The international notion of democracy determines it as a form of government, whereby the people rule through their elected representatives, where the people are absolute, and are the supreme form of political authority. It is also a guardian of the rights of all citizens and the state may not take away, nor interfere with certain basic rights.
I think that, democracy is the rule of law, under which all citizens are equal. The law maintains order, protect citizens and limit power. The rights and freedoms of democratic society provide for a greater social harmony, by ensuring no person is discriminated against. No society can operate successfully without laws and democracy is no different. The law is the great equalizer of free democratic society, entitling all citizens to parity. And true democracy is the embodiment of a higher form of government where the punishment for violation of law never expects the abuse of human rights.
Our world today is separated by different countries that each has their own suited government. However, democracy is the most used and suitable government in order for any notion to succeed. This means a society would only be run by the way people want to be run. In other words, democracy works by people working together and getting what they deserve.
In democratic countries human rights are a fail concept and while opinions differ wildly about what constitutes human rights, most modern world citizens believe that all the people should have at least the most basic human rights. They play role in everyone’s life, but not everyone realizes it. It is involved in every comment we make, that includes someone different. Every near discriminatory “joke” we say. It affects people even if it doesn’t affect us. Every day we choose over problems such as with whom to socialize, to communicate, where to shop and where to work. We prefer certain things and certain people over others. But does our choice have to be based on the fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange or different than us? While it’s normal to express our subjective preferences, sometimes we may exercise functions that put us in a position of authority or allow us to take decisions that may have an impact on others’ lives. So, as it was once said, before discriminating others, it would be better to realize, that you are not on the very top of this subordinate system.
As a basic individual right I believe that people should have the right to think anything that they choose without hindrance or persecution. They should have the freedom to think any way that they wish without someone telling them that they have to think a certain way. The aim of human rights is to ensure all individuals with an equal perspective to access opportunities available in a society.
The effective protection of human rights means being able to hold hands with the person you love, work where you are qualified to work without your skin color or your sexual orientation being the reason you can’t, having the right to be human, making choices. People say that gays aren’t socially acceptable, but the thing is that slavery was once the norm. Nowadays we see parents showing their kids what to think instead of how to think.
According to Human Rights’ Declaration all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. These are the rights inherent to all people, whatever our nationality, place of residence, national and ethnic origin, sex, age, language, religion, color, political views, or any other status. They are inalienable, which means that they come since the moment of born. The only fact of born proves that every human has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
In fact, there is always a big difference between the legislation and the social reality, especially in developing countries. So to see the achievements of law in human legal awareness we have to compare the doctrine with the actuality. Because the development of every country depends on the population’s rising degree of legal awareness. Every country tries, therefore, to provide laws which will help its people to live safely and as comfortable as possible. This is not at all an easy thing to do, and no country has been successful in providing laws which are totally satisfactory. But we have far better off with the imperfect laws which we have, than if we had none at all. The main problem is that sometimes we overestimate law more than rights and liberty.
Speaking about human rights we have to figure out the actual values that it brings. In the definition of human rights we see its usefulness and benefits, but there is a question “Do we have all these in reality”? I mean, all in all, human rights are based on equality of people and freedom of choice. But do we usually consider the other people equal to us? Don’t we base on age, nationality, religion or social status of people when making a choice between them?
All human beings, whatever their cultural or historical background, suffer when they are intimidated, imprisoned or tortured… We must therefore, insist on a global consensus, not only on the need to respect human rights worldwide, but also on the definition of these rights…for it is the inherent nature of all human beings to yearn for freedom, equality and dignity, and they have an equal right to achieve that.
The globalization of democracy expects good relationship between the state and civil society, which is the most important factor for the social organism as a whole. Understanding of the complex relations of these counterparties is the detection capability of transformation of this social system and its ability to self-renew and development.
What kind of answers should we expect asking the civil society about promoting democracy? The concept of democracy is inseparable from power. In the mass consciousness of democracy it’s primarily associated with a certain utilitarian understanding of freedom. Free vote, to cross borders, to defend their rights, to make money or become a hippie, read, speak, write.
For the first time the term “civil society” was introduced by Hegel in his work “Philosophy of Right”. Hegel proposed to consider society as a dialectical totality of relations between family, civil society and the state.
And for the end I would like to conclude with Winston Churchill’s statement, which refers to imperfectness of democracy, but it is as good until we create anything better. It is not the synonym for justice or freedom and a sacred right sanctifying mob rule, it is a principle that is subordinate to the inalienable rights of the individual.
Author Hripsime Asatryan