According to Woolf (4), “democracy is a system in which people decide matters together, or collectively.” The word democracy originated from the Greeks who had the idea of changing the decision making process into a system of government. In an ideal democracy, every person has a right of seeking clarification on policies that govern his or her country. However, most governments have the tendency of not addressing the demands of their citizens. Due to this, individuals in a democracy form special interest groups that play significant roles in questing for the demands of citizens from the government.
Special interest groups are made up of people who share similar ideas and concerns, and influence government policies that affect their desires. In most occasions, special interest groups differ in shape and sizes. “Their main goal is to persuade public policymakers to act according to their perspectives,” (Grant 65). Their decisions and opinions are represented to the government by the lobbyists and PACs. As mentioned above, these groups are formed by the coming together of people with common interests and desire to pursue their demands.
Special interest groups play significant roles in enhancing democracy. Most countries in the world do undergo elections after some specified period to elect in new leaders. In such countries, political representatives have the potential of creating a dictatorship election. However, the public do manage to react to government policies via aid of interest groups. For instance, in 1995, Greenpeace wanted to sink Brent Spar oil platform after being permitted by the British government to do so. However, the extensive campaign that was carried across Europe led to it changing its plan. Greenpeace decided to dismantle the platform and recycle its parts. From that incident, it is evident that the public, through interest groups manage to express their views directly without voting.
Special interest groups also play a significant role towards the running of democracy. They facilitate policy decision making by providing expertise. Most politicians do not specialize on policy decision making. Such politicians do require pieces of advice from policy specialists so as to make amicable decisions. For instance, British Medical Association (BMA) aided significantly in coming up with amicable decisions concerning Health and Social Care Bill that was discussed extensively in British parliament. NFU was also one of the interest groups in Britain that was contacted occasionally by the British government over foot and mouth outbreak (Grant 77).
Special interest groups also protect the rights of citizens by monitoring government performance. For instance, League of Women Voters of the United States (LWV) ensures that the government of America provides well defined channels for citizen participation in decision making and review.
In conclusion, democracy is a platform which people make decision in unison. It often plays a significant role in many states; it regulates the power of the rulers. The word democracy originated from the Greeks who used it in referring to decision making process. In most occasions, democracy is prone to abuse by the politicians. However, special interests groups aid in monitoring the functioning of the government. Special interest groups consist of individuals with common interests. They work by influencing the government into meeting their concerns. Special interest groups play take part in not advocating democracy, but also in advocating observance of human rights. Despite their positive contributions to many states, interest groups also impact the running of states negatively. In most occasions, they fight for their own rights more than the public rights.
Works Cited
Grant, Wyn. Pressure Groups and British Politics. Basingstoke: MacMillan. 2000. Print.
Woolf, Alex. Systems of Government Series. New York: Evans Brothers, 2009. Print.
The United States of America currently boasts of being the number one democracy in the world. This is a feature that is imminent given the open fact that its political scene is not as murky as that of other nations globally, the country has two major political parties: the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. These are the only parties that have governed the country alternatively ever since her independence. Currently, the country is under the governance of the Democratic Party following a two-term Republican reign.
The parties have to this day kept attracting varying politicians who in turn shape the policies that the parties ascribe to and governed by. Some of these policies result in politicians jumping from republican to Democratic part and vice versa alternatively and this is the trend that has characterized American politics. In the 1960s and 1970s, a majority of Americans, both political leaders and civilians moved their loyalty from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party a trend that led to the Republican Party reigning for a long time. This was this change of perception and preference was spearheaded by several pressure groups and for several reasons some of which are discussed below:
For a long time America stayed a capitalist economy, the market mostly consisted of the owners and nonowners to the means of production. The owners thus amassed a lot of wealth and this consequently led to the rise of the class system of societal stratification. This type of economy resulted in increased poverty and was a trend that was likely to stall the American development dream. When the Republican party started fostering for a more liberal market, one in which the government regulated the playing field by introducing public corporations, most citizens got attracted to the party and this was followed by a massive migration from the democratic party that was largely viewed as being full of capitalists.
Small and medium-sized investors formed the first group of the elite Americans to quit the New Deal coalition for the Republican Party because the type of economy that the Democratic Party propagated for would only favor the rich and the powerful who coincidentally constituted its management.
The other factor that led to the massive move from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party was the appreciation of the African American community in the country. The USA’s population is composed of diverse people of sundry backgrounds, key among them is the African Americans, a group that was taken to the country from Africa by the British colonial masters to work in the plantation as slaves. When America became independent, they could not be repatriated but the whites and Asians treated them as undeserving citizens of the land.
