Do you agree? Is democracy better suited to some places than other? Or is it best for the progress of the world that all governments move towards elections and checks on governmental power?
I believe a Rational Democracy can either be very good, or very bad in a country. It cannot be said whether it is a ‘good or bad’ thing because it really depends on what state the country is.
Rational Democracy can be good for a country, unlike what Montesquieu said. This is because what he stated in his works was true, if you give someone a large amount of power, they will take advantage of it. To establish a democracy in every country, where each branch is limited is the best choice. People would finally have a say and get to vote for their leaders. Also, no branch, except the Legislative branch, a group of people, can overthrow the other, which happens if completely necessary. Overall, it is a good idea since it limits the power of each person, yet there is still a sense of power in a minimal way.
But, then again, Rational Democracy is not for everyone, as Montesquieu said. As stated, a government should be dependent on the religion, cultures, and laws the country has established. Of course, a government should support their people and give them their basic human rights. But when the country has a law of cruel punishments, such as torture or death, it isn’t good for the people. Furthermore, as Montesquieu writes in his book Sparks and Isaacs, “The bottom line for judging whether a social order is acceptable is not whether any other society’s customs are similar to European ones, but whether they attend to people’s basic human requirements – for security, and for a degree of stimulating pleasure.” The government serves the people, and when the people dont have their basic human rights, as Locke stated, then it is no use to put in a democracy.
In conclusion, either way can be good or bad, but certain aspects of the democracy are good, while others will not work with other countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment