Research Topics: Democracy

Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy

Introduction One of the most influential works in the recent period includes the work of Moore (1966), Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. The major claim in the said book is the political structure acquired by modernizing nations. These include liberal democracy, fascist dictatorship, and communist dictatorship among others. The ascent of these is linked to the ground-breaking trails beyond traditional structures of society. This includes the bourgeois revolutions, revolutions from the top level, and peasant uprising correspondingly. In its prudent structural account of the path that quite a few major states took to modernity, it has sturdily added to current discussions on arrangement and organization in the present understanding of global democratization procedures. In this context, the discussion on the effects of a peaceful transition on the context of modern societies is important to taker into consideration. The case of India, in the account of Moore (1966), presented the condition in which the said country changed the form of its government with a peaceful process. This provided a third world view of what appears to be the tackling of change in the modern setting. (Handelman, 2002)   Regardless of the fact that the contention enclosed in the work of Moore (1966) is more compound, it is probably most renowned for one specific suggestion, “No bourgeois, no democracy” (p418). It summarizes a far more sizeable suggestion relating to the appearance of democracy. This contention, prearranged consistent with logic of associated variation, is that a superior level of strength acquired by the ruling class abates feudal economic arrangements, exposing a pathway for modernity to acquire a democratic political shape. Where the power of the ruling class is inadequate to determinedly abate feudalism, a subsequent trail to modernity is achievable by means of a revolution from above that bring about a fascist dictatorship. Where the ruling class is so frail as to prevent this middle trail, modernity is still achievable through peasant revolution that gives way to communist dictatorship. Given these premises by Moore (1966), the condition of India will be taken into consideration.   The Price of Peaceful Change   In states in which the ruling class is sufficiently strong to considerably abate the economic arrangements of feudalism, democracy is able to materialize. Nevertheless, it is not the direct accomplishments of the ruling class that is important in Moore’s (1966) claims in his work. The power of the ruling class has a definitive impact upon the manner in which upper classes from the countryside and the peasantry deal with politics with the ascent of modernity. Where the ruling class is sufficiently strong, commercial agriculture grows to be controlled by the market, and the upper classes are capable of acclimatizing itself to up-and-coming arrangements of the market economy and competitive politics. The cost of agricultural labor similarly becomes controlled by the market, considering both commercial accomplishment and command of rural populations.     The discussion of the Indian case goes toward an interesting insertion in said book. The country, as the Moore (1966) was writing his book, was then democratic and at the same time acquired a non-modern character. It appears that Moore (1966) intended to suggest in relation to modernity, democracy, and hostility. Moore (1966) contends that India was a democracy for the reason that its post-colonial leaders preferred not to modernize, abstaining from the hostility that was prevalent all over the place (overt or structural), and leaving conventional depression in the countryside in position. The message here is that the moment the ruling class is frail and no player is equipped and geared up to employ aggression or any form of hostility to interrupt the connections of the established society, modern society will not materialize. Therefore, India continued to be a pre-modern democratic system. It similarly appeared that Moore (1996) perceived this as the cause why a state as great and possibly affluent as India, was not a powerful state in the manner that the others. It also appears that Moore (1966) perceived democracy as an innate or inherent structure of rule for pre-modern nations. Without doubt, dictatorship was a regime kind which such nations similarly accepted. India in this context was special.   Conclusion   Moore’s analysis of the three diverse social origins of contemporary states arrives at the conclusion that in those states where the ruling class was the motivation of the revolution, democratic institutions materialized and brought about a democratic capitalist culture. Nonetheless, in those states were the rebellions originated from the peasant, or the top level, the democratic institutions did not came out and brought about fascist state-capitalist cultures. Moore’s far-reaching work of incorporating research and connecting historical occasions and the social alterations, lord, peasant and bourgeois connection to the result of dictatorship and democracy is discerning. He discussed a profusion of material to explicate the sections of the puzzle. It appears that the work could be a large resource for any state that wants a democratic administration and strapping, sustaining society. Similarly, the passage of the nations presented in the study is useful for those who would want to believe that democracy is a phase that all modernizing nations will ultimately attain. Moreover, it is imperative to understand that the procedure of developing into a democratic society cannot be determined by a single democratic administration to a non-democratic administration. As the book claims, a number of elements and complimentary situations are essential for a democracy to take place and most significantly to keep up.   In India, one may distinguish an outline that justifies the feeble desire in the direction of modernization. In that state, to a certain extent there has been neither a capitalist uprising from above or below, nor a peasant one pointing to the emergence of communism. Similarly, the desire en route for modernization has been very frail. Alternatively, at any rate a number of the historical preconditions of Western democracy did install an appearance. A parliamentary regime has subsisted for some time that is significantly more than simple pretense. For the reason that the desire toward modernization has been puniest in India, this case stands out to some degree from any theoretical format that it appears likely to build for other countries. Concurrently, it functions as a constructive monitoring upon such generalizations. It is particularly helpful in attempting to appreciate peasant revolutions, given that the level of rural depression in India where there has been no peasant revolution is basically similar in China where rebellion and revolution have been crucial in both pre-modern and recent periods. (Clapham, 1985)   References Barrington Moore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston, Beacon.  Clapham, C. (1995) Third World Politics: An Introduction. Routledge. Wisconsin Handelman, H. (2002) The challenge of Third World Development. Prentice-Hall.  Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy

Introduction One of the most influential works in the recent period includes the work of Moore (1966), Social Origins of Dictatorship and...

The Role of the grown-up population in ensuring that children have democratic environment

I.                   Introduction   Nowadays, the acceptable characteristic of a “good” state is fundamentally one that resembles a democratic state. Democracy is the political command that, to some extent, listen to the demands of everyone within the state. By means of democracy the other key political purposes are best acquired. (Tessler, p231) Given that democracy presents people a legitimate decision principle. Democracy is an enduring shared decision-making procedure. In this process the citizens entrusts some essential choices to their representatives, and representatives hand over other judgments to officials in the executive and in the judicial branches of the government. What is seen in the previous centuries is the individuals conquering gradually political power and making democracy an actuality, even though what is present is essentially imperfect. The work of Marian Wright Edelman (2004), a clear and present inclination to what is considered participatory democracy is espoused. This study intends to look into the discussions of Edelman (2004) regarding the role of the “grown-up” population in ensuring that the children have democratic environment. Moreover, the study will also be taking into consideration the arguments in favor of the participatory models of democracy. Along with the work of Edelman (2004), the discussions on this paper will also include other academic articles regarding democracy and the democratic system.   II.                Marian Wright Edelman’s View on Democracy   The work of Edelman (2004) entitled “Standing Up For Children” is a testament to what the populations should engage in such that people in general may have the luxury of experiencing the benefits of democracy. As Edelman (2004) indicated in her work, “we have the responsibility to ensure all children what we now provide to some children.” This shows the contention of her work indicating that the benefits acquired from a democratic state is not limited to a privileged few.   Essentially, the work Edelman (2004) calls for all sectors of society to deal with the problems in which the younger part of society endures. Through the implementation democratic principles and procedures, Edelman (2004) indicated that this could be done. In essence, the view of Edelman strongly suggests an implementation of a participatory democracy. A means of implementing democratic principles in a general sense, where every part of society does their part such that everyone takes pleasure with the liberties and freedoms advanced by the democratic state.        III.              Participatory Model as an Ideal Model of Democracy   Drawing from the traditional definition of democracy, the participatory model does fit flawlessly. However, early politicians and political scholars like James Madison indicated that the implementation of a participatory democracy is the same as implementing a mob rule. (Lobel, 1987) Though it did came from a person who drafted the US constriction that view on participatory democracy is over a century old. Times have changes and ideologies regarding the democratic state have changed significantly through the years. At this point, what Madison have perceived over a century ago may not essentially equate with the arguments to which proponents of participatory democracy present.   In the modern sense, the context participatory democracy provides is more related to the decentralization of power of the state. In essence, the proponents of participatory democracy still hold true to the traditional definition of direct involvement of the people to the state. (Hauptmann, 2001, 397) Nonetheless, in this sense the state still holds the power and authority, an additional variable of input from the public may be present. In the long run, the implementation of such a model of democracy would resolve any estrangement of the state from the public. In addition, the state and the public could thus work hand in hand to deal with the existing problems that they encounter.         The issues on what model of democracy to implement falls into countries that is in transition from one political system to another. An example is the study of Lobel (1987) where the Nicaraguan government adopted the participative model of democracy. However, in states like this one the social structure has to be considerably compatible with the change of system.   IV.            Participatory vs. Pluralist Democracy   The participatory model of democracy is one of the numerous models of democracy that has emerged thought the years. The closest model that could dispel the claims of participatory democracy is the pluralist form of democracy. Unlike participatory democracy, the pluralist model rest in the assumption that human beings are essentially selfish and greedy. This rests in contract with the claim of the participatory model of people being not capable of being apathetic. It also takes into consideration the context of power as an entity that is basically transferred to the clutches of a group of privileged few. An example of this view is represented in the study of Moore (1966) in the transition of India to a democratic state. Moore (1966) indicated the role of the bourgeois in the process. In states in which the ruling class is sufficiently strong to considerably abate the economic arrangements of feudalism, democracy is able to materialize. Nevertheless, it is not the direct accomplishments of the ruling class that is important in Moore’s (1966) claims in his work. The power of the ruling class has a definitive impact upon the manner in which upper classes from the countryside and the peasantry deal with politics with the ascent of modernity.       V.               Conclusion   Looking at the discussions above, one could surmise that the basic thrust to which participatory model is to provide the public with the voice to the public. The discussions regarding participatory democracy entail that the concept has changed throughout the years, dispelling the traditional claim of it being equivalent to a mob rule. On the contrary, the emergence of the pluralist model clearly tries to chase away the principles of the participatory model.   In consulting the work of Edelman (2004), one sees the possibility of these two models to complement each other. With the pluralistic view of power, the ruling class could always assist the state in the delivery of services and the needs the public. Moreover, the bourgeois could similarly be among the individuals in the forefront of direct participation of the people. In the long run, the determination on fulfilling the “responsibilities to ensure all children” will be ultimately carried out. Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

The Role of the grown-up population in ensuring that children have democratic environment

I. Introduction Nowadays, the acceptable characteristic of a “good” state is fundamentally one that resembles a d...

A Scene of Philippines Democracy

Media and Democratization The Philippine Case   Speech               Only recently, last August 21, when the Philippines celebrated the 25th death anniversary of the most promising statesman considered instrumental in the reborn of Philippines democratic society and the modern hero of the Filipino people was the man significant in the revival of Philippines democracy against the authoritarian rule of the late . His unexpected death delivered his people to freedom from oppression, abuse, and injustice by the Marcos dictatorial government. The act of revolution was an archetype of what democracy is all about. The democratization process involves a great collective power of people to bring down the undemocratic attitude of a leader. Due to  undemocratic attitude and his political interest to monopolize the state’s power, he was overthrown by his people by virtue of a collective power to revolt against him without using harmful instruments. His Machiavellian principles that centered on monopolizing and concentrating the power within his space branded him as autocratic and power hungry.             Significant to this historical event is the role of media in uplifting the democratic ideals of the Philippine society. In this paper I will deliver the important role of media and its relation to democratization using a national case which I choose to be the Philippines in its struggle to bring back the democratic power to the people instead of letting this power concentrated to a specific leader. Moreover, I will use two large historical events about Filipinos political struggle and on how media play a vital role to preserve and maintain the long-time democratic system. The power of people supplemented by the media power simultaneously assumed the role as a catalyst for change. Here, and  known as will be under my analysis.             The historical significance of  and  was brought about by at least three important elements which serve as the main actors in the success of toppling down the authoritarian regime of and corruption of  namely: people, history, and media People             Tracing the lines of Philippines’ complex and complicated history, Filipinos first taste of democracy was during the time of American occupation. They were given the rights to establish its own republic, formulate its own laws and constitution and given the freedom to do whatever they wanted for the common good. In any democratic society, any leaders appointed to administer the country are under the process of suffrage. People are given the rights to vote and select whom they think are capable leaders. Ideologically speaking, this exercise means a voluntary rendition of one’s political power to a chosen capable leader. Logically, this proposition inferred that the locus of power is found in the hands of the electorate and not to the state’s leaders. In this context, people power revolutions were premised on this basic democratic principles and ideals. The Edsa shrine serves to be the locus of public domain wherein Filipinos came to rescue the sinking democratic system. The influx of people along Edsa was a symbol of their vigilance on the depressing political turmoil and the awareness to democracy’s inherent trait on power. Despite the differences in beliefs and political principles uphold by various political entities, various civic and religious leaders of the society, and people in all walks of life, yet they still come together, crossing each other’s arms serving as a shield against the military armor tanks and high caliber of armaments carried by military. This mass movement leads us to think about people’s struggle to preserve democracy and putting an end to the oppression and injustices done by the era. Filipinos no longer desire to a trauma on injustices, persecutions, and oppressions from the powerful leaders.  This movement happened in the now known as , which stands as the meeting point of public domain during the first and second people revolution. People’s collective power was concentrated in that historical landmark that launched an official declaration of bloodless war against  in 1985 and  in 2001. It was the place in which people expressed their suppressed political sentiments about the turmoil and persecutions done by and  corrupt practices. History             Although the people power movement is unique in a way that it disproves the theoretical construct of revolution which political theorists and philosophers believed as violent and radical. Yet, the people power revolution when tracing its historical background; we can infer that it was in fact a positive result of a conglomeration of different understanding, values and principles about revolution of the previous revolutionary history that culminates in adhering to a non-violent, bloodless and peaceful revolution.               When we dig deeper into the cognizance of the cultural and historical consciousness of their society, we can see the development of Filipino’s consciousness towards revolution. The historical civilization of the Filipino people is at large a struggle for independence and freedom. More of its historical accounts tell us about the constant revolution and revolutionary struggles of Filipinos to gain a distinct and unique identity from the identity which the Spanish people insisted to inculcate and integrate. While the culture of Filipinos is somehow distorted due to the various influences injected by various colonizers, we could even still warrant them of their distinct culture which made them successful in toppling down an undeserved leader.             As what I had said in the previous discussion, prior to a non-violent revolution, the Philippines with its inhabitants were constantly struggling for a revolutionary change of their system. From the friars monopoly of education, religion, lands, production and goods, to Japanese occupation and later on by the Americans, with the long-running oligarchic system espoused by the Spaniards, the brutality of Japanese and the Americans’ hidden political agenda, Filipinos did not disturbed to constantly wage a revolution. They have , the great reformist, a national hero, , the counterpart of , a propagandist, revolutionist and reactionary publican,, the brain of the , a champion constitutionalist, , a revolutionary turned republican first president of the Philippines, and, the modern hero and allot more.             There revolutions sparked complex effects to the consciousness of every Filipinos and that became elemental in the newly established kind of revolution which other countries tried to pattern after.              In any democratic society there is some kind of differences on how to practice democratic system.   underlined the notion of ‘multiple democracies’ visible in various democratic countries. He further argues, “In reality, all democracies are historical and contextualized. They may differ in terms of institutional arrangement, election mechanisms, political culture and other traits (2001: 2).” This argument is properly situated in the context of the Philippine’s democratic style of governance. Although, Americans are the one who introduced the kind of leadership and political system, it does not mean that Philippines have the likeness of democracy with the United States. It is rather a kind of democracy that is culturally and historically Filipino. Clearly, underlines these differences by bringing in the light the comparison of American democracy with other countries like Asia. Unlike the American democracy which emphasizes on the individual rights, political antagonism, self-interest and uncommon judicial review system, other countries like Philippines, Korea, Taiwan, India, Nigeria and etc. “there political outlook puts greater value on the harmony between the citizen and the state, one-party leadership, the priority of public interest over citizen’s rights and the power of the state to make laws it deems necessary (2001:2).” Fair enough, the Philippines have that kind of democracy in which puts greater interest on the development and progress of the public instead of an individual. Yet, Philippine democracy although, people enjoy the benefits from it, is dysfunctional and somehow fragile.  believed that Philippines democracy remains problematic and fragile. Fraud, violence, and patronage still pervade Philippine elections rendering the quality of democratic representation dubious in many instances. In addition, “state institutions remain weak, unaccountable and resistant to reform (             But, despite of this weaknesses and criticisms against the Philippines democratic system, it can be argued that this dysfunctional system became an instrument for a grand reform on the political state during the  regime and administration that halted the long political turmoil.             Under this line of thought, media in any democratic society assume a significant role. Media is considered to be a watchdog of the state as it assumes the responsibility of being a 4th estate in any democratic society. This function is premised on the idea that people should have an access to information, in order to form intelligible opinions on various societal issues. In the Philippine context, under the totalitarian regime of Marcos, media that time had a restricted space and freedom in exercising their role to report necessary public issues. Hence, there was limited media coverage.  regime suppressed the freedom of the press by disallowing and paralyzing the media operations of anti-media outfits. The media institutions which actively operating that time was those of the government owned media outfits. One classical example on this was during the time of  burial wherein millions of Filipinos gathered to sympathize with his family. Yet, print, radio and television media was under control by the cronies and in order to prevent people’s uprising they control the publication of texts and pictures that would force people to revolt. There is no aerial shot estimating how many people attended the burial, it should not be put on headlines, and no crowd estimate. This is in order to avoid mass movement coming from the grassroots and powerful few.             However, even though media had a limited democratic space at that time, the government did not totally control the media operations. Significant to the resistance of media actors was the historical people power revolution in which through a religious radio station,  people got a wide access to the political upheavals happening in the metropolitan Manila. Through the late  at that time, with his vocal political antagonism against Marcos bravely called the people through  to gather in Edsa for a prayer rally that eventually turned out to be a political mass movement that lasted for three days.             On the other hand, in the people power 2, media had a more democratic space and freedom in reportage and investigation. In fact, the historical impeachment case of was freely accessible to media and fed it live for the public viewing. The televised court hearing held in the senate was indeed fostered another bloodless revolution that led to downfall. This happened during the time when majority of the senators acted as judges of the court voted not to disclose the content of the 12th envelope. Again, due to media mileage, people were no longer unaware of the political turmoil happening in Manila unlike in the 1986 revolution. The re-gathering of people in the same historical landmark in Edsa was not much difficult compared in the time of  wherein the access on media became rough and difficult. During the time of media serve as political watchdog informing people of the current political events. From the beginning of the predictable scenario in the time of , people became dependent on the information disseminated by the media institutions, in fact, there had been issues of political maneuvering of the government to some media outfits just to make sure that will remain in the position by making segues to set aside the political issues, yet, it did not prosper. To end this report, I would like to stress some important issues concerning the role of media in the democratization process. Media believed to be an institution as well as instruments in which it primarily serves to provide information significant to the development of a democratic society and preserving the democratic ideals. Yet, media also position itself as institution that wields its inherent power in maintaining the status quo and social order of a democratic society. Furthermore, while media practitioners struggle to remain objective in delivering information and messages to the public, for many, this has become optional. While media practitioners are still perceived to be partial and subjective disseminators of information, the public also preserves their image as social critics who denounce social evils, expose political trickery and defender of freedom. While Tri-media remain the main tool for disseminating information to influence the public, television is the medium that people see as their main source of information and, thus, is the most influential. This crucial role is important in the democratization process of the society in which it assumes a role of being a 4th estate responsible for sourcing out information that is credible, objective, and fair.         Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

A Scene of Philippines Democracy

Media and Democratization The Philippine Case Speech Only recently, last August 21, when the Philippines celebrated th...

Democracy is a goverment in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly

DEMOCRACY   As defined by , democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation, usually involving periodically held free elections. In essence, it is a government by the people.   1)     Democracy is the protection and promotion of the universal values of the rule of the law, and the development is based on the sure foundation of respect for human dignity. 2)     All members of the society have equal access to power and all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties when a nation is under a democratic ruling. 3)     Democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. 4)     Direct democracy or  pure democracy,  comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. 5)     Democratic governance is the single most important government that can eradicate poverty and promote development throughout the world. Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Democracy is a goverment in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly

DEMOCRACY As defined by , democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly o...

Certain topic thesis arguement

DEMOCRACY   As defined by  Dictionary, democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation, usually involving periodically held free elections. In essence, it is a government by the people.   1)     Democracy is the protection and promotion of the universal values of the rule of the law, and the development is based on the sure foundation of respect for human dignity. 2)     All members of the society have equal access to power and all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties when a nation is under a democratic ruling. 3)     Democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. 4)     Direct democracy or  pure democracy,  comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. 5)     Democratic governance is the single most important government that can eradicate poverty and promote development throughout the world. Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Certain topic thesis arguement

DEMOCRACY As defined by Dictionary, democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them...

Democracy Essay Instructions

Democracy Essay Instructions

HARVARD REFERENCING, BIBLIOGRAPHY AND CITATION Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

‘DEMOCRACY IS MAJORITY RULE

DEMOCRACY IS MAJORITY RULE: An Analysis of the Misconception Table of Contents   I.      Introduction.. 3 II.     Democracy: A definition.. 4 A.    Majority rule. 5 B.    Minority Rights. 6 C.    Rule of Law.. 7 III.        The Democratic Government.. 8 A.    Democracy as a Procedure: Forming the Majority. 8 B.    Democracy as a Result: Preventing Forced Conformity. 9 IV.       Tyranny of the Majority: an analysis.. 10 V.    Conclusion.. 11 VI.       References.. 12   I.        Introduction Possibly one of the most influential and seemingly prevailing principles in the modern world is the concept of democracy. The term has been thrown nowadays unabashedly using different contexts and different connotations. The most common use of the term democracy is as an equivalent of freedom and the rule of the people. However, there is a lingering misconception of the term as a rule of the people is that democracy runs only with the desires of the majority. This paper will be going against that misconception and provide arguments maintaining that democracy is far greater than being the rule of the majority. To do this, the discussion is divided into three parts. The first part will be discussing the definition of democracy and the roots of the misconception. Moreover, specific elements that constitute a genuine democracy will also be discussed aside from the majority rule like minority rights and rule of law. The second part of the paper will be covering the norms held in a democratic government. Particularly, discussions pertaining to the formation of a majority and the aversion of forced conformity will be taken into consideration. The third part will be looking on the issue of majority rule used as a tool for unscrupulous manoeuvrings and other undemocratic activities. More importantly, this part will provide the analysis on the arguments provided in the prior discussions. Subsequent to the three parts, a conclusion will be made regarding the observations on the topic. Academic journals and scholarly articles will be used to support the arguments and observations given in this study.   II.      Democracy: A definition As implied in the introduction of this paper, the term democracy has been used incessantly in headlines and legislation all over the world. It is often used as a term to incarnate a panacea for all the social wrongs in a particular state. As stated in the work of (1996, 3), there has been a lot of things that could connote the term. Sometimes it is confused with “liberalism or constitutionalism or social equality or national independence; it may be taken to mean majority rule or minority rights.” In addition to this myriad of subtexts, the meaning of the term frequently depends on the circumstances surrounding a particular locale or state. In the process of seeking an exact definition for this term, academics and theorists have encountered specific kinds of democracy. However, this paper will not be taking these subcategories of democracy into detail. Instead, the discussion will stick on Joseph Schumpeter’s uncomplicated definition of democracy. Basically, he defined the term as a procedure and as a result. The former implies the majority rule as shown in popular elections while the latter represents the state of society presented freedom and equality. (2001,) The following discussions will present the said context by presenting the specific factors that bring about the realisation of democracy. Specifically, discussions on the definition of majority rule, minority rights, and the rule of law will be provided.     A.    Majority rule During the growth of knowledge and philosophy in the Greek period, the term democracy is equated as the perverse counterpart of polity. This claim is indicated by no less than Aristotle who defined democracy as the rule of many. This possibly is the earliest account of the term being used to equate to the majority rule. However, as the social sciences developed in the succeeding centuries, the modern view of democracy and the majority rule has transformed as well. In this area, two of the most cited authors have been J   work focused on the state of republican representative democracy that was implemented in the US in mid part of the 1890s. However, the most notable claims of Tocqueville are represented by his concern regarding the pitfalls of democracy. ( 2003) These issues include the vulnerability of a democratic society to succumb to soft despotism and the perpetual possibility of tyranny of the majority taking place. ( 2003, ) Basically, soft despotism represents the illusion of the public that they are indeed in a democratic society whereas reality manifest that they don’t have actual control on the government. On the other hand, tyranny of the majority shows a situation where the interests of the majority is placed at a higher esteem and fundamentally overrides the interests of the minority.  In essence,  indicates that the presence of democracy inevitably establishes these pitfalls, specifically tyranny of the majority. This claim is opposed by J. In his work ,  indicates that this pitfall could be addressed on the individual level with special reference on freedom and autonomy from the state. (2002,) Basically, Mills is acclaimed on his statement indicating that every individual is entitled to do anything they desire provided that it does not “harm” the interests of any other individual. (1999) Essentially, this claim somewhat provided the premise of the succeeding part: rights of the minority. B.     Minority Rights The concept of minority rights has been infused in the contemporary definition of democracy. Numerous studies on nation building and democratic theory has used the term incessantly and discussed its importance in maintaining a democratic state. Normally, this concept is tied closely to the concept of majority rule. Normally, the minorities are classified as those belonging to the marginalised part of the population. Most of the time, these distinctions are characterised in terms of, but not limited to, ethnicity and race.   In the study of  (2000, 183), he categorised the typologies of ethnocultural minorities. These include the national minorities, immigrants, and metics. The national minorities are those that constitute a complete and functioning society in a “historic homeland.”  This means that these minorities are “incorporated” into a much larger state. The immigrants are those that constitute a group of individuals who have decided to “leave their original homeland” and situate themselves into a new society. Metics, on the other hand, are quite similar to immigrants. However, metics are distinguished from the said group by the legality of their entry into a particular territory. Normally, these include tourists or students who have overstayed in a country regardless of an expired visa. In any case, this principle of democracy counteracts the majority rule. This means that this ensures that equality is instilled in any legislation or act of the state. It adheres to a utilitarian sense, maintaining the desire to attend to the welfare of the public devoid of harming the welfare of other individuals.    C.    Rule of Law Another factor that constitutes a democratic society is the presence of the rule of law. This democratic principle indicates that no individual, regardless of whether he/she is a part of the minority or the majority, is above the law. In a democratic society, the law is expressed and ratified as a representation of the will of the people. Such representation is embodied in constitutions of states. It is an established norm that all that is included in this collection of legislation adds up to the legal framework of a nation.   It is this principle that establishes the checks and balance in a state. For the creation of the laws, the legislative part of the government presides over this process. In the case of UK, it is the Parliament that creates the statutes that supports the common laws of the land. On the other hand, the task of interpreting of these laws is given to the judiciary. They determine if the laws ratified are constitutional or not. In the case of UK, the judiciary determines as to whether the laws effectively reflect what has been established in legal precedents and case laws regarding a particular legal issue. All in all, the presence of the democratic principle of the rule of law ensures that every part of the government is doing its job without compromising the interest of the public. In the same regard, it is the intent of the rule of law is to protect the public from abuse from those in powerful and influential positions in the government.   III.    The Democratic Government The following discussions will be providing arguments and observations pertaining to the definition of democracy as a procedure and as a result and relate it with the initial claim that democracy is majority rule. Basically, the said discussions will cover the context of popular elections and the principles of liberty and equality.    A.    Democracy as a Procedure: Forming the Majority Possibly one of the most obvious proof of democracy at work is the practice of the individual right of suffrage of the public. Popular elections vary from state to state in terms of procedures. In the case of UK, the Westminster system of government allows the public to choose their representatives in the parliament. (1996) The majority rule is often seen in the process of choosing Members of Parliaments (MP). Basically, the use of the plurality voting system makes this a possibility for countries like UK. In this case, candidates for MP take on the first past the post principle which essentially constitute the winner having the most number of votes from the voting public. (1999, )   Consequently, it is these chosen representatives in the UK parliament that eventually chooses the head of government, the prime minister. It is important to point out that UK has been characterised to have strong party politics that considerably affect the outcome of the decision making processes in the said region. (1996,) To begin with, the chosen Prime Minister will essentially be coming from the party that constitute the majority of the parliament. It is thus expected that the consequent laws and legislations that are to be ratified by a particular parliament would lean towards the principles adhered to by the dominant party. Would this amount to what Aristotle characterised as the perverse from of polity? Some would attest that it is, but one must realise that it is the public that has chosen their representatives and essentially trusted these individuals and their judgements. In a way, the actions of the parliament reflect the desires of the public. B.     Democracy as a Result: Preventing Forced Conformity The work of  (1996, 152) maintained that the United Kingdom constitute three pillars of its liberty. These include the Parliament, Courts, and Public Opinion. All these three contribute to the prevention of forced conformity and abuse of the public. Essentially, the first two pillars have been discussed in the earlier parts of this paper. In the context of public opinion, UK’s culture of liberty provides a strong voice among the citizen of UK regarding certain laws, legislation, and government policies. The people themselves could serve as the barometer on whether their liberties are encroached or whether their welfare is being compromised. At a certain extent, this manifests another form of majority rule. Nevertheless, this constitutes a constructive representation that brings about what has been described as democracy as a result. It must also be pointed out that public opinion is merely a singular pillar of the liberties experienced in UK. It has to take on the help of the parliament and courts to ensure that these liberties are secure.   IV.   Tyranny of the Majority: an analysis The discussions above have indicated the theories that constitute the essence of democracy. However, the claim indicating that democracy is rule of the majority manifest an actual flaw of the principle. This is presented clearly in the work of . With his utilitarian leanings, his discussions coined the term “tyranny of the majority” as an element far worse than the tyranny posed by the state. Basically, as shown in his essay , he mentioned that the minority could not be protected from the prevailing opinions and feelings in a particular society. Essentially, this emphasises why majority rule is considered perverse at times, mostly because the decision of the majority is not always the right decision.   What’s more alarming is that studies have indicated that this display of tyranny does happen. To boot, this happen in sensitive areas in the government, for instance (2006, ) mentioned in his work that even in judicial reviews, tyranny of the majority is possible. However, he also emphasised that it is something that the public should not worry about since its repeatability is not “endemic.” This is similarly true in the case of the parliamentary setting especially in the ratification of legislation proposed by a particular party. As stated earlier, the desires of the majority does not often equate to what is right, just or appropriate. In the case of UK parliament, articles have been noted claiming the inability of the said government branch to police itself from this scenario. (1996, ) In this regard, elements like the rights of the minority and the rule of law is taken into account. For instance, the principle of checks and balance allows the state to guard itself from any irregularities that could take place in its watch. V.     Conclusion Democracy is far greater than being equated to mere majority rule. This is what the discussions above have indicated. Majority rule alone could not, and will not, entirely define the general principles of democracy. Though it is a significant part of it, basing running of a state to such an attribute which is utterly vulnerable for perverse intentions will essentially defeat the purpose of democracy. Ultimately, if that actually takes place, democracy is diminished to how Aristotle initially defined the term, mob rule. This is basically what the paper is trying to say with the help of numerous articles that has been cited above. As indicated in the introduction of this paper, the term democracy has been thrown around more frequently nowadays. Hopefully, those who do will keep in mind the actual meaning of the term, along with the principles and its innate values that has made it the preferred social structure of the modern world. In the same regard, it is at this point that democratic states all over the world should continue protecting the values of democracy in their respective realms. The institutions, the legal framework, and the ideals that constitute what is collectively recognised as democracy should constantly be upheld. To this end, this initiative should also veer away from any situation that would compromise the desires of the majority, the individual and minority rights, and the rule of law. Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

‘DEMOCRACY IS MAJORITY RULE

DEMOCRACY IS MAJORITY RULE: An Analysis of the Misconception Table of Contents I. Introduction .. 3 II. Democracy:...

WHAT DOES BARRINGTON MOORE MEAN BY THE ” PRICE OF PEACEFUL CHANGE ” IN INDIA’S CASE? USE ALL CLASS MATERIALS ( SEE INSTRUCTIONS )

Introduction Price of peaceful exchange One of the most influential works in the recent period includes the work of  (1966), Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. The major claim in the said book is the political structure acquired by modernizing nations. These include liberal democracy, fascist dictatorship, and communist dictatorship among others. The ascent of these is linked to the ground-breaking trails beyond traditional structures of society. This includes the bourgeois revolutions, revolutions from the top level, and peasant uprising correspondingly. In its prudent structural account of the path that quite a few major states took to modernity, it has sturdily added to current discussions on arrangement and organization in the present understanding of global democratization procedures. In this context, the discussion on the effects of a peaceful transition on the context of modern societies is important to taker into consideration. The case of India, in the account of  (1966), presented the condition in which the said country changed the form of its government with a peaceful process. (p483) Although the inclusion of this context of India seems odd with regards to the other components of ’s work, the discussion with regards to the said country presents an insight on which change is achieved thought peaceful means. ( 1966, p471) In comparison with other discussions in the book, like that of the American Civil War, the case of India showed a different perspective on the emergence of change given different conditions. Moreover, this provided a third world view of what appears to be the tackling of change in the modern setting. (, 2002, p59)   Regardless of the fact that the contention enclosed in the work of  (1966) is more compound, it is probably most renowned for one specific suggestion, “No bourgeois, no democracy” (p418). This suggests the importance of the ruling class in society. With the influence of Marx, granted a discussion that reveals the role of the bourgeois in the proliferation of democracy. It summarizes a far more sizeable suggestion relating to the appearance of democracy. This contention, prearranged consistent with logic of associated variation, is that a superior level of strength acquired by the ruling class abates feudal economic arrangements, exposing a pathway for modernity to acquire a democratic political shape. Where the power of the ruling class is inadequate to determinedly abate feudalism, a subsequent trail to modernity is achievable by means of a revolution from above that bring about a fascist dictatorship. Where the ruling class is so frail as to prevent this middle trail, modernity is still achievable through peasant revolution that gives way to communist dictatorship.  (p425) Given these premises by  (1966), the condition of India will be taken into consideration.   The Price of Peaceful Change   In states in which the ruling class is sufficiently strong to considerably abate the economic arrangements of feudalism, democracy is able to materialize. Nevertheless, it is not the direct accomplishments of the ruling class that is important in ’s (1966) claims in his work. The power of the ruling class has a definitive impact upon the manner in which upper classes from the countryside and the peasantry deal with politics with the ascent of modernity. (p417) Where the ruling class is sufficiently strong, commercial agriculture grows to be controlled by the market, and the upper classes are capable of acclimatizing itself to up-and-coming arrangements of the market economy and competitive politics. The cost of agricultural labor similarly becomes controlled by the market, considering both commercial accomplishment and command of rural populations.     The discussion of the Indian case goes toward an interesting insertion in said book. The country, as the  (1966) was writing his book, was then democratic and at the same time acquired a non-modern character. (p430) It appears that  (1966) intended to suggest in relation to modernity, democracy, and hostility.  (1966) contends that India was a democracy for the reason that its post-colonial leaders preferred not to modernize, abstaining from the hostility that was prevalent all over the place (overt or structural), and leaving conventional depression in the countryside in position. (p299) The message here is that the moment the ruling class is frail and no player is equipped and geared up to employ aggression or any form of hostility to interrupt the connections of the established society, modern society will not materialize. Therefore, India continued to be a pre-modern democratic system. It similarly appeared that (1996) perceived this as the cause why a state as great and possibly affluent as India, was not a powerful state in the manner that the others. (p201, 326) It also appears that  (1966) perceived democracy as an innate or inherent structure of rule for pre-modern nations. (p316) Without doubt, dictatorship was a regime kind which such nations similarly accepted. India in this context was special.   Conclusion   The discussions above revealed the stand of with respect to India’s consequences on the context of peaceful change. Moreover, social origins have similarly provided a greater impact on the arguments in his work. ’s analysis of the three diverse social origins of contemporary states arrives at the conclusion that in those states where the ruling class was the motivation of the revolution, democratic institutions materialized and brought about a democratic capitalist culture. Nonetheless, in those states were the rebellions originated from the peasant, or the top level, the democratic institutions did not came out and brought about fascist state-capitalist cultures. ’s far-reaching work of incorporating research and connecting historical occasions and the social alterations, lord, peasant and bourgeois connection to the result of dictatorship and democracy is discerning. He discussed a profusion of material to explicate the sections of the puzzle. It appears that the work could be a large resource for any state that wants a democratic administration and strapping, sustaining society. Similarly, the passage of the nations presented in the study is useful for those who would want to believe that democracy is a phase that all modernizing nations will ultimately attain. In this work, the importance of democracy is highlighted not only in the context that it is a preferred condition among states, it is also revealed in the discussions that democracy is an inevitability among states. Moreover, it is imperative to understand that the procedure of developing into a democratic society cannot be determined by a single democratic administration to a non-democratic administration. As the book claims, a number of elements and complimentary situations are essential for a democracy to take place and most significantly to keep up.   In India, one may distinguish an outline that justifies the feeble desire in the direction of modernization. In that state, to a certain extent there has been neither a capitalist uprising from above or below, nor a peasant one pointing to the emergence of communism. Similarly, the desire en route for modernization has been very frail. Alternatively, at any rate a number of the historical preconditions of Western democracy did install an appearance. A parliamentary regime has subsisted for some time that is significantly more than simple pretense. For the reason that the desire toward modernization has been puniest in India, this case stands out to some degree from any theoretical format that it appears likely to build for other countries. Concurrently, it functions as a constructive monitoring upon such generalizations. It is particularly helpful in attempting to appreciate peasant revolutions, given that the level of rural depression in India where there has been no peasant revolution is basically similar in China where rebellion and revolution have been crucial in both pre-modern and recent periods. (1980, 162)   References Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

