Category: Democracy

Introduction:

Interracial democracy, the vision of a society where individuals from different racial and ethnic backgrounds coexist as equals, has been a longstanding aspiration in societies marked by racial divisions and inequalities. This essay critically examines the concept of interracial democracy, exploring both its challenges and the promise it holds for creating a more inclusive and just society.

Body:

Historical Context:

Interracial democracy emerged as a response to the deep-seated racial divisions and injustices that have plagued societies throughout history. It seeks to challenge systemic racism, discrimination, and unequal power dynamics that have marginalized certain racial groups. Understanding the historical context is crucial for analyzing the complexities of interracial democracy and the obstacles it faces.

The Challenge of Deep-Rooted Prejudices:

One of the primary challenges facing interracial democracy is the persistence of deep-rooted prejudices and biases. Generations of racial inequality and social conditioning have created barriers to genuine equality and mutual respect among different racial groups. Overcoming these prejudices requires comprehensive education, introspection, and a collective commitment to dismantling ingrained discriminatory beliefs.

Structural Inequalities and Power Dynamics:

Interracial democracy also confronts structural inequalities and power dynamics that reinforce racial divisions. Systems of oppression, such as institutional racism and economic disparities, perpetuate unequal access to resources, opportunities, and social mobility. Addressing these structural inequalities is essential for achieving genuine interracial democracy, as it requires dismantling oppressive systems and implementing policies that promote equitable distribution of resources and opportunities.

Intersectionality and Inclusivity:

Interracial democracy must also recognize the intersectionality of identities and experiences. Individuals navigate multiple social identities, including race, gender, class, and sexuality, which intersect and shape their experiences of discrimination and privilege. Recognizing and addressing these intersections is crucial for building an inclusive democracy that encompasses the diverse experiences and struggles of all marginalized communities.

Dialogue, Empathy, and Allyship:

Creating an interracial democracy necessitates open and honest dialogue, empathy, and allyship among individuals from different racial backgrounds. Engaging in meaningful conversations, actively listening to marginalized voices, and advocating for the rights and dignity of others are essential steps toward fostering understanding, solidarity, and collective action.

Political Participation and Representation:

Political participation and representation of diverse racial groups are integral to achieving interracial democracy. Ensuring fair electoral processes, removing barriers to voting, and promoting diverse representation in decision-making positions are crucial steps toward inclusive governance. Amplifying the voices and perspectives of marginalized communities can lead to more inclusive policies that address their specific needs and concerns.

Conclusion:

Interracial democracy is a noble ideal that challenges the status quo of racial inequality and discrimination. While it faces significant challenges, including deep-rooted prejudices, structural inequalities, and power dynamics, it also holds immense promise. Achieving interracial democracy requires ongoing efforts to dismantle systemic racism, foster inclusivity, and address intersecting forms of discrimination. It demands collective action, dialogue, and political participation from individuals and institutions alike.

By critically examining the barriers and complexities of interracial democracy, we can develop a deeper understanding of the work that lies ahead. Building a society that embraces diversity, equality, and justice requires a sustained commitment to challenging and transforming the systems and beliefs that perpetuate racial divisions. Only through collective efforts can we create a truly inclusive and equitable society where interracial democracy can thrive.

In this ongoing struggle for racial justice, it is crucial to recognize that the path toward interracial democracy is not linear. It requires continuous self-reflection, growth, and a willingness to confront discomfort and confront the privileges we may hold. By embracing these challenges and working together, we can strive toward a future where racial equality is not just an aspiration, but a reality.

The way social media curves our day-to-day lives is really alarming. Our generation is relying too much on social media platforms, and as a result, we cannot distinguish between what’s right and wrong. Social media has made us Americans too gullible, which in turn makes us an easy target for fake news.

The use of social media in politics, including Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, has drastically changed how Americans view political parties. I would be lying if I said social media has done nothing for democracy. It can certainly help pro-democracy movements at times, but they mostly benefit the far-right authoritarian parties. To make this even clearer, social media is a kind of double-edged sword. Yes, it allows rapid communication among large groups of disparate people. Social media also helps to weaken authoritarian states and strengthen democracies by giving citizen activists new tools for organizing actions. But this openness and lack of accountability of social media also help to spread conspiracy theories, and confidential information and promote inaccurate claims. Individuals have no way to verify the information they see online, and repeated contact with falsehoods encourages their acceptance.

According to the article in 2012, about two in five Americans reported using social media for political purposes, and about one in three reported that they encountered posts on social media that are biased against one candidate. These numbers get even more shocking when we take a look at the social networking giant, Facebook. Americans get 21% of their political news from Facebook, a site that has a history of privacy concerns and lenient monetization.

Social media is rotting democracy from within. Parties from both sides spread falsehoods about their opponents, which creates panic among minority groups and undermines people’s trust in the independent media. Both the 2012 and the 2016 US elections proved social media is a perfect tool for this kind of activity.

One study used three-wave panel surveys conducted with representative samples of Americans during both the 2012 and 2016 US presidential elections. The author mainly focused on whether social media played a role in spreading misinformation that changed the course of the election. To get a decisive answer, many surveys were taken during both of these presidential elections. Fixed effect regression and the Hausman test were done for the most part to calculate the data received. Ultimately, the author concluded that social media did have an effect during the 2012 and 2016 campaigns on the accuracy of people’s beliefs. This, in turn, confirms that the use of social media is changing people’s political beliefs, which in turn harms the functioning of democracy.

