Category: Democracy

The word democracy roots can be traced back to Ancient Greece, it is derived from the Greek term ‘kratos’ meaning power and ‘demos’ refers to the people implying that its meant to mean ‘rule by the people’ the notion attached to democracy seems to be false in this period of time, democracy now is a system of corruption to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, it’s become a system based on hierarchy, privilege and wealth instead of being based on equal opportunity, meritocracy and hard work. As Abraham Lincoln described how the nature of democracy should be ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people ‘evidently showing that democracy is the government linking to the people. One of the core principles of democracy is political equality which is an equal distribution of political power and influence such as MPs that are used for the ‘people ‘to voice their ideas and thoughts, the right to vote and the right to stand for an election. Basic principles of democracy include the right to a free and fair vote all carrying the same weight and all votes matter meaning majority rules, in an event of a disagreement the most popular vote wins.

Direct democracy is self-explanatory it’s based on direct and constant participation of citizens in the role of government. The people directly vote on laws and policies which is a direct involvement of the people making the policies fairer and addresses the whole of public. One of the best qualities of direct democracy is equality it allows the people the chance to get their voice heard and to input in government through a direct vote without using anybody to voice their wants and needs-direct access to the government without involving someone classed as the ‘middleman’; it includes everyone implying that all votes count the same which increases accountability. The word direct meaning that its very quick without involvement so it’s more responsive to the people, direct democracy increases participation as people are more likely to vote if they knew it was going to have a high effect on the outcomes making them positive. However a key fault or disadvantage in direct democracy is ignorance and being misinformed or uninformed not everyone has the time, inclination or knowledge on many different laws as people are ignorant about issues they may be influenced by others racist, homophobic or sexist views and agree with them creating unjust and discriminatory laws. On the other hand it enables the public to express their own views and interest’ without relying on self-serving politicians’ politicians are selfish and have been seen to take their own needs and interest in first place instead of the publics they accept lobbyists that pay large amounts of money for politicians to convey and infiltrate their ideas and needs into parliament then leading It to the formation laws involving them which defeats the purpose of democracy it becomes completely illegitimate therefore, citizens exercise their own destinies and needs is.

A pure form of democracy and it ensures that the rule is legitimate as the people are more likely to accept decisions they have made themselves .The origins of classical direct democracy of Athens formed of mass meeting where the people of Athens met together to discuss and weight situations of their state and to further make policies and decisions, realistically in this modern society where people are consumed by time not everyone will make the time and effort to meet in great volumes and it would not be possible in reality, competition and leadership is in the characteristics of every human so people will definitely end up competing to lead the public. In the past the people of Athens never hesitated to participate in state affairs or to take responsibility to do things they were told but in the 21st century political participation has decreased people even lack the energy to go vote at polling stations for as little as 5 minutes showing that will not be able to fulfil the criteria of direct democracy and politics doesn’t matter as much, citizens are participating through different ways that aren’t complex enough .Time plays a big factor in democracy and can be seen as a problem ,in order for changes to happen it could be big or small ,the entire state would have to vote and the votes would have to be continued which is a very tedious process which could make change near to never happening. American scholar and politician Alexander Hamilton believed that direct democracy was the most pure n perfect of government whereas Aristotle words ‘the foundation of democratic constitution is liberty’ linking to one of the key and significant elements of democracy -‘ruling and being ruled in turn’ showing that even in direct democracy which is supposedly the purest form of democracy the epitome of alienation and lack of involvement is also introduced.

Representative democracy involves voting but unlike direct democracy it’s to vote for a person to represent you that works with others to make laws and policies. John Locke believed that ‘ “the Form of the Government is a perfect Democracy.” Implying that the source of sovereign power is the people, government should be there to protect natural rights -life, property and liberty .One advantage of representative democracy is that it provides representation of the public elected politicians are given the task of making decision for an entire city and everyone living in that area benefits from getting their voice heard by their own representative. Nonetheless individuals aren’t voting on every single issue in the democracy but their opinions are still heard and taken to account ,Edmund Burke believed that if the sate didn’t fulfil or protect the natural rights then every citizen legally had the right to rebel against the government .The population is dissatisfied with the progress and performance of a politician they have elected, they can vote to remove that person, they can also vote on major matters that affect the future of a country for example over 17 million of the British public voted to leave the EU therefore, the British government has started arrangements and the process of leaving the EU showing that the voice of the people are heard and shows that their input matters.

Edmund Burke said ‘ It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own’ he believed that the duty off the representative was not only to express the wishes of the electorate but also exercise their own power by using their own judgement even if their views are not reflective of the voters this defeats the purpose of representative democracy, politicians may create manifestos and make promises but after that get elected by the same people who voted for them only because of the so called policies they were going to create they betray the electorate and go with their own interest which makes it unfair and unresponsive, the electorate does not get the full potential of democracy they should be getting through the representative’s electorate trust the official to represent them as efficiently and successfully as possible, but they can only put their faith and trust in the representative to purse the political process the electorate voted for if not the representative could have a secret agenda and pursue something entirely different to what they stood for. Also, representative democracy is shown to be discouraging participation people know that whether they vote or not they still receive representation in government, so some people don’t find it necessary to vote as they know for. Affect that they will receive governmental representation the other hand others choose not to vote because none of the representatives that are running in an election don’t cater to their needs or do not address the things they stand for.

In conclusion, I think both models of democracy are attractive but in reality representative democracy is more applicable in this period of time as it is applied to most nation states of the world even though there are some disadvantages such as corruption, it can create a gridlock if there are 2 or more parties in office and communication must be effective. Representative democracy is more attractive as I believe it can improve if great minded politicians come to office, they can make this structure more effective.

The Interdependence of Democracy and Human Rights

Democracy and Human Rights Democracy gives people living in the state the rights to choose their own government officials through the voting process. Human rights are the fair treatment of all people no matter their race, gender and religion. The people are protected under the constitution in the United states guaranteeing the people’s rights and the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” protect the rights of people nationally (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.259.)

The Role of the United Nations in Promoting Democracy and Human Rights

The “united nations” helps by ensuring peace nationally and with states that are at odds against each other. They ensure the rights of the people and their “core values” which is the belief and action of democracy (United Nations, 2020) (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.165). Every person deserves the right to “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” no matter the circumstances (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.256). Democracy goes hand in hand with Human rights because you can’t have one without the other.

The Transformation of South Africa: From Apartheid to Democracy

In a democracy, people have the freedom to elect their government officials that will protect their needs, provide security, and make sure laws are upheld that protect their citizens. The government officials protect the rights of their people through “Natural law” and other promises made during the election process (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.256). In south Africa people lived under an “apartheid government” for many years (Apartheid, 2020). The people who were considered inferior, were oppressed and had no rights. The South African government did not agree that “all are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.260).

The oppressed could not own land, hold specific jobs, and were treated with cruelty. It wasn’t until they became a Democracy state that things began to change for them for the better. It created equal opportunities for African Americans and freed them from oppression. Before South Africa became a democracy state, there was constant fighting in the streets, people were killed, and bombs were placed in areas to instill fear of change. Caucasian people were to be separated from African American people which were the “majority” of the population in South Africa (Apartheid, 2020). It was illegal for Caucasians to marry African American people; they were segregated so that the people could not intermingle with one another. African Americans could not hold high paying salaries which lead to unfair pay and poor living conditions.

Challenges to Democracy: The Cases of Iran and Syria

Areas such as Iran and Syria did not conform to “multiethnic democratic states” and because of this there has been nothing but extreme violence in high poverty areas (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.258-259). War has taken over and there are hundreds of refugees escaping to other areas, but those areas then don’t have the proper means to sustain them. States that don’t conform to democracy have disregarded the rights of their people and many times become ruled by dictators. States that do not believe in democracy and human rights have higher rates of violence. These countries have higher criminal activity, are more susceptible to corruption in the government system in place and are “30-40 percent higher risk of civil war”, then countries that are established (Democracy and Human rights, 2020).

