.Many modern thinkers have defined the concept of 'democracy'. Among them is Abraham Lincoln's popular interpretation of "the people, the people, the state for the people." Lincoln goes on to say, "I do not like to live as a slave, nor do I like to live as a master. It is from this utterance that the idea of ​​democracy is expressed." There are two main types of democracy that are generally considered to be direct and indirect. In modern times, the term 'democracy' is generally used in the sense of representative democracy. However, the practice of democracy is still seen to some extent in both Switzerland and Australia. Switzerland has a total of 3,000 communes and twenty-seven cantons. In five of these cantons, all citizens gather on certain days of the year. At this time all the bills are put before the people for discussion and decisions are taken by majority. Apart from this, actual democracy has been implemented in other cantons through referendums and initiatives. This method is also enshrined in the Constitution of Australia but is mainly used in the context of constitutional amendment.

Democracy is a way of life.  It is a form of constitution and state system.  Democracy is one of the few ideologies and practices that have emerged from the necessity of social life म्हणून so it makes sense to use the term democracy to refer to society and culture.  If the turn of society and culture is not democratic, then it will be difficult for democracy to take root and survive in that country even after adopting a democratic constitution.  On the other hand, when a country is ruled by democracy for a long time, the society and culture of that country takes a democratic turn.  In this way the interrelationship between the two can be explained.
Experiments that are somewhat complementary to democracy were carried out in the city-states of ancient Greece, especially in Athens, in BC.  Happened in the fifth century.  There was a committee in Athens to implement important decisions.  Its members and state officials were elected by the people.  Judgment was also gathered by all the citizens together.  Due to the limited population, real (actual) democratic experimentation was possible in some of the then urban states.  Members of the House discussed important public issues and then expressed their views.  Looking at the mainstream and representative nature of the constitutional progress of each city-state, it seems that the citizenship of these cities was limited to a few people.  Women and slaves did not have the right to vote.  Of all the positions, of course, only elite men were elected.  So people without political rights are many times more than citizens themselves.  This is somewhat the case in India today. Poor budding young leaders are suppressed despite having good ideas as candidates due to lack of money to contest elections.  No. There is a society in India where people do not get voting cards as they do not have proof of stable traffic.  Plato and Aristotle are two Athenian thinkers.  Plato opposes democracy on theoretical principles.  According to him, if the people do not have the necessary morality and intellectual capacity, democracy will not succeed, but Plato makes it clear that democracy is superior to capitalism or dictatorship.  Asistotle, on the other hand, sympathizes with the concept.  He classified the state as monarchical based on the number of rulers there.  This is what aristocracy and democracy have done.  He expected that the power in a democracy should be used for the benefit of the people and the citizens should be directly involved in the governance.  He has given the idea of ​​education of citizens in his book Rajyashastra and has given importance to the rule of law.
For almost a thousand years after the fall of Rome, the very concept of democracy had almost disappeared.  Later, during the Prabodhan period and the Dharma reform movement, it was revived and people became more adventurous in religion, philosophy and politics.  The idea of ​​a king's God-given authority was challenged. Martin Luther launched the anti-Catholic movement by declaring his doctrine.  The Reformation stirred up the religious, ideological, and political life of Europe.  The values ​​of individual liberty, first in religious life and then in all spheres of life, gradually became entrenched, and as a result, in European culture, the modern values ​​of equality, individual liberty and autonomy of worldly life took root and began the process of revolutionary restructuring of political life.  The most important gifts to human culture of this period were individual freedom and worldly autonomy.
The Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement started the process of democratization of Parliament, introduced the cabinet system and laid the foundation of the party system.  Uncontrolled monarchy was transformed into a limited monarchy and parliamentary system of government developed.  In the nineteenth century, suffrage continued to expand.  Political events and parties emerged.
