Democracy as a principle

Back to the skatepark in “What is politics?”: those affected had a say – young people, local residents and the local authority – and the result was a binding rule. But wait: things could have gone very differently. One person could simply have ordered: “No skatepark. End of discussion.” The rule would have been just as binding – but nobody else would have had a say.

This is exactly what distinguishes different forms of government: Who gets to decide on the binding rules?

The answer offered by democracy (from the Greek: demos = people, kratos = rule) has three building blocks:

1. Those affected make the decisions. Anyone affected by the rules has a say – directly or through elected representatives. Decisions are not left to one person or a small group that has seized power.
2. Limited terms of office. Those who govern do so for a limited term, not forever. Then a fresh decision is made – and everyone must seek support again.
3. Power changes hands without violence. If a government loses its majority, it hands over power peacefully. That may sound obvious – but it is not: throughout history, and in many countries today, power changes hands only through pressure, overthrow or violence.

The third building block may be the most important – and the least noticeable. The losing side accepts defeat because it knows it will have a fair chance again next time: this is what keeps democracies working.

There are two ways to put the principle “Those affected make the decisions” into practice – you know both from everyday school life:

Direct democracy: everyone decides on the issue themselves. The class votes on where to go on a trip. Every vote counts equally, and the vote is about the issue itself. This is the basic idea of deciding on an issue directly: those affected vote directly on a specific question.

Representative democracy: elected representatives decide. The class elects two delegates to the school council – which then makes decisions about the school fair. Here, those affected choose people they trust to decide on their behalf: elected representatives.

Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses – as principles, without looking at any particular country:

	Direct decision	Decision by representatives
Strength	The decision reflects exactly what the majority of those affected want.	Elected representatives can take time to study the issues and negotiate compromises.
Weakness	When there are many questions or complex issues, people often lack time and detailed knowledge.	Representatives may decide differently from what many people wanted.
Accountability	Those who vote take responsibility for the decision themselves.	Representatives must stand for election – those who disappoint can be voted out.

In practice, most democracies combine both approaches: citizens decide some issues directly, while their elected representatives decide others. What matters is their shared core: in both cases, the power to decide comes from those affected – nobody has an inherent right to rule.

Making decisions democratically usually means: the majority decides. That is fair – but there is a catch, which you notice immediately when you are on the losing side.

For example: your class votes on where to go on a trip. 18 want to go to the climbing park; 6 would prefer the indoor swimming pool. The climbing park wins – the decision is binding, including for the 6 who were outvoted. So far, so democratic: otherwise, it would be almost impossible to reach a joint decision, and the 6 could be part of the majority in the next vote.

But now imagine the 18 also decide: “The 6 who voted against it will pay for everyone’s trip.” Or: “Anyone who doesn’t like climbing can’t come at all.” Can you see the difference? The majority is no longer deciding on a shared issue – it is using its power to deliberately harm or exclude a minority.

That is why democracy must include minority protection alongside majority decisions:

• Fundamental rights apply to everyone – including those who were outvoted. There are things no majority may put to a vote, such as taking away someone’s freedom of expression or right to equal treatment.
• Fair procedures: the minority is heard, can put forward its arguments and can continue to seek support for the next vote.
• A transfer of power remains possible: today’s majority may be tomorrow’s minority – that alone is a good reason to treat minorities as you would want to be treated yourself.

Remember: democracy means majority decisions plus minority protection. If a majority were allowed to take everything away from minorities, it would no longer be democracy – just rule by the stronger side with a voting ritual.

“That’s all very well – but I’m not allowed to vote yet.” True. Yet democracy is about more than going to the polls: participation means getting involved – and there are many ways to do that, even before you reach voting age:

• Petition: submit a request in writing and collect signatures – just like the skatepark group in “What is politics?”. In principle, anyone can start a petition, regardless of age.
• Youth parliament and school council: places where young people discuss their concerns, launch projects and represent their interests to their school or local authority.
• Club: anyone who takes on responsibility in a sports, music or youth club helps shape community life – from booking the sports hall to organising the club celebration, democratic decisions are made all the time.
• Demonstration: gather peacefully and speak up publicly for a cause – this, too, is a protected way to draw attention to people’s interests.

All four approaches have something in common: they work between elections and are also open to people who do not (yet) have the right to vote. Democracy depends on more than voting – it depends on people raising concerns, joining forces and taking responsibility. “Authoritarian systems today” shows you the contrast: what happens when a system prevents people from doing exactly that?