In modern political thought, there are two approaches to the justification of democracy as the best system of government: value-based and rationally utilitarian. Value justifications regard democracy as a value in itself, as a political system that most fully embodies the most important humanistic values: freedom, equality, justice, etc.
The value approach is criticized primarily for its appeal to a democratically minded person who is truly striving for freedom and political equality. However, in the modern world, very many people, if not most, prefer not freedom (which they often perceive even as anti-value), but material well-being, security, and order. Therefore, they put a non-political, social meaning in the most respected values of equality and justice, linking them to ensuring equal opportunities in life or rewarding merit, to which real democracy has a very weak relationship. All this casts doubt on the value group of arguments in favor of democracy.
A rational-utilitarian approach does not deny the certain significance of the value justifications of democracy, but at the same time pushes them to the background. This approach interprets democracy primarily as the most rational, useful way for citizens to organize a political system, allowing them to articulate and harmoniously combine their interests. The most consistently rational-utilitarian group of arguments is expressed in the systemic justifications of democracy: Democracy helps to prevent the rule of dictators, curb power, guarantee the protection of citizens from state arbitrariness; Democracy provides a higher level of economic development and higher rates of economic growth.
Of course, democracy, like any other political system, is not free from serious shortcomings, which, in fact, represent a continuation of its merits. Usually attention is paid to the following weaknesses of democracy:
1. The threat of destabilization of the political system arising from the very principle of election.
2. Political competition can result in conflictogenicity, confrontation, open clashes and, therefore, destabilization of the situation in society.
3. The danger of the tyranny of the majority, confident in its "rightness" and suppressing the will of those who remain in the minority.
4. Possible unprofessionalism of officials elected by an incompetent majority.
Explanation:
