Democracy is considered to be one of the forms of political government, where the role of people is crucial indeed. The majority becomes the ruling power that supports individual freedom and equality before the law. Public speaking is regarded as one of the most effective ways to attract voters’ attention and make them believe that democratic actions are worth attention and recognition. This is why if public speaking is poor or boring for the audience, the ideas of democracy may still be unheard.
It will be very difficult to improve the situation and take into consideration the demands and requirements of ordinary people. Public speaking actually matters for a democracy, because it is a good and sometimes the only chance to save democracy that is eroding now, to improve communicative skills, and to underline the problems that prevent people from happiness and well-being and need to be solved within a short period of time.
Discussion
Public speaking as the way to save democracy from eroding. A team of sophisticated journalists and writers admit that “democracy is eroding and that there is no need for rhetoric. Yet, if some effort is not made to help young people understand democracy and the role of public speaking in this form of government, all will truly be lost” (Evans et al., 325).
Democracy is that golden middle in governmental forms that cannot be controlled too much but still serve as an example of working and organized group. This is why in order to create a proper government, it is necessary to consider the needs and interests of people and take the necessary steps to meet these demands.
However, if these needs are not spoken aloud, they can be hardly recognized, let alone that they can be hardly met. Public speaking may become a powerful mean to inform people, to persuade the government to define the problems and work on them, to think about the possible improving ways, or at least to entertain people and give them a hope that everything will be better.
Democracy needs to train public speaking skills. There are certain rules that need to be followed to present effective public speaking and be able to achieve positive results of these speeches. The role of public speaking is crucial indeed, this is why it is better for a democracy to train their skills as frequent as possible.
First, it is obligatory to plan your speech before speaking: a speaker should clearly define a topic, purpose, and audience. Second, if there is a chance, it is better to train a speech for several times: to talk slowly, provide examples, divide the text into several meaningful parts, and leave some time for questions.
Third, public speaking will be effective for a democracy in case examples, reliable facts, and evidences are given. The audience should have a chance to comprehend why a point is important and what makes its urgent. If a democracy wants to be heard, it should plan each step and each word carefully.
Public speaking may improve general state of affairs from a democratic perspective. A democracy would like to support and improve a variety of tenets, and one of them is a free educational system (Evans et al., 328). People have to get a chance and study free. If citizens are not educative, they do not have enough opportunities to make decisions, introduce their thoughts, and ask for support.
Public speaking should help them prove that education needs to be free. With the help of educative and informative speeches, the supporters of democracy are able to introduce their thoughts, their demands, and the ways of how to achieve all these demands.
Letters and protests lost their effectiveness nowadays, this is why public speaking is one of the final attempts to achieve justice and comprehension. “Free elections are necessary in democracy” (Evans et al., 326), and people are deprived of the opportunity to vote and introduce own ideas for free. This is why it is high time to remember about public speaking and use it to its full extent.
Conclusion
In general, public speaking is integral for a democracy. For the government, it is very difficult to listen to every citizen and take into account the demands of each person. This is why it become more effective and more helpful to unite ideas, organize them in a logical way, and speak clearly and confident.
If it is necessary to give one clear answer why public speaking matters for a democracy, it should sound like this: a democracy is a kind of voice of citizens, and public speaking is a means to make this voice audible to the ruling top. If this means is broken, citizens are not heard, and their demands are not taken into consideration.
Ordinary people lose their chance to improve their lives, and general state of affairs worsens considerably. This is why people should save their positions, should care about their interests, and should make their speaking being noticeable. Public speaking is obligatory for a democracy, because its absence may lead to total collapse of successful society.
Works Cited
Evans, A.L, Evans, V., Lami Kanra, A. M., and Jones, O.S.L. “Public Speaking in a Democracy.” Journal of Institutional Psychology 31.4 (Dec. 2004): 325-329.
Democratic societies the world over are supposed to guarantee certain inalienable rights to the citizens. Rights such as freedom of assembly, speech and worship are universal every individual can claim entitlement to. Citizens on the other hand are required to conduct themselves in a certain way as they enjoy these rights; in other words freedom should be accompanied by responsibility.
In modern society the level of moral decadence especially among the young people has reached alarming proportions. Moral decay among the young people is evident going by the number of juvenile crimes such as shootings in schools, drug and alcohol abuse and teen pregnancy.
This situation has been made worse by the breakdown of the social fabric characterized by the disjointed family as parents are rarely available to guide the children on how to become responsible young adults. The government has not helped the situation as it has denied the parents the opportunity to discipline the children by allowing children to report cases of punishment to the police.
Schools are supposed to mould children into morally upright citizens considering that they spend the better of the day in school. Unfortunately schools in most instances concentrate on the academic development of children leaving them morally deprived.
According to Piaget, all development emerges from action; that is to say, individuals construct and reconstruct their knowledge of the world as a result of interactions with the environment. (Nucci, 2008).
Children rely on what they observe to determine what is right or wrong. Piaget observes that simple rules that children establish as they play games to help them identify what is and what is not fair play determines their “later moral thinking”. Interaction with adults is another major contributor to children moral development as they view them as role models.
Culture and morality are intertwined, to understand moral development, there is need to understand how culture influences our behavior. Culture is a means by which human beings express their way of life; it provides a means of identifying a group of people as distinct from another. With globalization, technology and movement of people across borders, the culture as we knew it has been redefined.
There is a new of form of identity that seeks to create a homogenous community through the social networks. Citizenship as we know it is slowly being replaced by global citizenship that transcends language, religion, ethnicity and region. To preserve the erosion of culture as a means of identity, people have adopted the idea of intercultural dialogue.
The aim of this perspective is to support the preservation and blend of various cultures. Intercultural dialogue enables people to learn more about other cultures thereby eliminating negative perceptions and biases. Intercultural dialogue supports the preservation as well as the fusion of various cultures. The focus of intercultural dialogue is on the willingness to learn about other cultures without the adoption of stereotypes and biases, which are often used to negatively represent a culture. (Marbaniang, 2011)
Intercultural dialogue has also benefited from sports more than from anything else. A sport like soccer has helped create a society that goes beyond boundaries, race and ethnicity. Sports have helped people to appreciate and respect other cultures; this is because sports participants are in constant interaction with people from different cultural backgrounds.
Sports and travel have changed the world by opening opportunities for learning and tolerating other people’s values. Sports have a way of connecting with people and culture beyond tourist attractions and museums. (Branham, 2011).
Class Activities
To fully understand the concept of good moral citizenly, students can undertake a physical exercise that may involve the cleaning of a nearby road. Being the first activity outside school it will be received a mixture of excitement and apprehension.
Students will want to know why they are cleaning the road yet that has always been the responsibility of the municipal employees. To make the student understand, it is important to explain to them why it is important to play the role of adults and the benefits of undertaking such an exercise. Also tell them the health benefits that accrue from cleaning the environment.
A visit to the local municipal office can help students understand why such activities are important. The officer at the municipal office will explain to the pupils that it is a requirement of law to regularly clean the environment. Make the students understand that they will be expected to play such roles as citizens once they become adults.
To help students understand and be proud citizens, there should be programs designed to help them understand their country. Most countries have very rich historical backgrounds that are often ignored in normal school curriculum. Visiting of museums, important monuments and archives where such information is available can greatly enhance the pride of students as citizens.
To enrich the students understanding of other cultures, schools can also organize for trips around the world. These trips will offer the students an opportunity to sample other cultures through food, shelter, religion and language. This kind of program can help students relate their own culture with other cultures that are unfamiliar to them.
Once students are back from such a trip, they can be asked to explain what they learnt orally and also put it in writing. This example can be adopted as a long term project to help students develop an understanding of issues in their country as well as around the world.
References
Branham, J. (2011). 5 ways sports and travel unite passion and culture around the world. Budget Travel Adventures. Web.
Marbaniang, S. (2011). Identify & Get Informed. Taking IT Global. Web.
Nucci, L. (2008). Moral Development and Moral Education: An Overview. Studies in Social and Moral Development and Education. Web.
New Zealand “is an island country that is found in the south-western Pacific Ocean and comprises two main land masses and numerous other smaller islands” (Atkinson, 2003, p. 45). The country is democratic with capitalistic economic model and has a rich cultural tradition that is a blend of European and the Maori culture.
This paper seeks to use two social theories (the social liberalism theory and the consensus theory) to explain how the Aotearoa have organized themselves through capitalism, democracy and the treaty of Waitangi.
Social liberalism in the political and socio economic organization of the Aotearoa
The political and economic organisation of the Aotearoa can be described by Social liberalism theory. Social liberalism is a modern form of liberalism that differs from the classical liberalism by asserting that liberalism must encompass social justice (Welzel, 2005).
Social liberalism stipulates that the state has to ensure that its citizens have access to healthcare, education, source of livelihood and other needs. In social liberalism a community is as good as the freedom of its individual members. Neo-liberalism is a variant of social liberalism in which the state role in the provision of services is reduced (Hamer, 1988).
In the context of New Zealand, social liberalism is seen in the way the country is governed. Being a constitutional monarch, the country is under Queen Elizabeth II who is represented by the governor general (Rauzon, 2008).
The implementation of social liberal policies has been gradual but it stems back for the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi which saw a shift in the governance from local chiefs to the British government (Barak, 2006).
The terms of the treaty were to safe gourd the interests of the Moari and other indigenous groups against foreign invasion. The treaty gave the sovereignty of the New Zealand to Britain which was supposed to oversee the government and protection of the rights of the Maori people, especially to protect them from unfair land deals (Atkinson, 2003). All land transactions were thus held through the crown.
This led to the influx of immigrants from Britain who acquired land from the Maori through the crown. This would later lead to the great wars in which the Maori were dispossessed from much of their land. The treaty of Waitangi has been largely ignored until in the 1970s when it was revisited resulting in the current political structure.
Currently, Aotearoa is constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy (Salmond, 2007). The revisiting of the treaty has seen compensations, apologies and improvement in the social rights of the Maori. An electoral system that is based on proportional representation is adopted to ensure that minority groups are not left out of governance.
The New Zealand politics are based on modern liberalism that affirms to the adherence to the following principles: multiparty democracy, human rights, free and fair elections, social justice, free trade, environmental sustainability among others (Welzel, 2005).
The earliest liberal party of New Zealand is remembered for having advocated for equal rights for women making New Zealand the first nation in the world to have allowed women to vote.
More recently, in 1990, the New Zealand’s bill of rights which forms part of the Aotearoa uncodified constitution was published (Evans, 2007). The bill of rights stipulates the functions of the branches of government, democratic and civil rights, and non discrimination and the minority rights (Atkinson, 2003).
New Zealand’s economy uses a capitalistic model where by most of the economic activities are privately owned. The economy of New Zealand can be described as a social market economy in which the government does not bother to intervene in setting the prices of commodities.
In other words the prices of commodities are determined by the true supply and demand forces that are allowed to settle at equilibrium (Hamer, 1988).
However, in consistency with the requirements of social liberalism theory, the government of New Zealand oversees the provision of social security, unemployment benefits and the recognition and the implementation of labour rights through regional councils (Rauzon, 2008). The economy seems to be driven by the corporation of large business, labour unions and the government.
Consensus theory in the political and social organization of the Aotearoa
The second theory that can best describe some aspects of the socio- political organization of the Aotearoa is the consensus theory (Tormey, 2004). The consensus theory is a social theory that asserts that a particular political or economic system is a fair system, and that social change should take place in the social institutions provided by it (Scott, 2005).
Under this theory, the society is said to be in equilibrium if there is no strife. And that the prevailing situation is characterised by the different members of that society in regard to the norms, regulations and values.
The theory is more concerned with the preservation of social order at the societal level. In the consensus theory, the parties see the rules as being integrative in nature and those who fail to respect them are considered to be deviant (Fitzpatrick, 2004).
The consensus theory is in agreement with some aspects of socio political organization in the Aotearoa. The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi between the British and the Maori in 1840 was the first instance in which aspects of the consensus theory can be pinpointed (Salmond, 2007). Before the treaty was signed, the Maori were being faced with an imminent threat of being colonized and unfair trade practices.
The signing of the treaty ensured that they maintain their status quo through British protection and in return they were supposed to be governed by Britain and to agree to sell their land through justly means to the crown (Welzel, 2005). The treaty was implemented in the short term but in the years that followed it was ignored and most of the agreements were violated.
Land was sold through dubious means and this eventually culminated into the New Zealand Wars (Atkinson, 2003). The war left most of the Maori land confiscated.