Along with the process of development of democracy in England, democracy spread elsewhere.  Human rights, equality, etc. by passing a written constitution based on the idea of ​​limited governance and natural rights after the American colonies under British rule gained independence through armed struggle.  Rewarded democratic principles.  The success of the United States led to a radical change in Britain's colonial policy, the birth of the British Commonwealth, and the emergence of democratic thought in world politics.  Its consequences can be traced back to the French Revolution and to the autonomous democracies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Democracy in Europe was born out of anti-monarchy struggles.  Writers-thinkers in France, such as Franवाois Voltaire, Dani Dedro, Charles Levi Montesquieu, Jean Zac, Rousseau, etc., created the ideological role of the French Revolution.  He attacked the social economy in France, and in particular, the religious institutions of the day.  These thinkers strongly advocated the principles of freedom, equality and cosmopolitanism.  This was the inspiration of the revolutionary reforms in principle.  The American Declaration of Independence is the basis of the list of human rights adopted by the French revolutionaries and the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined in the constitutions of various countries.
The struggles of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were mainly in the idea of ​​the sovereign right of the people against the God-given rights of the king.  In the First World War, many monarchies were defeated and democracies prevailed. As a result, monarchies were abolished in many Western countries and were replaced by democracies or communist regimes.  The anti-colonial movement inspired the democratic impulses there.  After independence, however, the real power was seized by some dictators in the name of the people.  Although almost all the neo-liberal countries, which were liberated from colonial rule, adopted democratic form of government in principle and the word democracy or republic was mentioned in the constitution, in reality there was no mature environment for democracy.  Inequalities, diversity, issues of national unity, economic disunity, instability, etc., also exist in the newly independent countries where democratic systems have survived.  There seem to be many limitations to the development of democracy for a number of reasons.
Since the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, communist regimes have existed in some countries.  In communist countries, a totalitarian party dictatorship emerged.  Communist Russia and its allies are beginning to break free from the domination of the Communist Party.  The movement is led by Russian President Mikhail Garbachov and the new policy he has sponsored, particularly openness and restructuring.  This is a revolutionary policy that emphasizes the historical need of the country to overcome the contradictions in the social and mainly economic spheres, to encourage people's entrepreneurial and constructive work and to remove outdated ideas and perspectives.  This policy created an atmosphere of openness and exchange of ideas in all spheres of Russian life.  Due to this individual freedom, the dominance of the Communist Party has gradually diminished.  Other communist countries have also reacted to it. Similarly, other communist countries are moving towards a democratic system.
      People's participation in governance is a major feature of democracy.  Basically and ultimately power resides in the people, this principle is invented in suffrage.  Rousseau proposed the theory of social contract about the nature of human society.  According to him, Sarvajan Sankalp is an inspiration that is common to all but abstract.  The state is a system created by that will and all its working methods depend on the will of the people.  His theory of social contract in the context of the political thinkers of democracy goes beyond the economic liberalism of the English thinkers and the realist growth of the French philosopher Montesquieu.  Rousseau upheld the right of every citizen to participate in government and the sovereign right of the people.  People were overwhelmed by his thoughts.  The idea that the state is a treaty was elaborated by two philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, before Russo.  According to Hobbes, the state was getting arbitrary powers, while Locke's ideology had few restrictions on the state.
        Empiricism has played a major role in the evolution of the advanced and lofty ideology of democracy.  It is a cornerstone of the development of democratic lifestyles and philosophies.  The democratic movement in Europe was a movement of social reform.  He adopted an empirical philosophy about the values ​​of democracy.  Some countries of this movement adopted the utilitarian empirical path with some significant changes.  Even today, its prudent empiricism seems to have left its mark.  Empirical philosophical tendencies are more conducive to the idea of ​​democracy than any other philosophy of knowledge, say philosophers like Bertrand Russell.  While this is true both historically and psychologically, it takes skill to logically adapt any theoretical theory to any political opinion.  Another important aspect of democracy associated with prudent empiricism is open discussion and consensus on any question or issue.  Only if a person develops himself by his own decision, voluntarily, is it appropriate to call it meaningful development.  Democratic governance is the most suitable system for self-development of independent and equal people.  It is an existentialist life culture and state ideology.  In a democracy, all decisions must be made by a majority, which is a general indication, but it remains to be seen whether those in the minority are given due consideration, whether their right to participate remains unaffected.  In practice, the minority should be given full scope and encouragement to express their views.  Their real demands should be respected when making decisions by a majority.
