Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

mty thesis ....
this is just only an overview(i think) of what it will be. this is all about the failures hat democratic system can give.

Democracy is defined as a political concept and turn of government where all people are supposed to have equal voices in shaping policy. Democracy in its etymological definition meaning demos which mean people and kratos which is rule, is the “rule of the people”. The voice of the people is more important that it can affect not only the particular but also the whole. Democracy gave the people to have a freedom to express to what they feel, what they want to express either through oral, or other kinds or forms to communicate. Tom Christiano defined in his article that democracy is a method of group decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the collective decision making.

Christiano gave four aspects of the definition he gave. First is that in democracy, when people are making decision they consider that the decision that they will make is for the groups. Second, in the definition he gave, he ascribes it to the different kinds of groups in the society for example families, organizations, etc. that may have democracy within those institution. Third, it does not settle any normative question. And lastly, by saying equality in his definition, he intends it to be more or less deep. It can be just as simple as by giving your vote for the candidate that you want to win, or in the process of deliberation ad coalition building.

Joshua Cohen gave a notion about the deliberative democracy that is rooted in the intuitive ideal of a democratic association in which the justification of the terms and conditions of association proceeds through public argument and reasoning among equal citizens. Citizens in such an order share a commitment to the resolution of problems of collective choice through public reasoning, and regard their basic institutions as legitimate in so far as they establish the framework for free public deliberation.

Democracy, in the Philippines, can be divided in four approaches: historical, cultural, sociological and psychological approach.

Historical. Philippines was then composed of different tribes, democracy that time is not in existence. They are choosing their leaders in a qualification of who is the best or the bravest in their community. We could see that during the pre-Spanish era, democracy is not on essential value or factor in running the state or the constituents. During the Spanish period, Filipinos have no any right to choose their gobernadorcillo, it was appointed by the Spanish Government. When the democracy highly recognized? This is during the Third Republic to which they voted for their president under the new constitution and more freedom. This democratic power is still being experience in the country. This democracy is more acknowledge during the People Power 1. How the democracy does influenced the history? Precisely, democracy shapes the humanity by its virtue of giving the people their power to express their will. This power given by democracy is by virtue practiced in a lot of historical events and was adapted by almost all of other nation. And democracy is highlighted during the transition of Late President Ferdinand Marcos and Late President Cory Aquino, though Marcos won in the election happened back then, cause of lack of justice and freedom for both media men and even ordinary citizens. During Marcos’ regime, people only had given limited rights when it comes in freedom of expression. And because almost all of the Filipinos want to be freed from the oppressive regime and dictatorship, a Snap Election had happened and they choose Aquino. This is why some people said that Aquino is the Mother of the Philippines’ Democracy because of what she had done, to sue away Marcos in the palace. Democracy was, then, proven its own weakness most specially in collective counts for actions and decisions. Throughout the history of the Philippines, with the power of democracy put in the office the destructive leaders and that democracy never limit its collective power throughout reach and treated us an absolute power.

Cultural. It is by culture that we are able to see the reason why a country or citizens is behaving in such ways. When democracy entered the Philippines, it is undeniably true that we are Filipinos so much enjoyed the privileges and opportunities that are in democratic system which is not in the past system. They were so astonished to this distinct power given to them and the opportunity that assert their opinions and beliefs. They were anxious to realize that the old system is a system leading to tyranny. From then, that this democratic system is introduced Filipinos adopted the power in its formal form. We are able to see the progression, the cultural changes and the shifting of actions. Democracy tests the decision making power of individual to which it can be rooted to its cultural environment. How democracy does affect the culture? Culture, precisely the kind of civilization on nation has and democracy, the researcher thought, is the transition of culture from the conservative, voiceless people and enslavement system to a more powerful people, opinion aided society at a level or step outside the power of slavery.

Sociological. The sociological approach is merely the relation in the society. This shows how democracy evolves together with the society and the people. This approach will try to explain the interrelationship of the two. It is undeniably true that democracy had implications on sociology and on the other hand, sociology affects the development of the democracy. From the purely masters and slaves relationship into democratic country. Democracy stands to be the battle cry for the ordinary people to be heard in the society. This actually differs to the system in which only the leaders are to be followed. The number of the specific society does not have any rights to talk unless they are permitted. This relationship or transition is a clear manifestation that the relation between the master and slaves flourished through democracy’s offertory. Sociology affects the development of democracy in some obvious things. We can be able to see the development by the response of the people to it. The sociological background, for example, during the People Power I. The rivalry between Cory and Marcos, Marcos holds to the system of dictatorialship and oppression, this background move democracy in the new form and this new form can affect on the People Power I. thus, these two concept –the science of social behavior and the system of society are working together.

Psychological. It is the factor attributed to the individual in which his behavior is under observation. It is indeed true that individual preferences have something to do for the progress of democracy. Individuals are being guided by their on reason – reason that builds up their ideology and similar ideology lifted democracy. Since it is he voice of the majority, it s hereby possible that there will be a split decision or judgment within the people. By these means, democracy is created. Democracy is a political system that, in which it will adapt the environment of every individuals. This environment will be the basis that will build up his personality. Since democracy is related to psychological aspect, this also follows that decisions are for individuals. This then follows that the result will depend and is different to what country wherein individuals are mis-educated, passive and naïve citizens, they will be forever be dimmed by the illusion given by the democratic system. They should realize he reality and essential democracy.

