Democracy: Definition and Comparison

The world’s political trend has been changing its direction toward democracy, away from other types of regimes such as authoritarian and communist regimes. This certainly reflects the people’s strong desire for freedom and a better life, which they tend to relate to democracy. Such questions arise then: What is democracy? Is democracy necessarily better than other types of regimes?

In Schmitter and Karl’s article, “What Democracy is…And is Not,” they define democracy as the following: “Modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives.” Then they go on explaining in detail what they mean by each term, but I would like to point out just a few key terms which are the most distinctive elements of democracy. In the successful democratic societies, elections are regularly and fairly conducted, and honestly counted. Schmitter and Karl point out that there is a misconception called “electoralism” that says, doing election is sufficient enough for the existence of democracy. As Professor King mentioned in his lecture today, the trap of “electoralism” is one of the fragilities of authoritarian regime. A good example for this could be North Korea, where it is actually an authoritarian state but disguises itself under its official name, “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” Officially, the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, came to power by conducting an election, which was unfairly conducted by forcing everyone to vote for him (his poll was 100%). Another key element of democracy is representatives: how the representatives are chosen and held accountable for their actions. There are many different ways of representation in democracy, but in modern democracy, the electoral one seems to be most common. Schmitter and Karl explain that the electoral representation “culminates in a parliament or a presidency that is periodically accountable to the citizenry as a whole.”

People praise democracy as if it is the best existing regime type. Considering the history of democracy that has generally worked better than other regime types, it seems to be so. However, it is difficult to simply state that democracy is necessarily the best and the most effective. In comparison with authoritarian regime, there are some factors that work better with authoritarian regime based on the assumption of its governance under a good (fair, honest, uncorrupted) ruler. Schmitter and Karl claim that democracies are not necessarily more efficient economically and administratively, and could be less stable, consensual, or governable than authoritarian regimes. In other words, sometimes authoritarian regime could be more stable, faster, and more efficient than democracy. An example for this could be Singapore, which is an authoritarian state and is doing well economically. However, in most cases, authoritarian states are often more exposed to the chances of corruption and dictatorship. Thus, although it might take some time to stabilize, it seems to me, democracy has better chances of doing better than authoritarian regime overall.