With a democratic system in place it decreases crime rates, allows “economic growth”, and people are able to vote in a “fair election” (Democracy and Human Rights, 2020 ) Syria has one of the highest rates of refugees going to other states for safety. Many woman and children travel long distances so that their family is not subjected to the dangers that come with war. During times of war woman have been raped, sold in trafficking rings, killed and enslaved. The abuse and torture of woman was used as a “social and culture symbol” a type of strategy used by those invading to show no mercy to their opponents (p. 280). The “UN Security Council resolution” was then enforced in 2000 which protected woman since they were used as pawns in battle and war (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.282).

The Impact of Democracy on Women’s Rights

The UN protects woman rights and wanted people to understand how much woman contribute to the wellbeing of society. Woman are the biggest “support functions” during any crises a state may face (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.280). Democracy has allowed woman the same basic rights as men and has freed them from oppression. During WWII woman had to take over for men fighting in the war. woman began jobs that were primarily for men such as “truck driving”, mechanics and radio operators. (History at a Glance). Women became nurses in the military, serving on the “front line” helping injured soldiers (History at a Glance). Jobs and income that were male based finally were being performed by woman. Many laws were set in place that didn’t allow woman to vote, have equal rights to men “based on gender beliefs” and were not able to secure positions in government (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.104-105). Shortly after WWII woman were praised for their help in ensuring the “allies’ victory” and from then on, many laws changed providing women with more rights (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.104-105). Democracy has evolved with the times, providing woman with equal opportunity. There is an increase of “24 percent” of woman being active players in the “National Parliament”.

It has introduced “Liberal feminism” where woman fight for their rights of “peace, justice, and economic well- being” (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.104). It is an ongoing battle for woman because of what society think woman and men can handle in certain situations. In 2015 there was a protest that was labeled “where are the women” because numbers of woman in “parliament by region” were low or nonexistent (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p. 105). “Cynthia Enloe” indicated that the reason of low number of women in government was because it was primarily men who are biased to the “natural” role of woman (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.106). Woman now have a voice and support is given to them through many organizations. “International nongovernmental organizations” help protect a nation when the government is unable to do so in many cases (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.194).

The Contribution of NGOs and International Organizations to Human Rights

They do not act on behalf of the government but in some cases may be funded by the government. These organizations help high poverty areas all over the nation that have medical, supply, and food needs. The “American Red Cross, Oxam and Doctors without Borders” are examples of these organizations that travel to assist those in need by sending volunteers to the appropriate areas to help(Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.194-195). Many children in places such as Africa are starving, turned into soldiers, raped, and sold against their will. Many people who live in poverty in underdeveloped areas, live in areas called “slums”. It has been estimated that around “828 million people” currently reside in slums (Cates, 2017). These areas have extremely poor sanitation, allowing the growth of disease and sickness to spread (cates,2017). The structures of the homes that they live in are poorly made and deteriorating slowly with harsh weather conditions.

Children and families barely have enough to eat or drink. They don’t have the proper clothing that fit them and there is a severe lack of education with children in these areas. Law Enforcement does not patrol these areas leading to high crime rates, no “security” and criminal activity (Cates,2017). Mexico City has the highest number of slums with Africa following close behind. The governments of different states as well as the world have an obligation to make sure that every person is helped, and their right aren’t being violated. INGOs expose governments by telling the public what the government spends their money on instead of helping the areas that are high in poverty in their areas. They use social media, TV News networks and the internet to “expose Hypocritical Behavior” so that the public knows the truth and can help their cause (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.195). Since NGOs don’t belong to the government, they are able to spread “awareness campaigns” so that people know and understand that the governments in impoverished areas are not sufficiently caring for their people.

The Doctors Without Borders organization helps by providing hope for families who have members that are critically ill. They supply medications, vitamins, check-ups and clean water to help improve their quality of life. The Red Cross has “authority” because of the Humanitarian law that was passed internationally to help people that are casualties of war, refuges and people who have been imprisoned (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.284). They help provide them security and assist them in any way possible These people help with education “promote awareness” nationally so that people globally can help with donations of money, clothes, and supplies (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p. 284). Oxam helps children in these areas by providing them with items they require to live an equal life.

They help provide food, shelter, and education. They also provide information to the world about all the hardships that these children face. “WHO” is the World Health Organization, they shed light on health concerns nationally and they provide ways/guidelines on how to help assist with major health scares (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.283).WHO also helps by implementing “policies” that will advocate for those living in poverty (Poverty and Health). They have created ministries that will travel from state to state to come up with solutions on how to help those that are in need in an efficient and safe way. Each NGO contributes in its own way and they all work together and are advocates for people everywhere. The UN expanded into different areas making sure that different groups were protected.

The United Nations: A Pillar of Global Peace and Human Rights

The United Nations is our greatest tool to help keep the peace. They have significantly lowered conflicts with different states that would have resulted in aggression. They protect the people’s rights all over the world and step in with arm forces if need be to provide protection. The UN helps build and develop areas that were once fighting, they help pick up the pieces of battle and secure a peaceful tomorrow for citizens. They help promote “humanitarian intervention” because everyone deserves the same rights and chance to live in an area that will not hurt or neglect their people (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.283).

The UN also have other parts that protect and ensure the safety of groups. The “UN High Commissioner” helps Refugees that have been displaced due to conflict (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.283). Many refuges escape to other countries and enter illegally. Many times they are not met with kindness because they are now taking away more of the countries resources. The Un helps allocate them so they can live without fear and with security of peace. The “UN Children’s Fund” helps children by providing them with education, medical needs, clothing, food and shelter (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.283). The “UN Development Fund for Woman” helps by providing woman with gender equality, stopping all types of violence against women and helping them in areas that are high in poverty (Gemelli). The UN is amazing for protecting people and working with others to ensure every person is treated with equal rights. Democratic states provide security to keep borders safe. In less developed states genocide has taken place leading to hundreds of deaths and many developing diseases (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.266). The problem is that many times “National interest trump human interest” (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.269).

States who have the capability to fight against the genocide occurring in Rwanda have not because they don’t feel as though their resources and soldiers should be used in something that doesn’t have to do with them. (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.269) The United Nations has their rules and regulations trying to protect people, but it doesn’t help when states who are part of the UN don’t want to step in and help. The problem is that the United Nations can’t force states to comply with certain things if they haven’t agreed to the terms. Some “Social democratic countries” have made certain conditions that other states must follow if they expect them to supply or trade any goods (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.262) There people must be treated fairly and they have to go by what the United Nation Legal Convention says.

The legal convention protects people in many different groups such as “woman, children, and migrant workers” (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.262) This convention also implemented that “Racial discrimination stop as well as torture” (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.261) States provide “Common security” it’s a safety net to make sure citizens are not casualties of war because many times families are killed as collateral damage (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p. 265).States have to try and work together to help ensure peace. They shouldn’t turn their backs on those who are facing extreme hardships and be good neighbors because if that state was in need, they would want help. The governments of states protect their people by providing security against threats, war and any type of crisis that their citizens may face. If a Natural disaster strikes then the community, firefighters, military soldiers and other government officials help by providing aide to those who have been affected. They help by rebuilding homes, allocating families to safer areas, providing basic needs to people who have lost everything and assisting with any medical intervention (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.285).

States have an “international responsibility to protect” its people and secure their rights (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.284). “The international criminal court” is another way states have come together to protect their people. It is used on any person internationally that have committed heinous murderous crimes, war crimes, and genocide. This court only steps in when crimes can’t be tried nationally (Lamy, Masker, Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2017, p.282). They make sure that those who are committing acts of terrorism be tried and convicted to ensure safety of citizens. In the end of the day, the government works better when people have the right to choose. Democracy helps all these programs and government aides to exist and ensure peace and equality to all.

