Democracy as a universal value

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hypothesis of a universal value of democracy is a concept that is controversially used and discussed in comparative politics. It is assumed that democracy is a universal value that all people share. Many researchers are critical of this idea.

The legitimation of the universality of democracy can be justified politically and empirically . Political philosophy traces the universal value of democracy back to the principle of freedom and equality of citizens, which (with some restrictions) was already valid in ancient Greece . Social science studies show that democracy is a value that a majority of people around the world agree with.

Terminology

The American political scientist Robert A. Dahl has briefly characterized democracy as a system of government:

"Democracy is competition for power open to participation".

His colleague Vivien A. Schmidt is often based on the Gettysburg address of Abraham Lincoln with the formula

"Democracy is government for, with, by and of the people"

quoted.

The American social scientist Larry Diamond has dealt with the concept of universal value. According to his statements, a universal value is shared or considered valuable by all people. As studies on the global understanding of democracy show, however, the term is interpreted differently, sometimes also contradicting one another.

According to Diamond, who advocates the universal value of democracy, there are minimum requirements that a democracy must meet: free, fair and regular elections. If only these are fulfilled, one speaks of pure electoral democracy . Freedom of speech and assembly , the rule of law , minority rights and the free exercise of religion are therefore substantial prerequisites for being able to call a society democratic. If these rights are severely curtailed, what Larry Diamond calls an illiberal democracy emerges . In a pseudo-democracy all standards are met without free elections taking place.

The history of ideas justification of the claim to universality

From the theoretical-philosophical perspective, the universality of democratic value can be justified with human nature and independently of the culture and history of a country. The discussion about democracy as a value is essentially about fundamental human rights . From the natural law idea that all people are born free and equal and strive for a self-determined life, it follows that there is no legitimate reason for unequal treatment. Logic enforces a universal and egalitarian claim to human dignity , freedom and equality. Aristotle is of the opinion that man as a zôon politikon can only live well in a community, and that the natural rights of citizens to freedom and equality can only be safeguarded if equals rule over equals .

In Far Eastern philosophy, too, high ethical standards were developed on the basis of a positive image of man, with which the individual “can achieve the good through moral self-discipline and the fulfillment of duties.” Individual protection or rights of participation vis-à-vis the state “remained alien to Confucianism”. In the Christian scholasticism of the High Middle Ages, the fundamental equality of all people and human dignity were derived from the idea of ​​human being in the image of God. In Renaissance humanism , scholars like Dante Alighieri again referred to ancient philosophers, turned their attention to human reason, and questioned the divine legitimation of political action.

On the basis of a conceptual state of nature, John Locke drafted the theory of a social contract , with which the rational people as equals transfer rule to one another in order to establish a state order. The ruler must guarantee the protection of innate basic rights (life, freedom, property ), otherwise he forfeits his political legitimacy.

Empirical studies on the universality of democracy

In order to measure reliable data on people's attitudes towards democracy in studies, a definition of democracy is necessary that can be asked about. While studies such as the “ World Values ​​Survey ” assume a uniform understanding of democracy, other research results question the assumption of a universal understanding of democracy.

A universalistic approach emerges from the data that Larry Diamond derives from the World Values ​​Survey (1999–2001). In this study, representative data was collected in 80 countries, representing 85 percent of the world's population.

The study shows that all over the world more than 80 percent of people agree with the statement “ Democracy may have its problems, but it's better than any other form of government ”. However, when asked about support for a strong leader who does not have to worry about guidelines from elections and parliament, the numbers for approval fluctuate: In the case of the statement “ Strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament and elections ”, votes in the western world accounts for 24 percent of the respondents, while in all other regions the figure is over 30 percent. A particular rash can be seen in Latin America (45) and the former Soviet Union (48), with no region exceeding the 50 percent mark.

For the statement “' Greater respect for authority' would be a 'good thing '” the agreement also varies. With 73 percent in Latin America and 78 in Islamic dominated the Middle East , the values especially compared to the Western world (54) are significantly higher.