Aspects of the consensus theory continue to play out in regard to the treaty where by the Maori accuse the Crown for violating the treaty, especially in regard to the rights aspects of the treaty. Thus there have been instances of compensation and apologies to preserve the social order that was established by the treaty.
The democratic leadership in New Zealand have been instrumental in the promotion of civil rights of the highly cosmopolitan population of the country (Welzel, 2005). For a long time the country was on the forefront in the provision of social services and offering equal opportunity to various groups through legislative action.
The equality and freedom that is enjoyed by the population is achieved by allowing the people to take part in the legislative processes. However, certain historical aspects of the country have made it difficult for a complete democratization process and this has resulted in some groups feeling alienated (Evans, 2007).
For instance, the Maori group which forms the biggest percentage of the indigenous people of New Zealand is given preferential treatment that is based on some historical agreements. The Maoris are favoured by the Treaty of Waitangi which often seems to elevate them above other groups (Salmond, 2007).
This is not to say that the Maoris are comfortable, no, they too are alienated by being depicted in the minority in a land that was predominantly theirs. The arrival of European settlers led them into loosing most of their traditional lands and adoption of foreign language (Rauzon, 2008).
The indigenous groups who are the minority may be faced with challenges such as lose of cultural identity or be subjected to institutionalized racism and sexism (Salmond, 2007). This not withstanding the political stability in New Zealand is ranked the fifth in the world, implying that the country’s democratic process has been able to build a workable consensus between different ethnic groups (Atkinson, 2003).
The free market capitalism that is practised in New Zealand is also seen to have some aspects of consensus theory. The consensus is established on the understanding that the government allows the market forces to set prices and thus its role is only limited to the protection of the rights of workers, proprietors and their properties (Hamer, 1988).
Conclusion
This paper sought to use two social theories (the social liberalism theory and the consensus theory) to explain how the Aotearoa have organized themselves through capitalism, democracy and the treaty of Waitangi.
The paper has been able to identify the application of various aspects of the two theories in the Socio –economic and political organization of the Aotearoa. The rise of democracy and the adoption of free capitalistic ideals can be traced back to the signing of the treaty of Waitangi.
References
Atkinson, N. (2003). Adventures in Democracy: A history of the Vote in New Zealand. Otago: Otago University Press.
Barak, A. (2006). The Judge in a Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Evans, N. (2007). Up from down under: After a century of Sociolism, Australia and New Zealand arre Cutting Back Government and Freeing the Economies. National Review , 16:47-51.
Fitzpatrick, J. (2004). Food, warfare and the impact of atlantic capitalism in Aotearo/Neww Zealand. Sydney: ustralasian Political Studies Association Conference.
Hamer, D. (1988). The New Zealand Liberals: The Year of Power. Auckland: Auckland University Press.
Rauzon, M. (2008). Island restoration: Exploring the past, anticipating the future. Marine ornithology , 35:97-107.
Salmond, A. (2007). Two Worlds: First Meeting Between Maori and the Europeans. Auckland: Penguin Books.
Scott, J. (2005). Industrialism: A dictionary of Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University press.
Tormey, S. (2004). Anti-Capitalism. New York : One World Publications.
Welzel, I. R. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The human Development Sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Different societies have adopted different forms of governance that are unique to their political and social situation.[1] At the turn of the 21st century, many people began to embrace democracy as a form of governance. The new form of governance was associated with many advantages that made it the favorite of many countries in the world. For example, the citizenry need to feel they belong to the power matrix in their respective nations.
To this end, democracy accords such people the luxury of contributing towards the installation of their preferred leadership in the country (Williams par. 1). What this means is that the people have control over the governance of their country. In such instances, the said people assemble and associate in formations that best articulate their issues. Such formations include, among others, political parties and civil rights groups.
In the process of their assembly, citizens are not always drawn from the same schools of thought. It is not uncommon to find people of different backgrounds and different political and philosophical leanings coalescing around one formation. For this purpose, people seek elective positions to address that which they feel needs to be tackled in their communities.
A case in point is when people seek elective positions through a given political formation (or political party) to address such issues as poverty and unequal distribution of resources in the community.
Woods (par. 2) suggests that persons are always welcome to make the public understand what needs to be done so as to improve their society. They are always welcome to make suggestions and take a lead in implementing the same. Democracy is one of the best avenues through which such people can provide solutions to challenges faced in their society.
In this paper, the author seeks to voice their opinion on matters touching on democracies. To achieve this objective, the author bears in mind that a democracy has its own elements and realities, which sets it apart from other forms of political governance in contemporary world.[2]
However, for the sake of this assignment, the author restricts themselves to one key element of a democracy, the political party. More specifically, the paper analyzes the political parties within the context of the Canadian form of democracy. The author is of the belief that political parties facilitate the democratic process in the country. However, the author acknowledges that, just like any other forms of governance, political parties and the democratic process in Canada have their own weaknesses.
Thesis Statement
Political parties facilitate the democratic process in Canada, although they have a number of weaknesses.
Political Parties at a Glance
As aforementioned, a political party is one of the most important elements of a democracy. Williams (par. 1) gives the example of the United States of America, describing it as a model country with respect to democracy and its processes. According to this author, a democracy is characterized by multiple parties.
Williams (par. 1) points out that America has 2 predominant political parties. On their part, European countries like Italy and France have numerous political parties as part of their democracy. The need to formulate policies within a society calls for offices of authority created through this political process.
In addition to Williams, there are other scholars who have conducted studies as far as the issue of political parties and democracies are concerned. One of them is Ryan. Ryan (par. 1) provides a working definition of the concept ‘political party’. The scholar describes it as an association or amalgamation of people who share common ideas on how best to run their society.[3] Ryan (par. 1) suggests that political parties are able to fulfill their ideas through a number of procedures.
One of them is by nominating one of their own and ensuring that the nominee is elected into the targeted office of authority. In this case, such an office may be one of a Mayor or a Prime Minister. The various political parties have to fight it out with each other to ensure that one of their own wins the elections.
To maximize their chances of capturing the elective seat, the individual political parties have to nominate one of their best candidates to run. The party settles on the individual whom they feel best represents their philosophy and the aspirations of the other members of the society. Once in office, the elected member is able to push for the agenda of their party over a period that they are expected to be in office.
