Critics of democracy will not hesitate to point out
two conflicting views that stand out. On the
one hand, there is the need for members of a population to have an
opportunity, whether direct or indirect, in the government of the state and on
the other hand there is the need for a democratic state to reflect the true
interests of the people.
I have travelled through the lengths and breadth of
Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia
and find that majority of the people are ignorant of where their true interests
lie. In those states, I find merely an illusory sense of participation in
government. Apart from the ignorance of the large populous, voting procedures
and the bad will of a few skilful and powerful politicians defeat the purpose.
This is why followers of Karl Max call representative democracy “bourgeois democracy” which only reflects the
results of economic relations.
Another conflict of interest in a democratic state
would be the idea of the majority carrying the vote. There are times when the
beliefs and decisions of the majority are wrong. At such times the welfare of
the state could be seriously at risk. If you are in the minority and you are
sure you are right, tough luck!
However these conflicting views do not completely
undermine the noble notion of democracy.
The onus is on the drafters and guardians of the
constitution, presumably the parliamentary arm of government, to recognise
these and take remedial actions. They must be bold enough to take a tough stand
against the carrot stick offered by donor countries and big global
organisations whose intentions are not always honourable especially when they
tie aid to political and economic reforms. Democracy must be tailored to
accommodate the history, traditions, established practices and the
circumstances each nation finds itself at present.