The intense discrimination led to the rise of several rights groups led by such iconic figures as Martin Luther king. When the Republican Party in the early 1960s introduced policies that catered for the interest of African Americans, the entire group pledged allegiance to the party with regions habited by the “blacks” such as the state of Illinois adding up to the first migrants from the New Deal Coalition to the Republican Party. Consequently, other Americans who felt the pain that the African Americans had gone through also shifted their loyalty to the Republican Party.
In the highly contested American presidential elections, both the candidates had different views on the socioeconomic classes of the citizens in the country. When we look at the democrats’ policies, the presidential candidate Barrack Obama did not consider all the socioeconomic classes to be the same. In his view, Barrack Obama said that there is no way someone making less than one hundred and fifty dollars a year would be compared to another person making more than two hundred and fifty a year. “Unfortunately, a close inspection of Obama’s proposals reveals something disquieting: he would raise marginal tax rates for many middle-income taxpayers, a bad move for anyone seeking to promote economic growth” (Mark J. Perry). This kind of argument seemed to be unfair from the democrats’ point of view.
In his arguments, Barrack Obama said that the only way of improving the bottom-up economic growth that will make a difference in the people’s lives is by noting or identifying the difference between the different classes (Mark J.). However, due to the fact that the American economy was at a dying point, Barrack Obama promised that if he was elected the president, he would consider various factors in the matter of taxation. He said that since the American economy had a negative or shortfall of four hundred billion dollars in the financial year, he would be forced to do extra work to fill the gap.
He said that the shortfall that occurred in the budget as a result of unemployment among so many Americans. However, he then promised to deal with the issue of unemployment by creating many employment opportunities. To improve the economy and get it back to where it was at first, he said that taxation on the citizens will depend on the socio-economic class to where one belongs.
Obama promised to raise tax on some individuals while reducing it for others. He said that those who were earning more than two hundred and fifty dollars per year would be taxed a bit higher. He said that this would be so because those who are earning this amount are rich and can afford at least something. In his point of view, he said that the rich who were earning a large amount of money could not feel it, or could not feel any harm if they were taxed.
Whereas the issue of the middle-class earners who are believed to be including the majority of the Americans was promised lower taxation. Obama said that he would do this because the low earning individuals don’t get enough money that if they are taxed heavily, they would feel a lot of harm. This kind of policy that Obama applied helped him win many hearts because most people are unemployed or are employed but do not make that much, the majority of them being youths who are the largest number of voters.
The Democrats believed that the middle class for eight years now have been the workhorse of the American economy in the Bush administration. While they have been struggling to pay tax from the little money that they earn, the rich people have been trying their best to evade the tax payment. Obama said that he would deal with them thoroughly, more so the larger companies like the oil companies have been making larger profits and some bigger businesses but make away with it without being taxed, but instead, the whole burden of tax-paying has been upon the middle-class earners (Domenico ). That is why the Democrats wanted a real change, a change that the people could believe in. Obama even used a television advert that lasted for thirty seconds with the title of ‘Dignity’ which stressed his acts as human rights activist whereby he turned down large amounts of money but instead helped the people who lost their jobs.
On the other hand, the Republicans led by Senator John McCain had a different opinion on the class ranges. Though they a little bit sounded to be the same since they all believed that the wealthy could not be compared to the working class and the middle class, the issue of taxation brought the main difference that was seen. We find that in Senator McCain’s policy, the working class could be favoured. He said that only the hard-working class individuals but with families would pay the Alternative Minimum Tax. That is, the working-class families would save more since their taxes would go down.
Nevertheless, the Republicans said in their policies that the entrepreneurs would as well be favoured when it comes to the issue of taxation. They stated clearly that the entrepreneurs would pay lower taxes despite the huge profits that they make. McCain promised them lower tax payments because he believed that they are the ones who help in running the economy because they create so many employment opportunities for the citizens. The other difference that Senator McCain saw between the socioeconomic classes was about the issue of healthcare whereby he said that as the president, he would subsidize the health care services to enable the poor access treatments.
References
Domenico Montanaro. ”Obama v. McCain on middle class” 2008.
The results of the recent presidential elections have definitely taken the United States by surprise. The outcomes of the voting can be deemed as purely democratic and, therefore, not dubious in any way. The way in which the election results have divided the country, however, imply that the issue will need to be addressed thoroughly. In a recent episode of the 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl mentioned some of the problems on the tip of the tongue of many Americans, addressing the pillars that the American political system had been founded on, i.e., public participation, democracy, and the role that information plays in the political life of a country.
