WHAT DOES DEMOCRACY MEAN TO ME?
A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS BY FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Edited by: Martin Palouš and Arturo Espinosa
Introduction
This is the continuation of a project that started two years ago, when a first collection of essays by Florida International University (FIU) students answering the question What does democracy mean to me? was published. The point of departure for this publication was a course I have taught for the last several years: Democratic Transition and Human Rights—Basic Ideas and Concepts in Historical Context. The final assignment for students in this class is to write a personal essay on this topic— not to reproduce the ideas of others (statesmen, historians, political thinkers, or philosophers ancient, modern, or contemporary, whose writings were debated in my lectures)—but to depart from and try to articulate their own life experience, their own encounters with democracy.
Because I believe that the answers of thoughtful members of the younger generation represent an essential part of our ongoing public debate—we find ourselves at a historical crossroads, deciding where our common human world should be headed—I urged FIU to publish a second edition of student essays on democracy. Again, I reached out to one of the students—this time, Arturo Espinosa—to accept the role of editor and select the students’ essays for this volume. It is not for me but for our readers to have the final word here, but I think he made good choices, and I thank him heartily for his work and commitment to this project.
One of the central concepts in our current political thought is that of memory, the instrument of the mind capable of connecting our presence with our past. Our natural tendency, for good reason, is to give preference to the voice and memory of older generations in our debates. They have experienced more than young people, so they have more robust and more voluminous memories, providing more material for relevant discussions about the social and political processes we are all a part of.
But let us consider the following: each of our memories, no matter our age, has both individual and collective components. Each of us has our own unique identities and stories to tell and share with others, but at the same time we are all members of larger structures—families, local communities, ethnic groups, nations, and so on.
Each of us was born at a particular time and place. Our political choices and actions are products of our self-understanding, of our unique personal journeys in the world, of our often bizarre encounters with all those powers and mechanisms that together constitute, in the end, what we call human history.
And isn’t it true that young people are more aware than their seniors that we as humans have been born not just to accept and understand our past but we have also been endowed by our Creator with the challenging task of making something new, something unprecedented, something that hasn’t been here before—to become ourselves a new beginning?
Isn’t it exactly here where our debate about the state of democracy in our world today should begin?
Martin Palouš Director, Václav Havel Program for Human Rights and Democracy
Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs
Florida International University
Selected Readings from CPO 4737
The main sources for the course are two classic books in the field of democratic theory: Robert A. Dahl’s Democracy and Its Critics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) and The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century by Samuel P. Huntington (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991).
Additional texts were assigned for each class; the ones below were cited by several students. All these works informed the students’ essays. For the full reading list, please contact Arturo Espinosa at aespi170@fiu.edu.
Arendt, Hannah. 1963. On Revolution. New York: Viking Press.
Arendt, Hannah. 1998. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Morris, I. 1996. “The Strong Principle of Equality and Archaic Origins of Greek Democracy.” In DEMOKRATIA. A Conversation on Democracy, Ancient and Modern, edited by Josiah Ober and Charles Hedrick, 19–48. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ober, Josiah. 1998. Political Dissent in Democratic Athens: Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ober, Josiah. 2005. Athenian Legacies: Essays on the Politics of Going on Together. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Palouš, Martin. 2002. What Does Democracy Mean Today? Brussels: International Debate Education Association, 2002.
Palouš, Martin. 2021. Once upon a Time of Transition. Washington, DC: Academica Press.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 2000. Democracy in America, Vol. II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000
Wallace, R. W. 1996. “Law, Freedom and the Concept of Citizens’ Rights in Democratic Athens.” In DEMOKRATIA. A Conversation on Democracy, Ancient and Modern, edited by Josiah Ober and Charles Hedrick, 105–19. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jade Rodriguez
Abstract
This paper embarks on an exploration of the multifaceted concept of democracy, drawing inspiration from Steven Levitsky’s insightful definition, which includes both procedural and participatory dimensions. Using Levitsky’s framework, the paper navigates the intricate landscape of democratic backsliding, examining its repercussions on a global scale with illustrative examples from Spain, Germany, China, Russia, and the United States. Within this intricate tapestry, the paper dissects the interconnected themes of surveillance, populism, and authoritarian persistence, aiming to unveil their impact on the fabric of democracy. By doing so, it highlights the complexities and nuanced dynamics that contribute to the challenges faced by democratic governance.
The True Definition of Democracy
Levitsky’s classification of democracy into “procedural” and “participatory” forms provides a useful lens for understanding the essence of democratic systems. His concept of a “minimal” version of democracy, focusing on the smallest attributes that sustain a viable democratic entity, further enriches our understanding of the democratic ideal. At its core, procedural democracy entails a state granting suffrage to its constituents. Although suffrage and overall representation are indispensable pillars of any democratic framework, when they lack participatory or substantive components, the authenticity of a country’s democratic identity is subject to question. Providing mere access to the right to vote does not automatically confer true democratic status on a nation. It becomes imperative to consider whether political competition exists or whether an
authoritarian regime, indifferent to civil liberties, holds sway over the lives of its citizens. In a substantive approach to democracy, which is synonymous with the participatory form of democracy, citizens not only possess the right to suffrage but also enjoy safeguarded civil liberties. This substantive perspective forms the bedrock of a deeper understanding of democracy within the context of a nation-state.
In the following sections, I examine two case studies of complex trajectories of democratization, each navigating distinct stages of democratic backsliding. Through these case studies, I aim to illuminate the perils to democracy confronted across diverse nations and the consequences when democracy is either absent or compromised within a state. This paper seeks to underscore the vital importance of safeguarding democratic principles and of understanding the nuanced dynamics that contribute to both the fortification and fragility of democratic governance worldwide.
Democratization: A Case Study of Spain
An illuminating case of democratization’s intricacies and its challenges is the unique journey of Spain’s transition from authoritarianism to democracy following the Franco dictatorship. It not only serves as a lens through which to understand the dynamics of democratization but also reveals the nuanced challenges and dilemmas encountered during this transformative period.
The transition in Spain was orchestrated through government agencies as they moved from a potential military government toward the establishment of a democratic, constitutional monarchy. At the forefront of this transformation was Adolfo Suarez, a key reformer and subsequently the prime minister,
who underscored the pivotal role of elections in dismantling the vestiges of the old regime and empowering the people. However, the path to democratization was not without its hurdles, particularly when it came to addressing the historical atrocities committed under Franco’s rule.
After Franco’s dictatorial regime ended, the Spanish parliament passed an amnesty law, a legislative move intended to facilitate the transition to democracy by providing immunity to war criminals on both sides. This measure aimed to enable the country to “forget” the horrors of the past but had profound implications for the victims of those atrocities. The documentary The Silence of Others portrays the struggle of these victims to find justice who, despite having compelling evidence, faced legal barriers created by the blanket amnesty laws. These barriers to justice raised critical questions about the true consolidation of democracy in Spain and challenged the democratic principles emphasized by Suarez during the transitional period.
The tension between justice and amnesty laws became an emotion-filled focal point that cast doubt on the very essence of democracy during Spain’s challenging transition. The unresolved issues from the past and the ongoing fight for justice became a litmus test for Spain’s commitment to democratic values. Although the amnesty laws played a role in facilitating the transition, they simultaneously raised concerns about whether Spain underwent genuine democratization or opted for a more superficial form of liberalization to maintain control. This case study serves as a compelling illustration of the complicated dynamics and ethical dilemmas inherent in the democratization process.
Authoritarian Persistence: A Case Study of Russia
Levitsky’s definition of democracy encompasses both procedural and participatory aspects, emphasizing the importance not only of suffrage but also of protected civil liberties for a comprehensive approach to democracy within a nation-state. Authoritarian persistence, particularly as observed in Russia, can significantly erode the essence of democracy. The prolonged adherence to authoritarian practices directly contradicts the participatory aspect of democracy highlighted by Levitsky. In a genuine democracy,
citizens not only have the right to vote (procedural democracy) but also enjoy protected civil liberties, ensuring their active participation and freedom within the democratic system.
The historical struggle against Western ideology in Russia, coupled with the persistence of authoritarian practices, has led to Russia’s deviation from the democratic path. The surge in ideological freedom during the decommunization movement was very brief; it ended as Russia transitioned into an authoritarian state. According to Levitsky, safeguarding civil liberties during such transitions ensures that procedural democracy does not stand alone without participatory components of democracy.
The historical role of the KGB and its influence, even after its formal dissolution, raise questions about the extent to which Russia’s governance adheres to Levitsky’s participatory vision of democracy. Remnants of the spy agency that operate covertly could undermine the protected civil liberties required for genuine democratic governance.
Surveillance as a strategic tool in Russia’s authoritarian control further weakens democracy, potentially infringing on civil liberties. Monitoring social media posts, and implementing censorship to suppress dissent, directly contradicts the participatory aspect of democracy, limiting citizens’ freedom of expression and their ability to engage actively in political discourse.
Surveillance and Democratic Backsliding and Its Effect on Democracy
This section focuses on how surveillance, when misused to subject citizens to improper scrutiny, can become a catalyst for democratic backsliding by suppressing and controlling citizens’ freedoms and rights. It begins by examining historical instances, particularly the surveillance practices of the East German Stasi. Christiane Lemke’s insights in “Trials and Tribulations: The Stasi Legacy in Contemporary German Politics” underscore the pervasive use of surveillance in postcommunist Germany. It initially served as a tool of coercion and suppression, even though post-Berlin Wall revelations were aimed at fostering democratic transparency.
her to become chair of the Phi Alpha Delta mock trial team. Additionally, Jade is researching democratic backsliding in the United States by comparing it to different authoritarian regimes around the world.
Jade Rodriguez Perez was born on October 31, 2003, in Guanabacoa, Cuba. She immigrated to the United States on September 24, 2005. Jade is an Honors College student majoring in political science with a minor in international relations. She is passionate about pursuing a career in law, which led
However, the misuse of surveillance is not confined to the past, as contemporary examples from China and Russia vividly illustrate. China’s extensive internet surveillance, coupled with the use of phone trackers and voice prints, encroaches on privacy rights and employs fear tactics to discourage dissent. In Russia, a regulatory system intercepts communications and orchestrates disinformation campaigns to counter Western political thinking.
Surveillance practices are tactical tools wielded by authoritarian regimes to control and subdue citizens. The infringement of privacy rights, coupled with the use of fear tactics as witnessed in China and the monitoring of individuals to suppress democratic values in Russia, contributes to the erosion of democratic principles. Perpetual surveillance diminishes the power held by the people within a nation, ultimately diminishing the state’s democratic essence.
Populism: A Threat to Democracy
Having explored the intricate interplay between surveillance, authoritarian persistence, and their implications for democracy, I consider the phenomenon of populism, which has increasingly dominated political discourse. Populism, in which leaders position themselves as champions of the “people” against a perceived corrupt elite, holds the potential to contribute to democratic backsliding, thereby weakening the true essence of democracy.
Populist leaders often emerge in nations grappling with democratic challenges, transitions, or backsliding: they leverage simple rhetoric to appeal to individuals who feel voiceless. The rise of populism is exemplified by Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaign, where he capitalized on right-wing voters’ concerns about immigration, linking it to job loss and economic decline. Trump’s nationalistic rhetoric resonated with those who felt marginalized, transforming him into a leader of the people, rather than a representative of a political platform.
Similarly, the Brexit referendum in the UK reflected a surge in populism driven by anti-immigration and anti-trade sentiments. Journalist Edward Allen’s observation that
Euroskepticism mirrored sentiments in the United States emphasizes how populist movements capitalize on the discontent of individuals who perceive themselves as losers in a changing economic landscape. The Brexit vote, viewed as an opportunity to regain sovereignty, serves as a tangible example of how populist movements exploit economic dissatisfaction.
Grounding this analysis is political research by Inglehart and Norris supporting the idea that populist parties garner greater support among the less well-off and those facing economic insecurity. This economic interpretation posits that individuals who have experienced unemployment or economic difficulties are more susceptible to the appeal of populist leaders promising transformative change.
The narrative of “me vs. them” emerges as a pivotal factor in the consolidation of power by populist leaders, driven by a pervasive lack of trust in existing political institutions. This narrative motivates voters to choose leaders who challenge the established order: they present a psychological choice for individuals between immediate benefits, such as survival, and long-term political rights. Although populism may engage with procedural aspects of democracy, its tendencies to undermine civil liberties, manipulate public opinion, and foster a divisive environment pose challenges to Levitsky’s vision of participatory and substantive democracy. The potential for democratic backsliding arises when populist movements prioritize immediate gains over the enduring principles that constitute a robust democratic system.
Conclusion
Levitsky’s definition stands as a beacon for what a true democratic nation represents. It provides a roadmap for nations in need of democracy, guiding them toward the complex interplay of procedural and participatory democracy. By recognizing the potential pitfalls associated with populism, authoritarian persistence, and surveillance, Levitsky’s framework emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the principles that constitute a vibrant democratic society. As we navigate the complex landscape of democratization, it becomes imperative to heed his insights. The challenges posed by populist movements, the
persistence of authoritarian practices, and the implications of surveillance on democratic values should be addressed with a holistic understanding of democracy. Only through such an approach can nations aspire not only to establish democratic systems but also to fortify and advance them, ensuring a trajectory that aligns with the true essence of democracy as envisioned by Levitsky.
Lidia Llompart
Now You See It, Now You Don’t: The Illusion of Choice in American Democracy
Living in the United States, students are taught that we are in the prime democratic country of our time—that the United States is a leader in human rights advocacy and democracy across the world, seeks to export it to other nations, and looks down on nations that do not allow their citizens to choose their leaders freely without government pressure. We are told that our choices matter and that our voices are heard: it is the responsibility of the American people to go out and vote, to make the choices that we believe best for our country. With every election cycle, we are given the power to steer the United States toward our vision of a country that is the “leader of the free world.”
However, as I have grown passionate about government work, I have learned a substantial amount about how it truly works and about how citizens actually play a role. As I become more engaged with American politics and government systems, I have come to realize that U.S. processes of election and representation often pose a range of possible choices that are not truly available to the voters, which results in giving Americans a false sense of electoral power. Thus, components of the U.S. electoral system, such as the Electoral College, gerrymandering, and tyranny of the majority, mean that democracy—in the modern American context—only provides the illusion of choice.
The Electoral College
An important part of the electoral system that serves to present U.S. voters with the illusion of choice is the Electoral College.1 As specified in the U.S. Constitution, “Electors” were embedded into the democratic process with the particular purpose of being a buffer between day-to-day citizens and the elected elites, because the Founding Fathers did not trust the lower classes to elect a proper leader for their new country. As it stands today, this is the body responsible for the official election of the president and vice president of the United States. There are 538 electors—the total of each state’s congressional delegation—and a majority of at least 270 is needed to elect a president.2 Each state’s chosen electors are the ones who actually determine who wins, not the citizens at the thousands of polling places across the United States.3 U.S. government websites explicitly try to make it seem like citizens are part of the process; for example, the National Archives website frames it as a “two step” process: “First, the political parties in each State choose slates of potential electors sometime before the general election. Second, during the general election, the voters in each State select their State’s electors by casting their ballots…. They are the only ones who actually vote for President, which they do at the meeting of the electors.”4
This is a blatant attempt to deceive the voters about the true workings of the Electoral College, which is clearly intended to give just an illusion of choice.