The term ‘people’ in a democracy generally includes all adult citizens, ie those who have attained the age of 18 years.  Race, caste, religion, language, gender, financial income or property, occupation etc.  Granting equal citizenship and voting rights to all adults (above the age of eighteen), regardless of race, is considered a key principle of democracy.  These rights are the primary and fundamental basis of public participation.  In order for a citizen to have full participation, he or she must enjoy fundamental rights and civil liberties, a role that is enshrined in the country's written constitution.  These rights are sometimes restricted or hesitant on special occasions like an emergency.  Using this suffrage, citizens vote and elect representatives in multiple elections at the local to national levels.  This is the expected minimum participation of the people.  Although this participation is minimal, it is of special importance in the democratic process as periodic elections are a must in a democracy and free and fair elections are essential for the growth or strengthening of democracy.

The expression of public participation was first in the local body elections.  These institutions came into existence in the colonial countries in the nineteenth century.  Local self-government has gained special importance as an important tool of decentralization in the democratic process.  Different types of local self-governing bodies come into existence according to the loyalty and needs of the society.  Gram Panchayats, Municipalities etc. in India.  Institutions are important in that respect.  They are run by elected representatives.
This is the principle of a democratic system based on the participation of all at the level of small groups in different spheres of governance and institutional life.  In reality, however, people indirectly exercise power through representatives because representative governance is more viable.  As a solution to this, local elected government is formed by implementing the principle of decentralization.  Another solution is to resort to public meetings, referendums, and initiatives as mentioned earlier.  This will make public participation more comprehensive and meaningful.
Based on the same philosophy in India, the National Election Commission was set up on 25 January 1950 to effectively implement democracy and the right to vote.  Does.  Those institutions were the public administration and the judiciary.  These institutions are of special importance in the functioning of democracy as the success of any democratic administration depends on the functioning of these institutions.  Both institutions are rarely publicly appointed.  Quality, functionality etc.  Servants in public administration are selected on the basis of criteria.  In the sense that public administration implements, it has a relationship with the people, but it also has a relationship with society because it participates in policy-making.  How to democratize such a system is a question.  In practice, this problem is solved to some extent by assuming that the people's representatives and the minister should control this system.  Yet the problems of bureaucracy, lack of accountability, etc., plague all democracies.
The judiciary is a prestigious and credible institution for the growth of democracy.  It is seen as an organization that protects fundamental rights, civil liberties, interprets the constitution in some countries, and monitors the observance of the law.  Rarely where local judges are elected.  Apart from that, the system of appointing judges by the cabinet or the legislature is prevalent everywhere and it still does not seem to suggest other alternatives.  Impartial justice, adherence to the rule of law and non-participation in political contests are the hallmarks of a democratic judiciary.  The judiciary is designed according to the needs and conveniences of the society.  Senior positions in the judiciary are filled by the executive on the advice of the Chief Justice.  However, efficient candidates for junior posts are selected through interviews.  This method is considered acceptable among them.  This method is popular in democracies with a tradition of impartial justice.  Judicial work will be impartial and satisfactory only if no one is expected to interfere in the functioning of the judiciary.
Taking public decisions on the basis of majority, holding periodic elections in a free and non-repressive environment, universal adult suffrage, civil liberties and free exchange of ideas, people-oriented administration, independent and impartial judiciary, etc.  Can be said to be an essential component of democratic governance.
In countries where elections are held in a free environment, there is freedom of the press, as well as freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of choice.  Above all, the government has the right to oppose.  In short, there are no restrictions on civil liberties and fundamental rights in the Western concept of democracy.  People are the best examiners who think in their own interest, so they should be given the right and freedom to express their views freely.  The ideal of representative democracy in the United States and Great Britain seems to have been set by almost all developing countries after World War II.  India's democratic system of governance is the largest in the world.  Faith in democratic values ​​and respect for the opinions of others is at the heart of democracy.  The success of India's democracy depends on respect for those who oppose our views, not just tolerance.  The real strength of Indian democracy is its easy acceptance of ideological struggles.  The Lok Sabha, for the first time, took on a multi-party format with a positive policy vote in the 1991 general elections.  With no single party gaining a majority, the Congress, which won the largest number of seats, came to power.  He has to get the cooperation of allies and independents for the majority.  In the post-independence period, the early Su.  For twenty-five years, Indian democracy has been rocked by the one-party mold, uneducated voters and the instability of the multi-party system.  Now there are some improvements in the electoral system.  Considering some of the recommendations made by the Goswami Committee on Reforms, the next elections will see the process of democracy in a more refined form.  Democratic concepts spread.  There were also ideas of self-government for a limited area, such as industrial or economic democracy.
