Democracy

Being democratic is widely regarded as a desirable, good quality in government, organizations, making rules, deciding goals and policies. Because of this ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic’ have come to have an approbative, commendatory quality as part of their meaning. They are conventionally partly used to express or indicate approval, to commend or praise. ‘Undemocratic’ conventionally is often derogatory, pejorative, expressing or indicating disapproval. It is used in part to deprecate, censure, denigrate, disparage, chide, put down, etc. ‘That’s not democratic’ is often like saying ‘That’s not fair’. ‘Democratic’ is perhaps not so evaluative in meaning as ‘dictatorial’, ‘fascist’, ‘repressive’, ‘elitist’, ‘brutal’, etc.

The descriptive meaning of ‘democracy’ and its cognates, though, is (like that of many terms in philosophy, social theory, politics, art, literary theory, religion, etc.) rather woolly or nebulous in common (and often specialist!) use. In ordinary, standard use ‘democracy’ is not used to pick out (not clearly, closely tied to) a specific set of clearly definable (in principle intersubjectively verifiable and falsifiable) characteristics or features. (Cf. ‘20th wedding anniversary party’, “university’, ‘by-election’.) Rather ‘democracy’ is used to loosely indicate a feature (or features) in a certain range which is not clearly specified. It seems that speakers/writers do not have some specific, definite property or kind of thing clearly in mind when they (albeit correctly) use ‘democracy’. Speakers/users are unable to pick out confidently what would be democratic and what not, or to specify what are verifiable democratic-making characteristics – criteria, truth/application conditions.

Descriptive meaning of ‘democracy’. The underlying, loose idea behind ‘democratic’ is something like : a government, business, corporation, movement, non-profit society, community association etc. such that ordinary people/all members have a real say in running the organization as opposed to its being run by an elite or privileged group, and /or such that it is run for the real benefit of ordinary/all members not for the benefit of an elite or privileged group. Democracy is contrasted with government by church (theocracy), hereditary monarch or chief, aristocracy, big business, the military, dictatorship, the upper classes.

Sharpening the meaning. Specific criteria might be listed to give clearer, sharper definition to ‘democracy’.
Freedom to form different, opposing, rival political parties which the government may deem are not in the best public interest (even some which seek to abolish certain freedoms or rights).
Freedom to publicly criticize the government and laws.
Some media not directly controlled by the government.
Toleration of different values, belief systems, disagreement about priorities.
Freedom of access to information about government spending and policies.
Freedom to vote and run for office (political, judicial, police, military, civil service) regardless of class, religion, political affiliation, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation.
Safeguards for keeping patronage appointments, nepotism, favoritism, and pork barreling to a minimum, e.g. strict rules for government tendering, and for hiring in the civil service and schools and universities; membership of some boards determined by lot rather than appointment.
Mechanism to allow for peaceful change of government.
The ultimate basis of political power lies in the expressed consent of the majority of citizens.
Minorities have certain rights.
Opportunities for the disadvantaged (females, poor, ethnic minorities) to have higher education and rise to office and good jobs in the professions, academia, etc.

There is something semantically odd about saying ‘A is a democracy’, or the equivalent in another language, where A lacks 2 or more of the preceding characteristics.

Some communist and totalitarian countries calling themselves democratic are not democratic according to the analysis given. We might speak of communist, Marxist, totalitarian, or religious democracy versus liberal democracy (without the sneer word ‘bourgeois’). A communist (or religious) supposed democratic ideology holds that there are two classes of people : those who have seen the definite truth about God’s law, social reality, ultimate reality, or the historical process and those who have not. Those who do not accept the truth represented by the ‘correct’ religious/political party are corrupt, unenlightened and should be excluded from political power and input. (Notice the similarity here between totalitarian democrats and some politically correct liberal democrats.) Those to be excluded may be peasants, landlords, capitalists, bourgeois liberals, western decadents, atheists, non-members of the ‘correct’ party, or those who make remarks deemed to be damaging or offensive to the disadvantaged or minorities. Furthermore, on this view, dictatorship of the ruling party, proletariat, or religion is not undemocratic because it in fact represents the true underlying free will of each individual in so far as this is not perverted.

Democracy is associated with egalitarianism : the idea that people are in some way of equal value or worth and should have equal opportunity even though there are differences in ability and character.

In a democratic association all members have input into what qualifications are required for membership and for holding a particular rank. In this respect many professional associations and trade unions are democratic whereas the Catholic Church is not. In a democratic country it might be that all people with relevant skills and expertise, not just association members, should have input into criteria for membership in an association or union and pay scales in so far as these have a monopoly on certain jobs (frequently paid for by the general taxpayer).

Democracy (either liberal or totalitarian) is compatible with distinctions of rank and with some degree of meritocracy. Thus, to impose a test for voting or holding office of basic literacy, cultural, historical, and political knowledge might be deemed ‘undemocratic’ in a loose sense but it is not so according to the more precise analysis given. What matters for democracy in the precise sense is equality of opportunity, open critical thinking, concern for the well-being and development of others especially those with a poor start in life, and respect for individual liberty/autonomy – allowing for disagreement, differences of opinion. Democracy in the precise sense does not entail a philosophy of idealizing or sentimentalizing the poor, non-achievers, criminals, drug addicts, etc.