by Effie Moore Salem

Created on: August 24, 2009   Last Updated: May 11, 2010

A democracy has no other choice than to permit the government to act according to what is spelled out in the Constitution. That is if the government is honest and is not dealing in underhanded tactics that go against basic human morality. A democracy is government by the people and it is of two kinds: Direct democracy where groups of citizens get together and vote directly on issues under discussion or consideration; representational democracy is where the people elect representatives to govern them. The US Congress is this kind of democracy.

Recently, in the US we have been hearing a lot of direct democratic assemblies in the form of town hall discussions on health care. These have been necessary, according to those conducting the meetings, to learn about what the government is doing. There have been accusations of questionable issues being legislated into action without a clear picture of what the fine print and the calculated wording allows. This is one issue that this kind of democracy in action shows is not allowable. Whether or not the accusations are true only time will tell.

With the laxity of political involvement in much of the country where most elections are attended by very low margins, it is doubtful if these citizens have the right to complain. It seems they have forgotten how not too many centuries ago, minorities such as blacks and women were not allowed to vote. Voting is a privilege and it is the only way of seeing that in democracies that elect representatives to represent them their voice is heard. If one took no part in electing that particular candidate or in putting into effect that particular law that was on the ballot, what right do they have to shout their objections above the rooftops?

In this discussion it might be equally fair if we turned the topic of discussion around and asked how much democracy can a legitimate government allow? Not that this question is not being asked by many governments around the world, especially in the many republican regimes that for the first times are permitting the people to elect their leaders. What keeps dissatisfied groups from drumming up false charges and demanding that the government leaders obey their commands?

On the other hands, what keeps the true democratic factions from demanding that their governments who have reneged on their promises that they rightfully voted on, from rising up and wrecking the ill formed government. It all amounts to how much control is exercised by the power brokers at the time of conflict. An easy way for governments to exercise control over the people is to promise what it cannot deliver. One would assume that common sense would call a halt here when what is being promised is, almost from the outset, impossible to deliver.

A well developed democracy with all the probabilities and possibilities taken into consideration, will have all these nuances covered and will be on the lookout for hyperbole in campaign speeches. Listeners who want to get the promises made clear will demand explanations and reasonableness when what they hear go against what they believe to be impossibilities.

Why this is often not the case and why politicians who want so badly to win will make promises that are impossible to keep is not well understood. They either know better and don't care or they, like the listeners, want to believe in what they say. They may be so hyped up with roar of the crowd they even believe for a short time they actually do have the magic key to the problems of society. Human beings are subject to error whether they are the speech makers or the listeners. It is for this reason that democracies and their near associates, republics fail. It is also why they are necessary.

Learn more about this author, Effie Moore Salem.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.