| JuryFury.com
Now Every 15th of the Month ! Online School of Politics |
|||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
Republic or Democracy?
The Problem with Democracy: A look at Pakistan and USA by Saad Anis The basic concept behind the system of democracy is the assertion of the will of the people. Under such a system, the public is to hold absolute supremacy in the State. It exercises this power by electing its representatives from various constituencies and sending them to the parliament, the legislative body of the State. The parliament, through the power vested in it by the masses, formulates the laws in accordance with which the State is to be governed. Hence, the majority determines the dynamics of the State. It is a relatively simple principle: the mainstream ascertains the way forth for the country. Moreover, no law is deemed sacred and unalterable, and the modification in legislation is subject to public opinion. However, a grave problem arises with this system of governance. Being the supreme authority, the majority is, by consequence, determinant of what constitutes the norm. That is, the bulk of the populace, in keeping with its preponderance, establishes the behaviour which qualifies as normal, the code of ethics that is moral and acceptable and lamentably, the belief which is righteous. Needless to say, the last of these powers of imposition handed to the majority is the most chilling. While it is agreed that individual liberty has its place in the democratic set up and that personal freedom is the hallmark of most of the model western democracies in vogue at present, the disturbing fact remains that all forms of religious, cultural and personal freedom is derived from the consent of the supreme authority, the capricious majority. If this majority feels a threat, be it real or illusive, to its influence on the affairs of the State, its security or its own beliefs, caused by the very liberty granted to the minority living under its auspices, it will not hesitate even for a moment before snatching away that illusory cover of freedom by virtue of which the minority hitherto considered itself safe and secure. There is thus, nothing in the democratic system of governance, which prevents the rights of the minority from being trampled under the whim of the numerically dominant. The situation is even more precarious in States avowedly guided by the religious ideology of the majority. Self-righteousness rules the single-minded populace, resulting inevitably in the imposition of strident restrictions on the theologically exiguous. A case in point is the Section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), which prohibits Ahmedis from propagating their religion (This ironically, is in stark contradiction with Article 20 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which assures freedom of propagation of religious ideology to all.). Even if we discount theological democracies from being 'truly democratic' (and many will argue that they are), it is nearly impossible to divorce the influence of religious notions from the legislation procedure completely. Popular views are moulded by religious ideology in one way or another, even if the State and the proverbial Church are separated. So far, for instance, even the most enlightened democracies have found it hard to swallow the concept of diverse sexual preferences, which theoretically falls in the category of individual choice. In practice, however, the majority is guided by the conventional religious prohibition on homosexuality. Similarly, the majority may curb or even terminate personal freedom under the actual or perceived threat of harm. An apt instance is the infamous Patriot Act, a blatant attack on the Bill of Rights, the very cornerstone of American democracy. The act has seriously compromised the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of citizens and non-citizens alike. Granting sweeping powers to the law-enforcement agencies to detain citizens without any formal charges, along with the intrusive authority of search and surveillance undermine the hitherto inviolable principles of freedom of expression, privacy, due process and equal protection. Nonetheless, it is all within the bounds of democracy, as it has all been facilitated in accord with the will of the majority. A number of solutions to this paradoxical conundrum have been proposed. The obvious is to declare certain rights and privileges as inviolable and unalterable, even through an act of the legislature. These would include the freedom of expression, association, religion, privacy et al. However, such a declaration would go against the fundamental principle of the democratic system, the sovereignty of the people. By the very declaration of certain rights as inalienable, the supremacy of the public would be violated. Moreover, such an action is unlikely to hold for the long run. Public view with regard to rights, duties and freedom has undergone a transmutation through the passage of time, and such a process will continue. The spirit of democracy is one of a constantly evolving system, capable of keeping in vogue with temporal demands by adhering to public opinion. The answer to the hegemony of the majority lies not in stagnation, but in dynamism. Another proposed solution is the devolution of power down to the lowest level in all affairs barring foreign policy. The idea is to let the smallest group of people decide their own preferences with regard to issues impacting their lives. Although this proposition is viable in rural areas, it can only be instrumental in situations where religious, ethnic or cultural communities are also geographically cohesive. Such a system is unlikely to work in the urbanised world, where people from varying ethnicities and ideologies mingle. In such circumstances, the numerical majority will be dominant again, and hence oppressive. There seems to be no concrete solution to the problem of the hegemony of the majority in democracy, owing to the flaw inherent in it. The best that can be done is to ensure protection of individual liberties under this system, and to strive for religious freedom as much as is possible. The minorities must wait for the conception of a better method of governance in times to come. About the Author(s): See under Our Contributors to find out about the Author(s) of this article. |
Yahoo! World News Headlines Our Winners Club Our Contributors Research Links Legal Advice ALL Awards & Internships Become an Activist Join an Organization Get Volunteerism Alert Write Letters to a local Politician Start your own Group Applied Politics Projects Suggest a Project Start your Yahoo Groups Get Internship Credit Funding for Projects Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Be In the Spotlight Let us Interview you : Authors of political books Activists Journalists Lawyers Law Enforcement Politicians Politican Scientists Be A Columnist Get Internship Credit Write twice a Month Get Heard Start a Yahoo Group Advertise with Us Books (Free) Political Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com |
|