Category: Democracy

Introduction

Since the popularization of the Internet, there has been a public debate on its impact on political life in countries worldwide. Some believe that this is a step towards liberalization; others see digitalization as the end of democracy. This essay argues that the Internet introduces the world to the new quality of liberal democracy degradation. The age of conventional media affected democratic society in a vertical way that is monopolized by the major stakeholders. Nowadays, the Internet is a horizontal platform that yet does not become Habermas’ public forum (Sunstein, 2001). As people limit their sources of information online, one can observe the degradation of discourse and the growth of populism as well as the radicalized population.

Main text

To begin with, conventional media like television and radio has always been indeed monopolized by the establishment, especially in the U.S. due to technical reasons. This situation is comparable to the Medieval Age before the introduction of printing in the 1440s. The church and the courts monopolized books, and the population had no chance to learn an alternative opinion on the essential matters of life. Television and radio become game-changing technology in legitimizing political decisions, even in democracies (Barstow and Stein, 2005). As Herman and Chomsky (1988) conceptualize it, information translated by the conventional media goes through five filters, which create agendas and messages beneficial for the ones at power. Hence, such media creates private space without the actual debate, which harms democratic principles.

As for the Internet, in its era population still cannot hear all the voices. The reason for that lies in the fact that people and media create communication universes, bubbles that filter the sources and opinions contradicting users’ believes. It is proved by the research conducted by Iyengar (2006), who examined media preferences of different parties sympathizers. That is why social media produce a reasonable number of online communities, oriented on specific groups with specific political interests like IAFF Union Firefighters for Trump or Black Women for Bernie Sanders on Facebook. Meanwhile, Sunstein (2001) emphasizes the crucial role of shared experience and empathy for a society living in a democracy. In reality, the Internet intensifies solidarity within the group of one’s choice, which makes them more confident about their position.

Furthermore, the Internet seems to attract more users to populist figures who gain their popularity by putting on a show online and articulating simple solutions to structural problems. Probably, the most widespread example is Donald Trump for whose election Twitter is sometimes blamed. His central premise to his voters was building up a wall separating the States from Mexico that presumably could solve the issue of illegal immigration. As a result, the American migration policy has seen several scandals with children separated from their parents and Muslims having no access to the country. However, the problem stays unsolved. This causes the degradation of discourse, which brings a society to less prudent decisions.

At the same time, the Internet serves as a platform for radicalization instead of the spread of democratic values. For instance, it has become the condition without which the rise of the Islamic State terrorist organization would have hardly ever happened. First, Facebook and Telegram were the critical mediums of jihadi propaganda. What is more, the efficient recruitment of foreign fighters who joined the IS from all over the world was only possible in the era of messengers and social media. Another vital example to draw one’s attention to is the Christchurch shooting that the far-right extremist who organized the attack was broadcasting in real-time on Facebook. The network had no chance to prevent such actions while the violent events happening on the video were seen by a reasonable number of users, spreading the idea behind the former. Social media become the space of glorification of violence and the spread of hatred and extremism. This tendency does not contribute to the flourishing of democracy: on the contrary, people are demonstrated that there are alternative means to act and to articulate their political agendas.

Turning one’s attention to the opposite camp, one could learn that many claims that the Internet is a democratic tool in the way it provides a platform for the ones whose voices could not have been heard without it. It seems that the antiracism movement in the United States would have developed faster if Facebook or Twitter was developed ten or twenty years before it happened. Now, the oppressed groups can find their voices, which leads society to greater transparency. Putin’s Russia is an illustrative example of how the Internet makes the actions of the regime more visible. Informal oppositional leaders like Alexey Navalny or Yegor Zhukov, who are not allowed to speak on TV, can reach their audience online. Police abuse and the violent oppression of the 2019 protests in Moscow are discussed online. In a way, all this pushes the country towards democratization.

While this opinion does have a strong foundation, such a scheme functions only when the state does not control the cyber platform. In the case of Russia, the Federal Security Service cannot ban publications on Facebook or even Telegram, at least, if the user does not fall in the definition of an extremist. The recent case of Antifa demonstrates the fact that if the state seeks to take away the voice of an organization, there are still means to do so despite the freedom opportunities the Internet is supposed to give to civil society. Moreover, even if a figure finds an opportunity to speak out online, it does not mean changes towards democracy offline as it is in Russia today. Hence, this argument works just until the state allows the marginalized groups to be seen, and the Internet, in this case, does not have much to do with democratization.

Another point to be made is that the Internet is claimed to stimulate competition in the political field. Hence, candidates become more electorate-orienteered, and this is indeed the power of the people. Even in Iran, during the presidential elections, candidates communicate with their electorate via social media. Recently, the state has banned Instagram, where the president has about 2 million subscribers. Even fundamentalist and conservative politicians who do not support the idea of social media popularization use them to reach the audience. This controversial example demonstrates that social media push candidates to use them as a political tool to keep or even grow the electorate.

However, this idea is also relevant for television. First, there is the classic example of John Kennedy’s victory in the elections of 1960. One of the critical factors of that outcome was his effective performance on TV debates with Richard Nixon. On a black-and-white screen, Kennedy wearing his bright blue costume, attracted the audience’s eyes while Nixon was in grey. Kennedy spoke more confidently even though, according to analysts, substantially, he lost the debates. Nevertheless, his popularity grew (Botehlo, 2016). Another example of nowadays can be found in contemporary Ukraine. In 2019, Vladimir Zelensky came to power as his primary opponent, Petro Poroshenko not only proved his orientation on the local oligarchy – not nation – but also appeared a pale non-charismatic figure in comparison to the present president. On the contrary, Zelensky, being an actor and an excellent speaker, gained popularity during the TV broadcast of the show Servant of the People, where he starred in the role of a down-to-earth, close-to-people president Holoborodko. These cases show that the conventional media are capable of creating the level of competition discussed above apply to the Internet.

Furthermore, some argue that social media enable societies of authoritarian regimes to transit to the democratic state. The Arabic Spring – the wave of uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa that started in 2011 – is a frequent illustration of such a thesis. For instance, the Egyptian Revolution is sometimes called the revolution of Facebook (Gerbaudo, 2016) as the protest and its actions were all coordinated in the community on that social media called after Haled Said, who was killed by the police. That is why during Algerian and Sudanese uprisings, the government cut down the Internet and blocked social media. Hence, it is evident that the introduction of social media in contemporary life contributes to the democratization of the world as the transit from authoritarian regimes becomes easier for protesters applying such means.

On the one hand, it seems evident that protest movements apply unconventional media to make their actions more efficient. On the other hand, even the classic examples of Facebook or any other social media revolutions do not draw the full picture. First, most of the Arabic Springs uprisings, including the one in Egypt in 2011, did not bring democracy and freedoms to the society, which was the reason for another revolution already in 2013. Secondly, it would be unfair to ignore the role of conventional media in the process. In 2011, the Qatari TV channel Al Jazeera agitated its audience to go out on the Tahrir square in Cairo, intentionally overstating the number of protesters there. To say nothing about the role of mullahs and mosques as the traditional agents and spaces for ideas exchange, including the ones that inspired the uprising in 2011. Therefore, while facilitating protest movements, social media cannot be fully responsible for them. Moreover, an uprising does not always aim for democracy and, in many cases, does not lead to one.

Conclusion

To conclude, it is evident that the Internet and social media popularization does not univocally strengthen institutes of democracy. It changes the nature of media influence on democracy, switching it from the horizontal form – established by the conventional media – to the vertical one. Meanwhile, Internet users are enabled to create information bubbles around themselves, which contradicts democratic principles of the need to consider alternative opinions. The contemporary rise of populism also has a lot to do with the digitalization of the public debate: voters end up choosing the candidates broadcasting their not-so-sophisticated political ideas effectively via social media. Furthermore, such platforms provide more space for the agents of radicalization who seek new followers of their ideas. Though some argue that the Internet changes the nature of political competition and protests and brings new opportunities to find one’s voice, in reality, such claims appear to be not so fair as conventional media were the initially game-changing tools for these tasks. Moreover, they are still successfully used.

