Analysis Of Democracy

What exactly is meant by the term “democracy”? According to the rich and long history of democracy itself, it is doubtful that there is an appropriate and comprehensive definition of democracy exists. However, by studying the formation of democracy, there is a common agreement that the term “democracy” consists of the following characteristics: “regular free and fair elections, universal suffrage, and accountability of the state's administrative organs to the elected representatives, and effective guarantees for freedom of expression and association as well as protection against arbitrary state actions.” (Holden) Then, one could see the key term of democracy is the representation of the political system. In order to examine and question the “level of democracy” in the contemporary Northern states, it is necessary to analyze the representation of democracy, in particular, the implementation of new policies and remaining difficulty of democracy of Great Britain and France.

The different forms of democratic systems are formed upon different histories. “Great Britain with an early industrial revolution and stable government developed a strong parliament that gradually became more democratic; on the other hand, France had a late industrial revolution, unstable governments, and a rapid change towards a strong stable democratic executive branch.” (Soe) Both these countries have recently instituted similar programs in order to improve the “level of democracy” such as representation and civil rights. There were both major political reforms of Great Britain and France in the history. In Great Britain, the appointed mayor is replaced by directed elected one. And in France, “there were sweeping reforms in 1981where “supervision of local governments was reduced, regional governments were created, and localities were authorized to levy taxes and engage in a wide range of activities” (Kesselman). These reforms facilitate democracy to become more effective. Local citizens could not choose their own representative because the local officials were appointed, but not elected through a fair electoral system. The direct effect of the change is that people can directly choose their own official who represents their real interest. And, “the representatives are now directly accountable to the electorate for their actions, and this adds to their legitimacy.” (Schumpeter) Therefore, the political reforms have improved representation and accountability of administrative systems.

Furthermore, the implementation of the new policies in recent years, has also improved the democratic principle of representation. “Law was passed last year in France that appears to go further than any other in the world in attempting to share representation more evenly between men and women…[It] obliges all political parties to field and equal number of male and female candidatesвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚Ñœ (Soe). At the first glance, it seems undemocratic since the mandatory binding condition attached to a political entity is not a fair game. On the other hand, the positive effect is that the participation of women at the administrative level improves the representation of women’s interest. In 1999, “a combination of single member district and party list proportional [to determine who wins]” (Soe) policy is released in London, Scotland and Wales. Similar positive effect as France, the voice from smaller parties can be brought up is also an indicator of improvement of representation, since the old single member election cannot represent smaller parties’ interests efficiently.

“Both Great Britain and France have been weakening the most powerful player in their respective governments with the hopes of increasing the checks and balances in the government.” (Hewlett) During 2000, a law was passed in FranceвЂ"all future presidential terms have reduced from 7 years to 5 years. The reduction of service term indicates the “weakening of head of state while increasing the position’s accountability”. (Samuel) Similarly in Great Britain, the political power of its Parliament has also been weakened. The first change is that the memberships in the House of Lords are now appointed in stead of inherited. Secondly, “in 1997 Britain incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights which may mean a stronger, more politically active judiciary, a form of creeping judicial review” (Soe). It indicates that civil rights which is the key part of democracy now are transformed to a binding document. Thirdly, “The judiciary has gained the vital power to strike down legislation and executive decisions on the grounds that they violate the Constitution” (Kesselman). Even though the judges are not elected and generally appointed whereas the parliament is elected. It increases the “level of democracy” by providing an open opportunity to fight against one party becoming too dominant, and perhaps removing fundamental pillars of each respective democracy such as the guarantees of civil rights. In this respect the “increased judicial review is without question improving the democracies of both countries.” (Cole)

On the other hand, although Great Britain and France have achieved a remarkable prosperity in democratic development, representation, in particular, the remaining key difficulty confronting these two countries is still the same one-representation of democracy.

Both Great Britain and France have a significant low level of turnout in local government elections in the European Union even though “the turnout in national elections is close to the OECD norm” (Manin). Moreover, “the local election turnout of Great Britain has reached new lows since the 1997 general election” (Wallerstein). The government’s response has been to introduce new electoral arrangements to make it easier to vote and to change the way in which local government operates so that it is clearer who is responsible for making decisions. But the main reason for the low and declining level of local elections turnout appears to be a decline in the perceived efficiency of local government. In anther word, their local citizens and voters are not effectively informed . At the same time, however, “it is not clear that voters want their local councils to become more powerful.” (Manin)

“A highly democratic political system requires an informed public, because people can only make meaningful decisions if they