WHAT DOES BARRINGTON MOORE MEAN BY THE ” PRICE OF PEACEFUL CHANGE ” IN INDIA’S CASE? USE ALL CLASS MATERIALS ( SEE INSTRUCTIONS )

Introduction Price of peaceful exchange One of the most influential works in the recent period includes the work of (1966), Social Orig...

Lessons from the World War 2

The paper discusses about the lessons learned from the World War 2 that are applicable in overcoming obstacles and challenges. These applications can be political, environmental, social or economic.               According to history, the World War II (WW2) started in 1939 when Adolf Hitler invaded Poland and ended in 1945 with the historical Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing causing the Japanese to surrender to the United States. It is noticeable that the war happened due to resistance to invasion and search for democracy or social equality.  The search for social equality brought about by the WW2 is evident on the attitude of the workers today which led to the formation of workers’ union. Employees and workers nowadays seek to work on democratic companies where they can enjoy benefits and enhance their careers and not on horizontally hierarchical organizational structure where the management is very dominating to its workers. The people have learned from the WW2 how to fight for democracy.               Moreover, the WW2 was actually a war between two allies, the Allied Party and the Axis Party. Both parties were composed of different countries; the Allied party included the United Kingdom, France, Soviet Union, China, the US and others which aim was to help and support each other against the invaders by providing each other military support and weapons while the Axis Power was composed primarily by Germany, Italy and Japan which aim to invade countries in Europe, and in Asia in order to expand their territories.  From this concept, companies today also formed alliances with other companies which is called strategic alliances in order to strengthen both companies involved and to expand its market due to the challenges brought about by globalization. Strategic alliances are also done for a company to utilize other company’s resources. For example, Sony Corporation was aware of its weak sales performance on mobile phones while Ericsson is known for its excellent mobile phones. Sony then formed alliance with Ericsson which is now known as Sony Ericsson, with the combination of Ericsson’s ability to produce good mobile phones and the ability of Sony to produce quality Walkman and video cam, the two companies developed mobile phones with new features which include camera and music player.               Another significance of the concept of alliances is favorable for the economy. Countries today formed regional trade blocs such as the ASEAN, NAFTA, and MERCOSUR. Regional trade blocs are trade agreements between countries to establish a common market or to lift tariffs for a more convenient trade of goods or services between the member countries. These trade blocs, like the alliances during the WW2 aims to protect their members, other countries even provided some privileges to its co-member.   Furthermore, it is written in history that the reason why China joined the Allied Forces was because Japan invaded China during the 1930s to boost its economy by utilizing China’s natural resources (2006). The USA then provided military assistance to China as asked by Chiang Kai-shek, China’s political leader that time, because China then has poor fighting materials.   The lessons learned from situation boosted the idea of offshore outsourcing by companies today. Dell, Intel and others outsourced some of their operations to countries like China, India, the Philippines and others in order to take advantage of the resources in these countries, to address high labor cost and shortage of human resources. The Philippines has abundant of electronics graduates needed by Intel while India is a primary choice of companies like Dell where they can hire several IT skilled employees. Companies outsourced to China basically because of its low labor cost.               During the World War 2, Americans contribution to the Allied forces were limited to war materials and financial support and its military troops were less experienced compared to the troops of Germany and Japan (2006). Because of this, American men including the fathers volunteered to the combat in the war. This cause women to work for their families to support financial needs since the fathers were out in the war. This raised the idea that women can work too which somehow started the working mother trend. Today, even women who have no family yet works as professionals which change the notion of the society that women are for household chores only, which increased the status of women in the society. Another lesson learned from the World War 2 is the concept of teamwork to obtain the desired objectives. In the war, the desired freedom and peace of the Allied Forces will never be achieved if the members do not work as a team. If China fought Japan on its own without its teaming up with the US, China would have been totally invaded by Japan and the rich culture it has today would have been not that intact. This is applied to many organizations today like the United Nations (UN). If not for the teamwork of most of the nations in the world, UN will never be capable of formulating agreements and creating projects such as poverty alleviation, fight for aids campaign and so on. The war also taught people to be cooperative and helpful to the needy. Countries today have the tendency to always help countries in crisis. In the Philippines, US military teaches the Philippine military on how to fight terrorism; in an event of calamity, countries are willing to donate financially like in the Tsunami incidence in Thailand in 2005, and in the recent earthquake in India. After the war, people from every country almost became peace-loving due to the death and poverty caused by war. From the Preamble to the United Nations Charter which stated that “we the peoples of the United Nations determined to save the succeeding generations from scourge of war…” (2006), it is noticeable that people never want to happen another deadly war again.     Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Lessons from the World War 2

The paper discusses about the lessons learned from the World War 2 that are applicable in overcoming obstacles and challenges....