References

Barstow, D. & Stein, R. (2005). Under Bush, a new age of packaged TV news. The New York Times: Web.

Botehlo, G. (2016). The day politics and TV changed forever. CNN: Web.

Herman, E. and Chomsky, N. (1988). A propaganda model. Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon.

Iyengar, S. and Morin, R. (2006). Red media, blue media. Washington Post: Web.

Gerbaudo, P. (2016). Rousing the Facebook crowd: Digital enthusiasm and emotional contagion in the 2011 protests in Egypt and Spain. International Journal of Communication, 10, 254 – 273.

Sunstein, C. (2001). Exposure to other viewpoints is vital to democracy. Republic.com. Princeton University Press.

Introduction

Background information

This report provides the history of Middle East and how democracy movement came to be in the Middle Eastern countries. According to Steele, 2009, Middle East is a broad term that involves approximately sixteen countries in Western Asia and North America. Middle East has been a vital centre for most of the worldly affairs.

The region is said to be the main origin of religions like the Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The most widely spread being the Muslim religion in some of the countries. It is said to be the most ancient region for human civilisation (Bernard, 1996). This is one of the regions that is said to have dominated by the European culture mostly in the past because before the 20^th century it was highly dominated by the European colonization.

Middle East possesses an arid and hot climate hence people in this region can only survive under irrigated agriculture with water provided from the major rivers. This is only done under a limited region in the whole of Middle East. It was also the first for introduction of year round agriculture. Currently, Middle East is characterized by strategic, economical, political, cultural and religious based regions.

Middle East has been the centre for serious conflicts from the Persian-Greek Wars to the Crusades to the Iran-Iraq War. Democracy movement in the Middle Eastern countries tackles the issue of the current development of democracy and political systems. In this report, several significant ideas and issues will be addressed. A section of this will cover the results for the successful introduction of democracy in to the Middle Eastern countries (Friedman, 2006).

The other sections will address matters concerning the introduction of democracy in a traditionally based country or region and associated with political systems that do not favour liberalism. In addition, the sections will highlight the assumptions of conflicts of Islamic religion as far as democracy is concerned.

Finally, threats of religious terrorism and extremism will be thoroughly examined and the binding ties of any effective response to terrorism which has a direct impact to the democratic movement success in the Middle East (Paya & Esposito, 2010).

Objectives of this Study

The main objectives of this report are;

1. To study and analyse the evolution of the democracy movement in the Middle Eastern countries.
2. To address matters concerning the introduction of democracy in a traditionally based country or region and associated with political systems that do not favour liberalism.
3. To find out the results for the successful introduction of democracy in to the Middle Eastern countries.
4. To identify the benefits and limitations of the democracy movement in the Middle Eastern countries.

Scope of the report

This report tries to examine the introduction and implementation of democracy movement in the Middle Eastern countries. It covers countries that make up the Middle East that is the western Asia and North America. As far as the democracy movement in Middle Eastern countries is concerned; the report will address the crucial issues arising from the democracy movement in Middle East.

The study also covers the benefits as well as the limitations of the democratic movement in the Middle Eastern countries (Chatterji, 1973).

Procedures used

To achieve the goals of this study, several procedures have been used to come up with the details of the results of introduction of democracy movement in the Middle Eastern countries. A number of books for reference were part of the resource material that has been used to come up with this report.

Other sources include consultation from colleagues with similar knowledge of democracy movement in the Middle East, history of the Middle Eastern countries, websites of the various countries in the Middle East and consultations from friends who have been to these Middle Eastern countries and have some knowledge on the topic of study. The sources of reference for this report have been taken from the years between 1900 and 2011.

Discussion analysis of the Report

Evolution of democracy in Middle East

Democracy in the Middle East began when the Middle Eastern countries decided to overthrow the British government, which had colonized most of the countries. Most of the countries in the Middle East had no freedom before the 20th century. They were operating under the British colonization, meaning that there was no democracy movement in the whole of Middle East.

Some of countries like Iran had a constitutional movement that was highly throttled by the British colonial government. This is the reason why Iran had to operate under the British people without any liberty for quite some time until they had to fight and throw away the British people so as to gain freedom. Fortunately, in the early 1950s the Iran attained a freely elected government with its own constitution which was no longer under the British colonization.

This constitution was led by some of the national heroes who assisted in overthrowing the British colony (Friedman, 2006). In some of the Middle East countries like Iraq, establishment of a democratic process was quite a painful process. This is because it brought some critical issues in the whole of the Iran.

Democracy movement establishment has also brought in several issues that have to be addressed in the open. In such regions, the Muslims, Christians and other religion hold some posts in the government so as to facilitate equal distribution of power in the various religions (Dalacoura, 2011).

Measures of Democracy in the Middle East

According to democracy in the Middle Eastern countries several classifications have evolved in order to give each country its own democracy index. The various terms that are used to classify democracy index in the Middle East are; free, partly free, or not free. These are classified in reference to several measures of freedom.

According to Davenport, 2007 approximately 170 countries in the Middle East were classified into five broad categories (Garnham, 1995). These countries have been classified into these five categories, and further subdivide into four broad categories; and then they are ranked according to the current level of democracy. The four categories are full and flawed democracy; hybrid and authoritarian regime and they have been discussed below in the analysis of democratic index (Goldberg, Kasaba & Migdal, 1993).

Democracy movement in Middle East

From the past history relating to the Middle East, books and websites concerning democracy in the Middle Eastern countries findings indicate that, Democracy movement in the Middle East has been covered in various countries, which record a high democratic index. The country, which records the highest democratic index, is Israel which has 7.53. This figure corresponds to flawed democracy in only one region of the whole continent. The second highest countries have a range between 5.2 and 5.8 which is classified as the hybrid regimes.

These are countries like turkey, Mauritania, Tunisia, Egypt and Iraq among others. The other remaining countries are classified as authoritarian countries with their democratic indices lying below 2 (Yacoubian, 2008).

Benefits of the democracy movement in the Middle East

Democracy in the Middle East is a form of government where the citizens form the governance themselves. This democracy movement involved both direct and representative democracy; whereby direct democracy involves the citizens making the decisions themselves on all government policies while representative democracy is whereby decisions are made by individuals chosen to be representative of the whole number of citizens.

The Middle Eastern countries benefited much from the establishment of this democratic movement (Runciman, 2006). Some of the benefits are;

• It provides the Middle East countries freedom for frequent elections after a period which ensures that unpopular governments are overthrown and replaced by new regimes to rule. The new office should implement policies that favour citizens so as to retain the office.
• Due to the democratic movement the Middle East countries have been able to benefit from leadership that has been elected from their own choice. This has created peace and reduced conflicts in some of the countries.
• Middle East countries have benefited from equal distribution of property and wealth due to this democratic movement. This is brought about by the representatives who continue to fight for their people in order to facilitate fair sharing of development funds from the government (Carothers & Ottaway, 2005).
• Democratic government in the Middle East has allowed for competition of power where most of the political parties compete. This enables the candidates and the electorate a brad field to make a choice on voting.
• In the Middle East voices of citizens and their wishes are heard and put in to consideration. This means there is freedom of expression (Halperin, Siegle & Weinstein, 2005).

Disadvantages of the democratic movement in Middle East

Though democracy movement may have been too beneficial to the citizens in Middle East, it also has some setbacks to the country itself which in turn has affected the individual citizens without their knowledge. Platzdasch (2009) in his book highlighted some of the setbacks of this democratic movement which include;

• In the Middle East countries the citizens have the right to elect their own representatives to take up the office; from past records it has been observed that most of the citizens are not usually aware of what happens in the political system of their country. This results in most of the citizens making wrong choices during the election period.
• A substantial disadvantage that has affected the Middle East countries is the fact that the status quo can influence most people. This is whereby citizens are forced to vote for a party under the influence of others. This leads to most citizens producing force opinions, which can cause chaos arising after the elections.
• Over dependence on the democracy movement in most of the countries in the Middle East has resulted to underdevelopment in the countries. This is because the government constitution is always subject to change after a term is over hence this force the candidates in authority to work towards winning the elections instead of working for the people.
• From a detailed study of democracy movement in the Middle Eastern countries, observations made clearly indicate that democracy is inefficient, and the changes are slow.

Conclusions

From the objectives, it is clear that;

Democracy movement in the Middle Eastern countries has been well established and implemented. In addition, it can be concluded that democracy movement in the Middle East countries has benefited the citizens, as well as various regions, which could not have been developed without the introduction of the democracy movement.

Clear records of the study of the democracy movement in the region show that the introduction of democracy has had a significant impact as analysed and discussed in section 3.5 of the report. That is, it has had some limitations to the countries’ constitution which has in turn has a great impact on the citizens.

Recommendations

From the analysis of the findings, I can highly recommend that most of the countries surrounding the Middle East should establish a democratic government. This will help to create freedom between the citizens and leaders. This is because the democratic movement has caused the development of some of the countries in the Middle East.

In addition, I can recommend that, as much as introduction of democracy has been found to benefit most of the countries in the Middle East; countries should not over rely on democracy. This is because detailed research shows that, democracy movement in the Middle East has created a lot of conflicts amongst the people.

Research shows that democracy in a country can be of a considerable disadvantage to the country, as well as the citizens without their knowledge. This is as discussed in section 3.5 above. A Middle Eastern country is a particularly compelling example as seen from the analysed results (Chaurasia, 2005).

Self evaluation

From the entire research, the following evaluations have been provided;

The sources from which the information was obtained were much helpful in the analysis of the democratic movement in the Middle East. For example, the history of the Middle Eastern countries assisted in discussion of the evolution and establishment of the democratic movement in the Middle East. The most relevant information source was the books and websites. These gave adequate information to discuss the topic and analyse various issues in the entire report.

The most intriguing section of this report was basically the area of the discussion and analysis of the findings. This is because it is the body of the whole report and it is the main part of the report which touches the major critical issues in the entire report. My ability to plan the steps and complete report on time was highly accelerated by having various sources of reference and selection of the most significant sources.

This helped me in achieving my objectives. I highly recommend that students should be able to plan their report first before they start writing down the report content. This is achieved by getting all the resources that are required for reference; and choosing from them the most influential sources that will help achieve one’s objectives and complete report on the time allocated.

List of References

Bernard, L 1996, The Middle East. New York, ISBN Publishers.

Carothers, T & Ottaway, M 2005, Uncharted journey: promoting democracy in the Middle East, Washington, D.C, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Chatterji, C 1973, Muddle of the Middle East, New Delhi, Abhinav Publications.

Chaurasia, R S 2005, History of Middle East, New Delhi, Atlantic Publ. & Distributors.

Dalacoura, K 2011 Islamist terrorism and democracy in the Middle East, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Davenport, J C 2007, Democracy in the Middle East, New York, Chelsea House.

Friedman, S S 2006, A history of the Middle East, Jefferson, N.C. [u.a.], McFarland.

Garnham, D 1995, Democracy, war, and peace in the Middle East, Bloomington [u.a.], Indiana Univ. Press.

Goldberg, E, Kasaba, R & Migdal, J S 1993, Rules and rights in the Middle East: democracy, law, and society, Seattle, University of Washington.

Halperin, M H, Siegle, J T & Weinstein, M 2005, The democracy advantage: how democracies promote prosperity and peace, New York, Routledge.

Paya, A & Esposito, J L 2010, Iraq, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World, Iraq, Routledge.

Platzdasch, B 2009, Islamism in Indonesia: politics in the emerging democracy, Singapore, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Runciman, D, 2006, The politics of good intentions: history, fear, and hypocrisy in the new world order, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Steele, P, 2009, The Middle East, New York, Kingfisher Books.

Yacoubian, M 2008, Promoting Middle East Democracy II: Arab Initiatives, Washington, D.C, DIANE Publishing.

Introduction

Nowadays, the issue of equality attracts the attention of the general public and various scientists who conduct citizenship studies. Professionals tend to question the way sexual minorities are treated, emphasizing that the world starts to consider them as ordinary people. The governments of different countries support them, implementing special policies that provide the members of sexual minorities with new opportunities that used to be unapproachable not so long ago. For example, same-sex marriages are legalized in many places, and sex affirmation surgeries are allowed. Still, the analysis of the current state of society turned out to show that the picture presented in SMI and social media is more idealized while the real situation remains rather poor.

Shane Phelan is one of those people who discuss lesbian and gay politics, trying to reveal their position in the country. In her work, the author underlines that the U.S. is a country with a heterosexual regime, which presupposes biased approaches to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals. She considers that such a regime prevents sexual minorities from being seen as citizens at all. Their representatives are often thought to be queers, those who are somewhere in the middle.

Phelan suggests calling them strangers, as offered by Zygmunt Bauman, emphasizing that these people occupy the position between friends and enemies (Phelan 4). The author wishes to prove that sexual minorities are not strangers to the general public even though they are often treated in this way. Personally, I totally agree with her and have nothing to do but to state that many gays and lesbians are still strangers in U.S. democracy rather than fully included citizens as they are not totally accepted by society and require more respect.

Sodomy Laws

An adverse position of sexual strangers can be proved by the existence of sodomy laws. Of course, it cannot be denied that in the majority of the U.S. states, these laws were repealed, but in some of them, all sexual behaviors that are ‘against nature’ are claimed to be illegal. This is always applied to homosexuals and, in particular locations, to heterosexuals as well (“Sodomy Laws in the U.S.” para. 1). In this way, the law provides no opportunities for sexual strangers to live normal lives. While heterosexual individuals can adjust to such norms, gays and lesbians will always be considered to be criminals.

Sodomy laws, in this perspective, tend to affect people’s right to privacy as they presuppose disclosure of personal information related to sexual life. Under such pressure, sexual strangers are likely to hide their orientation and act as if they are just like the others. Queers believe that the privacy of their bedroom is critical, and it should not be discussed as a crime. Sodomy laws provide them with no opportunity for intercourse, and only their abolition can ensure individuals’ privacy rights. Thus, it can be seen that gays and lesbians are put in a worse condition than heterosexuals by the legislation of the U.S. states, which supports the belief that they are treated as sexual strangers who are not equal to the general public.

Gays in the Military and Sports

The position of gays in the military and sports altered with the course of time but remained rather sandy. Men who wanted to enter these spheres had to fit a particular image that was created by the society dominated by heterosexuals. They were expected to exhale masculinity by each work and gesture so that no gays were normally accepted. Of course, those who concealed their sexual orientation had an opportunity to become officers or football players, but in general, the situation was unfavorable for them. Not so long ago, homosexuals won some freedom and toleration due to the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) movements.

They became supported by the government and encouraged to be fair. For example, the ban on openly gay service personnel in the military sphere was repealed, which provided homosexual members with the opportunity to tell who they are and still be enrolled and accepted by others (McVeigh and Harris para. 2). However, the practice shows that the government just made society tolerate gays and lesbians, which does not change the situation significantly. If people were reluctant to accept homosexuals and work with them, new legislation did not alter their minds (Bindel para. 9).

Now both strangers and citizens are to hide their true feelings and attitudes to create a vision of equality. Gays did not receive the respect they were looking for, respect that could make them feel a part of a huge family. The government made them tolerated so that the representatives of the general public continue to condemn them but do it secretly, which proves that homosexuals remain strangers in the current society. The same can be said about same-sex marriages. They are legalized in several states, and some gays and lesbians have an opportunity to be monogamic if they want, just like heterosexuals.

However, if they live in the places where sodomy laws exist or if they hold high positions that require the support of the general public (politicians, for example), they rarely do such steps. Many homosexuals create ‘normal’ families with people of the opposite sex just to look normal. Then, they often have same-sex life partners, those they really want to be with. In this way, they unwillingly refer to polyamory, which is also rejected by society. Thus, homosexuals have no other way but to remain strangers to society.

Gay Visibility

The mentioned above information proves that the changes in society lead to mainstreaming gay visibility in the U.S. Such tendencies are also seen in the global context. For example, homosexuals are treated decently in France, where same-sex marriages became common. Gay couples even have an opportunity to adopt a child, which emphasizes a significant change in their perception. However, the attempt to make homosexuals disclose themselves can be seen as secondary marginalization. Manalansan considered this issue along with racial discrimination and claimed that non-Western same-sex practices “are marginalized and cast as ‘premodern’ or unliberated” (486).

The author underlined that people remained not equal. This idea is also supported by Rushbrook, who stated that the districts for homosexual people were created where they could be openly gay and feel safe even though other locals might be harassed there (195). In this way, making others see who they are, strangers are allowed to marginalize them.

Conclusion

For a long time, people of homosexual orientation tried to hide their nature and act as ‘normal’ persons if they wanted to be accepted by society. They needed to suppress their will and desires because they were afraid of the consequences. These times passed by, but the general public remained rather detached due to the prejudices. Thus, people should reconsider their position and start recognizing strangers.

In spite of the fact that the history has shown not once that a human being is a versatile creature that does not adhere to such notion as “norm”, there have been heavy arguments about what the notorious norm is supposed to be. These are only the recent times when a man’s personal life was considered the holy of the holies. Still the arguments on the way people should lead their lives are going on and do not seem to cease.

The question of norm, well discussed so far, still turns into a problem to keep silent about as it touches upon a man’s sexual life.

Indeed, it is quite reasonable that people are not supposed to know the details of one’s personal life as long as these details do not interfere the others’ safety.

However, the debates that have been going on as people touched upon the question of homosexuality as not a deviation, but something that has the right to exist, the reaction was bios and very emotional. Most people tended to treat the new idea with disgust or resentment, and there was a long way to go to convince them that the new ideas posed no threat to their personal space and safety.

This was a huge step towards the democratic principles, since homosexuality was no longer considered a mental disease, but a form of a person’s sexuality that was shaped under the influence of certain factors. In other words, this was not a mental illness to be treated in the hospital.

The scale of the event could be equal to a revolution. Indeed, the forces that it took to make people recognize homosexuality as a shape of norm are indescribable. Sometimes people can be very stubborn about their prejudice, and this was the very case.

The indignation that the society met the news with was worth being called a revolt, not an armed one, of course, but the moral one, which might have been ever harder to take. This is where the concept of multitude as the blind force that night take over and which the government should take into account comes to mention.

The clue of this small revolution is that the norms that have been internalized and that have crawled into our body and mind, making it ossified, literally, while admitting that these norms are something that can be regulated and adjusted to the new stages of human’s development makes people more flexible and gives the additional survival ability.

Although the ideas that concern sexuality seem to be more appropriate to discuss in private, one cannot but admit that there is a certain link between the social and the private life.

It has been clearly expressed by Foucault, who said that “The law always refers to the sword. But a power whose task is to take charge of life needs continuous regulatory and corrective mechanisms” (144).

Indeed, the problem of democracy that underlies the one of considering homosexuality a crime is something that needs to be spoken of. This is also the issue of the biopower and the immaterial labour that this democratic step is about. The connection is quite understood and easy to explain.

Suppressing their inner needs and inclinations, people feel that they are missing on an important part of their life, and thus they lose on the biopower that they possess originally. With no opportunity to give way to the emotions and feelings, people start fading away.

Of course, the ideas of that kind should not contradict people’s overall life security and make the others feel uncomfortable. But the understatement of the problem drives to its pouring over the edge, and fighting people, but not the very problem will cause nothing but the common resentment, with all the negative consequences applied.

To sum up, people need to live in harmony with themselves and with the rest of the world, and the government should help them to, instead of silencing the unwated facts.

Works Cited

Foucault, Michel. The History of the Sexuality: the Use of Pleasure. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1990. Print.

Jurgen Habermas is an outstanding personality in modern German and world social science and philosophy. He is best known as the most influential intellectual in modern humanitarian science. Being a member of the Frankfurt Critical School, he represents a long-standing tradition of theoretical debates over the issues of philosophy, society, democracy, and humanity. Habermas made a great contribution to the various spheres of humanitarian sciences such as social science, discourse analysis, political science, communicational theory, etc. Besides his theoretical achievements, Habermas has a voice in German and world political debates. His views are widely regarded as crucial in such issues as economic and social development, the role of the responsible intellectual, the issues of the Holocaust, the roots of authoritarian power, and the prospects for the emancipation of humanity. He is widely cited on the vast majority of other topics.

In my research paper, I will discuss Habermas’s theory of democracy in the context of contemporary debates in social science. The analysis of Habermas’s theory of democracy will involve the discussion of its main premises such as theoretical and cultural background, those researchers that influenced his scientific direction, etc. Further on, we shall analyze the structure of his theory. It will require research into major elements of his method – theory of “communication reason” and “public sphere” theory. The main question current research attempts to address is the relevance of Habermas’s theory in modern society. To answer this question, research pays attention to the criticism of Habermas’s theory of such authors as Finlayson (2004), Braaten (1991), and Cook (2004).

To provide a comprehensive analysis of Habermas’s contribution to the democratic debate, I will use various analyses of his works by other prominent researchers and his own studies. This will allow me to produce a solid study that can prove helpful for my future research. As a result of my research paper, I will try to assess the pro and cons of Habermas’s theory of democracy which can be a feasible contribution to this problem.

The theoretical roots of Habermas’s theory of democracy

Habermas as a researcher, represents a tradition of American pragmatism and critical theory. His theory of democracy was deeply influenced by the liberal tradition of thought, starting from German Classic Philosophy and finishing with such authors as Berlin and Dahl. Besides these, he was deeply influenced by the modern studies in ethics and moral activities and, on the whole, represents the moral tradition of Christianity and Enlightenment. This, according to our finding, explains the fact why he, in his theory of democracy, so relied upon the discursive ethics of K. Appel.

It must be noted, of course, that being a colleague of such well-known representatives of Frankfurt school as T.W. Adorno, M. Horkheimer, H. Marcuse et al., and he borrowed much of their theory of “instrumentalist action” and implemented it in his theory of democracy. Later research will show how he adapted it to his own methodology.

A framework of a democratic theory constructed by Habermas draws on the vast majority of previous research in this field. One should name such authors whom Habermas regarded as valuable contributors to the democratic theory – Aristotle, Plato, J. Locke, T. Hobbes, R. Dahl, etc.

In social science, he primarily drew on the research of such authors as E. Durkheim, G. H. Mead in linguistic philosophy on the works of J.L, Austin, and L. Wittgenstein. Notwithstanding the scope of authors and traditions which influenced the thought of Habermas, he managed to develop a unique theory of democracy which is of great interest in the contemporary scientific debates.

The structure of Habermas’s theory of democracy

Habermas’s theory of democracy is built on the premise that the only way of achieving rationalist discussion of society burning issues is creating a sound democratic framework that would include every person. According to Habermas, such a framework must be based on respect for human and moral rights and be open to every part of the social process. The democratic institutions, according to Habermas thought, are the value in themselves because they represent the idea of robust communication in order to achieve the common good for all people.

