Recce

1
Jessica Recce
FYS- Is Voting Enough?
10 December 2013
Freedoms Versus Free Elections: Democracys Reliance on Peoples Rights
Democracy is often praised as the most effective form of government. It is a system that
many politicians seek to emulate in their own nations. Why do so many people want this form of
government? Is it because human rights are protected, or because the public chooses their
countrys leader? Political scientists who seek to ascertain what characteristics form a democratic
government debate these questions. Some people believe that democracy depends on free
electionson a voting process independent from violence, corruption, or coercion. Others
maintain that democracy is a system of government that relies on the preservation of
constituents rights. In its ideal form, a democracy holds free and fair elections and protects
peoples rights. However, the success of democracy relies most on peoples rights. It is critical
that a democratic government is responsive to the citizens needs and protects the rights of its
constituents, even at the expense of free elections.
Democracy is supposed to be a system of government in which politics depends on the
people. In his book, Capitalism, Democracy, and Ralphs Pretty Good Grocery, John Mueller
explains why rights are more important than free and fair elections. He states that the ultimate
goal of democracy is to be responsive to the public; the only way to do so is to ensure that
citizens have the right to complain, to petition, to organize, to protest, to demonstrate [and] to
express a lack of confidence (Mueller 140). Mueller argues that these freedoms can exist even
without elections. He explains that the people have opportunities to overthrow a government that
tramples on their rights even without elections; he outlines coups, strikes, and boycotts as

Recce 2
possible solutions to the problem (Mueller 140). In addition, Mueller explains that lobbying can
prompt a democratic government to be responsive even without the presence of formal elections.
While political scientists like Fareed Zakaria argue that lobbying can result in reforms
designed to produce majority rule [producing] minority rule, lobbying is an effective way to
ensure the government is responsive to the needs of the people (Zakaria 171). It is true that
lobbyists often consist of a smaller group of the population who are passionate about a certain
topic; however, the role that lobbyists play in influencing the government and ensuring that
politicians represent their interests is invaluable to the democratic process. Mueller
acknowledges that even if a system forgoes elections, the government would be essentially
democratic[if it was] routinely and necessarily responsive to the concerns of the public
(Mueller 142). However, when rights are taken away, elections can do little to help the people
get these rights back. When people have basic liberties that give them the right to free speech,
the right to assembly, and the right to criticize the government, elections are not necessary to
hold government officials accountable for their actions.
Like Mueller, other political scientists agree that democracy is contingent upon
recognizing the rights of constituents. In their article, The Challenge of Democracy, Philippe
Schmitter and Terry Karl explore the nature of democracy and what it consists of. They argue,
Citizens are the most distinctive element in democracies (Schmitter and Karl 162).
Fundamentally, democracy depends on the people who are governed, not the people who are
elected. The people have the ability to influence policies as long as they have the freedom to
voice their beliefs or protest against things they find unfair. For this reason, a democratic
government must include its citizens in the legislative process. To ensure that this is done,
democracys freedoms should also encourage citizens to deliberate amongst themselves, to

Recce 3
discover their common needs, and to resolve their differences without relying on supreme central
authority (Schmitter and Karl 164). It is essential for a democratic government to protect the
rights of citizens so that they can express their opinions and hold the government accountable
this is the most basic form of democracy, not elections.
Furthermore, Schmitter and Karl are willing to protect these basic rights, even at the
expense of holding free and fair elections. In fact, they denounce the fallacycalled
electoralism (Schmitter and Karl 163). Elections alone do not promote basic freedoms. While
citizens who have their personal rights protected can voice their opinions daily, elections occur
infrequently. Rulers can rise to power by manipulating voting machines or rigging election
totals, or they can intimidate voters through force or by jailing dissenters. Despite these tactics, a
ruler who is in powereven if that power was attained fraudulentlycan still sustain basic
rights. The ruler can promote free speech and allow assembly; they can also permit the public to
question the government and use these criticisms to enact legislature that the people support. If
their basic rights are protected, the people have the power to make the government responsive to
their needs and influence policies (Schmitter and Karl 164). What can a citizen do if they lose the
right to debate issues, or if they are imprisoned for criticizing a government policy? Once rights
are taken away, it becomes difficult to regain them.
Although some political scientists maintain that elections are more crucial to the
democratic process, the argument that the rights of the people are indispensible is more
convincing because these rights give citizens the ability to influence the government even when
elections are not held. Fareed Zakaria examines the role of elections and rights in a democratic
government throughout his book, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and
Abroad. He presents a clear-cut definition of democracy, stating that the process of selecting

Recce 4
governments characterizes the system (Zakaria 18). One may believe that Zakaria places
elections above the rights of the people because of his electoral definition. Though his definition
of democracy is in opposition to Schmitter and Karls definition, Zakaria still promotes the rights
of citizens as a fundamental component of democracy. He emphasizes the importance of
constitutional liberalism, or the basic freedoms people enjoy, throughout his book. Zakaria says
that a government that is not capable of protecting property rights and human rights, press
freedoms and business contracts, antitrust laws and consumer demands ultimately does not obey
the rule of the law but the rule of the strong (Zakaria 77). The freedoms that the people have
allow them to hold the government to the law. If an elected official ignores these rights, he or she
is essentially ruling without the consent of the people. This is unacceptable, regardless of
whether an official is elected or not. Zakaria does not believe that democracy only relies on
rights, but acknowledges that rights are important in producing a liberal democracy. Despite his
strictly electoral definition of democracy, Zakaria supports the idea that rights are intrinsically
necessary for a government to rule democratically.
While Zakaria does place importance on constitutional liberalism in a democracy, his
election-based definition of democracy fails to support the rights of the people. The Middle East
is a prime example of elections failing to produce leaders that protect basic freedoms, resulting in
an ineffective democracy that is not accountable to the people. In the wake of the Arab Spring
revolutions, many countries are struggling to form new governments and are looking towards
democracy as a solution. Though liberal political parties have emerged, there is a fear of
extremist Islamic parties rising to power. Many are unsure if these parties will maintain basic
human rights if they are elected, or if they will turn to violence to solidify their power. Tamara
Cofman Wittes explores these questions in her journal article, Three Kinds of Movements. She