The very ‘socialness’ of social media has made it a playground for fake news. It is easier to spread misinformation on social media than to correct it, and easier to inflame social divisions than to mend them. The uncomfortable truth is that social media, once seen as democracy’s ally, has increasingly become its enemy. Social media, in the way that it’s used now, is an authoritarian medium.

The idea of a democratic system started in Athens around 550 BCE; this system of government was intended to be a direct democracy where every citizen would have the opportunity to vote on every piece of new legislation. This new form of government allowed the ordinary Athenian citizen, the none-aristocrats, who had political ambitions to rise to the highest ranks of Athenian politics. Although to have the right to vote a common citizen did have to be free men who had completed military service. Therefore, in reality only about 20% – 25% of the population were enfranchised. Women had very few rights in Athenian society.

The Athenian philosopher Socrates who lived from 469 to 399 B.C was a total devotee of the democratic system but he earned the displeasure of his fellow citizens by constantly questioning the accepted gods and established practises. Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenian courts and famously refused to escape when he had the opportunity as he respected the court decision as a part of a system he passionately believed in. He chose to committ suicide, by drinking hemlock.

Plato (427 – 347 BC) on the other hand was a pupil of Socrates who, although believing in the democratic principles of the system, had serious doubts about its failings. Plato did not have the passionate, blind adherence of Socrates and created extensive Dialogues (a genre of literary prose) to explain his misgivings. These have made it possible to fully understand his thinking. Socrates himself left no written records but Plato’s dialogues have allowed an insight into his thought process and to how democracy matured and grew.

Plato was from a family of Greek aristocrats, his real name was Aristocles but he was given his nickname by a wrestling coach because of his broad shoulders, (Platon is Greek for broad). Plato decided against a career in politics and chose instead to pursue a more artistic life style, writing plays and poems however he abandoned this to follow Socrates. (Mark Joshua J Sept 2009)

In his writings Plato explains the differences between necessary desires and unnecessary desires. He describes Necessary desires as being desires we cannot overcome, such as our desire for shelter and sustenance. Unnecessary desires are desires that we are quite able to overcome but do not, these include luxuries and personal possessions. Plato believed that freedom is a desire that once tasted generates the demand for more which in turn leads to the rejection of authority and the expectation of liberty. It is at this point, Plato believes, that the democratically appointed leaders start to lose control and try to distract the people by creating problems such as wars which focus the minds of the populous and unite them in a single united purpose. To pay for these distractions taxes will have to be raised alienating their former supporters. The soldiers will then be employed to enforce unpopular decisions and to silence voices raised in opposition. More soldiers will be required to supress protest by force and consequently more taxes. Plato also discusses the danger of democracy turning into Tyranny. For example, Plato argues the democratic system allows power hungry figures to gain control through manipulation of the system and using the freedoms of the people to back a political cause and the perceived ‘interest of the people’. This will allow the tyrannical figure to gain control and eventually silence any democratic challenges to his reign and silence the opposition

These democratically appointed leaders will now need protection from the very people who elected them to office, people who now want to overthrow them to form a democracy. Plato predicted that democracy would lead to nations being governed by bullies and brutes and history has shown a consistent pattern of subjugation, revolution and subjugation once again.

Plato’s description of a democracy is rather thought provoking. It gives us pause and forces us to examine our own government. Could it be true that our leaders are the bullies and the political tyrants that Plato describes? Does democracy lead to entangling wars for the benefit of the ruling class? And are the people so subjugated by senseless laws and stiff taxes, that they are unable to resist in any meaningful way? Perhaps. History has shown a consistent pattern of subjugation, revolution and subjugation once again. (Van Bryan 8/7/2013)

In Plato’s dialogue, The Republic, Plato’s view on systems of government can be seen, as he describes five men each representing the states of aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. It is clear that the Plato’s favoured regime is in indeed aristocracy in which he believes the leaders are highly educated people who have experience and exercise good judgment and are ‘philosopher kings’. This aristocratic system consists of three different castes, the ruling ‘philosopher kings’, the soldiers who are defined by their immense honour and lastly the majority class who represent the ‘will of mankind’. Plato believed that this was the best governmental system as the people with the most knowledge are assigned to the most responsible and powerful roles in society. In contrast Plato shows dislike of the system of democracy favoured by his mentor Socrates. For example, he believed that a democratic society consisted of immense differences and disputes in which there was no common consensus and order. He is also believed that in democracy the rulers are obliged to perform the will of the lower classes.

Plato’s philosophies still carry relevance in modern history, for example there have been many accounts of the collapse of democracies which have turned into full tyrannical rule. This was evident in the election of Adolf Hitler in 1932 in which he swept to power with a mandate based on the ‘brutish’ values which Plato has described. This absolute tyranny came in the form of fascism which swept across Europe with ease but however was defeated and democracy once again reigned supreme. Many modern leaders have recognised the Platonic critical view of democracy but also how it is the best political system which currently exists. For example, Sir Winston Churchill’s quote that “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Holds to Plato’s believe that democracy is fundamentally flawed but is however the most adequate system when compared to the others.

