Research Topics: Politics Essays

POLITICS

Final Story: Iraq Stampede Brings Record-High Death Toll   In Baghdad, a suicide bomb panic resulted into a fatal stampede during the commemoration of a holy day for Shiites.  Marching pilgrims were reported crossing a bridge over the Tigris River before the stampede came from the opposing shore.  According to the interview of Xinhua to the Interior Ministry, there were at least 650 deaths and 235 injuries of mostly women and children who either drowned into river or caught in the crash.  Expecting continuous rise in toll, this incident was cited as second deadliest after US-led war on Iraq in March 2003.                Final Story: House Junks to Unseat the President, Protest Lurks   The Philippine House of Representatives ended the 23-hour debate on the alleged election fraud filed against Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.  Exceeding three-times the votes of the opposition, pro-administration lawmakers succeeded to dismiss impeachment complaints against Arroyo.  This was “a grand display of political maturity and resilience”, expressed by the President to the House ruling who also encouraged the time for “the nation to move forward and put politics behind”.  However, following the House decision, a mass protest for “democracy and search for the truth” was led by Former President Corazon Aquino which was a known figure behind the ousting of Former Dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986.  Scheduled to be staged in major places within the capital, a number of protests were expected to fill the streets provoked by the participation of Susan Roces and Senator Panfilo Lacson.  Roces is an entertainment celebrity and the widow of Arroyo’s main presidential rival in the last year’s election, Fernando Poe Jr., while Lacson is another presidential candidate and a high-ranking general.  Over 2,000 additional policemen were deployed in support to the current police force to monitor the rallies.         Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

POLITICS

Final Story: Iraq Stampede Brings Record-High Death Toll In Baghdad, a suicide bomb panic resulted into a fatal stampede during the c...

Thesis Statements on California Gubernatorial Recall Election

“California 		Gubernatorial Recall Election”   		Thesis Statements <li class="MsoNormal"> The 			 			unpopularity of Governor Gray Davis among 			 			Democrats and 			 			Republicans paved to way to his ouster and the rise of a popular 			 			leader in the person of Governor Arnold 			Schwarzenegger who despite his popularity 			cannot unite California </li> <li class="MsoNormal"> The 			 			election recall in California will disrupt political, 			 			economic and 			 			business activities in the entire 			 			state which may lead to 			 			temporary disorder among the citizens. </li> <li class="MsoNormal"> The 			California 			 			Gubernatorial recall election will divide the people of 			 			California prompting economic and 			 			political problems to be left unsolved by the new leadership. 			 </li> <li class="MsoNormal"> 			Despite the popularity of 			 			Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 			across demographic profiles and 			 			party affiliations, his 			 			leadership may not resolve the problems and 			 			challenges that the state of California faces. 			 </li> <li class="MsoNormal"> The 			recall provides a 			 			safety valve for intense grassroots sentiment that Californians 			agree that this instrument of direct 			 			democracy rests upon a simple, Jeffersonian premise: Occasional 			popular 			 			protest, properly vented, can improve the quality of 			 			government. </li> 		    Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Thesis Statements on California Gubernatorial Recall Election

“California Gubernatorial Recall Election” Thesis Statements The unpopularity of Governor Gray Davis among ...

