Democracy is not the perfect system of governance by any means. At best it reflects the majority view within a nation that could be as less as 20%-30% of the total voting population in some cases (The turnout in the 2015 UK general elections was 66.4% and Conservatives got 36.9% of votes, which effectively means David Cameron became PM with support from just 24.5% of the total eligible votes).

One major argument in favor of democracy is that people know what is good for them and decisions shall be made directly by the People or through their elected representatives. Though there is no direct mention of democracy in the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, this view of democracy is clearly reflected in the article 21: “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”

But is it really true that people know best what is good for them?

But is it really true that people know best what is good for them? In Plato’s Ship of State metaphor from his book “The Republic”, the sailors (population) want to elect a new Captain. Plato says that the person fit to Captain the ship should be chosen by the sea experts and not by a simple majority vote of the whole population, which doesn’t have any knowledge of sea navigation. He goes on arguing that this is true for any democracy and voting to choose a Ruler should be treated more of a skill rather than a right. This skill, he says, should be taught to the population through education. This means a voter is voting because he is educated in doing so and understands the implication of his actions. He is not voting on mere intuition. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd President of the United States, said “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.”

Apart from educated and skilled voters, a recent problem that is afflicting democracy is Direct Democracy. Direct democracy, in which people vote directly on a host of issues, differs from more common representative democracy, where elected representatives in the parliament decide policies. The recent spate of direct votes on issues such as Brexit, Colombian peace agreement, New Zealand flag, Basic Income in Switzerland etc shows how prevalent direct democracy now is. A voter could be educated or skilled but one can’t expect each one in the voting population to be expert in every issue. As an example, if there is a referendum vote to ask people (in almost any country) whether they would like taxes to be increased then majority may vote for a ‘No’. This is not because voters don’t care about the long term welfare. It’s because most of them are not economists. Also a referendum vote only represents a snapshot of voters’ mood at a certain point of time. So is it that the politicians are shunning their responsibility by allowing direct referendums on complex matters that are beyond the understanding of an average voter? That brings us to the question of education of politicians in a democracy. Another Greek philosopher and historian Xenophon in his work Memorabilia said: “The man who persuades you to lend him money or goods and then keeps them is without doubt a rogue; but much the greatest rogue of all is the man who has gulled his city into the belief that he is fit to direct it.” Politics and Politicians today are in most part synonymous to manipulation and persuasion by false pretenses. However, democracy has also produced some great leaders over the last few centuries who have shown tremendous conviction and have taken the whole humanity forward. What’s the difference here? My guess is the right education. It may not be a formal education on democracy and politics in a University but an education that is characterized by values, principles, human rights and equality. Democracies should have systems and institutions in place that hinder the entry of anyone into politics without orientation in these tenets.

One last problem that is always overlooked in the context of democracy is the geographic boundary. People vote within the geographic limits of their Countries but decisions made within a country could impact millions outside its boundaries. This is always the case with the US Presidential elections irrespective of the candidates and their policies. So does it mean that everyone in the world should vote in the US Presidential elections? Practically, it is not possible. One solution is defining democracy on all the principles of “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” that recognize rights of every human in this world. Though almost every democracy in the world is signatory to the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” these principles get restricted to the geographical limits or majority group of a country during the election campaigns. A country that cannot hold elections on the principles of “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” shall not be called a democracy.

It is time we rethink democracy and understand that it is not just a right to vote and elect a government. The sailors of the democratic ship should be skilled enough to choose their Captain and the Captain of the ship should be educated to deal with complex moral and ethical issues in the navigation of the ship. And this ship should be governed by the international laws of the sea, considering the impact on other ships and boats in the water.