What is democracy

Democracy
Democracy in a nation (or organization) or the official representative of a government policy
where every citizen has the right to vote or equal elections. Democracy, law proposals,
formulated and equal participation of all citizens in making opportunity, which is either directly
or through elected representatives. Although the term is generally applied in a political state,
however, applies to other agencies or organizations, such as universities, labor unions, the
state-owned institutions.
There are two types of democracy:
 Direct
 Representative.
There are three systems of democracies:
o Parliamentary,
o Presidential,
o Mixed.
Parliamentary systems are distinct because of the power that they place in the. Hands of the
legislative branch. In such systems, the executive is split between.In a historical perspective it
seems useful to distinguish between three types of democracy which exist or existed as

institutionalized realities. Firstly, pre-modern or classical democracy like the ancient Athenian
democracy on the level of a city state or the “Landsgemeinde” that was born in the Middle
Ages in rural communities of the alpine region.
Secondly, modern democracy which comes in two types: representative democracy (RD) and
activating democracy (AD). The mainstream type of representative democracy is mainly
indirect: elected politicians decide on behalf of the people. The alternative type of activating
democracy combines representation with real and effective direct democracy, giving citizens
direct access to lawmaking. This classification emphasizes qualitative differences not only
between pre-modern and modern democracy but also between “representative democracy”
and “activating democracy”, which are considered by many as being merely gradually different.
Modern direct democracy (MDD) or a comprehensive set of initiative and referendum rights
give citizens the right to exercise popular sovereignty by voting on substantive issues.
Combining RD with direct democracy brings about a qualitative change in the relationship
between people (citizens) and elected politicians, and with it a new type of democracy. I call it
“activating democracy” (AD), basically for two reasons. First, adding well-designed and
comprehensive initiative and referendum rights (MDD) to electoral-representative democracy
(RD) turns the low energy representative system into a high energy democracy; with MDD a
dynamic and challenging element is introduced which activates RD and prevents it from
becoming ossified (see, for example, Luciani 1998). Second, by including people (citizens) in the
political process armed with their own decision-making power, AD activates citizens to
participate and take responsibility for their decisions – in contrast to the representative system,
which excludes people from the decision-making process and thereby promotes the

deactivating idea that making political decisions on substantive issues belongs to politicians
only and not to all the citizens alike.
In the Athenian democracy, political officials were chosen by lot (the democratic method), and
not through elections (the aristocratic method). Sortition gives everyone – rich and poor – an
equal chance to be selected for office. Elections confer advantages to people by birth, wealth
and education; they serve to elevate the superior into a position of power. They are at the very
heart of what nowadays is called “representative democracy”. A closer look reveals that our
constitutions establish the rule of the elected politicians (the few) over the people (the many).
Citizens are given very limited powers to influence politicians and government. Elections do not
empower citizens to make their own laws and constitution, direct democracy does. In other
words, “representative democracy” is not a democracy, but an elective and constitutional
oligarchy; this is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact set up by law and constitution. If
this argument is correct, we are left with only two types of really existing democracy: classical
democracy and activating democracy or pre-modern and modern democracy.
In AD citizens and politicians are interconnected and interdependent in a fundamentally
different way and their relationship gains a new quality. The elected politicians, no more able to
monopolize the power to make political decisions, have to share this power with the
citizens.Thanks to their rights to initiative and referendum, citizens have access to political
decision-making and to the making of the political agenda. They have the right to make laws
and to constantly renew laws and the constitution; therefore, institutional change is possible
without crisis or calamity. They regularly have opportunities to really act as politicians and to
become what Max Weber called “occasional politicians”. In this type of democracy people are
encouraged to participate, they have the right and opportunities to become actively involved in
political decision-making and this not just on rare occasions but on a regular basis. Hence the
name “activating democracy”.
The French revolution opened a rift between the modern and the premodern world. It gave us
new eyes, it changed our imagination, it catapulted democracy on the agenda of history and