Political Apathy

Liberalism as a political philosophy was an attempt to generate and give legitimacy to the dissolution of traditional feudal society and, in particular, as puts it, to challenge “the powers of ‘despotic monarchies’ and their claim to ‘divine support.’” Developing in tandem with the idea of freemarket economics and nascent capitalism, it sought to carve out a distinct area of social life — civil society — that would be controlled by private, nonpolitical, personal, family, and economic relations independent of state authority or control. Partly a product of the Enlightenment and Reformation, it sought to uphold the values of freedom of choice, reason, and toleration. It gradually “became associated with the doctrine that individuals should be free to pursue their own preferences in religious, economic and political affairs-in fact, in everything that affected daily life.” 1 Yet liberalism from the beginning had a dark and a light side, and a potentially radical edge. Thomas Hobbes, the first important liberal thinker, saw as basic within humans a raw, selfish, acquisitive nature that could descend easily into a “war of all against all” if they foolishly remained in this “state of nature.” For Hobbes, the individual and not the group, estate, or caste is the basic social unit. Perhaps reflecting the breakdown of feudal society, and certainly what he saw as the anarchy of the English civil war, Hobbes believed the best way individuals could rationally protect themselves from the Armageddon hidden within their own spirits would be to freely consent to a ruler — a “Leviathan” — to enter into a “social contract” in which they surrender to the sovereign their “natural rights” to pursue their own interests with abandon, who establishes rules and laws of conduct applicable to all. The authority of the ruler, however, comes from the consent of the governed and is vested in no other divine or worldly source. And since all are to be bound by this social contract, it is designed to serve the long-term interests in peace and security of all. The light side of liberalism was developed most forcefully by John Locke. Like Hobbes, Locke also grounded governmental authority in the consent of the governed, based on a social contract between political authority and its subjects. Unlike Hobbes, however, Locke saw a primary threat to liberty from government oppression; and unlike Hobbes, who, in spite of his theory of consent, in effect would transfer sovereignty from the ruled to the ruler, Locke felt the people should remain sovereign. In Locke’s state of nature, people are free and equal, endowed with reason enabling them rationally to pursue their interests. Their natural liberty, however, is tempered by what he calls the “Law of Nature,” basic principles of morality individuals are obliged to follow and have the right to enforce. Principal among natural rights is the right to “property,” defined broadly as “life, liberty and estate” (including the right to dispose of one’s labor as one sees fit), and narrowly as exclusive ownership of land and physical things. Because individual enforcement of natural law often proves inadequate, especially with regard to the regulation of “property,” people enter into a social contract to create first a civil society, and then a state. The purpose of the state is to create the conditions under which people can pursue their private interests in civil society. Should the state act tyrannically, people have a right, indeed an obligation, to rebel. As Held suggests, In relation to Hobbes’s ideas, this was a most significant and radical view. For it helped inaugurate one of the most central tenets of modern European liberalism; that is, that the state exists to safeguard the rights and liberties of citizens who are ultimately the best judges of their own interests; and that accordingly the state must be restricted in scope and constrained in practice in order to ensure the maximum possible freedom of every citizen. 2 Where Hobbes sought to protect what liberty people could hope for in a very imperfect world through domination by a sovereign, Locke aimed to protect liberty by instituting, and then carefully restricting, the scope of government. It was Locke who more decisively influenced European political thought and American political development. Liberalism also had a radical edge. For in its attack on the privileges and constraints of traditional authority, it substituted the individual for the group, caste, or estate as the basic unit of social intercourse. Coupled with Protestant ideas that individuals unmediated by the church were capable of understanding God’s word, grounded in early Christian ideas about the equality of the rich and poor in the eyes of God, liberalism held within it an incipient notion of radical political equality. If all men had natural rights, all men deserved to have those rights protected by and from the state, and therefore, each man deserved to have his interests represented in the state. The Uses of Apathy Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century democratic theory, they conclude, should be revised to accommodate twentieth-century facts, and this could be successfully accomplished without compromising democratic ideals. Indeed, these facts of modern democratic life are actually conducive to the survival of democracy, for how, they ask, could “a mass democracy work if all the people were deeply involved in politics?” The apathetic segment of America probably has helped to hold the system together and cushioned the shock of disagreement, adjustment and change. But that is not to say that we can stand apathy without limit. 5 Having established, first, that modern democratic society could not stand the shock of widespread participation, and second, that we are now to look at the system as a whole for the balance of democratic attributes formerly sought by classical theory in the individual, Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee feel free to revise “classical” theories of democracy. From a democratic point of view, political apathy is functional and, indeed, essential to the functioning of a modern democratic polity. Their explanation of nonparticipation is tantamount to their explication of apathy, represented as follows: X (a person) is apathetic with respect to Y (politics) if he or she is content with and/or uninterested in present political decisions or arrangements. X freely chooses not to vote or participate in electoral activity. 6 While this explanation of nonparticipation and the peculiar function it assigns the concept of apathy are gravely flawed, they do have one important virtue. Unlike those radical critics of American democracy who would explain away all nonparticipation as political alienation (and those who would explain away most participation simply as false consciousness), Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee’s use of the concept maintains an essential link of responsibility between the nonparticipant and the act of not participating. Integral to the way apathy is used in ordinary language as well as within democratic discourse is precisely this function of helping locate responsibility for nonparticipation. By their account, freely choosing not to participate, apathetics are responsible for their own withdrawal. 