It seems to me that there is no neutral way to establish a Democracy.

When there are unavoidable threats to a Dictatorship or a Monarchy , the Dictator or King (whom I will call DK in short) may call the freedom fighters for talks and claim to form a Democracy.
Elections will be held, but the candidates may have to clear the eligibility criteria set by the DK. After elections, DK may be a Ceremonial Post, or he may be exiled.

Now, the new Democracy is not neutral because it may hypothetically be run by the supporters of DK, who ensured that the elections were rigged to "elect" his supporters or the eligibility criteria were rigged such that unwanted candidates were not eligible.

In other words, DK is still in power in the Democracy, through his proxies. Even if DK is not in power and is exiled, it was still his power which conducted the elections.
When the citizenry do not want the DK, they would not agree to his eligibility criteria and his elections. Democracy established by the actions of the DK may not be neutral.

An alternative way in which Democracy may be established is when the DK escapes or is toppled by a coup. In this case, the elections will be conducted by the Military or the most Powerful organisation (which I will call PM in short) which grabs power "temporarily" and then permanently. Democracy established by the actions of the PM may not be neutral.

International bodies like UN or EU may come in to conduct elections, but the losers or ineligible candidates may not agree to outside interference.

Whichever way the elections are held, it must have some entity (DK or PM or UN or EU) to control the elections and this entity may bias the results.
Best outcome is when the controllers are "provably" neutral, but that is not possible.

When nobody is in control, there will be Anarchy.

What is the neutral way to establish a Democracy ?
In practical terms, I know how Democracies got established in many countries. I am asking in theoretical terms, where it is totally neutral and there is absolutely no bias.

I am adding some Points at the risk of making the question too long and boring, but that is required because it is put on hold; I will also try to respond to a few comments.

Consider the Monarchs in European Countries (like Great Britain and Germany) who were considered to draw Power from god. If many atheists were to object to this, nobody would listen to then.
If the king decided to move to a Democracy, this Democracy would still draws its power from the king who draws it from god. The atheists may still object.
How can the king establish Democracy such that nobody objects ? He may form an interim government which in turn conducts elections for the Democracy. Even in this case, the power of god still flows through to the end.

Alternately, the king can be deposed by generals and elections can be conducted. Atheists may welcome this, but others may claim that the generals rigged the elections.
After deposing the king, the generals may form an interim government which conducts elections but it may be claimed that the power of the generals is still active.
Again, after deposing the king, the generals may relinquish everything, but the anarchy will not allow elections to be conducted.

No matter which Process is used, there is no way to guarantee , with mathematical or logical certainty , a Democracy likeable to all including the losers.

Consider Burma, where the 1990 elections were nullified by military. It implies that all other elections could have also been nullified but were ratified by the military.
In other words, the Present "Democracy" exists at the Power of the military.
Even Aung San Suu Kyi is not allowed to be President because of the military which introduced a clause in the Constitution. But if the military ceases to exist, the country will collapse into chaos.

Is there any way in which Democracy may be established without any bias ? Over the millennia, Political thinkers, Critics and Philosophers may have had some thoughts on this, but It seems to me that there is no neutral way to establish a Democracy.

  • 3
    Real life is messy
    – user19831
    Mar 7 '19 at 19:50
  • 1
    I don't know what you mean by "theoretically" and "provably" neutral. I don't know what you are asking, if you are not asking for historical examples.
    – James K
    Mar 7 '19 at 21:16
  • @JamesK , I am asking if there are any Political Processes which , in theory , establish neutral Democratic governments. All examples I know of are biased towards those who are already in control.
    – Prem
    Mar 8 '19 at 6:56
  • 2
    Then you are not comparing like with like. All the processes will "in theory" be able to form a functioning democracy. All may in practice produce a flawed democracy. You would be better thinking about how successful democracies became established.
    – James K
    Mar 8 '19 at 7:15
  • 1
    Your definition of "neutrality" (as opposed to "bias") seems to be some platonic ideal of perfect balance. There are, by your definition, no neutral systems or individuals, meaning this question falls into the realm of pure speculation. Mar 8 '19 at 12:56

There are no unbiased election systems. Every democracy has rules about who can run for office, who can vote, and how elections are conducted. Any rules governing any of those can be interpreted as a form of bias. Only people over 35 can run for office? That's biased against the young. Only men can vote? Biased against women. Election day isn't a national holiday? That's biased against people who can't afford to leave work to vote. Identification is required to vote? Biased against those who don't have ID. No ID required to vote? Perhaps biased toward those willing to commit election fraud. Literally any rule you make about how elections are run can be construed to favor or disfavor certain candidates or demographics. There is no democracy, in theory or practice, which is totally neutral and has no bias whatsoever.

  • +1 , while this is mostly about existing governments which conduct elections for the next government , it is equally true at the time of transition from Monarchy to Democracy. It is because of such thinking that I started my Question with "It seems to me that there is no neutral way to establish a Democracy" but the "Illusion of Democracy" is widespread.
    – Prem
    Mar 8 '19 at 7:06

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .