Democracy by Democratic Means
Prof. Dr. Zahurul Alam :
Democracy is often invoked as a destination, something to be achieved, restored, or defended. Yet history repeatedly shows that democracy is not merely an outcome; it is a process, a method, and a moral discipline.
Attempts to establish, strengthen, or revive democracy through undemocratic means are not just paradoxical, they are self-defeating. When power is captured through manipulation, coercion, or constitutional shortcuts, even in the name of popular will, the result is rarely democratic renewal. More often, it produces weakened institutions, fractured societies, and heightened vulnerability to internal decay and external interference.
At its core, democracy is meant to reflect the will of the people and to serve their aspirations by guaranteeing rights: economic, political, social, and human. It is designed to ensure equality, equity, and the abolition of exploitation in all its forms.
Any political project that claims democratic intent while undermining democratic methods risks hollowing out these very promises. The question, therefore, is not whether democracy is desirable, but whether it can survive when pursued through means that contradict its essence.
Democracy exists as process and does not emerge as pretext. It is fundamentally a system of continued practice through humanitarian means and procedural methods. Elections, separation of powers, rule of law, accountability, and the protection of minority rights are not ornamental features; they are the architecture that allows popular sovereignty to function without descending into majoritarian tyranny or elite capture.
When these procedures are bypassed, whether by emergency decrees, manipulated plebiscites, or the sidelining of independent institutions, democracy becomes a slogan rather than a system.
The temptation to justify shortcuts is not new. Political actors often argue that extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, that entrenched interests block reform, or that the “true will of the people” must be liberated from institutional constraints. But such reasoning confuses impatience with legitimacy.
Democratic procedures exist precisely to mediate conflict, manage pluralism, and prevent the concentration of power. Undermining them in the name of efficiency or urgency may produce swift results, but it erodes trust and sets precedents that are difficult to reverse.
One of the most dangerous claims in modern politics is that power seized unconstitutionally can still be democratic if it is done “for the people.” This leads to the illusion of ‘popular mandate’.
This argument rests on a fragile assumption: that leaders or movements can accurately embody popular will without being bound by transparent, lawful processes. In practice, this often leads to the opposite outcome. Without institutional checks, claims of popular mandate become unverifiable and self-serving.
Deceiving the public with promises of reform while concealing agendas undermines democratic accountability. When citizens are mobilized through vague slogans rather than informed choices, participation becomes performative.
The result is not empowerment but disillusionment. Over time, people learn that their consent is solicited selectively, during moments of mobilization, but ignored in governance. This erosion of trust weakens civic engagement and normalizes political cynicism.
In fact, rights invariably emerge as the measure of democracy at the end of the day. A democracy that does not deliver rights is democracy in name only.
Political rights, free expression, association, and participation, are inseparable from economic and social rights that give citizens the capacity to exercise those freedoms meaningfully. When democratic rhetoric is used to mask policies that exacerbate inequality, restrict livelihoods, or silence dissent, the social contract frays.
Undemocratic methods tend to prioritize control over consent. This often leads to the curtailment of rights in the name of stability or national interest.
Yet history suggests that suppressing rights does not produce durable stability; it merely postpones conflict. Democracies are resilient not because they eliminate disagreement, but because they institutionalize peaceful ways to manage it. When those channels are closed, grievances accumulate and eventually erupt in more destabilizing forms.
Democracy’s promise lies in its commitment to equality and equity, treating citizens as political equals while addressing structural disparities that limit real opportunity. Undemocratic power grabs, however, tend to deepen exclusion. They centralize authority, marginalize opposition, and reduce complex societies into binary camps of loyalists and adversaries.
This polarization is not incidental; it is functional. When legitimacy is weak, rulers rely on division to maintain control. Social, ethnic, ideological, or regional differences are amplified to fragment opposition and consolidate power.
The long-term cost is high: social cohesion erodes, public discourse hardens, and compromise becomes synonymous with betrayal. Democracy, which depends on pluralism and dialogue, is left impoverished.
Institutions matter more than intentions or demonstration of those. Good intentions are not substitutes for strong institutions.
Even leaders genuinely committed to reform cannot guarantee democratic outcomes if they weaken institutional safeguards. Constitutions, courts, electoral bodies, and independent media are not obstacles to progress; they are its guarantors. Once undermined, they are difficult to rebuild.
Unconstitutional seizures of authority often begin with promises of temporary measures and end with permanent distortions.
What is framed as an exception becomes the norm. Successors inherit weakened institutions and are tempted to use them similarly. Thus, undemocratic methods create a path dependency that outlasts the original crisis, making democratic recovery more costly and uncertain.
A less discussed but equally serious consequence of undemocratic governance is increased exposure to foreign interference.
Divided societies with weakened institutions are easier to influence. When legitimacy is contested at home, external actors find opportunities to exert pressure through economic leverage, political patronage, or informational manipulation.
Democracy’s strength lies in its internal legitimacy. Governments that derive authority from transparent, constitutional processes are better positioned to resist external coercion because they enjoy public trust.
Conversely, regimes that rely on managed consent or coercion often compensate for domestic weakness by seeking external backing, thereby compromising sovereignty. In this sense, undemocratic methods do not merely harm democracy; they can undermine national sovereignty itself.
Reviving democracy where it has eroded is undeniably difficult. Entrenched interests, institutional decay, and public fatigue present real obstacles. But the remedy cannot replicate the disease. Democratic renewal requires patience, inclusivity, and adherence to rules even when outcomes are uncertain.
It demands investment in institutions, civic education, and social policies that address material grievances alongside political reforms.
Crucially, democratic actors must resist the allure of moral exceptionalism, the belief that their cause is so just that normal rules do not apply. Democracy survives not because all actors are virtuous, but because rules constrain vice and channel ambition toward public accountability.
Democracy cannot be built, strengthened, or revived through undemocratic means without hollowing out its substance.
When power is captured unconstitutionally under the guise of popular desire, the immediate effect may be mobilization, but the lasting legacy is division, weakened rights, and institutional fragility. Democracy is not merely about who governs, but how governance is exercised, through consent rather than coercion, transparency rather than manipulation, and institutions rather than personalities.
If democracy is to fulfill its promise as a tool for serving the people, ensuring rights, equality, and dignity, it must be practiced with democratic discipline.
The path is slower and often frustrating, but it is the only route that preserves legitimacy and resilience. In the end, democracy’s greatest strength is also its greatest demand: fidelity to its own principles, even when doing so is inconvenient.
(The author is Dean School of Business Canadian University of Bangladesh)