Lincoln’s memorable definition may suggest three key elements of
democracy. First, that it is ‘of’ the people not only in the sense of
being ‘over’ all the people but that it derives its legitimacy from their
commitment to it (government by consent). Second, that it is ‘by’
the people in the sense that they participate extensively in govern-
mental processes. Third, that it is ‘for’ the people in that it seeks to
realise the common welfare and safeguard the rights of individuals.
These principles would be widely accepted not only in the liberal
democracies of Western Europe, North America and Australasia, but
even in communist countries and single-party nationalist regimes in
the ‘South’. Much controversy remains, however, about the inter-
pretation of these principles and their relative weight where they
conflict. Thus liberal democracies stress the safeguarding of indivi-
dual rights, and the idea of the rule of law. Communist regimes stress
popular participation and the pursuit of the interests of the common
man. Populist nationalist leaders stress their legitimacy as the leaders
by consent of the people and as interpreters of the national destiny
(MacPherson, 1966).
Participation and direct democracy
The oldest recorded form of democracy is that of the Greek city
states, notably Athens. Important decisions were taken by all the
citizens (although excluding foreigners, women and slaves – most of
the population) in a popular assembly by majority vote. Government
officials (‘magistrates’) were chosen on a temporary basis by lot. It is
worth stressing that the taking of decisions on behalf of the popu-
lation by elected representatives was regarded by the Greeks as an
‘aristocratic’ or ‘tyrannical’ form of rule depending on the quality and
behaviour of those elected.
Indeed, Aristotle regarded majority voting as a poor form of
government because popular decisions were unrestrained by any
legal protection of (rich) minorities. It is also worth considering
whether, for instance, the lynching of even an obviously guilty
person by the majority of the population in a small community can
properly be regarded as ‘democratic’. In other words, majority rule
and popular participation may conflict with the ideas of justice,
individual rights and efficiency and effectiveness.
DEMOCRACY 171