References

1. Author Van Bryan. Article title: Plato and the Disaster of Democracy | Classical Wisdom Weekly. Website title: Classicalwisdom.com. URL: https://classicalwisdom.com/philosophy/socrates-plato/plato-and-the-disaster-of-democracy/
2. Author Joshua Mark. Article title: Plato. Website title: Ancient History Encyclopedia. URL: https://www.ancient.eu/plato/

Democracy is a system of government where the leading part is chosen by the people to govern society. Democracy works on principles such as freedom of speech, judiciary, and law and order. When these principles are targeted, democracy is threatened and starts to erode. This was seen in the 1930s when Germany’s democratic government fell and was replaced with a man that provided simplistic solutions to the complicated problems of democracy. He immediately grew in popularity and was established the new leader of Nazi Germany. Today Nazism is replaced by democracy, and even though it is a good system, it is still vulnerable to individuals who target the principles. This is shown clearly in Lord of the Flies where an individual can target vulnerable areas of democracy, causing it to crumble.

Initially, the boys are very keen on being rescued. In order to do so, rules and jobs are established to keep society functioning. The voting of a leader symbolizes a democracy that has been created on this island. Furthermore, when Ralph uses the conch to call a meeting, Jack’s leadership skills become distinctly visible. “Choir! Stand still!”(16). Here Jack is seen using his voice to intimidate the immediate opposition, which is Ralph. He shouts at the choir to show that he has authority and possesses natural leadership ability. Jack also wants to be called by his last name. “‘Kids’ names,’ said Merridew. ‘Why should I be Jack? I’m Merridew,’” (17). Calling a person by their last name is symbolic of my respect and authority. This intimidates Ralph yet further when he insists that he should be called by his last name. Jack thinks that being called by his first name is ‘kids’ names’. This is enough to intimidate the opposition and proof of this is seen when Henry, a littlun, mentions that he’s scared, Ralph says, “Shut up!,”(18). He says this absently, trying to compete with Jack and show that Ralph also has some authority over the boys. Jack’s success in intimidating Ralph, who is the opposition is shown yet again later in the book when Ralph, Jack, and Roger are getting ready to climb the mountain and look for the beast. Ralph suggests that they should wait another day to climb the mountain. “[The other boys] murmured agreement, but Jack was standing by his shoulder. ‘If you’re frightened of course-’”(130). Jack says this in front of the boys to show that if Ralph denies going up the mountain today, he is not chief with leadership ability and he is too scared to protect the community.

After a few days, Ralph sees a ship and is furious when he climbs the mountain and discovers that Jack and his hunters had let the fire out. When he confronts Jack about the fire, Jack replies, “We needed meat,” (75). This is symbolic of Jack rising as a leader who can provide simple solutions to the complex tasks that needed to be carried out in a democratic society. Furthermore, Jack’s response is symbolic of how he has started to disregard the rules set in place, showing how easily democracy can fall if there is nothing to enforce the rules.

Additionally, Jack uses democratic principles such as freedom of speech to encourage democratic backsliding. When Ralph warns Jack that he is breaking the rules, Jack uses freedom of speech by saying, “Bollocks to the rules! We’re strong – we hunt! If there is a beast, we’ll hunt it down! We’ll close in and beat and beat and beat-!”(99). As mentioned earlier, Jack uses freedom of speech to speak against the leader, who is Ralph. As a result, Jack has created an overemphasis on the lack of security of the boys. Jack uses the freedom of speech to point out the weaknesses in democracy, hinting that there are no bureaucrats or judiciary to enforce the rules. Jack knows this, which is why he says, “Bollocks to the rules…”(99). This shows how democracy is vulnerable if there is nothing to enforce the rules and thus there are no consequences for not following the rules. Immediately after, Jack runs off, with the other boys following right behind him. Piggy suggests that Ralph should blow the conch and call the boys back. “You got to be tough now. Make ‘em do what you want,”(99). Ralph answers with, “If I blow the conch and they don’t come back; then we’ve had it…” (99). This shows that Ralph does not want to use power to keep the boys in order, making it another vulnerable area of democracy. As a result, he is not able to keep Jack from lashing out and the democracy starts to crumble.

After a few days, the power of an individual is shown again. The boys are in a circle with Roger at the center. They are pretending that he is a boar and are throwing their spears at them. Even Ralph is involved in it, drunk on the desire to hunt and kill. “The circle moved in and round. Robert squealed in mock terror, then in real pain. ‘Ow! Stop it! You’re hurting me!’” (125). Even after this statement, Jack continues to encourage the boys to hurt Roger. Jack knows that democracy is on the brink of collapse and uses the ring around Roger to show is militarism the power of his hunters.

In a like manner, individuals can target democracy by making the elections unfair and biased. “‘He’s like Piggy. He says things like Piggy. He isn’t a proper chief.’ Jack clutched the conch to him. ‘ He’s a coward himself,’”(138). Here Jack is talking to the group of boys about the beast and how they should all hunt it but Ralph denies this. By saying this, Jack has created an over-emphasis of the lack of security. Additionally, Jack calls Ralph a coward in front of the boys. By doing this, he is hoping that people will vote for him when he opposes Ralph later in another election. By doing so, Jack is making the upcoming re-election unfair. In the same way, there is also an example of this earlier in the book when says, “I ought to be chief,’ said Jack with simple arrogance, ‘because I’m chapter chorister and head boy. I can C sharp,’”(18). Moreover, Jack is trying to convince the boys to vote for him while telling them that Ralph cannot do any of these things. This is also seen when the voting takes place and the choir has no choice but to raise their hand and vote Jack for chief.

