Democracy vs. Authoritarianism

Coming from the Greek words dêmos, meaning people, and krátos, meaning power, democracy has existed in one form or another since ancient Athens’ gentry were elected to rule the governed. “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all others that have been tried.” Was said by Former English Prime Minister Winston Churchill and even though government by the common man has hit many pitfalls throughout history, compared to the authoritative nature mankind’s governmental history and in some cases contemporary cases, the will of the people has always and will always be the best form of government no matter the country’s size or ethnic make up.

Democracy has spread from nation to nation like wildfire since the 20th Century. Traditionally authoritative cultures and countries, such as Germany and Russia, have embraced progressive government. The nature of democracy’s spread is inherently democratic. In nations such as the United States of America and India, the populace united under the banner of democratic ideals. The will of the people triumphed over authoritative installations and then the will of the people put in a government of the people.

Democracy is sustainable. Because of the electoral focus of democracy, its success does not rely on a single personality like most authoritarian states. South Africa displays this trait exceptionally. The veritable cult of personality that formed around Nelson Mandela and his revolutionary movement that not only displaced the apartheid government, but it also put Mandela into a position of executive power. After he left office, more democratic elections took place and a new president was elected. Even though the democratic movement had lost its face, Mandela, it still continues to thrive.

On the other hand, during the Bolshevik Revolution after the movement’s driving personality Vladimir Lenin died the movement began to tear itself apart. And while the creation of the Soviet Union could be seen as a success, the violent infighting created a hyper authoritative mutation of what the revolution started as. And while the aim of the Bolsheviks wasn’t to install democracy, their hopes shared similar characteristics, namely governance by the common man.

Government of the Governed caters to the diversity of mankind. Open forum governments like democracies, even representative democracies, allow for the inclusion of minority thinking, for better or for worse. In a democracy anyone has the ability to try and change the government to cater to his or her own unique beliefs. Authoritative states have no room for such independent thinking. Authoritarians seek to impose their own will on their people. It doesn’t matter how benevolent the despot is, the government is still a reflection of his own personality and beliefs. There is no room for variety. There is only the state’s thinking. Such freedoms can be seen in the freedomhouse.org rankings. Democracies, even transitional ones like South Africa and Mexico, are ranked and classified as there. Autocratic states like Iran’s Theocracy or China’s pseudo-communistic state are ranked as ‘not free’ (Kesselman 34). And as history has dictated, repressive states can only last as long as their population is willing to be controlled.

Iran exemplifies the instability of autocratic states. Every so often the ruling powers hold an election. The elections are heavily fixed and the ruling party, not surprisingly, always wins. Every time this happens, the populace vents its anger in the streets. As seen in the most contemporary round of elections, the populace’s anger boiled over into riots and violence. Compared to the United States or Britain, where similar outbreaks of dissent do happen, but not nearly as regularly and they aren’t calling for the abolishment of the government, usually it’s just a protest of policy.

Democracy’s sustainability can be attributed to the fact that forums exist for the venting of frustration. People can hold town hall meetings, protest in the streets, and vote politicians out of office if they disagree with the ruling powers. The only forum in authoritarian states is violence.

History is rife with authoritative states collapsing and democratic revolutions installing progressive government. Few states have accomplished the inverse. The superiority of democracy exists, if in nothing else, its sustainability. Government by the people for the people lasts as long as the people wish it to.

