The essence of democracy lays in the assumption that a society is best served when power is entrusted to the common people. This is perhaps why democracies have been most successful when those who are defined as the “common people” have a fair amount of free time, allowing them to consider political matters; when they have access to reliable information concerning the issues the society faces; and when they are all tied to each other with a bond strong enough to resist man’s natural temptation to use force when disagreements arise.

In the past, there was much doubt as to laypeople’s ability to consider political issues in a rational manner. With advents in education and communication, it has become more difficult to under-estimate people’s ability to reason for themselves, free of overly successful manipulation. Even if the common people do not consider the issues from a thoroughly objective and rational manner, they are seen as being at least capable of making decisions as to what is good for them. Since decisions in a democracy are fueled by a consensus that must be supported by at least a significant part of the population, the whims of individuals lose influence in favour of decisions which will benefit a large proportion of society – and perhaps the whole of it.

Even when we decide upon such a system, there are many details to be considered as to how our democracy should be designed. One of the primary issues deals with the centralisation of power and there is a whole continuum of possibilities to consider here: on one end, there is autocracy, with one individual being granted absolute power; and on the other, there is absolute democracy, with the whole of society involved in every single decision. As we try to understand which point upon this continuum would be ideal – ideal, at least, for a specific society – it is important to consider the various problems that can arise as we increase or decrease the centralisation of power.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text