Lastly, to make sure democracy is not established again, a leader must get rid of his opposition. To get rid of Ralph, Jack needs to establish his own society. “I’m not going to play any longer. Not with you,”(140). Before running away, he also says, “anyone who wants to hunt when I do can come too,”(140). When Jack realizes that no one would want to join his tribe, he refers back to his point earlier in the book where he makes the boys think that they are going to starve because they do not have enough meat. Jack runs off and a couple of days later, most of the boys follow suit until only Ralph, Simon, Piggy, and Samneric are left. Jack starts to get rid of his opposition one by one. He starts by killing Simon. Jack does this by getting his tribe excited and as they are dancing in the dark, Jack orders his tribe to kill Simon because he was mistaken for the beast. Next, Jack kills Piggy and forces Samneric to join his tribe. “The rock struck Piggy a glancing from chin to knee; the conch exploded into a thousand white fragments and ceased to exist,”(200). This is where democracy falls completely because the conch is a symbol of democracy and it has been shattered by the rock. Finally, Jack begins to hunt down Ralph. If Jack is able to kill Ralph, he has successfully defeated the opposition. However, Jack is not able to kill Ralph before a naval officer arrives and the boys are rescued.

Thus, Lord of the Flies is a political allegory that shows how an individual can target the principles of democracy to cause democratic backsliding, and eventually, cause the democracy to fall. The reason why democracy is especially vulnerable on the island is that there are no bureaucrats or judiciary to check for wrongdoing from the government and any opposition. In the modern world, democracy is the only form of government that has succeeded so far as long as it is kept in check.

While Plato built on the idea of aristocracy as his method of governance in an ideal society (Kallipolis), he laid down heavy criticism towards democracy as a form of government in the process as well. In this essay, I will explore these arguments but first establishing what Plato’s conception of a democracy is. I will first discuss Plato’s assertion of the eventual disintegration for each type of regime followed by his critique of the form of leadership in a democracy.

Plato’s interpretation of democracy is defined through the co-dependency of a just city and a just man. A just city is one ruled by the philosopher kings who have knowledge in the form of justice as it is in itself and not what it appears to be. In a just Kallipolis, each individual has their own function to fulfil and must not meddle with others. The philosopher kings rule over the guardians, protectors of the city from enemies, and artisans whose purpose is to provide the materials for the citizens consumption.

‘And when the whole soul follows the philosophical principle, and there is no division, the several parts are just, and do each of them their own business, and enjoy severally the best and truest pleasures of which they are capable?’

A democratic man may possess the desired virtues of a just man in a just city but his soul is divided. He does not fulfil his function and instead is motivated by the consumption of unnecessary desires that are associated with divisions in the soul in order to seek pleasure. These desires could be driven by conflicts such as sexual desires. Hence Plato’s definition of democracy is a state comprising of democratic men driven by the motive of maximizing their own utility, rather than that of the community or the citizens. This leads to Plato’s argument of the eventual disintegration of each type of regime.

‘For everything that has come into being there is decay, not even a composition such as [the aristocratic city] will remain for all time.’

When discussing the five types of governments (Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Tyranny) Plato comments on how democracy eventually emerges from oligarchy as a result of the fallibility of human nature. Each generation rears the next one so each father upbrings his son in a relatively degrading environment and this has a negative impact on the just city. Plato argues that the value of knowledge and wisdom constantly decays over time in favour of materialistic interests. He observes that the son of an oligarchic man is subject to the influence of democratic thought in his youth. The son will prefer consuming unnecessary pleasures, those “of which a man could rid himself if he were to practice from youth on and whose presence, moreover, does no good—and sometimes even does the opposite of good,” (Plato, The Republic 558d-559d) over necessary pleasures which Plato characterizes as necessities for sustenance. The oligarchic man’s son is exposed to the thought of freedom, laying emphasis on the importance of eq¬¬uality in society; “All the world are agreed that he who minds his own business is an idiot, while a busybody is highly honoured and esteemed” (Plato, The Republic pp.550). The son will make the transition from an oligarch to a democrat and actively consume unnecessary desires. He will be under the belief that unnecessary desires are equally valuable as necessary desires. This democratic man will advocate for freedom amongst the citizens of the city in determining who comes to power and hence a ruling party would be elected based on the majority opinion of the citizens and this party would cater towards that majority group, foregoing the rest of the city. This idea of a democracy goes against Plato’s ideal Kallipolis which is based on the concept of a hierarchy where the ‘best of the children’ are chosen by the philosophers in order to succeed them. Plato argues that this system of hierarchy ensures that the interests of the city as a whole are taken care of rather than that of one group. Plato through Socratic dialogue remarks “but that our aim in founding the State was not the disproportionate happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole” (Plato, The Republic pp.420b).