7 The problems begin in their reordering of the moral point of the term within their broader revision of democratic theory. If the notion that in- formed and involved people governing themselves, whether directly or through representatives, is basic to democracy, then claiming that political apathy or nonparticipation is a desirable attribute of modern democracy constitutes a redrawing of democratic theory with radical implications. Political apathy, a term that formerly served to warn about the malfunctioning of a democratic polity, is reconstituted as a virtue. Under what circumstances is it legitimate to revise the critical grammar of any political language? Is their revision justified? The connection they draw between responsibility and action is especially important within democratic discourse, where there is a prima facie case in favor of participation. All things being equal, widespread nonparticipation and political apathy are frowned upon, and the burden is on those who would insist that a polity with these characteristics is democratic to explain these facts in a way that justifies this claim. Berelson and his co-authors understand this, attempt to address it, and, I believe, fail. Should one succeed in establishing that nonparticipation results from personal apathy, one can exclude as causes a disenfranchising political, educational, economic, or social system. One is then freer to argue that a nonparticipatory polity with extensive apathy is nevertheless a democratic polity. Instead, they seem to assume that America is a modern, industrialized, mass democracy par excellence, therefore its practices, however much they may deviate from the norms of “classical democratic theory,” become the new standards for democracy. Viewed through the lens of “realistic theory,” if these practices, including those that generate apathy, promote the stability of this democratic system, it follows they should be positively appraised and included in the repertoire of practices we consider democratic. Their argument is captured well by Carole Pateman: high levels of participation and interest are required from a minority of citizens only and, moreover, the apathy and disinterest of the majority play a valuable role in maintaining the stability of the system as a whole. Thus we arrive at the argument that the amount of participation that actually obtains is just about the amount that is required for a stable system of democracy. 8 If the norms with which we judge contemporary affairs are drawn from the outer appearance of dominant practices, how are we to know if anything is amiss within or beneath these practices? By disposing of the critical dimension that had warned of threats to a particular political discourse’s essential ideals, we at best lose some ability to analyze these practices from the point of view of that ideal, and at worst, through the back door, redefine that ideal in ways antithetical to a core element within its original intent: the voters least admirable when measured against individual requirements contribute most when measured against the aggregate requirement for -79- flexibility. . . . They may be the least partisan or interested voters, but they perform a valuable function for the entire system. 9 Trapped by their view that the American polity is the functional equivalent of modern democracy itself, Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee in effect ask us to use the concept of apathy in the following peculiar way when explaining nonparticipation: “Giovanna didn’t vote in the referendum because she is apathetic about the environment. Thank God for people like her, for without them our democracy couldn’t stand the disruption of people making policy choices for themselves. If there were more people like her, our democracy would run even more smoothly.” Many arguments have been leveled at this thinking, particularly during the so-called pluralist-antipluralist debates of the 1960s and 1970s. Two are directly pertinent here. First, Berelson and his co-authors assume that participation has no intrinsic importance or developmental merit, and dismiss the value attached to participation historically by a diverse array of democratic theorists. Second, assuming that nonparticipation is motivated by indifference or contentment, in the above example they would see  political apathy as adversely affecting neither her wants nor her capacities to understand and defend what is in her interest. Yet it is certainly reasonable to wonder whether what appears on the surface as her political apathy, once analyzed, instead turns out to be her rejection of a system that does not meet her needs. Over time, her political alienation might indeed take on the outward appearance of indifference and apathy. But by misdescribing rejection of political activity as apathy motivated by contentment, Berelson and his colleagues may also miss the deeper significance of what turns out to be, in fact, her principled political act, perversely changing it into a silent vote of approval. Conceptual deficiencies further promote these problems. While there is a connection between apathy and contentment — a content person over time may become lulled into apathy — in order to remain content, one also has a need to maintain a sharply delineated conceptual distance between them. Consider that a politically content person may become lulled into apathy after deciding that withdrawing from political activity will not seriously jeopardize his or her future wants or needs, and thereby future contentment. But apathy indicates a letting down of the guard on these judgments, a weakening of will and discipline regarding them, making it more likely that contentment may be jeopardized in the future. Moreover, many of the criteria they suggest are hallmarks of modern democracy amount to little more than balancing opposing tendencies — involvement and indifference, for example — and certainly could be construed as qualities necessary for almost any successful political system. Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee also write as if apathy can only be used to describe a grouping of disparate individuals all of whom coincidentally share the characteristic of apathy — that is, they are not really a group at all. Undoubtedly one sense of apathy relates to individual responsibility, but another begins to shift responsibility away from the person. It is clear what we mean when we say, “John is apathetic about the environment,” but what if we say, “The poor are apathetic about the environment,” or more generally talk about “the apathetic masses”? In the latter, the signal from language is that there may be something about being poor or in a mass that promotes this posture, shifting responsibility from the individual. While we might decide that the responsibility still lies with the group in question, we tacitly recognize that other factors, beyond the character of an individual, may play a role. Used exclusively with regard to individuals, the term loses a constituent critical component. To the degree we use the term in vague reference to “politics” and not to specific issues or problem areas, we may also weaken its precision and critical vantage. To the extent apathy is issue specific, we then want to know why this issue motivates persons in this way, and hold open the possibility there also may exist a hidden range of other issues that would motivate interest and active participation. What is it about a class of people, poor people in Brooklyn, New York, and what is it about a specific issue constellation, perhaps the rain forests in Brazil, that might promote their apathy with reference to it?  and his co-authors also confuse the grammar of motivation (apathy) with that of action (nonparticipation). Although they suggest that participants are often indifferent, they virtually equate nonparticipation with apathy. Yet it is perfectly possible that  refusal to vote in a referendum is based not in apathy but deep commitment. In the end, the account of Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee has a clear ideological ring to it, one with the perverse political consequence of blaming our most disadvantaged citizens for their own disenfranchisement. Evidence has existed for some time that reveals a close connection between nonparticipation in political and organizational activity and low socioeconomic status, especially low educational levels. Indeed, in their 1944 work, The People’s Choice, written with Hazel Gaudet, Lazarsfeld and Berelson report, “People on the lower SES levels are less likely to belong to any organizations than people on high . . . levels.” 