How to Write CSS Essay by CSP Ikram Sarfraz | Democracy itself is Negation of Democracy |

[0:00]Assalam o alaikum students. I am Muhammad Ikram Sarfaraz. I cleared CSS 2022 and was allocated into Pakistan Audit and Accounts Service. And my common is 51st common, and I am teaching English essay since 7 years. Today, I have come up with a very interesting philosophical topic for you.

[0:20]Democracy, itself is negation of Democracy. This is a very difficult topic for students, how democracy is its own negation. What actually examiner wants to know is the internal inconsistencies in the concept of democracy. What paradoxical things are involved within democracy itself, due to which democracy is rejecting itself. Democracy is its own negation. This topic came in Indian UPSC and you can call it a philosophical topic. So we'll quickly talk about how democracy in itself is negation of democracy. First point is Limited governance vs. welfare. Now, the problem is that democracy has some fundamentals, say some basic slogans, and those basic fundamentals of democracy are at war with each other. If we want to achieve one, the other is not achieved. Now, in this topic, many students start telling the general flaws of democracy, that democracy could not bring economic equality, representation is not good in democracy, the concept of accountability has been distorted in democracy, such things. They start doing such things. But the examiner wants you to tell what is the internal inconsistency in its fundamentals, what is the war among them, what is the issue among them. For example, this is a fundamental of democracy, that democracy always believes in the idea of limited governance. The state, the state won't assume a lot of authority. The regulation of the state will not be in the economy, the state will not interfere in cultures, the state will not interfere with language, the state will not interfere in people's personal choices. As long as something is not affecting public at large, the state will give freedom to the people. But freedom is gone. On the other hand, one fundamental of democracy is welfare. Now, all the democratic states where the state did limited governance, where democracy did limited interference, many issues arose there. For example, there was no justice, there was extreme economic inequality, law and order situation could not be managed there. So, the early philosophers used to talk about the negative aspect of democracy, that democracy, the state, has very limited tasks, such as security situation, law and order situation, war, defense, these kinds of tasks. So, the government has only these tasks. In all other tasks, people should be left free. But if democracy wants to achieve welfare, then the state would have to be authoritarian.

[4:16]The state started taking increasing powers, the state is actively monitoring religious activities, cultural activities, even sports and entertainment activities.

[4:45]In the economy, the state has again assumed a lot of authority for the management of economic affairs. So, if the state wants to bring welfare, then limited governance cannot happen. So, this is how democracy, if it wants to achieve welfare, then it is negating its own ideal of limited governance. If it wants to achieve limited governance, then welfare cannot happen. And this is clearly observable from the Western states, where there is extreme inequality and where, as we talk about Pakistan, that Pakistan is a state that faces elite capture. So here, Miftah Ismail called it a 1% republic, the same phenomenon goes for the West, for very, for very developed states. There is also elitism, there are also very few people who have resources, so there is no general welfare at all. Similarly, we have freedom versus equality. You know, these are two foundational pillars of democracy. Democracy believes in freedom, democracy believes in equality, and here comes the, the classical problem of democracy, that if you want to bring equality, then the freedom of many people will have to be curbed. If you leave everyone free, then equality cannot come. If you want to bring equality, then the systematic way, the institutionalized way of many people, which we will call in the form of laws, the state would be having the monopoly of violence, and the state will also imprison many people, will also punish many people, will also ban many economic, political, cultural, religious activities of many people, and will also monitor them. So, there is no freedom. And if you want to bring freedom, then equality will not remain, then all of them, if you leave everyone free, then many powerful people, many criminals, many cunning minds, they would start ruling the society in the absence of strong governance.

[7:14]So this is a big, again a classical problem. Rule by all versus rule by elected majority.

[7:48]If we talk about democracy, the most appealing theory about a democratic state is democracy functions by the will of the people. And these thoughts were most beautifully expressed by Rousseau, who had said that, who had given the concept of popular sovereignty. That your sovereign is not one person or a group of persons. In a democratic state, or governance in itself, whatever it is, governance should be according to the will, the will, the wish of the people. So if we want rule by majority, rule by all, then this is also a system given by democracy that rule will be by elected majority. Now, here comes an issue in all democratic states, that the elected majority, which we also call majoritarian form of government, the elected majority does not follow many wishes, many, say, wills of the common people.

[9:08]So it is a sort of dictatorship of majority. In this, the other, say, small political parties, there is a proper system of lawmaking which happens through voting, and the bigger numbers in the parliament, so whoever has more numbers, their will will prevail, which is elected majority. Now, the other political parties, there is a politician who represents 100 people. And there is another politician who represents 30 people. The opinion of the one representing 30 people will not be heard, many times in policy, his opinion will not be accepted. So, this is only rule by majority in theory or just in name. This is actually rule by elected majority, not popular sovereignty.