advantage and disadvantage of democracy?

please give me lots of information..cause i need it for my school project..thank you

Update:

please give me lots of information..cause i need it for my school project..and give me some few site where i can also search for some information..and please i need it urgentle...thank you

4 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    "Some argue that "liberal democracy" does not respect absolute majority rule (except when electing representatives). The "liberty" of majority rule is restricted by the constitution or precedent decided by previous generations. Also, the real power is actually held by a relatively small representative body. Thus, the argument goes, "liberal democracy" is merely a decoration over an oligarchy. A system of direct democracy would be preferable."

    Others would say that only a liberal democracy can guarantee the individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development into a dictatorship. Unmoderated majority rule could, in this view, lead to an oppression of minorities. Another argument is that the elected leaders may be more interested and able than the average voter. A third that it takes much effort and time if everyone should gather information, discuss, and vote on most issues.

    For historical reasons, many states are not culturally and ethnically homogeneous. There may be sharp ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural divisions. In fact, some groups may be actively hostile to each other. A democracy, which by definition allows mass participation in decision-making theoretically also allows the use of the political process against 'enemy' groups. That may be especially visible during democratization, if the previous non-democratic government oppressed certain groups. It is also visible in established democracies, in the form of anti-immigrant populism. However, arguably the worst repressions have occurred in states without universal suffrage, like apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany.

    A persistent libertarian and monarchist critique of democracy is the claim that it encourages the elected representatives to change the law without necessity, and in particular to pour forth a flood of new laws.

    Liberal democracies are also criticized for a claimed slowness and complexity of their decision-making.

    Modern liberal democracies, by definition, allow for regular changes of government. That has led to a common criticism of their short-term focus. In four or five years the government will face a new election, and it must think of how it will win that election. That would encourage a preference for policies that will bring short term benefits to the electorate (or to self-interested politicians) before the next election, rather than unpopular policy with longer term benefits.

    Marxists, socialists and anarchists, argue that liberal democracy is an integral part of the capitalist system and is class-based and not fully democratic or participatory. It is bourgeois democracy where only the most financially powerful people rule. Because of this it is seen as fundamentally un-egalitarian, existing or operating in a way that facilitates economic exploitation. According to Marx, parliamentary elections is an opportunity citizens of a country get every few years to decide who among the ruling classes will misrepresent them in parliament.[24]

    The cost of political campaigning in representative democracies may mean that the system favors the rich, a form of plutocracy who may be a very small minority of the voters.

    The "tyranny of the majority" is the fear that a democratic government, reflecting the majority view, can take action that oppresses a particular minority. Theoretically, the majority could only be a majority of those who vote and not a majority of the citizens. In those cases, one minority tyrannizes another minority in the name of the majority.

    One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence.

    One notable feature of liberal democracies is that their opponents (those groups who wish to abolish liberal democracy) rarely win elections. Advocates use this as an argument to support their view that liberal democracy is inherently stable and can usually only be overthrown by external force, while opponents argue that the system is inherently stacked against them despite its claims to impartiality.

    A liberal democracy, by definition, implies that power is not concentrated. One criticism is that this could be a disadvantage for a state in wartime, when a fast and unified response is necessary. The legislature usually must give consent before the start of an offensive military operation, although sometimes the executive can do this on its own while keeping the legislature informed. If the democracy is attacked, then no consent is usually required for defensive operations. The people may vote against a conscription army. Monarchies and dictatorships can in theory act immediately and forcefully.

    However, actual research shows that democracies are more likely to win wars than non-democracies. One explanation attributes this primarily to "the transparency of the polities, and the stability of their preferences, once determined, democracies are better able to cooperate with their partners in the conduct of wars". Other research attributes this to superior mobilization of resources or selection of wars that the democratic states have a high chance of winning.

    A democratic system may provide better information for policy decisions. Undesirable information may more easily be ignored in dictatorships, even if this undesirable or contrarian information provides early warning of problems. The democratic system also provides a way to replace inefficient leaders and policies.

    Several studies have concluded that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom. The nations with the least terrorism are the most democratic nations.

    A prominent economist, Amartya Sen, has noted that no functioning democracy has ever suffered a large scale famine.Refugee crises almost always occur in nondemocracies. Looking at the volume of refugee flows for the last twenty years, the first eighty-seven cases occurred in autocracies.

    Democracy correlations with a higher score on the human development index and a lower score on the human poverty index.

    Poor democracies have better education, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, access to drinking water, and better health care than poor dictatorships. This is not due to higher levels of foreign assistance or spending a larger percentage of GDP on health and education. Instead, the available resources are managed better.

    Research shows that the more democratic nations have much less democide or murder by government.Similarly, they have less genocide and politicide.The freedoms and rights of the citizens in liberal democracies are usually seen as beneficial

    Lastly,democracies are more often associated with a higher average self-reported happiness in a nation than non-democratic forms of government."

  • 1 decade ago

    Hello,

    A democracy is not the best form of government for all occasions. Sometimes we need to be a little socialist, communist or some other form of government to get the job done. In a democratic society, sometimes we will have to suffer the "tyranny of the majority". This is a real problem for marginalized groups not in the majority, and the tyranny of the majority helps keep them marginalized and oppressed.

  • 1 decade ago

    Advantage: The people have a right to speak out and express their views on political issues and concerns in the society. It can help alleviate unrest (that can lead to revolutions) and deflate mounting tension in a suppressed environment.

    Disadvantage: Things can get very chaotic, if not administered properly. There must be set boundaries for freedom or one may abuse his/her authority too much, aggravating others. People assume that they have every right in the world to do as they please, even if it crosses over another person's territory and violates that person's right. If admonished, said person may protest that his/her right is being suppressed and that the government is becoming a dictatorship.

    Just my two cents'...

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.