The Electoral College has historically been a tool for the illusion of choice in American democracy. The text of the U.S. Constitution’s Article II and the Twelfth Amendment seem to be intended to fool the common American into believing their votes are directly influencing their democracy.5 As
Lidia Llompart is a first-generation immigrant born in Spain to Cuban parents in February 2002. She first moved to Mexico before immigrating to Miami. This international background has allowed her to see the world through various lenses and to understand the complexities of international relations through her family’s experience with exile, family separation, and immigration. During her time at FIU, she was a writing assistant with the Center for Excellence in Writing for Dr. Bender’s EUH 2021 class, worked with the Healthy Living Program, and was an active Model UN travel member, as well as Secretary-General of FIU’s 35th iteration of the high school Model UN conference “FIMUN.” Lidia graduated from FIU in Spring 2023 with a B.A. in history and a minor in political science. She is currently doing a service year with AmeriCorps in Washington, DC, and is beginning a master’s-level program in international affairs at American University in spring 2024.
the electorate has become more informed, this illusion has become increasingly obvious. There are currently more than 600 proposals to either change or entirely get rid of the Electoral College, and more than 60% of lawyers advocate for its reform. Some call its role “archaic” and “ambiguous.”6
The unique phenomenon of presidential candidates who have won the popular vote but lost the election illustrates the problems with the Electoral College. In a true democracy, the people would be able to vote for and select a winner. Since 1800, there have been several elections where no candidate received a majority of votes, and they had to turn to Congress to select a president; there have also been times where the candidate won in the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. In the election of 1888, although the candidates used some illegal tactics, it was ultimately the Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland who won the popular vote of the people, with 90,000 votes more than the opponent Benjamin Harrison—but this mattered little because Harrison had won the majority in the Electoral College.7 The same outcome occurred with the 2000 election of George W. Bush, who beat Al Gore on the basis of the electoral vote, and again with Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton in 2016—even though she gained 2.8 million more votes than Trump.8 It is incredibly important to note that nearly three million votes did not count in the 2016 election.9 Nearly three million Americans who made the effort to show up to the polls and send in their ballots were left unrepresented by a body that was put in place to protect the United States from average citizens, but did not have any oversight to protect the average citizen from a deceitful democracy. It must be recognized that the United States is a republic, not a democracy, and that the Electoral College, to an extent, prevents some problems that could arise from a tyranny of the majority. However, the Electoral College remains and continues to provide only an illusion of electoral choice.
Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering is another systemic component that creates the illusion of democracy for the United States and is practiced throughout our electoral processes. It is a process in which electoral boundaries are manipulated in a way
designed to disempower one political group or demographic in favor of another.10 Two common gerrymandering strategies are packing and cracking. Packing is when one political or racial group is artificially placed entirely into one district so that their votes are not able to affect the remaining districts.11 Cracking, in contrast, involves artificially splitting up a demographic group into many different districts so that their voting power is diluted between them.12 When these strategies are successfully implemented, the result is that one political faction wins in a disproportionately high number of districts, thus securing an unearned majority or supermajority.
Gerrymandering of congressional districts is possible in the United States due to the nature of our voting system.13 Congresspeople are elected in single-member districts, meaning only one representative may be elected from each district, and the victor is decided by a first-past-the-post system. Because of this, it makes no difference whether a congressperson is elected with a 90% supermajority or a 45% plurality. Both scenarios result in the same level of representation. This makes it easy for a dominant political faction to pack most of their opposition into one or few districts in which they make up an overwhelming majority. Meanwhile, the remaining districts are left for the dominant party to win by a smaller margin. This means that if the opposition party wins 80% of the vote in two packed districts, it will still have fewer seats than the governing party that wins 51% of the vote in three districts. The overall popular vote is not a factor in deciding the election, so votes in uncompetitive districts inherently matter less to the outcome of the election than votes coming from competitive districts. Thus, the process of gerrymandering begs the question: Are Americans participating in true democracy? With a permitted rule in the game like gerrymandering, Americans are once again being given a false sense of choice.
Gerrymandering is not a new phenomenon in U.S. elections. The term “gerrymander” is derived from the name of Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry, whose government passed a bill designating new state senate districts in 1812 that concentrated the Federalist Party vote in a small number of districts, giving Democratic-Republicans an unfair
advantage in representation.14 One of these districts was supposed to have a salamander-like shape, which inspired the mocking name.15 Years later, the process would be called into question when the 1962 Supreme Court decision, Baker v. Carr, ruled that Tennessee had not correctly reapportioned districts and therefore reduced the impact of the votes from some of the most populated areas of the states.16 In the 1964 case of Wesberry v. Sanders, the Court ruled that congressional electoral districts were to be formed so that “as nearly as is practicable, one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.” As it happened, neither of these decisions caused a strong enough response to eliminate gerrymandering.17
The biggest groups affected by disproportional representation and the ones whose well-being is most at stake are marginalized communities of color.18 Many states in the past purposefully drew their electoral maps to ensure that people of color could win very few districts, resulting in the explicit creation of racial gerrymandering. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed purposefully weakening the voting power of a protected minority, addresses this issue on the federal level by having the courts frequently evaluate the districts based on their “compactness” to ensure that districts are not illogically created to deny minorities the right to vote.19 However, to ensure that the courts do their jobs, more people need to be aware of when gerrymandering is occurring. A study by Morning Consult found that less than 30% of Americans were aware of redistricting and how it functions and affects their vote.20
The same issues of representation that plagued the country then are running rampant today. As of 2019, most instances of gerrymandering are implemented by those on the political Right, with Republicans spending lots of money and great efforts to gerrymander. The notable example was Wisconsin, which was won by Republicans in both 2012 and 2020 because of the way the electoral districts were drawn.21
These maps only gave the illusion of equal representation. The historical use of gerrymandering has been instrumental in the systemic effort to create an illusion of choice and of democracy today.
Conclusion
Democracy in the United States presents an illusion of choice and options that, when better studied, are simply not attainable. The long history of only two systemic processes of American democracy—the Electoral College and gerrymandering—reveals the deliberate misguidance of the average American voter who believes it when they are told that their vote matters. That said, it is not wise to cease to vote or participate in government; rather, the response to such deception is to become more deeply embedded into governmental at the local, state, and federal levels. By becoming more informed, we can not only combat but also change how far we allow ourselves to be fooled by the illusion of choice.
Notes
1. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp.
2. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/about.
3. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/about.
4. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#:~:text=Who%20 selects%20the%20electors%3F,electors%20by%20casting%20 their%20ballots.
5. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/provisions#clause2.
6. https://apnews.com/article/AP-explains-elections-popular-vote-743f5 cb6c70fce9489c9926a907855eb. https://apnews.com/article/AP-explains-elections-popular-vote-743f5 cb6c70fce9489c9926a907855eb.
7. https://archive3.fairvote.org/reforms/national-popular-vote/theelectoral-college/problems-with-the-electoral -college/#7.
8. https://apnews.com/article/AP-explains-elections-popular-vote-743f5 cb6c70fce9489c9926a907855eb.
9. https://www.vox.com/2014/8/5/17991938/what-is-gerrymandering.
10. https://apl.wisc.edu/shared/tad/packing-cracking.
11. https://apl.wisc.edu/shared/tad/packing-cracking.
12. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/gerrymander-explainer. html.
13. https://www.britannica.com/topic/gerrymandering.
14. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/gerrymander-explainer. html.
15. https://www.britannica.com/topic/gerrymandering.
16. https://www.britannica.com/topic/gerrymandering.
17. https://www.vox.com/2014/8/5/17991986/racial-gerrymandering.
18. https://www.vox.com/2014/8/5/17991986/racial-gerrymandering.
19. https://morningconsult.com/2022/03/21/redistricting-racial-partisancounty-gerrymandering-survey/.
20. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/gerrymander-explainer. html.
21. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/gerrymander-explainer. html.
Alexander Miller
Prior to my spring 2021 semester at Florida International University, I had always considered the word “democracy” to be a simple term—describing nothing more than the relationship between a government and its populace. I had always believed in the importance of democracy, especially with my academic background in national security, because I am well aware of the threats to democracy that exist throughout the world. The regions and countries that inform my perception of the strength of democracy in the world today include Afghanistan, Haiti, the Eastern Pacific, and West Africa. Additionally, I have always been interested in and have studied U.S. history, especially during the twentieth century: this has largely influenced my perception of how a democracy can and should operate. My combined knowledge of democracy in the United States and of democracy globally has allowed me to formulate my own ideas as to how democracy survives in other countries, how democracy could begin in other countries, and how democracy may end in other countries.
My overall beliefs are largely based on the unique circumstances of each individual country, because democracy, like any system of government, must serve the best interests of the citizens of that country to maintain its support and popularity. To serve the best interests of the populace, democracy in the United States may not be identical to democracy in Afghanistan, although the key principles of democracy may remain constant. For example, the regime in Afghanistan will likely remain an Islamist group whose main priority is the promotion of Islamic values throughout Afghanistan. A government based on Sharia Law. or fundamental Islamic principles, will practice a version of democracy that is very different from that in the United States. Islamic practitioners would inevitably oppose the idea of widespread liberalism for all groups of society, among other byproducts of U.S.-style democracy.
The purpose of this example is to introduce the methodology underlying my own perception of democracy; this methodology attempts to acknowledge all the possible implications of applying a standardized form of democracy to a new territory. It is impossible to recognize all the implications of applying a standardized version of democracy to a new territory, but certain ones do remain constant and reliable, such as the public perception of democracy, the newly gained rights of the populace due to democracy, and the new roles of the democratic government.
Having been born and raised in the United States, I am accustomed to being surrounded by elected officials who attempt to garner support to get reelected. I am used to that sense of security associated with knowing that the policy makers are elected by us, the people: it has allowed me to develop an appreciation for democracy. As I deepen my knowledge, I have learned that there are many countries that are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum: they do not have elections or provide their citizens with the liberty and freedom of choosing who represents them in the government.
I now view democracy as a metric that I can use to analyze foreign governments that do not share many similarities with the U.S. government. I believe that the way in which democracy is applied in the United States represents the ideal form of the relationship between a government and its citizens. This belief is justified by my own life experiences of possessing a substantial amount of freedom and liberties compared to other countries: for example, I can speak freely, spend my money as I wish, and pursue employment of my choice. Despite its flaws and shortcomings, the U.S. system of government allows people to maintain their humanity by providing them with necessary protections, securities, and
freedoms as a government should. I have greatly relied on this perspective in every class, conversation, or project that involved the analysis of governments, foreign policies, or even national or international security policies.
During the spring 2022 semester at FIU, a combination of new experiences occurred that together changed my perspective on the global role of democracy and, to some degree, on democracy itself. These experiences included some of my courses, my conversations and dialogues with professors, and my research projects: all played a role in enhancing my understanding of the concept of democracy, how this concept exists in today’s world, and, to some degree, how this concept has existed throughout history.
The classes I took that semester gave me new insights into global perceptions of democracy, including how democracy continues to exist in some geographic regions of the world but not in others. Differences in systems of governments gradually developed into two main blocs, each of which has a very large base of supporters and ideologies encompassing the overarching system of governance. Throughout history, major conflicts and wars have been fought because of the ideological differences between states. Democracy has been at the forefront of some of those key historical events, which is testament to the importance of its existence, to the soldiers who fought for it, to the people who appreciate and benefit from it daily, and to those who have likely never experienced it in their own lives beyond a mere awareness of its existence elsewhere in the world. In other words, by learning about the thinkers, scholars, and statesmen who have, over the course of time, contributed to the growth and prosperity of democracy, I have increased my understanding of the main factors that determine the success of democracy in a state, both historical and modern.
Democracy is a recurring theme in almost every course, both indirectly and directly, and my interactions with my professors. For example, the overall success of U.S. investments in Afghanistan since the early 2000s—in the form of infrastructure projects such as roads, bases, and healthcare facilities—was evaluated based on certain metrics relevant to Afghanistan’s society, system of government, and dominant religion. The long-standing lack of democracy in Afghanistan has had major effects on the
Afghan people, and U.S. interventions did not fully take account of the fact that certain actions, decisions, and reasoning might not directly transfer to or be shared by the Afghan people. This caused major issues for the United States, which made many assumptions that proved to be detrimental to their interests and goals in Afghanistan in both the short and long term. For example, U.S. planners assumed that the construction of a road from the province of Tarin Kowt to the province of Kandahar would benefit the Afghan people in both southern provinces by simplifying trade routes, improving communication between provinces, and making the journey safer for merchants, regular citizens, and the U.S. military. Instead, this road turned out to be a costly disaster that was eventually taken over by the terrorist groups that had a strong footprint in Afghanistan at this time. One of the many lessons of U.S. intervention is that the lack of democracy in Afghanistan prevents the Afghan people from possessing certain freedoms and liberties that would allow them to truly benefit from the U.S.-built road. This conversation with my professor about the impact of that project was incredibly interesting and productive because of the insights he shared about this particular infrastructure project, other related projects, and events that he was directly involved in regarding Afghanistan. These insights are truly invaluable to my own study of democracy.
The concept of democracy has provided me a perspective to learn from, connect with, and relate to other individuals in this world who also study or have studied democracy but may have different experiences and are in different environments. This connectedness has taught me a great deal about the ability of people to study an idea for a greater purpose; that is truly an incredible phenomenon in today’s world in which there does not exist a wide variety of unifying ideas or subjects—and even when that variety exists, the passion or motivation to study those ideas for the benefit of humanity does not seem to be present nearly as much as it is present for the study of democracy. The study of democracy does take many forms, but for the most part, those who study related subjects such as international development, national and international security, and the promotion of human rights all tend to maintain a specific stance on democracy. This stance emphasizes the importance of democracy not only in countries that do not have it but also in those that are democratic and have been
varied experiences, he has developed keen interests in human rights, political transitions and transitional justice, and conflict resolution. Alex plans to continue his education and pursue a career as an international relations researcher and practitioner.
Alex Miller was born in Hollywood, Florida, and is currently a senior majoring in political science. At FIU, Alex works as a research assistant with the Jack D. Gordon Institute for Public Policy, where he oversees the institute’s Haiti portfolio. Through his
so throughout their history. Without democracy, many of the other mechanisms that promote the core principles of freedom—liberalism, justice, security, and equality—cannot be supported and therefore, cannot and will not exist.
This leads me to another pillar of the connectedness I have gained from studying democracy with others who share a similar interest and motivation: this is the perspective that democracy is, in many ways, a gateway to the aforementioned core principles. The promotion of humanity’s well-being has been a crucial goal of many successful societies; that is, from a governance perspective, to ensure that the citizens of a state are capable of and motivated to pursue virtue and maintain their own humanity. It is evident that values like dignity and integrity are crucial to any society and government, as shown by the historical and modern existence of authoritarian governments that exercise absolute rule in a way that cruelly restricts their people’s ability to ensure and promote their own humanity; in turn, this adversely affects the overall health and strength of the populace, enabling the government to remain stronger than its citizens.
