Democracy : Classical and Contemporary Theories | PSIR Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction: Meaning of Democracy

Democracy is both a form of government and an ideal, representing goals and standards that societies strive for. At its core, democracy is about self-governance, where the power lies with the people. The term democracy originates from ancient Greece, specifically from the Greek word 'demokratia', which means rule by the people. This concept opposes the notion of a distinct separation between the ruler and the ruled. It is worth noting that while terms like communism and socialism are associated with Marxism, democracy does not have a specific doctrinal source or ideology.

In fact, democracy is a culmination of the development of Western civilization, which has led to its rather loose usage. As a result, the history of the idea of democracy is intricate and filled with conflicting and confusing interpretations. This complexity arises because democracy's history is still ongoing and its issues are multifaceted. Despite these challenges, democracy is often justified and defended based on the fundamental values it promotes, such as equality, liberty, moral self-development, common interest, private interests, and social utility.

Various interpretations have been given to the term 'democracy.' Some of these include:

• A form of government where people directly govern themselves;
• A society that values equal opportunity and individual merit over hierarchy and privilege;
• A decision-making system based on majority rule;
• A system that protects minority rights by limiting the power of the majority;
• A method for selecting public officials through a competitive electoral process;
• A government that serves the people's interests, irrespective of their political participation (Heywood, 1997:66);
• A governance system founded on the consent of those being governed.

The common thread in these definitions is that democracy connects the government to the people. However, the nature of this connection varies depending on the broader political culture of a society. As a result, there have been ideological disputes and political debates about the specifics of democratic rule. Nevertheless, any discussion of democracy generally addresses three key questions:

1. Who constitutes "the people"?
2. In what way do the people exercise their rule?
3. To what extent should the scope of popular rule be extended (Heywood, 1997:66)?

What is Direct Democracy?

Direct Democracy refers to a form of self-governance where all decisions are made through the participation of all adult citizens in a spirit of equality and open deliberation. This system promotes informed, logical, and rational decisions by allowing individuals to discuss, influence, and be influenced by the collective. Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, emphasized that in direct democracy, "all command each and each in his turn all." Modern instances of direct democracy include referendums and the 'Gram Sabha' in rural India, as established by the 73rd Constitutional Amendment.

Principles of Direct Democracy

In direct democracy, the best decisions are achieved not through voting but through consensus, which emerges from careful deliberation of options and alternatives. The following principles apply:

• People's Sovereignty:The people hold ultimate power and authority in a direct democracy.
• Inalienable Sovereignty:Sovereignty cannot be represented or transferred; it must be exercised by the people themselves.
• Direct Expression of General Will:People must express their will and make decisions directly through referenda, without relying on representatives.
• Majority Rule:Decisions are based on the majority opinion, ensuring that the collective will is respected.

Direct democracy aims to eliminate the distinction between the government and the governed, and between the state and civil society. It is a system of popular self-government where state and society become one.

Merits of Direct Democracy

Direct democracy offers several advantages:

• Enhanced Citizen Control: It allows citizens to have greater control over their destinies, as they are directly involved in decision-making processes.
• Educational Benefits: Direct democracy creates a more informed and politically sophisticated citizenry, fostering a deeper understanding of political issues and processes.
• Expression of Public Views and Interests: It allows the public to express their views and interests without relying on politicians who may have their own agendas.
• Legitimacy of Rule:People are more likely to accept decisions they have made themselves, ensuring that rule in a direct democracy is legitimate and widely accepted.

Greek Democracy as Direct Democracy

The ancient Athenian democracy of the 4th century BC is considered the epitome of direct democracy, where all major decisions were made by mass meetings of the citizenry. The Assembly or Ecclesia, to which all citizens belonged, made these decisions, meeting at least 40 times a year. Full-time public officials were chosen by lots to ensure broad participation, and their posts were rotated frequently. A council of 500 citizens acted as the executive committee, with a smaller 50-member committee making proposals to the council.

