A well-functioning democracy is one that takes the free will of its citizens into account to a significant extent. However, if the will of...
A well-functioning democracy is one that takes the free will of its citizens into account to a significant extent. However, if the will of every member of society could be realized, it would result in anarchy. Therefore, a properly functioning democracy is a society that can operate according to the will of the majority, whatever that will may be. Democracy is the prevalence of the intention of the majority.
While democracy is often regarded as the dictatorship of the majority, it is important to note that it does not actually represent the domination of a specific group. Instead, it is the expression of the will of an actually present majority, hence the intention that is realized is typically not tied to a particular group within society. Nevertheless, a society must function under rules, as in a democracy, the rules are determined by the will of the social majority and can be changed by another social will originating from any of the majority.
The fundamental tenet of a democratic system is its ability to function in a manner that is not dictatorial in nature. Because in a democratic system of government, the will of the majority cannot be regulated, and thus it is considered absolute, responsibility becomes significantly more pronounced in a democratic system compared to other forms of government, which typically do not require the widespread recognition of free will. In this context, responsibility is defined as the consequence of a realized intention that directly impacts, or is intended to directly impact the originator of the intention. Responsibility in this sense is therefore the necessity of the prevalence of the general application of non-coercive by law rules of behavior.
The responsibility for the presence of free will in a democracy is multifaceted. A democratically functioning society can only reach its full potential when the free will of its members is exercised as widely as possible, while democracy also necessarily involves restrictions determined by the majority. This contradictory framework must function in balance, which can only be achieved through the exercise of individual and collective responsibility.
Rules of responsibility for the functioning of democracy:
- Tolerance: Positive discrimination towards minorities
- Conformity: Voluntary acceptance of majority decisions
- Relevance: Participation in decisions only on matters that affect personally the given member of society
These are the necessary and sufficient rules of responsibility for democracy to function. However, until a practical way to operate a self-sustainable democracy is found, electoral autocracy - the forms of governance known as representative democracy - is applied as a transition from (and sometimes back to) classical autocratic systems. During the risky transient period from autocracy to sustainable democracy, the application of other specific responsibility functions seems to be necessary as well.
The core principle of representative democracy is the transfer of the collective decision-making authority from the majority of the community to a smaller group within society. The credibility of representative democracy is ensured by the primary control of a decision-making group elected in accordance with democratic rules and serving a fixed term, which, in practice, is complemented by the appointment of leaders deemed suitable by the elected representatives, which also provides an opportunity for representative democracy to devolve into classical autocracy.
The essence of representative democracy lies in the principle that the majority's will is not manifested in decisions concerning specific community matters, but rather in the selection of representative members who supposedly genuinely reflect the community's main interests. Because the selection of community representatives is primarily not based on objective and clear criteria, but rather on the subjective opinion of the majority, this consequently provides an opportunity for the targeted influence and manipulation of the community concerned on the selection of leaders in order to gain representative power.
It is important to note that the potential for manipulation is inherent in these situations and typically manifests through the making of promises by the candidates; therefore, a necessary criterion for the responsible functioning of representative democracy is the continuous evaluation of elected leaders in accordance with their promises, not just during the periodic elections when selecting between the potential representatives. For example, it should be a principal responsibility rule that an elected or appointed representative, who intentionally, or even just due to circumstances, fails to keep the promises on which they were elected has either committed electoral fraud or proven themselves unfit for the position, and must immediately resign or be recalled from office by the public when the promised deadline in their pledge is exceeded. This is a concrete responsibility of representative democracy.
Furthermore, democratic communities can also operate on the basis of unique majority rules, which may necessitate a qualified majority, two-thirds or four-fifths majority, or even require unanimous consensus. These unique majority principles are typically established through relevant consent processes, whereby the community accepts these majority rules. These extended majority rules are often related to specific legal frameworks, usually recognized as core values, or applied to communities that voluntarily impose these extended limitations on the acceptance of operating rules formed typically on a voluntary basis.
Among these, there is a specific instance in which a community ties its operations, or specific areas of its operations, to decisions that must be made by unanimous consensus of the members of the community. In such a scenario, the operation of a community comprising members with independent intentions can only be governed in the case of the unanimous will. This entity can be designated as "Union."
The Union represents a distinctive organization, embodying an extreme form of democracy. The ability of even a single member of the community to bring the entire community to a standstill underscores the paramount importance of responsibility in the functioning of the Union. The Union's stability is predicated on the presence of extreme community interests, which are required to demonstrate the capacity to act as a cohesive force that surpasses even the will of the basic majority. However, it must be noted that this state constitutes a privileged situation. In the absence of the necessarily elevated responsibility, this privileged situation can typically only exist in the short term.
The Union represents a community of significant value, the continued existence of which imposes specific responsibility. The exclusion principle may serve to enforce this responsibility role. According to the exclusion principle of the Union, any operating rule that lacks support from any of the Union members is, by its very nature, unacceptable, however, when only one Union member has a dissenting opinion and obstructs the proposed operation, in all such cases, all of the other members of the Union must put the membership of the dissenting member in the community to a vote, and in the case of a unanimous agreement, the membership of the dissenting member in the community shall be terminated. This must be a necessarily present responsibility for the sustainable existence of the Union.
These specific areas of responsibility are important, but not exhaustive examples of the essence of responsibility in transient systems towards sustainable democracy. The distinctive character of democracy is accompanied by distinct obligations. The efficacy of majority rule is contingent upon the presence of responsibility in all consequential areas. The degree to which democratic values are entrenched in a society is a critical indicator of its concrete stability of the unstable equilibrium of the democratic state. This stability is fundamentally determined by the actual extent of individual and community responsibility, fostering a sense of collective behavior that is intrinsic to the sustenance of democratic institutions.
No comments