In conclusion, I enjoy studying democracy both directly and indirectly because I have learned that, while doing so, it is impossible to avoid learning about other related topics and subjects, and it has connected me to other individuals whom I may not have connected with otherwise. This connectedness has expanded since attending FIU: I am able to learn from incredibly knowledgeable professors who are experts and scholars in the study of democracy, which I hope to become one day. The insights learned from professors and fellow students have been truly invaluable to my personal and professional aspirations and motivations: those who have contributed greatly to the study of democracy are some of the most inspirational figures I have ever had the privilege of meeting and learning from. To me, democracy is a guide, an inspiration, a goal, and a purpose.
Alicia Rosales Sacasas
The global struggle for democracy has been a persistent part of our political landscape in the past century. Totalitarian governments have gained power and been defeated time and time again. Yet, the gap between the number of countries that have seen improvement in citizens’ liberties and those that have deteriorated is closer than ever before according to a 2023 report by Freedom House. Totalitarian governments that were established in the twentieth century, such as Cuba in Latin America, North Korea in Asia, and Eritrea in Africa, continue to hold power until this day. In contrast, fascist leaders from Japan and Italy lost their influence before the turn of the century, and their countries’ governmental officials are now democratically elected.
With the recent growth in antidemocratic sentiments around the world, it is easy to lose hope about our future. In this essay, I explore my personal relationship with democracy as someone who was born and raised in a totalitarian country and moved to a democratic state during my teen years. I probe the differences and similarities between both experiences, as well as how my positionality as a queer female immigrant with a disabled brother has affected my perception of democracy and civil rights. As an activist, I also give my opinion about the current state of democracy in Florida and how it relates to the international context.
The history of democracy can be traced back to Ancient Greece in the city-state of Athens in the fifth century BC. Athens had a direct democracy, where citizens would participate by voting and voicing their opinions in the assembly. However, this system had its limitations. It excluded women, enslaved individuals, and foreigners who did not fall into the citizen category. Noncitizen Athenians
had a limited number of rights that were dependent on the will of the citizens, a status that was only given to free men. Women could participate in religious festivals, children had the right to an education, and foreigners and slaves could sue in court, but they were all still seen as inferior in the eyes of citizens.
In the centuries that followed, the concept of democracy spread to other countries, and it took different forms. For example, Rome had a complex political system that included two consuls, a senate, and an assembly, which worked to balance each other’s power. The consul served as the executive branch, the senate as the advisory branch, and the assembly as the legislative and democratic branches. Just like in Athens, all men could participate in the assembly, where they had the power to enact laws and hold public trials.
During the Enlightenment period, our modern concept of democracy was developed by thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who promoted the ideas of civil liberties and popular sovereignty. Revolutions in the United States and France led to the establishment of democracy, and many countries strived to follow their example in the years to come. Democracy experienced a new wave of expansion in the twentieth century as World War II came to a close, and former colonies were freed.
Despite the spread of democracy globally, the twentieth century saw a boom in totalitarian regimes. From Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, to Mao Zedong’s China, democracy was threatened globally. These regimes were characterized by the lack of civil liberties, the concentration of power in the hands of
Alicia Rosales Sacasas was born in Camagüey, Cuba, but moved to Miami when she was thirteen years old. She is currently a senior studying international relations, with a minor in anthropology/sociology and a certificate in human rights and political transitions. Throughout her college years, Alicia has been a passionate human rights activist for various causes, from advocating for LGBTQ+ rights as part of her Millennium Fellowship project to founding a student organization dedicated to creating a space to discuss topics related to immigration on campus and partnering with state-level nonprofits to expand her reach. Her involvement in human rights activism is also global. Alicia was an intern in the organization Kallpa, located in Cuzco, Peru, where she used her digital design and research skills to create educational content for social media about reproductive justice. In 2023, she attended the Convention on the Status of Women at the United Nations where she connected with feminist activists from around the world. Alicia would like to continue her education and advocacy in the human rights field.
a single charismatic leader, and the use of propaganda and violence to suppress different viewpoints. The rise of totalitarian governments was a complex phenomenon driven by a combination of factors, including economic instability, weak political infrastructure, and undemocratic ideologies. The economic hardship that countries experienced after the Great Depression was used to justify nationalistic policies and the promotion of radical policies that undermined the political infrastructure. Totalitarian movements gained momentum by exploiting the political and social unrest of their countries. They used censorship and propaganda to control the flow of information and indoctrinate their citizens. These regimes were based on an ideology like communism or fascism that promised to create a new society without the problems people so often complained about.
I was born in the early 2000s in Cuba, a country that has been fighting for liberty ever since its establishment. From the Indigenous and slave uprisings during Spanish colonial times to nationwide protests in recent years, the Cuban people have never been complacent with encroachments on their freedoms. The most important turning point in the struggle for independence was the beginning of the Ten Year’s War in 1868, when Carlos Manuel de Céspedes proclaimed independence. The Cuban War of Independence followed in 1895, led by José Martí, a well-known nationalist and writer. Although the rebellion was defeated by Spain, it has influenced freedom movements ever since. In 1902, Cuba gained formal independence from Spain but remained under the influence of the United States. The Platt Amendment permitted U.S. involvement in the island with the stated aims of preserving Cuban independence and maintaining adequate control of the government. In the early twentieth century, Cuban society was characterized by high levels of corruption within the government, economic instability, and social unrest, which led to the overthrow of the government. The dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista took its place. A few years later, Cuba woke up to the news of a new leader by the name of Fidel Castro, who would control the country until the day of his death in 2016.
I grew up seeing pictures of Castro’s brothers everywhere I went, from the government-controlled bread store to
my elementary school. Every day I would wake up and be reminded that all the freedoms I enjoyed, like the right to an education and healthcare, were given to me because of the revolution. The “revolution” was described as a movement that led to the establishment of the government, not a fundamental and radical change as defined in the dictionary. The word was repeated ad nauseum so as to strip it of all its real meaning. When I was a kid, my weekdays would start by getting ready for school— a right that I now know is not exclusive to my homeland. Patriotism was encouraged, as well as discipline. At 8:30 a.m. on the dot, children, teachers, and school administrators would meet at the center of the school to go over the news and plans for the day. We would start this performance, which we called “matutino”—roughly translating to morning act—by singing the national anthem, followed by talks about historical events that occurred that day and by the global news. We would all sing a revolutionary song, which would change every month depending on the historical events that defined that time of the year, before going back to our classrooms. When I was in first grade, I learned about Cuban missions to other countries, and students were encouraged to tell the stories of their family members who had been part of one. In elementary school, I learned about the history of my country, starting in the precolonial era. We talked about Indigenous Cuban communities as something of the past. despite an increasing movement in the Caribbean to recognize that the Taino culture and people are still present with us and fighting to preserve their ways of life. History would end with the Cuban revolution, and the present would not be discussed. Despite going into graphic details about methods of torture practiced by the Batista regime, actions taken by the current government after its establishment were not even part of the discussion.
I learned about the concept of democracy, but I never grasped its meaning. For me, a monarchy and the Cuban governmental system were not so different from each other. A family controlling the state was the norm, and this idea was reinforced by media, like fairy tales and Disney movies. Because Cubans did not get access to the internet until the late 2010s, my view of the world was limited. I had the privilege, however, of having a grandmother who lived in the
United States, and my father was an English speaker and translator. Because of my father’s job and career, I grew up listening to English-language music and being connected to American culture more than my peers. As a kid, however, I did not use this opportunity to investigate democracy, because my areas of interest were related to pop American culture more than politics.
Despite my family’s proximity to the United States, I was not raised to be hypercritical of the dictatorship. Criticisms of the government were common but hidden under jokes. For many Cubans, sarcasm and humor are ways to express their feelings about politics without being punished. Vivir del Cuento is the longest-running television series on the island— a sitcom that follows the day-to-day life of a retired elderly Cuban man trying to survive despite the challenges presented to him by living in poverty. The name of the show is a play on words and translates to “living off lies,” referring to how everything you are told by society is constructed to create a story, and stories are fictional. The show has validated the experiences of Cubans who are struggling to survive and inspired them to express their frustrations with the system in creative ways. Communication expands beyond words: it is about sentences, context, facial expressions, and intentional silence. Cubans have continued to speak against the government, but the international community has not understood their language.
For many, art has been their main way to communicate their opinions because freedom of expression is restricted. Growing up, Buena Fe was a popular music group that wrote about the suppression of liberties in a way that closely scrutinized the Cuban government. In one of their lesserknown songs “Miedos,” they sing, “Hay quien se pone nervioso si los artistas se ponen valientes” (There are some who get nervous when artists get brave); this lyric hits hard in a country that constantly punishes artists for calling out social and political issues in their works. In recent years, the Orishas, especially its lead singer Yotuel, have been at the forefront of the international condemnation of the regime. The song “Patria y Vida” (Homeland and Life) reclaims the slogan “Patria o Muerte” (Homeland or Death) used by Cuban revolutionaries to represent their struggle for liberty.
The San Isidrio movement was the first toppling domino that initiated the succession of pro-democracy protests across the island. It was led by artists, journalists, and academics from the capital who protested the censorship of speech in the country. The new pro-democracy movement in Cuba is not organized according to a set number of goals. Instead, it is united by a nationwide sentiment that seeks the peaceful transition to democracy—although some very loud voices do advocate for U.S. military intervention to free the country.
When I left in 2016, the relationship between Cuba and the United States seemed to be improving. Former president Obama was the first sitting U.S. president to visit the island since Calvin Coolidge in 1928. He even made an appearance on Vivir del Cuento, which solidified him as an ally in the Cuban public psyche.
I arrived in the United States during a historic presidential election year, when anti-immigrant rhetoric fueled by Donald Trump was ubiquitous. This way of thinking affected my personal identity and the way I treated others. In retrospect, I made decisions that I regret. I internalized xenophobic ideas that ended up harming me, no matter how much I wanted to distance myself from that label. As I was beginning to form my political identity in America, some people did not respect me; they used my naivete about the country and its political landscape to imprint their political beliefs on me. And it worked, because I needed an idea and people to hold onto in this new country.
My political opinions were influenced by the media I consumed, the people I hung out with, and my personal experiences as a lesbian immigrant woman. When I am walking by myself and making decisions that are reckless, I am reminded that I am a woman and that the world views me as such. In my professional life, I am guided by the reality that as an immigrant I must work twice as hard to get half as far. And as a lesbian, my civil liberties are up for debate, no matter where I choose to reside. Growing up made me realize that my existence is political. I fight for survival and respect, because resisting is the only choice that makes me feel human, because I know what it is like to be born in a cave and to see a light toward a better path.
Today, I stand up for civil rights; I fear that the people I care about will die. At the time of writing this essay, the Florida Senate passed HB 1718, an anti-immigration bill that criminalizes the transportation of undocumented immigrants, requires hospitals to request immigration status when caring for a patient, and outlaws community IDs. The current state of democracy and civil liberties in Florida is frightening. When government officials serve the interests of the party leader instead of its constituents, we should all be alarmed. The monster my parents escaped has found a new home.
Additionally, in the past months, my friends have lost access to healthcare because they are trans. I have heard the stories of women who have had abortions, and I discussed with my peers how we would mobilize if education about diversity would be banned. The future is unknown, and that is what makes it so incredibly scary. Two Democratic members of the House of Representatives in Tennessee were expelled because of their stance on gun control, setting a dangerous and antidemocratic precedent for political retribution. In Montana, Democratic State Representative Zooey Zephyr was not allowed to speak on an anti-trans bill proposal. Antidemocratic actions by Republican lawmakers are becoming worryingly prevalent across the nation, while the country does nothing to stop it. Some have lost faith in the government, and others are too caught up in their daily lives to keep up with politics. Our influence on the rest of the world should not be taken lightly. Many look up to the United States as a guardian of freedom, the Cuban people especially.
My relationship with democracy is one of hope, sadness, and guilt. I know a better future for all of us is possible, but we are scared of change. Those who have been at the top for years fear the power of our collective actions and ideas. Democracy and progress are not linear or guaranteed—it is up to us to establish and protect them. Suppression of freedoms in the United States is becoming alarmingly common, and an international domino effect is likely to occur.
References
Marking 50 Years in the Struggle for Democracy. 2023. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2023/marking-50-years.
National Archives and Records Administration. 2022. Platt Amendment (1903). https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/plattamendment#:~:text=Approved%20on%20May%2022%2C%201903,the%20 enforcement%20of%20Cuban%20independence.
NBCUniversal News Group. 2023. “Trans Montana Representative Silenced by GOP Colleagues for Three Days.” NBCNews.com, April 25, 2023. https:// www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/trans-montanarepresentative-silenced-gop-colleagues-three-days-rcna81361/ Public Broadcasting Service. n.d. Ten Year’s War. https://www.pbs.org/ crucible/tl1.html/
Rothchild, J. A. 2007. Introduction to the Athenian Democracy of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE. Wayne State University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series.
Wolfe, E., and R. Razek. 2023. “Tennessee House GOP Expels 2 Democrats in Retaliation over Gun Control Protest, on ‘Sad Day for Democracy.’” CNN, April 8, 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/us/tennessee-democrathouse-representatives-expelled-friday/index.html
Alishay Sarwana
Democracy is a concept that many have pondered for hundreds of years. The earliest form of democracy can be traced to the ancient Athenians who thrived in a time of prosperity. For them, an ideal democracy was one that was predicated on civic duty, freedom of speech, justice, and equality. The Athenians honored and valued a democracy that harmonized with the principles of liberty, courage, and honor.
However, to many individuals in the world today, democracy is a privilege—one that will forever be locked within the walls of the prosperous and never within the hands of the oppressed. For those growing up in Pakistan, democracy was a word used to describe the government. However, this description was not assigned by its people, but by the parliamentary government that yearned so desperately to become one. Pakistan is one of the youngest democracies in the world, and it presents itself as a democratic parliamentary republic.
For the longest time, I described democracy as a form of government in which power lies with the people. However, recent realizations have led me to describe democracy as the freedom to participate in political processes while being able to express oneself without the fear of repercussions. Democracy, to me, is a system that empowers its individuals, protects their rights and freedoms, and allows them to participate in the political process. It is a system that values the voice of its people and recognizes that each individual has the right to speak without fear of political persecution hanging over their head. Unfortunately, democracy in Pakistan does not meet these criteria.
In August 1947, after the dissolution of the British Raj in India, the subcontinent was divided in two, creating the two
independent nations of India and Pakistan. The aftermath of this partition was a bloody legacy that haunts many today. The massacres began as soon as the partition was announced, as neighbors slaughtered neighbors and friends became sworn enemies. My grandparents participated in the extensive mass migration to Pakistan and left everything behind—their properties, money, family, a whole life of hard work—just so that they could experience democracy firsthand. The acclaimed Pakistani historian Ayesha Jalal has called the partition “the central historical event in twentieth-century South Asia; a defining moment that has neither a beginning nor end. It continues to influence how the peoples and states of postcolonial South Asia envisage their past, present, and future” (Dalrymple 2015). Despite the obstacles they faced, the prospects of democracy gave them the courage they needed to undertake a one-thousandmile journey. Their hard work was rewarded as Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, launched a constitutional and democratic movement that persevered for years. However, shortly after his death, Pakistan began to spiral downward, and the principles of democracy began to wither away. Pakistan moved far from the secular and democratic vision of its founder.