• Athenian Democracy:Reasons for its Fame: Athenian democracy was remarkable due to its inclusion of the entire citizenry in public affairs. Citizens not only participated in regular meetings, but also took on the responsibilities of public office and decision-making. The demos held sovereign power, engaging in legislative and judicial activities, with citizenship requiring direct participation in state affairs.
  Athenian democracy was characterized by a commitment to civic virtue, meaning dedication to the city-state, subordination of private life to public affairs, and achievement of the common good. There was no separation of public and private life, and citizens had rights and obligations as members of the political community.
• Aristotle’s ‘The Politics’:Aristotle's work "The Politics" provides a detailed account of ancient democracy, analyzing its ethical standards, claims, and aims. He argues that liberty and equality are intertwined, with one being difficult to achieve without the other. Two criteria of liberty are a) to rule and be ruled in turn, and b) to live as one chooses. For these criteria to be effective, all citizens must be equal. Numerical equality, or equal share in ruling, is necessary for the majority to be sovereign. Classical democracy, including direct democracy, therefore, entails liberty, which in turn entails equality.
• Protective Democracy:While classical democracy focused on the participation of all citizens, protective democracy emphasized protecting citizens from the encroachments of government. This form of democracy was less about participating in political life and more about ensuring the protection of citizens' rights and liberties.

Origin of the Protective Democracy

John Locke is regarded as the main advocate of protective democracy, with his civil society based on democratic principles created through a social contract to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property. James Madison and the proponents of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, and John Stuart Mill, also supported protective democracy, emphasizing the safeguarding of rights, liberties, and opportunities.

Features of Protective Democracy

• Popular Sovereignty: Protective democracy believes in popular sovereignty, with citizens participating in state affairs through their representatives.
• Protection of Rights and Liberties:The primary duty of the state is to protect citizens' rights and liberties, with citizens keeping a vigilant watch over the state's functions.
• Constitutionalism: Both rulers and the ruled are controlled by the principles laid down in the constitution.
• Freedom of Organizations:Organizations, associations, and groups have ample freedom and act as defenders of citizens' rights and liberties.
• Competition:A competitive atmosphere prevails in all spheres of life in a protective democracy.
• Distinction between State and Civil Society: A clear separation between the state and civil society is strictly maintained.

Limitations of Direct Democracy

1. Exclusivity and Restricted Citizenship: The direct democracy practiced in ancient Athens was characterized by its exclusivity, as it involved only a small section of the population. Citizenship was highly restricted, with no separation between public and private life. Only adult males over the age of 20 years were considered citizens and eligible to participate in political activities. Women, immigrants, and slaves were excluded from the political process, leading to a democracy of patriarchs with limited civic rights for others.
2. Political Equality vs. Equal Power: In Athenian democracy, political equality did not imply equal power for all. Instead, it referred to equality among individuals with equal status, which in this context meant only Athenian-born males. Consequently, a significant portion of the population was marginalized, and the politics of ancient Athens rested on an undemocratic foundation.

Flaws of Athenian Democracy

• Dependency on Slavery:A major flaw of Athenian democracy was its reliance on slavery. The labor of slaves allowed the citizen elite to participate in political activities, creating a democracy built on an unjust system. This dependency on slavery is in stark contrast with modern democracies that are based on market economies.
• Ineffective Government and Fall of the Athenian Republic: The lack of a permanent bureaucracy in ancient Athens contributed to an ineffective government, ultimately leading to the fall of the Athenian republic after its defeat in war. This highlights the limitations of direct democracy in ensuring stable governance.
• Plato's Critique of Direct Democracy:Plato, one of the most influential critics of direct democracy, argued that political equality was flawed as the masses were not inherently equal and therefore could not rule themselves wisely. In his famous work, The Republic, Plato proposed that the government should be placed in the hands of philosopher-kings, or Guardians, who would rule in a manner akin to enlightened dictatorship.
• Impracticality in Larger Modern Democracies:A key drawback of Athenian democracy was that it could only function by excluding the majority of the population from political activities. This model was feasible only in small city-states with limited populations and is not applicable to larger modern democracies with bigger populations as they exist today.

Significance of Athenian Democracy:Despite its flaws, the Athenian model played a crucial role in establishing the democratic principle. The Greeks introduced two essential political concepts that persist in modern times: the idea of a citizen as opposed to a subject, and democracy itself. These innovations have significantly influenced the development of democratic systems in contemporary societies.

Direct Democracy in Modern Times: Contemporary Practices and Methods

Direct democracy has its roots in ancient Athens, where citizens participated directly in the decision-making process through mass meetings. Today, this classical model of direct and continuous popular participation in political life has been adapted to suit modern times and can be found in township meetings in New England, USA, and communal assemblies in smaller Swiss cantons. The most common method of direct democracy used in recent times is the referendum. This essay will discuss the key features of modern democracy and the role of referendums in contemporary politics.