This deep and crucial for the modern debates thought is primarily based on the Habermas method of the communicative actions on which his democratic theory is based. Jurgen Habermas’s (1984-87) theory of communicative reason or rationality represents a major contribution to social science. According to Habermas’s idea, the previous subject-centered mode of thinking disregarded the importance of interpersonal communication, and that is why it was repressive in nature. Habermas places more emphasis on the necessity of providing sound communicative mechanisms, which are the main prerequisites for human emancipation and constructing a fair society—combining the findings of J. Searle and L. Wittgenstein’s linguistic theories and moral tradition deriving from me. Kant, Habermas incorporates them into the viable democratic theory. According to Habermas, the positive legacy of Enlightenment can only be implemented through the communicative mechanisms of democracy such as public discussion, elections, mobilization of different segments of the population to defend their human rights and dignity.

In contrast to irrational thinkers such as Nietzsche, Habermas believes in the progressive impulse of Enlightenment that can be realized through the utilization of human reason’s potential. Habermas (1990) considers Enlightenment to be an “unfinished” project” and opposes those who reject the possibility of changing humanity for the better. That was the main reason for his distancing from the position of Frankfurt school, the representatives of which didn’t see any hope in the future.

Another finding concerning his democratic theory is its incorporation with the theory of instrumental rationalization. According to Habermas, democratic practices are opposite to the model of rationalization, which dominates modern capitalist societies. He claims that it is necessary to maintain intact those spheres of social interaction that presuppose open communication in search of truth and progress. Habermas sees the process of democratization and humanization of society as a realization of the potential for positive change. But still, according to him, the main obstacles to robust communication lie in the realm of instrumental rationality, which forms state, market, industrial science, and other entities. In this way, the logic of society precludes the development of positive communication trends. So, according to our research, Habermas’ theory of democracy is comprised of several intact methods and concepts. The carcass of his model is the theory of communicative action which claims that democratic practices are the only which lead to high moral standards in society. In its turn, it presupposes the theory of the public sphere – the realm in which people democratically discuss their issues and take appropriate decisions on their future lives. And eventually, we have a model of instrumental rationalization which points to the essential constraints to the realization of the “ideal communicative situation” in practice. The essential part of this theory to which we paid much attention in this research is the Habermas concept of the public sphere.

Democratic theory and the notion of the public sphere

Habermas elaborated the concept of the public sphere to describe the changes in western societies which had taken place at the beginning of the 19-the century. According to Habermas (1987), this period it was created the free sphere of communication on issues of political and social importance in which the power of the argument was more respected than the power of tradition or authority. That event fostered the development of the liberal western culture and the discourse on human rights, freedom, and democracy. The main motor of these changes was the growth of human awareness and the development of culture. This period is characterized by the growing empowerment and democratization of politics, economy, and culture. In politics, we have an extraordinary suffrage movement that led to the emergence of mass democracy. In economics, the mobilization of working classes in trade unions forced businessmen and states to ensure social guarantees, which resulted in the creation of the so-called “welfare state.” Eventually, the democratization of culture increased the level of education and literariness among ordinary people. These features of the emerging public sphere, according to Habermas, were the main achievements of modern civilizations, which must be preserved and fostered by the future generation. This motive goes through his entire theory.

But the stability of the public space was broken due to important structural drawbacks of the existing western societies. According to Habermas (1990), the process of the monopolization and commoditization of media communication resulted in the gradual dying off of the public sphere.

In his major work, Theory of Communicative Action (1984-87), he harshly criticized the process of one-folded rationalization and modernization. In his analyses of the bureaucratic organizations, mass consumption, and the market forces, Habermas comes to the conclusion that the increasing formalization of the structures that control our daily life leads to the alienation of the people.

The abovementioned processes result in the deterioration of the participatory democracy quality. Democracy flourishes only in the event if institutions provide citizens with the framework for open discussion of public issues. In the ideal type of “ideal speech situation,” Habermas shows the circumstances under which communication is built on the liberal principles of respect for social and individual rights and is not contaminated by ideology and mistrust. Habermas considers it possible to redress this situation. In a society that overcomes gender, ethnic and cultural divisions, there exists a possibility of creating a just legal framework that would provide people with the possibility to take part in the decision-making process. This all requires public opinion to become a dominant force of democratic transformation. As a result of this section of this research, we came to the conclusion that Habermas’s theory represents a well-thought-out and comprehensive framework that is essential to the analysis of modern transformation in democratic governance and transitions. It is critical to hold all positive facets of this theory intact and criticize some misinterpretations and drawbacks.

Criticisms of Habermas’s theory of democracy

Habermas’s theory of democracy was criticized by many scholars. Some of them, like Cook (2004), claimed that it is idealistic in essence and fails to understand the substantially undemocratic character of modern democratic institutions. According to Cook, Habermas understates the formality of democracy and makes wrong generalizations. The majority of modern democratic countries have only democratic procedures in places, such as plebiscite and elections, but it doesn’t mean the populace enjoys sound democratic rights. The majority of the population in 3-rd world countries suffers from deprivation, low standards of living. The democratic practices in them are nothing more than a means of social order legitimization, which has nothing to do with democratic rights. Another reproach to Habermas concerns his confusion of liberal and democratic rights. According to Cook, liberal rights are not always democratic and, on the whole, are insufficient for ensuring sound democratic governance.

Other criticisms of Habermas’s theory of democracy concerned his notion of the public sphere. As J.G. Finlayson (2004) pointed out, the development of mass communication makes this sphere impossible to exist, and Jane Braaten (1991) claims that the public sphere as a realm of communicative action and debates never existed. Notwithstanding these criticisms, the theory of Habermas is very important for understanding the structure of modern western society and the ways of its transformation.

Conclusion

The results of the research show that Habermas’s theory of democracy includes both negative and positive facets. In the first place, it stresses the progressive motor of democratic institutions, which can be described as a responsible and brave scientific stance in the era of total domination of postmodern and conservative thought. Unlike other theoreticians that seek to totally deconstruct the achievements of the modern western civilization, Habermas rightly holds that there exists a possibility for change. But as with each social theory, Habermas’s theory of democracy has essential drawbacks. As noted above, it tends to overestimate the role of democratic institutions as if they had a value in themselves. Democracy is only viable if there exists social justice and equal distribution of social products. Unless this is the case, democracy becomes formalized and empty.

References

1. Braaten, A. (1991). Habermas’s Critical Theory of Society. New York: State University of New York Press.
2. Cook, D. (2004). Adorno, Habermas, and the Search for a Rational Society. New York: Routledge.
3. Finlayson, J.G., (2004). Habermas: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Habermas, J. (1990). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
5. Habermas, J., (1984-1987). The Theory of Communicative Action. Trans. by Thomas McCarthy, 2 vol. Cambridge: Polity.

The current course has significantly enlarged my scope of knowledge in various conceptions of the public and its role in a democracy. In this paper, I would like to resort to this knowledge to focus on the perspectives that I find missing in the works of the authors we have learned so far. The authors whose arguments I find rather debatable ones are in this way or another concerned with the role of education and communications in society as a whole and structuring it in terms of elite and non-elite, in particular.

My point is that P. Bachrach and C. Wright Mills in The Theory of Democratic Elitism and The Power Elite, correspondingly, underestimate the role that education and communications might possibly have in obtaining more equalitarian relationships in society. I believe that the views like these disregard the importance of education and communications in democratic societies and do not contribute to their well-established image.

Education and communications are phenomena that affect other spheres the life of society is built on. Still, P. Bachrach does not find them effective in establishing equal relationships between people. He claims that the democratic system presupposes the rule of elite and mass passivity and that “any suggestion that a departure from the system in the direction of obtaining a more equalitarian relationship between elites and nonelites, is on objective grounds, unrealistic” (Bachrach 129). I am inclined to think that it is possible to obtain equality between them through education and communications; the gap between the two groups is brought down to a minimum of education and various means of communication are adequately handled in a democratic society.

Elite and non-elite classes can afford education of different quality and prestige levels. As a result, different issues of misunderstanding appear. As any kind of communication may potentially result in theoretical, non-practical, and practical knowledge, with different education, got the communication gap between the classes increases. In non-capitalistic countries where the problem of the economic gap is a burning one, the increase of the communication gap is especially relevant. Not only the issue of making money that one gets through education but moral values that education propagates in both systems are different there. The communication gap between the two classes increases not only in terms of the current generation, but in terms of subsequent ones as well, and this speaks for the barest necessity to solve the problem of the role of education and communication influences on this gap.

Investigating the transformation in the function of education throughout American history C. Wright Mills states that the function has undergone significant changes. Firstly, it was merely politic: “to make the citizens more knowledgeable and thus better able to think and judge of public affairs.” (Mills 317) In time, the function of education transformed from the political to the economic that meant that people were trained to get better-paying jobs and thus to get ahead (Mills 317). Therefore, those who could get such education got more chances to succeed in any entrepreneurship; moreover, they were more willing to have the changes in their lives as education proved the appropriateness of these changes and provided them with knowledge of how to do it. But I believe that the functions of education in American society should not restrict to that of dividing the society into classes but to uniting these classes as well.

The problem is not simply rooted in the way people are affected by education and communications, but in the extent to which they are capable to interpret correctly the ideas, these two systems bring and, what is more important, the extent to which they are allowed to do it. The thing is that in modern democratic societies people’s opinions are manipulated in different ways. Those who do realize the causes and the essence of this manipulation (which is due to the education they have or they are getting now) are less manipulated and are more capable of acting according to their own principles and needs. People should be well equipped with the knowledge on this or that issue propaganda touches upon not to be misled by its drastic influence. This is where the elite and nonelite masses differ: representatives of the elite are less subjected to be influenced by propaganda, whereas those of nonelite if they are not adequately educated are not provided with the apparatus to evaluate the information they are suggested.

In Social Responses to Twentieth-Century Propaganda J. Michael Sproule singles out four perspectives of propaganda in mass communication: the humanist, professional, scientific, and polemical one (Sproule 5). Each of them, he further claims, may be considered as a social responsibility “to the conflict between traditional American democracy and modern practices and techniques of social influence”. According to the author each of the perspectives answers the question about how citizens may make informed decisions about political problems when their knowledge of those problems is influenced by the very elites they are supposed to control (Sproule 5). The concept of propaganda is a rather vague one and it does not influence the masses’ political decisions only. To consider the influence of propaganda on public opinion let us investigate the concept in terms of its historical development.

The term propaganda that stands to represent the idea that the mass media driven by advertising and public relation techniques can serve as a significant factor of influencing public opinion appeared some months before the United States entered World War I (Sproule 7). It is obvious that the wartime views on propaganda were rather restricted and isolated. Propaganda was seen as dishonest communication in campaigns by a foreign enemy. Thus, the phenomenon was understood as a political tool, and its social grounds were not properly evaluated. When the war ended several factors established a new context for understanding propaganda:

• the postwar revisionist thinking about the origins of the war;
• disillusionment with the high human costs of the war;
• disillusionment with the terms of the Versailles Treaty (Sproule 8-9).

These factors helped to open the public to postwar propaganda consciousness. During the postwar period more and more often the term was understood as doublespeak and disinformation. If we consider advertising as one of the commonest ways of public disinformation and going by Daniel J. Boorstin will analyze its implications we will see that advertising, as well as other communications, help to overshadow the problem of knowledge by the problem of persuasion (Boorstin 258).

In Rhetoric of Democracy, the author claims that “democratic societies tend to become more concerned with what people believe than with what is true, to become more concerned with credibility than with truth.” The large-scale democracy like the American one, he states further, which possesses the apparatus of modern industry is more subjected to such problems as they are accentuated by “universal literacy, by instantaneous communication, and by the daily plague of words and images.” (Boorstin 259) The role of advertising has changed throughout history: in the early days, advertisings were considered a kind of news which could educate society somehow, but in the course of time the role of advertising changed to be that of persuading and appealing rather than that of educating and informing. This means that those who advertising have intended need to be especially cautious of the things they hear, see, and digest here and there.

Boorstin states that

the special role of advertising in our lives gives a clue to a pervasive oddity in American civilization. A leading feature of past cultures […] is the tendency to distinguish between “high” culture and “low” culture between the culture of the literature and the learned on the one hand and that of the populace on the other. In other words, between the language of literature and the language of the vernacular (Boorstlin 264).

Those who can distinguish between advertising as a way of presenting news and advertising as a way of influencing public opinion will adequately react to it. Those who are not capable of this will fall victim to this means of propaganda. Representatives of elite and nonelitism will differ in their attitudes to advertising, as they see it in the two different concepts mentioned above. Dewey suggests that the problem of misunderstanding may be solved in terms of the relations of personal intercourse in the local community (Dewey 125). I believe that the problem should be considered on a state level. The fact that education and communications serve the filter in the relationships between the two classes is obvious in developed societies. What the governors have to do is to provide each class with education sufficient for an adequate understanding of the realities of contemporary life. I do realize that it is easier to manipulate uneducated people, but one day the vital difference between elite and nonelitism will speak for itself and the consequences will not restrict to the sphere of education and communications only.

Thus, I conclude that it is in men’s hands to establish equality between classes through adequate use of education and communications systems. Bachrach was mistaken in his pessimistic views on possible changes in the relationships between the representatives of elite and nonelite and Wright Mills would have been more objective if he spoke of uniting function of education and communication as well. The success in decreasing the gap between the two classes depends on relying on education and propaganda’s positive impacts instead of the ruining ones that governors most often make use of.

Works Cited

Bachrach, Peter. “The Theory of Democratic Elitism.” Democracy. Ed. Philipp Green. Humanities Press: New Jersy, 1993. 126-130.

Boorstin, Daniel J. “The Rhetoric of Democracy.” About Language. Ed. William H. Roberts. Houghton Miflin Company, 1998. 258-266.

Dewey, John. “The Public and Its Problems.” Democracy. Ed. Philipp Green. Humanities Press: New Jersy, 1993. 120-125.

Lippman, Walter. “The Image of Democracy.” Public Opinion and Propaganda. Ed. Daniel Katz. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1938. 27-32.

Mills, Wright C. The power Elite. Oxford University Press, 1956.

Sproule, Michale J. “Social Responses to Twentieth-Century Propaganda.” Propaganda. Ed. Smith III Ted J. Praeger, 1956. 5-22.

I believe that trust is essential for the foundations and functioning of modern democracy. Without trust, democracy will eventually begin to come under attack and decline in small ways, until the sum of these small aspects of removed freedoms, misinformation, vote or demographic manipulation, and other deceitful means of influencing democracy, will add up. It will create a status quo where the American model of democracy that has been recognized and revered in the world is no longer a democracy but merely an illusion of one. I think that events of recent years have shown that American democracy is on this dangerous path. Krastev (2013) notes that participation is a major issue, as many people no longer have the interest or trust to participate in the democratic process. This has been a gradual process as a result of major changes, such as cultural, technological, and brain science revolutions. In his words, “people can change governments, but they cannot change policies” (Krastev, 2013).

According to a Pew Research Survey, 75% of Americans distrust the government, and 64% have the low trust in fellow citizens, interestingly, 65% also indicate the low trust, particularly in the federal government, is making it difficult to solve the nation’s problems (Rainie & Perrin, 2019). I would agree with this, but the issue is so complex that there is no easy solution. As mentioned by Krastev (2013), the concepts of transparency and checks and balances in the government are good, but they will then lead to further mistrust as each political statement will be closely examined with rulers having to lead-based on public sentiment and showmanship rather than pragmatism. I think trust is just as essential as mistrust. Mistrust should be present in democracies as well, in healthy doses, as it stimulates political engagement and evaluation of political institutions by the people (van der Meer, 2017).

