The following text focuses on finding out how elections and the sovereignty of the people are connected. In what way can democracy be regarded as representation of the people taking into account prevailing conditions in a modern, pluralistic society? The text also touches upon the conditions necessary for democratic elections.

[Back to top of page]

Democracy as representation of the people? The theory of people's sovereignty

That democracy is government by the people is a statement that often crops up when trying to determine the individual elements that make up the foundations of a democratic society. The translation of the Greek word "democratia" means nothing other than this. Every democratic constitution contains different wording to the effect that all state power is vested in the people and exercised by them. Therefore, state power is only legitimate when it is carried by the free will and with the agreement of the people.

The principle of people's sovereignty replaced the traditional model in which the king or ruler had the right to power through his/her decadency from a dynasty blessed by God. In these systems of power based on the blessing of God, state authority was not vested in the people, but sanctified for reasons of background, tradition or religious beliefs, carried by mythical powers and structured  in such a way as to deny access for citizens. This fundamental separation that existed between ruler and subjects is at the core of the contrast between democracy and monarchy. Rather than regarding state power as being the divine right of temporal and spiritual authorities and therefore acceptable, democracy considers state power as being the will of the people and something that is created to solve problems that concern everyone. In this sense, the shape and content of the state is not prescribed to citizens, rather it is given up. The ability of citizens to accomplish the task of government, from whose solution they are all equally affected, is provided by people's sovereignty.

(...) Of course, government by the people does not mean that the people actually govern and are involved in the decision-making process, even if this does form one of the formal consequences behind the thinking on democracy. Only in this way can the concept be realized, however, in which the citizen abides by his/her own laws and rules and in doing so actually remains free. This identity between the governing and the governed, however, has never actually existed in the narrow sense of the word, although early democratic models in Ancient Greece were based on a form of "direct democracy" and Rousseau, for one, believed that only this model should be regarded as being democratic.

[Back to top of page]

Sovereignty of the people through election

(...) If government by the people through the people is made impossible in modern society because of external and internal reasons, the election of representative bodies or representatives remains the main way of applying the representation-of-the-people principle. These bodies and representatives govern responsibly according to the will of the people and with the people's approval. Decisions on factual issues are left to the elected representatives; the voter has to reach a decision based on the candidates put forward by the political parties, before choosing the candidate who he/she regards as representing his/her own political convictions and interests most closely. This is usually carried out along party lines.

[Back to top of page]

Conditions for a democratic election

Those wanting to establish and strengthen the will of the people through the electoral process and wanting to make elections a decisive instrument in the establishment of sovereignty of the people have to demand certain inalienable conditions. Those elected must be made to declare their candidacy for re-election at regular intervals. This allows voters to express their approval or disapproval about the work being carried out by the candidate and allows voters to end or extend the candidate's mandate. Only in this way can elected representatives be bound to the will of the people and made to respect the convictions and interests of their electorate. The electorate must also be given a real choice. The election must offer the voter real alternatives on both issues and personalities. Single lists are characteristic of a dictatorship.

(...) In addition to guarantees about limited periods in office and offering a real choice at elections, any system of government wanting to ensure that its citizens are given an equal chance and an equal voice in solving the problems faced by the nation, must ensure that universal suffrage is in place. Equality means that all citizens have the free right to vote. No one may be prevented from voting for reasons such as race, religion, education, ownership or income level. Certain eligibility requirements, however, are both acceptable and concord with the democratic principle. For instance, the requirement that citizens must reach a certain age before being entitled to vote is generally acceptable and does not violate the democratic principle, provided, of course, it applies to all citizens and is done without discriminating against individuals or individual groups.

The principle of one man, one vote is closely connected to universal suffrage.