In Plato’s opinion, the democratic state not only goes against the principles of his ideal state, but also paves way for the final form of his five types of regimes, tyranny; which he argues is the worst of all. Plato argues that the tyrant is the most unhappiest of men and will lead the city into a state of anarchy as he says “when he has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader” (Plato, The Republic pp.566e). It can be argued that Plato’s version of a democratic regime foregoes the establishment of institutions to keep checks on the balance of power in a democracy, an argument further discussed by Machiavelli who states that “since each form would serve as a check upon the others in a state having monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy at one and the same time” (The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli pp. 94)

Plato further comments on the flaws in the form of leadership in a democracy through the analogy of a ship and the sailors on board. Since a democratic form of government is characterized by the ideals of freedom of action and free speech, it will enable individuals who are the most skilled in persuading the citizens of the polis to elect them rather than those who are the most capable to rule to come to power. On a ship, each sailor will be determined to convince the ship owner that he is most worthy of taking command of the rudder and “if the helm is refused them, they drug the captain’s posset, bind him hand and foot, and take possession of the ship” (Plato, The Republic pp.488). The ship’s captain will thus be selected on whom manages to persuade the owner the best rather than who is the most skilled sailor. In a democratic regime, the sailors can be likened to the politicians, motivated to convince the ship owner (citizens) to elect them into power. The democratic regime thus rewards those best skilled at persuading the people of the state and neglects the philosopher kings, the most knowledgeable and fit to rule.

A notable example in history that it can be argued can be likened to the flaws of democracy highlighted by Plato is that of Benito Mussolini – an admirer of Plato’s Republic as claimed by Member of British Parliament Richard Crossman – “Mussolini is a brilliant thinker whose philosophy, though unorthodox, flows out of the true European tradition. If he is a myth-maker, he is, like Plato’s guardians, conscious that “the noble lie” is a lie”. He came to power through Italy’s democratic system in 1922; by 1925, he had dissolved Italy’s democratic institutions and established himself as a fascist dictator. Mussolini established a system of hierarchy, reminiscent to that mentioned in Plato’s Republic. He also militarized Italy creating a ‘New Empires’ force indoctrinating the youth and this force can be likened to that of the guardians in Plato’s ideal Kallipolis. Although Plato’s main purpose of an aristocratic form of government and class collaboration was to achieve the creation of a just society, Mussolini’s aims were driven politically towards the accumulation of power.

It can be concluded that Plato’s criticisms of democracy are a product of its contrasts from Plato’s ideal form of governance, aristocracy. While Plato advocates for class collaboration, he criticizes the emphasis a democracy lays on the principles of equality. This puts forth the question whether Plato’s criticisms of democracy are valid independent of the context of Plato’s ideal society. It can be argued that Benito Mussolini’s dictatorship in Italy provides evidence of these arguments’ credibility. While Italy was not a picture of Plato’s Kallipolis, it paved the way for Mussolini to come to power through democratic institutions and establish a politically motivated dictatorship that one can argue, can be likened to the eventual degradation into a tyranny.

We all live in the United States a country a freedom, a country of democracy, living in a democracy has many good and many bad factors although other systems are less desirable it is important to know democracies flaws. Starting out with what’s good with democracy and explaining what a democracy is. Living in a democracy is important as the people in a democracy have a voice and freedom. But to live in a democracy is to have the right to govern not simply to be governed to rule not just to be ruled to be heard. Living in a democracy means being able to choose our leaders and being able to choose what we want and having the freedom of choice this is what makes democracy better than other systems the freedom of choice, the freedom of choice to choose our leaders. But a flaw of democracy is that it is very inefficient. As democracy loses a lot of efficiency in the way they make decisions as in order to make a decision things must come to a vote a bill has to be proposed and it has to be voted on in order to become a law this can be an incredibly long and taxing process. Compared to something like a dictatorship a democracy is incredibly slow as in a dictatorship the leader has the final say and they can choose to pass something immediately skipping past everything but that is also what is wrong with a dictatorship as it doesn’t take into account what the people want. Living in a dictatorship is not for the people, it is for the leader (unless the leader has the well being of the people in mind) living in a democracy is for the people as the people in a democracy get choices the freedom of choice.

There is another side in the case of Socrates and why he hates democracy is very interesting and a very important idea to discuss. He argues why should the common person that may not know very much be fit to judge who should be able to rule or who should be the leader of a country. As letting a person vote on who to be a leader without the education on the subject to be very irresponsible. He thought only those who are able to contemplate rationally and deeply should be allowed to vote in other words educated enough to be able to decide who is best to lead. In this case, it is between an intellectual democracy and in the US it is a case a democracy by Birthright. The US has given the vote to everyone without connecting it to wisdom. This is another flaw in our form of democracy that we have in the US. although I like this form of democracy it is flawed. As someone who is smooth-talking and charismatic could get people to vote for him. just for the fact that this person could be very likable. This is the case with US most of the time, as it is a person who is popular who wins the election (although not in the most recent election as Hillary Clinton actually got the popular vote. Even though this person was likable they may not have the best interest in mind for the people who voted for him.

As Winston Churchill once said, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”. This was meant as a joke by Winston Churchill but there is some truth in it as a lot of the time the average voter is not very bright in terms of intelligence and can be easily coerced. As the American people did manage to vote certain presidents into consecutive terms.

Another way democracy can be bad is with the idea of mob rule, where one of the biggest danger of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. If a majority of the population are anti-Semitic you wouldn’t be surprised to see some anti-semitic laws passing. But fortunately, most political systems include basic human rights to prevent against such things like this happening but if a majority is big enough it can alter human rights. As in the case before with the charismatic leader, the leader could possibly scapegoat the minority in a time of crisis and get the majority to adopt their views. This was the case when Hitler came to power before World War II diluting the way people think and causing them to believe anything and cause them to commit unspeakable Acts. As propaganda induced ideas spread more people become more likely to give into them. This means the masses can be manipulated into voting against their own interests. This could possibly mean that a small group of powerful people could theoretically control how elections end.

