Democracy is considered to give power to the people. Democracy is one of the most contested concepts in political theory. Various scientists, philosophers, great thinkers had different perspective on how this concept can be defined. For the purpose of my essay, acknowledging competing ideas, I will concentrate on the definition by Abraham Lincoln who claims that democracy is " the rule of the people, by the people, for the people . This definition is seen to be most applicable as it underpins the political system in which the people govern themselves. Defining " power  is very controversial and not straightforward as it may be seen from the first sight. By claiming that democracy gives power to the people, it is not referring to their actual superior power in regards to potential power-holders in society. Conversely, it attributes to "empowered people  highlighting that they gain a collective capacity to effect change in the public realm (Touraine and McDonald, 1994). However, it can be argued that democracy does not give power to the people rather it indeed limits it. This essay seeks to evaluate two opposing ideas in order to conclude which one upholds the truth. Firstly, aggregative and deliberative accounts of democracy will be analysed in terms of means they employ to empower the people. Secondly, argument of Schumpeterian form of democracy and the danger of elitist rule as well as the tyranny of majority will be discussed as ways of limiting people's involvement and power. I will argue in this essay that democracy indeed gives power to the people to some extent that is evident in being able to influence the political process and increased level of accountability. In the political system, one of the main indicators of the people's ability to influence the political process is the equality among different groups of society. Democracy initially is claimed to be a fair making procedure. This form of government upholds two the most important concepts of freedom: equality and liberty. It underlines equitable and fair decisions that arrive from the community self-rule because, unlike in absolute monarchies, democracy reflects our moral standing as equal beings. Regarding liberty, democracy affirms the idea that each ought to be the master of his individual life up to the main more collective decision-making. It empowers the people to take a helm of social, legal or economic pressures that restrict our liberty and, in turn, obtain control and vote on them. This idea is closely linked with the propositions of deliberate democracy entitling collective strength and ability to act in order to reconstitute the public realm through public deliberation, and aggregate account of democracy that includes direct and indirect, known as representative, democratic arrangements. There are different types of democracy and one of the divisions is aggregate account. It can be subdivided into direct and representative types of democracy. Under indirect democracy the people do not get a say on every issue but they choose and vote for those who then represent their interests and decide policy initiatives. It is argued to empower the people in a way that they hold the position behind most of the things that the government does. This is the case because in theory representatives obtain the support of the majority and hence reveal the popular majority will over the issues raised. Whereas direct democracy is a political system in which everyone has a say in a decision “making process. It involves the aggregation of all the votes, for instance, on referendums to make a decision. It gives the steering wheel for government to the people because it restores the authority to the people and allows gaining control over the government officials vi