World Youth Movement for Democracy

   Home   About  Participate  Resources   Events   WYMD Chat        Contact Us   Join Now! 

Khakimov Zhamshid
Uzbekistan

Rediscovering Democracy: A Citizen's Perspective

This complicated word "democracy":

Or democracy view through the lenses of teenage maximalism

I wanted to start expression of my thoughts optimistically. "The political world of the beginning of XXI century is impossible without democracy." But I stopped... I began to think about the sense of the word "democracy" not so long ago. Earlier the word "democracy" as well as "democratic", "democratization" was so usual to my ear that I didn't think about the meaning of this definition. As an excellent pupil I can answer on the lesson the definition "democracy" arises from the Greek word, including two bases demos - people and kratos - power. So, democracy is power of people, or power of majority.

But being usual to ear doesn't mean being understood. In the classic definition of democracy I see many unclear moments. For example, I hardly can imagine the people as one united monolith. The people for me are a collective noun, consisting from different social groups and strata with sometimes contradictory private interests. How can they come to any agreement in solution of political problems?

It was also not clear for me, how can the people conduct its power and to what spheres does it spread? And by the way, is the majority insured against mistakes? The history gives us lots of examples of violations of single persons and minorities (national, regional etc.) by the "majority". The majority itself passed Socrat the death sentence; the majority itself gave birth to genocides.

These ambiguities made me to think about the definition "democracy", to structure it.

Not so long ago I have read the following information from the Internet: "democratic regimes are being established everywhere - now only 31% of the world population lives in condition of repressive regimes..." If we carry out this simple arithmetical action, we'll get 69% of population living in democratic regimes. These figures cause many doubts . The word "democracy" is being speculated by those regimes which hardly can be named "democratic". It's made by different reasons; one of them is to deceive itself, the voters and world community.

Of course, I can be told that the definition "democracy" is historically changing. It had different forms depending on territory, time, and level of development and culture of the nation.   

But still general principles of the real democracy do exist.

So what are principles and procedures of the real democracy for me today?

Very often I see the definition "The main criteria of democracy - forming of the government power on the basis of general free competitive elections". For me it's just the first step for democracy. Yes, the citizens exactly define the political line of the state by making choice and support of the candidates. But I see here two buts: are the voters littered enough and are the candidates competent enough for the elections to be successful. We have no confidence in fact that the voter is able to estimate critically the program of the candidate and his personal qualities. As well as we have no confidence in the fact, that the candidate is exactly a person, who deserves the power and can be competent. The history has shown us results of mass unanimous consent. And has proved the inconsistence of thesis "the cook can govern the society".

Government of state or society - is a science, which must be learned. That's why to "general free elections" I would like to add "literal elections". It means that real democracy is characterized by the general free literal elections.

Still another small but exists - the elections must be competitive, what is achieved by the multi-party system. And political parties must be created not from above, but by decision of the citizens who wish to participate in political life of country. Programs of parties can't double each other. And the presence of constructive opposition can't cause fear in the present government. The opposition has right to exist in the real democratic regimes. Different groups save the possibility to defend their points of view because of the opposition.

Second step - the procedure of peaceful transfer of the power according to results of elections. And further - the government, the power, elected by the by the people must function really and constantly. The presence of the puppet state is impossible in democracy. It's an axiom.

The next principle of democracy - transparency and control over the work of the government. When people are by the power they can commit a lot of mistakes. Making reports by elected bodies to the people gives the voter possibility to estimate the work of the government. And here the question of the citizens' literacy is raised. Only literate citizens can disclose mistakes, make changes or even recall the deputies and make new elections.

The power of persons, governing in conditions of the real democracy is limited. The limits are human rights and freedoms, set by the constitution of the state. By the way, there is the strict division of power between legislative, executive and judicial branches in real democracy. It creates the system of "deterrence and counterbalance" and gives no possibility to any branch, person or institution to grasp the power.

The role of law - is another important principle of democracy. Observance of law is compulsory for all institution of the power. The law is a guarantee of civil rights and freedoms. The law defines rights of citizens during the court. The law is single for everyone notwithstanding from race, sex, origin or political views.