For me in the United States today, democracy exists as a calm piece of mind that ensures I am protected under the rule of law. Democracy for me is being able to have equal opportunities with my peers, to have the basic freedoms to obtain an education and work if I desire. “Although basic democracy does not, in and of itself, generate a justicebased distribution principle, it must provide a baseline of welfare and education for citizens and for potential citizens” (Ober 2017, 159). Human life consists of many dilemmas, but the principles of democracy should form a bedrock to
Alishay Sarwana was born in the vibrant city of Karachi, Pakistan, and immigrated to the United States at a young age in pursuit of educational opportunities. She is currently a junior majoring in political science and finance. Alishay has served as the administrative director at Insaf Welfare Trust, a studentled nonprofit clinic and shelter, and contributed her legal acumen as an assistant at a local Miami law firm. At FIU, she stands as a global leader as the founder and president of the Pakistani Students Association and a compassionate force for Students for Justice in Palestine. She envisions a future in the environmental and immigration legal arena and, in the rhythm of her aspirations, a desire to empower her homeland. Her vision is to foster financial empowerment and independence among her fellow Pakistanis through widespread financial literacy, weaving threads of progress and prosperity in the fabric of her beloved country.
support our daily struggles. Without the right to individualism or the expression of self-identity, conflicts increase, and excellence is elusive.
Democracy is not just a form of government; it is the ability to actively participate in the political process. Throughout Josiah Ober’s works, he argues that basic democracy—the democracy that was practiced in Ancient Athens—is based on the principles of political equality. Pakistan claims to allow its citizens the right to participate in the political process, regardless of their background, religion, or ethnicity. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Article 106, Section 2, states that a person shall be entitled to vote if he or she is a rightful citizen and is declared in the right state of mind. However, political manipulation seeps through the roots of democracy and overpowers this “freedom to choose.” Corruption, violence, and intimidation overtake the election process and lead people to succumb to their ruler. Many citizens are intimidated by election officials to vote for a particular leader. Many feel unsafe when they attend political rallies or participate in other political activities because of the negative ramifications that may follow. The most recent campaign has been one of the dirtiest and most brutal of all, characterized by “blatant, aggressive and unabashed attempts to manipulate.” Media has been silenced and candidates have been intimidated, according to Pakistan’s Independent Human Rights Commission (Gannon 2018).
I define voting as a basic democratic principle. A country can be called democratic when its citizens, regardless of status or wealth, are allowed to bring about change. John Rawls, a political philosopher with a focus on liberal traditions, valued this kind of democracy. His theory of political liberalism defined democracy as a system of government in which all citizens had equal opportunity to have a say in decision-making processes. In his book, Political Liberalism (2005), he identifies several aspects of democracy that need improvement. This includes the need for more political participation and hearty debate to reduce polarization.
One society that has broken free from these shackles and has identified the source of its failed democratic system is Sri Lanka. The nation is currently suffering from government
mismanagement of food, medicine, and fuel. As an act of resistance, protestors stormed President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s house and ravished his luxury goods, marking the beginning of the end of his regime (Restrepo and Shapiro 2022). The protestors moved toward progressive thinking and analyzed the situation before breaking the shackles imposed by the government. Going against convention is arduous. However, once one sees past the lies of the previous government, one realizes that democracy is a right that should be pursued.
Democracy is also the right to choose one’s religion and express religious opinions. Yet such freedoms are not universally recognized. In many communist countries such as Cuba and China, the mention of religion is enough to attract persecution. Ideology and religion are significant forces in Pakistan today, as sectarian violence and blasphemy laws escalate. Religion, as interpreted by the state, plays a significant role in politics and governance.
A country can be called a democracy only if it allows its people to speak freely about religion. On November 15, 2021, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken designated Pakistan as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. This reflected its lack of religious tolerance, resulting in significant violations of religious freedoms. In rural areas of Pakistan where education systems are in precarious conditions, democracy remains scarce. People inherit democracy from past generations and seek refuge in their ancestors to protect themselves from threats posed by their situation.
Under a liberal democracy like the United States, one is allowed not only to freely criticize religion but also to criticize political leaders. During the Trump administration, the Republican Party was heavily attacked, but critics remained safe under the laws of freedom of speech. Meanwhile, ARY News TV is a notable Pakistani news channel that openly condemns the current corrupt leader of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif. Over the course of the past few months, it has been shut down on multiple occasions and accused of spreading “misinformation” when the channel was, in fact, only exposing the truth. At least forty-two journalists were killed in the last four years for exposing the truth about
military personnel and corrupt leaders. Individuals are left to question what kind of democracy Pakistan represents.
Democracy also includes the concept of equal opportunities, regardless of gender, religion, or ethnicity. There is democracy when a woman is not afraid to speak her mind on various issues without the fear of repercussions. In Pakistan, women are told to comply with their fathers’ or their brothers’ decisions and are taught to hold their tongues. When discussing why women in rural Pakistani societies do not speak up, one cannot avoid the subject of honor killings. Honor killings are performed with the intent to punish violations of social, sexual, religious, or family norms. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, more than 470 cases of honor killings were reported in Pakistan last year (Anees and Putz 2022). Women who expressed themselves in ways that were not satisfactory to the men of their household were left to the mercy of brutal hands. Cases like these are not uncommon, such as when a tribal council in Khyber ordered the “honor” killing of Naghma, a thirteenyear-old girl who was accused of “running away” with men. She was then rescued by security forces and released into the custody of her relatives who ultimately ended up murdering her.
Is this democracy? Is this what it stands for? Is the “democratic” government of Pakistan blind to the heinous acts of their people? These are all questions that need to be asked. However, in Pakistan’s “democracy,” we are forced to stay silent. When I stepped out of my house in Pakistan, I was forced to cover up more than the essentials; instead of just wearing a hijab, I was covered from head to toe, fearing the jarring stares or critical remarks I would face. Democracy cannot persevere in a place where women are afraid to leave their houses and are constantly contemplating whether they made the right choice of clothing, portrayal, or speech.
In his book, Democracy and Its Critics (1991), Robert Dahl stated, “Democracy is not perfect, but it is better than any of the alternatives; it is a system that allows citizens to participate in the political process, to voice their opinions, and to work together to create a better society.” When my parents immigrated to the United States of America, they did so in hopes of starting a new life in a country embodying the characteristics of democracy. Like my grandparents who
risked their lives to cross borders for a taste of democracy, my parents left their families behind to settle in a place where their daughter could discover equal opportunities. Although the United States is not perfect, it still provides protection, security, and basic freedoms. This ensures stability, accountability, and human rights.
I did not spend my entire childhood in Pakistan, but I have been able to discuss the state of its political system with young Pakistani women. Many countries are still fighting for a chance to obtain some kind of democracy, because democracy is perceived as promoting equality, freedom, and human rights. Many individuals consider democracy to be a right while not understanding that it is a privilege others yearn for. Many people are fighting against difficult conditions such as corruption, inequality, and abuses of power yet persevere for themselves and their communities.
Nonetheless, there are still questions about the extent of true democracy in the United States. Individuals and their opportunities are protected under a set of rules; however, minorities are often excluded from these same protections.
For me and those in Pakistan, democracy is a crucial part of the government we are fighting for. Ultimately, democracy represents freedom, equality, and justice. It may be difficult to obtain and even more difficult to sustain; however, it is necessary for the flourishing of the human spirit.
References
Anees, Mariyam Suleman, and Catherine Putz. 2002.“‘Honor Killings’ Continue Unabated in Pakistan.” The Diplomat, July 28, 2022. https:// thediplomat.com/2022/07/honor-killings-continue-unabated-inpakistan/.
Dahl, Robert A. 1981. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dalrymple, William. 2015. “The Bloody Legacy of Indian Partition.” New Yorker, June 22, 2015. https://www.newyorker.com/ magazine/2015/06/29/the-great-divide-books-dalrymple.
Gannon, Kathy. 2018. “Charges of Rigging, Intimidation Mar Pakistan Campaign.” AP News, July 24, 2018. https://apnews.com/article/ asia-pacific-middle-east-ap-top-news-religion-pakistan-41f56e 68fc3640d189160e34c529dcec.
Ober, Josiah. 2017. Demopolis: Democracy before Liberalism in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, John. 2005. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Restrepo, Manuela López, and Ari Shapiro. 2022. “Sri Lankan Protesters Party in the President’s Mansion as He Flees the Country.” NPR, July 13, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/13/1111087981/sri-lankanprotesters-partied-in-the-presiden ts-mansion-what-comes-next-isuncle.
Clarissa Gonzalez
To understand democracy, we must look at its beginnings. The origins of democracy are in Greece, where there was the first known system of rule by the people. Pericles, a Greek politician, describes democracy as “power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people.” This concept was greatly advanced for the time: the concept of citizens possessing autonomy and the ability to rule themselves was unheard of. Pericles further describes Athenian democracy as equality under the law and as a government in which rulers will be chosen by merit and not factors such as wealth or status.
On the surface, Athenian democracy sounds like the epitome of fairness; that is, until it is revealed that it only applied to certain groups. In Athenian democracy, voting and political rights were only extended to men, excluding women, foreigners, children, and slaves. Looking at the origins of democracy makes it seem as if democracy is inherently undemocratic. The hypocrisies and hidden truths that plagued democracy from its beginnings still affect our democratic societies today. Although democracy has evolved since Ancient Greek times, the inequalities of its beginnings have followed it throughout history. Athenian democracy preached equality and rule by the people while simultaneously only allowing a minority of the population to enjoy those features. Similarly, the current-day United States sells the idea of the “American Dream,” in which it is a land of equality and prosperity for all. Immigrants travel from all over the world to come to a country that often greets them with discrimination and a lack of upward mobility. So long as our society is ruled by the ills of racism, sexism, and greed, the original purpose of democracy will not be fulfilled.
From the beginnings of American democracy, as with
Athenian democracy, hypocrisy has been ever present. In 1776, as the American colonies severed ties with the tyrannical British government, Thomas Jefferson wrote the famous words, “We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal,” in the Declaration of Independence—while owning more than six hundred enslaved people. The disturbing irony of the situation is obvious and continued for almost a century longer until enslaved people were freed in 1863. Even though this country was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, widespread discrimination still remains. Yet, I criticize democracy and the American government not out of hatred. As a first-generation American, I can say that immigrants are some of the proudest people to call themselves American, even when the United States is not as equally proud to call them its own.
This is why, along with my great gratitude to be able to live in this country, I find it equally important to acknowledge and work to reduce the inequalities of democracy. My experience living in a democracy has been shaped by both privileges and inequalities. My parents and grandparents shared stories of their lives in their home countries that broadened my perspective on the opportunities that the American lifestyle and democracy granted them, as well as the troubles they faced. To me, democracy means living in a place where I can get a quality education, where I do not have to fear an abusive rule, and where I can make a stable life for myself. To me, democracy is imperfect, it does not benefit all equally, and its improvement is nonlinear.
The Dominican Republic is a place that I hold dear to my heart. It is a country of rich culture, music, food, and especially vibrant people. Yet, the country has a dark
Clarissa Gonzalez was born in New York City to a Puerto Rican–Dominican father and a Belizean mother and grew up in Port Charlotte, Florida. She is a recent FIU graduate, obtaining her bachelor’s degree in political science in spring 2023. She graduated magna cum laude from the Honors College and completed her degree in two years, having begun her college education at the age of fifteen through dual enrollment at Florida Southwestern State College. She spent her time at FIU delving into intercultural communication and international service through a research trip to Manizales, Colombia, where she worked with students from Universidad Católica de Manizales to create an advertising campaign for the Fundacion Pequeño Córazon. She also volunteers with ENGin to help Ukrainian students improve their English-speaking skills. Clarissa has a lifelong passion for writing and hopes to publish a book in the future. She is pursuing a career in law and is using her postgraduation time to study for the LSAT.
past that allows me to have a greater appreciation for the democracy we have today. My grandfather, born in 1949 in Santiago De Los Caballeros in the Dominican Republic, lived under the rule of Rafael Trujillo. Rafael Trujillo controlled the country under his dictatorship for more than three decades, from 1930 to 1961. Living under Trujillo meant living under constant censorship. As is well known among authoritarian governments past and present, criticizing the government was not only disliked by the leader but sometimes resulted in one’s death: “The secret police force he established included a widespread network of spies that was used to censor the press and to threaten, expel, torture or kill dissenters in orchestrated accident or ‘suicides’” (www.history.com). The people of the Dominican Republic lived in fear of being punished by their ruler if they dared to disagree with him.
Because of the history of restricted expression throughout Latin America, one of the aspects of democracy that I value highly is freedom of expression, and thus the freedom to criticize the government. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Democracy allows us to practice freedoms that would result in jail time, violent punishment, or even execution under different governments. The right of the people to speak freely is one that helps prevent the formation of an oppressive and tyrannical government. People should not have to live under the fear that their ruler will punish them for simply having their own opinions.
Trujillo was also a firm believer in and a participant in ethnic cleansing. “Trujillo feared the ‘darkening’ of Dominican people and publicly promoted anti-Haitian sentiments. In October 1937, in an incident known as the Parsley Massacre, Trujillo ordered the slaughter of an estimated 20,000 Haitians” (www.history.com). The inhumane actions of the regime were reminiscent of those of Adolf Hitler, who was responsible for the brutal murder of millions of Jewish people to “purify” the German population and “Aryan race,” just as Trujillo wanted to “purify” the Dominican population. Giving the power to the people in democracy helps prevent the
absolute rule of a single figure and their taking drastic and inhumane actions as desired. The three-branch structure of modern democracy provides checks and balances, reducing the possibility of the government abusing its power or its citizens. In 1966, at the age of seventeen, my grandfather immigrated to New York City, moving to a new country and a new government.
Although democracy has its advantages, the inequalities of American history show a contrasting reality to its promise of equality for all. We can point to immoral events such as the Trail of Tears, implemented by President Andrew Jackson, which consisted of “the forced relocation during the 1830s of Eastern Woodlands Indians of the Southeast region of the United States to Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River.... Some 15,000 died during the journey west” (www. britannica.com). In the following decades, Native Americans were forced to assimilate to American ways: they had to go to American schools, wear American clothing instead of their traditional garments, and cut their hair. “Kill the Indian in him and save the man” (www.eji.org) was the philosophy practiced. The U.S. government also orchestrated the killing of millions of buffalo, the main food source of Native Americans. U.S. history shows that a dictatorship is not the only form of government in which hatred and abuse may run freely.
The promises of equal rights for all fell short many times both in U.S. history and in Athenian democracy. The United States fought in World War II against the brutal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler with a segregated army. In addition, during World War II under the orders of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were removed from their homes and held captive in internment camps. Just as Athenian democracy only served the rights and protections of white males, U.S. democracy followed in its footsteps. Of course, the history of American inequality is not limited to racial discrimination. Women did not have the right to vote until 1920, and all of our presidents have so far been men.