10 In Voting, the authors report that Nonvoting is related to persistent social conditions having little to do with the candidates or the issues of the moment. For example, because Democrats are on the average less well educated and less involved with dominant groups in the society than Republicans, they vote less on election day. 11 Yet, the focus on apathy and indifference only obscures the importance of facts like these. For unless they are willing to suggest that our more disadvantaged citizens are pressured into these postures, dropping their view that the primary cause of nonparticipation is individual apathy, they are asking us to make the counterintuitive assumption that people are content to withdraw from a political system that patently harms their interests. And even were they to focus more seriously on social conditions and the psychological attitudes they produce, they would still not really be giving a satisfactory explanation of nonvoting, because in the institutional and political context of virtually all European countries, socioeconomic class is not nearly as closely tied with nonvoting as it is here. 12 Should the disenfranchised read and take in explanations of their behavior focused on individual apathy, they will tend to blame themselves for their nonparticipation, and fail to analyze precisely those relations of political power that inhibit their own participation. The Rationality of Apathy  tendency to reduce human interests to a calculus of costs and benefits is developed into an art form in the work of rational choice theory. If the goal of theory is to enhance our ability to predict political behavior, and this is the goal advocates of positivist social science postulate, then one needs a powerful model of human motivation to ground theory, with narrowly confined assumptions and clearly stipulated variables capable of spinning off powerful generalizations. This formidable challenge is taken up by rational choice. The act of making a “rational choice, ” presumed to be the way persons interact in the political world, is one in which the individual most efficiently gains value, preference, or taste goals from a given set of political choices by analyzing relative benefits and costs. Driven by individually rooted motivation to enhance or protect self-interested wants, in rational choice theory the autonomous egoistic individual is the fundamental macro-unit of analysis, while individual values, preferences, tastes, and the like are the micro-units. The choice is purely instrumental to keeping costs to a minimum and benefits to a maximum — it has no value outside of this function. Even when groups are considered, it is clear that the logic of their collective action, their seeking of collective goods, and indeed their ability to form at all, is based on a collection of individual calculations of self-interest. In basic form with regard to political participation, a rational choice (R) is equal to the probability that participating makes a difference (P), multiplied by the benefit the actor receives (B) should the activity be successful, minus the cost of participating (Q: R = PB — C. 1 When Anthony Downs introduced the idea of the rational voter in his 1957 landmark, An Economic Theory of Democracy, he immediately presented the theory with an important internal problem. Since the probability that the act of voting in any election by any individual has virtually no chance to affect the outcome of an election, why would anyone vote? Similarly, when  in his 1965 pathbreaking The Logic of Collective Action tried to understand how groups form, he uncovered the “free- Consider their passivity in this light. Rissarro, has achieved much of what he considers the “good things” in life, yet after his superficial declarations of satisfaction, the doubt shows. He views himself on the receiving end of the good things, a passive agent who is not the cause even of his own success: “I was just at the right place at the right time.” Far from showing modesty, this comment reveals that he feels he doesn’t belong in the world he now inhabits, an outsider intruding on the middle class, illegitimate in his new situation and undeserving of respect. He explains his achievements to himself as luck. To explain them as deserved success would be to respect himself, but he is not confident of his dignity. Yet he wants respect and so he continues to judge himself and others in a social situation that will serve to reconfirm his doubt. Rissarro may be viewed from the outside simply as acquiescent, or analyzed from the academy as a one-dimensional man. Indeed, he views himself as passive. He may well be politically apathetic. What is distinctive, however, is that it is his active struggle for identity and respect that is crucial in turning the blame for his discontents, not on the role society, elites, class structure, or ideologies may play in limiting his happiness, but on himself. conclude, The examples we have so far given of assertion of individual ability in families point to three general results of such assertion: the search for respect is thwarted; the individual feels personally responsible for the failure; the whole attempt accustoms him to think that to have individual respect you must have social inequality. 2 Acceptance of inequality limits the promise of democratic politics. And the binds that promote political apathy also restrict the freedom of democratic citizens. Passive acquiescence in this undemocratic fate is all the more insidious because it is made possible, and becomes more formidable, through the active participation of the passive person. Social critics, however, often overlook the power and responsibility this person has to free himself or herself from limits that are imposed on the self through the mediation of social structure by the self. Women and Power  argues that women in our culture are encouraged to believe that they “do not need power” and “are most comfortable using our powers if we believe we are using them in the service of others.” 3 Therefore, women actually do possess a kind of power, one that empowers others through nurturing and caretaking roles. The location of power of this sort is often in the psychological, emotional, or intellectual realm rather than the political or economic. It is a complicated exercise: Because power in these roles is limited, and because they are roles that serve to empower others, women must be sensitive to changes in the relationship as the powers of the others grow in proportion to the success of the women’s work. Miller writes, “Acting under those general beliefs, and typically not making any of this explicit, women have been effective in many ways.” 4 Women, therefore, are powerful in ways undervalued by dominant definitions of what power should mean, uncomfortable themselves in seeing these as forms of power, and “do fear admitting that they want or need power.” 5 Like Sennett and Cobb’s study of working men, Miller’s study reveals how women’s active interpretive roles reshape dominant views of power but do so in a way that binds them to depoliticized roles. For both the men and the women, there is one fundamental common bind. Society seems to teach that each individual is worthy of dignity and respect, that at the level of private emotions “all persons are created equal.” In the real world, however, class, gender, and racial stratification promotes a type of emotional stratification. You are less likely to believe in your ability and self-worth not only because of role expectations drawn for you, but because of your own experiences of shaming, self-doubt, and self-disrespect as you try to advance your position based on the public philosophy of equal opportunity, the emotional damage hidden within meritocracy for all who fail (and probably many who succeed), and the specific emotional damage likely for those consigned to certain positions. Yet the hope remains that the person implicated in her or his own powerlessness has more power and responsibility to become freer than is often presumed by social critics. There is a quiet ambiguity in Miller’s work that, when listened to carefully, reveals a lot about power. Miller seems to suggest that the experiences of women have provided them with powers unsullied by male-dominated conceptions of power as control. These nurturing powers are pristine, selfless, generous, unique. Yet the women she describes seem to want something more. Is it simply for these powers to be recognized? Or is it that they want what should be coming to them — that is, they want their share of power, as defined by men, power as control? Can women both be selfless and want more for themselves? Miller’s ambiguity is creative. Clearly, her sympathies lie with the idea that women have a unique perspective on power and should assert it as they come to recognize its worth. But one can’t help think that the assertive aspect trades heavily on what she seems to consider to be power as usually conceived by men, and, fortunately, she does not extinguish this tension in favor of her somewhat idealized version of the way women view power Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Political Apathy