Although there is consensus on the basic elements of democracy, what should be the role of socio-economic issues and what should be the scope of public participation?  Liberal democracy is a democracy that advocates representative governance with individual freedom as the most important value.  There is no emphasis on socio-economic inequality.  Individual freedom alone is sufficient for individual development, and liberal democracy firmly believes in political democracy and the limited participation of government in the economic sphere.
Although public participation in public decision-making is considered to be the core of democracy, some modern thinkers support minimal public participation.  Since modern governance is complex, it is desirable to entrust it to experts and to the elite with ingenuity and leadership qualities.  There should be suffrage and regular elections to control these elites. There is nothing wrong with limiting people's participation to voting.  In all democracies, polity prevails and public participation seems to be shrinking.  This fact is theoretically supported in polite democratic thought.
     In a modern democracy, citizens have only the role of voters.  Citizens have nothing to do with the period between two elections.  Therefore, there is no active participation of citizens in the working process and only a select few are actually ruling and dominating the society.  In this age, it is natural for decisions to be left to experts and skilled people in every field, as this is unavoidable in this complex business.  Of course, this ideology reduces the participation of the common man, which is a matter of concern. Moreover, in a representative democracy, elected representatives rely on their own discretion and make decisions rather than the opinion of the electorate, so philosophers like Russo do not consider this type of democracy.  Whichever method of electing a representative is used, there is no guarantee that the true representation of the people's vote will be in Titus, especially the minority, because citizens have little political role to play other than electing a representative.  So citizens become indifferent about political participation.  Also, her supporters say that representative democracy creates limited governance or responsible governance, but in practice, the basic question is whether there is actually a representative government, because women, workers, juniors are really represented in proportion to their population?  In almost all countries where a multiparty system exists, the majority party seizes power, but in elections often the party actually gets less votes statistically than all the other opposition parties.  Therefore, the basic idea of ​​a 'majority state' in a democracy is rejected in practice.
In a democratic state, political parties and the bourgeoisie are dominating the political and economic affairs as well as the decision-making process.  Effective organized interest groups, classes, industry groups, multinational corporations, trade unions, etc. continue to fight for their interests.  Their influence is also falling on the government.  This is also an obstacle to the growth of democracy.  The prevalence of bureaucracy has increased since the government took the initiative and started regulation and control in all spheres of life, not just law and order.  A society based on social equality and justice, a principle of democracy, has been neglected as public service has become secondary.  It is occasionally harassing the delegates as well as the citizens.  Also, although the law recognizes the principle of equality, in the absence of economic and social equality in practice, not all citizens can enjoy true civil liberties.  Therefore, there is a growing discrepancy between the basic objectives and principles of economics and the values ​​and goals of democracy.  So without the establishment of equality, democracy remains incomplete, a fact that is now accepted in principle.  Also, in order to achieve the goals of equality, justice and public interest, it is inevitable in a democracy to impose some restrictions on individual freedom.
Democracy has become more established as a value in the communist countries due to the political developments taking place at the end of the twentieth century.  But at the same time, the question of how to address economic inequality and exploitation in a democratic way seems to be being ignored.  Also, the question of democratization of dominant industrial organizations and bureaucracies remains unanswered.  Therefore, the challenge for the proponents of democracy is to make such a theoretically attractive system of governance meaningful and conducive to the welfare of the people.
Voters of every civic age group in India today need to be aware of the values, principles, rights and implementation of democracy. Completing your personal day to day work is not the end of your responsibility.  It is the personal responsibility of every citizen to get elected. Only if this country gets the right leader will it become an advanced and developed country.

हेही पहासंपादन करा