In some forms, democracy can be exercised directly by the people, in large cities; it is by the people through their elected agents. Or in the memorable phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Therefore, what we know as democracy in its ideal form generally also includes governance by rule of law and the protection of civil liberties, or liberal democracy. Though how these two basic components of democracy – electoral and liberal – are represented may differ, it is widely accepted that a truly democratic system of governance must comprise both. The extent to which it does so will determine its quality and durability. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, without liberal democracy, electoral democracy is “nothing more than mob rule where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”
People living in a democratic society must serve as the ultimate guardians of their own freedom and must forge their own path toward the ideals. In the preamble to the UNs’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights is said, “Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.”
The electoral process lies at the heart of democratic government. It provides the institutional means of changing rulers without bloodshed. Elections, if they are competitive, provide the basis of democratic legitimacy. They provide opportunities for voters to participate in choosing leaders, and they consult an obligation on citizens to obey the laws approved by those they select. Citizens, it is believed, may be presumed to consent to laws to the extent that they have participated in choosing their leaders. Free and fair elections make representative government possible.
Elections give the political system legitimacy. They provide those elected with the expectation that their decisions will be obeyed. The electoral process also influences the structure of the party system. It determines which parties will have representation in the legislative assembly and how much representation each will have.
The parliament is where the heart of democracy beats. Parliaments and parliamentarians embody the culture of democracy in a country. Legitimacy is derived from the freely expressed will of the people through national parliaments, state assemblies and local councils that, in turn, serve the people by holding the executive to account and by ensuring democracy delivers for all.
More specifically, in democracies, these fundamental or inalienable rights include freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of assembly, and the right to equal protection before the law. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the rights that citizens enjoy in a democracy, but it does constitute a set of the irreducible core rights that any democratic government worthy of the name must uphold. Since they exist independently of government, in Jefferson’s view, these rights cannot be legislated away nor should they be subject to the whim of an electoral majority.
Mostly, democratic movements have been introduced a way to modernity. It is has been said that if we want to progress and take step towards modernity, embracing democracy is must. In other words, throughout the history, our kings introduced Western countries as role models for modernity and attempted to impose the same culture and tradition on the country. Such force-feeding will lead to a counterproductive result. I do not deny that a democratic government plays a crucial role in the progress and modernization of a country, however, applying the same custom and culture of a country in a second country, that has different values and norms, is a big blunder to be eschewed.
During the reigns of some kings, democracy sparkled in the country once in a while which mostly drew the condemnation of the public and extinguished forthwith. Moreover, at times when the kings themselves found their power in the risk of collapse, they suppressed the democratic parties. One may think that Afghans are against democracy; however, imposing unsavory norms were the crux of disapproval. Hence, as Afghanistan is a traditional society, they wanted democracy in the frame of their own cultural and moral values.
For instance, Amir Amanullah Khan aimed to modernize the traditional society of Afghanistan, overnight. In 1919 after the 3rd Anglo-Afghan war, Amanullah Khan who was a pioneer and modernist king claimed the independence of Afghanistan. Soon after acquiring Afghanistan’s independence, he introduced a strong radical wave of modernization. When Amanullah made a trip to Europe, he was influenced greatly by their culture and modernity. He had returned from Europe in 1928 and brought with him many Western ideas, including social and cultural changes. Intending to modernize the country rapidly, he announced the same foreign culture in the traditional country of Afghanistan for earning modernity. He also introduced foreign style of clothing in a speech. He asked Afghan men to put on pants and women to put aside their scarf. Finally, the public protested against his secular view and it led to his downfall.
Currently, the democratic system seems indigestible for the religious extremists. In other words, the radical ideologue, who are involved in militancy, find their ideology in conflict with democracy and thus resort to violence against all the fans of democracy, including combatants and non-combatants. It would be near impossible to convince the ideologue militants to agree with the current system – though it is in accordance with the society’s cultural norms. So, the radical ideologues are now the big destroyer of democracy. It seems that Afghanistan is an infertile land for establishing democracy.