The interview with the president elect allowed shedding a lot of light on some of the most controversial aspects of the presidential election campaign, the debates, and the outcomes. Particularly, Trump pointed to the fact that he was, in fact, serious about his future position as the president of the United States, and that he embraced the magnitude of the issues that he would have to deal with once he started his presidential routine. For instance, the conversation with Barack Obama, during which the issues in the Middle East had been discussed, was brought up as one of the essential factors that shaped the course of Trump’s politics. Furthermore, some of the obscure issues regarding the changes that Trump was going to make in the U.S. foreign policy stance, particularly, building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, were clarified. Overall, the conversation served as a very basic purpose, which was to show that the future of the United States would not be in shambles once Trump was in the President’s chair.
Integration
As stressed above, the conversation touched upon a range of democracy-related concerns that the U.S. citizens had. Therefore, the question whether the government policies continued to reflect the wishes of the citizens as required by the democratic principles was raised. The identified problem is linked directly to the problems of authorities voicing the needs of the citizens (Greenberg and Page 11).
Furthermore, the direction that the new president-elect was supposedly going with when addressing some of the topical social and economic concerns seemed to fail. Particularly, it did not meet the needs of all members of the American population. Therefore, the conversation tackled some of the aspects of the political equality principles that rule the current U.S. political environment (Greenberg and Page 11).
At this point, the issue of the democracy standard should be brought up (Greenberg and Page 26). There is no secret that the concept has been experiencing drastic changes over the past few centuries. However, the very idea has remained the same.
Specifically, the provision of equal rights for all citizens of the United States is viewed as the ultimate principle that the state authorities must follow. Seeing that some of the statements made earlier by Trump did not seem to coincide with the identified postulates, clarifying the issue seemed quite necessary. Therefore, the interview served as the foil for promoting reconciliation.
Commentary
Even though the interview turned out to be very informative, it still failed to remove the air of controversy from the election results. Naturally, it would be wrong to expect that a sixty-minute talk will help resolve the issues that have been tearing the nation apart. Nevertheless, it did not convince the target audience that trump is the right person to be at the helm of the country at present.
Nevertheless, the interview showed that the president elect is ready for a compromise. Therefore, the foundation for a constructive dialogue has been created. Despite the inconsistencies between the principle of democracy as they are traditionally described and the ideas voiced by Trump, there is hope that the United States will retail its essential democratic ideas.
Work Cited
Greenberg, Edward S., and Benjamin I. Page. Struggle for Democracy. The 2014 Election Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2014.
Democracy, though it does not have a certain definition, is a regime functioning within a country, which is defined as a sovereignty of people. There are several understandings of democracy, but the most common is that all people can participate in the decisions made within the country, they live, and that anyone can become a representative of authorities. Talking about Democracy as Ideology it is impossible to fail mentioning a more vast concept or political philosophy as Liberalism. Within this philosophy one can find more subdivisions, which rest upon the doctrine of Liberalism. The word “liberty” stems from the Latin word “liber”, meaning free or not slave. Consequently, the doctrine of liberalism is understood by people as the one, which is founded on a freedom, for example the freedom of speech, or any other freedom. Moreover, the doctrine emphasized the essence of human rights, such as treatment of every citizen equally notwithstanding gender, race or class, the essence of the rule of law and the essence of having a government, which rules according to form of the statute for the people to be sure in maintenance of their rights and freedoms. The time period of time starting with 1871and ending with 1914 in the United Kingdom, is being marked by a policy of expanding the country at the cost of other countries, in other words, colonizing them. Thus, the regime of the government performed in the United Kingdom, as well as in some other countries in the world can not be called Democratic ones at any cause.
The political claims of the famous ruler of that time, and besides a member of a Liberal Party Union, Joseph Chamberlain, were both firstly close and then far from being politically liberal. When he settled down in the Parliament , as a member of a Liberal Party his claims to be the Prime Minister were obvious at once. He was driven by a desire of leadership. He failed to be the Prime Minister but still, his strive for influence was satisfied. When he managed to become an influential politic, he began to somehow change his political orientation and direction, later becoming a Liberal Unionist supporting Conservative ideas. Besides, he disputed the Ireland to be authoritarian, basing his statement on the fact that 5 million Irish people can not decide to govern themselves at ones due to the fact that the equal number of the citizens of megapolis do not want them to do it. The abovementioned statement rests on one of the principals of democracy, that is on the rule of the majority. But having a closer look at the aims of Chamberlain, one is able to see rather a nationalist who is after his own domain and the domain of the country he comes from. Though being in the Liberal Party first, later he promotes the ideas, which boil down to the other political philosophy. That is why Joseph Chamberlain is called a politician, whose views varied from being liberal and democratic to totally opposite to those.
