Establishing democracy is difficult, and sustaining it is even more difficult. This is because democracy is not merely the right to vote. It teaches us to respect the opinions of others.
It fosters a mindset that enables us to tolerate dissent and respect the rule of law. The unfortunate truth, however, is that although we desire democracy, we rarely ask ourselves how willing we are to accept the conditions essential to its survival.
A look at various developing societies reveals that one of the major reasons democracy has failed to flourish as expected is the lack of mutual tolerance and respect for the law.
Many people do not hesitate to take the law into their own hands, even over trivial matters. Sometimes, people mobilize against others because of personal disputes, sometimes because of political affiliations, and sometimes simply because someone has expressed a differing opinion.
In such societies, the numerical strength of a crowd seems to become the standard by which right and wrong are determined. Yet a state is governed by the law, not by the whims and wishes of a crowd.
Is it not dangerous for any society to embrace the notion that one can escape accountability simply by breaking the law and flaunting one's power?
The judicial system of a state may have its limitations, but why should a crowd take it upon itself to administer justice? Even setting democracy aside, can such conduct be considered a hallmark of a civilized society?
An alarming trend can be observed in various developing societies regarding political differences. Organized attacks on the homes and offices of people who hold different political views, collective intimidation, and attempts to silence political opponents are becoming increasingly evident.
If this trend becomes normalized, the foundations of democracy are bound to weaken. Political opposition is not a crime. If someone is accused of a crime, the matter should be investigated and the accused should stand trial in a court of law.
But how justifiable is it to deprive someone of their security by using their political affiliation as a pretext for criminalizing them? If the protection of the law is weakened, the same danger could one day befall any one of us. To what extent are we taking this possibility seriously?
Democracy is a state of mind, and a decent society is the foremost prerequisite for a healthy democracy. This idea is also reflected in the words of Charles Pickering, an American lawyer and former federal judge.
According to him, “A healthy democracy requires a society in which people are respectful, generous, and tolerant toward one another.” The statement may sound simple, but its implications are profound.
How can a democratic culture take root in a society where differing opinions are treated as acts of hostility? In a society where physical force replaces reason, threats replace dialogue, and the pressure of an organized crowd takes precedence over judicial proceedings, the progress of democracy will inevitably be obstructed time and again.
In other words, the crisis of democracy is not merely a crisis of political leadership; it is also a crisis of civic mentality. For this reason, a culture of tolerance must exist among political parties.
Those entrusted with governing the state and those who support different parties or ideologies must both understand that eliminating one's political opponents is not the objective of democracy. Rather, the beauty of democratic politics lies in ensuring peaceful coexistence despite differences of opinion.
At the same time, the administration and law enforcement agencies must enforce the law impartially. Regardless of a criminal's political affiliation, that person must be brought to justice.
Otherwise, a culture of impunity will continue to spread. In a society where people live in fear for their safety, their right to express their opinions, or their political affiliations, it would be surprising if democracy were able to flourish.
Therefore, political differences and ideological disagreements will always exist, as will debate and criticism. What is essential, however, is to ensure that differences of opinion do not become sources of conflict and that disagreements do not provide an excuse for taking the law into one's own hands.
We must remember that the true strength of democracy lies not merely in establishing the will of the majority, but also in protecting the rights and dignity of those who hold different views. Unless we recognize this truth, democracy will remain elusive, no matter how often we speak of it.