Several decades have passed since we have included the term ‘democracy’ in our dictionary; since we have thought our children the concept in schools; since our national documents like the constitution have implanted the term. Nonetheless, quite significant of the populace have proved that it lacks acquaintanceship with the real sense of the term democracy.
Democracy can never be fully exercised until both the leaders and the demos have what it takes to effectuate the very principles of democracy. Democratic values should be earned not be given from authorities. One needs to understand its responsibilities to carry out before bestowed with rights to exercise.
For a given populace to decide upon its destiny, it must be well equipped with the facts on the ground and what lies before it. For the right decision to be made, it is a necessary condition to be well informed and be sober. An ill-educated and ill-informed citizenry is prone to exploitation and being misled by corrupt demagogues. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is of course a case in point.
Experts in leadership and theology often mentioned the crucifixion as a showcase to what corrupt demagogues are capable of and how easily the populace can be manipulated when it is ill-educated and ill-informed. The then king Pilate made the Jewish people decide upon the fate of Jesus Christ and Barabbas. The people were instant with loud voices requiring that He (Jesus) might be crucified and Barabbas set free.
The voices of the people and of the chief priests prevailed. Pilate then gave sentence that it should be as they required. A ‘Democratic Procedure’ in deed. What a typical ‘democratic’ leader Pilate has been! Well, ill-educated and ill-informed citizenry messes itself when given the opportunity to decide. There are of course several examples where good things, policies, leaders etc were crucified and evils triumphed. Within countries where democratic practices and principles are poorly imbued and where the political culture is parochial, it is very difficult to maintain peace and security and move on the paths of development.
Philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle and John Stuart Mill are wary of democracy as system of governance. Plato (427-347 B.C.) was opposed to democracy. He was convinced that it encouraged bad leaders, and therefore, bad decisions. He argued that human intellectual capacity is not equally distributed, and that ruling, like any other trade or skill, should be left to those who are expert in the trade, in this case, those capable of seeing moral and political truth properly. The demagogically influenced citizenry could not be trusted to choose their leaders. Leaders who have been chosen by the masses are likely to lack experience and expert knowledge, and are therefore, unlikely to be good judges in political matters. In his famous book, the Republic, Plato sketched what
he believed to be an ideal society. His political philosophy, which argues for the establishment of a perfectly ordered state headed by philosopher rulers who exercise supreme authority, was largely influenced by his personal experiences of the turbulent period which followed the demise of Athenian democracy and the death of Socrates, who was tried before a panel of jurors drawn by a system of lot from the citizen body.
Even though Plato’s criticism of democracy pertains to the particular form of democracy practiced in Athens at the time, and may not apply to other models of democracy or representative government, it can’t be denied that what Plato had argued formakes a lot of sense especially in countries where parochialism dominates. In a nutshell, he favors popular opinion over popular vote.
Plato’s student, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), also spoke out against popular participation in politics. In the Politics he explored the relative advantages of different kinds of regimes such as monarchy (rule by one), oligarchy (rule by few) and democracy (rule by many). He claimed that democracy did not promote the “common good,” but rather that it advanced the interests of those who were more influential. Like most Greeks, he preferred a mixed government with elements of aristocracy (meaning the rule of the best, not the rule of the elite or well-born) and popular rule.
Following Plato, Aristotle believed that individuals have natural places in society from which it would be immoral to deviate. These two ancient and influential political philosophers question the competence of the populace to pass decisions. It seems that they are not arguing against the number of the rulers to be on power, rather the quality of the leadership the rulers have. A careful consideration of possible consequences is what the populace lacks. It is therefore a clear call for a chaos when the ultimate power of decision making is vested upon the ignorant mass.
A demagogue political leader finds it easy to manipulate the electorate and gain support by making false claims and promises using arguments based on emotion rather than reason. All methods of voting are, in various ways, subject to manipulation by political elites, the majoritarian will, or demagogic practices. Consequently, voting is unlikely to yield results that are considered just by all. This is why it oftentimes argued that electoral democracies give people the power, as well as an amicable way, to replace one government with another. But this is an advantage only because it is less violent than revolution and more democratic than a feudal system or totalitarian regime. An inherent disadvantage is that elections produce oligarchies particularly in countries with a least developed political culture.
Unlike Plato, John Stuart Mill hasn’t categorized a society based on intellectual levels. But he perceives democracy (rule by many) as a ‘tyranny of the majority’.
Majority rule being at the center of a democratic rule, a ‘one man one vote’ principle leads to the dictatorship of the majority over the well-educated minorities. To prevent this majoritarian dictatorship, J.S. Mill suggests that the weight of the vote should be based on the level of education the voter has achieved. The higher the education level one has achieved, the more weight shall his/her vote get, Mill commends. Others however denounce Mill’s view that it is an elitist one.
These influential philosophers that the scholarship of political sciences owes a lot for their time immemorial contribution agree on the notion that democracy requires a well-informed and well-educated populace/electorate to bring a positive result that can transform the society to the next best level. Education is of a paramount importance in paving the way for a well-functioning democratic process and political culture. Literatures witness the positive relationship between the expansion of education and the development of political culture. Among other things, an educated community is less likely to be influenced by populist or charismatic leaders.
Ethiopia is among other Least Developed Countries /LDCs/ where parochialism is abundantly found. Election is the major feature of a democratic process; however it is unfortunate that we have never experienced a free and fair election so far. The 6th Round national election is of course a better election we have had. Given the circumstances (such as the COVID-19 pandemic, conflict in Tigray, the GERD and other external pressures), this year’s election process has been freer and fairer when compared to the previous five rounds of national elections.
Democracy is a process. It takes time for democratic process to mature and become effective. As some scholars of the Political Science discipline say, it might take Ethiopia four or five rounds of national elections for the democratic process to develop. This year’s election has somehow laid the foundation for the upcoming elections, the politicians and also the people. Even if it has its own ailments, democracy is proved to be a better form of government in this divided world and populace.
It is therefore, our collaborated duty to give hands to actualize the transition and pave the way for the generation to come live a better life. An electoral process that leads Jesus to the cross and frees Barabbas is of course democratic but has a detrimental impact on the populace. Let’s get informed, just and sober not only to make sure our elections are democratic but also produce a positive impact for our country.
Ethiopia Votes! Ethiopia Wins!
Editor’s Note: The views entertained in this article do not necessarily reflect the stance of The Ethiopian Herald
The Ethiopian Herald June 22/2021