Others say that democracy is the best form of government system wherein what the most of the citizen’s wants should be heard. The people have their freedom to speak for their ideas and their needs to inform the leaders of what they need. John Stuart Mill once argued that it is better to have a democratic method of legislation than to have non-democratic. In democracy, it forces the decision-maker to take in consideration in his/her decisions the welfare of the people and their interests. It is also the best decision-making method on the grounds that it is generally more reliable in helping the participants discover the right decisions. It gives the decision-maker the ideas of what are the needs of the people or what is their opinion in such circumstances. It helps the decision-maker a guide on what should be done or not. And in democracy, it shows what is the idea or opinion of everybody collectively, what is their stand. And by this, it will enhance the quality of the decision-maker to be autonomous, rational and moral. Democracy helps the citizens to stand for what they are for because, still, they themselves depend what will be the decision collectively. And it encourages the citizens to be a self-governed human being. It makes the people to think carefully and rationally to what maybe the course of their action would be.

But on the other hand, there are also some who denies the good effect of democratic system. One is Sir Winston Churchill, says that democracy is the worst form of government. Same as Plato in his Dialogue in the Republic, he argued that democracy is excavating beneath the expertise which is needed in properly governing the society. It makes the one who have a lot of knowledge in winning the election to dominate in a democratic society. For some people who do not have enough knowledge about the issues in politics and other issues that they are concerned. But in order for the politicians to cast a large amount of votes needed to win for the position s/he is running for, s/he must appeal to the people by supplementing the people of what is right and what is not. They tend to manipulate the people by saying such-and-such good things that they will do for the common good so that they will get the votes of those who will believe in them. And for Thomas Hobbes, he argued that:
“Democracy is inferior to monarchy because democracy fosters destabilizing dissension among subjects … [he] viewed [that] individual citizens and even politicians are apt not to have a sense of responsibility for the quality of legislation because no one makes significant different to the out comes of the decision making”

Hence, For Hobbes, it has a harmful effect for both the people and the politician the result of the collective decision. He states that the politicians may not be concerned anymore for the sake of the citizens when they are already in the position that the democratic process puts them to where they are, they are just for gaining more political power. And for the citizens that are not well informed about the politics.

A collective decision may cause good for the welfare of the whole nation. What might happen, it is the decision of the most of the people that decides what should and what should not. But still, there arises some effects that only cause the made-decision to be worst. There is sometimes made-decision that they thought to be good but at the end, what they had made is just a mistake that they did not expect. In a democratic country, choosing a leader is done by the process of election, and they will vote to a candidate that they believe will be a good leader. But in some cases, the outcome of that is just the opposite of what they believe. There are some politicians seek s only for the power, a common good is not their first concern but just to gain power. This is what Shah meant in his writing that the openness of the democratic system allows attracting people who have an interest in democratic process as a way to attain power and influence.

It is not always right or good for everyone what the decision of the majority is. Though they had collectively decided for that manner, there is still a chance that they will fail to what they had decided. There are instances that the people did not think rationally to what they are doing. There are factors that can affect what their decision will be. First is emotion, people decides emotionally when hey experience an intense feeling and/ or they feel agitated. They become emotionally independent in choosing what they will do. They will reject what their rational part dictates. An ordinary man once said, “Filipinos really loves telenovelas. They based their decisions in choosing whom they will vote for the presidency emotionally because of their sympathy for the death of Late President Cory Aquino.”

Secondly, people tend to base their decisions on what their beliefs are decisions are already made. When one circumstance has occurred to them, they should follow this and that belief. They believe that because a certain politician is this and that, they are fit for a certain position. Let’s take Manny Villar and Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada for example. People believes that because they have the character for being a nationalistic, and came from the poor family, Villar in this instance, people intend to support them for they know the feelings of the poor people and they believe that they will be do whatever they can to get them from poverty.

Third, dogmatism. Some principles are already laid down for the others to follow. People do not have a chance to think for what they should decide for themselves because they are set to follow on what their superior indicates them. For example, there is a sect that they will only vote this candidate because the highest official told them to. In their doctrine, the subordinates should follow what the decision of the head will be.

Lastly, there are people who just follow what is the decision of the majority. They think that because this is what the most of the people wants for, they will follow it even without thinking any other factor or even considering it. As what hey are saying “go with the flow”. They will just base their decisions to which they think is in demand. The last election happened in the Philippines, for example, has something to do with this. Benigno Aquino III got the highest casts votes. They have a lot of supporters, indeed. But there are some people who voted PNoy not because they want or believe in him, but they voted him because they believe that he is a sure winner, so why they will vote for the other, they will just vote him because many people are believing in him.

Most of the time, in democratic system, it is the vote of the majority that causes the minority sufferings. Sometimes, what the decision of the majority is not for the common good. In a nation which has different groups, sects or religions, sometimes the welfare of other groups is set aside in the decision of the majority. One group may out grown the decision f the other groups, and the out numbered groups may not be benefited.