made it a dominant idea. The traditional relationship between ruler and ruled is inverted. In the
new image of society power flows bottom-up, and this image is going to subvert the old one
Democracy and Development
Understanding the link between democracy and development could be crucial for policy-
making at the national and international level. In addition to giving citizens more political
freedoms, democracies are on average less likely to be at war with each other than
dictatorships
The relationshipbetweendemocracyanddevelopmenthasproducedample debate, research, and even
puzzlement.Thisarticle exploresthe actual mechanismsbywhichdemocracyaffectsgrowth,in order to
identifyimportantinfluencesaswell ascountervailingeffects. Democracy’s advantages revolve around
itsabilitytoimprove the certaintyandpredictabilityof institutionsthatestablish the framework for the
business environment
where power flows top-down. No longer should we look at society through the eyes of a
sovereign prince to whom the subjects owe obedience. Instead we can imagine a society of free
and equal individuals who have the right to make their own laws and constitution. This is called
popular sovereignty. People and their rights come before the state, and it is the duty of the
state to defend these rights which belong to every individual by nature.
The 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (see Articles 1 and 2) is an
expression for the new relationship between state and citizens. Article 6 states that popular
sovereignty is exercised both ways, by the citizens themselves and by their representatives;
accordingly direct and indirect democracy are compatible.
 Democracy Good For Economic Development
 Democracy Good for Political Development

 Democracy Good for Social Development
Democracy Is Good for Business Development: Recent diplomatic breakthroughs involving
Iran and Cuba could pave the way for major investment by U.S. companies. But despite the
excitement generated when an isolated and repressive regime begins to open up its market, an
open political system would be much better for business.
Stable, transparent governments built on respect for human rights and the rule of law tend to
foster environments that are conducive to the establishment and unfettered operation of
private enterprises. This is clearly illustrated in the World Bank’s “Doing business”survey and
“Freedom House’s “Freedom in the world” report: On average, countries that perform well in
one assessment also excel in the other.
Publised on report Sayes:
Democracy in Bangladesh: Prospects and Problem
In Bangladesh appeal for democratic values has always been great. Democratic ideals have
always inspired the people of Bangladesh and democratic political system has been their
cherished goal. But unfortunately they have not yet had the cherished goal achieved, not to
speak of its full flowering in the society.
Liberal democracy functions in the West mainly on two fundamental assumptions. First, the
authority the government exercises is a trust, exercised on behalf of the society, in a manner
approved by it. It implies that there is a consensus in the society in regard to the nature of its
political authority, nature of those who exercise it, mode of its application and so on. Second, it
is law that safeguards the interests of all classes of people, and law is obeyed (even if it is a bad
law) until it is changed. Only the representatives of people are entitled to make or change a
law. In the environment of liberal democracy it is the force of argument and not the argument
offered that reigns and a spirit of compromise, not of confrontation, prevails in the society.
Liberal democracy has succeeded principally because of two reasons. First, the social terrain,
which is the fountain of democratic ethos, is marked more by egalitarianism than oppressive
hierarchy. Second, economic gains of the society, which constitute the lifeblood of happiness
for all classes of people, are distributed in such a fashion that every group or class is assured of
a minimum level of living. The key to success of this system lies in the willingness of those with
grievances to submit to law and seek a remedy through orderly discussion. The conditions for

the success of democracy, from that standpoint, are related more to social norms than to
political activities and institutional support. In fact democracy emerged in the West as a social
system and when it attained a workable form, then it turned into a political arrangement.
In Bangladesh democracy has been imposed on a highly inegalitarian society, marked by all
kinds of discriminations and inequities, where social ethos is yet to be democratic. Political
prudence demands therefore a highly creative and dynamic political leadership which can
prepare a fertile ground for the luxuriant growth of democratic values. The ruling elite in
Bangladesh have however not yet been prepared for this crucial role. Most often the gems of
democratic values have been grossly ignored by them. They have treated political authority not
as a trust but as a source of limitless privileges and opportunities. They have abused and
handled it without any accountability. Once they assume political power, they try to perpetuate
it by means, fair or foul. Those who oppose the incumbents and try to be on the saddle of
power do not also hesitate to adopt any means, right or wrong. This has been the practice in
Bangladesh since its birth and every political party during the last four decades has been found
to indulge in such extravaganza while wielding state power, most often violating democratic
norms and constitutional practices.
Democracy has been successful in the west not only because the citizens are politically
conscious but manly because the political leaders are democratically oriented and committed
to constitutionalism. For the effective working of democratic system in Bangladesh political
leaders must realise the subtleties of the system, go extra miles, take additional responsibilities,
develop sound judgement, generate positive synergy, achieve brilliance and must be soaked
with democratic ethos. In this era of knowledge societies there are no shortcuts. The political
leaders have to be properly dressed up for handling these problems. They have to learn a lot
and unlearn a lot more. They have to raise themselves much above the petty foibles of
partisanship, narrow interests of groups and parties and look to the sky for being useful to the
people, whose hopes and aspirations they are supposed to represent and realise. The general
people of Bangladesh, who have always been in the forefront of democratic movements, look
for bright sunny days and a better future, and much of all that depends on the creative role of
the political leaders. Democracy implies a political system marked not only by free and fair
elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers and protection of basic liberties of
speech, assembly, religion and property. Historically, two streams of philosophical tradition
have made the soil fertile for the growth and development of democracy as a system of
governance. It has thus two faces. It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain of the
Greek scholastics, emphasising individual liberty and popular involvement. It is constitutional
because it rests on the Roman tradition emphasising the rule of law and protection of basic
human rights. These two philosophical strains, fused together with innate human cravings for
self-fulfilment, have brought forth, the ideal of self-rule. And ‘self-rule’ has become the
cherished goal for many nations, who began to put hands on both the traditions with varying
degrees of emphasis.

