Out of the world’s 195 countries, 167 are identifiable as democracies in some form. Yet, when measured against rigorous democratic standards by V-Dem (Varieties of Democracy), only 91 truly qualify as democracies. The V-Dem index takes a comprehensive approach to democracy, using over 500 indicators around core principles of democracy: electoral, liberal, majoritarian, consensual, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian. Surprisingly, while most nations call themselves democracies, 71% of the world’s population – 5.7 billion people – actually live in autocracies, an increase from 48% just a decade ago. Within this group, electoral autocracies hold the largest share, representing 44% of the global population.
This disparity raises important questions: Why do so many countries strive for the “democratic” label, even when their systems lack true democratic qualities? And what is it about democracy that makes it so universally desirable? Despite their structural and operational differences, nations across the globe seek legitimacy in the democratic brand. This phenomenon points to democracy’s enduring appeal as a model of governance that promises freedom, representation, and human rights – even if the reality falls short.
This widespread desire to be a democratic nation is deeply rooted in political philosophy, where democracy often emerges as the most suitable model of governance. Many thinkers argue that democracy is the only acceptable form of government precisely because it prevents the concentration and abuse of power. Political philosopher Patricia White observes that democracy’s purpose is not to make someone a perfect citizen, but to establish a system that checks the potential for any entity or individual to dominate others. This is the power of democracy – it offers a framework where people can collectively make decisions, individual freedoms are safeguarded, and the threat of unchecked authority is minimised. By delving into these democratic principles, we see why nations seek the democratic label, as it represents a universal aspiration for fairness, accountability, and empowerment.
Democracy’s Ability to Check Power and Its Abuse
To understand why democracy is singularly effective in curtailing the abuse of power, we must explore the nature of power itself. What is power and what is the abuse of power? The government exercises three basic powers –legislative power to make laws, executive power to enforce laws, andjudicial power to interpret laws and settle disputes. Till the time these exercises of power follow the democratic principles of serving freedom and justice to every individual, it works, else it becomes an abuse of power.
Steven Lukes, a prominent political theorist, conceptualises power as an influence that can be wielded overtly or subtly to shape others’ actions, often without their conscious awareness. In Lukes’ framework, “power over” others can be exerted without explicit force, manifesting instead through influence, persuasion, or societal expectations that subtly manipulate choices of individuals.
Let’s understand this through an example of an authoritarian regime where the government might not explicitly ban dissent, but it controls media narratives and continuously broadcasts messages that glorify the ruling party. What they are actually doing is subtly shaping public opinion. Citizens may feel national pride or fear of speaking against the ruling party, even without direct threats, as the government’s influence shapes their perceptions and limits their choices without overt force. This subtle manipulation showcases how power can be exercised in ways that are not immediately visible, reinforcing the importance of democracy’s safeguards against such abuses.
Democratic systems inherently provide a platform where power cannot be centralised or left unchecked. Through the rule of law, separation of powers, and participatory decision-making, democracy diffuses authority, ensuring that no single person or entity can exercise unmitigated control. This structure mitigates the “power over” dynamic that Lukes describes, replacing it with a system of accountability where leaders are bound to act in the public interest, and individuals are guaranteed the right to voice dissent. In this way, democracy not only disperses power, but institutionalises mechanisms that continuously check its exercise.
Democracy as a Safeguard Against Oppression
The most common symbol of democracy is the vote and during elections, every person casts one. The value of this vote is the same, irrespective of the person’s religion, caste, gender, race, sexual orientation, educational background, wealth, linguistic abilities, or occupation. In this lies the key message of democracy – that every individual is equal. But who values this equality the most? It is not the rich or powerful, the landed or the wealthy – equality is valued most by the weak, the marginalised, the oppressed.
In other words, therefore, democracy is the system that offers strength to the weak, opportunities to the marginalised, a voice to the minorities, and protection to the oppressed classes of people. Understood this way, a strong democracy is one that best protects, uplifts, and provides a sense of equality to the weak, the minorities, the marginalised, and the traditionally oppressed.
This protection must extend to the millions of species of non-human animals, inhabiting the geographical area of a country. India itself is home to millions of birds and animals who have as much a right to protection from oppression as humans. A true democracy must recognise the right to life and liberty of all these species and offer them protection from abuse, oppression, violence, and commodification – just as any other community. Oppression is deeply rooted in most societies in the form of casteism, sexism, communalism, racism, classism(unfair treatment to a person because of the class they belong to), and speciesism (based on the belief that animals are inferior to human beings). Strengthening and broad-basing democracy implies recognising these oppressive, discriminatory systems and practices and creating a truly equal society where everyone can live without fear of oppression.
There is, however, a misconception that democracy is a system where the majority rules. This conception is often used by majoritarian parties and leaders to justify the oppression of minorities and the marginalised communities. Throughout history, majoritarian parties have used this argument to justify the targeting of minority groups while slowly taking away the democratic rights of all citizens. In Germany, the same argument was used to target Jews and eventually suspend democratic rights of all citizens, whether Christian or Jew. In the Philippines, the same argument was used by Ferdinand Marcos, the then President, to target communities such as the Moro Muslims and eventually bring in martial law, which enabled him to suspend democracy and the democratic rights of all citizens. It is important for us to understand that a truly strong democracy is one which protects the minorities, the weak, the voiceless – whether human or non-human – and work actively towards strengthening our democracy.
Democracy as a Voice of the Marginalised
Who has a voice today? Look around you. In your office, if you’re a working professional, in your classroom if you’re a student, or within your family or your group of friends. Who is heard? Often, it’s those who can speak systematically, clearly, and effectively, sharing their opinions with ease. But can everyone do this? If we allow only those who can speak logically, clearly, and systematically to participate in critical decision-making, especially when it impacts our country, we end up excluding those who lack these skills. For example, Dalits, Adivasis, most women, and other minority groups haven’t always had the same opportunities to develop these skills of deliberation. However, this doesn’t mean they have no opinions.
