Why Democracy?

democracy is essentially a collective pooling of the individual sovereignty so that the group can do things which they cannot do as individuals. in that the quoe by burpinder #29 is rather apt - that the way to measure democracy is to measure level of participation.

This doesnot mean all of the individuals rights are subsumed into the collective, but that some of the rights are modified to take into account the whole group.

Ghazia--some people who`ve said it better

---

Selected Quotes on Democracy (source: http://democracy.ru/english/quotes.php)


The highest measure of democracy is neither the `extent of freedom` nor the `extent of equality`, but rather the highest measure of participation.
A. d. Benoist

Democracy is not something you believe in or a place to hang your hat, but it`s something you do. You participate. If you stop doing it, democracy crumbles.
Abbie Hoffman

Elections belong to the people. It is their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.
Abraham Lincoln

As a rule, dictatorships guarantee safe streets and terror of the doorbell. In democracy the streets may be unsafe after dark, but the most likely visitor in the early hours will be the milkman.
Adam Michnik

A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular.
Adlai Ewing Stevenson

Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they`ve told you what you think it is you want to hear.
Alan Coren

Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government listens.
Alastair Farrugia

Dictatorships are one-way streets. Democracy boasts two-way traffic.
Albert Moravia

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.
Alexander Tytler

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid.
Art Spander

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

Vote for the man who promises least; he`ll be the least disappointing.
Bernard Baruch

A democrat need not believe that the majority will always reach a wise decision. He should however believe in the necessity of accepting the decision of the majority, be it wise or unwise, until such a time that the majority reaches another decision.
Bertrand Russell

A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won`t cross the street to vote in a national election.
Bill Vaughan

Democracy means decision by those concerned.
Carl-Friedrich von Weizsaecker

In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.
Charles de Gaulle

In a democracy everybody has a right to be represented, including the jerks.
Chris Patten

Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking.
Clement Atlee

Democracy: In which you say what you like and do what you`re told.
Dave Barry

Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half the time.
E. B. White

Freedom without obligation is anarchy. Freedom with obligation is democracy.
Earl Riney

The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy; the best weapon of a democracy is openness.
Edvard Teller

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
Edward Abbey

There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.
Elie Wiesel

Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences.
Eugene McCarthy

When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right.
Eugene V. Debs

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How`s that again? I missed something.
Excerpt from the notebooks of Lazarus Long, from Robert Heinlein`s ``Time Enough for Love``

Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one`s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.
F.A. Hayek

It`s dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning.
Frederick Douglass

Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.
George Bernard Shaw

Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.
George Jean Nathan

The whole dream of democracy is to raise the proletarian to the level of stupidity attained by the bourgeois.
Gustave Flaubert (1821-1880)

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy.
H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Democracy cannot be forced upon a society, neither is it a gift that can be held forever. It has to be struggled hard for and defended everyday anew.
Heinz Galinski

Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
Helen Keller

It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own.
Herbert Clark Hoover

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.
Hubert H. Humphrey

Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity.
Irving Kristol

In a democracy the people get what the majority deserves.
James Davidson

Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.
James Russell Lowell

Democracy is good. I say this because other systems are worse.
Jawaharlal Nehru

Democracy means having the choice. Dictatorship means being given the choice.
Jeannine Luczak

Nor is the people`s judgment always true: the most may err as grossly as the few.
John Dryden

Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.
John Galbraith

Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is blissfully ignorant.
John Simon

The well being of democracies regardless of their type and status is dependent on one small technical detail: The right to vote. Everything else is secondary.
Jose Ortega y Gasset

Every nation has the government it deserves.
Joseph de Maistre

I personally call the type of government which can be removed without violence `democracy,` and the other, `tyranny.`.
Karl Popper

It is wrong to ask who will rule. The ability to vote a bad government out of office is enough. That is democracy.
Karl Popper

We`d all like to vote for the best man but he`s never a candidate.
Kin Hubbard

In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.
Mahatma Gandhi

Democracy is not a state in which people act like sheep.
Mahatma Gandhi

A ``No`` uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a ``Yes`` merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
Mahatma Gandhi

The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice within.
Mahatma Gandhi

Democracy is the name we give the people whenever we need them.
Marquis de Flers Robert and Arman de Caillavet

Everybody`s for democracy in principle. It`s only in practice that the thing gives rise to stiff objections.
Meg Greenfield

In democracy its your vote that counts. In feudalism its your count that votes.
Mogens Jallberg

Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.
Oscar Wilde

Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequal alike.
Plato

Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

The greatest fallacy of democracy is that everyone`s opinion is worth the same.
Robert Anson Heinlein

We once worried that democracy could not survive if an undereducated populace knew too little. Now we worry if it can survive us knowing too much.
Robert Bianco

Democracy is a form of government in which it is permitted to wonder aloud what the country could do under first-class management.
Senator Soaper