There were some democracies that were arguably better as dictatorships as in the case of Iran. Before becoming a democracy the leader of Iran was westernizing the country he was introducing new policies of gender equality. He was modernizing in the idea of making Iran into a world power. But the Iranian people did not like that we’re not ready for it and he was overthrown and replaced with religious fundamentalists. As far as equality and economic prosperity the religious fundamentalists time and power has been a disaster. Some dictatorships are just Superior to some democracies in this way.

There are good things about democracy also, a democracy can provide changes in government or transitions of power without the need for violence since power is transferred from one party to another with elections. Citizens determine their ruling Authority which the government runs on public support which allows democracy to be a stable form of government. Elections are bound by terms and when the term is over the currently ruling party are then required again to compete with other parties to continue their Authority. This entail prevents the Monopoly of the current ruling Authority. But when democracy works it promotes equality and the protection of human rights.

Yes, democracy is flawed but in ways, it can be better than other political systems. If the right people are elected good things will happen, good things meaning the will of the people being carried out. A good democracy is by the people for the people no other way but if it is construed and manipulated it is no longer a democracy. When democracy is done right it is important to live in a democracy.

The source discusses the view that UK democracy is in crisis, and argues that, in some aspects, there does seem to be evidence to suggest that the UK is experiencing ‘something’ of a participation crisis, due to a decrease in public confidence and a lower voter turnout in the past few decades. On the other hand, the source also suggests that ‘crisis’ is too strong a word to describe the UK’s political participation, as people are not as disengaged with politics, as the statement leads us to believe. The direction of this essay will be to argue that the UK, despite having some aspects of political disinterest, is not experiencing a participation ‘crisis’.

The source claims that ‘electoral turnout has fallen sharply’, particularly since the ‘2001 General Election’. This is a valid argument as this election had an overall turnout of 59% which was a significant decrease from the previous election, which experienced a turnout of around 71%, making it the lowest turnout since the end of WW2. This evidence suggests that, since 2001, less people are deciding to vote, which could imply that there is a participation crisis in the UK, and could mean that modern day citizens do not care about politics as much as past generations did. However, many people argue that it is not possible to compare the turnout of different elections, as many people decide to vote depending on the current circumstances, as certain situations can affect political awareness and interest. Electoral turnout can also depend heavily on the importance of the election, if an election has significant importance, more people are likely to vote, which was evident in the European Union Referendum, which experienced a turnout of 72%. The source also correctly states that ‘people do not seem more disengaged from the political system’ as ‘participation outside the ballot box has increased’. This is a convincing argument, as party membership has risen steadily since 2013, with Labour having 480,000 members. This suggests that, not only has electoral turnout not yet led to a ‘crisis’, with the number of people voting increasing each year, but people are also not disengaged with politics, as the number of party memberships is still extremely high.

The source also claims that ‘the introduction of new political institutions since 1997.. Have had little impact’. This may be correct as the number of people belonging to trade unions throughout the UK is significantly lower than it was several decades ago, where it was then suggested that political participation was at its peak. However, this may not be representative of the UK’s political participation, as during those decades there was a need for trade unions to represent the rights of workers in the UK, which is no longer as prominent today. Instead, there has been an increase in those belonging to pressure groups in order to raise awareness for their views. This has seen a significant increase in those applying to be members of organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which boasts a membership equivalent to double the membership of the Liberal Democrats, Labour and Conservative parties put together. This increase in pressure group membership suggests that ‘levels of political interest have not fallen, and people remain confident in their own ability to engage with the political process’ albeit not by being members of political parties. This also contradicts the view that political institutions have not had ‘little impact in restoring people’s trust and confidence’ as people are confident in the ability of institutions such as RSPB to represent their political and environmental interests.

Lastly, the source arguably claims that ‘levels of trust in government, and confidence in the political system are lower than they were little more than a decade ago’. This is a significant claim as public trust and confidence in both the government and the political system is paramount to the state of democracy, and public participation in the UK. There has been a slight decrease in public trust in the government, particularly in the last few years, due to circumstances such as Brexit, which has divided many politicians, and members of the public. However, as the source states, this can be seen as a ‘short-term’ problem, rather than a ‘long-term’ one, as circumstances can easily change, meaning that public trust and confidence can be easily restored, depending on the incumbent government’s successes. Therefore, this argument cannot be used to support the idea that the ‘UK democracy is in crisis’.

In conclusion, I believe that the view that the ‘UK democracy is in crisis’ is weak as, although there has been a slight decline in the number of people voting since 2001 and the level of trust in the government has fallen, this can not be referred to as a ‘crisis’ as there is still evidence in people taking an interest in the political system, through an increased membership in pressure groups and certain political parties.

