On Democracy

"“Democracy is never a final achievement. It is a call to an untiring effort.”

“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.”

—John F. Kennedy

Modern democracy is built on a multi-party system, with each cardinal party from the conservative and progressive spheres competing for supremacy.

Other existing political institutions and systems cannot ensure the protection of rights as well as democracy can.

However, the cost of democracy's security comes with some disadvantages. In a democracy, as expressed by Garrard and Murphy in their book, How to Think Politically, it is important that "beliefs be shared, not that they be true."

This leaves the voice of the minority weak and unheard, leaving them no grounds in politics.

Moreover, the politicians that advocate the minority's opinions, which may be better off than the idea supported by the majority in certain cases, do not enter the domestic sphere of interest. This effect further prevents newly introduced politicians from even laying hands on those opinions.

Sure, the majority may be reasonable. Who should oppose them? It's how the people want their society to be. But this may be of rational effect only in a little society or an unofficial community of people. Those communities and groups can be altered in ways the people want them to be as it is their decision to benefit through those institutes. However, when the votes come to a full national referendum and brings in the matter of the state inside its outcomes, the story becomes different. This is because the state has years of history and culture it has led and protected. And the maintenance of these factors came with a price of countless sacrifices and numerous discussions, and this including the minority's voices.

Let us observe the definition of the majority again, this time more closely. You cannot know who is defending an opinion and from what background, reason, or rational thought he deduced his statement from. And can you risk the entire state and tend to apply the ideas, even in a purified state, straightly to our society, and leave the minority undermined?

The reason for suspecting the majority's motives for proposing their ideas is that people have too many variations of political thought mostly aimed at their individual benefits rather than a goal of an altruist.

Surely, people don't have to be completely altruistic nor be altruistic at all but when their ideas and proposals become overly self-centred or extreme in any aspect, there needs to be some degree of assistance in choices. The state and its "trustee"s should be able to consider the best possible solution from the given referendum results to improve the society and its future and work for the common good of its members.

Though, we must reflect on why the majority supports an idea and what leads the majority to them. And if these ideas are wrong to a rational mind or the minority, lead reforms on the state's fault on causing the wrong ideas. On the way, the minority, the state, and the rationals, the thinkers, must also re-consider their opinions.

Currently, the best possible and stable political establishment in contemporary societies is democracy.