In this essay, I will be supporting the argument that states that there is lack of diversity information in Canada and how it is a threat to democracy. I will begin this paper by defining diversity of information, then provide different examples to justify my argument, and towards the end of this paper I will state few advantages of how diversity of information, is substantial for democracy in Canada.

Diversity of information from my perspective, is defined as a way in which individuals can easily access different sources of news. While democracy is “ a political system. In a democratic country, all eligible citizens have the right to participate, either directly or indirectly, in making the decisions that affect them. Canadian citizens normally elect a candidate to represent them in making decisions at the different levels of government. This is called a representative democracy”.( Parliament of Canada)Basically, democracy refers to the government that is being elected by people and for the people. Lack of diversity of information can be a threat to democracy in Canada when the citizens are not aware about politics, and the voting process. In David Taras book, “Elisabeth Gidengil and her colleagues”, states that “a majority of Canadians cannot differentiate between left-right and right-wing political parties or locate specific parties on the political spectrum” (Taras, 2015. P. 58) basically, an election study research was carried out few years back in Canada, and majority of Canadians were unable to differentiate their political leaders and the party they belonged to. This is due to the fact that Canadians have little or no knowledge about politics.

The reason behind Canadians being disconnected and uninterested in political issues, is because they are uninformed and do not understand politics which puts democracy at risk. According to Alboim in Taras book, most Canadians “have chosen to disconnect because they have decided that most public affairs is of no practical relevance to them. In short, if we are to believe Alboim, many Canadians have disappeared as citizens-they no longer constitute to the public” (Taras, 2015. P.58). This quote shows how lack of inadequate information, about politics can harm the people, government and the country. Another reason why Canadians are disconnected from politics, is because they are not enlightened about the usefulness and benefits that comes along with being a citizen that is well involved in politics. The problems that could arise with political disengagement and its effect on democracy will be that, “without a vigilant public, leaders and institutions become complacent, false assumptions are more easily accepted and problems are allowed to linger and become more intractable” (Taras, 2015. P.58). There are several news and media outlets in Canada that spread fake news and information about politics.

This quote shows how disengagement can lead to lack of being informed and believing in fake news that is being shared by this media outlets. When citizens become uninvolved about political issues Peter Dahlgren warned us in Taras book that “ without a minimal level of involvement from its citizens, democracy loses its legitimacy and may cease to function in a genuine way.” Then “we become in effect a democracy without citizens” (Taras, 2015. P.59) the information Dahlgren is trying to pass across in Taras book, is that the rate at which a large population of Canadians are uninterested in politics, is a threat to democracy. He uses the phrase “a democracy without citizens” to show that citizens who do not participate in election processes and are unable to differentiate political leaders and their parties will constitute to the failure of democracy in Canada. Derek Hrynyshys in his lecture note, states that democracy “requires engaged citizens, who at very least, periodically need to help decide who governs” ( Hrynyshys Derek, personal communication, September 24, 2019). Basically, without citizens, there is no democracy because, democracy has to do with informed citizens who actively participate in election process.

I support the argument that states that lack of diversity of information is a threat to democracy in Canada because, for several years now, Canada has been labelled a peaceful country because of their low crime rate, peaceful election, and less weapons compared to other countries. For example, the U.S is known for high crime rates. I believe the lack of diversity of information is one of the reasons why not enough news sources in Canada talk about this bad activities that takes place within the country and it is not new that Canadians have chosen to be ignorant about the fact that they are not experiencing some of the scandalous act that the U.S are facing. For example, racism is not talked about a lot in Canada, but it also does not change the fact that some Canadians are racist. The reason behind this is because, Canadians do not have wide range of media outlets that would broadcast this dangerous activity that is happening within Country.

In David Taras book, he explains that voting, “ is a key litmus test of a country’s political health because it not only determines the shape of governments and policy decisions but also has great symbolic value. Voting is an expression, perhaps the ultimate expression, of participation, and equality” (Taras, 2015. P.60). This quote explains how voting is an important factor that strengthens politics in a country. He also went further saying that voting shows a country’s strength and how much citizens, are willing to participate and want equal rights. In the case of voting in Canada, the citizens are not willing to participate. In Derek Hrynyshys lecture note, he shows how “fewer that 50% of Canadians know who the first prime minister was, only 56% of youth recognize photo of the prime minister” ( Hrynyshys Derek, personal communication, September 24, 2019). Derek uses this to show that the percentage at which Canadians are not willing to participate in election is very low due to lack of dervisity of information. There is Only 56% of youth participate in election, because it is been a norm for several years in Canada.

There is no relevance in voting when “government win with less than majority support most of the time which means that 20% is enough to win an election when it is only 25% or so of electorate”( Hrynyshys Derek, personal communication, September 24, 2019). When only a small number of Canadians are willing to vote, it simply means that they have failed democracy. What is very disappointing is when this youth become adults, they will also install this idea that politics is of no use and importance to their kids. In Taras book, he states that “becoming a politician is hardly on the bucket list of most Canadians because politics has never been the most attractive profession” (Taras,2015. P. 63) I personally believe that Canadians are not to blame but instead the media is to blame because clearly the newspaper, magazines, radio, and internet are shying away from talking about politics and this is why Canadians are not informed. Because voting plays a vital role in politics, and politics involves democracy, it is very clear that with the rate at which uninterested Canadians are in voting, democracy is being affected.

One important thing to note when talking about lack of diversity of information, and its effect on democracy in Canada, is the media. This is because the only way information gets to the audience, is through the media and when the media shys away from putting out political information, to educate their viewers, it then becomes a problem. “in the context of the contemporary Canadian media scene, media analyst Kenneth Goldstein has also challenged the view that having a wide diversity in points of view is necessarily helpful to democracy” (Soderlund, Brin, Miljan, & Hildebrandt, 2012. P.6). Goldstein believes that the media is a great boost for Canadians to have different types of news about politics and be up to date about politics. The reason why this media outlets might not want to share any information with regards to politics, could be because of media convergence. Media convergence is defined as “combining of television and newspaper properties under one corporation owner, can lead to content sharing strategies among its different media platforms-in fact, content sharing is an often-stated intention and purpose of convergence” (Soderlund, Brin, Miljan, & Hildebrandt, 2012. P.6). media convergence is a situation when a television and a newspaper company come together, in order to become one company.

Media convergence can result to “reduce the overall number of divergent view-points available to Canadian citizens as they make decision regarding political leadership and questions and questions of public policy”( Soderlund, Brin, Miljan, & Hildebrandt, 2012. P.6) basically when two different media outlets come together, there will be limitations to what can be shared or talked about. This is due to the fact that before they decided to be one, they had different set of rules, on what they want their audience to see. Now, when news regarding political issues in Canada are being pulverized, democracy is at risk because the news media puts out information that might not be of great importance to the society due to the fact that they do not want to put their brands at risk concerning political issues. The disadvantage of media convergence in the Canadian context by David Taras, “ having a larger assortment of the same thing is not the same as having many different choices” (Soderlund, Brin, Miljan, & Hildebrandt, 2012. P.6). This quote when reflecting it to my main argument about how lack of diversity of information affects democracy in Canada, says that people will not have variety of news to choose, no enough media outlets to educate the public about politics.

There are both advantages and disadvantages of diversity of information in Canada and its effects on democracy, but the benefits are more than the downsides. The benefits of Canadians participating in election, politics and the reduction in media convergence, is that when they participate in voting process, which involves them being educated about politics, they get to pick the best candidate to become their own government and feel secured in their country. Another benefit is Canadians being able to be aware of the update on politics, because without politics, there is no democracy. And also, there should be reduction in media convergence, or more news should be formed to increase diversity of information.