Jurgen Habermas argued about the plurality that “[the] weak public is the vehicle of public opinion. The opinion-formation uncoupled from the decisions is affected in an open and inclusive network of over-lapping, sub-cultural publics having fluid temporal, social and substantive boundaries. Within a framework guaranteed by constitutional rights, the structures of such a pluralistic public sphere develop more or less spontaneous.” He means by this that if the citizens did not think rationally, the decision may leads to failure; it will only be a public opinion or doxa that do not have enough bases in deciding that can lead to political conflicts.

The interests of citizens are not unanimous. As what Robert Dahl stated, “In a rough sense, the essence of all competitive politics is bribery of the electorate by politicians … the farmers support a candidate committees to high price supports … “ Each citizens have their own groups whose common in them is their interests. And for them to satisfy their interests, they are for those politicians who can satisfy their interests. They will after to those politicians who are giving some laws or regulations, even will implement some things that they know will protect heir self-interests.

For Habermas, a leader should be neutral to attain good leadership. He stated in his book that no reason is a good reason if it requires the power of holder to assert: (a) that this conception of the good is better that the asserted by any of his fellow citizens, or (b) that, regardless of his conception of the good, he is intrinsically superior to one or more of his fellow citizens. Neutrality means the priority of justice over the good, and hence the fact that questions of the good life recede behind questions of justice.

The passage tells that whatever reason that a subordinate decides even if it is for the good of everyone will be rejected if it is not recognized by the leader. The leader asserts his position that no one can contradict him/her for what will be his decision maybe. For example, one representative proposed a bill that will benefits the majority of the citizens, but when then it is still in the president that will decide if it will be signed or not. Maybe the president is protecting some interest that may affect it if that proposed bill will be implemented, so the president will not approve it.

Democracy may also lead to capitalism. As already stated, politicians can manipulate the citizens. We can not deny the fact that politicians are also businessmen. After gaining the power, they will do what the power vested in him can do for the progress of their business. And as a business minded, they will use all the resources that the power of their position can help in order for their business to grow more. They will make a policy that the interest of their firm will benefit.

Democracy, though said to be good system of governance, still have criticism that questioned some of its principles which is stated above. And because of this, there are some decisions that failed in the end though it is collectively decided by the most of the people. The “majority” here will also been questioned; that if it is really the majority that decides collectively or it is just plurality. Because of the different groups that the people are in into and different self-interests, collective decision making is really possible? The researcher will also study the effect of democracy in choosing a right leader for the nation. Because of the some aspiring politicians who are using their power to manipulate people just to win for to have a position, the researcher will to use the concept of Confucius in selecting the leaders if it could be effective to prevent elect-officials who seeks only for gaining more political power. And because of some politicians that are in position, the researcher will also state the linkage of democracy in capitalism; that the position is used to have a more power in manipulating their interests.

After giving the power of people to elect a certain politician, there would be a question that will arise. If the leaders are elected in a democratic system and the people put them to that position, is it the right of people also to impeach them to what they have collectively decided? We know that there are legal processes that will hold on about that, but the point is the process done to put those leaders also gone through a legal process, so why can they no sue those politicians away if they break some rules or if hey are no efficient to the position vested in them.

This study can or maybe, enlightened people to think before doing any decision. Think rationally before doing or deciding most of all when the welfare of all the citizens is in sake. Not only for your sake that you will think but also those people who are with you. This can help the people, specifically the so called democratic people to learn from the past that selecting the authority is not task of stupidity, but rather a responsibility. Since it is a responsibility, citizens should use their critical way of thinking. Not to choose easily. Analyze if that candidate will be for the people or just for the “few”. And these will also a call for those aspiring politician to be an efficient and reasonable leader. That look for the other way, not only to the way that they only want to look. People put them to that position to give them back what should the leader must do for the welfare of the whole society. This will also give the criticisms of the democratic system of government. It will site some bad effects of having this system.

This study can make a big impact in the field of Philosophy, Sociology, Politics, and Psychology. In philosophy, it is the time to do their task by guiding the people to think critically. Analyzing a certain issue so the wrong things that had been done will not repeat again. In Sociology, it can lessen the social issues such as leader’s selfish actions. Politics, this will modify the system of democracy, and by up-bringing the trust in the government. In Psychology, the guilt of the people will lessen for choosing such incapable leaders, and hoping for the change of the social issues.

To sum it up, we can not deny that democracy can give the people a freedom to express what they feel or their opinion is. But still, this can be destructive in some grounds that it can cause of putting a leader that is not for the serving the people but just to have a control and power over things. Democracy can cause equality. It can also lead to capitalism.

In terms of methodology, the researcher will use some internet articles regarding her topic. The researcher will get some references in some newspapers. She will gather information in the field; will interview some activist leaders who can give their opinions and some facts that can lead to answer some of he questions will be arise in this study.

And she will also go to the libraries gather more references that will be useful in her study. She will look for the books that have relation that will more expound the necessary subjects that she needed in doing this study. And the researcher will also use her own books.