Category: Democracy

The main arguments of John Mearsheimer relied on the development, nature and fate of liberal hegemonic order. He is a well-known ‘offensive realist’ and his central argument relied mainly on the long-standing intention of creating the world in the American image through liberal thoughts and institutional arrangements.

The concept of liberal democracy started with two fundamental assumptions about human nature, care about the social nature of individuality. It stands with the solution of individual rights, norms of tolerance and having limited type of state. Also, according to Mearsheimer, liberal hegemony is an attempt to make American image and its aim is to expand liberal democracy in the world. He argued that liberal hegemony does not work and mentioned the track records of spreading liberal democracy in the world; he gave us three failed examples such as the Bush Doctrine and US expansion to the Greater Middle East, the Ukraine crisis and US-Russia relations and the failure of engagement policy of USA towards China. Based on his analysis, three of these efforts were failed because of three reasons; the power of nationalism, power of realism and the overselling of individual rights.

To achieve liberal hegemony in the global context, unipolar order is needed. To have hegemony you need to have unipolar arrangement. When there are two and more great powers there will be powers competition. Therefore, he advised the United States to use this opportunity to spread its political and economic thoughts across countries. However, the Iraq and Afghanistan cases indicated that invading those places in the name of spreading democracy could not go together and ultimately failed its goal.

The problem with the American establishment is (according to Mearsheimer), the liberal foreign policy based on liberalism, it is runs up against nationalism and realism. Both thoughts defeat liberalism in the international politics. Based on his argument, nationalism and liberalism do not go together. When liberalism competes with nationalism, nationalism always wins. In his book on ‘The Tragedy of Great Power Politics’ (2001: 22), he gave clear definition of realism: realists focus on great powers, states compete for relative dominance and state behavior is influenced by the international structure, every state wants to maximize its security. Here, it is important to balance the realist theory of the world with liberal thoughts and give rooms to cooperation and strengthening integration.

My personal comments on some of his arguments are as follows. Primarily, United States has negative track records of overthrowing democratically elected governments in different parts of the world such as Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in Georgia and so on. Regime change and liberal hegemony are going together in the US’s project of spreading liberal democracy. As to my knowledge, color revolutions are instruments of USA and other Western powers to put puppet governments in different parts of the world by agitating internal turmoil, strikes, civic disobedience and using mainly the media. After overthrowing the government through color revolution, it paved the way for American companies to exploit its resources and spread its political ideology in to that country. Therefore, America in the name of spreading democracy has interest of economic exploitation which he did not mention it clearly. Also, it is difficult to conclude that USA has no moral ground to defend itself as forerunner of democracy and human rights. Also, it is certain that people across the globe need basic human rights. Democracy has different interpretations in different parts of the world. Some countries look it as a goal and some look it as a means to achieve certain goals such as realizing economic growth and delivering public goods. Various countries have their own historical, cultural and many other features and citizen’s interests. Therefore, there is no straight jacket of thought concerning the liberal democratic thoughts in the world.

Secondly, Mearsheimer mentioned that liberal democracies do not fight each other and they are peace loving is controversial. Can we say that liberal countries are peace loving countries? As we know, countries during World War II and the Cold War periods went to war and certain degree of antagonism with similar political ideological thoughts. Therefore, the theory of presenting all liberal countries as peace loving does not have historical justifications.

According to Mearsheimer, currently United States is facing two challenges that prevent to spread liberal democracy in the world; the coming of Donald Trump and the rise of China and the resurrection of Russian power. Based on realist’s view, if China’s economy is continuing, it can be turned in to military power and also there is a probability to be leading superpower.

Therefore, after considering all these stories my final remark is, the future of our world mainly based on the coming of the new powers such as China and the established powers such as USA. For few years, may be for few decades, the unipolar world would continue, but then after we would go in to bipolar or multipolar world. Until then the security competition and trade rivalry would continue, however, the best solution is creating new arrangements, new set of ideas that can handle the emerging realities and that can engender and bring about peace and security in the world.

References

1. Mearsheimer , John. ‘The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities’. Yale University Press; 1st Edition (September 25, 2018).
2. Mearsheimer , John. ‘The Tragedy of Great Power Politics’. W. W. Norton & Company, 2014.
3. Nana de Graaff, Tobias ten Brink & Inderjeet Parmar (2020). ‘China’s Rise in a Liberal World Order in Transition’. Introduction to the FORUM, Review of International Political Economy.
4. https://www.chathamhouse.org/event/great-delusion-liberal-dreams-vs-international-realities

Introduction

Sara Holbrook’s poem “Democracy” is a thought-provoking piece that challenges conventional notions of democracy and raises questions about its true meaning and practice. In this critical essay, we will explore the various themes and techniques employed by Holbrook in her poem, analyzing the underlying messages and implications of her words.

Analysis

Holbrook’s poem “Democracy” is a critique of the gap between the idealized concept of democracy and its reality. Through her use of vivid imagery and powerful language, she highlights the contradictions and shortcomings of a system that often fails to live up to its promises.

One of the central themes of the poem is the notion of equality. Holbrook questions whether democracy truly provides equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their backgrounds or circumstances. She presents scenarios where individuals are denied equal rights and access to opportunities, highlighting the inherent flaws and injustices within the democratic system.

The poem also explores the influence of power and money in politics. Holbrook suggests that democracy can be easily swayed by those with wealth and influence, leading to a system that favors the privileged and neglects the needs of the marginalized. She challenges the idea that democracy is a level playing field and questions whether it truly represents the voices of the people.

Holbrook’s use of irony is particularly effective in conveying her critical perspective. She presents situations that seem to embody the principles of democracy, such as voting and free speech, but reveals the underlying inequalities and limitations that exist. By juxtaposing the idealized concept of democracy with the reality, she encourages readers to question the status quo and consider the deeper implications of their political systems.

