Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

Democracy has been a prevalent topic throughout history and into the modern international world. Its roots trace way back to Socrates and Plato, and every thinker that had views in regards to this topic has elaborated on it differently and uniquely. But the question remains, is democracy still the purified definition of justice? Or is it a prop that is being exploited to satisfy certain mindsets who are not in the field? To answer this question, its important to go back to history and recall the early definitions of democracy from the thinkers who brought this word to the world and enlightened the thinking minds about its bases and powers. No one ever thought that one word would have the power to change views, nations and even play around the leaders and administrations as if it’s a chess board. But it did, and still is. Before diving into the waves and stages of democracy and connecting it to the modern political situation, it is important to shed some light on the well-known historical philosophers and thinkers who have emphasized the word and definition of democracy. Leaving us until this day trying to figure out the real precision and whether it is philosophically and historically compatible with the origins and roots of the word itself, or not.

Socrates

Socrates is one of the thinkers who has unique views regarding democracy and free thinking concerning leadership, seeking knowledge and acknowledging what has always been in the shadows. He believes in the light that comes from the darkness, and encourages the actions that come out of fear, for they are the actions that truly speak of justice and democracy as a whole. However, when it comes to democracy as a literal modern definition, we recall such a word and link it to the rule of majority as it is being taken and held nowadays in every parliament and house of rule. Yet, being the great thinker advocate for education and seeking knowledge however it may be, seemed and conceded with what others viewed the word to be. He outlawed the rule of the majority and solemnly believed that people should always be skeptical regarding every type imposed on them, and every other decision that has been made, even if its the institution of the place and administration they live within. Socrates preached in favor of knowledge and skepticism, leaving the majority rule behind as a topic to be considered carefully. With that being said, Socrates lost his life as a result of his advocation and admiration for the aforesaid, which eventually led to his death that was ruled and favored by the democratic majority. 

Plato

Resistance to democracy is not a new phenomenon. In fact, the majority of the thinkers who we politically and socially rely on and their philosophications and studies, are not in favor of democracy as a whole. As they suggest multiple acclimations concerning the reformation of the definition  and what it truly means. And that’s exactly what Plato’s theories are all about.  Plato’s platonic description for democracy is based on liberty, not the appealing method of doing as one pleases within the society, but the ability to fulfill one’s role in the community with no further restrictions to limit this kind of action. In other words, democracy for Plato is based on the ultimate free will to do as one pleases with the authority of fulfilling their roles as rational beings in a society. 

Aristotle

Aristotle’s view of democracy is the traditional view that is being followed and acted upon in the modern political world, it is the true definition where the lead is based on ‘Rule of the Majority’. Not only that, but more emphasis has been placed on how good and eager that individual from the majority ruling party is and the willingness to participate and empower the people he is representing through his voice and abilities. The aforesaid looks at a  particular individuals from multiple point of views that all lead to one being truly fit and wise for this role and position before being from the majority.  

As far as the three main thinkers have gone in regards to the formation of democracy and how it is being viewed by each, one can definitely tell that one definition of the word is not something to be concerned with, as democracy is being shaped and formed through multiple verses as the political phase of the international world evolves and exceeds to no limit.  The word Democracy has not only gone through literate changes,  in fact, moderate changes were part of the formation and evolution of modern democracy as well. All that took place through the stages and phases of democracy will be explained in detail, going all the way to modern-day democracy and the actions that are being taken in the name of it. Despite the differences viewed, actions taken towards and for the word democracy might and have always differed, which is the main reason that a lot of political leaders and administrators have not yet been thorough as to what measures must to be taken in regards to stabilizing democratic rule and the actions that must be taken into consideration which will allow the term democracy to flourish into its true meaning.

Image available at flickr.com

Waves of Democracy 

• First Wave of Democracy:

The first wave of democracy began in the early 19th century, specifically

From (1826-1926). It all started with the vote of majority when white males were given the right and the suffrage to vote in the elections. This act was followed by other countries such as France, Britain, Canada and more in 1900. The first wave reached its peak by 1918 when the Ottoman Empire started to decline and collapse, which led to the rule of people. However, by the early 1920s, democracy in itself started to decline as Mousseline and other fascist regimes started to  expand their territory and actions on the political sphere – leaving democracy, a once hopeful thread, to face its early decline. But that didn’t last for long, as the second wave came along and rescued what remained.

• Second Wave

The Second wave came in later than expected but it was a still a step forward for creating peace and maintaining it, especially after the brutal crisis of the Second World War that divided countries and nations all together. Forming the UN and other humanitarian organizations recognized democracy and humanity as the core of leadership in national and international Politics. 