Like any other institution, a political party is created with certain goals and objectives in mind. In fact, it is these goals and objectives that set the party apart from those others existing in the country. Some of the objectives are explicit, while others are implicit. For example, the political party may be formed with the desire to uplift the welfare of minority groups in the society. The parties have several roles that they play in a society.
For instance, Williams (par. 2) reaffirms the view that political parties are an avenue through which the ideological positions of a larger group of people find common ground. Through the political party, which is regarded as an institution in its own right, diverse ideas of a people are consolidated into a policy that has clarity. In this regard, political parties provide a sense of unity for the people. As indicated earlier in this paper, the parties bring people from different backgrounds, but who share the same vision or philosophy, together.
Another role played by political parties is the nurturing and selection of future leaders in the society (Ryan par. 1). As a result of their affiliation to the political institution, members are trained on the ideals that their party is created to actualize. An example of such a role is seen in the Communist Party in China (Williams par. 3).
In such cases, senior members of the institution recruit younger members who they can groom and mentor for future leadership. During such ‘training’ processes, the younger members are able to understand the various facets of politics and are best suited to provide alternative leadership in the years to come.
Different societies have different sizes of population. As a result of the diverse nature of the population, there is need for the government to come up with a form of identification for all of them. Political parties are able to provide a platform for identification (Williams par. 5).
One can argue that political parties play the same role as a commercial brand. In this regard, voters are able to associate a candidate nominated for an electoral position with the ideals they stand for. An example of this is found in Canada and its political parties. The New Democratic Party is one of the country’s many political parties.[4]
The party is largely associated with moderate socialism and mixed economic practices (New Democratic Party of Canada par. 1). As a result of this, any candidate seeking an elective office courtesy of this party is identified by the said ideals. What this means is that citizens regard a member of the New Democratic Party as an epitome of moderate socialism and mixed economic practices.
At this juncture, the author of this paper affirms that societies have various issues that need to be addressed. Political parties are used to address some of these issues. It is important to note that people need to come up with prudent ways through which they can resolve the said issues.
After critically analyzing the roles that political parties play in a democracy, Lowi (par. 2) believes that the institutions are important in determining the power structure of the society. Through the elective process, policies are laid out to govern the society. At the same time, there emerges an alternative voice of reason from the parties that did not get the ultimate mandate to govern.
The Democratic Process in Canada
According to Rand (3), Canada has a unique form of democracy. It is characterized by both a parliamentary and a federal system of governance. In addition, the country is in itself a constitutional monarchy. The Queen of England is the current monarch in the country.[5] Nonetheless, the party system in the country is structured in such a way that Canada is a multi-party democracy.[6] The same has evolved over the years from the Westminster version of governance.
Rand (4) points out that the government in this country is organized in four different ways. The first level of organization is the monarchy. The level is headed by the Queen of Canada. The second tier is the executive. It is headed by a Prime Minister. In addition, there is a legislature where laws governing the country are enacted.
Finally, there are minority and majority governments (Rand 17). In the context of the Canadian democratic process, citizens are entitled to elect a Prime Minister alongside members of the legislature. The many political parties in the country nominate suitable candidates who eventually vie in the elections. Elections in the country are governed by the Canadian Election’s Act (Woods par. 2).
An analysis of the Canadian government reveals that it derives most of its powers from the legislature and the executive. As a result of this, it is obvious that democracy is an important facet of the country’s political organization. To this end, political parties cannot be ignored with regard to the contribution they make towards the democratic process.
At present, there are four main political parties that influence the Canadian democratic process (Rand 23). They include the Liberal Party and the Bloc Quebecois. The other two are the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. They are the main players in the country’s political scene.
Political Parties Facilitate the Democratic Process in Canada
In Canada, most of the contentious issues, such as the economy and security, are addressed by the executive and legislative arms of government (Layton 15). It is important to appreciate that a lot needs to be done to improve the manner in which the country is governed. It is obvious that democracy in Canada is here to stay.
The best example to illustrate that Canadians prefer democracy over other forms of governance is the rise of the New Democratic Party. Despite the myriad of challenges the country faces economically, citizens have, over the years, indicated their support for this party.
The New Democratic Party, as already indicated in this paper, supports moderate socialism and a mixed form of economy (New Democratic Party of Canada par. 1). The two are fundamental issues that resonate with many citizens in the country. The consolidation of ideas is one of the roles played by political parties in any particular democracy. The New Democratic Party of Canada has effectively played this role.
Therefore, the hypothesis that political parties facilitate the democratic process in Canada stands. It is a fact that there are various contentious issues in the country. Political parties offer the best avenue through which solutions to these issues are formulated and debated. The Canadian populace has various options to choose from due to the multi-party system adopted in the country.
Conclusion
The democratic process in Canada is regarded highly by many governments in the world. The same was witnessed when Canada was called upon to send a team of observers to Ukraine to assess the parliamentary elections held in 2012. Such a gesture affirms how the Canadian democratic process is regarded highly in the world.
In this paper, the author argued that such high regard is made possible (or facilitated) by the participation of political parties. Nonetheless, political parties in the country, like other institutions, require reform. Canadians can reform their political parties to improve the country’s democratic process.
Works Cited
Layton, Jack. Speaking Out: Ideas That Work for Canadians, Ontario: Quill & Quire, 2004. Print.
Lowi , Shepsle. American Government, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. Print.
New Democratic Party of Canada 2013, History. Web.
Rand, Dyck. Canadian Politics, Michigan: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.
Williams, Sam 2013, Role of Political Parties in Democracies. Web.
Woods, Allan 2013, Quebec Elections Rife with Allegations of Intimidation, Thuggery. Web.
Footnotes
There are four major forms of governance. They are democracy, aristocracy, authoritarianism, and oligarchy. Others include theocracy and anocracy.
Democracy has 6 important elements. They include the rule of law, respect for human dignity, and political equality. Political freedom, common good, and being informed are other elements of democracy.
A society may vary in this regard, depending on the size of the populace. Political parties can have a small reach, for example, within a municipality. They can also extend their reach to a whole country. The geographical size of a society varies.
Canada has a multi-party system of democracy. There are many political parties in the country that have permission to conduct their affairs.
Canada became a constitutional monarchy given that it was once a member of the British Empire.
