The Nature of Democracy.

      This Paper will consider the nature and issue of democracy from two perspectives.  The first part will begin by defining democracy, then examine three meanings or theories of democracy, Anglo-American, Continental and People's Democracy theories.  The second part will consider parliamentary democracy and will argue that it is the best possible form of government.   Areas such as the sovereignty of the people, the importance of periodic elections, freedom to participate in politics, limiting large and powerful interest groups, and recognition of rights and freedoms will be examined.

      A definition of democracy is ' Government by the people.  Supreme power is exercised by them directly '.1 Yet this definition appears rather limited as it does not clearly define how supreme power is exercised in practice.  A better definition might be: Democracy is a political system where the people are sovereign, where they choose who will represent them through periodic elections, where all votes have equal value, where all people can stand for election or otherwise partake actively in the political system, and where the power of the state is controlled and limited by laws and individual rights.  Such a definition can be said to more clearly reflect, at least from a western perspective, the basic structure of a liberal democratic political system, although it is recognised that this is not the only possible definition of democracy, nor is it claimed to be the best.

      From this it could be inferred that this definition is the only possible meaning of democracy, yet democracy has different meanings to different peoples, cultures and political systems.  For this paper three modern meanings of democracy will be examined.
      The first is known as Anglo-American democratic theory: in which the power of the state is limited and controlled by the will of the people, which is the combined wills of separate individuals, who together make up 'the people' and who hold sovereignty of the nation.2  In this theory the state is subservient to the people's will as this is the only way to ensure individual freedom.  An example of this theory is the United States.
      The second theory is known as Continental Democratic theory, in which the people are considered to be a single entity and therefore to have a single will.  From this comes the idea of popular sovereignty in which the people's authority has no clearly defined limits.  Therefore the power of the people is supreme, and if the people will it, then the state can carry it out.  In this way the role and power of the state is technically unlimited.  Unlike the former theory, continental theory believes that state power in the form of laws is neccessary to ensure and maintain individual freedom.3  An example of this is France  
      The third theory is One-Party or Peoples Democracy, in which the will of the people is, and can only be, expressed through the single ruling party.  This is due to the party's claim of representing the genuine will of the people, so that there is no need for any other parties.  As it represents this claimed genuine will, the party further claims to have democratically allowed unlimited powers.  China is an example of a people's democracy.4
      These meanings of democracy should not be confused with types of democracy such as representative and participatory democracy, which are more concerned with the exercise of democracy and the peoples direct level of involvement.  

      Parliamentary democracy is a political system where people from the community or political parties are chosen by 'the people', at periodic elections, to represent them in parliament.  Where the role of the parliament is to make laws and to run the general business of the state, while representing the people's interests and being accountable to the people.5
      This type of political system is, arguably, the best form of government.  In parliamentary democracy sovereignty is held by the people, and the powers of government are limited to those the people are prepared to give it, as in Anglo-American theory.  As such parliamentary democracy exists to serve the needs of the people as defined by the people, who themselves will decide which decisions they will make for themselves and which will be made for them.6  This is the complete opposite of People's Democracies where the government defines the peoples needs, irrespective of the real views of the people.  
      Parliamentary democracy is also allows for periodic elections, where the government must stand for re-election, and thereby be answerable to the people for its actions. This is important in a number of respects.  As most parliamentary democracies are multi-party systems it allows the people to choose which party will form their government, while at the same time allowing the people to exercise their sovereignty.  It allows for the smooth transition of government, or for the solving of political deadlocks, as in 1975, without the need for the use of force and possibly bloodshed.  It makes changes to the political system by peaceful means possible, such as Australia changing to a republic by referendum, without causing major political upheaval.7  
      Parliamentary democracy also allows people to become pro-active in politics by creating or joining interest and pressure groups to defend and/or promote their interests such as environmental groups, unions and business associations.8  It also allows the creation of new political parties to represent people who feel their views are not being considered by existing political parties, for example Pauline Hanson's One Nation, without the threat of state intervention and proscription.
      Yet parliamentary democracy also limits the power of large and powerful interest groups, including the political parties themselves, by ensuring that a plurality of views are considered before decisions or actions are taken.  This is important as large and powerful interest groups could begin to dominate the political system with their own limited self interested agenda.  An example of this is the United States, which although not a parliamentary democracy, is (theoretically) a representative one, in which it has been claimed there are two forms of government, the permanent government of business and the establishment, and the provisional government of the elected representatives.  In this theory the business interests have become so powerful as to dominate both of the major parties, so that irrespective of which party is elected the agenda of American business is the agenda of the elected government.9  Of course this is also connected with the American practice of voluntary voting, but it is also a clear example of how particular interests can be over-represented when a political system is not representing the needs of all the people.

      Parliamentary democracy also recognises the rights and freedoms of the people, as since the people are sovereign, they determine their own rights and freedoms, with the role of parliament being to recognise and protect these by laws as directed by the people.  In fact it is arguable that for a parliamentary democracy to work, based on the previous definitions, then the rights and freedoms of the people must be recognised and protected by the political system.  This is clearly shown by the Anglo-American theory which recognises the need to limit government power to ensure individual freedoms, but is not so clear in Continental theory in which an individual's rights could be ignored due to popular support for certain policies.  As for people's democracies, rights are simply determined by the state, not the people.

      In conclusion it can be seen that parliamentary democracy, as defined, has much in common with Anglo-American theory's concern of protecting individual rights against government power.  This is because if it is to work properly people must be free to decide for themselves what they want from their government, and for this they must be free to choose their government.  This is what makes parliamentary democracy the best form of government, because from this comes the right to hold governments accountable, and the freedom to participate in the political process, which ensures that particular interests can be heard without becoming dominate.

END NOTES

1.  T.J. Lowi, Incomplete Conquest: Governing America, (New York, 1981),
     quoted by D. Jaensch, The Politics of Australia, (Melbourne: Macmillan
     Education Australia, 1992), p. 6.

2.  B. Holden, Understanding Liberal Democracy, (Oxford: Philip Allan
     Publishers, 1988), pp. 76-77.

3.  Ibid., pp. 76-79.

4.  Ibid., p. 82.

5.  D. Jaensch, The Politics of Australia, (Melbourne: Macmillan Education,
     1992), p. 96.

6.  Barry Hindess, 'Democracy and Disenchantment', Australian Journal of
     Political Science, March 1997, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 82-83.

7.  L. Lipson, The Democratic Civilization, (New York: Oxford University Press,
     1964), p. 275.

8.  D. Jaensch, The Politics of Australia, op. cit., , pp. 331-333.

9.  Lewis Lapham interviewed on 'Late Line', Channel 2 (ABC Australia),
     1996, 10.30 p.m.

--------------------------------------------------------

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Benjamin, R. and Elkin, S.L. (eds). 1985. The Democratic State.
Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Hindess, B. 'Democracy and Disenchantment', Australian Journal of
Political Science, vol. 32, no. 1, 1997, pp. 79-91.

Holden, B. 1974. The Nature of Democracy. Melbourne: Thomas Nelson and Sons.

Holden, B. 1988. Understanding Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Philip Allan Publishers.

Jaensch, D. 1992. The Politics of Australia. Melbourne: Macmillan Education.

Kariel, H.S. (ed). 1970. Frontiers of Democratic Theory. New York: Random House.

Lapham, L.  interviewed on 'Late Line', Channel 2, 1996, 10.30 p.m.

Lipson, L. 1964.  The Democratic Civilization, New York: Oxford University Press.

-----------------------------------------------------------