Referendums: A Modern Direct Democracy Tool
In contrast to the mass meetings of ancient Athens, the referendum has become the preferred method of direct democracy in modern times. A referendum is a vote in which the electorate can express their view on a particular issue of public policy. It differs from an election, which primarily focuses on filling public office and does not provide a direct or reliable method of influencing policy content. Referendums are employed to supplement representative institutions rather than replacing them. They can be advisory or binding and may raise issues for discussion, such as propositions or plebiscites.

Key Features of Modern Democracy

• Separation of Powers: For a modern democracy to function effectively, there must be a clear separation of powers between the institutions of the state. This ensures that no single entity has excessive power and that each branch of government can hold the others accountable. The three main branches of government are the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
• Freedom of Opinion, Speech, Press, and Mass Media:The free flow of information and the ability to express opinions without fear of retribution are essential for a healthy democracy. Freedom of speech, press, and mass media allow citizens to stay informed and voice their opinions on public policy issues. These rights also facilitate the exchange of ideas and foster open debate, which is crucial for a well-functioning democracy.
• General and Equal Right to Vote:One of the fundamental principles of democracy is the notion that every citizen should have an equal say in the government's decision-making process. This is achieved through the general and equal right to vote, commonly known as "one person, one vote." This principle ensures that political power is distributed evenly among citizens and helps prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a few.
• Good Governance: Good governance is essential for maintaining a modern democracy, as it focuses on the public interest and ensures the absence of corruption. It involves transparent decision-making processes, efficient use of resources, and the implementation of policies that benefit the majority of citizens. Good governance also includes accountability mechanisms that enable citizens to hold their government responsible for its actions.
• Religious Liberty:In a modern democracy, religious liberty is a fundamental right that allows citizens to practice their religion without interference from the government. This freedom ensures that individuals can live in accordance with their beliefs and values, contributing to a diverse and tolerant society. Religious liberty also protects minority religious groups from discrimination and persecution.

Different Theories of Democracy

Liberals argue that the primary role of the state is to serve the interests of the individual, viewing the individual as the ultimate goal and the state as a tool to achieve that. They believe that individual freedom should not be excessively limited by the state, and that true democracy is characterized by maximizing individual freedom. According to this perspective, a person's well-being is directly linked to their freedom. John Locke, who emphasized the state's responsibility to protect individual life, liberty, and property, is considered a key figure in liberal philosophy. The liberal democratic theory has evolved through three distinct phases, known as classical liberalism, elitism, and pluralism.

Classical Liberalism

•  The main supporters of the classical liberal theory of democracy include John Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Bentham, and J. S. Mill. 
• Locke believed that individuals have the right to resist and overthrow the government if it fails to protect their life, liberty, and property. 
•  He stressed that a government should be based on the consent of the people and that its power should be limited. 
• Montesquieu introduced the idea of separation of powers to prevent the rise of dictatorship. 
•  The utilitarians emphasized the importance of people being involved in politics. 
•  They argued that a government should aim for the greatest good for the greatest number and encourage more people to participate in political activities. 
• Jeremy Bentham, known for his theory of pleasure and pain, supported the idea of universal adult voting rights. 
• J. S. Mill, who was the son of his notable friend James Mill, stressed the need to improve the quality of democracy by enhancing the quality of political participation. 
•  Mill, often called the "reluctant democrat", focused on the moral side of democracy. 
•  He believed that being active in politics would help individuals develop fully. 
•  Because of this view, Mill is referred to by Macpherson as the founder of the "developmental theory of democracy". 