Larry Diamond wants to use the results of the World Values ​​Survey to show that democracy is viewed everywhere as a valuable and desirable form of government . In his view, large parts of the population everywhere agree to the minimum democratic requirements.

This assumption is based on a Western understanding of democracy. Statements about other attitudes to human rights and liberal freedoms are also based on a Eurocentric worldview that other researchers are critical of. The German sociologist Sophia Schubert, for example, criticizes the assumption that democracy has the same significance in social science research worldwide: On the one hand, this assumption testifies to the hegemony of Western research and imperialist tradition. On the other hand, from a methodological point of view, a distortion of the results is to be feared if terms are assigned different semantic meanings, but are queried the same everywhere (even if translated into the local language).

criticism

Critics of the concept of universalism regard freedom and democracy as Western values ​​that meet other philosophical or religious foundations in other cultures and cannot claim to be as valid there as in the West. Although all people there are (more or less) understood as the same, both the idea of ​​individual protective rights vis-à-vis the state and the democratic selection of the government are alien to these cultures. Their mode of socialization is based more on cultural or religious assumptions, not on anthropological and natural legal assumptions.

literature

  • L. Diamond: The Spirit of Democracy. The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. New York 2008.
  • A. Herrman: Idea of ​​human rights. Federal Agency for Civic Education. (www.bpb.de , accessed on October 23, 2016)
  • G. Lohmann: Universal human rights and cultural particularities. In: Federal Center for Political Education (Ed.): Dossier Human Rights. (www.bpb.de , accessed on October 22, 2016)
  • T. Meyer: What is democracy? A discursive introduction. Wiesbaden 2009.
  • S. Schubert: To what extent is it universal? On the concept of democracy in comparative democracy research. In: Sybille De La Rosa, Sophia Schubert, Holger Zapf (eds.): Trans- and intercultural political theory and history of ideas. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden 2016, pp. 285–303.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ S. Schubert: To what extent is it universal? On the concept of democracy in comparative democracy research. In: Sybille De La Rosa, Sophia Schubert, Holger Zapf (eds.): Trans- and intercultural political theory and history of ideas. Wiesbaden 2016, pp. 285–303, pp. 287 ff.
  2. ^ L. Diamond: The Spirit of Democracy. The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. New York 2008, p. 33.
  3. ↑ a b quotation in T. Meyer: What is democracy? A discursive introduction. Wiesbaden 2009, p. 12.
  4. ↑ Diamond, p. 20 f. and p. 28.
  5. ^ S. Schubert: To what extent is it universal? On the concept of democracy in comparative democracy research. In: Sybille De La Rosa, Sophia Schubert, Holger Zapf (eds.): Trans- and intercultural political theory and history of ideas. Wiesbaden 2016, p. 287ff.
  6. ↑ Diamond, p. 22.
  7. ↑ Diamond, p. 23 ff.
  8. ↑ G. Lohmann: Universal human rights and cultural characteristics. In: Federal Center for Political Education (Ed.): Dossier Human Rights. (www.bpb.de , accessed on October 22, 2016)
  9. ↑ Meyer, p. 14.
  10. ↑ A. Herrmann: Idea of ​​human rights. Federal Agency for Civic Education. (www.bpb.de , accessed on October 23, 2016)
  11. ^ S. Schubert: To what extent is it universal? On the concept of democracy in comparative democracy research. In: Sybille De La Rosa, Sophia Schubert, Holger Zapf (eds.): Trans- and intercultural political theory and history of ideas. Wiesbaden 2016, pp. 285–303, pp. 286 ff.
  12. ↑ Diamond, p. 32 ff.
  13. ^ S. Schubert: To what extent is it universal? On the concept of democracy in comparative democracy research. In: Sybille De La Rosa, Sophia Schubert, Holger Zapf (eds.): Trans- and intercultural political theory and history of ideas. Wiesbaden 2016, pp. 285-303, pp. 287 f.