Fundamental Values ​​of Democracy A Philosophical Study

I always think of you, your troubles, as well as your health.
Take good care of yourself.
I'll see you someday.
Please do not die.

■ Leon Trotsky's -  FASCISM : What It Is and How To Fight It
■ Elite Theories: Summary 

Throughout the history of human thought, the concept of democracy continues to invite debate. Political philosophers, ranging from Ancient Greece to the present time do not have the same opinion when they talk about democracy. As noted by Harrison, Jeremy Bentham agreed with the basic ideas of democracy. But Jean-Jacques Rousseau rejected the concept and application of democracy. For him, in a democracy, the people should participate directly, and can not be delegated. Political representatives only lead to misuse of the people's will. Karl Marx also has his own version of democracy, namely the democracy driven by the workers interests and created through a political revolution and class struggle.

In times of Ancient Greece -- which used democracy as a system of government -- the philosophers were still arguing about the nature of democracy and how it would be implemented. Plato and Aristotle did not agree to implement democracy as a system of government. For Plato, the leader of a community should be a philosopher king, a leader who lived to seek what was good, and applied it in the pattern of administration.

Regardless of this debate, right now, all over the world, democracy has become such a political paradigm, ie, a view which is recognized with a dominant view. Why does this happen? According to Harrison, this is because democracy has basic values with universal aspect, in the sense recognized by enough people as good values​​. In this section, based on Harrison thought, I will try to describe the basic values ​​that underpin the democratic political system.

The first value as stated by Harrison is the knowledge. All policies in democratic societies should be grounded on knowledge that can be held accountable, and applied also with a thorough knowledge of existing context. That means, not only the data that matches with reality, but public policies in democratic societies should also be applied in appropriate ways. Therefor, the knowledge which can be held accountable is greatly needed. It can also be said, in my opinion, that a democratic society is the society of knowledge. Democracy can not work if the knowledge is not expanded through quality research. On the other hand, the knowledge must always consider the second value of democracy : the value of autonomy.

According to Harrison, the value of autonomy is a universal good. In a sense, humans -- whatever their background -- are fully humans if they are able to become the masters of themselves. Thus, autonomy is a good value because it allows humans to govern themselves. Harrison also confirmed, that in a democratic society,  the value of autonomy -- ie the ability of humans to organize themselves -- was very important. Autonomy is one of the basic values ​​of democracy. Without autonomy, there will be no democracy. At the individual level, people who live in a democracy are the individuals who govern themselves, and ready to be responsible for the decisions taken in life. At the collective level, a democratic society is a society that governs itself. "The central idea of democracy," Harrison wrote, "is a self-governance. In democracy, the people govern themselves."

In a democratic society, there are two things that need to be considered in the making of public policy. The first, of course, the content of public policies. The second is the processes of public policy making. The process must be open to the public, and is made through a process of discussion and consultation of the local community, which consists of people who are autonomous, ie they who are able to govern themselves. The concept of radical democracy -- where every person invited to participate in the processes of public policy making -- standing on top of the basic foundation, that every person is an autonomous human, ie, capable of making decisions and control themselves, then work together to create public policies for the common good.

In his political philosophy, Hegel had seen any problems in this view. For him, the laws that exist in society are never identical with morality, which is a view in the hearts of individuals. Logically, when every person is able to determine and govern herself/himself, then what she/ he thinks is often not identical with what is happening outside of herself/himself, namely in the community. Morality in human beings can not always be in line with the laws in force in the community. If this is the case, then someone running something because the law requires it, and not because of the will in her/him.

In other words, when people engage in social life, then their autonomy is threatened because they have to negotiate with the people and situations around them. In my opinion, this is a political necessity. In essence, democracy is deliberative democracy, ie a democracy where each policy is built on the basis of a rational discussion between all the parties concerned with the policy. With this pattern, the autonomy of each individual can stay awake, though, indeed, the absolute status can not be maintained.

The third value -- which according to Harrison was the foundation of democracy -- is equality. According to him, in the first period of Ancient Greece, "Liberty and equality are the main characteristics of democracy." In other words, the greater freedom and equality in a society, the more democratic the society.

In the historical development of human society, the encouragement to create a democratic society is very strong, and this is evident from the growing demands for equality in various spheres of life, especially politics. "Every power of the successor," Harrison wrote, "Increases as a sign of increasing equality, making different groups of people have more equal political power."Together with status of valid knowledge and the value of autonomy, equality is the third foundation of democracy. In other words, these three concepts are the conditions which will allow for the creation of democracy.

On the other hand -- according to Harrison -- equality is a political value. And just like any other political values​​, the meaning of equality is constantly changing, and continues to be part of the political debate in the community. There are various interpretations of what the true meaning of equality. All commentaries are claiming, that they are the most important foundation of democracy. As stated by Harrison, equality enables the creation of democracy, and democracy, in turn, also increases the atmosphere of equality in society.

Fairly important question here is, "Is it true that equality will improve the quality of democracy in society, and, thus, improve the fairness, prosperity, and the intelligence community?" And more basic than it is, "Is the equality in socio-political reality of life possible?" These are two questions that -- in my opinion -- need to be explored and addressed further.

One thing that distinguishes democracy with other government systems, such as theocracy, oligarchy, or monarchy, is a treatment which seeing all citizens as legal subjects equivalent, which has the same dignity and dignity. However, as stated by Harrison, "Democracy is rule by all, which is clearly contrary to the government by one person (monarchy), or rule by a few people (oligarchy)." In other words, when we talk about democracy, the concept of equality among human beings as subjects of the law have the same status and dignity has always contained therein. "Not anymore, it can be thought, can and should be said," Harrison wrote, "Equality is practically come from the meaning of the word: Democracy."

But there is a problem in this idea. Conceptually, we can directly accept that equality is the basic idea of democracy, even already inherent in the concept of democracy itself. However, at the application level, eventually democracy transforming into a voting, and a majority vote determines the highest decision. In other words, democracy is an end to the domination of majority over minority voice. It is not inevitable, because democratic procedures will undoubtedly deliver the entire decision-making process in such a situation. In this sense, it can be said that democracy does not encourage the creation of equality, but on the contrary, democracy creates a gap between the interests of majority and minority. This is often referred to democracy as the tyranny of majority.

In my opinion, despite all its shortcomings, democracy remains the best form of government among  various other forms of government, because democracy has the highest power-checking  mechanism, so that none of the powers can be diverted for a long time.

With this checking mechanism, then the fair processes to establish a community of intelligent, equitable, and prosperous certainly can be done as long as the democratic process with essentially values, -- such as the sufficient knowledge, equality, and autonomy of citizens -- are pretty firmly embedded in the society.
***
[CZ-lacalifusa041214]

I do not believe anymore with what you give
I'm stranded here
cornered waiting to die
I do not believe anymore in the sun
which
at that time was able to enlighten
this dark corner of my heart
I will stop hoping
and waiting for the darkness to come
until someday
I get no love
Why is there suffering if there is happiness?
Why is there the black if white is quite fun?
I am home without a sense of revenge
I salute your victory
I accept my defeat
You show me happiness
You show me the pain
You give me happiness
You give me the pain
***

I do not know where should I put these sentences. Herein.
I'm sorry for any impropriety.
Oh, the sky above me,
Do you read me?
Oh, the gentle breeze,
Tell him I'm in love with him.
Tell him I need him.