In addition, modern American democracy, as far as it has evolved, still allows inequalities to occur. Voting is one of the main pillars of democracy and is essential for upholding a fair and democratically elected government. Yet, voter
suppression is a large and growing problem in the United States: it is defined as “any legal or extralegal measure or strategy whose purpose or practical effect is to reduce voting, or registering to vote, by members of a targeted racial group, political party, or religious community” (www.britannica.com). According to the American Civil Liberties Union, there have been more than four hundred anti-voter bills introduced in the United States. In one 2019 case, Texas state officials created a voter purge list that discriminated against immigrant voters: “Texas officials created and sent a flawed advisory to counties that flagged tens of thousands of registered voters for citizenship reviews, despite knowing that the list included naturalized citizens eligible to vote” (www.aclu.org). This was an attempt to prevent naturalized citizens from exercising their constitutionally ensured right to cast their vote. Naturalized citizens have the same rights as citizens through birthright and should be treated as such. This attempt to bar naturalized citizens from voting is only one example of the larger problem of voter suppression that occurs throughout the country. When these instances are allowed to recur, they weaken the true meaning of democracy.
“A healthy democracy requires a decent society; it requires that we are honorable, generous, tolerant and respectful,” according to Charles W. Pickering. Through careful observation of democracies past and present, it is evident that a country is only as democratic as the society it reflects. The beauty of democracy is also its potential pitfall: the advancement of society depends on the willingness of its people to act in a democratic manner. In a society or time in which most of the population practice discrimination, the laws and rules of society will match those attitudes. Yet one could also argue that an unfair democracy does not reflect an unfair population but the unfairness of democracy itself. Democracy is meant to be a rule by the people, but who are “the people”? The definition of who is seen as worthy enough to be a participant in democracy, has changed over time. In Ancient Athens, they were exclusively white males: women, children, and foreigners did not reap the benefits of democracy. In early American democracy, Black people were not considered “people,” and women and other ethnic
and racial minorities were not able to vote or gain equal rights. Because of these past ills, inequalities in our modern American democracy are still present today. From voter suppression to discriminatory laws, democracy is still not the representation of undeniable equality as many claim it to be. Since the beginning of democracy in Athens, democracy was not created for the rule of all people but for the rule of the few.
Although democracy is flawed, the lack of opportunity that those who came before me experienced helped me appreciate the benefits that living under democracy has allowed me to have. I have enjoyed a quality education that my parents and grandparents were not able to have. I am grateful that there has not been a single day where I have feared being punished by the government for expressing my views freely: my freedom of speech is guaranteed. This right allows me to write this paper, and to express my disapproval of aspects of the government I live under without fearing harm. Living under democracy not only means that I can express my viewpoints but also that if I have a grievance with a law or aspect of the government, I can actively and legally attempt to change it. From its rocky beginnings, democracy has come a long way in terms of providing equality for all. Yet, a democracy is only as equal as the society it governs.
Bibliography
“Block the Vote: How Politicians Are Trying to Block Voters from the Ballot Box: News & Commentary.” 2021. American Civil Liberties Union, September 29, 2021. https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-thevote-voter-suppression-in-2020.
“The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription.” n.d. National Archives and Records Administration. https://www.archives.gov/foundingdocs/constitution-transcript.
“‘Cultural Genocide’ and Native American Children.” 2019. Equal Justice Initiative, November 11, 2019. https://eji.org/news/history-racialinjustice-cultural-genocide/#:~:text=During%20the%20 late%2019th%20 century,children%20to%20attend%20boarding%20schools.
History.com Editors. 2009. “Rafael Trujillo.” History.com. A&E television networks, November 9, 2009. https://www.history.com/topics/1960s/ rafael-trujillo.
Hooker, Richard. n.d. Thucydides: Pericles’ Funeral Oration. http://hrlibrary. umn.edu/education/thucydides.html.
“Rafael Trujillo.” n.d. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica. com/biography/Rafael-Trujillo.
“Settlement Reached to End Texas Voter Purge and Protect Voting Rights.” n.d. American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/ settlement-reached-end-texas-voter-purge-and-protect-voting-rights.
“Slavery at Monticello FAQs—Property.” n.d. https://www.monticello. org/slavery/slavery-faqs/property/#:~:text=Thomas%20Jefferson%20 enslaved%20over%20600,bondage%20on%20Jefferson’s%20other%20 properties.
“Trail of Tears.” n.d. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/ event/Trail-of-Tears.
“Voter Suppression.” n.d. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica. com/topic/voter-suppression.
Daijah O’Neal
Throughout history, the term “democracy” has been used to characterize various kinds of government that value citizen involvement and representation. It refers to a structure where people can voice their opinions and be heard and where authority is dispersed across multiple branches and levels of government. What democracy means can vary based on one’s experiences, ideals, and circumstances. In this essay, I discuss what democracy means to me, based on my own life experiences, political opinions, and understanding of democracy’s foundational principles.
To me, democracy is about ensuring that everyone has an equal say in the choices that affect their lives. This implies that every person has the ability to vote, be informed about problems, and take part in public discussions. It also entails procedures that hold elected officials responsible for their acts and ensure that they are serving the best interests of the community. Furthermore, democracy necessitates a commitment to defending individual rights, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and press, in addition to the right to a fair trial and due process of law.
Living in a country that has witnessed immense political and social transformations has shaped my conception of democracy. I was born and raised in South Korea, which in the late 1980s went from an authoritarian regime to a democracy. As a youngster, I witnessed the transformative power of collective action—I saw my fellow citizens go to the marketplace and demand freedom. I observed the media amplifying the voices of the average person; I witnessed how the people persuaded elected officials to respond to citizens’ demands and concerns.
However, the obstacles my country faced as it transitioned to democracy changed my perception of the term. Despite advances in political involvement and representation, there was rising concern about inequalities, corruption, and societal division. I witnessed how political parties and special
interest groups influenced the public’s views and corrupted the democratic process. I saw the media being used to spread disinformation and propaganda. I watched as economic development and technical advancement exacerbated social differences and jeopardized individual liberties.
Based on my experiences, I think that democracy is more than simply the formal institutions that constitute government and the rule of law; it is also about the customs and values that support these systems. The concepts of transparency, accountability, and civic participation are required for democracy, as is a readiness to acknowledge and meet the unique interests and opinions of different groups. It also necessitates acknowledging the fact that democracy is a constantly changing and evolving process that requires continual diligence to defend and nurture. People should be free to express themselves and participate in peaceful protest without being afraid of retaliation or censorship. The press should be allowed to report on publicinterest topics without intervention or restriction.
When it comes to drafting laws and procedures, I believe democracy requires several essential components. First, it necessitates a commitment to protecting individual liberties and rights, which include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and a free press. Second, democracy requires a commitment to equally accessible participation and representation of its citizens. This means that systems should be implemented to ensure that everyone, regardless of social or economic position, has an equal voice in decision making. It also implies that political organizations, as well as interest groups, need to be held responsible for the consequences of their acts and should not be allowed to manipulate public opinion or engage in corrupt tactics. Third, democracy requires a commitment to government transparency and accountability. Elected representatives need to be held accountable and be subject to exacting scrutiny by the public. The public should have the ability to
learn about the government’s actions and hold authorities responsible for any mistakes.
For me, the notion of equality represents one of the most crucial aspects of democracy. Every individual, regardless of origin or status, should have the same rights and opportunities in a democratic society. This encompasses the right to education, healthcare, and employment possibilities, as well as the freedom to express themselves without fear of discrimination or persecution. Equality suggests that no individual is above the law and that everyone must follow the same set of rules and regulations. It also means that all citizens have an equal voice and an equal opportunity to participate in decision making. Every individual should have the ability to affect the destiny of their community and their nation, whether by voting or by other types of civic involvement. When there is equality, people in a democracy develop a sense of belonging and inclusion, ensuring that every person feels respected and heard.
Finally, democracy requires safeguarding freedoms and human rights. As Ignatieff (2012) argues, democracy is a system that guarantees safety and certain basic freedoms, such as freedom of opinion, peaceful assembly, and religion. These rights are necessary for the development and successful functioning of individuals, as well as of society as a whole. There are legal and institutional systems in place in a democratic society to defend these rights and punish those who abuse them. Knowing that I have the freedom to express myself and follow my faith, free of fear and harassment, has provided me with an overwhelming feeling of security and belonging.
Inclusion is also essential in a democratic society. It entails cultivating a sense of being part of something and appreciating diversity in all its manifestations. It requires acknowledging and respecting many cultures, beliefs, and lifestyles, as well as developing policies and initiatives that encourage social cohesiveness and inclusion. Dahl (2000) defines democracy as a system that promotes the equal value and dignity of all individuals. This implies that everyone, regardless of color, gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic level, has the exact same rights and opportunities. Diversity is cherished in a society that is democratic, and every voice can be heard and appreciated. This fosters an awareness of belonging and inclusion, with each person believing they are responsible in some way for the destiny of their nation. Observing a variety of cultural
practices has taught me the importance of diversity and of establishing an inclusive society.
Citizen empowerment is one of the core concepts of democracy. Individuals in a democratic society are able to participate in decision making, hold authorities responsible for their actions, and have an impact on the future of the community and nation. Democracy, as defined by Kymlicka and Norman (2017), is a system guaranteeing that the government responds to the needs and desires of its population. This is accomplished through a variety of processes, including voting, free expression, and the opportunity to organize and join groups. Participating in rallies and supporting petitions have helped me feel as though my opinion is being acknowledged and that I am capable of making an impact on society.
In conclusion, democracy means various things to many people. For me, democracy is a system that empowers people, respects human decency, and offers equal chances for all. A democratic society promotes variety, inclusion, and individual freedom via processes such as participation, responsibility, equality, and human rights. It is our obligation as citizens to defend and enhance these ideals, ensuring that democracy continues to be a lively and evolving system that meets the needs and ambitions of all members of society. As a citizen, I understand the importance of actively engaging in the process of democracy and fighting for democratic ideas and principles. Finally, democracy is about making the world a better place for everyone, where everyone has the chance to grow and fulfill their full potential. Let us continue to defend and enhance democracy for future generations, not just for ourselves.
Bibliography
Dahl, R. A. 2000. On Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Diamond, L. 1999. Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ignatieff, M. 2012. The Rights Revolution. Toronto: House of Anansi Press. Kymlicka, W., and W. Norman. 2017. Citizenship in Culturally Diverse Societies: Issues, Contexts, Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press. Pateman, C. 2012. “Participatory Democracy Revisited.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (1): 7–19.
Tocqueville, A. D. 2000. Democracy in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Daijah O’Neal was born and raised in South Korea. She is a sophomore studying international relations.
Diana Grau
Tackling a question as elusive as the meaning of democracy forces the seeker not only to look outward at the world, or between the literary lines, but also inward. In truth, democracy has many meanings and can be said to be contingent on the eye of the beholder. This is because democracy, within the relatively safe confines of philosophical thought, can exist within a vacuum that is untouched by the harsh realities of humanity’s flaws. In technical terms, democracy does have some unwavering principles that are relatively consistent but contested. However, these principles can manifest in vastly different ways and are subject to change. As such, to arrive at a definition of democracy, it is necessary to explore its roots, its varied applications, its evolution, and the modern challenges it faces. It is also important to note the bias of the seeker—in this case, me—an individual born to two Cuban immigrants. Their experiences influenced my own—in some ways that I am acutely aware of but also in ways that elude me.
The Origins and Evolution of Democracy
The origin of democracy reveals itself in its very name; the term “democracy” is built from two Greek words: “kratos” meaning rule by the “demos,” the people. The first democracies appeared of Ancient Greece approximately 2,500 years ago. The history of Ancient Greece is typically divided into four periods: the Mycenaean period (1600–1150 BC), the Dark Ages (1150–800 BC), the Archaic period (800–480 BC), and the Classical period (480–323 BC). During the latter part of the Archaic period, we note the emergence of the first city-states, such as Athens and Sparta.
Athens exhibited the first signs of an inclusive system of governance. However, this system was still a far cry from the
Diana Grau,
direct democracy that Athens would become known for in the later Classical period. Some of the earliest texts of Athenian democracy include the Constitution of Athenians from the School of Aristotle, as well as the works of Herodotus and Thucydides. Thucydides, who was the biggest critic of democracy among these writers, held that Athens was a democracy in name only: in effect it was monarchical. Most interestingly, the different translations of Pericles’s funeral oration bring forth one of democracy’s central questions: Was Athenian democracy meant to reflect the will of the “multitude” as Hobbes translated his speech, or the “whole people” as the Penguin edition offers? This question goes to the heart of what we want democracy to promote.
Athenians viewed democracy as the most just and effective system of governance. They firmly associated democracy with the principles of isonomia, or equal political rights, which would prevent any one person or group from dominating the political process and negating the needs and wills of others. Athenian democracy, therefore, required a sense of civic duty and collective responsibility among its citizens. As Plato often held, the success of this decisionmaking process depended on the proper development of skills and knowledge within society, so that those who engage with democracy would be well prepared to do so.
This conception of democracy was not without its faults, as many Athenians recognized. This sort of rule could lead to disastrous consequences; it could not account for malicious actors, such as demagogues or political factions, who could infect the public will. These risks were offset by the perceived benefits of the direct democracy that Athenians enjoyed; direct democracy became tightly woven into Athenian identity, despite its apparent flaws.
Diana is dedicated to exploring the interplay between history, politics, psychology, and global affairs. Her academic journey has fortified her dedication to championing human rights and her eagerness to make substantive contributions to the advancement of democratic principles. Beyond her academic pursuits, Diana remains unwavering in her commitment to cultivating a more just and equitable world. As she prepares to embark on her postgraduate journey, Diana is resolute in her ambition to apply to law school this coming year. With her expertise in political science and international relations, she is poised to further her impact and contribute meaningfully to the ongoing pursuit of a fair society.
Early experiments with democracy were not limited to those seen in Athens. As the ideological framework began to expand, so did democracy’s meaning and values. The Roman Empire (509–27 BC) incorporated some democratic ideals from the Greeks. Governmental power in this case was not derived from a direct process, but rather from divided branches, each of which was comprised of representatives. The senate was made up of representatives derived from nobility, whereas the assembly was populated by commoners. The interests of the nobility were overrepresented in government, which inhibited the representation of a diverse set of interests. Despite being flawed in its execution, the Roman Empire was trending toward democracy and its introduction into political discourse.
The Middle Ages saw an increased flow of democratic ideas, couched within the context of feudalism. Feudalism stressed that all people are entitled to certain rights. A system of courts was established to defend said rights, setting the precedent for the judicial branch we know today in democratic governments such as the United States. Feudalism also introduced the ideas of kings, councils, and assemblies, which eventually morphed into a rudimentary parliamentary system.
In England, the Magna Carta of 1215 opened the door for democracy, which had ripple effects throughout many Western nations. The idea of natural rights—the “right to life, liberty, and property” as set forth by Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau—paved the way for the American Revolution. Similarly, French revolutionaries were influenced by political thinkers such as Montesquieu and Voltaire who expounded on the separation of powers. These ideas of right and liberty, which defined the political consciousness of the time, led to declarations of rights in America and France. In these two cases, their constitutions and political cultures lent themselves to a partially democratic system, reintroducing the idea of popular sovereignty after a long dormancy.
These examples refer directly to what some consider to be political democracy. Democracy can be classified into several categories such as social democracy or industrial democracy.
Although I recognize the merit of this distinction, to posit that a democracy is not greater than the sum of its parts would be a completely one-dimensional and short-sighted approach. That is why I explore a more holistic approach to democracy. There is no shortage of philosophical and political works seeking to find the best form of democracy. Because the pursuit itself is riddled in theoretical and terminological ambiguities, I focus on exploring the similarities, variances, and limitations in democracy’s structure, rather than presenting some sort of ideal form.