Liberalism as a political philosophy was an attempt to generate and give legitimacy to the dissolution of traditional feudal society and,...

What are the basic values underlying the New Right thought how did these values influence social welfare legislation in the 1980s and 1990s

The New Right Introduction For the past years, every nation is aiming to develop the ideas about the Utopia. Impossible as it may seem for not everyone can be convinced to join an alliance that only promotes good, breathe good, and lives with nothing but all good. The fairness and equality are emphasized there. But, in the introduction of the new right, the ideas about the politics are changed affecting the other branches like the economy and the social welfare. The values the hides in the idea of New Right should be clear for the better understanding. The New Right In several countries, the idea of new right is a description for various policies and groups that are right-wing or the politics conservative in conviction or temperament. The term is also applied to describe the emergence of centre right parties in Eastern Europe following the collapse of communism (2007). The rise of the New Right in a certain nation is considered in positioning its strength of the new party organizations. This includes the crafting of coherent new ideologies, developing a tight relationship among parties and responding to the process of Europeanization. The changing nature of public policy created an impact to the governance and on the state.  The perceived crisis can significantly led to the development of the New Right. Governance is illuminated as the combination of new right reforms, aimed at rolling back the state, with globalization, internalization, managerial skills in public sector, and privatization. The accountability of the administration of public funds; an independent public auditor, responsible to a representative legislature; respect for law and human rights; and a pluralistic institutional structure and a free press ( 2002). Government’s role in the New Right should be to ‘steer not row’ where they can steer or regulate the newly impost regulation. A key challenge for government is to enable their connection and networks in accordance to see out new forms of cooperation. The establishment of the centralized political power and the formation of nationalizes identities; to the proliferation of rights of political participation of urban forms of life, and of formal schooling to the secularization of values and norms. There are many critical issues on new right as it was regarded as both unjustifiable and economically damaging because at some point, it stimulated the significant divisions as it implies a level of welfare provision and redistribution. Analysis The New Right in the eyes of the political theorists’ brand of liberal theory captured the position in the political discourse. It is where the language of individual choice and the market reached the political issues that range from education to healthcare and from the environmental protection to urban redevelopment. The idea of the new right is promoting the concept of liberty where there are non-coercion and non-interference aspects (1999). According to the New Right, the state action must be disciplined the principles intertwined in the given liberty. The principle of freedom on welfare provision starts in every individual who mastered the knowledge they had. The necessary knowledge or information can be reflected in the flow of market and its mechanism. The market, therefore, is a set of social practices which serves the functions of social integration and technological progress. With regards to the liberty, the conception of new right is not grounded in an abstract theory of rights. Liberty is the state in which a man is not bound in any or such control of the environment or circumstances caused by another person or coercion. This idea of coercion is prevents the individual stepping into an advantage of his own specific knowledge to justify his own plans. The environment avoids greater evil, and forced to serve each other.   The new right emphasizes the protection of the market with the equality and realization of real freedom. The political values of the new right with the liberty depend on the economic independence from the state – a status that was secured by most individuals through paid employment. Returning to the political view of the new right, it keeps the focus in leading the entire organization in participation. The promise of fostering education and development are the responded consequences of the market in political ways as the individuals are allowed to circumvent the power oft eh market and the new right. Conclusion The idea of New Right is implemented in the European lands. This is not an implication of freedom from the other but the freedom to exercise every nation’s with regards to their programs and independence. The country leaders are positioning their countries into what extent the possible challenges appeared and deliver a right answer.   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

What are the basic values underlying the New Right thought how did these values influence social welfare legislation in the 1980s and 1990s

The New Right Introduction For the past years, every nation is aiming to develop the ideas about the Utopia. Impossible as it may seem ...

Citizenship and Identity

Citizenship and Identity                   This paper summarizes the concepts of identity and citizenship, and why the active involvement of young people in political and social issues is currently a key policy issue.               Citizenship is the state in which a person is given membership to a certain political state. The person is then given rights, duties, and certain privileges. On the other hand, the concept of identity is rather vague. .One can either think of identity as individual, pertaining to things that suggest that the person is a singular individual, such as identification cards. One may also think of identity in a social aspect. By social, I am pertaining to how people present themselves to other people. It is, as one can say, a discourse between presentation of one and the understanding of the other. This is called social identity.   Unbelievably though, a recent poll revealed that less than a quarter percent of 15-24 year old students think they understand how the Parliament works and what it is for, only 9 percent had any idea what the local council was for, and only 35 percent of the surveyed youths knew anything about their rights.                 Though this survey reveals much, in other parts of the world, young people in the current decades are participating more actively on Social and Political issues. In the past decade, young people were viewed as not having any inclination towards social or political issues, but their involvement in rallies and gatherings concerning social issues suggest otherwise. “Concerns about young people’s political ignorance, apathy and alienation in the 1980s led to a number of developments aimed at promoting political literacy and participation.”  (1999). Research shows that the reason why the youth in the early 1990’s was uninterested in politics is that they had either lacked the understanding on politics or politicians did little to represent the youth better. Less effort was made back then to reach out to the youth and try to understand their needs. But the  Education sector is now currently promoting youth involvement in political issues that in turn promote the development of social awareness, youth empowerment , and the understanding of events that are happening in the world which may shape and reshape the path of our future and our own identity. Increasingly the youth participation in rallies ,political gatherings and other socially involved demonstrations continue to shock and change the views of the masses about the regarding the activism of the younger generation of today.               With recent demonstrations around the world, everyone is baffled: What do the youth really want? We really cannot point out what they really want for there are lots of issues the youth may be really wanting to tackle. Issues may range from poverty, to sexism, racism, hunger, war, even sexually transmitted diseases. These issues help dismiss the old stereotypes of the insensitive youth and give us a better view and opinion of the younger generation.               Activism inside schools are now encouraged since it yearns to develop the youth social awareness, political involvement, and moral uprightness of the younger generation. The type of activism encouraged is not that of demonstrations or rallies. Freedom of speech inside schools are now more freely encouraged. Students are more free to have a say on political, social, and moral issues. Further encouragement on students to exercise their rights can ultimately lead to youth empowerment and less fear on tackling issues that cloud our everyday life.               Student activism still plays a major role In youth empowerment and making better the state of the world. Being active socially and politically can help shed light on issues which the government have little knowledge of. Letting the youth express themselves at a very young age helps make sure that the future of the world is in good hands. Entrusting the youth with the knowledge shared by he elder generation and letting them make their own opinions and judgments are sure to help them understand what they are currently facing. Educating them early about social issues surrounding the people of the world today are sure to help cultivate positive ideology and inclination towards the betterment of the world’s current social situation. Entrusting these things to them gives them the sense of well-being. Also, giving them access to social issues in the community can give to them a sense of self, a sense of identity, a sense of being part of something great, and that also, this something great needs their help. It gives them something they can identify with, thus, giving them a great sense of bond to the community. And giving them the responsibility of participating in community affairs, no matter how small the part, will help them feel, encouraged, and thus motivating them to help the community. Along the way, they cultivate the expertise and proficiency on a given aspect. These will be of great help to the future generations since they have been enlightened on these tasks early on.               Even in the United Nations(UN) Human Rights Program Homepage of Ecuador, there is a fragment in the collective rights of teenagers that states: “…To guarantee the enforcement of the rights of young people, to respect their freedom of thought as objectors of conscience, as well as their freedoms of assembly, speech, belief, and sexual inclination, so they can become responsible social subjects in all developmental public and private development areas.” Even here we can see that the government is clearly making an effort to give to young people the freedom of involving themselves in social and political issues governing our society.               It is truly vital for the continuation of the betterment of modern society that it would promote and solidify laws and policies regarding youth empowerment and involvement. Policies such as the one drafted by the UN for Ecuador, is a start for the movement of youth empowerment. By doing this, it is, in a way, assuring the future of the society for they are leaving it in the hands of people whom they are sure that would be able to take care of the society.         Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Citizenship and Identity