Furthermore, Holbrook’s poem challenges the passive nature of democracy. She urges individuals to actively engage in the political process and take responsibility for shaping their society. Through lines such as “Democracy is NOT a spectator sport,” she emphasizes the importance of civic participation and reminds readers that democracy requires constant vigilance and effort.

Holbrook’s choice of language and poetic devices adds depth and complexity to her critique. The use of repetition, such as the refrain “Democracy is,” creates a rhythmic effect that emphasizes the key ideas and drives the message home. Additionally, her use of metaphors and vivid descriptions enhances the emotional impact of the poem, making it more relatable and thought-provoking for the reader.

Conclusion

Sara Holbrook’s poem “Democracy” challenges the traditional understanding of democracy, presenting a critical examination of its flaws and contradictions. Through powerful imagery, thought-provoking language, and irony, Holbrook exposes the gaps between the idealized concept of democracy and its reality.

By questioning the notions of equality, the influence of power and money, and the passive nature of democracy, Holbrook urges readers to reflect on the shortcomings of their political systems and take an active role in shaping a more just and inclusive society.

“Democracy” serves as a reminder that democracy is not a fixed concept but a dynamic process that requires constant scrutiny and participation. It encourages readers to critically evaluate their own societies and work towards a more equitable and accountable form of governance.

Democracy in the United States has been in a constant state of change. To this day, Democracy is still evolving to fit the times. New laws passed, old laws challenged or abolished, and ideas constantly being shared. Currently we get most of our current information about these changes from news media, but in the 19th century there were many writers who used their skills to talk about changes that were happening and to bring light to changes that needed to be made. “The Martyr”, by Herman Melville and “The Declaration of Sentiments”, drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton are two examples.

“The Martyr” was a poem written by Herman Mellville and published in 1865, a year after the assasination of President Abraham Lincoln. In his people he talks about how he saw Lincoln, the person that assassinated him, and his view of the nation’s reaction to the event. He idolizes Lincoln by referring to him as, “The Forgiver”. This is also a reference to Christ and God and is used to show Lincoln as almost Holy. Melville also makes another holy reference using the word “redeem” when he says, “When with yearning he was filled; To redeem the evil-willed,…” This is also telling the audience about Lincoln’s yearning to abolish slavery, give equal rights to slaves, and to bring the Southern States back into the fold of the United States. During his term as President, Abraham Lincoln worked tirelessly to hold the United States together and to change democracy by abolishing slavery and working to give former Male slaves the same rights that the free white men had. Mellville used poetry to remind his audience what Lincoln had done to change the face of Democracy and to warn the assasin’s that the American people would find them and demand justice for the murder of Lincoln.

“The Declaration of Sentiments” was based on the Declaration of Independence. This is fitting because the original Declaration of Independence stated that, “All men are created equal” and left out women. Having already been involved in the call for the abolishment of slavery and the demands for former male slaves to have the right to vote, women felt it was at long last their turn for the same equality in law, employment, rights, and to vote. This was the first document to formally announce the demands of women to have the right to vote. The rapid changes in laws during this time are what brought about the women’s suffrage movement. It began with this document and the statement in it that begins with, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal;…” Elizabeth Cady Stanton went on to say, “He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men, both natives and foreigners.” This declaration was used to promote further changes to democracy and to women’s way of life at the time and into the future.

Both Mellville and Stanton wrote about changes in democracy. One wrote about changes that had been made and one about changes that needed to be made. Writing has played a part in Democracy since it’s beginning in the United States. It began with propaganda urging American to rise up against British rule, Continuing with the Declaration of Independence, and continuing on with demands for change, written laws, and current speeches calling for changes to gun laws.

Populism is notoriously difficult to define but most academics appear to agree that it has two main elements: firstly a claim to speak on behalf of ordinary people and secondly the ordinary peopl must stand up in opposition to an elite establishment or institution which stops them from fulfilling their political ambitions. In this essay, I am going to use a definition created by Cas Mudde, Professor at the University of Georgia. He defines populism as, [An] ideology that separates society into two homogeneous and antagonistic camps: the pure people and the corrupt elite. Simplified, this suggests populist movements focus on the average citizen, convincing the public that they have been misrepresented and need change that only they can deliver. For the purpose of this study I will define democratic politics as a system that tolerates a diverse range of ideas and opinions from different groups and individuals, and where politicians aim to reach agreement and accommodation of these where possible. I will examine whether populism is a threat to democracy by looking at the characteristics of populist leaders and the techniques they may use to undermine democratic processes.

Deeper into Populism

Populism feeds off failing mainstream political parties or the perceived widespread suffering of a population and relies on charismatic leaders who embody the will of the people. The opposition is generally accused of being illegitimate and unworthy. Fundamentally, populism can be described as peddling deceptively simple solutions to often difficult, nuanced, and complex questions. Populists can conform to either wing, although populism has more recently been associated with right wing political parties and movements in the form of populist movements led by politicians such as Donald Trump in the USA and Nigel Farage and his Brexit promoting UKIP party, this is not always the case. As Left-wing populists have also had a significant presence, specifically in South America where Hugo Chavez the late, former president of Venezuela is probably the most famous example. Chavez, even when governing the country, positioned himself as an anti-establishment politician who was on the side of the people in his quest to alleviate poverty and promote food security by distributing the wealth created by the country’s oil industry. An important observation is that generally left-wing populists tend to focus on socioeconomic grievances whereas right wing populists are in general more concerned with socio-cultural issues such as immigration. Examples of this would be the Greek, left wing populist Syriza party whose popularity boomed following the economic recession in 20XX and the Front National in France who have gained a much greater significance in French mainstream politics by focusing their campaigns on anti-immigration policies and policies that protect their traditional definition of French national identity.

The Characteristics of populist leaders

Populist leaders typically seek to position themselves as disruptors who are outside the existing order. They believe themselves to be in some way separate and radically different from other political leaders. Even a cursory examination of well-known populist leaders reveals that they share three main characteristics. The first being charisma; a populist leader does not have to be a politician in any sense, what they need is to be an engaging individual who can captivate audiences. Leaders use emotion to stir the audience rather than traditional political methods. In Italy, a populist group named 5 Star was founded by Beppe Grillo, a former stand-up comedian who spoke passionately about how the elites and global forces were the reason for Italy’s hardship. The second is describing irrational promises about the future and declaring existential threats, for example Donald Trump promised to build a wall on the USA-Mexico border to manage the threat of uncontrolled immigration of migrants from South and Central America; an extremely challenging task which has evidently not happened. Many populist leaders when campaigning, describe existential threats and explain that only they can fix these problems. To the leaders, describing a calamity can mean that the usual norms of forbearance and restraint” do not have to be followed and undemocratic practices can take place. The third characteristic is blame. By blaming the opposition for any past problems and accusing them of being a self-serving ruling minority. Through accusations and sometimes even underhand techniques, populists seek to undermine any establishment that disagrees with the common will, discredit any piece of evidence that stands in their way and destabilize the calmest of leaders during debates by using often shocking techniques. A good example of this was during the first US presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden in September 2020 where Trump interrupted Biden nearly every time he spoke, and according to Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns in the New Your Times allowed the televised debate to unravel[ed] into an ugly melee as Mr. Trump hectored and interrupted Mr. Biden nearly every time he spoke and the former vice president denounced the president as a clown and told him to shut up.

Populist leaders are often described as displaying demagoguery, emotionalism, and opportunism but they by no means have a monopoly on this. Political leaders of non-populist parties also deploy these methods when it suits them. For example, in South Africa we saw Nelson Mandela rely heavily on emotion during the process of national reconciliation. Nicolas Sarkozy, the now discredited former President of France was accused by many in France of demagoguery during his presidential campaign and Angela Merkel the Chancellor of German was accused of political opportunism when she closed down Germany’s nuclear energy industry following the Fukushima disaster in Japan.

Populism is a threat to democracy

To what extent populism is a threat to democracy is difficult to determine and it is important not to confuse the aims of the different populist movements (e.g. specific socio-economic or socio-cultural objectives) with the actual characteristics of populism as a concept in itself. It is certainly true that populist leaders and movements are prone to using tactics that can be said to threaten, undermine or destabilize what is generally recognized as good and fair democratic processes.

Perhaps the threat to democracy can be seen most clearly when populist leaders use or attempt to suppress democratic processes to further their political ambitions. In August 2019 there was uproar in he UK when Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that parliament would be prorogued for a period of five weeks at the height of Britain’s Brexit crisis (the prorogation meant that parliament would be suspended and no MPs would sit thereby ending all current legislation under discussion). The Prime Minister was accused of mounting a coup against parliament and intentionally blocking MPs from considering ways to derail his Brexit plans. The matter was referred to the Supreme Court who unanimously declared unlawful. Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court said it was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

The suppression of the mainstream media is a clear and direct way of impeding democracy and we have seen this in action in various ways in the USA during the presidency of Donald Trump. On 25 February 2017, the BBC reported that White House bans certain news media from briefing. The BBC then stated that, the BBC, CNN, the New York Times and others were excluded from an audience with Press Secretary Sean Spicer, with no reason given. It came hours after President Donald Trump delivered another attack on the media in a speech, saying that ‘fake news’ was the ‘enemy of the people. The use of social media in populism is interesting. Modern populism, one could argue, has been fueled by the echo-chamber of social media. Vast groups of passionate, like-minded voters whipped into a frenzy by charismatic, emotional leaders can make a huge amount of social media noise and thereby possibly gain a disproportionate degree of influence. The ability of populist leaders to communicate directly with their supporters had never been seen to the extent it was when Trump famously used his Twitter account to communicate regularly and often controversially.

An unwillingness to engage in considered and constructive debate with other politicians of differing views can be seen a blow to democracy in that it denies voters a change to see the putting forward and defense of differing political ideas. This is very useful to voters when they are weighing up who to vote for in elections. Populists tend to try and end the debate before it has even started. As previously mentioned, a notable example of a populist leader refusing to engage in considered and constructive debate was in the first of the televised presidential debates between Trump and Biden in September 2020 when Trump continually interrupted his opponent denying him the opportunity to get his points across. In October 2020, the New York Times described that The first Trump-Biden face-off was a dumpster fire, and a bullying president lit the match.

Populism is not a threat it’s an opportunity

We have examined many threats from populism, but can it be argued that populism (or at least a degree of populism) can also be an opportunity? Larry Diamond from Stanford University certainly believes it could be argued that populism has the power to involve huge swathes of previously politically inactive voters in the democratic process. Voters who had previously felt disenfranchised or unrepresented can feel finally that they have a voice. If political parties are no longer working to address the concerns of most of the population, populism may provide a legitimate and democratic way of changing the political direction. The same can be said if there is a genuine case of a political elite working against much of the population. Populism could also change democracy for the better; although populist leaders tend to use underhand techniques and emotion rather than fact, they do raise some valid points. By shining a light on these issues it can make the mainstream parties rethink their priorities and maybe focus more on what the people want. So although populism could be a threat, it is also an opportunity for political institutions to focus on what is best for the country more than ever before.

Conclusion

Brian Klaas, associate professor of global politics at University College of London once said Democracies are like sandcastles. Sometimes they are swept away with a single big wave, as with a coup or a revolution. But these days, authoritarian populism tends to erode democracy gradually, one piece at a time. Populism creeps up on voters, waiting for a collapse or a mistake in the usual political parties and then pounces, creating a new power that promises a better future to the common people. We can see this perhaps with Brexit when the nation was split evenly on the day of the referendum and then after this certain fact were disputed and found to be inaccurate. Therefore, populism is a force to be reckoned with because by focusing on the common people, populism already has a majority. It does hold the potential to cause damage, not just to opposing parties, but to political institutions and society itself. The impact on politics can outlast a populist party’s time in office and can change the path of democracy as well as the norms of political campaign. Populism can to a large degree shape our democracies but if populism is held to account by a nation’s democratic institutions and adherence to democratic procedure its threat remains limited.

Introduction

The concept of the democracy of goods suggests that consumer products are accessible to all individuals, regardless of their social or economic background. It implies that material possessions are a measure of personal worth and that everyone has an equal opportunity to acquire them. This critical essay examines the appeal of the democracy of goods, exploring its cultural and psychological implications. While the idea may initially seem empowering, a deeper analysis reveals the illusory nature of this concept and the potential negative consequences it can have on individuals and society.

The Promise of Equality and Inclusion

One of the primary appeals of the democracy of goods is its promise of equality and inclusion. It suggests that consumer products serve as a great equalizer, providing individuals from different social backgrounds with the same opportunities to enjoy material possessions. This notion taps into the deeply ingrained desire for social acceptance and a sense of belonging. The allure of being able to possess the same goods as those in higher social strata can create a sense of empowerment and bridge the gap between social classes.

The Illusion of Personal Worth

The democracy of goods perpetuates the illusion that one’s personal worth is intrinsically tied to the possession of material goods. In a consumer-driven society, the pursuit of acquiring goods becomes synonymous with the pursuit of happiness and fulfillment. The appeal lies in the belief that owning certain products will elevate one’s social status and increase self-esteem. However, this emphasis on material possessions can lead to a distorted sense of self-worth, as individuals may measure their value solely based on their ability to consume.

The Influence of Marketing and Consumer Culture

The appeal of the democracy of goods is closely intertwined with the influence of marketing and consumer culture. Advertisements and media constantly bombard individuals with messages that associate certain products with success, happiness, and desirability. These messages create a sense of urgency and desire, convincing individuals that owning specific goods is essential for their well-being. The appeal of the democracy of goods is, therefore, perpetuated by the deliberate manipulation of consumer desires, making it a powerful force in shaping people’s aspirations and values.

The Financial and Emotional Toll

While the democracy of goods may promise equal access to consumer products, it often fails to address the financial realities and consequences. The pursuit of acquiring goods beyond one’s means can lead to financial strain, debt, and a perpetuating cycle of consumption. The allure of material possessions can also create emotional distress as individuals compare themselves to others, feeling inadequate or excluded if they are unable to keep up with the latest trends. The pressure to conform to societal expectations and maintain a certain image can result in a loss of individuality and personal values.

The Environmental Impact

The relentless pursuit of the democracy of goods also has significant environmental implications. Mass production and consumption contribute to resource depletion, pollution, and waste generation. The desire for constant novelty and the belief that possessions define personal worth can lead to a culture of disposability, where goods are discarded and replaced frequently, adding to the already mounting environmental challenges our planet faces.

Conclusion

While the appeal of the democracy of goods may seem enticing, a critical analysis reveals its illusory nature and potential negative consequences. The concept perpetuates the notion that personal worth is tied to material possessions and can lead to financial strain, emotional distress, loss of individuality, and environmental degradation. Recognizing the allure and illusory nature of the democracy of goods is crucial for individuals and society to foster more sustainable and meaningful ways of finding fulfillment and defining personal worth beyond the realm of consumerism.

By questioning the appeal of the democracy of goods, individuals can redefine their values, focus on genuine connections, personal growth, and contributing to the well-being of society and the environment. Ultimately, it is through this critical reflection that we can break free from the confines of materialism and discover more meaningful paths to fulfillment and happiness.

Introduction

Carl Becker, a prominent historian and political scientist, presented his concept of an ideal democracy in his influential work “The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers.” This critical essay aims to examine and evaluate Becker’s ideal democracy, considering its strengths, weaknesses, and relevance in contemporary political discourse.

Becker’s Notion of Ideal Democracy

Becker argues that an ideal democracy is characterized by active citizen participation, collective decision-making, and a commitment to the common good. He emphasizes the importance of citizen engagement in shaping public policy and the necessity of individuals being well-informed and politically aware. According to Becker, this active participation fosters a sense of community and solidarity among citizens.

Strengths of Becker’s Ideal Democracy

One strength of Becker’s ideal democracy lies in its recognition of the importance of citizen participation. By encouraging citizens to actively engage in the democratic process, Becker promotes the idea that democracy is not merely about voting but also about ongoing involvement in political affairs. This notion aligns with the principles of inclusivity and empowerment, allowing citizens to have a voice in shaping their communities.

Moreover, Becker’s emphasis on collective decision-making highlights the significance of consensus-building and compromise in a democratic society. By considering diverse perspectives and engaging in open dialogue, a more inclusive and representative decision-making process can be achieved.

Weaknesses of Becker’s Ideal Democracy

While Becker’s ideal democracy offers valuable insights, it is not without weaknesses. One of the main criticisms is its assumption that citizens are well-informed and politically engaged. In reality, individuals’ levels of political knowledge and interest vary, which can lead to unequal participation and the dominance of certain groups or interests. Additionally, the burden of political engagement can be overwhelming for many citizens who may lack the time, resources, or expertise to actively participate in every decision.

Furthermore, Becker’s ideal democracy does not address the challenges posed by political polarization and partisan divisions. In today’s complex political landscape, achieving consensus and the common good can be difficult when different groups hold divergent values, beliefs, and interests. Becker’s framework does not provide specific mechanisms for reconciling these differences, potentially undermining its feasibility in practice.

Relevance in Contemporary Political Discourse

Despite its limitations, Becker’s ideal democracy offers valuable insights and remains relevant in contemporary political discourse. It serves as a reminder of the importance of citizen engagement and the need for an informed and active electorate. In an era of growing disengagement and cynicism towards politics, Becker’s ideals provide a vision for reinvigorating democratic participation and fostering a sense of civic responsibility.

Moreover, Becker’s emphasis on collective decision-making and the pursuit of the common good resonates with contemporary discussions on democratic reforms. It encourages the exploration of mechanisms such as deliberative democracy and participatory governance, which aim to enhance public deliberation and inclusivity in decision-making processes.

Conclusion

Carl Becker’s concept of an ideal democracy offers valuable insights into the importance of citizen participation and collective decision-making in a democratic society. While his framework has its strengths and weaknesses, it serves as a foundation for reimagining and improving democratic practices. By critically examining Becker’s ideas, we can gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and possibilities inherent in the pursuit of an ideal democracy. It is through ongoing analysis and adaptation that we can strive to create a more inclusive, participatory, and responsive democratic system.

In the 21st century, while most countries and their governments are democratic in nature or are aspiring to be one, India stands out. It is the biggest democracy in the world, assuring adult franchise to every single adult individual the right to cast their vote. And the beauty of it lies in the fact, that irrespective of your cast, creed, race, or religion – everyone is guaranteed their voting right. One of the few days of the year when the poor can look the rich in the eye, because not even a billion dollars can get anyone anything more than a single chance to vote. But, as the world stands up and lauds, India wraps up the last phase of the 17th general election. However, we are faced with several very pertinent questions, the answers to which will be in this essay.

The first question is whether democracy in India is actually exercised the way it should be. While an ideal form of democratic governance is a utopian concept, what we can do is strive to bring in certain targets to, educate the electorate about the process of election and its candidates. Ensure that the process of election is free and fair. Freedom of choice and expression is a central democratic idea and should be upheld.

In a third-world country like India, which boasts nearly 900 million eligible voters, the important question is whether all voters know what is best for the country. While it might sound like a meritocratic concept, just because a lot of people endorse some politician and his or her policies, that does not necessitate that it is arguably the step in the right direction for the country. This calls for a differential weightage system for each vote. Even in America, James Madison, the main framer of the Constitution, who was as much of a believer in democracy as almost anybody in the world at that day, nevertheless felt that the United States system should be designed, and indeed with his the initiative was designed, so that power rests in the hands of the wealthy. Because the wealthy are the more responsible set of men, those who have the public interest at heart, not just parochial interests. And herein lies the flaw of effective democracy. It is more or less practically impossible to vest everyone with the right to vote, and yet make sure the country reaches its trust potential.

In the context of Indian democracy, another important issue is how to address the issue of financial funding and unaudited political donations. Election bonds and stringent auditing of funds, along with a thorough check to make sure none of the involved parties in the election has a conflict of interest. To explain it differently, let’s just say a politician has received a total political donation from various individuals and organizations, summing up to 10 million dollars. However, the donation wasn’t evenly divided with around 5000 donors amounting to 1 million dollars, while a single enterprise paid for the rest of the 9 million. So while a politician uses that money for his campaign, he realizes that after coming to power, he needs to cave into various of his request so that his doner can further his interests. And this is another issue that needs to be addressed.

The media, the third pillar of democracy, is an essential part of any and every democratic government. It is part of the fair and just press to bring to the forefront of the wrongdoings and shortcomings of the government. However, with the advent of various kinds of media, digital, social, and print, knowledge is in excess. Information is in excess. While processing such a huge chunk of data is difficult, accepting it and basing one’s political decisions on it is furthermore dangerous. That is because of the advent of ‘yellow journalism’ and biased reporting. And inadvertently, they end up pushing us from one side of the political spectrum to the other. Along with a healthy handful of misinformation and fake news every single day.

And finally, has democracy lived past its shelf life? In the 21st century, when India, China, Japan, and Korea are taking giant steps towards world domination, the remarkable success of China stands out. While Chinese citizens do not enjoy freedom to the extent of someone from some of the other countries, they do have a better life and better healthcare while they take on the USA to become the biggest market in the world. Yet, it is not a democracy. The response to this would be the fact that yes, a country can be successful even when its citizens have to put up with oppression while enjoying massive government benefits. But all that can be done by a democratic country too, except it, just needs a bit of brushing up with regard to certain workings of the democratic structure.

India, as a third-world country, needs better ways to limit the power of politicians. It will cut down on corruption and rampant misuse of power. Keeping the special interest political groups like labor firms and taxi unions kept under checks. A convicted felon can not run for election. Democracy is probably one of the best forms of governance. It has aged brilliantly and just needs a few tweaks here and there and would be up and running in no time.

The Oxford dictionary describes democracy as “Democracy is all a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting”. Democracy existed in pre-agricultural societies, it was first seen in Greece, in Athens in the 6th and 5th centuries BC. Democracy first made an appearance in the form that we know, as representative democracy, in the 18th century, as the French and American revolutions occurred. There are three main pioneers with different views on democracy, John Stuart Mill(1806;1873), Plato(360 BC;1974), and Hobbes(1651; 1968), which I will be mentioning and talking about throughout this essay. The question of whether democracy is the best form of government includes both Philosophy and Politics in its span of inquiry. Philosophy involves itself with which form of government is theoretically acceptable, whereas the political approach determines if democracy is acceptable in practice. Even if there is overlap between these approaches, either area of study comes to a differing conclusion. Finding out if democracy is the form of government that gives the most benefits from a philosophical point of view reveals that democracy is theoretically better than other types of governmental systems as it’s in line with human dignity. In reality, on the other hand, democracy is a bit more problematic, as it can be hard for leaders to please a whole population, which is a goal that a totalitarian government, for example, doesn’t aim to fulfill.

We can explain democracy along at least two different ideas. The first one is instrumental, by reference to the different results of using it in contrast with different methods of political decision-making. The second one is intrinsic, by reference to qualities that exist in the method – for example, whether there is something fair about making democratic decisions about matters on which people don’t agree.

Two types of instrumental pros are usually attached to democracy: good laws, and policies and the betterment of the characters of the participants. John Stuart Mill (1861;1991) said that the democratic method of making legislation is better than non-democratic methods in three different ways: epistemically, strategically, and through the betterment of the characters of democratic citizens.

Strategically democracy has an advantage, as it forces decision-makers to consider the interests, human rights, and views of most citizens within society. Democracy gives a bit of political power to more people in society than to those under the rule of aristocracy or monarchy. One contemporary statement of this instrumental argument is given by Amartya Sen, who says, for example, that ‘no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press’ (1999:152). The understanding of this argument is that politicians in a multi-party democracy, with free elections and a free press, have plans to respond to the expression of the needs of poorer people in society.

Epistemologically, democracy is said to be the most beneficial decision-making method, on the idea that it is usually more trustworthy in assisting people to make the correct decisions. As democracy involves a lot of people in decision-making, it can take advantage of many sources of info, as well as an assessment of polices and laws. Democratic decision-making is usually more informed than other ways about people’s interests, and the things in place that are necessary to advance their interests. Also, the debate that is usually of democracy enhances the judgment of the multiple ideas that lead decision-makers (Estlund, 2007).

A lot of people support democracy as it has many positive effects on the character of citizens. Many have said, with Rousseau and Mill, that democracy, more so than other types of ruling, makes citizens stand up for themselves as its decisions are down on what people want rather than those made under aristocracy or monarchy. Consequently, in democratic countries, people are influenced to be self-ruling. Furthermore, democracy, compared to other methods of rule, makes citizens think rationally and carefully, since if they do or do not will make a difference in their lives. Lastly, people have argued that democracy sometimes influences the morality of people: when citizens are involved in their country’s decision-making, they are forced to listen to what other’s opinions are, explain their own opinions to each other, and take into consideration the interests of others as well as their own. When citizens of a country are put in such a situation, they start thinking in terms of the common and aggregate good, which is in fact what leads a society to live and work well together, which would further lead to enhanced autonomy, rationality, and morality of people, which is essential for a society for a country to work together and prevent conflict.

Not every instrumental argument agrees with democracy. Plato (360 BC;1974) was a Greek philosopher who was very pessimistic about the idea of democracy. In book 6 of the Republic Plato describes Socrates falling into a conversation with a character called Ademantos and trying to get him to see the floors of democracy by comparing society to a ship. He said if you were heading out on a journey by sea who would u ideally want to be in charge of the vessel, just anyone or those educated in the rules and demands of sea demands of sea fairing?

Quite clearly, we would the second option. Plato then linked this back to democracy and said voting in an election is a skill and not a random intuition, therefore people must be educated in this skill before being allowed to vote, or another solution would be putting someone in charge who is already educated in this skill. Plato argued that democracy is worse compared to various types of aristocracy, monarchy, and oligarchy, on the grounds it dismisses the intelligence that is needed for properly run societies. But to pass laws in a democracy, politicians must appeal to the majority’s idea of what they believe is right or wrong. So, this would mean expertise of law and policy is not taken into account leading the state to be run with poorly guided political ideas.

Hobbes (1651-1968) said that democracy is worse compared to monarchy as democracy fosters disagreements between citizens. His main idea is that due to the fact that there are many voters, no single voter has a key influence on the result of the vote. This may lead people to feel like they do not have much responsibility for the result of the vote outcome, which may lead the people of the country to not think about politics, leading them to ignore factors such as the common, and aggregate good, which is in fact what people aim to improve through voting.

In conclusion, For the country to develop, or to keep in line with the rest of the modern world and the institutions, it should have certain standards, and one of the most important is democracy. I believe that even though it may seem like it may not be prudent to have a democratic government (according to Plato, and his ship theory), people still have the right to have a say in how the country they live in should be run. Also, not having a democracy and having one person decide upon the rules and legislation of a country due to their expertise, could lead the country to run in a very dogmatic and robotic manner, this could lead to morality, sympathy and other similar factors to be ignored. Democracy places the right level of faith in humanity, gives us the autonomy to choose how we want to be ruled, and respects our rights of equality and freedom. The political argument for democracy is also the most suing, although democracy today can be improved (through educating society on politics, for example), and still faces some downfalls, it is more functional than dictatorial forms of government. Democracy is important for social, political, and individual welfare and, hence is the ideal form of governmental system.  

French Revolution can be credited as the main inciter of democratisation in not only France but throughout Europe as it gives the consciousness among the Europe countries regarding the rise to the new national political order and political institution. As that many of the European states are under the absolute monarchy government as well as the church controlled like Russia, Italy, Prussia, Britain, as well as France. From the France revolution it has made Europe conscious about the need to have social equity, personal liberty, and democracy in the governing system. This has made people start to realize that the absolute monarchs are not the best government and need the equality of all people in the decision making as in absolute monarch people are divided into classes and they are being underestimated by force for taxation. France revolution has introduce the element of democracy at that time which in the government it has the legislative assembly and make feudalism being abolished as well as the limited monarchy power in France in Constitution of 1791 and also has make the abolishment of monarchy by the Convention and it has give impact to the institute of the Constitution of the Year III of the Republic 1799 which has created the Directory which has body of the government like the executive, legislature and has vote qualification.

Next, the reformation in the French Revolution that has been mentioned above has shown it has been regarded as the start of the democracy in Europe which in the French Revolution has made the people which are the revolutionaries make a new arrangement in the national and local administration to the prevalent sovereignty rule as France started to have the voting method for the leaders election. This has made the other states have gained consciousness about the need for equality in the state which has led to the first wave of democracy in Europe at that time which is between 1828 and 1926 there are nearly 30 countries that have adopted democratization like Britain. Furthermore, the French revolution has made there a growing coalition against French as their opposition from abroad like Austria, England, Holland, Prussia, and Spain has made the Frenchmen into the army to defeat the foreign coalition.

This French revolutionary troops have made movements to attack other European countries in order to overthrow the monarchies and to protect themselves from the attack. This also has made their ideologies about to abolish the absolute monarch and let the people have power to govern has been widespread in the other state like in 1792, the new elected Legislative assembly has declared the war on Austria and Prussia with ambition to spread the revolutionary idea across Europe by the warfare method. In addition the revolution to oppose the absolute monarch power has given impact to the wave of democratisation in Europe which has been strengthened by the idea of the Enlightenment from the Renaissance and the intellectuals (philosophers) like Rousseau and Adam Smith which most of them bring the idea that people should be free from the prejudiced, unexamined authority, and oppression by the church and state. For example, the revolution in Germany in 1848 and Belgium that followed the French model.

Besides that the France Revolution has been a main inciter for the democratisation in France and Europe is from what has happened in the French revolution itself as aforementioned before that most of Europe is under the control of the absolute monarchy which has been claimed as the divine right. The French revolution has made new changes by abolishing absolute monarchy control and have a people to be in power and there is also the start of the establishment of the parties like the Jacobins and Girondists in France. It also gives the right for the people to vote and the separation of the church from the government. All the changes that have been made in French Revolution has given a model for the indicator of the element of democratisation in Europe.

There is not any more fulfilling portrayal of democracy than Winston Churchill’s assertion that it ‘is the most noticeably awful type of government aside from every one of those different structures that have been attempted now and again.’ Among compliments, underhanded ones are the loveliest, first making a demonstration of withdrawing and afterward, similar to a boomerang, coming back to hand. One can’t deny that popularity based electorates every so often reel into sad choices, however Churchill supports us that different frameworks are inclined to more regrettable. (He additionally in this way supports himself two years in the wake of being turfed out of office by an electorate asking, ‘Indeed, however what have you accomplished for us recently?’) The hypothetical case for democracy isn’t undermined by such wayward scenes on the grounds that the framework’s greatness is near, not outright. Democracy typifies the temperance of balance in its self-equilibrating air to withdraw from risks that throw other political frameworks off the rails.

Sometimes democracies don’t merely sputter; sometimes they fail disastrously. As Thucydides informs us in his History of the Peloponnesian War, Athenian democracy under the stress of a long war with Sparta bungled things with the imperial overreach of the Sicilian campaign (and then, as Plato reports, compounded the error with the trial and execution of Socrates).

German democracy a decade after the Great War produced one unsatisfactory government after another until in 1933 it elevated Adolf Hitler to the chancellorship. As distressing as these events are, they do not seriously undermine the Churchillian dictum. The former episode was very, very long ago, and the latter occurred in a country that had only superficially put on the vestments of democracy over its traditional autocratic garb. These and similar cases constitute evidence that democratic theorists need to analyze carefully. But they do not disconfirm the conclusion that, among imperfect constitutions, democracy is the least bad. In any case, and with all due capability, something more might be upsetting fair waters than the typical tides and vortexes. Is there any call for Churchillians to be stressed? In a word, yes. I fear that features endogenous to contemporary democracy create a propensity toward decline and, unless checked, decadence. I shall be very pleased to be shown that this judgment is based on hasty observation and faulty reasoning. But first a primer in the anatomy of democracy.

Democracy might be a word commonplace to most, yet it is an idea still misjudged and abused in when authoritarian systems and military fascisms the same have endeavored to guarantee prominent help by sticking vote based marks upon themselves. However the intensity of the law based thought has likewise evoked a portion of history’s generally significant and moving articulations of human will and keenness: from Pericles in antiquated Athens to Vaclav Havel in the cutting edge Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov’s last discourses in 1989. Freedom and democracy are regularly utilized conversely, however the two are not synonymous. Democracy is to be sure a lot of thoughts and standards about freedom, yet it additionally comprises of a lot of practices and techniques that have been shaped through a long, regularly convoluted history. To put it plainly, democracy is the standardization of freedom. Hence, it is conceivable to recognize the tried and true essentials of established government, human rights, and fairness under the steady gaze of the law that any general public must have to be appropriately called democratic.

Present day society, with its size and multifaceted nature, offers barely any open doors for direct democracy. Indeed, even in the northeastern United States, where the New England town meeting is a consecrated custom, most networks have become unreasonably enormous for every one of the inhabitants to accumulate in a solitary area and vote legitimately on issues that influence their lives. Given those qualifiers, how about we take a gander at a portion of the reasons for democracy’s ongoing ebbtide. Set up majority rules systems—particularly liberal popular governments—are today confronting interior challenges that have the impact of undermining their authenticity. To start with, by promising in the post-World War II period to do progressively more for their residents, built up vote based systems have gotten answerable for additional—and are considered liable for additional. This makes an issue. All things considered, if government doesn’t attempt to do excessively, how inadequately it capacities is of little outcome. Be that as it may, if government turns into the deliverer of all way of administrations and advantages—a ‘tremendous and tutelary power which takes upon itself alone to verify [the people’s] delights and to look out for their destiny,’ in Tocqueville’s expressions of caution—at that point when it doesn’t convey all the stuff it guarantees, individuals accuse their legislature and become disappointed with it. That is occurring all over the West.

Since antiquity, it has been well-understood that democracies, more than any other form of rule, are susceptible to the disease of demagoguery. A would-be leader with fire on his tongue can capture, at least for a while, the rapt allegiance of the citizenry. When democracy was reborn in modern times, its architects, knowing this, tried to immunize it from the demagogic disease by imposing republican structures, two in particular: First, rule of the people is exercised through elected representatives rather than via a vote of the whole. Second, governance is not unitary but rather exercised through a division of powers such as a separate legislature, judiciary, and executive.These two attributes admit of endless variation, and beyond them other features may provide a regime its distinctive form, such as a written constitution, an authoritative listing of rights, a tradition of customary law, and so on. To qualify as a democracy, however, rule must in some way be founded on the expressed and regularly re-expressed will of the people via the ballot box.Theorists have identified two potentially undermining flaws in this model: rational ignorance and rational abstention. The former means it is almost never in voters’ direct material interest to become better informed about the candidates and issues competing for their support. Time invested in political investigation is costly; it expends energy that could have been used in alternative pursuits.

Moreover, study may simply confirm one’s original untested hunches, in which case the effect on the direction of one’s vote is nil.At long last, even in those cases wherein study drives one to cast a ballot all the more adroitly, in an electorate with hundreds, not to mention several thousands, of different voters, it is exceedingly impossible that one’s very own voting form will swing the political race. (Indeed, even in the exceedingly uncommon case wherein it does, the probability that one might not be right about which competitor best serves one’s inclinations is non-immaterial.) For these reasons it is quite often increasingly productive to examine which vehicle to purchase, which stock to put resources into, which video to view, or which individual to wed than to trouble unduly about which possibility to back. To the degree voters are reasonable, they will gather amazingly minimal political information. By comparative thinking, people end up with substantially less motivation to require significant investment and exertion to cast a ballot than to utilize that time for increasingly beneficial action. The normal voter has just a dim comprehension of what is in question and has no way of being unequivocal on the result in any case. To the encouragement to practice the establishment the reasonable individual will react: Thanks, however not this time.

Sound numbness and normal abstention, however, can appear to be generally prominent by their nonattendance. In certain nations—e.g., Australia—casting a ballot is obligatory. In the United States it isn’t, yet at each political decision countless residents consistently leave the solace of their homes to cast a polling form. Leaving aside the level of their knowledge in issues political, it is incontestable that they intentionally devour colossal amounts of political (miss) information by means of papers, 24-hour link news systems, Facebook posts, and question with the man on the following barstool. Savants, being intellectuals, will declaim this isn’t almost enough. In any case, even normal voter utilization of political data is requests of extents more noteworthy than would be anticipated by a financially grounded record of voter sanity, the part of political economy that passes by the name open decision hypothesis. That hypothesis is embarrassingly incapable to respond to sufficiently the inquiries: Why do people try to vote? For what reason do they direct such a large amount of their awareness to political issues? That is, voting isn’t so a lot of a determined exertion to realize political results as it is an expressive demonstration esteemed in its very own right.

Continuously and wherever we are an animal categories that relishes respecting and regretting, supporting and restricting, once in a while instrumentally yet in addition for the wellbeing of its own. Despite the degree to which this frame of mind has been sustained by my very own profession way, it holds out the chance of expressive returns not connected to my main concern. I will genuinely and unreflectively accomplish things like refer to Socrates on the uselessness of an unexamined life, in this manner receiving the emotive benefit of going to bat for my qualities. In any case, albeit material and expressive interests to a great extent correspond, it is essential for understanding the functions of popular government to perceive that occasionally they don’t. That is valid for the conventional type of republican majority rule government, yet it is particularly remarkable, I think, for understanding equitable distemper in the second decade of the 21st century.

My hunch is that in later majority rule governmental issues crosswise over a great part of the world, expressive stakes have would in general tip progressively away from the positive and toward the negative. In other words, the delights of giving a comeuppance to unfortunate Others supersedes advantage or unbiased good desires as the predominant impetus behind voting forms. Besides, there is motivation to expect this is certainly not a transitory deviation that will before long be corrected yet rather a long-wave modification in popularity based penchants that will make an inexorably threatening condition for national and, particularly, global comity. It would involve colossal alleviation to me if this hunch is mixed up, however unrealistic reasoning isn’t confirm. First and most evident proof for this dread are simply the results. It isn’t appallingly extraordinary for crusades to be prevailing by upsets. In American history, the 1948 thrashing of Dewey by Truman has become a work of art, in no little measure in view of the Chicago Tribune’s embarrassingly untimely feature decision (‘Dewey Defeats Truman’). Churchill’s own destruction three years sooner was of a comparable request. One set up party pretty much shockingly displaces another, and business goes on. Not so for late occasions. England’s 50 years in length combination with Europe is jarringly tossed into switch. For a considerable length of time Italy had appeared to possess the outskirts of political caprice but then currently jumps miles further along into the dreamlike. Turkey, Poland, and, truly, the United States befuddle and jumble. The spectator isn’t simply shocked however dismayed. Structural political plates have moved under one’s feet.

Third, dismissal of outsiders is joined by a comparable dismissal of household specialists, in the future known as ‘alleged specialists.’ For against whatever insights and investigation they present, equivalent and restricted things can be advanced to counter. The specialized term for these is ‘elective actualities.’ So, for instance, when business pioneers and financial analysts loaded down with many propelled degrees announce that exit from the European Union will bring down Britain’s national pay, other ‘specialists’ answer that a huge number of extra pounds will be made accessible to the National Health Service. Voters are allowed to pick whichever set of actualities accommodates their expressively supported decision. When the new century rolled over, postmodernist relativism delighted in cash just inside the thin demeanor of the humanities divisions of tip top colleges. Out and out sudden was that it would come to catch the majority. Not very far in the past, majority rule governments were excessively impacted by the thought about assessment of the country’s elites. Regardless, respect has gone to scorn. It turns out to be difficult to absolute the expression ‘best and the most brilliant’ without incongruity.

At times it appears as though majority rule government is in peril all around the globe. The ascent of dictator pioneers in nations as different as Turkey, Hungary, Venezuela, and the Philippines—also an American head of state who consistently shows disdain for popularity based standards—can make the feeling that the idea of a free society is progressively undermined. Another study affirms that dispiriting determination. It finds 2.5 billion individuals—about 33% of the total populace—live in countries where majority rule government is in retreat. ‘Media self-sufficiency, opportunity of articulation, and the standard of law have experienced the best decay among vote based system measurements lately,’ lead creator Anna Lührmann, a political researcher at the University of Gothenburn in Sweden, said in reporting the discoveries. ‘This troubling pattern makes elections less important around the globe.’ In the diary Democratization, Lührmann and her partners present proof of a developing pattern toward ‘autocratization’— that is, countries breaking faith away from majority rules system and toward totalitarianism. They break down information from the Varieties of Democracy informational collection, which tracks in excess of 400 majority rules system related factors, including human rights, the standard of law, and defilement.