Let me assert the following notion: democracy, in all its forms, upholds the principles of fairness and equality. The means by which it is applied and the measure of its success are matters of intention and a perpetual pursuit to that end. In this sense, democracy can be viewed as a system that aims to function as a just reflection of its people, with an understanding of its limitations and a commitment to continual improvement. This concept of continual improvement implies that there is no final destination. Seeking democracy is an ongoing project based on the understanding that. as society’s needs and wants change, so too should the system serving it.
Modern Democracy and the Challenges It Faces
As we investigate modern democracies, it may be helpful to turn to Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History, in which he proposed that humankind’s ideological evolution had reached its end with the universalization of Western liberal democracy. As we look at the current state of democratic institutions and the unique environment they inhabit, the decline of authoritarianism and the rise of democracy no longer seem to be guaranteed, as Fukuyama postulated. In fact, authoritarianism remains alive and well in nations/ regions such as China, Russia, Central Asia, and a large portion of the Middle East. More importantly, the prevalence of democratic backsliding in the Philippines, Poland, Turkey, Hungary, and Ecuador has generated concerns that the international system may be entering a period of democratic recession. Given the 2016 U.S. election of Donald Trump and the increase in populist rhetoric throughout Europe, even the most developed democracies seem at risk. Has democracy
a recent FIU graduate, holds a bachelor’s degree in political science alongside a minor in international relations. Born to Cuban immigrant parents, her family played a large role in shaping her deep appreciation for democracy and human rights. Fueled by a fervent passion for comprehending the intricate mechanisms of governance,
become less attractive, and has this affected its stability? Or better yet, were these institutions inherently flawed and bound to deteriorate? It can be argued that backsliding in nations such as Ecuador is the result of having lowered standards of what qualifies as a democracy. Nonetheless, democratic discontent, immigration challenges, polarization, and institutional failures pose significant challenges to all existing democracies and to governments that aspire to be democracies.
A healthy democracy welcomes a certain degree of partisan polarization. However, with the proliferation of algorithms that exacerbate our tendencies toward belief perseverance and confirmation bias, both new and established democracies have witnessed a significant increase in polarization. This polarization feeds into divisive politics and generates dehumanizing and demonizing language, encouraging the use of drastic measures to restrain the opposition. This trend blatantly contradicts democratic norms.
Additionally, many systems are failing to deliver on their constituents’ expectations and demands, many of which stem from conditions of economic inequality. In more established nations, this is the result of stagnation in economic growth, which according to some theorists has less to do with the kind of political system and more to do with its specific characteristics, such as the stage of development and economic design. These sentiments of democratic discontent, working in tandem with the reinforcing networks of polarization, can lead to the rejection of democracy.
Another destabilizing agent in democracies is the presence of ethnic diversity, and immigration is a driving factor here. Not only does immigration pose inherent humanitarian concerns but it also creates a dilemma regarding the political response to it. For one, immigration has triggered right-wing populist rhetoric that is meant to exploit these issues to gain political power, which can lead to greater restrictions and unequal representation. The left-wing response has brought forth a conversation about state interests and whether these interests are compatible with ethnic diversity. Populists fuel polarization, therefore serving as another limiting factor to democracy’s well-being.
Democracy as a Unique Experience
When asked to state what democracy means to me, I was forced to go beyond my academic understanding of democracy and confront my own personal engagement with the system. The academic lens tends to emphasize the constraints and factors that limit democracy’s success. But that very idea of “success” cannot be measured without exploring what a successful system ought to do and what good it ought to serve. I found that I held two varying conceptions of democracy. Much like Plato, I envision a normative democracy, but I am also interested in the ideal form of democracy, which reflects my moral standards and vision of the world I want to live in and is the standard by which I gauge democratic institutions. As the child of two Cuban immigrants, I have experienced two diametrically opposed political systems. My parents insisted that I praise the U.S. democracy I was born into. The notions of freedom and opportunity, the American Dream so to speak, were my earliest introductions to the political arena. Yet, as I look both at the United States and the world outside it, I feel an overwhelming sense of injustice perpetuated by U.S. democracy’s inefficiencies, deliberate disregard, and systematic obstacles that must be corrected. In truth, I know not what democracy truly is, but I know what it ought to be.
Bibliography
Center for History and New Media. 2018. “Enlightenment and Human Rights: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution.” https://revolution.chnm.org/exhibits/show/liberty--equality--fraternity/ enlightenment-and-human-rights.
Held, David. 1997. “The Concept of Sovereignty Revisited.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 26, no. 2: 165–86. doi:10.1177/03058298 970260020301.
Kaplan, Temma. 2017. “Diderot and the Encyclopédie.” In Oxford Bibliographies in Art History, edited by Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. doi: 10.1093/OBO/97801953965770161.
Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. 2023..”Challenges to Democracy.” Harvard University. https://scholar.harvard.edu/dziblatt/challengesdemocracy.
Lloyd-Jones, J. 1972. “The Persuasive Use of the Perfect in Livy.” Classical Quarterly 22, no. 1: 44–53.
Genai Witter
The term “phantom democracy” comes to mind when I think about the state of democracy today. Over the course of a millennium, the original concept of democracy as the “power of the people” has been reconfigured. Currently, democracy is used as a blanket term to describe a range of political ideologies, regimes, policies, theories, and values that are often contradictory to true democracy. Democracy feels like a phantom ideal, like a mysticism commonly alluded to. An authentic form of democracy seems like an unattainable dream under the current state of American liberal representative democracy. It feels like democracy is condemned to an eternity of silently watching as imposters claim its name.
The day representative democracy emerged marked the decline of true democratic values. Representative (indirect) democracy is quite literally the antithesis of true (direct) democracy. Direct democracy is the “power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people,” as described by Pericles in his funeral oration. Direct democracy is the rejection of political hierarchy and the monopolization of political power. It is characterized by Robert Dahl’s “strong sense of equality,” which recognizes all citizens as equally qualified to participate in collective decision making. Direct democracy embodies Athenian democracy’s ethical standards of self-sacrifice for the common good and the high intrinsic value of citizenship. It is a regime where political power solely resides in the hands of citizens who view political participation as a central duty.
Representative democracy may not perfectly embody the ideal of democracy, but in theory, it seems to be a sound form of government. Our liberal-democratic state was established as a representative democracy, with the famous
words “we the people” serving as its foundation. American representative democracy has been lauded as the gold standard of governance. The United States is regarded as the beacon of freedom and the omnipresent protector of democracy. Democracy in America is supposed to be the rule of the people. Our representatives are supposed to be protecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed by our institutions and the Constitution. Democracy is the right to life, liberty, and happiness. Democracy is supposed to mean freedom and equality.
However, in practice, American representative democracy is not as representative as it claims to be. The current state of American democracy is similar to Alexis de Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority, where he warned of the majority abusing its power and suppressing the rights and freedoms of the minority, as would a tyrannical dictator. In the United States, because political power is consolidated within a small minority, we are under the tyranny of the minority. Even if the majority votes a person into power, the person is not bound to implement any promises they made to the majority. Legally, they are under no obligation to fully reflect the will of their voters, and often they do not. Often, representatives rely on demagoguery and a false sense of populism to appeal to the masses. They make empty promises to voters and exploit the fears and prejudices of their base to garner support, even if they do not personally believe their message. This is a result of conformity and increases political polarization.
Tocqueville viewed conformity as a natural consequence of democracy. He argued that Americans felt an overwhelming pressure to conform to society’s opinions and beliefs as a way to avoid social ostracism; they were more concerned
Genai Witter is a first-generation Jamaican American, born in Hollywood, Florida, and raised in Ocala, Florida. Genai recently graduated from FIU with a bachelor’s degree in political science, a minor in international relations, and certificates in human rights and political transitions, pre-law skills and professional values, and law, ethics, and society. She is a human rights activist and a research assistant for FIU’s Mellon Grant “Commons for Justice,” working to identify the role of systemic racism in climate change risk and resilience in marginalized South Florida communities. She is the creator and host of the “Commons for Justice” podcast. Genai is also the founder of Community Writing for Institutional Transformation (CWIT), a community-based, youth-led, multimedia organization focused on fostering collective and institutional transformation through critical thinking, collaboration, and civic engagement. Genai’s passions include social justice, art, writing, music, and film. She plans to attend law school in hopes of becoming an international human rights lawyer.
with being socially validated than expressing individuality. Elected officials and political pundits are also pressured to conform to their party’s position and beliefs, even if that means playing into political polarization. This political culture of conformity often directs officials away from bipartisanship and individuality, even if the consequence is gridlock. Gridlock is another downfall of American representative democracy because it prevents the parties from passing substantive legislation, essentially halting the functioning of the government.
Tocqueville advised that a culture of conformity can lead to the stifling of dissenting opinions and the suppression of individual thought. Political mass media are almost as influential in American politics as voting itself, which is the bedrock of American representative democracy. Mass media can influence elections by influencing their audience; it can deliver a politician to stardom or obliterate their reputation. Recently, former president Trump used the mass media to circulate disinformation and cause civil unrest. Controversy and conflict sell, and political extremity is the social norm. Elected representatives may skew their personal beliefs and temperament to appeal to mass media. They may draft harmful legislation to garner attention, and they may commit heinous human rights violations so that their names appear in a new headline.
Although the idea that representatives may be more invested in their party or media is disappointing, the influence that PACs and other special interest groups have on representatives is truly repugnant. Elections are tremendously expensive. To win, most candidates must raise large amounts of money, which leaves politicians beholden to PACs, interest groups, lobbyists, and donors, instead of representing constituents’ interests. The truth of the matter is that, once many representatives are voted into office, they feel they are no longer required to appeal to their constituents until their next election cycle. During their terms, they may focus on their donors and their interests, which can lead to policies that benefit the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the broader population.
A clear example of this is the NRA and the U.S. gun violence epidemic. On average, a mass shooting occurs in America once every 6.53 days, according to AP/USA. Gun violence is the leading cause of childhood deaths in the United States; in 2019, the United States ranked fourth after Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico in the rate of deaths due to firearms. Americans
are having their right to life ripped away from them: in response 71% are in support of implementing stricter gun laws, with half of these being Republicans, according to a study done by the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. Yet, the U.S. government has not enacted any substantial measures to combat gun violence. In fact, many state legislatures have loosened restrictions on carrying guns; Florida passed the permit-less carry bill, despite 77% of Floridians opposing it. In addition, the NRA Victory Fund donated $7,169,740 in one election cycle to politicians who align with their, values according to OpenSecrets. Thus, some politicians clearly care more about conformity and money than their constituents’ right to life.
Tocqueville passionately cautioned Americans about how conformity can lead to despotism. The more people conform to the majority belief, the more the power of the majority grows, allowing it to repress and impose its will on the minority, which can lead to the erosion of individual rights and freedoms: democracy then becomes a form of tyranny. Right now, the core of individual rights and freedoms is being threatened; the rule of law and the protections vested in the Constitution are eroding. Throughout U.S. history, marginalized communities such as ethnic minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, people in poverty, and women have never had equal access to the political process. Currently, legislation is being drafted to restrict that access— despite a majority of the population disapproving of these policies. Trans people are being attacked by the state, civil protestors are being arbitrarily arrested, education is under attack, and the study of the history of millions of Americans is being banned. Women in many states no longer have bodily autonomy and are being subject to fatal and traumatizing conditions. Children are being murdered in schools. Speech is being suppressed. The media are being used to promote illiberal democracy. States are committing human trafficking and boasting about it. A Supreme Court justice has a private collection of Nazi memorabilia. States are promoting the killing of protestors by granting clemency to those who commit such crimes. Government officials incited an insurrection. This is America right now. This is America under representative democracy.
Democracy was intended to be a way of life that vested power to the people, but it has transformed into a different beast altogether. It has been disfigured beyond recognition, a mere hollow carcass no longer resembling its original form. This is what democracy means to me.
Katherine Mesa
From the establishment of democracy in Ancient Athens to the fight to expand and protect it in the present day, it is essential to acknowledge democracy’s evolution over time. Democracy serves as the foundational core of a civil, just, and compassionate society. Without a strong democracy, hierarchies of power will be abused to suppress the citizenry while only pursuing narrow self-interests. Democracy is what allows all voices to be heard and represented in government, where the majority views of the people help establish the structure of law.
I believe it is of utmost importance to acknowledge our privilege and its role in our understanding of democracy. As a daughter of Cuban immigrants, I know the struggles and adversities my parents and grandparents overcame to ensure the life we have today. Privilege is something that we should not only be grateful for but also need to use to help others. How can we channel our power to aid those who are most vulnerable? Reflecting on my family’s past struggles has given me a great appreciation for the life I live, which is why it is imperative to help protect the freedoms that my family and so many others sought in the United States. Given the different social and political stages of development in the world, it is imperative that democracy is continuously advocated for on every front: it should never be taken for granted.
Many of us are privileged and grateful to live in a country like the United States, which is a beacon of hope and freedom. However, we should not be blind to the adversities in already established democratic countries. For example, we in the United States are seeing efforts being made to suppress the core principles of functioning democracy. In the state of Florida, initiatives are being taken that attack our public
education system and individual liberties. Whether it be the banning of books or union busting, the education of students is being jeopardized by corrupt leaders.
One of the most characteristic features of a representative democracy is elections. Without an election system that is equally accessible to individuals of all backgrounds, is democracy truly a system by the people? A current democratic challenge that the United States is facing is voter suppression. According to the League of Women Voters, “The US Supreme Court removed key protections of the Voting Rights Act in the decision of Shelby v. Holder,” which led to “a surge of anti-voter bills across our nation—with many being legalized.” Some setbacks include strict voter ID laws and restricted voting time availability, which create significant obstacles for people who wish to express their views in a proper democratic manner. In addition, many of these voter suppression laws target minorities to ensure a skewed election outcome. This goes against the very ideals of democracy. Elections play a pivotal role in what it means to have a democratic system: If people of different backgrounds are put at a disadvantage in exercising their freedom of political expression, is it even a democracy?
I believe education is one of the core values of a democracy. By creating barriers in our public education system, we are conditioning the minds of citizens to be complacent to systems of oppression. Education allows us to challenge traditional notions of the world and create a free, openminded space to explore new ideas. A recent Florida bill “included a prohibition on teaching or training curricula which make students ‘feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress” based on their “race, color, sex or national origin.’” These types of curricula and lessons are
Katherine was born and raised in Miami, Florida. She is currently a Merit Scholarship recipient and Honors College senior majoring in political science with a minor in international relations; Katherine is also pursuing undergraduate academic certificates in human rights and political transitions, and civic leadership. She is passionate about supporting the most vulnerable in the community while valuing the importance of providing equitable opportunities. Community outreach and service are pillars of her upbringing and are what drive her future ambitions. Katherine is currently an intern with the Office of University Sustainability at FIU and has interned with the ZooMiami Foundation in its education department. She also served as an FIU Honors College student mentor and fellow for the FIU Maurice A. Ferré Institute for Civic Leadership. Katherine is interested in pursuing a career addressing the intersections between environmental justice, advocacy, and human rights.
what allow us to prevent repetitions of catastrophes, and if we hold people back from becoming educated on these subjects, we are only preventing progression and inclusion.