Citizenship and Identity This paper summarizes the concepts of identity and citizenship, and why the active involvem...

Realism in international relations essay

Realism in international relations Realism had existed many years ago which assumes concern for fact, the rejection of impractical and visionary as for instance, realist ideas were important in Europe because many people were looking for idealistic approach to perceiving concepts and their environment, and realism offered just that. Realism was strong because it disallowed the presentation or articulation of any peer influence of religion, and in fact rejected religion. By adopting only things that are tangible and concrete, realists unfortunately abandoned the images of hope and love in their work, because concepts are too abstract.  Realism heavily influenced modern Europe because it allowed individuals to remove the influence of abstracts from their lives and look more realistically at their future and their purpose. This inward look compounded with humanitarianism to create a mindset among Europeans that the individual was valuable. Realism in international relations deal with what is called as ‘political realism’ which refers to a school of international relations that prioritizes national interest and security, rather than ideals, social reconstructions, or ethics. This term is often synonymous with power politics. Critique on the theories of realism will be present in this research as there can be assumptions on the following that, international system is anarchic as no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions and states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity. Thus, certain relations between states are determined by their comparative level of power derived primarily from their military and economic capabilities. Furthermore, realists believe that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive as such Hobbesian perspective views human nature as selfish and conflictual unless given appropriate conditions under which to cooperate, contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international relations and states are inherently aggressive and obsessed with security, territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing powers. The impact of realism in society accounts for democratic theory that advocate realism as not applicable to democratic states’ relations with each another, as their studies claim that such states do not go to war with one another. However, Realists and proponents of schools have critiqued both this claim and the studies which appear to support it, claiming that its definitions of war and democracy must be tweaked in order to achieve desired results within the rule of law where final authority is divided between sub-units and centre. Unlike unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split between at territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act independently of the others in some area. Citizens have political obligations to two authorities. The allocation of authority between the sub-unit and centre may vary of powers regarding defense and foreign policy which have international roles. Realism focuses on state security and power as realists such as E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau argued that states are self-interested, power-seeking rational actors, who seek to maximize their security and chances of survival. Any cooperation between states is explained as functional in order to maximize each individual state’s security, any act of war must be based around self interest, rather than idealism and that World War II serves as the vindication of the theory of realism as for example, Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes as proponents of realism and works have supported realist doctrine. Take this statement, advocates assume current international system is characterized by growing interdependence of mutual responsibility and dependency on others to the  growing globalization, particularly with international economic interaction. The role of international institution and widespread acceptance of number of operating principles in the international system, reinforces ideas that relations are characterized by interdependence. In addition, art may be said to have had many realistic aspects such as of   (1699-1779) anticipate many of the concerns of 19th Century Realists, one can find similar detailed renderings of everyday objects even on the walls of 1st-century Pompeii. Realism is recurrent theme in art which becomes a coherent movement only after 1850 and even then it struggles against the overwhelming popularity of Romanticism.  Another, Gustave Courbet set forth  program of realistic painting as a self-conscious alternative to the dominant Romantic style, building on earlier work by the painters of the Barbizon School which had attempted to reproduce landscapes and village life as directly and accurately as possible. Indeed. realism has never displaced the popular taste for Romantic art as any number of hotel-room paintings, paperback book covers and calendars give evidence.       Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Realism in international relations essay

Realism in international relations Realism had existed many years ago which assumes concern for fact, the rejection of impractical and ...

Should Everyone Involve in Politics?