Salient Features

• People are at the heart of democracy. Its main goal is to protect and promote the interests of individuals. The government serves this purpose, while the state itself is not a sacred entity. It does not have any divine qualities or ultimate power that is separate from its main mission of serving its citizens. 
•  The government is constitutional, meaning it has limits and is accountable. It operates based on the consent of the people, which is expressed through regular elections that follow the rule of universal adult suffrage. It is assumed that people are rational and make sensible choices when they vote. The government does not act according to the whims of those in power; instead, it operates under the rules set out in the constitution. With the separation of powers and checks and balances outlined in the constitution, the government is expected to avoid illegal or arbitrary actions. 
•  The executive branch of the government is accountable to the legislature, and eventually, the members of the legislature are accountable to the people who elect them regularly. This accountability ensures that the government pays attention to the needs and opinions of the public. Thus, public opinion is highly valued in a democracy. 
•  Democracy is about finding compromise and reaching agreements. It promotes debates, discussions, and negotiations, which help to reduce differences between opposing sides and lead to compromises. Such discussions can lower tensions, diffuse anger, and create an environment where compromise is possible. 
•  A democratic system respects fundamental rights, especially the freedom of expression, which is considered very important. J.S. Mill noted that a state that tries to diminish its citizens will struggle to achieve great things with such limited individuals. 
•  According to Davis, the liberal theory of democracy is based on the idea that there are rational and active citizens who want to achieve a commonly accepted good. They do this through collective discussion and decision-making about public affairs, and they delegate authority to elected officials to implement these decisions made by majority vote. He also pointed out that participation in public affairs is essential for the intellectual, emotional, and moral growth of individuals. 
• Peter H. Merkel identifies four key principles of liberal democracy: Government by discussion
  • Majority rule
  • Recognition of minority rights
  • Constitutional government
  The majority should lead the government but must not disregard the rights of the minority. J.S. Mill emphasized the importance of respecting minority opinions. 

Criticisms

•  The traditional idea of democracy assumes that people are rational. They can identify their important needs and the best ways to achieve them. However, experiences show that people are often influenced by other factors that may not serve their best interests. They frequently make political choices based on local factors such as caste, ethnicity, religion, and local identity. 
•  Democracy is said to represent the will of the people. In theory, a democratic government is formed with the consent of the people, which gives it legitimacy. However, the concept of “free choice” is complicated. Are people truly free in a society that is poor, underdeveloped, and marked by inequality and domination? The political freedom of individuals is often greatly affected by ignorance, poverty, and fear. Elections can be influenced by money, intimidation, and local loyalties. Even in wealthy countries, these issues persist, leading to criticism that the democratic legitimacy based on “consent” and “free choice” is more of a myth than a reality. 
•  Democracy is supposed to benefit everyone, but it is not an easy process for all to participate in. The structure and operation of democracy are quite complex. It includes many laws and principles, and functions at different levels. For an average person, understanding all these aspects can be quite challenging. 
•  The classical liberals placed a strong emphasis on individual freedom, which seemed to be aimed at stopping the government from interfering in the economic activities of the wealthy. According to Macpherson, “Liberal democracy has generally been structured to fit a model of democratic government within a class-divided society; this alignment was not attempted in theory or practice until the nineteenth century. Therefore, earlier models of democracy should not be considered as examples of liberal democracy.” 

Elite Theory

•  The elite theory suggests that a small group of people, who are seen as "better" than others, always rules society. 
•  Early theorists like Mosca and Pareto believed that the elites were naturally superior in terms of their qualities. 
•  In contrast, later theorists such as C. W. Mills and Floyd Hunter argued that the elites' perceived superiority came from their family backgrounds and the way society is organized in a hierarchy. 
•  The classical liberal theory emerged to reflect the interests of the new middle class during the 18th and 19th centuries. 
•  This new middle class was challenging the outdated monarchical and feudal systems of the time. 
•  The bourgeoisie aimed to limit the feudal power and push for more democratic control. 
•  As a result, classical liberal theory emphasized the importance of individual freedom and political equality. 
•  By the 20th century, the concerns and goals of the bourgeoisie had changed significantly. 
•  After removing the feudal lords from power, they wanted to maintain their control and prevent others from challenging their dominance. 
•  The elite theory, similar to classical liberal theory, was created to support the interests of the dominant class, which was the bourgeoisie. 
•  It was intended to justify the political situation of the early 20th century, where elites controlled most power structures. 

Vilfredo Pareto's Contributions

• Broad Definition of Elite: Pareto defined elites as a small number of individuals who have succeeded and reached a higher level in any sphere of activity, such as military, political, business, and academic fields. 
• Narrow Definition of Elite: He referred to the governing elite as the small group of individuals who exercise political and social ruling functions. 
• Psychological Attributes of Elites: Pareto believed that elites possess superior psychological traits, including "lion" qualities (strength and courage) and "fox" qualities (intelligence, shrewdness, and cunning). 
• Circulation of Elites: Pareto observed that elites tend to decay and be replaced by other groups due to changing circumstances. He described history as a "graveyard of aristocracies," where different elite groups take turns in power. 