The legislative process in Canada was formerly designed along Westminster lines. However, over the years, the country has formulated its own parliamentary process of making laws in a way that is an improvement of the Westminster style.
Human rights are one of the public policies that need to be safeguard by all means. According to Wilke, (2005), in his case concerning the war verse justice he tries to advocate for the need of fail trials to the culprits of terrorism detained by the American government. He argues that the detainees are denied their personal rights by being treated as inhuman beings.
The detainees are denied the right to have lawyers to represent them during the trials. Another area concerned is the language barrier of the detainees, the enemies combatant from other nations apart from the Americans does not have the same rights as those from terrorist nations.
The detainees were denied legal personalities from their home city who can understand their language and thus act as an interpreter between the detainees and the judges.
The key democratic points highlighted by the wiles are concerning with the way the detainees are treated before the courts. According to Victor, (2007), terrorism cases are normally manipulated from political case and turned to normal justice, no matter how imperfect it might be in the eyes of the political justice.
Wiles further argue that in political contentious cases, judges usually violate the democratic norms that separate powers from the executive to judicial process. The declaration of one party as an enemy implies that the person who is a detainee should never be treated as a friend.
The lawless and ruthless detainees should be dealt with without any constrain from the law. Detainees are placed beyond the laws and are inhumanly treated.
The treatment of the detainees are dedicated by the policies concerned, they are not given any personal rights, they are controlled and governed by the law and they are considered by the law as people without any personal rights.
The judicial process normally violate the way the cases are separated and dealt with by various powers of the court, this leads to the violation of the norms and public vilification of parties before their trial.
According to Wilke, (2005), the political trials are based on three factors which include political bias which indicates that the judgments arrived at is defined by judicial decisions. Judges give verdicts to the cases according to their own political interests and views.
Another part is concerning the political core, under this view the judge’s gives judgments according to the laws and state areas or activities affected by the crime committed.
This core takes place when the judges are trying to protect the existing structures of power. Judges are subjected to give trials according to the influence of the political conflict, under this section the political parties use the court trying to enforce their claims in order to be more legitimate and be able to distribute and exercise their political powers (Belloni & Beller, 1976).
The basis by which the trials are given to the affected parties depend widely on how the judges view the case brought forward to them.
The trials may have a negative impact on the democratic rights of the person being tried. As it is explained from the trials of the culprit’s rights of the terrorism, ‘enemies combatants’ it indicates that accused person have no personal rights.
It is the responsibility of the state to ensure that the rights of the detainees are protected and the right procedure followed to ensure that the detainees are given the right trials. The public policies that protect the rights of the detainees should be followed, despite the detainees being a suspect of terrorism, which is considered a great threat to the nation.
References
Belloni F., P. and Beller D., C. (1976).The Study of Party Factions as Competitive Political Organizations. The Western Political Quarterly.29 (4). pp. 531-5.
Victor, N. (2007). Demonstrating How Legislative Context Affects Interest Groups’ Lobbying Tactics. American Politics Research November. 35 (6). pp 826-845.
Wilke, C. (2005). War v. Justice: Terrorism Cases, Enemy Combatants, and Political Justice in U.S. Courts. Politics & Society December. 33 (4). pp 637-669.
Today, democracy is the most common system of government in which the political power is collectively decided and controlled by the people. It can literally be interpreted as ‘’rule of the people.’’
Therefore, this means that ordinary citizens possess the ultimate authority over governmental decisions and policies. Democracy rose due to the demand from ordinary citizens to have a voice in the political form of government in hope that it would overcome the rule or tyranny of a single individual, group or characters.
With the people possessing with the ultimate political authority, democracy dissolves power and thwarts any move of dictatorial elements and other forms of authoritarian government.
Democracy has also been seen as the best means of ensuring autonomy and equality amongst all people in the society. It also sets the stage for people to voice their quandaries or frustrations through a regulated process in which the government can seek answers to address the raised issues.
Democracy goes beyond the electoral system and requires other features which include various rights or freedoms in order to develop or discover its preferences. Distinctively, freedom and equality are the main features of democracy and have generally made it as an attractive form of government.
Features of Democracy that generally makes it an attractive form of Government
Freedom/Rights
It is the responsibility of every democratic government to offer its citizens freedoms which are ratified in law. In order for every citizen to have the right to vote, the freedom of speech, assembly, to form parties, pressure groups, a comparatively free media, and so on, are required in order to have a free and fair system of government.
These freedoms which are described in the Bill of Rights, forbids the government from violating these rights. In violation of these rights, any citizen can take the government to a court of law.
Since democracy is a rooted belief of an eventual election of ‘’good’’ government leaders, these freedoms do serve as a mechanism that works daily in punishing government officials incase they abuse the colossal power that lies in their hands or plainly fall short of governing according to the law.
This is basically done because democracy is unable to force the government to be law abiding on a daily basis although it produces the very same government. In a democratic society, the freedoms as written in the constitution to administrate the government due to the fact that independent judicial and law enforcement agencies are constructed within the government.
The people will therefore act within the freedoms and rights given to them to successfully control government power. Since power can only control itself, this power is significantly given to every citizen in a democratic society through the freedoms placed in the Bill of Rights.
Equality
Another main feature of democracy is brought forth by the element of equality in any given society. Equality brings justice to the people in any political or social context.
Equality is embraced intensely from the heart and this element makes it have a passionate and tenacious affect and attachment to the people in general. In situations where freedom and equality meet, they would be confounded together for the common cause for democracy.
Democracy therefore calls for any government to enact policies that will promote equality within its structures and the society as a whole. These equalities may vary from gender, religion, race, to education, and so on.
Democracy becomes attractive in any political system because the government’s main objective is to see that no individual or group is treated unfairly on any grounds. In any society or government, democracy strengthens social and political equality that would later lead to greater equality in the general conditions of life.
Therefore, every citizen in a democratic society can pursue his or her dreams and aspirations knowing that they will be treated equally in the process of doing so, and this also makes equality a defining aspect in democratic governance and leadership. It also grounds democracy to the principle of public equality.
Features or circumstances which are unattractive for citizens to Oppose Democratization in their Country
In some dictatorial societies and governments, the people may not be allowed to know or even talk about the country’s affairs or conditions and any such remarks may lead to the people experiencing a harsh reprisal from the very same government.
