Laura Hegarty | Contributing Writer
The dangers of a democratic regime would, to most, be the idea that the people do not have a say in the running of their country. It would be a situation of the type we can see in Ukraine today, with the government being unable to direct politics according to the needs of the citizens; a regime where external factors cause popular opinion to fall by the wayside. Even worse, a system directed according to the caprices of one man or a small group in complete disregard of public participation.
Since the days of Plato and Aristotle, democracy has been criticised as being less than perfect, even dangerous. During the Age of Enlightenment, this wariness around the drawbacks of democracy persisted. At the time of the Second World War, Winston Churchill famously said that “democracy is the worst form of government except all others that have been tried”. A popular example of a democratic regime gone wrong is Germany under the Nazi regime. The fact that Adolf Hitler was a democratically elected representative is proof that the opinion of the majority can be fallacious.
It seems to take a neglect of our democratic status for Irish people to protest and reaffirm Irish democracy
Surely today we are at a point where democracy and democratic values are sufficiently entrenched in our system that our political representatives respect them almost subconsciously. We seem to be at a point where democracy is taken for granted in modern Western society. Indeed, it seems to take a neglect of our democratic status for Irish people to protest and reaffirm Irish democracy.
This was the case in 2009, when we were told to vote a second time on the Lisbon Treaty as we had been silly citizens and had not gone along with the rest of Europe the first time. Having made our (apparently sovereign) opinions heard, we were told that we had voted wrongly and were made vote again. Reminiscent of a young child told that they will not leave the dinner table until they have done as they were told and eaten their dinner, we were given clear directions as to what was expected of us. We succumbed and voted the ‘right’ way, leaving the European ‘dinner table’ with our tails between our legs, while the larger European powers looked on in satisfied approval. One must question the extent to which we are sovereign, and to which our regime is actually democratic.
One thing which does not usually occur to the average voter is the idea that democracy can be harmful in giving too much power to its citizens.
A startling example of this popular seizure of political power was the Croatian referendum held on Saturday 31st November. Croatia recently became the 28th member state of the European Union and has been making steps towards becoming a more progressive liberal State. However, through a referendum on foot of a petition circulated by Catholic lobbyist groups, this progress came to an abrupt halt.
More than 700,000 Croatians signed a petition to bring about a Constitutional referendum to insert into their Constitution a definition of marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. This would, if approved by the entire population, rule out the introduction of homosexual marriage for the foreseeable future.
On Saturday the 31st, the new definition of marriage as being between heterosexual couples was approved and is now to be inserted into the Croatian Constitution. The area had previously been a Constitutional void. This referendum was not to abridge or amend the existing Constitution; it was to insert a clause which would effectively assure against the recognition of the right of homosexual couples to marry.
Why was this destruction of rights possible and what can we do to prevent a repeat elsewhere?
It is difficult to imagine that a minority of the population can seize the right to hold a referendum to limit the rights of another minority group. What does this say about democracy in today’s world? Why was this destruction of rights possible and what can we do to prevent a repeat elsewhere?
One theory proffered by the website ‘Index’ focuses on the fact that, according to statistics, the highest level of so-called ‘homophobic’ votes correlates with the areas where education is poorest (i.e. where literacy levels are lowest). The idea that education is essential to democracy may ruffle feathers at first – democracy should surely not be based on competence. However, the bottom line is that should citizens not have access to information on the way their decisions will affect them and their future as a society, they leave themselves open to manipulation by one-sided lobbyist groups.
At the World Democracy Forum in the Council of Europe, National Councillor for the Swiss Socialist Party and expert on the Swiss model of direct democracy, Andreas Gross, said that democracy was not the power to control but to convince. Does this retain its validity faced with the idea that lack of education may leave citizens more easily convinced by lobby groups?
For a democratic regime to achieve a balance between allowing public participation and protecting fundamental rights, citizens must be provided with the tools necessary to properly exercise their responsibilities along with their rights. The rights of homosexual citizens in Croatia have been seriously compromised, this is proof that democracy can be dangerous if not built upon a strong foundation of education and civic awareness.
