The conditions of modern democracy

The conditions of modern democracy

The conditions of modern democracy
The statement that all government is on people’s consent by the American founding fathers is wrong or an assumption that governments should do so. These founding fathers believed that democracy could be achieved, a claim that Mill referred to as Representative Government. For people, however, democracy should mean respect for human rights. In the modern world, government should seek the consent of people and even many military dictatorships claim to be democratic. A majority of people believe that the term democracy is synonymous to good government and political justice as a whole. Good government ought to be democratic in both a social and institutional sense and should entail human rights, social justice, economic progress, and individual liberties. This is more than the equality of political rights. Similarly, schools should be democratic. Democracy creates a system that allows for peaceable compromises to be made between conflicts of values and of interests.
Among the conditions of modern democracy is the role of the inhabitants where individual and voluntary participation is encouraged but not mandatory. People should act as citizens and be liberal. On official doctrines, allegiance is demanded in democracies and given by popular consent and on secular and utilitarian grounds. There should also be a typical social structure. On the nature of elites, there should be a fairly stable political class that enjoys some prestige, but shares status with social, business, and intellectual elites. There should also be typical institutions of government in order to discuss on issues affecting the nation in a democratic manner. Multi-partisan should be allowed. On the type of economy that should exist in a democratic world, there should be a mixed economy. In addition, in a modern democracy, the ownership of property is a symbol of personal worthiness. In modern democracies, law can be both statutory and customary as opposed to autocracies where law is either customary or the proclaimed will of the autocrat. In modern democracies, knowledge is viewed as fragmented, related to problems rather than only connected in contrast to autocracies where knowledge is seen as a unified tool of political power. Modern democracies largely rely on information that is written (diffusion of information) and politics is tolerated and highly encouraged.
In this case, using the comparison presented, autocracies are destroyed when the truth is known and written about their government. This is because closed elites rely on some deceptions and myths on the way the government is conducted. Modern democracies, on the other hand, can sustain truths that are being told on how their structures or systems operate. Some people have argued that the modern democracies are even strengthened. In addition, the comparisons make it evident or clear that transparent, open government and not only freedom of information rather its circulation and ability can be as crucial as actual participation. Governments need to establish whether they will be followed once they are on the rule.
Taking at the Japanese Incident, one might question why or how a democracy could all of a sudden turn itself into an effectual war economy. The answer to this question may lie in something essential to free societies, just as the peculiar-sounding answer that was given by Aristotle on how a tyrant can hope to perpetuate himself in power.