Democracy: From Idea to Reality

September 15th in the United Nations calendar is World Democracy Day, a day to honor it. Everyone learns in school that democracy means government by the people. However, for a long time, the concept and meaning of democracy have undergone changes, and various theories and practices have been proposed to achieve it. Radio Farda has sought the views of a philosophy professor, a political science professor, two lawyers and human rights activists, an economist, and a religious scholar regarding the connection between democracy and laws, economy, human rights, and how democracy aligns with Islam. On this global day, Ramin Jahanbegloo, a philosophy professor and director of the Mahatma Gandhi Peace Studies Center in India, says: "When we talk about democracy, we must distinguish between two ways of defining democracy. On one hand, democracy is a way of social life; on the other hand, democracy is a political regime. Today, when we talk about democracy around the world, we are certainly speaking with optimism, but ordinary people refer more to a bureaucratic or even bureaucratic meaning of democracy. Naturally, they pay less attention to the democratic way of life. This is why many regimes that only hold elections are considered democratic regimes, simply because elections exist; however, they do not address the issue of the level of civic maturity or the level of individual rights. This is an important point because today, if we want to talk about democracy, it was once defined in opposition to dictatorial and totalitarian regimes as a regime where doubt must exist regarding power and the legitimacy of power. This is why we have openness, a broad public sphere, and the development of discourse and freedom-seeking action. But today, with the rise of populism in many even democratic countries, we see that this way of discussion, in my opinion, has been questioned, and we must talk more about democracy as a social question and what a democratic way of life is." Radio Farda also sought the views of Kamran Matin, a political science professor in the UK: "Democracy is an idea that emerged from ancient Greece, particularly the city-states of Greece, and in its simplest and most common sense, it means government by the people. Practically, government by the people is regarded as the administration and will of the majority of a society in organizing political relations. After the emergence of this idea in ancient Greece, over the past one or two thousand years, particularly from the late 15th and 16th centuries, a series of fundamental principles have been attributed to democratic governments or democracy, including the rotation of power based on free and fair elections, equality before the law, active participation of citizens in political and social life, and protection of the human rights of citizens in that society. In other words, four principles are accepted by political science thinkers, especially in liberal schools. However, in the last two hundred years, since the 19th century, there has been a major distinction in the understanding of democracy, particularly in Europe and Western countries, where liberals, who are the heirs of this idea, believe that democracy is entirely political and that justice and the exercise of power that democracy entails should not extend to the economic sphere, and the economy should fundamentally be left to the logic and dynamics of the market. This means the distribution of wealth and economic opportunities. On the other hand, socialists and the left believe that democracy should also encompass the economic and social sphere and that the government has the right to intervene in the economy to make the distribution of wealth more equitable. These two major schools, I believe, are still opposed in the contemporary world regarding what the meaning of democracy is. Those who believe that democracy should also come into the economic sphere argue that citizens who are materially disadvantaged cannot participate actively and positively in the political sphere. In this sense, economic justice or economic democracy is a prerequisite for the exercise of political democracy. What is economic democracy that Kamran Matin refers to? What is the relationship between democracy and the economy? Hassan Mansour, an economist in the UK, tells Radio Farda that democracy means better production and distribution of wealth, while tyranny means contributing to the production and perpetuation of poverty. "Consider that throughout its five thousand years of recorded history, humanity has experienced various forms of government to manage its public affairs. Tribal and clan governments like the Afshar and Qajar; conquering governments like Genghis, Timur, and Attila; military governments throughout Latin America; religious leader governments like the Rashidun Caliphs, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, up to Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic, and medieval Europe; ideological governments like Lenin's, Stalin's, and Pol Pot's; and then democratic governments gradually over the past four hundred years. Among these, religious and ideological governments have been the most dangerous for the individual because they have paid no attention to the individual. In contrast, democratic governments revolve around the importance of the individual, and their laws stem from the will of individuals. Nothing but the material and spiritual elevation of the individual is sacred to them. Thus, the rule of law, private property, division of labor based on relative advantages, and social cooperation have flourished under these governments. Those who believe that democracy should also come into the economic sphere argue that citizens who are materially disadvantaged cannot participate actively and positively in the political sphere. In this sense, economic justice or economic democracy is a prerequisite for the exercise of political democracy. Now let's look at the relationship between the economy and governments. Notice that the wealthiest countries in the world are the USA, Japan, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. All are democratic countries. The poorest countries are in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, all generally living under varying degrees of tyranny. Let me give you two contemporary examples. Look at Germany, a country with a single culture, which was divided seventy years ago after World War II into East and West Germany. East Germany was under Stalin's authoritarian government and its successors, while