This ‘closed’ system of government can also lead to the massive arrests, detention, or even assassination of various members or leaders of any civil societies groups. In these scenarios, the media is not exempted from the dictatorial policies that prohibit them from covering such issues or any contentious topics that the government sees not ‘fit’ for public discussion and reaction.
Such unattractive circumstances may lead to the commencement of various democracy movements due to the people’s dissatisfaction with the system of their very own government. Various democracies around the world have been liberated from their cocoon of fear and injustice through such democracy movements and rallies.
Under such authoritarian governments, freedom of speech is monitored to a great extent that leaves the people concerned and irritated at best. The electoral system does not give room to open competition that opposes the government and are usually occasioned by flawed results and chaos.
In these authoritarian governments, equality in relation to race, gender, religion and so on is not given any consideration when it comes to political involvement.
Women and certain races and groups are intentionally sidelined during the political process. In extreme circumstances the people are left with a country that cannot progress due to the violent political unrest that may take ages to conclude and find an agreeable solution.
Since the people have only known to be met with force under such system of governments when addressing their frustrations, they also tend to use the same force on their government and would not oppose any means that would lead to democratization in their very own country.
Is the balance sufficient to make it likely democracy will replace other forms of government or not?
Yes, the balance is quite significant and will most likely by the system of government in various countries around the world. This is because of the stained history of violence, massacres, assassinations, and so on, which marks the struggle towards a democratic country.
The aftermaths of such events are inconceivable to repeat themselves in the eyes of both government and the people at large. This potential risk cannot be assumed because the social life will be in disarray while the political leadership will not have a country to exercise the sustainable power they long for.
Also since authoritarian governments and leaderships are rare in some parts of the world, the people will not sit back and watch their democracy being taken away while the rest of the world enjoys progress and stability.
Democracy struggles are movements that fought from the strength of mind and heart, and have longevity and ambition which can last for generations and since power belongs to the people through the ballot or constant demonstrations, it is no doubt that with time it will be the popular form of government.
Democracy is can be described as a style of government whereby each and every citizen has a say in matters that influence their lives. Democracy the most common form of government practiced around the world. Several countries have embraced democratic principles due to its fairness. This paper seeks to analyze how development leads to democracy
Debate on democracy and development
In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s several countries around the world embraced democracy. However, in the recent past some countries such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Russia have relaxed their democratic processes.
In most cases democracy flourishes in societies when the right conditions are in place. Results of several studies indicate that modernization or development can be an effective catalyst of democracy. Modernization as a process results in a marked change in the social life of members of a given society.
The changes in literacy levels, increased life expectancy, increased professionalism and urbanization results in a transformed social life that enables more and more people to participate in the political process of a given country. If this happens for a longer time then democratization is likely to take place (Inglehart & Welzel, 2009).
The establishment of the association between democracy and Development has taken a long time. It was initially thought that poor countries remained poor and by extension undemocratic due to exploitation by rich western countries.
However, research indicates that countries that are involved less in international trade such as Cuba and North Korea have remained poor for a long time while countries that were in similar situations such as Taiwan and South Korea have developed more through international trade. It is thus believed that when a country produces goods for the world market, it gains higher returns that boost it’s citizens’ social wellbeing, particularly by expanding the middle class.
When the middle class of a country grows, it tends to get more involved in the running of the countries affairs and thus presses for a more effective and transparent political system (Inglehart & Welzel, 2009)
New Age Modernization and effects on democracy
In contrast to the previous knowledge, modernization does not directly result into democratization. Currently, modernization is seen to take place in phases and each phase is responsible for a particular change in a society’s world view. Industrialization triggers the change that leads to bureaucratization, centralization of command or authority accompanied by a profound shift form the traditional values to secular values (Inglehart & Welzel, 2009)
. The phase that follows often emphasizes on individual freedom characterized by quest for self expression and liberation from authority. Different societies often manifest these changes differently depending on religion and other traditional influences.
It’s not appropriate to liken modernization to westernization as purported by the earlier ethnocentric account of the modernization theory. Some East Asian countries such as Japan have higher scores in modernization those of Western countries.
It has also been established that modernization does not directly result into democracy, rather, in the long term it creates the social cultural conditions that make democracy viable.
Evaluation of values in different countries show a pattern where poor countries or those at the lower end of the middle income tend to put emphasis on religion and customary gender roles as compared to developed countries. It has been shown that the distinction often runs along two value aspects; traditional against secularism and survival against self expression. Change in the two sets of values is brought about by modernization and is seen to set the stage for modernization (Inglehart & Welzel, 2009)
References
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. ( 2009). How Development leads to Democracy. Foreign Affairs , 88(2):33-48.
Explain the four faces of democracy. What are the basic conditions for democratic governance? Please use specific examples to illustrate your points
What is democracy? Democracy is a complex term in itself due to its broadness and there has never been a single definition of democracy. In order to get a clear understanding of the concept of democracy, it should be broken down into different components. These include the various faces, and conditions for democratic processes or governance.
When addressing the faces of democracy, one should clearly differentiate between them. Over the years, theories, models, and concepts of democracy have been developed in order to understand and solve the paradox that is democracy. However, these theories and concepts have ended up contradicting each other in principle.
According to Sodaro (164), there are four faces of democracy. First, there is popular sovereignty which is a concept that postulates that people are entitled to rule or govern themselves (Sodaro 164). The second face of democracy is that of rights and liberties consisting of given basic rights and freedoms that the law to citizenry must guarantee (Sodaro 164).
This must be clearly captured in the constitution of any democratic nation. Sodaro suggests that democratic values form the third face of democracy and they include fairness, ability to tolerate, and compromise (164). Furthermore, the forth face of democracy identified by Sodaro is economic democracy which act as a pillar for various standards of fairness or equality as essential social and economic elements of democracy (164).
Ten conditions for democracy, according Sodaro, include: state institutions which must be governed by the rule of law; elites committed to upholding democratic values; a homogenous society where all are equal under the rule of law; equal distribution of national wealth; private enterprise with no interference or overregulation by the government; a middle class whose concerns are given due consideration; support of the disadvantaged for democracy; citizen participation in decision making, a vibrant civil society, and democratic political culture where the majority win but the minority are accorded due respect; an educated populace who enjoy freedom of information; and a favorable international environment that facilitates global democracy (207-220).