In the United States, individuals who barely make a living fall into debt just to receive medical care or to pursue higher education. Women and minorities are not only underrepresented but are also having their rights stripped away from them. Citizens risk their lives every day going to school, concerts, or grocery stores, living in fear of mass shootings. In the United States, the income inequality gap has led to the exploitation of workers at the mercy of the rich.
However, the beauty of democracy is that, despite all the serious concerns facing our nation, the people still have the power to make a change. Through protests and social movements, citizens are making it clear that they have had enough. Democracy gives them an outlet to express their views and enact reform within a corrupt and unjust system. A strong democratic foundation provides the means for these concerns to be addressed productively, enabling progress toward the greater good.
Democracy, to me, is more than just representation in government: it is advocacy, it is making sure that all voices are heard and defended. It means that rights are being protected and that people have the power to resist unjust policies. The beauty of government is that it is not perfect. In fact, its imperfections make it true to its cause. In a democratic system, the government can continually evolve and change with time. Policies and systems that were accepted in the past need not persist today. Uniformity in ideas is a dangerous endeavor that can lead to complacency and submissiveness. Democracy is the channel through which all voices can be expressed in a free manner. The moment we start suppressing this freedom, democracy starts diminishing.
More than 1,500 years after it was created in Ancient Athens, democracy is still being fought for and implemented in countries all over the world. It is a privilege to live in a country like the United States, where individuals have the freedom to express their beliefs and have fundamental
human rights. However, in a country whose foundation is based on the ideals of freedom, we must ensure that we are not hypocrites. Ultimately, if we do not uphold and defend these democratic ideals, are we truly a democracy?
We need to ensure that our country is a beacon of hope that protects the rights, freedoms, and expressions of all people. We need to be the leader in promoting the ideal of democracy that inspires and uplifts disadvantaged countries. If we do not uphold the ideals of democracy within our own borders, how can we expect to judge the morals of other countries? Democracy needs to be spread across the world, but we must always acknowledge the flaws and injustices of our own nation.
Hearing the stories of political prisoners and activists, who have risked everything to fight for democracy, has enabled me to understand how much we take for granted and how much work is necessary to preserve democracy. In the end, democracy is “by the people,” and change will not take place until we come together in a united effort. Although it may seem disheartening to see backsliding in some democratic countries, we must not allow it to prevent us from taking action. Whether it be voting in local or national elections, peacefully protesting, petitioning, or volunteering, we all have a role in civic activism. No effort is too small to make a difference; we simply need to take the first step and uplift and encourage others along the way.
References
Fighting Voter Suppression. 2018. League of Women Voters. https://www. lwv.org/voting-rights/fighting-voter-suppression.
“New Florida Curriculum Training Goes from Civil War to Civil Rights, Skips over Reconstruction.” 2022. WFLA, August 15, 2022. https://www.wfla. com/news/politics/new-florida-curriculum-training-goes-from-civil-war -to-civil-rights-skips-over-reconstruction/.
Lily Duke
Democracy is fragile and difficult: a widespread and unwavering commitment to reinforcing the foundations of democracy is required to uphold institutional stability and integrity. Although it is not universally pursued, the concept of democracy has become a common governmental ideal, with the goals of equality and justice facilitated “by the people, for the people” being highly sought after, as stated by Abraham Lincoln. Despite this, many nations have struggled to establish the groundwork and find the continued dedication crucial to supporting democracy. With that said, I have learned more about the need for democracy by observing the nations in which it is absent than from the states that actively pursue and protect it. It is through witnessing humanitarian crises, political instability, and economic collapse within states where democratic practices are rejected that the core ambitions of democracy are shown to be imperative.
To me, democracy means an active commitment to justice, equality, accountability, stability, and checked power. Democracy is a system that does not further perpetuate the divide between classes or between the minority and majority but addresses the needs of all, amplifying the voices of the disadvantaged through fair representation. It is under such government that a society can flourish, with human rights protected and the needs of the people being the priority.
In my own personal experience with democracy, I have remained extremely passive, despite my beliefs on the matter. I am a migrant from England; I moved to Miami at the age of fourteen and am currently a U.S permanent resident. Therefore, I have never been able to vote. Although I am not particularly interested in becoming a citizen, I believe voting is an extremely important practice. Voter efficacy is crucial to the success of a democracy. To uphold the true will and
needs of the people, it is important that representatives understand the importance of voting. Perhaps the best demonstration of a true and efficient democracy is its oldest manifestation, as seen within Ancient Greece. The concepts of equal representation and active participation were at its core, with all free men attending frequent discussions, where they possessed the ability to actively voice their concerns and intentions for the community. Although there were obvious limitations, such as many people being barred from attending, this society demonstrated an very strong commitment to the fair dispersion of power and addressing the needs of the people (Raaflaub et al., 2007).
Obviously, this application is unrealistic when increased in scale. The United States cannot actively facilitate this level of discourse due to both its large population and the political disengagement of the masses. Therefore, representatives are chosen by the people. Furthermore, it is also essential that both those within and outside political positions are actively encouraged to stay educated and involved in the governance of the nation.
Many political ideologies are not inherently bad. For example, the basic concept of communism favors a class-free society where everyone is equal, both economically and politically. Ideologies, however, can be great on a theoretical basis but still be disastrous in application. Many political theories ignore the common weaknesses of human nature. It is through the consolidation of power and demonstrations of greed and disregard for the well-being of the people that the systems initially built to render all equal are corrupted. Democracy acknowledges that equality is essential, but the system must have dispersed leadership to prevent the dangerous centralization of power. Below the presidential position in the democratic system within the United States
Lily Duke was born and raised in St Albans, United Kingdom, lived briefly in the UAE, and moved to the United States in 2016. In 2023, Lily graduated from FIU with a B.S. in criminal justice, minoring in international relations, and with a certificate in human rights and political transitions. Graduating from the Honors College, Lily completed her degree with summa cum laude honors. In the fall of 2024, Lily will begin her master’s degree in global affairs, with a track in international crime and justice, at FIU. She aspires to work for an intergovernmental organization or a transnational advocacy network in the hopes of directly contributing to the facilitation and protection of human rights globally.
are many levels and components dedicated to amplifying the voices of the people.
The novel Anthem, by Ayn Rand (1938), is an extremist and dangerous portrayal of communism but fails to acknowledge its limitations of this portrayal. Anthem shows a society universally committed to the goal of communism, with the word “I” erased from use, and the progression of the collective being the single goal for all. It assumes that if an opportunity to consolidate power or control is presented, the individual will always favor the integrity of the system. This has been repeatedly proven to be untrue. When power and representation are not dispersed widely and there are no opportunities for honorable accountability, regimes arise and exert power in the name of protecting an equal society. This is antithetical to the foundational ideology of communism.
Although democratic nations are not exempt from abuses of power, their structure encourages accountability. Despite recent political practices suggesting otherwise, the general structure of governance within the United States is built on a democratic foundation. The concept of the separations of power is central to the success of democracy, with power being split among various branches that possess the ability to hold each other accountable. Assuming that the system is followed as intended, this structure prevents the rise of authoritarianism and abuses of power.
However, the current United States also demonstrates the fragility of democracy and how personal agendas and party intentions can corrupt and dilute the core goals of the system. The fragmented nature of politics encourages rather contentious practices, with the goal of preserving or pursuing party power seemingly overriding the needs of the nation. This undermines opportunities for accountability because many politicians are willing to overlook undemocratic practices and abuses of power if their own aims or the goals of their party benefit. Although diverse voices are crucial to democracy, when differences are approached from a combative perspective, any progress is hindered and stymies the success of the system.
Confidence in the system is crucial to its success. The recent wave of extremist and polarizing political figures have jeopardized the U.S. system. Donald Trump, after
having lost the 2020 presidential election, made public claims that the election was “rigged” and that he had won (Homans 2020). As a result, his extremist and loyal support base engaged in an armed insurrection on the U.S Capitol. Although I by no means intend to negate the responsibility of those participating, this event largely occurred as a result of Donald Trump undermining the integrity of the election. This highlights how all must be committed to upholding democracy. There are legal and democratic routes to seeking justice and investigative efforts into the election. Trump instead decided to incite violence, resulting in five protestor deaths and four police deaths from suicide in the following months (Dreisbach and Mak 2021).
Trump attempted to present himself as a strongman leader. Furthermore, his resistance to a smooth transition of power was indicative of a disregard for the system. It quickly became clear that he had become a politician of personality, rather than policy, which was perhaps unsurprising given his previous public stances. His base has chosen him as their martyr and savior, falling victim to the cult of personality. Although I do not think that Trump led a full-fledged authoritarian regime, this approach is a common facet to authoritarian governance.
I am hopeful that within the next few years, perhaps even months, Donald Trump will be held legally responsible for these illegal and undemocratic practices, thus quashing distrust in the government that has increased from his time in office. It is imperative that the system is competent and reinstills confidence, rather than perpetuating fanatism and extremism.
I believe that democracy within the United States of America is at risk. Politics is growing increasingly contentious, as party success is put above national progress. The rights of the people are being consistently infringed on, with policies being pursued that resemble those of dystopian novels. From book bans to decreased bodily autonomy, the political climate appears to be more focused on undermining freedoms than addressing the urgent needs of the people. School shootings have become increasingly prevalent, while the Republican Party is focusing on passing transphobic legislature. It is crucial that American politicians realign their goals and commitment to upholding democracy. This can
be done through global analysis based on a comparative assessment of how the United States is moving away from the constitutional foundations of democracy.
My understanding of democracy is built on privilege. I have grown up within two nations (the United Kingdom and the United States) where political complacency is common, and democracy is seen as a permanent part of our society. Furthermore, I am a white woman who generally benefits from the outcome of political practices (excluding recent developments pertaining to bodily autonomy and abortions). Therefore, it is through studying other nations that have struggled with democratic instability that I have learned why it must be so actively protected.
In Venezuela, the lack of democracy has resulted in political, economic, and social crises. The nation is a petrostate, meaning Venezuela’s economy is heavily dependent on the production and export of oil (Cheatham, Roy, and Labrador 2023). In the late 1980s, this oil dependency became increasingly dangerous as other nations consolidated their place within the global oil market. Venezuela could not match their competitors, and the economy suffered immensely. This economic instability opened the political system up to attacks, with many seeking power under a façade of enabling economic reform. Hugo Chavez was a military officer who assumed the presidential position in 1999 in a national election. However, then Chavez conducted two (unsuccessful) coups for power, emphasizing his complete disregard for democracy. This continued through the entirety of his presidency, which rapidly transitioned into a fullfledged authoritarian regime.
Venezuela highlights how democracy and a consistent commitment to upholding it are instrumental to the economic and social stability of a nation. Democracy allows the voices and needs of the people to be reflected through the actions of the representatives. Therefore, dissatisfaction can be addressed through policy and advocacy, rather than violence, such as seen in Venezuela. Furthermore, without democracy, human rights are generally disregarded. Venezuela has demonstrated this through censorship and brutality targeting anyone criticizing or protesting the regime (Amnesty International 2022).
As reiterated frequently, democracy is delicate and requires widespread reinforcement to remain stable. Despite the challenges, this system is worth the effort. There is no political structure more capable of successfully facilitating justice, human rights, and meeting the needs of the people. Through dispersing power widely, with the primary intention of amplifying the voices of the people, democracy can prevent instability and injustice, assuming all involved are invested in maintaining the integrity of the system. Although I am concerned by the currently trajectory of U.S. politics, I remain hopeful that the diversifying political body of representatives is gradually growing more accurate in its representation of the true American populace and is able to implement democracy in the most productive and fair manner.
References Amnesty International. 2022. Human Rights in Venezuela. https://www. amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/reportvenezuela/.
Cheatham, A., D. Roy, and R. C. Labrador. 2023. Venezuela: The Rise and Fall of a Petrostate. Council on Foreign Relations, March 10, 2023. https:// www.cfr.org/backgrounder/venezuela-crisis.
Dreisbach, T., and T. Mak. 2021. “Yes, Capitol Rioters Were Armed; Here Are the Weapons Prosecutors Say They Used.” NPR, March 19, 2023. https:// www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armedhere-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used.
Homans, C. 2020. “Donald Trump’s Strongman Act, and Its Limits.” New York Times, October 21, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/ magazine/donald-trumps-strongman-act-and-its-limits.html
Raaflaub, K. A., J. Ober, J., R. W. Wallace, R. W., P. Cartledge, and C. Farrar. 2007. Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rand, Ayn. 1996. Anthem: Ayn Rand. New York: Signet.
Pedro J. Moureu
Democracia. The word almost escapes your mouth when you pronounce it. It is accepted as a word describing a form of government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The Greeks were famous for this approach to government, and many countries in the modern world resemble it in some way. Modern democracy, however, cannot live up to the way the Greeks practiced it. Cities have grown too large, governments have become too big, and people are too concerned with their own problems to become much involved in national, let alone local, political life. That is the reason why representative democracy, rather than direct democracy, currently prevails, with a class of politicians becoming the intermediaries between the people and the government: this is an established norm in all democracies to a greater or lesser extent.
Democracy can be represented and manifest itself in the form of buildings, institutions, feelings, and norms that embody, in both physical and immaterial forms, its very essence: parliament, president, republic, assembly, freedom, faith, hope, liberty, happiness, life… These words seem to be harmless when one lives in a society that holds in high regard, as a cornerstone for its stability and progress, the right of its citizens to agree to disagree in a respectful manner and in accordance with the proceedings of the law. A society shall not impose limits on the rights of a person to disagree with anyone. Sovereignty in a democracy lies first within the boundaries of individual life and then goes beyond the limits of a state’s borders.
In life, I have been exposed to diametrically opposed extremes of a definition of democracy. It should be clear that, just as humans are imperfect, nothing happening within the confines of democracy is ever perfect, nor should any highly regarded democratic system be considered perfect.
Democracy is not an end but a means to a good and fulfilling life. People often imply the existence of democracy when other keywords are used; for example, republic, freedom, or election. It should be noted then that not all republics are democracies and not all elections are free and give power to the people. An ongoing example of this is the Cuban system of government, a system in which I grew up and came to understand in a more comprehensive way after I left the island nation.
Citizen participation in political life is a basic requirement for a democracy to function properly. In modern democracies this is most manifest in elections and voting, although it is not limited to those. People can take part in city council meetings, contact their representatives, advocate for a cause they are interested in, participate in a protest, and express themselves in a somewhat free manner in the realms of public, private., and digital life. Some form of opposition is also a healthy characteristic of a democracy, for it keeps all willing participants in political life pushing to advance the cause of a specific sector of the population. This is amazing to witness when one has spent years in a state of total alienation from politics. People who have only lived in a democracy tend to take this for granted and often fail to see the fragility of a system based on consensus and not on force.