West Germany was under the guardianship of the USA, UK, and France. The economic situation in the two countries is quite clear. Even in cultural aspects, today, after East Germany has been integrated into Germany, we still see two different levels culturally in this country, where East Germany is at a lower level. The second example is Korea, which was divided into North and South about sixty years ago after the Korean War. North Korea, despite all the commotion it makes on the world stage, has a gross national product of fifteen billion dollars; while South Korea, which is actually the other half of the same country, has nearly ninety times that amount, meaning it has a gross production of one thousand five hundred billion dollars. Thus, the matter is quite clear. Democracies have been more successful in creating wealth and in the distribution of wealth, meaning in eliminating poverty, while tyrannies have been the source of poverty and have contributed to the perpetuation of poverty." Mehrangiz Kar, a lawyer and human rights activist, sees democracy and human rights as directly related and says: "Democracy essentially cannot have meaning without being based on human rights. The human rights order is based on the equality of humans, regardless of race, gender, belief, and political inclination. Therefore, for this order to come into existence or be maintained, specific political conditions must be created in society that can support this order. Furthermore, democracy essentially cannot have meaning if it is not established based on human rights." What conditions does Mehrangiz Kar refer to? How will the human rights order based on the equality of humans manifest in what political system? "The domestic laws of that country must reflect the legal equality of humans without any exceptions. There should be no exceptions for specific individuals or genders or beliefs in domestic laws. In this human rights order, citizens must have equal rights before the law. Of course, in front of laws that fully incorporate legal equality. The judiciary must be completely independent. Judges should not be under the control of coercive forces. Judges and upper management of the judiciary must be elected, not appointed. Individual power should not exist at all, or if it does, it should work symbolically or within a controlled political order. Critics and opponents must be able to have freedom of action in civil and peaceful criticism and opposition. Independent parties must be allowed to exist. Overall, high-ranking government officials must be accountable to an independent parliament, and representatives of the people in free elections must represent all political, social, and ideological spectrums, from men and women. Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that the intertwining of human rights and a democratic political system is essentially a kind of intertwining that, if separated, we will have neither a human rights order nor democracy. In other words, a human rights order is only accessible when the political system has democratic characteristics, which I have briefly outlined here." The United Nations today for World Democracy Day has chosen the slogan of preventing conflict and states that strong and democratic leadership, a strengthened civil society, the empowerment of women, and the rule of law are conditions that can safeguard stability and peace. Mehrangiz Kar, a lawyer residing in Canada, aligns her remarks with the United Nations' definition of the conditions for creating and maintaining democracy: "For a human rights order to be established and protected, it is necessary to establish democracy, a system based on the equality of people's rights and meritocracy, meaning that the government can continuously renew itself, and individuals of all types, genders, races, and thoughts can strive to enter the cycle of free elections and one day, if qualified, take up high management positions. Without such a political order, saying that global human rights standards can be protected is a hollow statement." Based on the image that Mehrangiz Kar painted, democracy is when a country's domestic laws reflect the legal equality of humans without any exceptions. Nasrin Sotoudeh, a lawyer in Iran, considers freedom of expression and freedom of the press as one of the most important conditions of democracy and says that enacting laws in line with democracy without freedom of expression is challenging. "Perhaps freedom of expression, which today manifests in freedom of the press, is the most important benefit that people derive from democracy. This freedom of expression encompasses not only the lofty aspirations and ideals of humanity but also the expression of daily human issues and finding collective solutions to those problems. Part of these solutions lies in enacting appropriate laws to overcome problems. In order to enact appropriate laws, we naturally need a clash of opinions and ideas, complete and comprehensive information, and a resolution to the problems existing in society. Therefore, the prerequisite for enacting appropriate laws to overcome the daily problems we face is that there exists a suitable environment for free expression, where individuals can freely and without fear of legal prosecution or extrajudicial actions express the issues at hand. If the initial environment for the free expression of problems and issues does not exist, the second part of the issue, which requires a clash of opinions and ideas to select the best laws to overcome problems, we cannot hope to achieve such laws." How compatible are laws in Iran with democracy? Nasrin Sotoudeh: "Regarding Iranian laws and the problems that Iranian society faces in this area, we sometimes encounter the term 'red line' - like in all other parts of society - which is often used, but sometimes regarding what Iran and the judiciary claim to resolve, we still face an insurmountable process. For example, I can mention the issue of executions of those under eighteen, where Iran is not only committed to international conventions but has never subjected any person under eighteen to the death penalty, and for this reason, with the approval of the Islamic Penal Code of 1392, the Iranian parliament tried to find a solution to this issue, but due to the red line, we still face this problem. This issue remains, and the statistics of executions of minors, in line with the overall statistics of executions in Iran, have been increasing in recent years. Therefore, as long as we cannot speak freely about these issues, we cannot expect to solve them.