Gaetano Mosca's Contributions:

• Rule of the Organized Minority: Mosca argued that in all societies, the organized minority rules over the unorganized majority. The ruling class performs all political functions, monopolizes power, and enjoys the benefits that come with it. 
• Distinction of Elites: Elites are distinguished from the masses by qualities that give them material, intellectual, or moral superiority. These qualities may differ from society to society. 
• Skepticism of Mass Self-Government: Mosca did not believe in the masses' capacity for self-government and asserted that elite rule is inevitable in any society. 
• Views on Democracy: Mosca saw democracy as government of the people but not by the people. He advocated for restricting the franchise to the middle class. 

Recent Developments in Elite Theory:

• Democratic Elitism: Recent theorists argue that while democracy is for the people, it is often not by the people. The common man is seen as vulnerable to manipulation and lacks rationality. 
• Manufactured Will: The public will is considered a reflection of influencing agencies rather than genuine public opinion. 
• Elite Control: The common man’s role is limited to holding elites accountable through periodic elections. Voters elect leaders, who make policy decisions. 
• Market Mechanism: Democracy is viewed as a market mechanism where voters are consumers, and politicians are entrepreneurs. 

Elements of Elite Theory:

1. Involvement Gradient: Not all citizens need to be equally active in democracy; varying levels of political involvement are acceptable. 

2. Inclusive Elites: Elites should be representative of all sections of society as much as possible. 

3. Accountability: Elites must not neglect the common people and should be accountable to them at regular intervals. 

4. Open Elite Structure: The elite structure should be open to deserving individuals from lower strata, ensuring a continuous inflow of new talent. 

5. Minimal Ideological Stress: There should be minimal ideological polarization among political elites/parties. The focus should be on system maintenance and stability. 

6. Mediation Role of Government: The government should act as a mediator among competing elites, aiming to minimize conflicts and establish consensus. 

7. End of Ideology: The recent trend in democracies is the reduction of ideological polarization among political elites/parties, with a focus on system stability. 

Differences Between Classical Liberalism and Elite Theory

1. Focus on People vs. Leaders: Classical liberalism emphasizes the role of people in democracy, while elite theory focuses on the capacity of leaders to maintain the system. 

2. Importance of Common Good: Classical liberalism values common good and public opinion, whereas elite theory sees these concepts as difficult to define and susceptible to manipulation. 

3. Purpose of Democracy: Classical liberalism views democracy as a means of moral development for individuals, while elite theory sees it as a mechanism for maintaining equilibrium among conflicting elites. 

4. Ideological Polarization: Elite theory advocates for minimal ideological polarization among political elites/parties, focusing on system maintenance, while classical liberalism does not emphasize this aspect. 

5. Role of Government: In elite theory, the government is seen as a mediator among competing elites, while classical liberalism does not have this focus. 

Criticisms

•  The elite theory is not supportive of democracy. It lacks trust in the general public and relies on a small group of elites for guidance. In this view, ordinary people are seen as less important, while elites are given too much value. 
•  Those who believe in elitism focus mainly on keeping the current system stable. They do not show much interest in changing or improving the system. Consequently, they tend to be very conservative and sometimes even reactionary. 
•  The concept of a moral individual is often absent in the works of elite theorists. For them, the value of the average person is mostly in their role as a voter, who is needed to choose the ruling elites at specific times. The overall growth and development of individuals are not a priority for elitists. 

The Pluralist Theory of Democracy

•  Both Marxists and elitists believe that power is held by a small group of people, while most members of society are left out of decision-making. 
•  In contrast, pluralists argue that power is not concentrated in one place but is spread out among various groups. 
•  These groups represent different interests and work hard to influence government policies and decisions. 
•  Some of these groups are clearly political, while others might seem more focused on social or economic issues but can also be involved in political actions when necessary. 
•  A closer look at political and semi-political groups shows that they are often controlled by a small number of leaders who hold significant power. 
•  As noted by , leadership within groups like trade unions tends to be oligarchic, meaning that a few leaders dominate. 
•  The competition for power among different organizations is really a competition among their leaders. 
•  There is considerable overlap between the Dahl-Schumpeter perspective on elite theory and the pluralist view of democracy. 
•  Ultimately, it is the elites who control political parties and interest groups, and they often have close connections with the ruling elites in the government. 