At the same time, I would argue that without trust there will be no foundation because people should have trust in the Constitution, the federal government, and each other. Trust is necessary first and foremost to facilitate key democratic processes to run the democratic institutions, such as voting and elections, and governance in accordance with the law. Trust has largely failed the American people as leaders have abused it for political gains and partisan objectives, rather than focusing on the true needs of its citizens.

References

Krastev, I. [TED-Ed]. (2013). Can democracy exist without trust? – Ivan Krastev [Video]. YouTube.

Rainie, L., & Perrin, A. (2019). Key findings about Americans’ declining trust in government and each other. Pew Research Center.

van der Meer, T. W. G. (2017). Political trust and the “crisis of democracy.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.Web.

Introduction

The modern world has a high pace of technological and economic development but still faces numerical social and environmental crises. Liam Downey examines in his work Inequality, democracy, and the environment, the nature of these problems and tries to explain the causes of their occurrence. The author emphasizes that organizations controlled by the elite play a key role in creating global problems and proves his statement by analyzing literature and case studies.

Main body

The main issues for consideration that the author selects are the process of globalization; the problems of mining and agriculture; the U.S. energy and military policy. These issues are presented as crucial in causing different global problems (Downey, 2015). For example, the growth of industry and agriculture causes environmental pollution, while globalization exacerbates economic inequality between states. Downey (2015) explores the actions of various organizations, companies, and even political entities (such as the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, or the George Bush Administration), to find their effects on the environment. This research provides an opportunity to trace a direct relationship between the adoption of cost-effective actions or laws and the occurrence of environmental and social problems.

Most of the research in the book is aimed at studying the history of the formation and functioning of elite-controlled organizations, as well as experience in overcoming global problems. However, the identification of mistakes of the past, their analysis, and evaluation assist in finding new principles that help to avoid their recurrence. This knowledge also helps to improve forecasting skills and choose the best ways of solving problems. Thus, Liam Downey’s scientific work is important for Environmental Sociology, since it studies the activities of elite-controlled organizations as a source of social and environmental problems.

Inequality, democracy, and the environment also has a clear structure and organization. In the first part of the book, the author presents his theoretical arguments: he describes two popular theories of environmental degradation, namely, the study of social structure, and the research on macro-structural environmental sociology (Downey, 2015). He uses analysis of literature to find gaps in the premises of these theories. In the second part, he demonstrates the empirical evidence of the influence of elite-controlled structures on social and environmental conditions in the world. Downey (2015) uses numerous case studies and official documents of international organizations, which, in practice, confirm his thesis. Thus, it can be determined that the author’s research has high quality, since it examines the issues from different perspectives and uses credible sources.

Moreover, Downey’s research helps environmentalists and sociologists identify the sources of global challenges and delve into a study of them. Scientists and politicians can direct their efforts to address the crisis after studying the impact of institutional inequality in the world and its relationship with the emerging regional and world’s problems. This knowledge helps to find new ways of countries’ development without bringing harm to the world, as well as avoid possible crises in the future.

Conclusion

Therefore, Inequality, democracy, and the environment by Liam Downey is a study that raises the issue of solving global challenges to the next level. The author explores the issue unusually and controversially, which enables scientists to approach the resolution of problems and crises from the other side. In addition, solutions aimed at eliminating causes are more effective than dealing with consequences.

References

Downey, L. (2015). Inequality, democracy, and the environment. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Democracy has been vital for enhancing social development, economic progress, and political relationships among leaders. Many countries have benefited from democratic systems established to protect human rights among public members. Objectively, gender equality is a challenge to many countries across Latin America. This review entails a tactical analysis regarding Sonia Alvarez’s contribution to Brazil’s transformation of women’s movements (Alvarez, 1990). In addition, the review integrates information acquired from essays by Barbara Nelson and Saint-Germain regarding gender equality and the electoral participation of women in democratic processes. As will be noted, feminism in Brazil was motivated by protests for equal voting rights across the U.S. and Europe between the 1940s and 1970s (Alvarez, 1990). The book Engendering Democracy in Brazil (1990) is helpful for measuring social progress and community growth based on women’s rights in academic, employment, and leadership contexts.

Several unique contributions are imminent in the book regarding women’s scholarships in politics within Latin America. Leadership is an important element of societal growth in modern communities. Individuals require direction from public administration officials to improve living standards in daily economic activities. Latin America, especially Brazil, encounters significant instances of gender equality in political leadership. It highlights that Sonia Alvarez was tactical in identifying women’s scholarship opportunities for implementing gender equality within Brazil (Alvarez, 1990). The book notes that many elected female leaders depict similar education levels to their male counterparts. It becomes difficult for political agencies to consider female applicants for leadership positions without the required academic qualification. Profit-making entities also get challenged in recruiting female applicants lacking substantial working experience due to low education levels. As a result, increasing female scholarship opportunities was a unique contribution by Sonia Alvarez to improve gender quality in Latin America.

Another contribution from the book concerning scholarship opportunities to aspiring female politicizations entails economic growth. This review mentioned the significance of recruiting female professionals in formal working contexts. Sonia Alvarez recognizes that women’s contribution to income-earning activities will be critical in stabilizing and sustaining many economies (Alvarez, 1990). Consequently, scholarship opportunities to women in politics will influence decision-making at policy-making levels in state agencies. The book highlights that scholarship opportunity exposes female students to vital academic knowledge and intellectual wisdom in managing public resources. For instance, making executive decisions regarding morality in a firm’s operations will require female employees’ contribution for accurate and widespread acceptance by all stakeholders. Sonia Alvarez, through her book, recognizes the transformation of academic institutions in providing equal learning opportunities to all genders (Alvarez, 1990). Most importantly, the book acknowledges the essence of ensuring objectivity and rationality when awarding scholarship opportunities to women in politics.

Moreover, women and gender development in Latin America presents a good topic I would consider for further research in the future. The book by Sonia Alvarez indicates that other initiatives and academic programs are necessary for regional growth. Barbara Nelson and Saint-Germain’s two review essays are instrumental in identifying relevant variables for accurate research. For instance, the former’s article presents distinct findings on women’s participation in electoral activities (Michelle, 1994). The author acknowledges that national security decisions are approved by male leaders, as evidenced in World War I. In essence, information from Barbara Nelson’s article would be vital for understanding varying interests concerning females’ participation in the voting process. The insight would help develop public development programs and social initiatives encouraging women into political leadership (Michelle, 1994). Bright female students, for example, would receive scholarship opportunities to participate directly in the implementation of public leadership policies.

The second review essay, by Saint-Germain, also presents vital information on establishing successful initiatives for achieving gender equality across developing countries. The author’s main focus includes the integration of women in a nation’s democratization activities (Nelson, 1992). The information presented in the article is important for understanding varying descriptions of politics. For instance, conservative communities perceive political leadership as a source of absolute power on members. Liberal societies, conversely, perceive the practice as a significant opportunity for introducing social, political, and economic transformation (Nelson, 1992). Achieving gender equality requires accurate recognition of human rights, which details freedoms inherent among people. This leads one to acknowledge equal opportunities for all genders irrespective of individual or socio-cultural beliefs. The article by Saint-Germain is objective in facilitating progressive leadership roles for women in political positions (Michelle, 1994). Most importantly, the article’s information would aid in further research on strong female attributes suitable for varying political positions.

In conclusion, gender equality presents an important achievement for communities aiming at social, political, and economic development. This book review by Sonia Alvarez has been useful in understanding female social movements’ contributions across Latin America. Notably, female students’ inclusion in political roles requires advanced knowledge and academic wisdom, which is obtained through scholarship opportunities. In addition, the two review essays by Barbara Nelson and Saint-Germain also contribute to information that would be useful in conducting further research on gender and women studies across Latin America. As highlighted in both essays, women’s social and political interests in democratization activities are critical for the successful implementation of gender equality initiatives. Most importantly, developing female leaders would require an in-depth analysis of demographic elements and institutions of democracy, as highlighted by Saint-Germain.

