Is it Democracy or a Demography Contest?

Is it Democracy or a Demography Contest?

There is an escalating lack of trust among citizens towards their governments. This trend is particularly pronounced given the significant proportion of the global population that falls within the youthful age bracket. However, it's worth noting that the definition of 'youth' varies across regions and countries, often being employed contextually or conveniently for certain agendas. Despite comprising over 60% of the world's population, individuals within this age group are significantly underrepresented in leadership positions, accounting for less than 10% of global leadership roles. This leadership deficit among the young population has fueled widespread discontent and agitation for greater inclusion in governance processes.

In the 21st century, democracy stands as the prevailing model of governance, emphasizing the will of the people and operating within constitutional frameworks. However, it's essential to recognize that while democracy prioritizes the majority's interests, it also presents challenges. My personal perspective views democracy not only as an expression of popular will but also as a potential validation of the tyranny of the majority over minority voices[1], whose aspirations may be disregarded. In many cases, the essence of democracy in various contexts can be reduced to a simplistic notion where winners dictate both the menu and the meal at the table.

The concept of democracy compels diverse segments of society to contend for resources in order to address their needs through the pursuit of political power. In our analysis, we will delve into the definition of democracy and explore how it is put into practice- where we will examine the relationship between demographics and the outcomes of democratic governance."

The Concept of Democracy and The Universal Definition.

The globally recognized definition of democracy, famously articulated by Abraham Lincoln as "Government of the People, by the People, and for the People," serves as a cornerstone for understanding democratic principles. However, while Lincoln's definition remains widely accepted, the essence of democracy extends beyond this succinct statement.

 

At its core, democracy places sovereignty in the hands of the people, who are typically defined by geographical boundaries and constitutional frameworks. Democracy, therefore, is not merely a product of governance structures but rather a reflection of the collective will of the populace.

 

In the contemporary context, the concept of democracy has evolved to encompass a broader set of principles and ideals. These modern interpretations of democracy serve as benchmarks for evaluating democratic systems across different regimes and societies. For a deeper exploration of the evolving concepts of democracy, you can visit https://abakpajonathan.blogspot.com/2022/06/concepts-of-democracy.html. This resource provides valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of democracy in the 21st century.

 

The term "Democracy" finds its roots in ancient Greece, where it was derived from the Greek words 'Demos,' meaning "the people," and 'kratos,' meaning "power" or "rule." This linguistic origin underscores the fundamental essence of democracy as a system of governance by the people, for the people. However, it is important to recognize that the concept of democracy has evolved over time, adapting to various historical contexts and societal structures.

In contemporary discourse, democracy is not solely defined by the specific operational models of governance but rather by its core principles. These principles include the protection of universal rights, the pursuit of the common good, and the promotion of social justice. Therefore, while the term "Democracy" may have historical roots in ancient Greece, its application in the 21st century encompasses a broader spectrum of values and ideals that transcend historical boundaries.

In essence, democracy remains a concept deeply rooted in the empowerment of the people and the collective pursuit of justice and equality, regardless of the specific form it takes within different governmental systems.

In attempting to define democracy, different perspectives offer varying insights, often rooted in fundamental moral principles. The European Council, for instance, emphasizes two pillars: individual autonomy and equality[2]. Similarly, the Principles of Democracy Organization presents democracy as the institutionalization of freedom, a definition that underscores the importance of personal liberty.[3]

However, it's essential to critically examine such definitions. While democracy does indeed embody the values of freedom, it's crucial to recognize that this freedom is not merely bestowed by institutions but is inherently tied to the legitimacy of the people's will. Therefore, democracy should not be solely viewed as the institutionalization of freedom but rather as a reflection of the collective liberty and autonomy of individuals within a system or regime. This legitimacy stems not only from legal instruments or regimes but also from the inherent rights of every individual.

Further exploration of the concept of democracy involves considering various elements such as periodic elections, the rule of law, separation of powers, and more. Democracy encompasses a governance system that is fundamentally oriented towards the will and welfare of the people.

An aggregation and audit of the definitions of democracy does a crystal representation of the people’s will, while approach and philosophy defies in certain regards, the beam reflecting at all levels is the element “The people.  To this regards, it safe to conclude that there are no universally accepted definition of democracy, however the principles of democracy are cut crossing and it limitation as seen in the 21^st century are equally self revealing. It is on this note that I submit that a model of democracy practiced in certain regime does not validate or invalidate the concept of democracy.

Tyranny of the Majority

While my personal belief holds that democracy is a system rooted in the empowerment of the people, a challenge to this notion arises when considering its practical implementation. How effectively can democracy operate when every individual, in whom a country's sovereignty resides, exercises their rights without hindrance? The juxtaposition of universal and individual morality sometimes reveals a disconnect.

For instance, while Citizen A may assert their right to sleep on the street, such an action may infringe upon the common good and safety of the broader populace. While Citizen A may claim their rights, their behavior could impede the rights and well-being of others. In this scenario, my perspective suggests that the interests of the few may be sacrificed for the greater good of society.

While this viewpoint may not align with conventional liberal ideologies, it refrains from taking a definitive stance on conflicting schools of thought. Instead, it acknowledges the utilitarian argument that in certain circumstances, prioritizing the collective welfare may require curtailing individual freedoms.

Moreover, the institutionalization of democracy through various arms and agencies has, in practice, led to the surrender of individual rights to these institutions' decisions. Over time, this has resulted in a scenario where the fate of individuals is determined by a group whose composition often does not reflect the collective will of the people. For instance, a senator representing over one million people in a senatorial district does not provide a fair ratio of representation for the people's will in decision-making. This concentration of power leaves the rights of the many in the hands of a few, subject to the whims and caprices of the institutions, ultimately renewing the authority of a small elite.

In my opinion, this form of democracy is essentially the periodic renewal of a dictatorship, masked by the people’s perceived authority in this renewal and validated by institutional bureaucracy. This validation is designed to serve the desires of the few who initiate and vote on the process within parliamentary and cabinet settings.

A classical example is that there are over 200 million Nigerians, yet only 109 senators represent them in the Senate, about 300 in the House of Representatives, and fewer than 50 members in the Federal Executive Council. These are the highest levels of the governance system in the country, effectively leaving over 200 million people to be led by a fraction that does not represent even 10% of the population. This structure is a constitutional alignment that resembles modified tyranny and dictatorship, where a supreme leader takes control of the entire territory.

From my perspective, there is a thin line between an institutionalized democracy and a tyrannical regime. This is because the people’s will is often sacrificed to institutions that act on their behalf, leaving the majority to vote for a few who then make decisions for the many. These decisions follow procedural processes that are designed and validated by the power of the institutions themselves. This system is legitimized not necessarily because the people participated in its design, but because they voted in elections that now confer legitimacy on these institutions.

Jonathan Abakpa, ESQ. (Soweto)

---

[1] Democracy - Manual for Human Rights Education with Young people (coe.int)

[2] Democracy - Manual for Human Rights Education with Young people (coe.int)

[3] Overview: What Is Democracy? — Principles of Democracy