Totalitarianism is a form of government that exercises complete political, economic, social, cultural, and spiritual control over its subjects. A charismatic leader, or dictator, who controls the one allowable political party, usually heads it. This form of rule requires complete subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state. People are made dependent on the wishes and whims of the political party and its leader. The governments of Italy & Nazi Germany was an example of a Fascist, totalitarian state. Its ideology and practice included a racial theory that denigrated, persecuted, and murdered “non-Aryans,” particularly Jews. It also advocated extreme nationalism that called for the unification of all Germanspeaking peoples and required the centralization of decision-making by, and loyalty to, a single, all-powerful leader. The use of paramilitary secret organizations to stifle dissent and terrorize opposition ensured complete compliance. Information and ideas were effectively disseminated through governmentcontrolled propaganda campaigns using radio, the press, and education at all levels. Propaganda: The systematic, widespread dissemination or promotion of particular ideas, doctrines, or practices to further one’s own cause or to damage an opposing one. Writers, speakers, actors, composers, and poets were licensed and controlled by the government. The centrally controlled economy enabled the government to control its workers, making them dependent on the government. All workers were required to possess a work permit, which could be withdrawn for offenses such as objecting to poor working conditions. In a totalitarian dictatorship there is no legal means of effecting a change of government. Civil rights and human rights are not guaranteed. Fear and Propaganda = Control.

Democracy is a system of government in which ultimate political authority is vested in the people. Representatives elected by popular suffrage (voting) exercise the supreme authority. In democracies such as the United States, both the executive head of government (president) and the legislature (Senate and House of Representatives) are elected. The powers of government are based on the consent of the governed. Groups or institutions typically exercise the democratic theory in a complex system of interactions that involve compromises and bargaining in the decision process. The major features of a modern democracy include government only by the consent of the governed, individual freedom guaranteed by a constitution, equality before the law, which maintains that all persons are created equal with minority rights protected, universal suffrage, and education for all. Citizens are free to join any political party, union, or other legal group if they choose. Elected representatives may be supplanted by the electorate according to the legal procedures of recall and referendum, and they are, at least in principle, responsible to the electorate. Citizens retain the right to alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive and form a new government. There are no paramilitary organizations sanctioned by the government to suppress those citizens who voice opposition to the government. The cornerstones of democracy are freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

In Europe the Great Depression caused many citizens to lose faith in their democratic governments. In many countries, people turned to extremist political groups. Some turned to communism; others turned to fascism. People began looking for new leaders to help them solve their problems and rebuild their countries. Sometimes these new leaders became dictators, or rulers with complete power and control over their countries. Benito Mussolini in Italy, Adolf Hitler in Germany(Called theirs Nazism), and Francisco Franco in Spain were three such Fascist dictators. However, the Fascist governments of Mussolini and Hitler drew their support from industrialists and the military, while Spanish Fascists under Franco drew support from the military and the wealthy landowners. After World War I, Benito Mussolini of Italy organized the Fascist movement. He derived the word Fascist from the ancient Roman symbol of authority, the fasces—a bundle of rods surrounding an ax. This symbol represented a strong central government uniting its entire people in one goal. Fascists favored dictatorship and nationalism; they opposed democracy and communism.

The United States is a very unique country, isn’t it? A country conceived from a war for their values, their liberty. With this liberty, they have established their own unique system of government, none that anyone has ever seen before. A democracy! A representative democracy to specify; a republic. And with this new form of government, comes various definitions from various backgrounds. Certainly, people can argue that some definitions are closer or further from the truth. However, there are definitions worth arguing for, and to scope in further, American democracy as it is today. Such that, American democracy is now defined by equality, not liberty. Such that, American democracy has, over the course of its short history, improved greatly. Of course, these claims can be contradicted by various sources, but are they enough? That is to be questioned.

American democracy was defined by liberty. However, what is liberty when only wealthy, white men, and just men, are allowed to vote? Certainly, these men have gained their liberty, but what about the women? What about the slaves scattered throughout the nation? American democracy only offers liberty to the few and not to the masses. Of course, this was once a problem, but that has since passed on.

Therefore, American democracy is now defined more by equality. Starting with voting rights given to African Americans via the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Moreover, as Women with the 19th Amendment of the Constitution retrieved from the National Archives, The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 essentially greatly expanded the idea of American liberty into American equality.That it allows more people to vote, an example being those who are disable, prevented, as obtained from Our Documents, any literacy test as a qualification for voting in any Federal election. However, that is not the only way American democracy is defined.

American democracy can also be defined by the improvements it has achieved. First off, as mentioned in the Proclamation Emancipation obtained from the National Archives, And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons, all of slavery became nonexistant because of this one sentence. The fact that more people can vote with the 19th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Moreover, that more people are more supportive of people from different demographics and sexualities as evident by the supported Black Lives Matter protests retrieved from CNN, “’Every generation has been angry,’ he told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Friday night. ‘But this generation right here is connected where their voices are heard. Their voices are felt, and they’re going about doing something,’ and LGBTQ protests as evident from the supportive 40,000 marchers who want to be heard, said by NYC Pride spokesperson James Fallarino obtained from CNN . All of which make America a more united union.

To conclude, American democracy is unique in that its definition is always evolving around its problems. As a result, American democracy is more centered towards equality, with the Civil Rights Act and the 18th Amendment. That American democracy is always improving, and evolving with its problems. As of the modern period, American democracy is centered around equality and has greatly improved into a more perfect union.

Outline the central functions of political parties in liberal democracies. What factors help to explain the reduction in political party members?

A political party is defined as a group of people who are organized to gain and exercise political power. Political parties emerged in their modern form in the United States and Europe in the nineteenth century, which also led to the evolution of electoral and parliamentary systems. Since then the term party has been used for all those structured groups of people who seek political power by democratic means or through revolution (Duverger, 2008).