For instance, with technological advancement witnessed in the twenty first century, the world has become closely connected that global citizenry is taking shape where there shall be no geographical boundaries.
What are the preconditions for democracy? How can these preconditions be met? Is democracy here to stay? Why or why not?
Democracy, either liberal or electoral, must meet certain minimum standards before being recognized as one. Many countries of the world which are considered great democracies have had to strive over the years towards their current state of democracy. Western and European countries are regarded as model democracies by the developing nations (Campbell 7). The critical question that may be asked is whether there is an ideal state of democracy which all nations strive to attain. What will happen once this status is achieved?
There are a number of preconditions for democracy and they include a functioning state and minimum level of consensus on nationhood within the boundaries of a given country (Campbell 5). Some scholars regard some of the ten conditions for democracy discussed by Sodaro as being preconditions in themselves.
These preconditions for democracy are necessary if the other basic conditions are to thrive. In order to achieve a fully functional state, there must be legally elected government empowered to uphold the rule of law and able to implement its policies in the entire country.
If the state is not functional, the same government will not be in a position to execute the plan outlined in its manifesto however ambitious it may be.
War-torn countries in the world like Somalia have neither a functional state nor a stable government making the idea of democracy in these countries a far-fetched dream. Even if there is a government, the state of affairs makes it difficult to enforce any of its legislations.
“Although some preconditions for democracy may be facilitated by external forces, elites of any given country wield a lot of power that influence the environment under which democracy may be exercised,” (Campbell 7).
The second precondition for democracy is a minimum standard of consensus on who constitute a nation. This can be met by coming up with an agreement that define clearly the agents as well as the subjects of the anticipated democratic rule (Campbell 8).
This hinges on the understanding that a democratic country is ruled by the people. A good example of citizens’ participation is captured by The Economist during the passage of Proposition 8 in California.
Given the nature of democracy and the benefits that accompany such a state, all countries are naturally striving to attain such a status. It can be argued that democracy is here to stay. This is because democracy symbolizes a state of equilibrium that most countries yearn to attain.
Advanced democracies are doing everything possible to remain in their present state as well as spread it to other nations. America is one of the countries that are associated with upcoming democracies albeit their questionable approach of involvement. Is externally imposed democracy sustainable?
As the world moves towards total interconnectedness, then it is clear that global citizenry under an international democratic arrangement is the next agenda. A vivid example of this possibility is pre-conceived by the setting up of an international criminal court (ICC) that is entitled to investigate and prosecute individuals out of their home countries. Will national democracies become extinct once global democracy is attained?
Works Cited
Campbell, David F. J. The Basic Concept for the Democracy Ranking of the Quality of Democracy. University of Klagenfurt, Austria, 2009, pp. 4-9.
Sodaro, Michael J. Comparative politics: a global introduction (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2007, pp. 162-220.
The BBC online. “Serbian general Perisic Jailed for 27 Years at Hague”. Web.
Democracy is a form of government where people have equal rights, make decisions concerning their lives and have a direct or indirect participation in the social, economic, cultural and political pillars within their country. This represents a political system where the choosing and replacing of the government is done by use of a free and fair election where there is active participation of citizens both in politics and civic life.
Democracy in Canada
Canada is not only a federal state, but also one of the most developed economies in the world and in a world democracy audit of 2010; its democratic stature saw it clinch position 8 worldwide (1).
This represents a strong standing within its democratic structure and governance. In a nut shell, Canada is an independent constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy where the government is steered by a parliamentary system which consists of elected members of parliament. Canada also has a number of political parties and the government is headed by a Prime Minister.
Canadian Democratic Gap
Though Canada is among the countries which are highly ranked in the realms of democracy around the world, it has a number of limitations and in-adequacies within its political system. Over the last decade, there have been a number of intensified calls for reformations within the democratic political institutions within Canada. This is in regard to how the democratic institutions serve to confer legitimacy upon the power of the Canadian state.
This democratic gap has been as a result of the populist tradition which is in dominance. The populist tradition holds that democracy is instituted by the practice of voting hence ignoring that these democratic societies are characterized by a number of other factors such as the rule of law, individual rights and protection liberties, freedom of press.
One of the challenges that the Canadian democracy has been facing is the lack of conforming to the Westminster parliamentary system especially when it comes to the administration of democratic procedure. This is as a result of the wide spread ignorance among the people and institutions on how the Canadian political system functions.
According to populists view, politicians are supposed to serve as public agents who propel the values of the population, but in Canada this is not the case because the public is divided on a number of interests that are related to pluralism of fundamental values (2). This is visible in that, the political tradition runs from the old Social Credit party, cuts through reform (The Canadian Alliance) and finally to the Conservative party.
This aids the proponents of the populist tradition who hold that all political legitimacy should be anchored through a popular vote. This proves that there is a deficiency of knowledge and information among Canadians who are misconstrued by the government’s opinion poll. Thus, most of them do not understand and are ignorant on the mechanisms within which the government operates in the tenets of economic and political systems.
This has encouraged irresponsibility within the formations of political opinions as well as biasness in putting social preferences in order. For example, the fact those voters have to choose between parties while voting in respect to the current Bill which prefers Liberals to Conservatives and Conservatives to NDP party.
The other prevalent problem is the fact that the current democratic model supports and encourages a strategic orientation to the political process that it is inclined to serve the individual private interests as opposed to the Canadian population. This has decapitated the population from actively participating in political agendas. This shows the extent to which parliament has aggravated to individualist mode of rule as opposed to the public interest mode of approach.
Another pressing issue in the Canadian democratic structure is the mode of leadership approach. Democratic politics central function is to create government which is the same primary mandate for the parliament. This is not the case in Canada because parliamentarians blindly endorse whatever legislation that is tabled by the cabinet such as same sex marriage legislation in 2005 which brought a lot of issues within institutions, parliament and from the population.
The first-past-the-post system in Canada has had a number of negative effects where it has greatly promoted regionalism. It has also promoted the formation of majority governments in the provincial level where some of the parties which did not have a popular vote have been instrumental in creation of these majority governments (3).
The fact that the Canadian senate members are appointed rather than elected has led to low levels of popular legitimacy and representation of a number of people such as Aboriginal people. This has also brought in a compromise within the senate where small provinces have taken advantage of the reform to create a fifth column for provincial interests within the federal government.