References

Alvarez, S. E. (1990). Engendering democracy in Brazil: Women’s movements in transition politics. Princeton University Press.

Nelson, B. (1992). The role of sex and gender in comparative political analysis: Individuals, institutions, and regimes. The American Political Science Review, 86(2), 491-495.

Michelle S. G. (1994). Women, democratization, and public policy. Policy Sciences, 27(2/3), 269-276.

Introduction

A belief that one person’s race is superior has been causing discrimination and prejudice for many years. The theory of racism states that biological characteristics predetermine individuals’ moral and social traits (“The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community” 25). Some people also define racism as explicit hate towards human beings because of their distinguishing features, such as skin color, country of origin, religious beliefs, or native language. Governments around the world tried to solve the issue of racism, and some of them are believed to be successful in educating their populations about it. For instance, different scholars claim that Brazil has effectively escaped racial discrimination. As noted by Da Cota, there exists a view “that Brazilian race relations are relatively harmonious and that race is of minor importance in shaping identities and life chances” (“The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community” 25). Nevertheless, it is claimed that Brazil’s racial equality is just a myth created by the government. Therefore, this paper will prove that racial democracy is absent in Brazil by, first, defining this term and explaining its cons and, second, discussing how and where racism is present in the state.

Main body

Racial democracy in Brazil is a phenomenon connected to the idea that racial differences encourage individuals to look for a broad identity that would include every population presented in the country. Race plays a secondary role in shaping one’s personality and affecting a person’s behavior. On the other hand, it unites people and helps them to appreciate their distinct characteristics. Da Costa stated that this belief had been occupying the minds of Brazilian citizens as a hope for a better future and equality in the society (“The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community” 25). For the country’s population, their motherland is a state that successfully reduced the level of racism by blending its native, European, and African inhabitants (“The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community” 25). Thus, the power of cultural mixture encourages individuals to believe in interconnectedness and support rather than separation depending on racial differences. Blending helps people to seek a more extensive collective identity that exceeds characters based on racial categorization (“The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community” 27). Hence, distinct features are seen as the way to unite and discover familiar characters each culture has.

However, there exists a strong belief that racial inequality is highly present in Brazilian society despite the mixture. The faith in racial democracy due to cultural connectedness is viewed as a contradiction or paradox since people who achieve happiness through blending “see racism and discrimination as aberrations among general conviviality” (Da Costa, “The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community” 29). These delusions are perceived as obstacles on the way to accomplishing understanding of society and the self and, consequently, developing strong personal relationships with other individuals” (Da Costa, “The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community” 29). In other words, blending does not let people discover the advantages of their culture that, eventually, cannot move them towards a complete understanding of society. Therefore, it means that racial discrimination and inequality have not disappeared because cultural blending did not prove to be an effective means of concretizing racial democracy in community relationships. The use of cultural mixture as a way to achieve racial justice can be proved inadequate since it does not take into consideration the effect of difference on the foundation of an ideal community.

Moreover, Brazil is not successful in applying the idea of racial democracy since it operates with the help of racialized power while, at the same time, claiming that race is insignificant. Da Costa defines Brazil, and other states using the same forms of governance, as “post-racial ideologies” (“Confounding Anti-racism” 497). These forms of discourse and thought to try to reduce racial differences and their influences from the attention of activists, public debaters, academic scholarships, and state policies (Da Costa, “Confounding Anti-racism” 497). Post-racial philosophies create complete understandings of inclusion and belonging that ignore racial differences and the issue of racism within a community (Da Costa, “Confounding Anti-racism” 497). Thus, despite transforming inequalities within local and international development, ideologies merely take away attention from the existing problems. In addition, when post-racial ideology is applied as a strategy of governance, it continually seeks to depoliticize race and difference in a way that disarms anti-racism politics and unique cultural recognition (Da Costa, “Confounding Anti-racism” 497). The government of Brazil tries to portray its effective use of racial democracy while hiding the real way of accomplishing things.

Furthermore, even though Brazil is presented as an equal country because of the existence of different cultural groups there, the superiority of white people can still be seen in everyday life situations and the media. Most Brazilians are sure that racism is common and that discrimination turns the lives of various cultures into suffering. The population reports that while the state is known for “mulatas” and an Afro-Brazilian community, once people turn on the TV program or open a newspaper, all one can see is light-skinned and white faces (Duarte). Even in traditional television movies and soap operas, only a few of the characters are played by black actors and actresses (Duarte). Thus, the Brazilian population can easily understand that their eyes are being blinded and minds overwhelmed by the ideas of cultural blending and mixed identity. By simply watching a television program, it is evident that racism did not disappear with the termination of slavery. Contrarily, it is present in modern society and needs action.

One of the prime examples, when racism was explicitly present on the Brazilian media and resulted in a response from people, is a situation concerning a Brazilian actress Tais Araujo. As indicated by Duarte, in November 2015, a famous Black Brazilian media personality Tais Araujo received extensive media coverage due to several offensive comments on her Facebook profile. Dozens of racist social media users stated that Araujo can be compared to an animal and a monkey and commented with sexually embarrassing statements while disrespecting her cultural origin and skin color (Duarte). However, instead of deleting irritating reports from her profile, she decided to publish them to all social media accounts and started a legal procedure against insults (Duarte). As a result of this situation, Brazilians created a multimedia campaign aimed at fighting racism and inequality in the country. Individuals designed supportive hashtags and contributed to the emergence of similar events on the local social media space (Duarte). The process helped to raise awareness about the current issue in society and proved that people need to learn to speak out and punish the offenders through the court.

Even though Brazil attempted to fight and hide the problem of racism for years, its Afro-Brazilian population remains to be an oppressed group in society. Brazil created the concept of a cultural mixture, confirmed legal ownership of land for citizens, and implemented laws in the sphere of education, which allowed all people to attend schools and universities (Araujo). Besides, the government implemented the program which purpose was to fight poverty among the black population of Brazil (Araujo). Nevertheless, these changes were not enough to diminish racism in the country. As noted by Araujo, nowadays, no one can state that racial democracy exists in Brazil. The presence of severe racial and social inequalities is detectable in different spheres, such as healthcare, housing, and education (Araujo). For instance, the young generation of Afro-Brazilian youth is in the first place on the list of those who are most likely to be the sufferers of crimes in Brazil (Araujo). The black population has a 2.5 times higher risk of being killed than the light-skinned community (Araujo). Hence, despite constant attempts to fully implement racial democracy in Brazilian society, the country still occupies a prominent position concerning the issue of inequality.

Conclusion

To summarize, Brazilian scholars and public activists do not make a mistake when starting to challenge racial democracy in their native country. According to various sources and events in society, they have the right and ability to claim that racial justice is a myth and that inequality is highly present in modern Brazil. An ineffective concept of cultural blending and offenses of individuals because of their country of origin, skin color, or language continually contribute to the worsening of the social equality situation in Brazil. Therefore, the central issue of racism needs to be addressed through various actions, such as raising awareness on social media platforms. The presented paper proved that racial democracy does not exist in Brazil by discussing this concept and its disadvantages and by providing examples of racism in the country.

Works Cited

Araujo, Ana Lucia. “The Mythology of Racial Democracy in Brazil.” openDemocracy. Web.

Da Costa, Alexandre Emboaba. “Confounding Anti-racism: Mixture, Racial Democracy, and Post-racial Politics in Brazil.” Critical sociology, vol. 42, no. 4-5, 2016, 495-513.

Da Costa, Alexandre Emboaba. “The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community: Mixture, Conviviality and Racial Democracy in Brazil.” Cultural studies, vol. 30, no.1, 2016, 24-46.

Duarte, Leopoldo. “Tais Araujo: Fighting Brazil’s Racism Takes More than a Hashtag.”teleSUR. Web.