Democracy, as has been said of Christianity, has never really been tried.
Stuart Chase

Too many people expect wonders from democracy, when the most wonderful thing of all is just having it.
Walter Winchell

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been
Winston Churchill

Ghazia:

Democracy is about accumulation and distribution of power. This is not the only form of system that can be successful. There are other systems too. Democracy tends to find a stability as it gives voice and vote to all. Thus the stability comes from the grass root level. Whereas, communism / socialism or right wing dictatorship enforce stability from top down. It is commonly acknowledged that Chinese economy is creating a huge gap among the people and distribution is not even. Even Chinese economists (socialist or not) and leadership acknowledges that if China cannot sustain over 8% p.a. growth in GDP the gap would be worse and riots threatening the stability can be easily triggered. Developmental economies have their own models to follow. Generally, the development cycles are jump started by empowering the fortunate few. Whether it was in East India Company - the ultimate form of capitalism; right wing dictatorship of Korea and Taiwan, or socialist China. In each case there were first among the equals (socialist China) or fortunate few (ring wing dictatorships) of Korea, Taiwan, UAE, Saudi Arabia (right wing dictatorship of the religious monarchy). China (middle kingdom = center of the universe) has achieved such hights many times only explode because it could not manage the disparities, be due to its mandarins (bureaucrats - like Pakistani fuedals) in the past. China has emulated many steps, that right wing dictatorships had done to achieve stability - it has restricted the movement of labor (inner China to Beijing, Shanghai, or Coastal China, Schenzen to Hong Kong), its revenue collection and tax collection is assigned to the local authorities of the communist party workers, and highly corrput. You truly can get all approvals by paying. Whereas, the joke was that in China you do get things done when you pay, in India you donn`t get things or can get undone, even if you have paid.

Whereas economics is about creation and distribution of wealth, which involves involves labor and capital, and producer consumer, demand and supply cycles. These cycles take time to mature, and rely on stability. For short term, dictatorship is just fine, but long term it is not clear, because of China. Chinese experience is the first one and everyone is watching to understand how will it turn out.

Personally, I think for Pakistan, the military dictatorship is the best way to start. It is an institution, it is a class of fortunate few. It has the discipline to provide stability, and has demonstrated to have provided a spell of stability during last 57 years. If Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Maylasia, and Singapore are examples, the stability needed is for one generation -
25 years. These countries have population of less than 20 million. Pakistan has the population of 140-million. May be Pakistani military can devise a system, otherwise such a challenge has been addressed thru Democracy. Since Pakistan does not have an established democratic tradition, and institutions. While it indeed has the stable military, which is instituionalized beyond military`s traditional role. I do not see any harm in making use of these beyond traditional institutions of military. I had mentioned it earlier too, that Pakistani civilians should force the military to open non-traditional institutions that exclusively. Like industries run by Fauji Foundations, why LUMS (that is like IIMs of India) graduates cannot run these industries. Like educationals institutes (why not get creme-de-la-creme of civilians get educated and trained in these institutions.

Anil

Dear Ghazia,

Is there a word limit on chowk or vibes? The argument may in the end suggest economic benefits but you have argued it without empirical evidence... I say this because I don`t know if you took A Level Economics... I think your essay would not get a good grade... but again you are right... its hardly for academic consumption... and yet it is not journalistic or rabble rousing... then what is it?

Similarly I find your view on the Pakistani constitution lacking depth. Fortunately or unfortunately Pakistani constitution is a consensus document... and to achieve that consensus, numerous deals and compromises were made on civil rights and liberties that we see in the constitution.. Infact the constitution of 1973 is the only consensus document in our history...

-YLH

I think its too simplistic to weigh democracy and monarchy/dictatorship in terms of social welfare and `revenue maximizing` as however altrustic motives of the Rulers in an monarchy ,there is simply no accountibilty ..rulers are simply not answerable to anyone.Take the case of Hitler,Stalin,Mao and now Saddam or take King of Saudi Arabia which inspite of being a wealthy nation is socially backward.

Democracy inspite of seemingly multiple drawbacks resolves around some kind of concensus. For example take the NDA in India ,Even though it had BJP and Shiv Sena in the coalition it could go on ``building the Ram Temple` or impose the``uniform civil code``
because the other partners were averse to these ideas.
Democracy in a way dilutes the various idealogies and provides a kind of `Cocktail` which helps sustain the various interests of all its people avioding conflict.

Re Ghazia #16:
``It is quite safe to assume that every voter is rational. He may not know what is best foreign policy but he knows what is in his interest. A farmer in a remote village would fully know the impact of removing support prices for wheat, or abolishing sharecropping. As a result, everybody`s `interests` are represented.``

I disagree vehemantly. True, every human being has a sense of what`s in his best interest, but oftentime petty, short-term, populist moves win out over genuine attempts to create a better quality of life for the country as a whole. Which is why silly ``mandir wahee banayengay`` (temple there only will build) sloganeering brings a party to power and sends it crashing the moment they shift their focus to ``India shining``. Which is also why in many cases, the party with better ``grassroots`` presence- which, loosely translated, means the party with more volunteers to distribute free arrack and inform farmers about waived loans- win elections.