Recce 5
explores the implications of traditional interpretation of sharia law, which can oppress citizens.
Women can lose basic rights, there can be little to no freedom of speech against Islamic policies,
and religious or cultural persecution can occur. It is a precarious situation, with many people
wondering to what extent fundamentalist Islamic parties will protect the freedoms of their
constituents if they are elected (Wittes). Under Zakarias definition of democracy, these
fundamentalist groups would be considered democratic if they were freely elected. However, the
government cannot, and should not, be deemed democratic if citizens are stripped of their rights
and left unable to make the government responsive to their needs.
Countries like Egypt struggle with this very dilemma. Mohamed Morsi was elected to the
presidency following the overthrow of dictator Hosni Mubarak. Though he was elected
democratically, he denied Egyptian citizens basic human rights and began imposing Islamic
policies on the people without their consent. He limited freedom of speech and censored the
media and any dissenters (Al-Aswany). The people were outraged that the government was not
listening to their will, and the military feared another uprising. In addition, Morsi violated the
rights of citizens by torturing and imprisoning many of them without causean example of this
occurred when Mohammad Fahim was pulled over by police and realized he forgot his license at
home. When he revealed this to the officers, he was beaten, transferred to a jail, tortured, and
remained imprisoned on false charges while awaiting trial (Al-Aswany). Morsis government
failed because he ignored the rights of his citizens, evidenced by the incarceration of Fahim and
many other Egyptians. Thus, Morsi was ousted because his democratic election culminated in an
undemocratic reign during his year in power. Morsis overthrow proves that the people of Egypt
placed more importance on their human rights than the results of an election.

Recce 6
A similar situation occurred in Tunisia after the overthrow of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in
2011. After the Tunisian revolution, the Ennahda party was elected into power. This group
advocated the creation of a constitution based on sharia law. Under the Ennahda party, a hardliner Islamic group named Ansar al-Sharia has risen to power. This group supports a strict
interpretation of the Quran, which has led to repression of womens rights and free speech (Cody
2). The Ennahda party has also done little to protect the rights of the people. They were
democratically elected, but they are not doing the job expected of them; they are not upholding
basic freedoms and are thus violating the most important principle of democracy.
For example, a Tunisian woman experienced a direct violation of her rights by the
government that was supposed to protect her freedoms. Following protests by both supporters of
Ansar al-Sharia and their opposition, Amina Sboui was arrested for vandalism and was charged
with possession of a forbidden explosive devicea can of pepper spray (Cody 3). Sboui was
supposed to be jailed for a week and fined. Because she had posted a topless photo online several
months earlier to protest Ansar al-Sharias treatment of women, she was imprisoned longer than
her sentence mandated (Cody 3). Though this is just one specific incident, Tunisian politicians
have continuously failed to protect the inherent human rights of Tunisian citizens. The elected
governmentvoted into office by the people has continuously violated the peoples rights and
curtailed their basic freedoms. As the strict Islamic groups rose to power, the Ennahda party
permitted them to repress womens rights and limit freedom of speech. The governments
disregard for human rights ultimately brings into question how democratic their system is
although citizens elected the party in power, the party is not protecting the rights of the people in
a way that is consistent with democratic ideals.

Recce 7
Democracy is often regarded as the fairest model of government, with a system that is
based on the will of the majority of the people. However, the extent to which a country is
democratic varies. While some believe that elections are the only criteria needed to prove a
country is democratic, it is the rights of the people that are most important to the aims of
democracy. A democracy is designed to be responsive to the needs of the people; as a result, it is
absolutely necessary to protect the rights that allow citizens to express their needs. The
government can do this by being open to lobbying and allowing constituents to participate in the
democratic process by voicing their concerns and ideas. Democracy is ultimately contingent on
the rights of the people; even if there were not elections, the people could have the opportunity to
have a say in the government through the liberties that must be protected. Thus, democracy is
intrinsically reliant on personal rights and the freedoms of the people more than free or fair
elections.

Recce 8
Works Cited
Al-aswany, Alaa. "Is Egypt's Morsi the New Mubarak?" Al-Monitor: The Pulse of the Middle
East. Al-Monitor, 29 Sept. 2012. Web. 6 Dec. 2013.
Cody, Edward. "Tunisia Faces Political Struggle Over Islam: Decisions Loom on National
Identity and the Role of Religion in Daily and Political Life." Washington Post 17 June
2013: n. pag. ProQuest. Web. 6 Dec. 2013.
Cofman Wittes, Tamara. "Three Kinds of Movements." Journal of Democracy 19.3 (2008): 712. ProQuest. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
Mueller, John E. "Images and Definitions." Capitalism, Democracy, and Ralph's Pretty Good
Grocery. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1999. 137-63. Print.
Schmitter and Karl. 1991. What Democracy Is....and Is Not. Journal of Democracy.
EXCERPTS from Readings in Comparative Politics: Political Challenges and Changing
Agendas. Eds. Kesselman and Krieger. Pp. 160-171.
Zakaria, Fareed. The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. New York:
W.W. Norton &, 2003. Print.