The regime, used throughout that period of time, namely 1871-1914, can be defined as a “constructive Imperialism” (Louis, p. 347). The term “constructive imperialism” stands for the evolutionary states, which controls its colonies for their sake. Since 1887, the special forums, which brought up an important question, whether the Empire is to be reshaped somehow in a political sense or not. As for The United Kingdom, “The Oxford History of the British Empire” states that “by the late nine-v teenth century come to hold vast territorial possessions” (Louis, p. 346) The reason why Britain maintained its colonies was that going through 1870-s, it started to lose its global power with the increasing strengths of other countries like German, Russia, United States, France. So the aim of the constructive imperialism was to defend the policy of the country. Aiming to reach several countries like the United States, Germany, Italy, Britain looked for a union or the Empire. The claim that the Empires are necessary to be in existence for that time was rather exaggerated but that was a defense, used to stand up for this point. The definition of the “constructive imperialism” seemed to contradict itself. As if it was the evolutionary predominant form of governing the country, then the Empire would have come to existence without any forth or enthusiasm, put to let it go ahead. Nevertheless, the answer to this controversy was invented. That was the idea, that the Empire is a great form of a government, but might be rather forced, than formed naturally. Of course, it was rather an excuse for creating this empire. Ones Chamberlain confessed that he thought the British Nation to be the greatest one in the World. He claimed British were so great, that the borders of Britain should go overseas and even the space area is not enough to hold the its power. (Louis, p. 456) This claim evidently shows that the principles, promoted by Chamberlain were far from being democratic. At least his inner intentions were not democratically directed. Then, stating his idea of an empire creation he uses specific arguments for that, for example: “States which are on the old scale of magnitude unsafe, insignificant, second rate”. (Louis, p. 348) This phrase again shows an undemocratic position hidden under the mask of a good cause. The special concern was put on the elections of that time. In general elections of 1893, the campaign, organized by Joseph Chamberlain failed. Notwithstanding the possibility of reduction of the market share overseas, the democratic view managed to win the elections.
“No misconception of modern German history is more common or less justifiable than the assumption that the German colonial movement dates only from the year 1884” (Dawson, p. 173) It is true to say, that Germany always had claims of creating an Empire where one race would domain over another ones. The described period of time is closely connected with Prussia. The electoral system, used there was a highly biased, oriented on the rich class, which was able to vote for approximately 85 per cent of legislature. Otto von Bismark wanted to conceal the cruel truth about rather authoritarian regime, performed in the country, creating a special “constitutional façade”. (Dawson, p. 165) The number of citizens in the empire calculated around 68 million people by the year of 1914, making this empire the most powerful in the world. The strive for world domain leads to invasions and people oppressing. It can not be called a democracy.
Making a conclusion, it might be inferred that the democracy, which rests on the principles of a more vast political philosophy as liberalism can not be defined as one certain notion. Democracy and its displays may be so various, that sometimes its displays are hard to be defined as a democracy. A matter of the perception of the definition by the people gives certain grounds to further act. Analyzing the period of time of 1871 through 1914 in the British Empire and German Empire,, it can be definitely said, that the tendencies, provided by the leaders of the political movement of that time are neither democratic nor liberal as they seek world domain, expand nationalistic ideas and inequality between races while, democracy proclaims the opposite to this, equality.
Works Cited
Louis, William Roger, Andrew Porter, and Alaine M. Low, eds. The Oxford History of the British Empire. Vol. 3. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Dawson, William Harbutt. The German Empire, 1867-1914, and the Unity Movement. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan, 1919.
Despite manifestation to the contrary, the viewpoint for a political transition in China is not entirely unwelcoming. However, observers and activists must reflect on a wider range of approaches for democratization.
The opposition side has focused on elite-level system change, and the need to have a more accountable government. Such strategies are based on speculation which is shared by the government regime that political transition in China must be, control by the central government (Zhang, Ting, 2004).
The China elites impose their vision concerning the democratization needs for China. In essence, most of the citizen of China supports the Western style of democracy as being universal and that it is relevant for the current Chinese situation. However, the Chinese liberal has not been an important social influence due to a recurring round of oppression. Their projection seems especially poor in the event that speedy economic development continues since such development emboldens them to resist democratization.
The international relations scholars have been deeply directly responsible in assessing regularly the realm of experience and the international aspect of the democratization of China. They produce reports that have been deemed effective and efficient in promoting the Chinese liberal aspects as it has been suggested and proposed by the elite Chinese. They have been petting pressures especially to the international organization that has been concerned in repressing the democratization of the Chinese citizens (Cai Wenguo, 1992).