Democracy, however, values various forms of deliberation, including emotional and embodied expressions. Forms such as stories, poetry, drama, and music can convey opinions or views on critical issues. These forms are infused with emotions (such as love, anger, pride, or joy), which Professor Penny Enslin calls “emotional talk”. Embodied talk, on the other hand, does not rely on words to express opinions; it is conveyed through the habits of an individual developed over time. This might include gestures, eye contact, style of dress, facial expressions, and other non-verbal cues.
Democracy makes space for both emotional and embodied talk. We see political leaders – though still few in number –who use storytelling as a form of deliberation. Many parliamentarians begin their speeches with poetry (sher-o-shayari), or personal stories, and they even dress differently on special occasions. All of these are forms of deliberation, and even when they are silent, much is communicated through embodied talk. In a democracy, you don’t need a fancy vocabulary or an accent to be heard.
Democracy Ensures Accountability
The reason why we need a state or government in the first place is to provide some public services, such as safety and security, environmental protection, printing of money in a controlled manner, and protecting the minorities and the voiceless. In other words, the state exists to enable citizens to live free and fulfilling lives. In order to provide these services, citizens confer some powers upon the state. For instance, the state has a monopoly over violence. It has the power to make laws and regulations which everyone must abide by. However, the state consists of people, among whom some may have the temptation to use the power of the state to serve their own interests, rather than the interests of citizens. For instance, a person elected by the people to head the country for five years may wish to enjoy this power for life and may attempt to not have elections or rig them. This is where accountability mechanisms come into play.
Strong democracies have a number of diverse accountability mechanisms to ensure that powers of the state are used to serve the interests of people. In India, for instance, we have independent and autonomous bodies such as the Election Commission (to ensure free and fair elections), the Comptroller and Auditor General (to ensure public money in accordance with the procedure established by law), the Reserve Bank of India (to ensure that the supply of money is regulated to keep inflation in check while promoting economic growth), and the National Human Rights Commission (to prevent the abuse of human rights by anyone including the state), and the Lokpal (to fight corruption in public offices). We have also had historic legislations like the Right to Information Act of 2005, which gives citizens the right to access information from public authorities. The act was passed to promote transparency and accountability in the government. In less than 20 years of its passage, the act has enabled millions of people to access information as well as secure their rights and hold government agencies accountable to their duties. However, all of this has been possible due to the efforts of active citizens who have fought for their rights and the rights of others. As a symbol of the remarkable journey of the Right to Information Act, a People’s RTI museum is being established in Beawar, the birthplace of the RTI movement. The foundation stone for the museum was laid in October 2024. The foundation stone itself commemorates the efforts of lakhs of people – workers, elderly pensioners, activists, and many other active citizens who struggled for such an act in Rajasthan. It is the duty of all citizens to ensure that these institutions and legislations continue to hold the state accountable towards the people.
Democratic Principles as Moral Safeguards
Patricia White’s assertion that democracy serves as the morally acceptable safeguard against abuse stems from a belief that democracy inherently values each individual’s autonomy. In non-democratic systems, authority is typically derived from power rather than moral legitimacy, often justified by tradition, ideology, or sheer force. Conversely, democracy is built on the premise that individuals have an intrinsic right to self-governance. This moral foundation distinguishes democracy from other forms of government, establishing it as a system that prioritises the well-being of individuals rather than the interests of a ruling class.
This principle has philosophical support from thinkers like John Stuart Mill, who argued that individuals are best suited to determine their own happiness and that a society prospers when people have the freedom to make choices about their lives. When democratic governments reflect this philosophy, they create environments where individuals can exercise personal agency without fear of coercion or undue interference. Democracies, therefore, operate not merely as political systems but as ethical frameworks designed to respect and uphold human dignity.
Conclusion: Democracy as the Optimal System for Limiting Power
Despite its imperfections, democracy remains the only form of government capable of institutionally limiting the abuse of power while respecting the autonomy of individuals. By fostering accountability, transparency, and inclusive participation, democracy offers a framework where individuals are protected from the arbitrary whims of authority. Unlike autocratic regimes, democracy provides mechanisms that prevent power from becoming absolute, instead dispersing it across institutions and granting people the right to challenge and change their leaders.
In embracing democracy, societies are not merely adopting a political structure but affirming a commitment to human dignity, ethical governance, and the belief that everyone deserves an equal stake in determining their future. Through its design, democracy transcends mere politics, emerging as a moral commitment to justice and freedom. It is this ethical dimension – its foundational opposition to unchecked authority – that makes democracy, in Patricia White’s words, “the only acceptable form of government” that truly guards against the abuse of power.
However, democracy is neither permanent nor is it an institution that can be taken for granted. As we saw in the beginning, within the past decade, an additional 23% of the world’s population live in autocracies. Throughout history, democracies have fallen and given way to dictatorships. Take the case of Germany in the 1930s or the Philippines in the 1960s. These thriving democracies fell prey to dictatorship when their citizens stopped valuing their democracy. It took several years of war, misery, economic hardship, and loss of several lives before these countries were able to recover from the shock of dictatorship and regain their lost democracies. If we want to prevent countries from such situations, we need alert, informed, and active citizens or ACTiZENS who value democracy and constantly work to strengthen and deepen it.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or the positions of the organisations they represent.
Mr. Sushant Kumar and Dr. Anjor Bhaskar are founder members of Dialogues on Democracy and Development. Mr. Kumar also works with a civil society organisation committed to school leadership and transformation. Dr. Bhaskar teaches at Azim Premji University, Bengaluru, where he works on sustainability.