Conclusion
Issues pertaining to Canadian democracy raise the arguments as to whether Canada still stands to be among the most outstanding democratic states around the world. But in counter to this, it has had a number of commendable amendments which also propels it to be among the best. For instance, the Canadian government initiated a new youth program that is meant for the youth to be actively involved in the country’s politics.
Reference List
1. World Audit. (2010). World Democracy Audits: World Audit Website, Web.
2. Daniele A. (2004) Cosmopolitan Democracy and its Critics: A Review, London School of Economics & Political Science: London-UK and National Research Council – Italy: European Consortium for Political Science (ECPR), Vol. 10(3): 437 – 473, Web.
3. Gregory M. (2005), The Once and Future Canadian Democracy: An Essay in Political Thought. American Review of Canadian Studies. Web.
Democracy simply means the rule by simple people. It was created as a solution to abuse of power by rulers. Democracy as opposed to other forms of governments guarantees basic human rights to every individual and ensures that there is separation of powers between different state institutions. Moreover, unlike other forms of governments, it grants sufficient freedom of speech, mass media, opinion and press among other rights.
Wisdom literature sufficiently demonstrates that there has never been any harmony between progress and authoritarianism. On the other hand, democracy guarantees progress through transparency given the fact that it does legitimize public policies since it is based on mutual deliberation and negotiation of interests.
In Latin American, international trade alone has not guaranteed the leveling effect on the remuneration of factors of production. This end can only be achieved through democratic governance. This article will discuss factors that that threaten smooth transition to democracy in Latin America.
Most economies in Latin America flourished during the sixties as a result of direct contribution of foreign investment, domestic private sector and public investment. Despite widespread economic gains during this period, one problem still persisted, transparent and equitable distribution of these financial benefits to the wider public.
To demonstrate political autonomy to the outer world, Latin American countries realized that they needed a transparent political framework sensitive enough to the interests of its people and this could only be achieved through democracy (Calderon, 2008).
Democratic transition and cultural reforms taking place in Latin America has elicited feelings of dissatisfaction and disappointment as well as increased expectations of sustainable progress and change that is certain to be initiated by democracy which is perceived by many to be the ideal form of government. People are able to freely express their feelings of dissatisfaction and disappointment by being more critical and open minded as a result of increased public spaces for dialogue, conflict and participation.
In part, political crisis being experienced in Latin America as a result of increased independence among the citizens can lead to renewed development and democratization (Calderon, 2008). Institutions and equity will finally have to adjust to change and reconfiguration taking place in the region. Equity and poverty are two social problems that politicians must confront if they are to be able to maintain a sustainable politico-institutional balance.
Development of democracy in Latin America has often been undermined by politico-institutional risks and crisis situations occurring in the region. These problems need to be addressed by creating a link between the society and institutions. These risks make it extremely difficult to consolidate democracies in the region. The relationship between institutions and society is dependent on how well people’s expectations are managed.
If mismanaged, there could be civil unrest especially in presence of poor economic conditions and fragile public institutions. To enhance consolidation of democracy in the region, it would therefore be paramount to understand the nature of political changes taking place and their resulting benefits before searching for solutions to democratic development.
Intermediation and representation systems in this region face major criticisms from the people. Nobody trusts intermediation mechanisms and political parties anymore. Systems of representation are prone to reconfiguration given the emergence of movements composed of critical, independent and thoughtful citizens who go to great lenghts to demand for recognition, gender balance and local participation.
These problems occur as a result of political parties’ inability to represent people institutionally. It happens that most Latin Americans believe in a democracy that has many political parties, ironically, only a clique of them trusts those parties.
People are asking the government to expand democratic institutions and be more involved in the management of development. Through this, the state can work towards equity and social integration so as to strengthen the economy in terms of globalization. Most people in Latin America support government involvement in development as opposed to privatization so as to ensure equitable distribution of wealth. Citizen oversight over public authorities is seen as a key factor to increased transparency and reduced corruption.
Inequality and poverty pose a great challenge to transition to democracy. These problems are the center of socio-economic changes and influence democratic governance to a great extent. Latin America is one of the most unequal regions in the world. The gap between the rich and the poor is ever widening. The disparities between various subsections of the society in this region is appalling i.e. socio-economic groups, ethnic groups, sexes etc (Calderon, 2008). for instance, women with similar education to men earn relatively more.
Poverty mostly affects the indigenous people who in most cases live in rural areas. Social inequality compounds the problem of governance in the region since most leaders dominate their people instead of guiding them. This problem can only be solved when policies aimed at empowering the poor and improving their civic capabilities are put in place and implemented.
When people’s expectations are not met, conflict and dissatisfaction are likely to occur. This situation can be aggravated by the extreme levels of poverty and inequality discussed earlier thereby undermining democratic governance. In this case, people dismiss promises under market economy and political programmes as unrealistic and may cause instability if proper checks and balances are not put in place.
Institutional crises occurring as result of poor governance by the ruling class could undermine democratic governance. Structural poverty and uneven distribution of income pose as a challenge to democracy in Latin America (Calderon, 2008). The elites in this region have been reluctant to address the issue of poverty. Corruption in Judicial system and National congress in countries like Honduras make democratic governance to be all the more impossible.
Increase in social conflicts in Latin America is an issue of great democratic concern. Conflicts arising in work places, public protests and reactions have continued to hinder the state and institutions from attaining the objective of social progress, integration and recognition.
People have undertaken more drastic measures to express their dissatisfaction to the government. It is not uncommon to hear of protest movements such as Movement to Socialism in countries like Bolivia and elsewhere who come together to oppose a government that they feel is unable to cater for their needs. This automatically weakens progress made through democratic governance.
Governance is understood best by looking at how spaces of communication relate to political change. Media, especially television, cell phones and the internet are taking central role in politics. Media has become the space through which power struggle takes place. Most Latin Americans have put all their trust in radio and television media houses and most recently, the internet.
The impact of media on politics in this region was felt when President Lucio Gutierrez resigned as a result of mass protests organized against him through common cell phone text messages and email (Calderon, 2008). This indicates a trend of audience democracy that is being perpetuated by media throughout the region.
Reference
Calderon, F. (2008). A Historic Turning Point. Political Change and the Socio-Institutional Situation in Latin America. Cepal Review Journal, 96 (3), 123-136. Web.