In our age, democracy, which encompasses social, cultural, religious, and ethnic equality, justice and liberty, is the lifeblood of a society. Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by one person, as in a monarchy, or by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, hence focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.
There are two basic forms of democracy, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which all eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In modern democracies, the whole body of all eligible citizens remains the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy.
Legal equality, freedom and rule of law have been identified as important characteristics since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are typically protected by a constitution.
Since liberalism is the intellectual basis of democracy, democracy decentralizes power as liberalism prevents from wealth monopoly. For example, there are many common elements between democracy and liberalism such as separation of power, civil society, public supervision, etc, yet both are not the same. You can simply see one of the conflicting points between liberalism and democracy in economy. In this regard, liberalism prefers individual freedom to social justice and limits the role of government to the lowest point but freedom is otherwise.
Majority rule is also often listed as a characteristic of democracy. However, it does not mean to violate the rights of the minority or to oppress them. In democratic societies, the majority will have to co-operate the minorities so as to facilitate them.
Relativism shook hand with democracy regarding equal rights. Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration. Relativism put the traditional government of aristocrats and nobles under question through disapproval and spreading tolerance. Relativists believe in differences and varieties of beliefs and values the same as democrats who believe in the varieties which cannot prevent people from equal rights.
Social contract also played crucial role in spreading democracy. The origin of the term ‘social contract’ can be found in the writings of Plato. However, Thomas Hobbes expanded on the idea. He said that in the earliest days there was no government. Instead, those who were the strongest could take control and use their power at any time over others. Hobbes’ theory was that the people mutually agreed to create a state, only giving it enough power to provide protection of their well-being. However, in Hobbes’ theory, once the power was given to the state, the people then relinquished any right to that power. In effect, that would be the price of the protection they sought.
Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, Samuel Pufendorf, John Locke, Jaen-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant are among the most prominent of 17th- and 18th-century theorists of social contract and natural rights. Each solved the problem of political authority in a different way. Grotius posited that individual human beings had natural rights; Hobbes asserted that human consent to abdicate their rights in favor of the absolute authority of government.
Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would be bound morally, by the law of nature, not to harm each other in their lives or possession, but without government to defend them against those seeking to injure or enslave them; people would have no security in their rights and would live in fear. He argued that individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a “natural judge”, acting to protect the lives and property of those who lived within it.
Rousseau’s striking phrase that man must “be forced to be free” should be understood this way: since the indivisible and inalienable popular sovereignty decides what is good for the whole, then if an individual lapses back into his ordinary egoism and disobeys the leadership, he will be forced to listen to what they decided as a member of the collectivity. Hence, the law, as much as it is created by the people acting as a body, is not a limitation of individual freedom, but its expression.
Modern democracies will face difficult new challenges - fighting terrorism, adjusting to globalization, adapting to an aging society - and they will have to make their system work much better than it currently does. That means making democratic decision-making effective, rebuilding broken political institutions and civic associations. Perhaps most difficult of all, it requires that those with immense power in our societies embrace their responsibilities, lead, and set standards that are not only legal, but moral. Without this inner stuffing, democracy will become an empty shell, not simply inadequate but potentially dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the manipulation of freedom, and the decay of a common life.
William Godwin, a British philosopher says, "Democracy restores to man a consciousness of his value, teaches him by the removal of authority and oppression to listen to the dictates of reason, gives him confidence to treat all other men as his fellow human beings, and induces him to regard them no longer as enemies against whom to be upon his guard, but as brethren whom it becomes him to assist".