Is it possible to ensure the rule of the “best” in a democracy?

Abstract

The article analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of democracy. Its various types and evaluations are considered. The main question that the author asks is whether democracy ensures the rule of the “best.” Such a formulation of the question is due to the fact that from the moment of its inception to the present, the idea of democracy has been associated with the hope for a “better” state administration, for the “best” representatives of society to come to power. At the same time, democracy is criticized for the lack of aristocracy, professionalism and efficiency of decisions made. An analysis is made of the proposals of various researchers on the introduction of legal levers to increase the level of aristocracy in a democratic government, including initiatives to introduce educational or property qualifications in elections, quotas for intellectual professions in parliament, professional representation, etc. The legal practice of some countries on the use of legal techniques to enhance the elitism of representation in parliaments (electoral colleges, partial appointment of members of the upper houses of parliaments, provision of additional votes in elections to certain categories of citizens) is considered. However, the conclusion is made about the inappropriateness of such novels; the opinion is motivated about the exceptional value of the openness of the democratic system, its ability to provide a potential opportunity for every citizen to participate in political decision-making. The subjectivity of the additional requirements for the elective body proposed for implementation is noted: they conflict with the idea of human dignity, which is the main achievement in the development of world history. It is suggested that socioprofessional representation, although it is able to increase the number of channels for interaction between the state and civil society, still carries the danger of excessive pressure from corporations on its members, and can lead to excessive classness in society. Special attention is paid to the modern interpretation of popular sovereignty as a legal phenomenon that manifests itself in the course of a complex discourse, the process of finding a compromise. In this regard, hopes are pinned on minimizing the risks of “not the best” people coming to power democratically and implementing their “not the best” policy on the system of separation of powers, on the “discourse” of these authorities. The idea of foreign authors about the possibility of democracy to “defend”, including from unreasonable restrictions on the electoral right (the concept of “militant democracy”) is supported.