Elements of Pluralism 

• Powers are divided and spread out. The state must share its powers with various political parties, interest groups, private organizations, and individuals. 
•  Due to the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances, the chances of a dictatorship forming are low. No single branch of the government or any other group is likely to dominate for a long time. These different actors can limit each other, preventing any one of them from gaining complete control. 
• Sovereignty is not held exclusively by the state or any other group. Instead, it is shared among various actors. The state's sovereignty is restricted by the powers of other groups that can limit its authority. 
• Political organizations and other groups work to express the needs of their members, helping them connect with the state. By acting as a bridge, they reduce the gap between the government and the public. Additionally, they enhance the quality of government decisions by providing their expertise and interests. 

Criticisms 

• Dahl believes he has found a system where many elites are competing for power by looking at how decisions are made on various issues. However, some critics argue that Dahl has only looked at "safe decisions." In any system of power, there are important issues that do not go through the decision-making process; these are decided outside of it. The powerful elites only bring up issues where they are confident they will get a positive outcome, or at least not lose too much if the decision doesn’t meet their expectations. Therefore, focusing only on safe decisions doesn’t effectively demonstrate the existence of a pluralist power structure. 
• Pluralists argue that the government is not fully controlled by economic elites and has a certain level of autonomy. Critics do acknowledge that the government has some degree of autonomy but say that this autonomy serves the interests of ruling elites, including economic ones. Having some independence allows the government to manage its relationships with the general public more effectively. By making minor concessions, the government can prevent serious challenges to the power of the ruling elites. 
• Pluralism faces criticism for promoting "pressure politics." Interest groups often do not rise above their specific interests. In pursuing their goals, these groups may engage in illegal or unfair activities. They tend to pressure the government to prioritize their interests, even if it harms the broader interests of the community or nation. This type of pressure politics can weaken the government and significantly harm the important interests of the country. 

The discussion on various forms of liberal democracy indicates that the primary aim of this theory is to advance elite interests. Initially, classical liberalism sought to support the emerging middle class by limiting state intervention to protect against declining feudalism. Similarly, the pluralist version aimed to prevent state intervention to allow elites, representing different organizations and groups, to flourish and enhance their power and privileges. Elite theory further attempts to justify elite rule based on perceived superior psychological traits. Consequently, a thorough examination of liberal democracy reveals that the average citizen, whose interests are supposedly represented, ultimately suffers, as they are often utilized to legitimize and empower the elites.

Marxist Theory of Democracy 

• Marxists, in general, do not oppose democracy. They argue that their version of "democracy" is real, while the bourgeois democracy is seen as 'fake' and a 'sham'. 
•  For Marxists, democracy is not just a political system; it is a set of values and a way of organizing society. This means that democracy is always evolving and does not have a final goal. It is a process that continually strives to improve itself while maintaining its core essence. 
•  As a political system, democracy is a class organism. It exists to serve the interests of a specific class. Lenin makes a distinction between working-class democracy and bourgeois democracy. The latter benefits the bourgeoisie, a small minority, while the former works for the interests of the proletariat, the large majority of society. 
•  When socialism transitions into communism, the political system of democracy will no longer exist. However, the democratic values will continue to thrive. In a communist society, democracy is characterized by socio-economic equality and the absence of exploitation between classes. 
•  According to Lefebvre, Marx sees democracy as a process that is always associated with the fight for democracy. This struggle is never fully completed, as democracy can be advanced or pushed back. The goal is to move beyond democracy and establish a society without state power. 
•  Marxists believe that in bourgeois democracy, the state is controlled by economic elites from the finance sector. These elites hold key positions in the government and use their power to advance their own interests. 
•  Some Marxists have a slightly different view. They argue that the wealthy often stay out of direct government roles but still influence policy-making from behind the scenes. They allow the state some independence so it can better serve their interests. 
•  Both views—economic elites controlling the government either from within or from the outside—lead to the same conclusion: that the government in capitalist nations is dominated by the wealthy, who use it to further their own goals. 
•  Marxists reject the legitimacy of elections in bourgeois democracies. They claim that political parties in these states do not significantly differ in their ideologies. All party ideologies serve to support the interests of the wealthy, leaving poor people with little real choice. No matter which party they vote for, the outcome tends to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. 
•  Additionally, Marxists argue that justice in bourgeois democracies is very costly. Only the wealthy can afford to secure favorable judgments. They can use their financial power to influence the courts and escape accountability for their wrongdoings. In contrast, the poor, even if innocent, often face harsh penalties because they lack the resources to navigate the judicial system effectively. The judicial system is not impartial; it is influenced by the interests of the rich. 
•  Before analyzing the Marxist perspective on democracy critically, it is important to note a quote from Lenin in his work, State and Revolution. He stated: 
  • The dictatorship of the proletariat—the organization of the oppressed as the ruling class to suppress the oppressors—represents the first true democracy for the poor and not just for the wealthy. This dictatorship imposes restrictions on the freedoms of the oppressors, the exploiters, and the capitalists. 