In conclusion, this essay has been able to state the reasons why there is diversity of information in Canada and how it is affecting the country’s democracy. The beginning of this essay showed how lack of diversity of information is a threat to democracy because Canadians do not care to vote or educate themselves about politics. Another reason is that different media outlets have decided to come together to provide news and information to the public, which in the essay is known as media convergence. The disadvantage of media convergence is that Canadians do not have wide range of information to choose from which is why they continue to be uninformed and all these reasons have contributed to why there is threat to democracy in Canada.

Inclusive participation in the political process: The new constitution of Nepal embraces the concept of multi-caste, multiculturalism and multilingualism. Article 18 (3) provide special provisions for the protection, empowerment or advancement of women, dalits, indigenous peoples, marginalized, medhasi groups etc. It ensures 33% representation of women from each party in both the houses of the Federal Parliament and the state Assemblies. To achieve this quota, the House of Representatives (HoR) and SAs (state Assemblies) Election Acts state that women must make up at least 50 percent of each proportional representation (PR) list submitted by a party to compensate for any shortfall from the first-past-the-post (FPTP) seats. There are no reserved seats for women within the FPTP seats. This has resulted in women making up only 7.45 percent of all FPTP candidates but 56 percent of all PR candidates. In addition to a 50 percent quota for women on a party’s PR list, the HoR and SA Election Acts specify the percentage of candidates on each list that should come from six “inclusion” groups specified in the constitution: Dalit 13.8%, Madhesi 15.3%, Adivasi Janajati 28.7%, Khas Arya 31.2%, Tharu 6.6%, and Muslim 4.4%.

Strong Opposition Party: Opposition party plays an important role in democracy. In current situation of Nepal, Nepali congress is the main opposition party. As congress is one of the dominant party in Nepal which ruled several times. Congress are raising voice on certain policies to make Government accountable and they are monitoring the government activities effectively. Leader of opposition party is also the member of constructional council which is the positive part to make democratic consolidation.

Free Fair and open election: Free and fair election is the most important principle to make democratic consolidation. Nepal achieved a political milestone holding its first general elections (Local, Federal and central) after almost two decades in 2017. And the election was observed as a free, fair and open election with high voter turnout.

Low level of GDP Per capita: Increase in the GDP Per Capita of a country contributes democratic consolidation. High economic growth and development raised the living standard of most of the people and provided legitimacy to the democratic rule. According to the report of Nepal GDP (2018) The GDP per capita of Nepal is only$1,026 which is only $125 higher than in 2017 and ranks 166 th position out of 192 countries remain one of the poorest country of the world. Democratic consolidation cannot be achieved at low level of economic development.

High Cost election system: Election spending is becoming expensive. Estimates shows that Rs. 50 billion was spent for the local level election from the Government as well as candidates’ side. Being second poorest among South Asia countries the cost of election is prodigal and it goes on unproductive purpose.

Weak Social and government enforcement agencies: One of the major weakness of democratic consolidation in Nepal is the lack of strong government agencies to enforce laws and rules as strictly as they need to. Democracy is based on law. Neither President nor prime minister nor military/police are above the law. Equal application of law to all the citizens of the country is important for democratic consolidation. In Nepal, there are more than enough laws but the main problem lies in its implementation. Anyone who favored in political patronage can basically get away with most of the crimes and some of the crimes involve money laundering, uncontrolled theft of government money and other illegal crimes. Enforcement agencies needs to be equipped to enforce laws and should give the authority to persecute anybody regardless of his or her position.

Too much politicization in institutions: The independent institutions like judiciary and others are supposed to check on the power of executive but in Nepal judiciary are being weakened by political parties as they appoint party affiliated people in major independent posts. Qualified people are not coming in power only near and dear one is coming.

Weak Civil society: Civil society plays major role in promoting democracy. But, in Nepal civil society is not strong and organized properly. Civil society should play an independent role but hey are highly influenced by major political parties and most of the NGOs are run by the political parties. Work of NGOs depends on which is the ruling party and those NGOs who supports the ruling party only they will get enough fund to continue the project.

Lack of accountability and transparency: In Nepal, both politicians and public sector is not accountable towards citizens. There is no transparent system where the public is allowed to participate in policy formulation and provide suggestion regarding how to implement such policies effectively. Politicians always try to blame other parties rather than accepting their fault too.

Stable Government: Before 2017 political instability was exist in Nepal which fundamentally hindrances the economic development of the country. After 2017, Government is made by two-third majority party under coalition of Communist party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninst) and Communist part of Nepal (Maoist centre). Expectation of people towards economic growth is very high. It is time to focus on inclusive, transparent and accountable governance and ensure better service deliver for the citizens. At the same time, citizens should keep an eye on the activities of elected officials at levels- Federal, Provincial and Local to hold them fully accountable.

Promoting cultural pluralism and increasing marginalized communities’ representation in government: Nepal is a multi-lingual, multi ethnic and multi- cultural nation. Different language and cultures exist, which have made a rich unique national culture. The government has been working with full sensitivity to ensure ethnic and gender balance in all the sectors of the country. It an opportunity to create unity under diversity and showing good example by making peace to all over the world

Every citizens has right to participate in election: Constitution of Nepal has secured seats for women and other minorities. It provides opportunities to all the citizens to participate in politics regardless of sex, religion, race and language which provides the opportunities to become inclusive societies.

Corruption: One of the major threat of democratic consolidation of Nepal is high level of corruption. According to Transparency international Nepal, Nepal ranks 56 th most corrupted country of the world out of 180 countries and 2nd most corrupted countries in South Asia. Oko (2008) observes that nothing enervates democracy more than corruption. It is not only distorts governance but also provides perverse incentives for dysfunctional behavioural as well as diminished the quality of life of the citizens but diverting funds from social service to private pockets.

Boycott election by Biplav Party: On 16 june 2012, Baidhya announced the vertical split from Unified Communist party of Nepal Maoist (UPCN-M) and formed Communist party of Nepal Revolutionary. He said that UPCN-M was destroying the achievement of the people’s war. Again Bikram chand from communist party of Nepal Revolutionary announced split from it and he formed communist party of Nepal Maoist in November 2014. The party had boycotted the general election a security challenge for Nepal. In recent months, Chand’s party has increased violent activities in some parts of Nepal. Three month ago the three blasts taken place in Kathmandu and Chand released a statement on May 27 claiming responsibility in the bombing incidents. Government try to hold dialogue with the dissatisfied groups but extremist groups had rejected to attend table talk.

Geopolitical Government: Nepal is a landlocked country and it shares more than 1800 km of unregulated borders. Madhesis and Tharus share geographical and cultural affinities with the people living in Indian side, took to the streets against the draft constitution in August 2015, here Government of New Delhi used its diplomatic channels to put pressure on Kathmandu to address their demands. The Madhesis and Tharus each demanding an autonomous province with demographic advantage. Madhesi activist set up a blockade on the Nepal-India border to protest the constitution which affects the life of whole citizens in Nepal.

Guidelines for making democratic consolidation in Nepal (Focusing on current situation):

• Holding free, fair and open election in every five years is most important to make democracy consolidation.
• In order to increase economic development government should encourage other countries to invest in Nepal. Nepal can developed only through Foreign Direct investment and Capital of Non- Residential Nepalese association. For this, Nepal government should provide some kind of incentives to Foreign Investors.
• Ruling Government should start table talk with Biplav party. Biplav party are involved in violent activities which is increasing recently. It can be solved only by inviting them to participate in election process.
• Civil society should plays an independent role and must protect the right of minorities. They must work independently and check the balance of government activities. They should provide policies based on research and Government must create and enabling environment for civil society organizations to operate freely. Shrinking civic space is often subtler than physical violence against activists for example excessive bureaucratic burden for NGOs or blocking funding streams shows shrinking civil space.
• Nepal Government should carefully balance foreign policy in dealing with two regional power i.e India (Democratic Country) and China (Non- Democratic Country).
• Government should implement all the policies with equal application to all the citizens. Lax rule of law to the powerful people of state threat the democratic consolidation.