Should Everyone Involve in Politics?                 The world of politics is a dangerous place to live in. That is why many   people stay away from the political arena as much as possible to avoid being   stuck in crossfire of opposing forces. However, there are still citizens who are   seemingly contented with their private lives but chose to meddle in complicated   issues of politics.               Recently, another high-profile political bid has colored the political world.   Singer Wyclef Jean filed his candidacy for president in the earthquake-ravaged   Haiti. The struggling Haitians particularly the youth has taken seriously his   political plans, but experts say that this is an indication of bankrupt mindset of   voters. The country has a known history of endless political turmoil and   corruption. Moreover, the Haitian-born singer was criticized for the inadequacy of   his preparation obvious in his vague platform and unwillingness to visit tent   camps. By the way, Jean was disqualified by the election officials due to the   challenge of required previous five years of residency in the country.               It would be an endless argument if an individual would stay apolitical or   not. However, there are several important reasons why someone should at least   be updated on what’s happening on political world.               It is important to note that getting involved in politics is not only about   running for office, but is it more about learning the system of government and its   policies. It is essential for a person to understand enough the system of   government because it will affect the life of citizens, if not on immediate basis but   on the near future. Those politicians holding the powerful positions make the   critical decisions that will definitely make a difference.               Young people should be involved in politics as early as they can   understand the importance of being politically motivated. These things are not   the basic lessons that anyone can learn inside the four corners of classroom.   Being politically motivated is a necessary part of opinion making. Teaching the   youth of forming their own opinions on important social issues can lead them on   being a better citizen caring for their mother country. At an early age, people   should learn to build their own philosophies in life that will be their guidelines in   taking the path through growing up. But yes, adolescent years is the time for the   teens to discover the joy of life, particularly enjoying pop culture and mingling   with peers. But, they should be reminded that life is inevitably connected with   ideology. Whatever we do, even falling in love is a political act.               By the later years, their early political educational discussions could result   to joining campaign efforts. Being politically motivated is not only confined on the   world of government, it encompasses a wide array of exposures such as social,   environmental, or cultural. Organizations are built to reach an extended network   of constituency. Involvement with a group fighting a significant cause will not only   make a big difference on the individual but on society at large.               Moreover, teaching to vote is a very important part of involving in politics.   Casting your ballot is the simplest way of getting your voice heard. Taking a   stand on the candidate you believe will make your country progress is the most   important act of meddling in politics.               Getting involved in politics will give people a better view of the problems   faced by your country and its people. As the old saying, if you can’t see the   problem, you are part of the problem. Taking a blind eye and a deaf ear on the   social problems is probably the worst crime an individual can do to his mother   country.               Involving in politics does not necessarily mean running for public office or   campaigning for a candidate, it is learning the system of government and being   exposed to the sleight of hand of masquerading officials so you can’t be tricked   upon. People should involve in politics, and let them choose a good cause they   are willing to fight for.                         References: How to Get Young Teens Involved in Politics at an Early Age, March 2010, http://www.associatedcontent.com   Teal, Alicia, How young people can get involved in politics, http://www.helium.com Carpenter, Jennifer, Why You Should Get Involved in Local Politics, http://ezinearticles.com       Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Should Everyone Involve in Politics?

Should Everyone Involve in Politics? The world of politics is a dangerous place to live in. That is why many people...