Britain, which was “in some ways the most democratic European nation,” became
constitutional and election-oriented all at the same time. It began to adopt constitutional
liberalism by emphasising the rule of law, protection of basic human rights, and separation of
powers and so on. Elections were held, but franchise rights were limited. In 1830 only 2 per
cent of the British population voted for the House of Commons. It rose to 7% after 1867 and
40% in the 1880s. Britain became fully-fledged elective democracy only since the 1930s. Other
European nations, especially the Scandinavian countries, imitated Britain in this area and
became fully-fledged democracies simultaneously through the golden gates of constitutional
liberalism and elections.
In the post-colonial countries like ours the political elite however wanted to gatecrash the
democratic world through the iron gate of election, ignoring the tenets of constitutional
liberalism. But in most cases they fumbled, faltered and ultimately failed because of heavy
strains at the societal level, arising out of imbalance between rights and responsibilities,
demands and legal norms, order and violence, expectation and performance. Since elections
have turned out to be the summumbonum, a win or loss becomes the moot point for the
political elite. If the election becomes free, fair and credible they feel contented. Then they cry
hoarse and proclaim that at long last they have got it. Then they enjoy the glory of democratic
aura. They never care to realise that it’s practically half-done. They never think that they have
to go miles for getting that charmed goose which may lay golden eggs of constitutional
democracy. They have to opt for the rule of law instead of rule of persons. They have to go for
institutionalising the processes of decision-making at all levels in the system. They are to
concentrate on protecting the rights of the people, especially those of free speech, assembly,
religion, property. For safeguarding these rights they have to go for a balanced system of
governance with proper checks and balance in the polity. Moreover, the political elite
themselves must be accountable to the populace and ensure accountability of all state
functionaries for their actions and policies. They have to see that their policies are transparent.
They are to make all the citizens participant citizens. This is how the democratic dispensation all
over the democratic world has been conceived of. In Bangladesh, it was nothing more than
panoply of power proposition, and the people, for all that, are constantly trampled on and
grounded under the cruel feet of democratic juggernaut.
In Bangladesh, the institutional framework for democratic order has already been built, but no
heart is heard ticking. No blood is circulating through these skeletal structures. Instead of giving
lifeblood to democratic values, these structures have become the abiding seats of personalized
power. Election only accords recognition to a kind of autocratic orientation. These must change.
It has been evident on many occasions that Bangladesh has an innate propensity for democratic
order. It started its political journey with the Westminster-type parliamentary democracy since
1972. It could not sustain it for long, however. Slowly but steadily it degenerated into an
authoritarian system in the mid-1970s, and became locked up in a one-party BKSAL monolith. It
was followed by a period of uncertainty. A series of coup and counter-coup rocked the polity
and Bangladesh had to groan under the heavy pressure of martial law for quite some time till
the major political parties of the country fought successfully for the restoration of democracy
and succeeded in early 1990s. The parliamentary system of government was finally re-

introduced in 1991. Many observers expected that democratic order would at last stabilise in
Bangladesh. That was not to be, unfortunately.
Democratic culture, which helps build consensus among the politically relevant social sectors
including the political parties, has not yet got off the ground. Tolerance among the political
activists has remained conspicuous by its absence. The consensual approach involving mutual
give and take, being respectful to one another’s views and the overriding concern of the
majority party to work together with the minor ones has yet to be effective. The party in power
has always ignored the opposition and opposition goes on opposing anything and everything
the party in power proposes. Politics, in consequence, has turned out to be confrontational and
the social forces divided and fragmented, thus making it very difficult for any government to
build consensus. When politics becomes confrontational, partisanship becomes intense. That
leads to immunity to the party followers even for their worst excesses and corrupt practices,
and vengeance to the opponents. Since the JatiyaSangsad has failed to absorb the demands of
the opposition political parties, politics comes down to the stormy streets in the form of
processions and demonstrations. Occasional hartals keep shops, work centres, business houses,
offices and educational institutions closed, thus affecting law and order in the society seriously.
Politics gets transformed into power politics and democratic values get dissipated.
Elections are held, though not regularly in all cases, and quite often these are rigged. The
political leaders, instead of competing for people’s votes, try either to purchase them with their
black money or cajole them to vote for them through questionable means. In some cases they
use their muscle power, often with hired goons, to force the recalcitrant voters either to
abstain from voting or to vote for them, for getting themselves elected. They take election as
the veritable gateway to political power and win they must, by means fair or foul. If they win,
everything is fine. When they lose, they go on discovering conspiracies all around, as if the
whole world were busy conspiring to bring about their defeat. Then they start campaigning
about rigging or vote-robbery, whether subtle or blatant, even if an angel were in charge of the
whole electoral exercise. In fact the political leaders in our country do not trust the people nor
do they trust themselves. These are the background conditions of the Non-Party Caretaker
Government, the unique political creature in our history, brought forth through the Thirteenth
Constitutional Amendment Act, and in essence this reflects more than anything else a kind of
no-confidence of the political leaders against the political leaders themselves.
In sum, the future of democratic order is not bleak in Bangladesh. The people by and large love
it and they are prepared to fight for it as they did in the past. Some such essentials as the
freedom of press, a vibrant civil society, and independence of judiciary are gaining ground day
by day. The constitutional bodies of the country have been re-formed and reconstituted. The
interregnum i.e. 28 October 2006 to December 2008 is most likely to be an educative period for
most of the political leaders and politically relevant sectors of the society. The environment for
the growth and development of democratic system, both national and international, has
become more propitious than ever before. At this point of time the destiny of democratic
Bangladesh largely depends on the positive attitude of the two groups of role players, i.e. the
BNP-led joteand Awami League-led mahajote. We only wait with our fingers crossed.
The writer is an eminent educationist of the country

Is Democracy Obstacle to Democracy?
Main Anylisis and My view:
Development can be defined as organized growth associated with the desired change in
attitude, institutions, and conditions of production and living standard of people. It ensures the
availability of basic life sustaining goods, creates more jobs, provides better education, health
and security, uplift the social and cultural conditions and restores self-respect and humanistic
values. By democracy we mean legitimate government originating from freely given consent of
the citizens, existence of competitive political parties in which the majority respects the rights
of minorities, access to alternative sources of information, freedom of association and active
involvement of institutions which limit the power of the government and ensure accountability.
In democracy political leaders become accountable to the citizens through the electoral
channel at specified points in time; state institutions and employees are accountable to some
other specified state institutions by law, rules and regulations and finally the state is
accountable through ongoing watchdog functions of civic associations, NGOs and independent
mass media. The scale of democracy in a country is measured by a set of political
characteristics: such as the manner in which political leaders are selected, the degree of
freedom of assembly and mass media, the extent of political representation and suffrage, the
existence of political parties that are based on political and social ideologies rather than on
religion or ethnicity, the manner of functioning of the judicial system, reasonable expectation of
the rotation of power and the means of achieving it.
Development and democracy have numerous channels of association. Many of the socio-
economic conditions necessary for development overlap with those that are also required for
the evolution of democracy. First, for economic development, the sufficient growth of a
domestic professional middle class is needed to increase aggregate demand of an economy. It
also lessens overall domestic inequality by bridging the gaps between vast degree of wealth on
the one hand, and widespread abject poverty, on the other. The growth of educated middle
class permits informed political choices, which helps establish participatory democracy in a
country. Second, both the quantity and quality of education enable an agrarian economy to
transform into one that is industrial. This transition is essential to the process of economic
development. Increasing levels of literacy permit wide exposure to multiple types of mass
communication and has the potential to generate an informed community which is essential for
democracy. Third, the process of urbanization has impact on both economic and political
development. Urbanization reduces the cost of industrialization and increases political
awareness. But it enhances economic and social dualism by raising social and political tensions
and impedes the rise of democracy. Finally, shifting economic development towards open
development strategies politically generates a higher degree of exposure to developed-country
political ideologies, especially through the spread of mass media and internet. The
internalization of the new political norms by the middle class can lead to the articulation of
demands for greater domestic democracy. It may lead to anti-government sentiments that take
the form of anti-government demonstrations and hence political instability.
Irma Adelman and Morris in their study of 1960 and 1990 discussed the factors behind the

