History has seemingly taken an increasingly “democratic” path, but the trail is fraught with difficulty and danger. Though obviously a beneficial system if implementation is possible, a democratic system that protects the rights of minorities while not infringing on the civil liberties of the majority is not currently a globally acceptable path. The ever present trade off is the feeling (or reality) of security for the reality of freedom. They are interdependent, but far from the identical. A significant reason for Russia's (as one example) return to authoritarianism has been the average Russian's desire for some semblance of security (both economically and physically) from both oligarch and terrorist. Putin provides that. What does it matter that they lose the potential of democracy when democracy had never really lived up to the expectations foisted upon them after the fall of the Soviet Union. Democracy is not a cure all, and in fact it often opens up more societal rifts than other forms of government. The beauty is that, if it is allowed time and freedom from interference, it fixes them.
Not all societies seem to be ready for this transition however, because the responsibilities it put upon the average citizen are great. Unless there is a substantial middle class who stand to gain from the spread of representation and lose by the overthrow of such assurances as property rights, Democracy is quite likely to crash into either the tyranny of the majority or an authoritarian return. Despite these difficulties, despite many failures, despite the internal difficulties inherent in democracy that have already been mentioned, democracy is spreading. In the last 20 years the number of electoral democracies has almost doubled from 66 to 123. While assuming that such a rise is due to imitation might be flattering, it is only partly true, but that partly is important. The success, though not perfection, of
No comments:
Post a Comment