Dēmos- the people, kratia-to hold, to rule.

To create alliances, form enemies, elect leaders, make collective decisions and survive through their cooperation; democracy has always been an imperative of human survival. Throughout history it has been the mission of man to create a long lasting and inclusive system through which the population of the area can select their leaders and influence the decisions for the collective benefit. How is it therefore, a century after Universal Suffrage and the introduction of true democracy to the world, that we are beginning to doubt it and its purpose?

Cambridge University conducted a study indicating that  ‘Global Dissatisfaction’ with democracy was at a record high since records began in 1995, with 57.5% expressing dissatisfaction. Not only is this indicative of the ill effect that democracy has had on many, but that those many now constitute the majority of this case study. Whether this necessarily translates to a comparison of an entire population is uncertain, but if this were the case it would mean that if a democratic referendum were to be held today regarding the future of our governmental system, a significant number of people may, alarmingly, be unsure which way to vote.

This trend is a result of increasing uncertainty and suspicion driven by our addiction to scandal and intrigue. We are convinced that the simple fact of being in a position of power must make one corrupt, inept and morally irreconcilable. This is not, in itself, true. There is no factual basis in the immediate assumption of guilt, but major failures of policy such as the Gulf War or Brexit and their repercussions on the voting public have encouraged such speculation as well as personal scandals and disgraces of public figures like Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson or most recently, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. These characters, with their connection to the institutions and systems which govern democratic nations, are inseparable from what they represent, even when they have been stripped of their titles and reputation.

But to characterise these institutions as representing such people, would be unreasonable. Government officials who carry out their wishes, are answerable, ultimately, to those who run the government and those powerful figures who take charge of government officials and run the country are, in democracy, ultimately answerable to the people they represent. In a democracy, every aspect of the governing system begins and ends with the people. Who they choose to represent them, and the extent to which they care about the running of their country.

To those who would criticise democracy, therefore, I provide two responses; one a logical counter-question, and one a passionate rebuke. The first is this: what system, and in human history we have developed many, would replace that which we have developed over so many centuries? Would our elections be abolished and replaced with an Autocracy? Theocracy? Absolute Monarchy? Feudalism? Or would we rather govern ourselves absolutely, in a state of anarchy, return to the primæval ooze from whence we came? The options are each possible and yet equally unacceptable.

In a democracy, that perfect democracy to which we all aspire, we each hold as much power and therefore as much responsibility as each other. In a democracy, as in the situation we find ourselves in today, we are each equally accountable as the people are its causes and will and should suffer its repercussions. That is what Democracy should mean to us. Not only the present system, with its faults, but rather an aspiration, the path to an end results in our struggles of which this temporary, minor hesitation is only a part. 

Dēmos-kratia. In a democracy we should take responsibility for the repercussions of our actions: electing Trump, leaving the EU, invading Poland… rather than turning right around and criticising the system which has given us any choice in the first place.