-Niharika gupta

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

Democracy and authoritarianism represent two fundamentally different approaches to governance and the organization of society. Democracy is characterized by the rule of the majority, where power is vested in the people, either directly or through elected representatives. This system emphasizes the protection of individual rights and freedoms, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. Democracies typically promote transparency, free and fair elections, and the active participation of citizens in the political process. In contrast, authoritarianism is a form of government where power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small group, and there is little to no tolerance for opposition or dissent. Authoritarian regimes often suppress civil liberties, control the media, and limit the role of independent institutions. They prioritize stability and order, sometimes at the expense of personal freedoms and human rights. While democracies can be slow and sometimes inefficient due to the need for consensus and debate, they are generally more resilient and adaptable, as they allow for the peaceful transfer of power and the expression of diverse viewpoints. Authoritarian systems, on the other hand, can be more decisive and effective in implementing policies quickly, but they often lack the mechanisms for self-correction and can become brittle and unresponsive to the needs and aspirations of the populace over time. The choice between these two systems is not always clear-cut and depends on a variety of factors, including the historical, cultural, and socioeconomic context of a country.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

Coming from the Greek words dêmos, meaning people, and krátos, meaning power, democracy has existed in one form or another since ancient Athens’ gentry were elected to rule the governed. “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all others that have been tried.” Was said by Former English Prime Minister Winston Churchill and even though government by the common man has hit many pitfalls throughout history, compared to the authoritative nature mankind’s governmental history and in some cases contemporary cases, the will of the people has always and will always be the best form of government no matter the country’s size or ethnic make up.

Democracy has spread from nation to nation like wildfire since the 20th Century. Traditionally authoritative cultures and countries, such as Germany and Russia, have embraced progressive government. The nature of democracy’s spread is inherently democratic. In nations such as the United States of America and India, the populace united under the banner of democratic ideals. The will of the people triumphed over authoritative installations and then the will of the people put in a government of the people.

Democracy is sustainable. Because of the electoral focus of democracy, its success does not rely on a single personality like most authoritarian states. South Africa displays this trait exceptionally. The veritable cult of personality that formed around Nelson Mandela and his revolutionary movement that not only displaced the apartheid government, but it also put Mandela into a position of executive power. After he left office, more democratic elections took place and a new president was elected. Even though the democratic movement had lost its face, Mandela, it still continues to thrive.

On the other hand, during the Bolshevik Revolution after the movement’s driving personality Vladimir Lenin died the movement began to tear itself apart. And while the creation of the Soviet Union could be seen as a success, the violent infighting created a hyper authoritative mutation of what the revolution started as. And while the aim of the Bolsheviks wasn’t to install democracy, their hopes shared similar characteristics, namely governance by the common man.

Government of the Governed caters to the diversity of mankind. Open forum governments like democracies, even representative democracies, allow for the inclusion of minority thinking, for better or for worse. In a democracy anyone has the ability to try and change the government to cater to his or her own unique beliefs. Authoritative states have no room for such independent thinking. Authoritarians seek to impose their own will on their people. It doesn’t matter how benevolent the despot is, the government is still a reflection of his own personality and beliefs. There is no room for variety. There is only the state’s thinking. Such freedoms can be seen in the freedomhouse.org rankings. Democracies, even transitional ones like South Africa and Mexico, are ranked and classified as there. Autocratic states like Iran’s Theocracy or China’s pseudo-communistic state are ranked as ‘not free’ (Kesselman 34). And as history has dictated, repressive states can only last as long as their population is willing to be controlled.

Iran exemplifies the instability of autocratic states. Every so often the ruling powers hold an election. The elections are heavily fixed and the ruling party, not surprisingly, always wins. Every time this happens, the populace vents its anger in the streets. As seen in the most contemporary round of elections, the populace’s anger boiled over into riots and violence. Compared to the United States or Britain, where similar outbreaks of dissent do happen, but not nearly as regularly and they aren’t calling for the abolishment of the government, usually it’s just a protest of policy.

Democracy’s sustainability can be attributed to the fact that forums exist for the venting of frustration. People can hold town hall meetings, protest in the streets, and vote politicians out of office if they disagree with the ruling powers. The only forum in authoritarian states is violence.

History is rife with authoritative states collapsing and democratic revolutions installing progressive government. Few states have accomplished the inverse. The superiority of democracy exists, if in nothing else, its sustainability. Government by the people for the people lasts as long as the people wish it to.

-Niharika gupta