed that 8/10 Americans believe there is widespread corruption within the U.S. Government. This compares with 7 in the Philippines and 6 in Zimbabwe, as well as 1 in Singapore. According to the World Bank’s “rules-of-law” index Singapore ranks in 95th percentile. The U.S., Philippines, and Zimbabwe score in the 91st, 42nd, and 2nd respectively. Singapore’s crimes of robbery compared to Boston’s were seventh-highest, at just six million.

Singapore is not without its issues. Singaporeans are prohibited from buying chewing gum and cannot protest in any other areas. But they also have the highest per-capita incomes. A Pew study shows that Singaporeans still earn less than the majority of the rest of the world. Although Singaporeans have restrictions on speech freedom, most citizens accept this.

Singapore has presented a challenge to Western-style democracy. It is due to its growing economy and the fact that Singaporeans seem satisfied with how their State is being run. Singapore is a stable government that has seen a steady increase in economic progress and its development, which contrasts with other Asian countries. Scholars and Western States have debated for years whether such a government is legitimate. But, Singapore is a solid State, with an accepted form of democracy, according to the viewpoint of its citizens. One Singaporean interviewed by The New York Times said, “As long your economic well-being, with housing and food, is it important to care about politics?” “I would rather live in this country than in one that has all freedoms but is hungry.”