Even though America may be considered a Democracy, could it be falling into a Plutocracy? In fact, it very much could, A study named “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” (2019) implies and gives evidence to show that it could be a Plutocracy. The evidence given was a database of 1,779 policy issues, which included data on the opinions of median-income Americans, to determine whose opinions correlated most closely with actual government policy. They even took past evidence listing that out of 185 previous bills the wealthy got what they wanted 53% and the middle class got 47% of the time. This matches up that wealthy people are even supportive of public election funding where the rich and middle class agree a lot. But there is also a problem that the definition, Wealthy which may be skewed, as the rich is listed as the 90th percentile of the income distribution.

For example, someone who makes over $160,000 a year is considered wealthy, but they aren’t counted as the wealthy that is mentioned in the studies that the middle class can affect the elections more while the wealthy or the super-wealthy control the top or influence the middle class. As there needs to be a difference in what is exactly an economic elite and a major influence to be considered a Plutocracy, which is what the study covers. The article mentions that from 1981-2002 that the United States government is controlled by groups of wealthy people that hold most of the money and a ton of the power which affects the elections. Even in current times that the 2016 elections were a 1% election where the wealthy of the wealthy put influence on both the middle class and lower classes to get elected, spending millions without remorse as they push ads and campaigns to influence the populace. As stated in the study as:

“But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened. if they had accurate information about the future unfolding of policy results. Such “latent” preferences are related to the ideal, “authentic” preferences that some political theorists see as superior to, and more worthy of governmental responsiveness than, the policy preferences that citizens actually express. This can be seen as adding normative appeal to an electoral reward-and-punishment system of democratic control.”(2019)

As the United States shows that Populus doesn’t choose how the policy and law-making outcomes, even when majorities of citizens disagree with Economic elites more often then not they lose. Even in simplest terms the record that proves this is that the Wall Street crash in the Great Recession, causing the wealth to be scooped to the nation’s wealthy 10% holding 84% of the stock value. Thes studies show that America is headed towards a full form of Plutocracy that society votes and believes that the government should be ruled by the wealthiest members, from the Political parties spending millions even billions to buy votes via campaigns, the middle-class thining out, and the inequality.

Knowing the past allows to better understand the present and predict the future. Most of the traditional leadership theories are dated before 1990. Many new theories or sub-theories have been derived from those theories with the ambition to more or less develop the original theories or to compensate for their shortcomings. The rapid development of communication technologies and technologies in general, which, among other things, support more massive globalization and wealth growth, was reflected in the need to adapt leadership theories to new conditions. It cannot be stated, for example, that Transformational theory has been overcome, but it is interesting to observe and analyze ongoing developments. Although progress cannot be stopped, something remains the same.

It is natural that also the ways of functioning in groups are evolving and the theories of leadership reflecting it. A lot of scientists and practitioners have tested, classified, sorted, grouped, praised or condemned individual leadership theories. For the purposes of this paper, one has chosen two approaches. The first is a selection of traditional theories including their derivatives, and their subsequent placing on a timeline. The second is an assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the theories with using their inclusion in quadrants into, this purpose adapted, Blanchard´s (1985) ‘The four basic leadership styles’ model. Traditional theories Most of the major leadership theories, presented by Northouse in 2012, such as Great Man theory, Trait theory, Transactional theory, and Transformational theory, originated before 1990.

The same with a link to a summary published at Leadership-central.com applies to many other theories associated with the main theories above as the Managerial Grid Model / Leadership Grid and Role theory associated with Behavioral theories, Fiedler’s contingency theory, Hersey-Blanchard Situational leadership theory, Path-goal theory, Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model of leadership, Cognitive Resource theory and Strategic Contingencies theory associated with Contingency theories, Leader-member Exchange (LMX) associated with Transactional leadership theories, and finally Burns Transformational leadership theory, Bass Transformational leadership theory, and Kouzes and Posner’s leadership Participation Inventory associated with Transformational leadership theories.

One can also assign to this enumeration Charismatic leadership theory created almost at the same time as Transformational leadership and used, how Northouse (2012) stated, almost as synonym until the mid-1980s. Influencing the group through charisma and interpersonal attractiveness of its leader assign Dang, Gadi, and Danladi (2013) as the reason for including these theories to Trait based. Servant leadership theory, introduced by some authors among very contemporary theories, was, according to Smith (2005), created by Robert Greenleaf in 1970. Spear (2005), referring to Greenleaf, explains that Servant leader is a person who naturally wants to serve. He gives top priority to the needs of others. This style of leadership is not fast but ‘has the potential for creating positive change throughout our society.’ New directions With regard to the period after 1990, according to Northouse (2012), experts only agree that it is not possible to find a common definition of leadership. It is still being subject of exploring from many angles, by many disciplines and approaches. It is not surprising that some older approaches still persist.

An example is for the autocratic approach, which was for millennia an almost unquestionable attribute of leadership. Already 80 years ago, a group of scientists headed by Kurt Lewin except mentioned autocratic named two more styles of leadership: democratic or participative and delegative (Laissez-Faire). All three still exist. One may see a fresh impulse at the start of the research that led to collective theories, which Bryman in 1992 described as ‘new leadership’ or ‘New-Genre’ theories. Dan Brown (2017), in his detective novel Origin, writes about first, an extraordinary super-intelligent computer, unfortunately fictive, that, with its characteristics is similar to human thinking. How was this achieved or why it was not achieved earlier? “The trick,” is that this synthetic brain mimicking the human brain is segmented into left and right hemispheres, and is working as a bicameral mind. Here one can see a parallel with the new directions of leadership theories. In addition to the left, practical, hemisphere, we begin to discover the benefits of engaging the right, creative or spiritual, hemisphere.

Dinn in 2014 writes that according to Austin (2009) emergent theories such as Inspirational leadership are on the cutting edge of describing effective qualities of leadership and management. Inspirational leadership can be present in each leadership model as a ‘leader archetype’ having inspirational agenda contributing to company culture, education, motivation, inspiration, and supports of followers. Further Dinn quotes McEarchern (2005) who attributed Inspirational leadership to a combination of emotional and spiritual intelligence. Another style that expands the boundaries of original theories is Authentic leadership, utilizing the potential of positive psychological abilities and a well-developed organizational context, as Luthans and Avolio (2003) mention, to ‘greater self-awareness and self-directed positive behavior on the part of leaders and co-workers, encouraging positive self-development.’ Nohria and Khurana (2010) complement that an authentic leader needs to be self-aware, moral centered, transparent, and balanced decision maker. George (2003) characterizes Authentic Leaders as individuals equipped with moral integrity with ‘genuine desire to serve others through their leadership’, who set out on a never-ending journey of personal development promoting the ability for building lasting values and relationships. In addition to authenticity, ethics becomes also an important topic.

Companies are becoming aware of the importance of long-term sustainability. Mihelič, Lipičnik and Tekavčič (2010) put forward a long-term perspective vs. the consequences of individual decisions within the company. Humility, justice, responsibility, and mutual respect and work in favor of the good of others, or in other words reveal and respect ethical standards, should be the basic attributes of leaders that can be called ethical. At the same time, the authors attach results of the study of U.K. Institute of Business Ethics, published by Fulmer in 2004, where between 1997 and 2001 in a sample of 350 large U.K. “ethical” companies were found strong indicative evidence, that those companies following business ethical principles in their business activities have performance results above the average of comparable companies where such principles are absent. Many leaders, how stated by Page (2017), still consider innate intelligence (IQ) and level of education to be most important for leadership and professional success. Unfortunately, they do not realize that working with emotions and the ability to collaborate with others, attributes (EQs), may have a much stronger influence on the outcome of their efforts than they can imagine.