[Back to top of page]

(...) An open and pluralistically structured society contains many fluctuating groups. These groups have both opposing and joint interests and they all have equal rights. Universal suffrage and the principle of one man, one vote forms the only electoral system that has a realistic chance of electing representative bodies and a working government, while also being accepted and regarded as being fair by all groups. Universal suffrage and one man, one vote has become established because it has proven to be the best and most practical method available for securing peace in society, rather than any unfounded claim that it elects the "best" government into office. It provides all citizens an equal opportunity to take part in the process of electing a government, while at the same time giving today's minority groups the chance of forming tomorrow's government. In a society split by countless differing interests and conflicts of convictions, this electoral process established a system in which opposing conflicts could be resolved in a non-violent manner and, despite internal tensions, could produce a government capable of governing, whose leadership could be accepted by all groups. The system of universal suffrage and one man, one vote is one of the most successful systems for internally uniting a political community and establishing a working government

Nonetheless, in order to meet the standards demanded of a democracy, universal suffrage and one man, one vote must be supported by additional safeguards. Any possibility of putting voters under pressure to cast their votes in a particular way has to be ruled out. This does not mean that political propaganda and influence should be banned. Only the actual freedom to make a free decision must be safeguarded. This is the reason behind a secret ballot. As long as a voter is able to cast his/her vote in secret and does not have to worry about the possibility of others finding out about the way in which he/she has voted, no detrimental consequences can arise

Only when all these conditions are met, which, logically, apply equally to eligibility - the right and opportunity to stand for political office must be open to everyone -, can an election be considered democratic. Only when all these conditions are in place can a parliament act in the name of the people. Only governments that are supported through free elections of this type are actually democratically legitimate.

[Back to top of page]

(...) Modern politics often talks about the will of the people, without it being clear what the term actually means. Rousseau believed that an homogenous will of the people could be constructed, which should be identical with the public weal. However, political theory also forced him to equate the will of the majority with public weal and to suppress the dissenting minority on the grounds that they had the wrong will.

Our considerations about the character of a pluralistic society make it clear that a homogenous people's will, in reality, no more exists than does a homogenous philosophy on life. That which establishes itself as the will of the people is always the will of the strongest forces among the people. We are now less optimistic than Rousseau about simply identifying the will of the majority with public weal. We have learned all too often that even majority will can be mistaken. Therefore, it is important to introduce a system of government that respects minorities rather than suppressing them. This system, however, has to follow the will of the majority, since this is the best method for securing self-determination of the individual while taking into account the need to coexist in society.

Because political action takes place into an open future, it remains continually saddled with uncertainty. Political action is always a risk for which the consequences cannot be exactly calculated. Indeed, excluding exceptional circumstances, who can say with complete certainty that one course of action will be of more beneficial to public weal than an alternative course of action? How can public weal be defined, if we do not know how things will develop? Because the future is uncertain, all citizens must be asked about the fundamentals of politics. And it is because of this that in democratic society political orientation must be based on the will of the majority, while respecting the wishes of the minority and upholding their opportunity to become the majority.

[Back to top of page]

The principle of majority rule

Just like the condition of universal suffrage, the principle of majority rule is the only possible consequence from a democratic image of man, which sees responsible citizens in a free world while being equally aware of the irreconcilable conflicts of opinion and interest among mankind. Acceptance of the principle of majority rule does not mean that politicians should follow public opinion at every turn. But the fundamental premise is that the principle of people's sovereignty can only be made more concrete through the principle of majority rule as a basis of political action.

Modern democracy, then, is not self-government by the people. Democracy can only be realized when government is formed by representation of the people. These representatives are chosen during general, free, equal and secret elections and are held responsible for their actions through election at regular intervals. Representatives must also carry out the business of government according to the majority will.

[Taken from: Waldemar Besson/Gotthard Jasper, Das Leitbild der modernen Demokratie. Bauelemente einer freiheitlichen Staatsordnung, Bonn 1990]

[Back to top of page]

Subjects:  Human Rights  I  Democracy  I  Parties  I  Examples  I  Europe  I  Globalisation  I  United Nations  I  Sustainability

Methods:    Teaching Politics    II    Peace Education    II    Methods