• Third Wave

The Third wave of democracy cannot be said and considered as the final destination. It branched its roots in the 1970s which have led to multiple episodes of celebration and condemnation in regards to being in favor of democracy and not. This wave is not the final and last within the roots of democracy. In fact, the rise of the Arab Spring led to major shifts of philosophies and theories as some theorists have believed that it is the beginning of the fourth wave. This is why there is no sequence as to when did it end, or even if it will, as the shift in action and theories are changing, it is a mere assumption to suggest and have any kind of ending expectations in regards to it. In other words, the third wave of democracy might be an open sentence with no period.

It’s no wonder that as much as democracy has its development of waves throughout time, it consists of important stages of evolution that are required and assembled in modern politics today. John Kean, a political theorist, thinker and a well-known published author of (The Life and Death of Democracy)  etc., has dissected the word democracy and categorized it into three stages that are important to consider when a new rule has been actively chosen within the leadership of a specific state. These are as follows. 

1. Assembly model

The Assembly model is based on random choice of citizens of a nation, being elected through a fair process of determination and affirmation that is said to justify through the administration in order to lead and be the voice of the people who have selected them particularly. This group of selected citizens are also responsible for conducting policies and raising issues that have been lost and in need of attention and elaboration from the high administration system.

2. Representative Model

This model redefines the selection process of the candidates. It’s based on fair representation from all cultures, faiths and backgrounds with no division as in regards to their ethnicities and differences. This kind of model is a fair electing model where the high administration has no say on who will be elected and chosen. Its all in the hands of the people and the choices they make based on the candidate’s promises and wisdom in regards to what will be delivered and brought up to the high administration

3. Monitory Model

This is a powerful tool and model of Democracy as it’s all based on power and authority, of not  the high administration and leaders, but people and citizens themselves. In other words, this model allows citizens to have the power of holding the elected candidates and representatives accountable for their actions beyond the traditional system of the parliament. That’s why it is known and defined as a monitory model, it is where people monitor the policies and the promises that have been made on their behalf, and to assure the smoothness of a just rule, people can rule out and hold those candidates and even high representatives responsible for every action that has been taken against their will, or anything that will have negative consequences on the short or long-term.

Modern-day Democracy 

Democracy, autonomy, self-rule, rule of the majority.

It has been identified and called out by different words and vocabularies that each has emphasized the importance of the word over the years. As the word and definition are glorified, the action part has been neglected as less interest and effort are put into forming a connection between the two. This part of the hypothesis has weakened democracy through both theory and action, leaving it to be a word in the political dictionary and not something as important as it used to be in the days of its glory. Modern democracy is constantly shifting, and the word itself must be ratified and redefined based on a nation’s type of rule and leader. This leaves us with he question,  ‘Is Democracy still Democracy?’.  And to answer this question we have a list of factors that determine if what has been stated still true and active, or not?.

Nation states nowadays rule their countries based on the core of Representative Democracy, and it’s where fair and solid elections take place and people from different backgrounds and ethnicities can participate as candidates and voters. This type of representation sheds some light on the rule of majority and rule of people, which is something that has been emphasized for a very long time in the political field. However, the bolder the definition is, the less actions are taking towards it to make it be and seem more factual and active to the changes the world is going through. Examples of modern democracies that are based on the representative model include Canada, Germany, Italy and more. However, the ancient definition of the word differs with what modern-democracy is and how it’s being viewed by the world. 

It has always been seen that ancient interpretations are the boldest because of the timeline and phases that a certain theory has gone through, but this is not always the case, especially with modern changes in the political world. That leaves people and theorists  in a critical situation regarding the existence of democracy and whether it really is the democracy that we all know about, or something that has evolved into another shape and form based on how a leader is ruling and what benefits a nation state as a whole.  As a result, democracy in the modern world, and with all the changes that is going through, is losing its characteristics and weight. The ancient definition of the word pinpoints the specifics of rule of the majority, equality, fair representation, accountability and more. However, nowadays we are facing an autocratic rule that is sliding its way through the narrow door of control. The aforementioned is a changeable criterion that tends to transform based on certain changes that are happening nations and international wise. So to answer the question of,  ‘Is Democracy is Still Democracy?’, it’s important to emphasize that the answer lays within the future and the upcoming generations who will be holding the huge responsibility of reshaping and reforming the word democracy. It’s for them to see if what we have gone through now and the ancient meaning of it are still the same as to what they have been taught or not. It’s for them to weigh the outcomes of democracy and include the specific political and just measurements that are based on global affairs and all the changes that the world has gone through. And as for us, this question remains open-ended, just like a sentence without a period. 

Written By Sawsan Adel, an Author and Postgraduate Student of International Humanitarian Affairs at the University of York.