And yet, in the new century, emotional intelligence seems to become increasingly important for leadership theories updates in the context of globalizing society and more sophisticated technologies. As Northouse (2012) quotes Adler and Bartholomew (1992) in global world leaders needs to be competent in cross-cultural topics such are ‘First, leaders need to understand business, political, and cultural environments worldwide. Second, they need to learn the perspectives, tastes, trends, and technologies of many other cultures. Third, they need to be able to work simultaneously with people from many cultures. Fourth, leaders must be able to adapt to living and communicating in other cultures. Fifth, they need to learn to relate to people from other cultures from a position of equality rather than cultural superiority.’ Additionally, Northouse (2012) quotes Ting-Toomey (1999) who stated ‘that global leaders need to be skilled in creating transcultural visions.

They need to develop communication competencies that will enable them to articulate and implement their vision in a diverse workplace. In sum, today’s leaders need to acquire a challenging set of competencies if they intend to be effective in present-day global societies.’ One can imagine that international corporations or international cooperation can generate a need for e-leadership utilizing online tools to save time and costs. Leadership research responds to the emergence of a virtual environment with new technologies. Hambley, O’Neill and Kline called new approach in 2006 ‘virtual leadership’ or ‘e-leadership’, and defined it as ‘ asocial influence process mediated by advanced information technologies to produce changes in attitudes, thinking, behavior, and / or performance of individuals, groups, and / or organizations ”. What can happen when members of virtual teams have different time zones, hardware and software, and even more, they have to respect local leadership priorities at the same time, is also imaginable. Ongoing research of brain activities, increasingly advanced technologies allow allows exploring of brain activities in connection with an individual’s behavior in the social environment, when decision-making, problem-solving, controlling emotions, collaboration, and mutual influencing, Muleyo (2017) ties together with emergence and development of Neuro-leadership theory.

Like the people who apply them, leadership theories are not perfect. That’s one of the reasons why one cannot use universal theory for all situations. The choice and applicability are determined by measurable factors (e.g. size of a company or project, time), but also those that we cannot measure well (e.g. geo-political-cultural-social-emotional factors). Therefore, the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of individual theories is subjective and time-dependent. Blanchard in 1985 published the following “The four basic leadership styles” model: Figure 1 The four basic leadership styles. Adapted from Blanchard (1985). The quadrants are therefore renamed as follows: S1 = Autocratic, S2 = Democratic, S3 = Transformational, S4 = Delegative. people oriented (LOW) SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIOR (HIGH) E-Leadership , Cross-Cultural, Charismatic, Servant, Ethical, Spiritual, Visionary, Authentic, Transformational S3 Democratic S2 Delegative S4 Great Man, Trait, Behavioural Contingency, Transactional S1 (LOW) DIRECTIVE BEHAVIOR (HIGH) task oriented Figure 2. Four groups of leadership theories.

This illustrates belonging to groups with similar parameters. Edited from “ The four basic leadership styles” by Blanchard (1985) Theories and styles marked as new directions as are E-leadership, Cross-cultural, Charismatic, Servant, Ethical, Spiritual, Visionary and Authentic leadership theories are put into the same group as Transformational leadership because of the fact that, unlike autocratic, delegative and also democratic styles, the leaders are focused on the transformation of values, needs, preferences, and also full exploitation of the potential of followers. The following evaluations of the strengths and weaknesses of the guiding principles of leadership theories are based on materials published by St. Thomas University updated in 2018: Strengths: The speed of decision-making that an autocratic style can bring may be an advantage in certain situations such as crisis situations. Participative or group leadership theories can also be called democratic. Strengths are, not surprisingly, similar to the strengths of democracy itself. Enabling members to participate in decision making, relative openness to innovations and changes, mutual trust and support of the creative environment and team spirit belongs to basic attributes.

Diversification of the risk of fatal failure is also an important parameter. Transformational leadership theory offers vision, motivation, and satisfaction with a condition, that leaders are with using emotional intelligence and integrity able to gain the confidence of followers. This theory allows getting beyond the horizon of leaders knowledge, skills, experience, and courage by controlled unleashing the potential of the group’s members. If one wants to rebuild and prepare the company for the future, this is the way. Delegative leadership (Laissez-faire) by its nature ‘pushes’ group members to take over personal responsibility. If they have space and support for autonomous decision making, it can be relatively creative and effective. Weaknesses The risk of potential abuse of power by an autocratic leader or fatal failure is concentrated in one person. The leader’s horizons are reflected in the group’s environment and in a short can be limiting.

The threat of the emergence of negative emotions combined with the possible absence of appropriate communication paths to the solution, lack of flexibility, disharmony and unused potential does not qualify this style for long-term perspectives. Democratic theories can be weakened like any ‘democracy’ by conflict of opinions, finding consensus with people, who are not familiar with the situation and data, optionally also by the mob behavior threats. Democratic processes generally can slow down the decision making process. In general, the role and control of the leader are weakened. The theory of transformation leadership may suffer from a purely practical drawback, which lies in a confrontation of visionaries with quick wins, achievable goals, or simply with pure bureaucracy.

In addition, the style built on trust can suffer from its lack. Lack of coordination and unclear responsibilities can cause operational difficulties. If in a tribe is no functioning leader, members try to replace him. But this ‘forced’ reaction is usually stressful for them especially when the members do not have sufficient skills.

The theories chronologically following to Transformational theory cannot be considered completely new, full-fledged theories. Rather, they are sub-theories that take into account the process of globalization and technology development. At the same time, it is good to keep in mind together with Sedlacek the warning pronounced by Plato, that ‘despite all the development and progress we are still just people, who as Leaders only in the ideal world are not distracted by corruption from seeking a higher good for all of us’, and also the fact, that despite all the progress and globalization trends still exist ‘parochial altruism’, the term, how Green (2013) has marked the natural human tendency to tribalism, thinking, and behavior favoring people, who are closer to us, or by other words, members of another group are understood as our competitors. In addition to working on individual theories, it is definitely time to pay attention to gender issues as well as to the role of the CEO. In history was neglected the potential of women, whom Nohria and Khurana (2010) attribute abilities regarding networking, ‘nonhierarchical style and relational skills’, could be more suitable for less formal, less hierarchical and more knowledge-based systems of leading, because ‘women leaders don’t covet formal authority. They have learned to lead without it.” Nohria and Khurana (2010) consider the CEO as ‘epitome’ of leadership. But do the CEO´s really know how to play the role in order to be beneficial? Some things change, some remain.

Populism has emerged as a prominent feature of liberal-democratic political landscapes across the world . These populist surges have drawn significant impact on the systems they gained traction against, and many have questioned whether populism threatens or strengthens liberal-democracy. This potentially ambiguous relationship drawn between populism and liberal-democracy has been connected to the duality within the concept of liberal-democracy itself, with its two-strand model outlining both a liberal pillar and a classically democratic pillar. Given this account, liberal-democracy can be considered a misnomer, incorporating a combination of distinct and potentially discordant values; one therefore cannot declare whether or precisely how populism proves a threat to liberal-democracy overall without unpacking and identifying which of these pillars are threatened or supported by the populist. If the associated populist impact on the strands contradict, whether populism poses a threat to the system as a whole depends on which of the two pillars are regarded as the central pillar in the concept of liberal-democracy; ultimately, we assess which impact greater influences the system overall.

This essay argues that populism demonstrates ‘illiberal democracy’ in action- supporting the democratic pillar, yet conflicting with and threatening the liberal pillar. Given this analysis, I will adjudge that populism does prove a threat to liberal-democracy overall; due to the fact that the liberal pillar and its associated values, practices and institutions can be considered more fundamental and characteristic to the recognisable functioning of the liberal-democratic system, the significant populist threat to this element outweighs the potential benefits of populism associated with the democratic strand. This analysis of precisely how populism threatens the world’s hegemonic political-economic system carries implications that may inform the potential responses to it on the international scale. In this essay, I first discuss the democratic functions of populism and how, taking the democratic pillar to be fundamental, this potentially indicates that populism strengthens liberal-democracy; following this, I will emphasise the centrality of the liberal pillar to the liberal-democratic system, and therefore, after examining how populism heavily conflicts with this element, one can conclude that populism does constitute a threat to liberal-democracy.

