Democracy

Democracy is based on the idea of political self-determination. The emergence of democratic communities dates back to the ancient Greeks. Between 800 and 600 BCE, the political system of isono-mia developed, a system of equality upheld by the willingness of its citizens to act in the interest of the common good. This lifestyle evolved as part of a cultural development, fostered by the interaction of a variety of factors, including geography and religion. Of particular significance was that in a Greek polis, the potential socioeconomic powers were relatively widespread. A tyrant was usually unable to stay in power for long; moreover, monarchy was not a generally popular idea in ancient Greece. So politics was a matter concerning a wide range of social classes in a polis (demos); it was not something “invented” by centers of power. However, this idea of integrating the masses has often been rejected by political philosophy. It is true that Aristotle (384–322 BCE) centered his concept of polis around the idea of free and equal citizens, and he emphasized that the ability to rule, as well as to be ruled, was a political virtue. Yet he rejected democracy as a political community under the rule of the rabble, as, for instance, Socrates (469–399 BCE) and Plato (427–347 BCE) had done before.

This perspective has proven most effective in the history of ideas: Until the modern era there was hardly a notable political philosopher who spoke out in favor of democracy, with the exception of Baruch de Spinoza (1632–1677). One of the reasons is that in earlier times democracy was often equated with direct democracy, such as in the writings of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). So when democracy is discussed, it is always necessary to explain precisely what form of democracy is meant: Are there limits to democracy, for example, in a body of regulations? Is democracy seen as an end in itself, or does it serve other (higher) purposes? Are democratic decisions the immediate expression of the people's voice, or is the people's voice mediated by representative institutions?

Under the conditions of modern societies, democracy is typically temporary rule. The principle of political self-determination can be appropriately applied only by allocating power temporarily—first and foremost, by electing parliamentary representatives but also by selecting and democratically controlling government officials. The question of power separation and control was pointed out in the Federalist Papers, a series of articles in favor of ratifying the U.S. Constitution in 1787–1788. In Article No. 53, it is precisely described as follows: the greater the power, the shorter its reign; and vice versa. The lesser the power, the less dangerous it is to lengthen its reign.

In many ways, democratic elections are full of prerequisites. One prerequisite is that the political participants consent to prevailing conditions; another prerequisite is that the “loser” accepts the election results, and the “winner” is committed to carrying out his or her political responsibility for the common good during his or her term in office. However, using elections to achieve division of power represents nothing more than a temporary consensus that can be justified only in the light of a people's political self-determination, provided the democratic “rules” of the political system permit a real chance for a change of government. In this sense, the conditions governing the right to vote are of particular significance, as well as the structures of the party system, both of which determine whether all the relevant groups of a population are allowed to participate politically and essentially form a new majority.

...