Previously, during monarchical, pre-revolutionary and aristocratic regimes, the political process took place within narrow circles in which cliques and factions gathered around certain nobles or influential personalities, who were opposed to each other. The creation of a parliamentary regime and the emergence of parties in the beginning did not change this situation much. Cliques created around businessmen, merchants, bankers and industrialists were added to the cliques created around princes, docks, counts or marquises. Administrations supported by aristocrats were replaced by administrations supported by other sets of elites. These narrow established political parties were then more or less transformed into mass-dependent parties in the nineteenth century in the USA and Europe.

Political parties around the world expanded in the twentieth century, however the underlying principles on which these parties were formed differ from country to country. In some underdeveloped countries, large modern political parties were based on traditional associations, for example “ethnic, tribal or religious affiliations.” In addition, many political parties in underdeveloped states were “partly political, partly military.”

Democracy, as EE Schattschneider claimed, is “incredible only in terms of parties.” Similarly, many modern democratic thinkers recognize parties as organizations that consolidate electoral contests, embody different social interests, resolve social conflicts, intensify voter rationality, increase the electorate through mobilization, link people with their own government, act as a recruiting agent for government from below and limit the people holding power.

In developed democratic states, political parties are an inevitable part of the political system as political parties embody associations of diverse groups in a society. They offer ways through which contradictory features of similar interest are “reconciled, harmonized and then fed into the political system.” The parties educate and involve their members, who also offer significant workers for the democratic regulation of local and central government.

In liberal democracies, nevertheless, the concept of political party is rather broad. The term was, and is still used to denote those elitist groups that appeared in a legislature before the enfranchisement of general election, a process that did not commence in most of the governments that were to advance into liberal democracies until the end of 19th century. Well-defined elitist groups appeared and left the British Parliament several times from the late 17th to the mid-19th century, when parliamentary parties were converted into parties with electoral bases. Thus, a political party, an institution that acts and mobilizes people, represents their needs and interests, compromises opposing attitudes, and acts as a testing ground for the people in power. Some central functions of the political parties in liberal democracies are as follows:

1. The political parties with their ideology and program are the institutes that provide common goal identification as individuals might not be able to attain their personal goals alone. It is relatively easier for them to identify their own objectives with the aims of a political party and back the party to see that the party attains its objectives. In this way, even an individual can achieve some of his goals.
2. Communicating and accumulating social interests is another central feature of a political party. This means communicating and articulating interests within and through the party. Citizens change their interests and demands into governmental policies and decisions through political parties.
3. One of the functions of political parties is arguably that of a connecting agent that connects the public with the political elite. This feature of political parties has long been identified by commentators studying parliamentary democratic systems. Sartori, for example, stated that “citizens in modern democracies are represented through and by parties.”
4. Political parties are fundamental institutions for transferring peoples’ interest into public order. The parties not only communicate but also channel. They select, aggregate and ultimately change and distort. Opinion is shaped and manipulated by parties which makes political parties a two-way channel of communication.
5. Structuring the vote is another function of the political party, however, it is the smallest function of the party in a modern democracy. This process includes imposing a model or order that enables voters to select candidates on the basis of their labels. Thus, in one way or the other, political parties, though not the only one, provide a basis for election choice. Voters can still make their own decision on some other grounds, for instance the appeal of a candidate, but party labels make it easy for the voter to come to a decision. Moreover, it can be said that a political party exists as long as it structures the vote even if it does nothing else.

It is believed that liberal democracies cannot work effectively in the absence of political parties as they have made a significant contribution to civic orientation. They aided in directing mass political movement towards constitutional political avenues. As agents of the exercise of control, political parties helped in the expansion of popular control on the ruling administration in liberal democracies. While many parties remained unsuccessful to deliver mass participation in the nomination of candidates, the selection of parties’ goals and policies, the political parties operated as a platform for political participation (Demir, 2000).

In recent years, however, party membership statistics have declined across parties and countries. Over the past decade, research has suggested a disinterest of citizens with political parties and with politics in general. The empirical evidence in support of this opinion refers, for instance, to a decrease in the number of citizens claiming to agree with a particular party, the decrease in the number of votes and trust in political parties, the decrease in the registration of party members and the increase in voter volatility. There were significant differences in attitudes towards political parties, and non-party members were skeptical about overall democratic performance, their effectiveness in bringing about political and social change and the ability of members to impact the decision-making of process parties. In addition, recruitment on the basis of family members seems to be the main route for the membership in the party for the young voters due to which a decline in political party members can be seen in various countries around the world and especially in Europe.

Thus, it can be said that though political parties will continue to be effective mediators in liberal democracies and will be able to function as representatives of democracy in the coming times, however, certain inefficacies of the political parties have led to a reduction in political parties’ membership all over the world which has led to severe criticism on the efficacy of political parties.

References

1. Huseyin, D., 2000. The role and treatment of political parties in liberal democracies with reference to the United Kingdom, Turkey and the European Convention on Human Rights (Doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds). https:etheses.whiterose.ac.uk4401uk_bl_ethos_250216.pdf
2. Nivola, PS 2005, Why Federalism Matters, Brookings, Brookings.
3. Political party – Future of political parties | Britannica. (2020). In: Encyclopædia Britannica. [online] Available at: https:www.britannica.comtopicpolitical-partyFuture-of-political-parties.
4. Political system – Stable political systems. (2019). In: Encyclopædia Britannica. [online] Available at: https:www.britannica.comtopicpolitical-systemStable-political-systems.