Considering the democratic pillar of liberal-democracy to be its central element, populism can potentially not only be seen to not threaten it, but operate as a mechanism working harmoniously alongside to strengthen its principles. This stems from the fact that populism stands continuous with this democratic pillar, through its exhibition of democratically-associated functions and shared core values in this regard. One presentation of this is populism’s capacity to generate and increase political engagement. The first condition of populism is to make a call for ‘the people;’ being intrinsically majoritarian and plebiscitary in this way allows populism to operate as an instrument of direct democracy that promotes grassroots mobilisation and civil empowerment. This creation of an unfiltered channel where the populate can air grievances relatively directly to a leader who can then authentically represent them, ultimately serves to strengthen participation . Populist movements are postulated to and have succeeded in mobilising formerly disengaged citizens to the political process, reflected in the robust empirical evidence accumulated in CentralEastern-Europe, that illustrates turnout increasing when at least one populist party is represented in parliament prior to elections. This attempt to restore the disruptive noise of the people not only supports democratic engagement and contributes to a more vibrant social culture, but also protects the longevity of the formal political system itself, slowing the potential for discontent to channel into violent revolutionary thought , as demonstrated in the Arab Spring revolts. Thus, given the observed global ‘participation crises’ of recent years that could, in the longer-term, precipitate civil-unrest and state breakdown, populism can be conceptualised as a redemptive style of politics that conserves liberal-democracy by way of its democratic pillar, precipitating mass-engagement.

This idea that populist discourse reinvigorates disengaged sects of society links to a second reason it can be seen to uphold liberal-democracy, in serving its democratic pillar. The emancipatory potential generated by its ability to represent and amplify socio-economically excluded communities grants populism the capacity to radically transform the political process into one more representative and inclusive, and thus strengthen one of the core features of democracy. Mouffe , for example, from a post-Marxist, post-structural perspective, posits that the driving force of populism on both ends of the political spectrum is speaking to the unheeded struggles of ‘left-behind’ citizens, with Kazin and Laclau deeming populism a strategy for new social groups to be incorporated and represented in the democratic process. Recent displays of populist discourse fostering greater democratic social inclusion range from Sanders in the US to Morales in Bolivia, with both operating to….

These democratically-focused functions have led scholars to conclude that populism’s beneficial nature lies in its remedial reinforcement of democratic dynamics in a context where systems are stifled by elitism, dry pragmatism and technocracy. Populism is thus framed as a redemptive force that behaves not as a threat, but a corrective to the liberal-democratic system, regarding a perceived democratic deficit within one of its pillars. This idea links to the conception that populism operates and can be defined as a mere method or strategy, capable of bearing a tonic effect in its articulation of identities and grievances delegitimised in public discourse. Taggart goes as far to argue that populism acts as a health indicator in representative political systems, drawing attention to malfunctionings so that elites become aware they must take politics back to ‘the people-’restoring faith in and thus longer-term support for, liberal-democracy. Scholars also note that populism, therefore, can be seen to counteract the increasingly inaccessible and unaccountable character of recently depoliticised systems, effectively articulating resistance against a post-democratic regression derived from the global hegemony of neo-liberalism. This may ground the belief that not only is the relationship between populism and liberal-democracy positive, through the support of its democratic pillar, but that progressive European populism provides the most effective method to recover and expand global democratic ideals.

However, these arguments illustrating how populism works to strengthen rather than threaten liberal-democracy take premise that the democratic pillar is the core, fundamental pillar of liberal-democracy, and that populism’s provision of democratic functions, impacts and ideals mean it can be broadly concluded that populism, overall, wholly serves and supports the concept of liberal democracy. This assumption can be challenged on grounds that populism inherently conflicts with and significantly threatens the other, liberally focused, pillar of the system. This liberal pillar, at odds with populist thought, arguably proves more fundamental to the recognisable functioning of liberal-democracy, since the characteristic emphasis on liberal values, practices and institutions that are attributed by this strand distinguishes the system distinctly from other forms of democracy. Therefore, although populism remains continuous with the democratic pillar, I will argue that the populist’s ingrained, ideological incompatibilities with its core liberal pillar establish it as a threat against liberal-democracy as a whole.

For example, when considering its impact on the liberal pillar, populism can be demonstrated as an opposing force to and significant threat against liberal-democracy. This stems from many forms of populism proving ‘illiberal,’ and thus discontinuous with the liberal strand, due to conflict regarding ideological assumptions and values. The core populist belief in the ‘volonte-generale,’ where society is seen to fall under one singular, yet collective will and body of the people, draws us to populism’s first inherent incompatibility with liberal-democracy. Society being characterised by a common will of single-interest conceives a conceptualisation of the demos as a ‘homogeneous unity,’ carrying a monolithic interpretation that juxtaposes ideas from liberal-democracy; to liberal-democrats, the people are understood as an irreducible plurality, of heterogeneous social groups with divergent values, interests and opinions. Contrastingly, under populist theory, the united peoples easily form a common body, figure-headed by a representative leader, due to a perceived closely shared identity- an outcome the liberal-democratic society cannot accommodate, given its diverse, integrated nature. Hence, liberal democracy and populism, in carrying differing interpretations of the people, consequently embody irreconcilable understandings of democracy, with liberals remaining anti-tribal and populists embracing homogeneity. Such a conflict in perception of society, a core concept that provides the foundations for both ideologies’ value principles, means populism elementally opposes, and thus may threaten liberal-democracy, particularly when emphasising its liberal pillar. This argument defines populism under the ideational approach, where although it may prove thin-centred and able adopt ‘host-ideologies’ spanning the political-spectrum, it is articulated more specifically than merely a method for action, conceptualised as a set of ideas with its own cosmology.

This populist belief in societal unity demonstrates further incompatibilities with liberal-democracy, through its antagonistic implications. A monolithic perception of society will ultimately become exclusive, cultivating a cultural antipathy and demarcating those who do not conform or exist within the ‘charmed circle’ as a threat to the homogeneity, rejected from recognition as ‘true’ peoples; this includes socio-economic elites or minorities, dependent upon the designated image of ‘the people.’

Sweden’s rise in nationalism throughout the centuries was encouraged by movements that protested for religious, labor, and women’s rights. People power plays a crucial role in Swedish society to raise social awareness and political movements. During the 18th century, Sweden had lost the Great Northern War which forced them to make changes to their constitution and introduce the parliament. In addition, Sweden also suffered from an economic crisis due to the Napoleonic Wars affecting the trade systems. Because of this, millions emigrated to North America. With this in mind, mechanisms utilized to consolidate power or galvanize populations were essentially through force and war. After Sweden became more industrial in the 19th century, Social Democratic leaders and plans for universal suffrage were introduced. Ever since World War 1, Sweden has not engaged in any war thus, working with NATO for its Partnership for Peace (History of Sweden).

The overall level of support of the general population for movements is strongly emphasized to this day as Swedish people continue to protest and speak for their rights through parliament and activism. An empowering, positive outcome seen in Swedish society is that gender equality is enforced through all grade levels of school. This enables more freedom of acceptance for both young adults and children. In today’s era, the national government of Sweden firmly follows its constitution of the Act of Succession, Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression, Freedom of the Press Act, and Instrument of Government. These 4 fundamental laws are crucially utilized to stand above all other political laws to sustain a strong social democracy. In addition, Swedish politics rely heavily on the parliament since it is how new law amendments are proposed.

