Pages

!!!*** EVOLUTION OF DEMOCRACY***!!!

The Evolution of Democracy 
With the signing by William and Mary of the 1689 Bill of Rights Britain’s autocratic monarchy 
had finally been brought under constitutional discipline and Parliament had won its position of 
supremacy. But Parliament at that time represented only a small proportion of the population. 
Many there were, of course, who would be quite happy to keep it that way. The reformers however, 
both in and out of government, would now press for continuing expansion of the voting franchise. 

Conservatism, preservation of the status quo, versus Reform; this theme was to dominate 
Parliamentary proceedings for some two hundred years. 

Following a tradition of earlier times when the King’s advisers sat on his right, likewise the 
Conservatives in Parliament loyal to the Crown and the maintenance of the status quo now sat on 
the Speaker’s right, while the Radicals and Reformists sat on the left. 

So Britain’s Parliament assumed the confrontational shape still maintained today, of Right and 
Left, Conservatism and Reform facing one another across an aisle, and the terms Right and Left 
assumed the significance now familiar throughout the world. 

When the Right-Left polarization first took shape, the Conservatives seated on the right supported 
the Monarchy and a degree of Royal prerogative provided the Nobility could share in it. They 
accepted the established order of Church and State, and furthered the interests of landowners, and 
later the big industrialists. 

At first known as Royalists, they have subsequently become known by an early nickname: the 
word Tory is derived from an Irish word meaning robber, doubtless reflecting their appearance in 
the eyes of many common people. 

On the other side were the Liberals, or “Whigs”. Formerly Republicans, they now supported the 
Monarchy provided it was kept under constitutional constraints. They also supported reform 
generally, including a gradual widening of the franchise. The party of the Left later became more 
widely known simply as Liberals, until the 1900s when the Left position was taken by the 
Socialists. 

During the first half of the 1900s the Right-Left choice now provided sufficient opportunity for the 
individual voter’s interests to be reflected in Parliament. “Democracy” had arrived. 

Democracy today, especially in America, holds a place of near-sanctity in our political thinking, 
yet its voters are increasingly dissatisfied and disillusioned. Is Democracy at fault? 

Democracy’s first and perhaps main attribute is that it is clearly an improvement over Autocracy or 
Dictatorship. The word Autocracy comes from the Greek word kratos meaning power, and self 
(autos), the sense being that one Leader holds power for himself solely and exclusively. This term 
can apply to the Absolute Monarchs of early England or to the more recent dictatorships of Africa 
and Latin America. 

Democracy gives power to the people, the word being derived from the Greek words power 
(kratos), and demos meaning people. 

In order to ascertain the Will of the People, the Democratic system provides for periodic elections. 
Democracy is essentially a process whereby the People, rather than an Autocratic Monarch or 
Dictator, can peaceably present and review options, then select the Party of their choice. 

The importance and stability of orderly electoral procedure should not be underrated. The 
alternative is a bullet in the President's head or a full-scale civil war. We should not forget that 
many countries, far too many, still change their Presidents and their Governments in this way. 

But Democracy has its imperfections, and its limitations. 

Democracy means power to the people. But this remains an ideal, and does not reflect the way 
Democracy works in practical reality. It is a matter of simple definition that we cannot have real 
and genuine power to the people unless all of the people are of one mind. And in practice, they are 
not. 

Democracy, or power to the people, we do not have. What we practice today is Majocracy, or 
power to the majority of the people. In this sense we still give power to the Powerful; but now ‘the 
Powerful’ are those in the numerical majority, or increasingly in the United States, those with the 
greatest financial support. 

And what of the laws and social conditions which result? 

The presumption of a Democratic system is that the Majority is “right”. The rightness of a law 
exists precisely because it is a majority decision; it requires no other justification. 

This presumption is not, nor ever has been, convincing. 

The importance and stability of orderly electoral procedure should not be underrated. The 
alternative is a bullet in the President's head or a full-scale civil war. We should not forget that 
many countries, far too many, still change their Presidents and their Governments in this way. 

But Democracy has its imperfections, and its limitations. 

Democracy means power to the people. But this remains an ideal, and does not reflect the way 
Democracy works in practical reality. It is a matter of simple definition that we cannot have real 
and genuine power to the people unless all of the people are of one mind. And in practice, they are 
not. 

Democracy, or power to the people, we do not have. What we practice today is Majocracy, or 
power to the majority of the people. In this sense we still give power to the Powerful; but now ‘the 
Powerful’ are those in the numerical majority, or increasingly in the United States, those with the 
greatest financial support. 

And what of the laws and social conditions which result? 

The presumption of a Democratic system is that the Majority is “right”. The rightness of a law 
exists precisely because it is a majority decision; it requires no other justification. 

This presumption is not, nor ever has been, convincing. 
-------------To be Continued