Sounds cynical, but true.

#21 YLH

Perhaps it is, I don`t know ghazia`s credentials, but from her interacts she comes across as a bit of a ...cough...nerd, quote: ``I am great admirer of theory and ideas even if it is detatched from the real world. Theory and mathematics helps you to crease out the logical inconsistencies in an argument.``

Ergo, benefit of the doubt!

More interesting to me, though unrelated to the article as such, is the automatic assumption of many subcontinentals that democracy in India is ``flawed`` or ``crude``. I`ve seen Pakistanis making this claim as if it were fact, and Indians accepting it (and even defending the same, saying that a flawed democracy is better than none at all!!) Notwithstanding booth-capturing, poll-rigging through various ingenious means, etc., I believe Indian democracy still works, in the end we get the government we deserve!

Re: # 19

It is not possible for a 1000 word article to `prove` anything. The relationships between economic development and the system of governance have been studied by political scientists as well as economists. The specific fields of economics that deal with this issue are public choice and constitutional economics. Even in those fields there are different people who are trying to do different things. One who are trying to find above mentioned empirical relationships and the other who are looking at theoretical underpinnings of different systems.

The arguments that I use in my article are mostly economics i.e. they employ economic philosophy, methodology and basic assumptions. My work on Pakistani constitution also employs the same philosophy and methodology. My attempt however is to bring in as my political and social factors into the analysis that are usually ignored by economists.

As far as my comments on Pakistani constitution are concerned, I confess that right now I am not in a position to make any comments. The only thing I can say is that judiciary has played a major role in Pakistani constitution, sometimes constructive and sometimes destructive. And the document that we call constitution is not really a constitution in true sense of the word because it has never obtained the consensus which is the spirit of any constitution, either unwritten (like British) or US (created and written). Why judiciary has played an important role and what are the consequences of it on constitutional democracy is the topic of the research that I am doing in the next few months. And hopefully will share it on chowk as well as on naseeb. Those papers would hopefully be more thought out than the present article.

Mantolives

Empiricism is a dirty word in many a grad school, and reality is the enemy against which each professor of economics must consistently wage war.

:)

Burpinder...

This may just be a couched defence of Musharraf... by way of Omission...

You never know...

By economics arguments I mean... empirical evidence.

I thought I read this on Naseeb Vibes as well.. While I believe in democracy, I think the connection you draw between democracy and economic development isn`t well explored... I think that what you are saying is true.. but you can see that this article doesn`t seem to prove it adequately enough... I say this because you are not approaching the issue from a theoretical political science point of view... but as an economist and yet none of your reasons are economics related.

I am more interested on your views on the Pakistani constitution however (and non-economics related thank you very much)... since you are focusing on it... do you think it can work given the number of compromises/retreats vis a vis civil liberties that are contained in it?

-YLH

# 15

Ah...sorry about that. Quite stupid of me. Master Stereotypist is my middle name.

Re: # 12 and 13

I am great admirer of theory and ideas even if it is detatched from the real world. Theory and mathematics helps you to crease out the logical inconsistencies in an argument. A Theorist never claims that he has obtained the solution for all the world`s problems. But look what we have gotten starting from theory begining with unpractical assumption. Every applied work grows by hanging on to one theory or the other. Moreover, the burden of understanding the implications of these assumptions falls on whoever tries to implement the theory to reality not the theorist. Theorists have their own work to do and applied social scientist theirs.

Re: # 11

Democracy is about representation...theoretically. It is quite safe to assume that every voter is rational. He may not know what is best foreign policy but he knows what is in his interest. A farmer in a remote village would fully know the impact of removing support prices for wheat, or abolishing sharecropping. As a result, everybody`s `interests` are represented. Following the same argument, proportional representation makes better form of government. Of course, there are information barriers (voter may not know the complexity of policy or for that matter credibility of the promises made by the candidate) that introduce biases but the consequences are not as detatched from the ideal.

HOWEVER, representation in debate is very different from majoratarian decision making processes. Once the candidates are selected they make decisions in the Congress and Parliament and the outcome is not only of debate amongst different `interest` but the of political bargaining, lobbying etc that goes on in the legislature. Downs argues against Propotional representation on the basis of above argument. His contention is that in PR system you dont know what coalition is going to emerge in the end so you dont really know what you are voting for. In the present system, this is a very plausible argument. I, however, despite the fierce disagreement of my colleagues and professor still stick to the representation idea. But I am begining to see the problems with it.

Re: # 12

Ghazia is a she and not a he :)

A case of stereotyping?