The Catilinarian Conspiracy: Sallust and Cicero’s Portrayal of Catiline

The Catilinarian Conspiracy: Sallust and Cicero’s Portrayal of Catiline   Prominent People in the Catilinarian Conspiracy Catiline             Lucius Catiline was a dissolute patrician and senator gifted with good looks, intelligence, boundless energy, and tremendous personal magnetism. Disaffected with republican government and determined to replace it with a monarchy, Catiline formed a secret society to prepare for a revolution. Many of Rome political leaders, notable among these were Crassus (Pompey’s bitter rival) and Ceasar were aware of and sympathetic with Catiline’s designs (Bonta 2004). Crassus             Crassus was one of the most influential politicians of his time. Crassus was jealous of Pompey. In order to avoid being overshadowed by Pompey upon his arrival, Crassus attempted to build his his political power during Pompey’s absence in a series of intrigues. Crassus supported Cataline in the consular elections. After the defeat of Cataline in the consular elections, Crassus continued his intrigues. In an attempt to hinder Pompey’s triumphant return to Rome, Crassus tried to get control of all available land, knowing that Pompey on his return would need land for his veterans; thus he would be in a strong bargaining position. Cicero intercepted this scheme, leading Crassus to take no further action (Scullard 1963).              Crassus was supported by Ceasar in all his attempts at power. Crassus was believed to be one of Catiline’s influential allies. Ceasar             Ceasar was more friendly to Pompey than Crassus was, but he may have found in Crassus a useful steppingstone to advancement. When Crassus’ schemes to achieve power failed, Ceasar came more into the open. As aedile in ^% he had staged magnificent Games, with the financial help of Crassus, and in the next year, when acting as chairman of the quaestio de sicariis, managed to secure the ultimate acquittal of Catiline. In 63, because of Crassus’ money, Ceasar was elected Pontifex Maximus (Scullard 1963).               Both Crassus and Ceasar were hinted by Cicero to be the secret powers behind Catiline. Both these strong allies were rumored to be behind Catiline in concocting the Catilinian Conspiracy, but they had long ago severed any connection. They did not want a revolution and had even provided Cicero with some evidence of Catiline’s plans.   Other Prominent People Involved in the Conspiracy Manlius             Manlius, a centurion of considerable military experience, led the little army composed of Sylla’s veteran soldiers. Senators             Catiline’s conspiracy was joined by several senators of profligate lives and desperate fortunes. These senators included: <ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="circle"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Publius Cornelius Lentulus</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Caius Cethegus</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Publius Autronius</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Lucius Cassius Longinus</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Marcus Porcius Lecca</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Publius Sylla</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Servilius Sylla</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Quintus Curius</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Lucius Vargunteius</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Quintus Annius</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Lucius Bestia</li> </ul>               These men resolved that a general insurrection should be raised throughout all Italy; that Catiline should put himself at the head of the troops in Etruria; that Rome should be set on fire in many places at once; and that a general massacre should be made of all the Senate, and of all their enemies, of whom none were to be spared but the sons of Pompey, who were to be kept as hostages, and as a check upon their father, who was in command in the East. Lentulus was to be president of their councils, Cassius was to manage the firing of the city, and Cethegus the massacre.   Was Catiline a Desperate Man?             Before the Catilinian Conspiracy, Catheline sought power by normal and legitimate means but his second defeat against Cicero made him desperate.  Catiline became a renegade and a desperate patrician senator. He belonged to a house that was impoverished.             Cicero learned of Catiline’s intentions of murdering him and his other competitors for consulship. When Catiline’s plans failed he became desperate. His only hope was an uprising which was supported by Sulla’s veteran soldiers and other senators.               It was after his second defeat that Catine became desperate. According to Taylor and McClurg (1916) after Catline’s second defeat at the polls did he cast the die, when nothing remained to him but a renunciation of all hopes of the consulship and retirement to private life.   Cicero’s Role in The Suppression of the Conspiracy             Cicero played the single most important role in the suppression of Catiline’s Conspiracy. He was the one who unmasked and uprooted the deadly conspiracy which aimed at the destruction of the state and the death of many.   Sallust’s Portrayal of Catiline             Catiline for Sallust is simply the embodiment of the corrupted aristocrat, the type of the aristocracy in the process of dissolution.             Sallust introduced Catiline as a man of noble birth, and of eminent mental and personal endowments; but of a vicious and depraved disposition. His delight, from his youth, had been civil commotions, bloodshed, robbery, and sedition; and in such scenes he had spent his early years. His constitution could endure hunger, want of sleep, and cold, to a degree surpassing belief. His mind was daring, subtle, and versatile, capable of pretending or dissembling whatever he wished. He was covetous of other men’s property, and prodigal of his own. He had abundance of eloquence, though but little wisdom. His insatiable ambition was always pursuing objects extravagant, romantic and unattainable.             Sallust agreed that Catiline was corrupt and ambitious and that he was a criminal and a threat to the state. However, his portrait of Catiline went deeper than that. He saw Catiline, as an embodiment of the condition of the state and government during his time. For him, the dissipation and corruption of the impoverished aristocrat Catiline were matched by the social and political disorder of the times. Though Catiline was introduced as an utterly corrupt reprobate whose guilt in never in question, Sallust occasionally allowed a certain nobility to emerge. Sallust wished to take the debate beyond the personal iniquity of Catiline to examine the weakness in the state that allowed such a rebellion to arise and grow (Mellor 1999).               Concordia Ordinum             Concordia Ordinum, also known as ‘harmony of the orders’ refers to the union of opposing parties, particularly the senate and the knights. It was an alliance of interest and sentiment to combat the forces of dissolution represented by the army-commanders and their political agents.   Sallust’s Description of Sempronia             Sallust characterized Sempronia as a political adventuress. Sempronia was described by Sallust as not only alert and elegant but a manager of intrigue, active and audacious (Syme 1986, p. 26). Sallust’s portrait of Sempronia, who lent her mansion for meeting of conspirators described her as bold and shameless, with nothing to deter her from crime. Not only brains and resolution, Sempronia had wit and charm, with all the accomplishments of a polished education (Syme, 1986, pp. 198-199).             Sallust presented a detailed report on Sempronia. According to Sallust, Cataline won the support of women who had financed their expensive lisfestyles by prostitution, but had fallen into debt when age restricted their activities. Catiline calculated through them he could win the support of their slaves, set fire to the city, and win over or kill their husbands. These women included Sempronia – the only whom Sallust named. Well born, well favored, well read, well versed in the courtesan’s craft, she knew nothing of modesty or chastity. Under the pressure of extravagance she had committed wrongful acts of masculine audacity; she had broken her word, repudiated her debts, been party to murder. Yet she did not lack talent: she wrote poetry, told jokes, used language which was modest, tender or wanton, and displayed much with and charm (Bauman 1992).   Cicero’s Description of Catiline             For Cicero, Cateline is a perennial enemy. Cicero endeavored to show both Cateline was a public enemy.  Cicero represented Catiline as a strange mixture of virtues and vices. Catiline was shown to be attractive, and dangerously effective, but alo repellent to those who have the maturity to see through him (Sharock and Ash 2002).               In conclusion, both Cicero and Sallust viewed Catiline as a dangerous man, who surrounded himself with evil personages and corrupted youth. He was described by both as a criminal and an enemy of the people. However, both acknowledged that Catiline was a very talented and intelligent man, who possessed the qualities of an excellent general. Cicero’s description of Catiline was colored by his desire to protect the state and the citizens. He therefore endeavored to emphasize the evil qualities of Catiline. Sallust on the other hand, looked at Cataline as an embodiment of the condition of the state, a picture of the political life during his time. He looks both at the bad and the good sides of Catiline and emphasized on the problems of the State during his time.       References Bauman, R A 1992, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome, Routledge, London.   Bonta, S 2004, ‘Cicero, Catiline, and Conspiracy: Vying for Control, Lucius Catiline Conspired to Become Rome’s Monarch, While Cicero Worked to Expose and Thwart His Plans and Keep Rome’s Republic Alive’, The New American, vol. 20, no. 25, pp. 35+.   Mellor, R 1999, The Roman Historians, Routledge, London.   Sculland, H H 1963, From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68, University Paperbacks, London.   Sharrock, A and Ash, E 2002, Fifty Key Classical Authors, Routledge, London.   Syme, R 1986, The Augustan Aristocracy, Clarendon Press, Oxford.   Taylor, H 1916, Cicero: A Sketch of His Life and Works, A. C. McClurg, Chicago. Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

The Catilinarian Conspiracy: Sallust and Cicero’s Portrayal of Catiline

The Catilinarian Conspiracy: Sallust and Cicero’s Portrayal of Catiline Prominent People in the Catilinarian Conspiracy Catiline ...