Although all national leaders strive to make their country a better place, major and even threatening issues, such as increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and unequal gender rights, are often overlooked or put aside. However, national proposals in Sweden were put into action to help improve its future and inspire other countries. These proposals include a fossil-free infrastructure and an action plan for women, peace, and security. Both of these projects are structured to tackle the challenging issues that many nations face today. The overall outcomes envisioned for these action plans are that they utilize fewer rail networks and fortify the protection of women from violence. It is even stated that 700 billion was spent on the infrastructure project alone. Essentially with the two action plans occuring, there is no doubt that Sweden is promoting nationalism and making positive efforts to improve its living environments both physically and socially.  

When the Founding Fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, it was written to protect the new republic from absolute power. Whereas it is being called as the British Monarchy. Furthermore, the Great Compromise allowed states to have an equal voice in the Senate while populous states had a greater presence in the House of Representatives. The Congress who had truly the right to have the power to declare war, had several presidents mobilizing the military forces without Congress declaring war. Both branches of Congress had passed its bills and the President asserts new laws that are executed faithfully if not vetoing them. In addition, the President appoints federal officials who are judges and cabinet members. Where many of these positions are confirmed by the Senate. Our founding fathers importantly knew it was to equally represent our people including the circumstances. With the constitutional framers, concerns were given out that one of the branches, especially the president, would overpower, not as limited but as the other branches.

Though our democracy as a whole becoming a tyranny of the majority. Solving problems and disagreements within governments creates two parts of the legislative branch: limits on governments by grants, checks, and balances, and denial of powers. The framers of the Constitution had concerns that the president would have unchecked power. Desired to have strong leadership without no opportunity for tyranny. The goal was to share policy-making decisions with others. Including, framers debating how the president would be chosen and elected independently of the legislative branch making sure the presidency had checked in place to control power. Expresses the majority the goal of a balanced and strong system that is possible with the creation of checks and balances limiting them to hold too much power against others. The compromise that was reached was the President was able to give limitations to their stature, therefore, there would not be any major power for anyone but to split equally.

Two basic motivations are fear of death and seeking power. The social contract of every man respecting each other own endeavors, in which an agreement between each individual protects them from these fears. Continues due to mankind’s nature. Every man is naturally selfish and is always in pursuit of power, even when a social contract is formed it is broken due to mankind’s ill intentions. There is innate evil in this state of nature because mankind will always be seeking something that can benefit themselves. A social contract is an agreement between individuals within a society to benefit their society, each other, and their freedoms. A social contract places boundaries: laws, rules, and equality for the rest of the individuals because it is a contract that is supposed to better society as a whole and not just the individuals. Places several constructs on those individuals within the society. The tradeoffs are significant in choosing either life in society or the state of nature. If you choose life in the state of nature you are free from society and free to pursue your own liberties regardless of laws, or other individuals getting in the way. In a society, you must abide by the law, and promote equality to better the society.

I truly feel that today our government needs to step in and regulate things that states have allowed to get out of hand and visa versa. Knowing that each state has its own set of problems having separate laws, and emergency implements differ from state to state. Some states have hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, cand rime, therefore one cannot truly be one blueprint plan for all states. Separating certain areas necessarily however can still achieve the same goals of order, freedom, and equality. For instance, the federal government needs to step in and regulate some of the control the Mormon church has over the Utah state government. Having spent several years living there as a non-Mormon you see the abuse that religion can apply to a population to gain control. Other times I think that it’s beneficial for the states to have their power, for instance, California has the fruit and vegetable checks coming in and out of the state to protect the environment here and I appreciate the power the state has to exercise in achieving those stands and protecting our unique ecological system.

Considering the two procedural models of American democracy we had discussed in class. The procedural model of democracy is reflected when interest groups get together and express their ideas referring to problems that our democracy is facing with solutions. The majoritarian procedural model of democracy relies on high voter turnout because it is a quantifiable way of understanding how responsive government policy is. The procedural model of democracy has a view of democracy embodied in the decision-making process. This model involves universal participation, political equality, majority rule, and responsiveness. If people are not turning out to vote then our democratic health is suffering. When people don’t vote, then a principle of procedural democracy majority rule is not being followed. Consequently, people are not being represented in the decision-making process. Media serves both majoritarian and pluralist models of democracy by improving the quality of available information. The Majoritarian procedural view relies not only on the premise of an informed populace but an active one. The Pluralist procedural view, which is usually more realistic provides that people are less directly active than they ought to be according to the Majoritarian ideal and, the Pluralist model provides for alternate ways of “being he, ard” and “being represented” in a huge representative democracy like ours. According to our lecture notes, unconventional participation is defined as a relatively uncommon political behavior that challenges or defies established institutions and dominant norms. Some types of unconventional participation are boycotts and terrorism. In my perspective they are viewed the same in some ways, however also have some different meanings as of today, I just quite do not understand how to state their differences. To define a voter turnout: the percentage of eligible voters who vote in a given election. It is important because it helps who will win. From my understanding, the Pluralist procedural view relies upon a high voter turnout because it provides for alternate ways of ‘being heard’ and ‘being represented’ in a huge representative democracy like ours. The reality is that the more you spend and the more you can campaign, the more you get the word out about yourself. People should be able to contribute to a campaign that they believe in and how much they spend should be up to them and how much they can afford. In today’s media, we only talk about the bad things about politics about what is wrong instead of giving solutions that can become reality. They only talk about one solution instead of a compromise. I believe that they do line up with privately owned media because they only talk about what their side wants to hear. They don’t give all the sides and if they do talk about the other side they do not correctly inform the people.             

Democracy is the shape of authority in which the ruling strength of a kingdom is legally vested no longer in any unique type or class but in the individuals of the region as a whole. it is an authority in which the will of the majority of residents rules barring overriding the rights of the minority.

‘Our charter is named a democracy, due to the truth it is the arms no longer of the few, but of many. But our felony pointers impervious equal justice for all personal disputes, and our public opinion welcomes and honors Genius in every branch of achievement, no longer for any sectional reason, on the other hand on grounds of excellence alone.’ These phrases Pericles uttered are nonetheless terrific and might additionally be considered through some distance the fantastic definition of democracy. democracy is in truth, government of the people, by way of the human beings and for the people.’

The perfect democracy is that of equality, freedom, and welfare for all. it includes the abolition of every form of preclude and privilege. Ancient democracy used to be based on the direct participation of the loads in public affairs. Modern democracy is an advisor in personality and it wants no longer solely regular person suffrage, then again also the lively participation of human beings in government. Thus, in a democratic state, the acts of the authorities are by the will of the people, on account that they have the appropriate to pick out and do away with their leaders and the ideal to determine the major traces of policy. Nevertheless, democracy is a matter of degree, and no whole expression has yet been given to eh exceptional of democracy.

Democracy implies political liberty. Political liberty consists of the perfect to vote, the acceptable to serve as a candidate for election, the right to maintain public offices, and freedom of speech, association, worship, and opinion. All these tightly closed the individual, the most necessary ideal of political participation. By giving every individual a share in the government, democracy prompts patriotism.

Democracy is based totally on the doctrine of equality. Inequality has been the motive of all the revolutions which have modified the face of the world. Popular authorities resting on the will of human beings and the precept of equality are immune from all modern disturbances. moreover, this structure of government also implies the opportunity of a desired government in the neighborhood of an inefficient one. These characteristics positively the balance of the democratic form of government.

Also, administration and ideal business enterprise are other necessary requisites of democracy. Without appropriate organization, people can not express themselves effectively. The leader of the celebration has to be responsible, simple, and courageous. He needs to be successful to count on without a doubt and act boldly. He ought to have the capability to choose public opinion correctly. Above all, he ought to adhere to excessive principles. An unscrupulous leader may effortlessly develop to be a dictator and endanger democracy.

Given favorable conditions, democracy is the splendid shape of authorities identified so far. It reconciles liberty and authority; it imbues the residents with a feel of patriotism; it is an authority by way of discussion; it rests on the will of the people; it treats all folks as equals and tolerates the opposition; it pastimes at giving the largest happiness to the largest volume of citizens in a state. Under the democratic shape of government, the human persona develops and the person realizes their nice self.