Political Science

Effectively Explaining Democracy through the Participatory Model   Introduction               Contemporary American society constitutes the epitome of democracy so that the role of the United States as leader in the democratization of the rest of the world has increased with the shift of totalitarian and communist governments towards democracy (2006). The Soviet Union comprising the nemesis of the United States during the cold war eventually shifted from its 75 years of communist governance to democracy resulting to the breakdown of the union into different democratic states comprising most of Eastern Europe. South American totalitarian states have also embraced democracy and even African states have hitched in the democratic bandwagon. Most recently, China has also opened its doors to the rest of the world and despite the retention of a semblance of the communist governance the country is experiencing channels for expressing freedoms unheard of during the strict communist rule. Western democracies such as the United States have become leaders in the democratic international arena.             The democratization of the rest of the world has proven that the concept of democracy is not just a western idea but it can also find application or replication in non-western states. In a world characterized by democratic governments and societies across the different regions and industrial spheres, it can be said that democratic institutions may legitimately claim the ability to address the universal human aspirations to achieve freedom and self-governance.                In the context of the dominance of democratic infrastructures, it befits the situation to take one step back and look into the conceptualization or definition of democracy and its manifestations and implications to individual members of society. Defining Democracy               Common conceptions of the enjoyment of democracy is individual pursuit of freedom or the freedom of individuals to achieve their personal objectives such as obtaining a college degree, getting a high-paying job, buying a house and car, paying for the education of the children, saving for retirement, and other cyclical accomplishments of human needs and wants. While the freedom to achieve personal needs and wants comprise an important aspect of democracy from the perspective of individuals, the manifestations of democracy that have significant implications transcends these personal gains. This is because an inevitable requisite to the enjoyment of these personal gains is the participation and contribution of every individual towards the sustenance of the democratic life of the society. Without the participation of individuals in democratic exercises such as elections, open letters to government officials, protests, and community meetings, democracy would not work. The lack of collective or cohesive checks on the part of the people made up of communities and interest sectors would sow abuse or neglect on the part of the government expressed in corruption and the inability to support the development of society. It is only through the individual contributions of citizens that the democratic society can flourish.             Despite the idyllic promises of democracy, it has not been spared from imperfections in the actual practice of its principles due to the frailty of human reasoning. In this context, overcoming these infirmities to achieve the optimum benefits of democracy involves small individual actions, which when considered on the aggregate comprise a large change-influencing force needed in directing and re-directing society towards the maintenance of freedom (2004). Defining Democracy through the Participatory Model               The conceptualization of democracy capturing the social reality that this is built and sustained by the contributions of individual members of society as propounded by  (2004) is encompassed by the participatory model. This model explains democracy in the context of the importance of individual action towards the sustenance of democracy by encompassing and integrating the two important elements of democracy, which are individual freedom and individual participation in democratic exercises ( 2006).             The exercise of individual freedom refers to the freedom of individuals to act in order to provide for their basic needs and even to achieve their wants. Democracy where individual freedoms are exercised envisions a society where every person utilizes available means in order to obtain food, clothing, shelter and other fundamental needs and after achieving all these needs seeks to obtain wants. Every person has the freedom to obtain needs and wants. ( 2006)             Individual participation in democratic exercises pertains to the active role of individual members of society in collective decision-making in order to participate in policy formulation and decision-making on matter directly affecting individuals and the society in general. Through participation, the necessity of having checks is achieved because every citizen can monitor the implementation of policies through the comparison of the programs decided through collective action and the actual programs being implemented by community and government leaders. The existence of checks prevents abuse and neglect by the people in power or the government authorities are prevented resulting to the maintenance of individual freedoms. This is based on the premise that abuse of power due to lack of checks hampers the exercise of individual freedom. (2006)             The participatory model then combines the two elements to derive a comprehensive definition of democracy, a system that respects individual freedoms but obliges individuals to participate in democratic processes in order to maintain their individual freedom through the practices of checks to ensure that freedoms are protected against possible abuse of power by certain sectors and the government ( 2006). According to the participatory model, participation in collective processes comprises a requisite of individual freedom.  (2004) mentions Sukkot as an expression on individual freedom. This Jewish tradition that happens in the first week of October celebrates harvest as a reminder of the four decades that the Israelites wandered through the desert living in temporary shelters called sukkah. The participatory model reminds us that individual Jews only gain the freedom to exercise this tradition if they continuously participate in democratic processes to ensure that non-Jewish groups respect their freedom and not supplant this with their beliefs and practices. (2004) also mentions drawing hope from generations since succeeding generations are expected to contribute to the proliferation and improvement of society. Again, without individual participation to maintain individual freedoms, future generations would not be able to assert change and improve humanity.             The participatory model explains democracy in the context of Sukkot and drawing hope from generations by reminding people of the need to be vigilant in guarding individual freedoms and this is best achieved through participation in collective action such as community and representative based policy formation and decision-making. Collective checks prevent abuse of power and neglect of responsibilities that defeat the exercise of individual freedoms.             Participatory model better explains democracy in the context of the examples of freedoms previously discussed relative to the pluralist model. The pluralist model provides that people are drawn towards the formation of interest groups based on religious, cultural or economic lines. Interests may clash so that there is need to establish a government that operates through the balancing of competing interests. In terms of governance, the pluralist model provides for a decentralized organizational structure that offers interest groups with access to public officials to raise their interests and views. Although the exercise of the Sukkot tradition is in the interest of the Jewish interest group, this is foremost an individual freedom and secondarily a collective tradition. Without the protection of individual freedom, individual Jews cannot come together for collective celebration of the tradition. In the case of drawing hope from generations, again this is a collective interest but it constitutes a universal interest dependent upon the ability of individuals to engage in familial relations in order to sire and hone the future generation as contributors to the betterment of society.   Conclusion             Determining the model that best defines democracy in the context of the social reality of the freedoms of the celebration of Sukkot and the universal practice of drawing hope from generations involves the consideration of the model that best captures these freedoms. The participatory model best encompasses these freedoms by recognizing these as primarily individual freedoms but reminding people that participation in collective exercises is a requisite to the enjoyment of these individual freedoms. The pluralist model is focused on interest groups so that it does not completely explain the dynamics of these individual freedoms.     Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Political Science

Effectively Explaining Democracy through the Participatory Model Introduction Contemporary American society constitutes...