Presence of many non-governmental groups and organization independent on the government - is a proof and a description of a democratic society. For example it includes: religious organizations, cultural associations, sport clubs, trade unions, student associations, human rights organizations etc. They all are important for helping society in achieving social objectives. By the way, NGOs provide the group basis, with helping of which people can influence the governing of society or prevent other groups and government from violation of their interests or improper actions.

In democratic society the state doesn't control the cultural life. The government gives financial support but artists, actors and musician doesn't work for government.

In democratic society the there is no censorship of the media. If the government owns any media, typographies, publishing houses there is a danger for independent points of view in media. The freedom of press and speech are good not per se, but because they create conditions for supervision of government actions, informing the society and changing bad policy by public discussion. Newspapers, magazines, radio and television are independent in democratic society, government doesn't control them.

Another important public feature of culture in democratic society - education. The access to education is equal for everyone. In democratic society there different types of schools: governmental or private. And schools give children ability to ask questions, to think, to take decisions, to take responsibility, to respect rights and opinion of others.

The real democracy is impossible with such definitions as bureaucratic and economic corruption. In democratic society all the institutions are directed to liquidate reasons of corruption.

The real democracy is characterized by providing guarantee of interests of all its citizens, by creation of proper conditions of life, and that's why democracy to my mind is incompatible with poverty, criminality, disintegration of family etc.

When they say about democracy the definition "democratic values" is used as well as principles and procedures of democracy. I regard the following values as democratic: honesty from the direction of political leaders to voters and opposition, lack of double standards, conducting of policy of creation (not policy of destruction), creation of maximum conditions for self-development of personality, tolerance of the entire society.

In general the sense of democracy for me is reflected in following word of M. Gandhi "My presentation of democracy is that the weakest has the same possibilities as the strongest".

These all are my theoretical thesis.

But what does the reality say to me?

I would like to mention just single moments I'm worried about.

In relation to competence and moral image of the candidate.

In the history of the USA there was a case, when the president post was won by the men, who never visited school in his whole life. That was a waiter's son, a tailor Andrew Jackson, the seventeenth president (1865 - 1869). Before the inauguration he got drunk of whisky and it happened to put him away from tribune. He was racist . In 16 th of May 1868 the Senate last out one vote to push him aside of power.

Jimmy Carter was the least popular president of the century. His candidature was supported only by 13% of Americans during the second elections. He left the White house with the image of middling president.

The scandal made Richard Nixon to resign from the president mandate in August of 1974 before the impeachment. During the election campaign of 1972, Nixon nominated himself for the second period, his team took decision to listen to telephone lines in National committee of Democratic party in Washington office "Watergate". "The Watergate case" caused the disclosure of abuses in government. And by the way Nixon concealed a half of million from taxation.   

In relation to policy of creation and guarantee of human rights and freedoms.

The rout and separation of Yugoslavia, the aggression against Baghdad. We have more examples than we need. It's difficult to name as democratic those states that use military forces against other countries and nations.

In relation to corruption.

According to data of Corruption index 2005, more than 2/3 from 159 countries made less than 5 points from the possible 10, that shows us the high level of corruption in different countries. No country reached 10 points - "almost no corruption". This report included countries with developed democracy as well: Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Great Britain and the USA

When I read that in democratic society artists, actors and musician doesn't work for government, I hear the song from Turkmenistan with obtrusive refrain "Turkmen-bashi..."

It's hard for me to respect the democracy when it's followed by poverty, disintegration of families, rise of apathy, mass migration, lack of NGOs, rise of parties double each other.

In some moments I think that democracy is hopeless idea. As French social utopia XVII - XVIII . Or as communism which was said in USSR about: it's like the horizon, the closer you come, the far it is from you.

...Of course not everything is so pessimistic and dismal. I absolutely don't know bases of political and social sciences. May be I just hurry to take everything from life at the same moment. But everything needs its time, patience and knowledge. And don't forget that all the said above is just democracy's view through the lenses of teenage maximalism.