Criticism 

• Criticism of Democracy:
  •  Critics argue that socialist democracy is not true democracy; it is seen as its opposite. They claim that democracy should represent everyone in society, not just a specific group. 
  •  The idea of dictatorship of the proletariat is viewed as a dictatorship over the working class rather than for them. Critics believe that in socialist democracy, the ruling party becomes too powerful, leaving ordinary people feeling disconnected and alienated. 
  •  Sartori describes socialist democracy as a "dictatorship pure and simple," while Popper views it as a "closed society" lacking freedom and democratic values. 
  •  Benn and Peters point out that Marxists define "people" in a way that excludes anyone who isn’t a worker, which restricts the concept of democracy. They argue that denying voting rights based on wealth is just as undemocratic as denying them based on poverty. 
• Violence and Heartlessness:
  •  Generally, Marxists believe that socialist revolutions and democracies rely heavily on violence. Lenin even supported the idea of violently overthrowing the bourgeois government. 
  •  Many people find the emphasis on violence in Marxist thought unacceptable. Various cultures prefer non-violent methods, leading to a lack of acceptance for Marxist ideas in those societies. 
• Parliamentary Socialism:
  •  Some believe that socialism can be achieved through peaceful parliamentary means rather than violence. They argue that important reforms to help the masses can be passed through legislation. 
  •  Supporters of this view, including some Communist parties in Western Europe, advocate for using elections and pressure groups to push the government towards welfare measures. 
  •  This idea has received some support from Moscow at times, such as when Khrushchev stated in 1956 that there are two paths to socialism: one through revolution and one through parliamentary means. However, this view faced strong criticism from China. 
• Not True Democracy:
  •  Revisionists like Bernstein and Kautsky argue that socialist democracy is not a pure democracy. Kautsky criticized the Russian proletariat dictatorship for not providing freedoms to citizens. 
  •  Bernstein condemned the violence associated with Russian socialist democracy, while Rosa Luxemburg criticized it for restricting freedom of the press and the rights of the people. 
  •  Luxemburg believed that the Russian dictatorship of the proletariat had turned into a dictatorship of a few politicians rather than serving the interests of the working class. 

Marxist democracies in countries like Russia and China exhibit limited respect for individual political freedoms, with political power concentrated in a small ruling elite and a notable absence of political democracy. While these systems provide greater social and economic equality compared to liberal democracies, they lack individual initiative, which is crucial for economic growth. Recently, leaders in these countries have begun to recognize this shortcoming, leading to the introduction of "capitalist reforms" in China and Russia. The reforms, alongside Gorbachev's initiatives in the Soviet Union and the rise of student activism in post-Mao China, indicate a shift towards incorporating non-orthodox Marxist innovations. These nations appear to believe that integrating limited capitalist elements may enhance the stability and security of their proletarian democracies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, democracy is a complex and evolving concept that has its roots in ancient Greece and has taken various forms throughout history. From the direct democracy of Athens to the protective democracy advocated by Locke and Mill, the underlying principles of citizen participation, equality, and liberty have remained constant. Despite the limitations and flaws of direct democracy, its ideals continue to inform modern democratic practices, such as referendums and the broader principles of good governance, separation of powers, and individual freedoms. Ultimately, democracy serves as a framework for societies to strive for greater inclusivity, representation, and justice in their political systems.