association between democracy and developments. They found that, during the 1960s, in the
least developed countries (mainly Sub-Saharan Africa) the statistical relationship between the
rate of growth of per capita GNP and democracy was quite weak and negative. Countries with
more autocratic, more repressive regimes had more economic growth. By the 1990s, the mild
indication that less democracy was associated with faster economic growth has been replaced
by an equally mild indication that greater democracy is associated with more rapid growth. The
study also found close association between the strength of leadership commitment to
economic development and the rate of economic growth. The Adelman-Morris statistical
results are consistent with those of other empirical studies by Alesina (1997) and Barro (1991,
1997). Alisena found small correlation between indicators of democracy and growth, whereas,
Barro found large correlations between rates of growth of per capita GNP and indicators of
democracy. Authors believe that higher levels of social and institutional development are
essential to the attainment of both greater democracy and higher levels of economic
development. All the developed countries in the world are matured democracies and most of
them are located in Europe and North America. However, experience of democracy in Asia is
variable. Some sort of benevolent authoritarianism with priority based economic development
worked better for the development of South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan. However,
South Korea is a matured democracy today.
Bangladesh after its independence in 1971 had passed through various directions like one
party system, military rule, autocracy, democracy etc. Our average GDP growth rate was only
1.2 per cent between 1975 and1988 under the military and autocratic regimes (World Bank
data). After 1991 in democratic regime two main political parties, alternately won the elections
and formed governments. Smaller parties also contested and have joined the major parties in
forming coalition governments. The growth rate increased to more than 5 per cent in the
decade after 2000. Democratic environment boosted our economic growth and enhanced the
ability of attaining international obligations like MDGs. We had robust GDP growth of 3.3 per

cent between 1991 and 2003 and more than 5 per cent average annual growth onwards from
2005 (World Bank data). The per capita GNI has been rising steadily and Bangladesh has already
crossed the threshold level to become a low middle-income country. Agriculture, apparel, small
and medium enterprises and the service sectors are playing major role in the development
process.
Our past experience tells that a weaker democracy eventually leads to the weakening of checks
and balances between the organs of the state, creating a favourable environment for lack of
transparency, accountability, bad governance and widespread corruption. Within such an
environment, even if larger steps by the state are taken to accelerate development, negative
externalities will damage the efforts of the government, reduce effectiveness of the measures
taken and decrease returns from the investments made. Investment scenario continues to
remain less than expected level due to uncertainty and apprehensions about the reappearance
of political violence. Corruption is a burden on development and it raises the cost of
development, thus undermining the prospect of future and further development. This vicious
cycle should be stopped to accelerate the pace of development and to take advantage of our
regional and global position. Bangladesh is developing and further progress is beyond doubt.
But we are going through a transition period in terms of economic and political
transformations. Absence of democratic political culture within the political parties is a negative
side of our political transformation. Corruption and politicization of civil-military bureaucracy is
putting barriers in front of our path towards progress. Civil society advocacy and observations
are not welcomed mostly. But on the brighter side we have a growing middle class, vibrant
male female workforce, and free print/electronic media that can contribute largely to the
establishment of an inclusive democracy within society. We need to bear in mind that
democracy alone may not be sufficient to ensure economic development rather good
governance and rule of law will also be needed. A smoothly functioning democracy with sound
governance ensured by strong state institutions can secure all-round development. The spirit of
our liberation war is adequately captured in the four principles which have guided our
constitution --- Democracy, Nationalism, Secularism and Social justice ---have to be protected
by any means. Those who try to justify by telling that there is a trade-off between democracy
and development may end up with neither.my point said that either Bangladesh have no
Democracy and the development in our country are rising day by day .Now Bangladesh has
democracy according to the Constitution. And the government want to obeythe rule of
constitution and Development of the nation is good position before the past we all know. I
think Democracy is not obstacle to development

What is democracy

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to What is democracy

Recently uploaded

What is democracy