IS DEMOCRACY REALLY POSSIBLE?
Democracy is known as the best regime that a country can be governed. It was invented by Aristotle as a system for administiring the Ancient Greek. It comprises multiparty elections, representative government, and freedom of speech. After the French Revolution, nationalism and notion of freedom have spread among many kingdoms where are governed with monarchy; therefore, they became to fall and be seperated. Subsequently, people in the small countries seperated from them knew that they could not express themselves in monarchy so they embraced the democracy. Correspondingly, the countries which benefit from democracy have spawned. However, some quesions started confusing minds. Is democracy really possible in the countries suffering from lack of education and having fiscal problems? Realistic democracy is only possible in the countries where there is economic stability and educated voters.
The first hallmark of criticism towards democracy is that voters are highly uninformed about many political issues, especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which they are fairly knowledgeable. Voters may not be educated enough to exercise their democratic rights and they leads irrational decisions while election. The lack of rationality or even education is being taken advantage by politicians. That means, voters who are uneducated about the political issues are undeniably vulnerable to be manipulated by the candidates who benefit from propogandas, campaigns and even promises in order to shape their mind in the process of elections.
One such argument is that the benefits of a specialised society may be involved by democracy. As ordinary citizens are encouraged to take part in the political life of the country, they have the power to directly influence the outcome of government policies through the democratic procedures of voting. The power may be the fiscal superiority or even be the religion (The religious consequences of misusing of democracy is apparent in many of Middle East countries such as The Islamic Repubic of Iran). The result is that government policies may be more influenced by non-specialist opinions, especially if a policy is technically sophisticated or the general public are inadequately informed about the notion.
The proponents of this that realistic democracy can be possible in every countries where embrace it assert that everybody can feels the lack of freedom. Hovever, they unfortunately sidestep the main issue: people are more interested in improving living standard and welfare than political issues and philosophy of democracy. They could not be in the state of considering how they are being governed if they are deprived of educational, occupational and monetary opportunities. So, shaped opinions by candidates' promises about job and education opportunities (and even few bag of coal) may be misleaded.
Taken above all the above-mentioned points into conclusion, we can deduce that the real democracy, no doubt, is not possible in the countries where there is uneducated voters, specialized societies whose aim is benefiting from the government and not adequate welfare state. These circumstances appears as an obstacle for citizens in where the democracy is misused.
Democracy is known as the best regime that a country can be governed. It was invented by Aristotle as a system for administiring the Ancient Greek. It comprises multiparty elections, representative government, and freedom of speech. After the French Revolution, nationalism and notion of freedom have spread among many kingdoms where are governed with monarchy; therefore, they became to fall and be seperated. Subsequently, people in the small countries seperated from them knew that they could not express themselves in monarchy so they embraced the democracy. Correspondingly, the countries which benefit from democracy have spawned. However, some quesions started confusing minds. Is democracy really possible in the countries suffering from lack of education and having fiscal problems? Realistic democracy is only possible in the countries where there is economic stability and educated voters.
The first hallmark of criticism towards democracy is that voters are highly uninformed about many political issues, especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which they are fairly knowledgeable. Voters may not be educated enough to exercise their democratic rights and they leads irrational decisions while election. The lack of rationality or even education is being taken advantage by politicians. That means, voters who are uneducated about the political issues are undeniably vulnerable to be manipulated by the candidates who benefit from propogandas, campaigns and even promises in order to shape their mind in the process of elections.
One such argument is that the benefits of a specialised society may be involved by democracy. As ordinary citizens are encouraged to take part in the political life of the country, they have the power to directly influence the outcome of government policies through the democratic procedures of voting. The power may be the fiscal superiority or even be the religion (The religious consequences of misusing of democracy is apparent in many of Middle East countries such as The Islamic Repubic of Iran). The result is that government policies may be more influenced by non-specialist opinions, especially if a policy is technically sophisticated or the general public are inadequately informed about the notion.
The proponents of this that realistic democracy can be possible in every countries where embrace it assert that everybody can feels the lack of freedom. Hovever, they unfortunately sidestep the main issue: people are more interested in improving living standard and welfare than political issues and philosophy of democracy. They could not be in the state of considering how they are being governed if they are deprived of educational, occupational and monetary opportunities. So, shaped opinions by candidates' promises about job and education opportunities (and even few bag of coal) may be misleaded.
Taken above all the above-mentioned points into conclusion, we can deduce that the real democracy, no doubt, is not possible in the countries where there is uneducated voters, specialized societies whose aim is benefiting from the government and not adequate welfare state. These circumstances appears as an obstacle for citizens in where the democracy is misused.