Cuba had a very brief engagement with democracy in the twentieth century, but social instability and constant struggles between different political factions prevented the consolidation of a democratic system based on consensus. The mere existence of different political factions with the capacity to participate in public life is a feature of a democracy, and diversity tends to be an inherent characteristic of the human condition: a democracy should
Pedro J. Moureu was born and raised in La Habana, Cuba, and came to the United States in 2016. He earned his B.A. in international relations in 2022 with summa cum laude honors. with a minor in political science focused on Latin American politics. While attending FIU, he joined the team of the Consulate General of Costa Rica in Miami, where he gained valuable experience in the field of diplomacy and immigration. He often writes about the transformative journey of migrating, contemplating how its challenges reshape personal perspectives and prompt a reevaluation of one’s history through a fresh lens. In the future, he would like to join the U.S. Department of State to further leverage his background and experience to promote mutual understanding between different cultures and contribute to the formulation of effective foreign policy.
be able to withstand the fragmenting aspects of pluralism and to strengthen itself through diversity.
I grew up in a society that is, by force of propaganda, indoctrination, and violence, homogeneous in all its precariousness. Cubans have been asked countless times to sacrifice in the name of their socialist system of government. Sacrifices were made in the face of alleged enemies, and people found themselves lacking the most basic freedoms to express themselves, either through art, literature, speech, or the ballot box. People gave away their right to decide what to do with their own land on behalf of social justice and fair access and got, in turn, bureaucracy, bureaucrats, and a class of guerrilla fighters turned ranchers and landowners. At the center of all this, regular Cubans like me were often shushed by their grandmothers when we had the audacity to disagree.
A democratic political system is in constant struggle with itself. In a healthy democracy, people can sort through their differences by peaceful means, assemblies, the due process of law, the courts, and, to bring about bigger changes, the ballot box. Before I moved to the United States, I lived within the borders of a society in constant struggle with its imaginary enemies. In the name of security, the state built up walls that divided the institutions from the people: walls with ears, but walls nonetheless. People handled their problems with care, in fear of uttering the wrong words and with little chance of achieving economic stability. On behalf of the people and in the name of security, the government took away every single elemental freedom. A citizen becomes nothing but a pawn to be sacrificed in the name of the revolution when the state is struggling for survival.
What did democracy use to mean for me? It used to be something foreigners had that I could only experience through state TV. In its name politicians would fight for the last vote and often utter words of promises they never kept. It also used to mean hope for change. I remember the 2008 U.S. election when Barack Obama won the presidency. Had I been given the chance, I would have voted for the guy too. I did not have much of a choice, however. Cuban state media rooted heavily for Obama, a man who on the campaign trail had spoken about failed U.S. policies against Cuba and about the need for change and new approaches. Cubans all over the island sat in front of the TV on the night of November 4, 2008, in hope and awe, placing our uncertain future in the
hands of a leader who might give us a breath of fresh air, a break from the precariousness we lived under, a change in discourse—in short, better days.
At the time, we placed our hopes for change in the hands of a foreign leader, in a man that we had little to no influence over, and who was subject to pressures and influences of a magnitude and force unknown to us. It never crossed our minds that to improve our own situation, instead of waiting for a change in the policies of the United States, we could just vow to change our own. A propaganda machine had led an entire nation to believe we were the victims of the actions of others and that there was nothing we could really do, except to sit around and wait for a change or to leave the island in despair and move to the land of the sworn enemy of our state. Nowhere to be found was the idea that real change comes from the inside of nations, never from the outside.
In a way, democracy is an illusion: it only works if everyone else in a community, small or large, believes in the illusion as well. More than an illusion, it is a dream project that a nation should aim to achieve, albeit ambiguous as its own definition may be. Modern liberal democracies have many ways to approach it. My own experience with American democracy is one that is filled with contradictions. I have seen how the power of the masses can be gathered to deliver change for the betterment of a society, but at the same time I have seen small interest groups harness the power of money to change course and benefit themselves. There have been politicians with the will and ideas to make real change in American life, only to get lost in a sea of culture wars, political division, partisanship, and misinformation.
Voting, as the paradigm from which all other democratic values emanate, can be a perfect depiction of the will of the people. Nonetheless, a vote can be of no real value if the choices one is presented with are not the best options but are lesser evils among plenty more. Today, democracy means to me knowing how the lesser evils can be shaped into good choices through a profound understanding of the systems that lead to its existence. Living in a democracy means being able to listen to any song I want, read any book I want, and write in any way I want about any topic I want. Democracy means that I should be preoccupied with those who seek to undermine it. Democracy means struggle and consensus to move forward together. Democracy means, to me, the perfect representations of our own human imperfections.
Arturo Espinosa
We have been taught that democracy was invented in Athens two thousand years ago. We are taught to think of democracy as “rule of the people.” Democracy is, at the same time, not only a procedural system but also a broad ethos that celebrates human freedom and equality.
However, what if I told you that democracy has been with us for all of humanity? What if Athens was merely the first to attach a name to it? After studying democracies all over the world and, most importantly, after studying the most brutal despotisms, my conclusion is that democracy is not merely an idea or a process but a practical necessity.
What do I mean by this? As Rousseau said, man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains. We must ask ourselves how this came about. Many give the answer, by force, asserting that the history of humanity has been a long history of raping and pillaging, where the strong do what they will and the weak endure what they must. They believe that we are in chains because of brute force. When considering this assertion, we must not forget one crucial fact—a human is a cooperative creature. The strongest person on Earth stands no chance against a confederacy of the weakest. We must not forget Hobbes’s wisdom if we are to interrogate this question wholeheartedly:
Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself. (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan)
I will avoid appealing to some sort of abstract notion of human dignity or equality, because there is no such reason to reach so far when, as we have seen, humans are equal out of necessity. Given this unavoidable equality, which is not the result of rhetoric but of a tangible truth, we need to move beyond force and seek some other reason for our chains.
Now that brute force has been taken out of the picture, a disturbing realization emerges. If one person, no matter how strong, can only ever hope to dominate others through confederation, it appears that agreement, not force, is the basis of all power. What this means is that we, in fact, create our own chains—we authorize our own slavery: “The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say, ‘This is mine,’ and found people stupid enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society” (JeanJacques Rousseau). The history of all despotism has been a history of agreement: we consent to our own chains. It has also been the history of one man claiming the state to be theirs and finding people stupid enough to believe him. This breeds the central paradox of tyranny—that it is the result of agreement, of rule by the people. The condition of humans is not so miserable that a tyrant, through sheer force, can remain in power. That tyrant necessarily has to mobilize henchmen, minions of his will. The tyrant must find a mass of people at his feet willing to actualize his power; otherwise, he is powerless. Let us interrogate this question further, but first, let us observe the march of history and humanity’s nature.
History is presented to us as the result of the actions of great men: Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Churchill, etc. Contrary to this notion, however, history is made by real people, the totality of real, living individuals. History does not march forth one person at a time. History is the result of even the most insignificant person, not individually but as the sums and differences of all individual action.
In War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy, the reader is first presented with the schemes of Napoleon and his generals, the great men presumably. Right after that, however, Tolstoy takes us to the living, actual realm of these plans: the battlefield. The reader gets to meet the men on the battlefield, who through the smallest acts, completely change the outcome of battle: this is popularly described as the butterfly effect. Great leaders may be able to take credit for the victories of these small men, but they cannot create these victories or will them to be, absent these small men. The totality of circumstance is always too complex for the frailty of human reason to grasp it. It will always be too complex for people to understand, let alone guide or control. What can be more democratic than the fact that we all make history?
So why this fiction of great men? Why rob ourselves of the agency of knowing that each one of us constructs history?
One person, taken by him- or herself, is surely not great. The individual can only be great through others and can only be understood relationally, within a context. Each person is a rather base being—eating, defecating, sleeping, over and over. When infants are born, they possess only a few base instincts; other than that, they are a blank slate. It is only through their gradual association with other human beings that their sense of self begins to develop. This leads us to a critical fact: virtue and greatness are only attainable through others. A person cannot be great alone but only in relation to others. In this sense, the individual is merely a fractional being. No person, no matter how determined, no matter how ambitious, would amount to anything absent the swaths of supporters who turn amorphous ambitions into a social phenomenon.
What has been the role of these supporters who effectuate individual wills? We will find that tyranny lies not with one person, but that supporters of tyranny are the true tyrants. Coercion is an act of agreement. People are not kept in submission because of the will of the tyrant; rather, they are kept in submission by the will and the agreement of all the officers under the tyrant who choose to oppress the people through violence. The tyrant is not the oppressor; the mass of officers are. That is why the dictators of history have had clean hands. They are not the ones that do the killings. A mass of people hypnotized by the tyrant’s rhetoric act on his behalf. Therefore, in tyranny, the people rule. The people are the tyrants. The people take away their own liberty.
Let us consider a real-world example. Fidel Castro is not the man who enslaved Cuba. The Cuban people enslaved themselves and robbed their own people of their liberty. The police officers and military men gladly seized the people’s property and beat them senselessly. Yet, no one put a gun to their head. They chose to rob the people out of their own volition; the police and military men agreed to ruthlessly oppress the people.
Think about it—the original rulers of the revolution are dying. The Castro regime is rotting of old age. Yet the regime is still in power. Why? What allows the regime to continue has nothing to do with Castro or his family. They could all die tomorrow, and the people of Cuba would still find themselves oppressed. What keeps the regime in power is all the people who gladly take to beating and oppressing their fellow Cubans, people whose principal satisfaction is robbing others of their liberty and filling the streets with blood.
We must change the narrative. The Castros are merely the face that represents the large amount of Cuban people who want autocracy. They are merely the face, not the body or the soul of the oppression.
We need to stop conceiving of regimes through their leaders. If all the police and military men would have turned against Castro simultaneously (when he was alive), Castro would have been a dead man. We see this all the time with military coups. Castro could weep and beg, he could say all he wants, he can say that he has been in power for 50+ years and that all they have is thanks to him, that he is the revolution! Yet, as a miserable fractional being, none of the deeds done under his name will mean anything. Castro is merely a man.
If the people wanted to, they could have laughed in Castro’s face and shot him with the same callousness with which so many innocent Cubans were killed. They could have done what they did to Napoleon, at one point the most important man in Europe, and exile him to an island. Divest a tyrant of all his pomp, his military uniform, his palace, and he is nothing. Take away all the propaganda, all the praise for “El Comandante,” all the revolutionary brainwashing, and you leave Castro naked and shivering.
This is what people fail to understand. No regime is selfactualizing: each requires constant support to reinvigorate itself. There never has, and never will be, an eternal regime
Arturo Espinosa was born in Miami, on December 20, 2003. He is a political science student pursuing a career in law. He has participated in mock trial competitions throughout his undergraduate years and is particularly interested in trial work. His passions include constitutional law and civil rights.
on Earth, and all the strongest and most ambitious regimes have always suffered the same fate—dissolution. We can all agree that there is no such thing as perpetual motion and that even the most monolithic powers can never be sustained by their own momentum; the can must keep on getting kicked down the street.
Like us, every regime is mortal and subject to the same forces of entropy that make us decay and eventually wither away. We create regimes. Regimes do not create us. We are born citizens of humanity, first and foremost, not citizens of Cuba or Venezuela. These titles are abstract and mean nothing. They are a label that will eventually dissolve into the annals of history, because every regime is eventually superseded. To conceive ourselves in such a limited capacity, as children of a state, of a pitiful abstraction that we cannot touch, is to negate our existence and let our reality die on the altar of abstraction. The only thing that will always remain with us and never wither away is the fact that agreement is the basis of all power and authority. We legitimate power, we perpetuate power, and we are conduits of power. We always retain the power to remove our chains. The only reason we are in chains in the first place is because we gave somebody the shackles and the key.
Democracy and human liberty will reach new heights when we realize how much power we truly have to create our reality, to terraform our world, and make it hospitable to freedom. We do not need democratic institutions or a political process to exercise our power. We do not need a legislature to realize what has been true for all of history. Every political act is an act of agreement, of a rule by the people, and we need not wait for sluggish institutions to respond to our needs. Through free association, direct action, and agreement, we create our own world, our own values. There is no reason to limit our ambitions within the domain of existing politics because we create politics, and we can mold it to whatever image we desire.
We need to stop succumbing to theories, dogmas, doctrines, and ideologies. All these can only grasp humanity in a limited sense and only through general principles. As a student of political science, I am well aware that we, because of the frailty of our comprehension, observe general relations and real facts to establish general principles. As Bakunin said, “Life is wholly fugitive and temporary, but also wholly palpating with reality and individuality, sensibility, sufferings, joys, aspirations, needs, and passions.” Our studies can comprehend broad outlines but not comprehend the experiences of the individual, you or me. They deal with individuals in general, but cannot grasp real and living individuals. Perhaps our crisis in democracy results from us trying to make all of politics objective, which negates our reality and denies us the power of knowing that all of history has been made by acts of individual agency summed together. We are the fundamental unit of history, but the lens of our studies only conceives of us generally, convincing us that we are powerless and subservient to our existing institutions and universal laws. What this ignores is that we are the creators of our reality and that all truths are relative.
We must be very careful when thinking about democracy or politics as a science. We can interpret the world, but we cannot explain it. We should be skeptical of people who try to convince us of some truth because their studies are merely a confirmation of what they already believed instinctively. Therefore, instead of thinking within paradigms and entrenched political systems, we should listen to our instincts, and if freedom is burning deep within our loins, we should heed its calls and ignore all the doctrinaires who try to stifle us with their false truths. Let us not deny ourselves agency. We are the masters of our principles, not the other way around. Our principles should serve our needs and our desires.
This perspective also translates to a very important issue in the way we understand politics. As a Cuban, I know what
it is like for Marxists to try to explain to me what Cuba is like, even though they have never lived it. Sure, they can comprehend Cuban life, but to them, the Cuban individual does not exist; the Cuban people only exist in abstraction. But as mentioned before, reality is not made by abstract beings; it is made by real people. So, why would you completely exclude those people from your methodology or from your understanding of Cuban life? We should recognize that what we consider to be truth is the result of our vantage point in the world, and if we seek to understand each other and democracy, and not just talk past each other, we should readily acknowledge the baggage of personal experience that informs our perspectives.
We should celebrate democracy today so that we can always keep in mind where we came from. However, we should avoid romanticizing our current state of democracy in the United States. Complacency and mediocrity are the enemies of democracy. We have slowly been expanding the realm of human liberty for millennia, and where we are now is nothing but a transitory iteration in our journey toward progress. Therefore, let us not romanticize our reality or some idea of democracy’s golden age, for as we Cubans say, “Mira para atrás sólo para coger impulso.”
Editor’s Note
“What does democracy mean?” Theoreticians have been grappling with this question for centuries. Some say that the direct democracy of Ancient Athens is the only true democracy. Others believe that the social democracies of Europe come closer to the true spirit of the word. Ultimately, however, defining democracy is not just a matter of semantics—it is a practical question.
If we want a government that reflects our values and serves our needs effectively, we must first ask, “What does democracy mean to me?” From the outset, we must be clear about what we want democracy to do. Democracy is merely a vehicle for the realization of our aspirations. No singular definition can ever encompass the many ways in which we can protect the flourishing of the human spirit and the dignity of each person. Each generation must define democracy for themselves based on their particular circumstances and aspirations.
I invite you, the reader, to define democracy for yourself. Set aside traditional notions of what it should mean and consider the new ways in which we can protect the expanding horizons of liberty. For democracy to grow and thrive, the foundational unit of analysis must be the real, living individual, not abstract notions of a utopian government.
Arturo Espinosa