This perception overlooks the role of civil society, which is indispensable to the process of unrelenting democratization. Though the radical or gradual change at the national level is obligatory, the continual democratic shift can only be attained with collaboration with the local involvement (Billeter, 1976).
In the current political regime, with only narrow alternative available for national-level change, involvement of the civil society represent an imperative approach for long-term, bottom-up democratization in China, particularly in cultural nationality issues.
Civil society activists have often access to conflict-affected areas which are prohibited by international agencies. NGOs have been implementing community development and humanitarian projects in these areas, in a manner that promotes local capacities and human capital.
The underlying fact here is that the communist party-state has been the main impediment towards the democratization of China. They even have shunned out the political realm that could otherwise be strong in supporting and calling for the liberalization of Chinese. It is good to understand that democratization does occur when there is an understanding between the moderates authoritarian and the moderate in the civil society.
The moderate authoritarians have been known to repress the birth of civil society and on most occasions stopped moderates in pursuing their ranks. Despite the repression from the moderate authoritarian, the civil society in China continued to seek change outside the party-state control. The leadership is clearly committed to preventing the party-state from being pretentious in the position of power or to negotiate for democratization on behalf of the China citizens.
Sustained authoritarian propaganda from earlier 1989 has also largely contributed towards repressing the China civil society from seeking the democratization of the country and such foreign stands were seen as a plot to destabilized and divide the Chinese and refute them their right to a splendid place in the general stage of the World. The foreign propaganda was marked with demonstrations, strikes, lawsuits, and another king of confrontation that sought a clear-cut and developed sense of political efficacy that is capable of the democratization of the country.
The economic development in China and the transformation of the structures has led to the production of a middle class in large number. These middle-class citizens are rich enough and have seen traveling and filling the airport s traveling to various destinations for tourist purposes. These middle-class citizens had been educating their children and searching for opportunities in another country such as the U.S, Canada among other European country.
The middle-class society has also been seen working jointly with Non-Governmental organizations in China which are active in looking at the environmental issues alongside the social problems which have been greatly ignored by the state. These have led to an adjustment of the country’s culture and other critical changes that seek to find the way to democratization and a new cosmopolitan global stage. Their effort however has been met by a lot of restrictions from the state government and the world authoritarian nations.
There are some of the contentious issues that are held by the Chinese elite that were known to have lead to the dragging of the democratization but instead seek to construct a new political arena to gain their materials and spiritual desires. The elite believed that democratization and the affiliated relaxation control on public dialogue would combine with globalization to denature the country completely. This assumption makes them take charge and control a society against its tight control of the country. According to the elite, the idea of the society to filter the Western lifestyles into the Chinese culture especially the United State was not the ideal way.
The elite did not either trust the farmers on their view of rational economic development, the investment of the public works, the policy of education, and the foreign policy which according to them would de more hostile and nationalistic to foreigners in the democratization events. The Chinese elites believed themselves that they are the controller and custodians of the China culture for a long time in history (Jonathan Unger, 1982).
The previous year has seen an outbreak of political activity in and on the country, including the government’s approach to democracy. However, the openings for transformation that have appeared are quite restricted. Given the lack of influence by oppositions and the vanity of sanctions, the government will possibly continue to decide the course of events. Opposition groups have generally responded to the democratization either by maneuvering within government-controlled or by ignoring reinforcing a polarization of China politics which began in the 60s and has served the government better than it has the ever more disadvantaged opposition forces.
During the September 2001 terrorist attack, the analysts expressed their view that the United State of America has begun to decline. The leaders were now optimistic that the unavoidable stage for multipolarity will come to an end. They were opposed to the perception of the US that they could take control of the international system and impose its political vision on the world.
However, the United State visions were plummeted by the four issues, these issues were; that nothing could stop Russia from restoring its status as a superior power, nothing could prevent China from rising and increasing its strength, the trend towards self-reliance of the European countries is beyond control, and lastly, it was difficult to control Japan and stop it from having greater power. The Aftermath attack on 11th 2001 in the United State has raised a lot of concerns that the United State could no longer have control over international countries especially Europe and Japan. Many analysts expressed their confidence that the end to the unipolar politics had started, and will soon be reached no matter what will happen.
This view however did not last long. The successful retaliation of the United State against the AL-Qaeda in Afghanistan shade doubt of democratization of China. The world was again characterized by a lot of changes which according to the analysts was the most profound changes ever experienced in the entire world. Currently, things seem to turn authoritarian again, however, the analysts still believed that the democratization still remained tract and that with time the Chinese will have to realize it (Andrew J. Nathan, 1985).
Cai Wenguo, (1992) observes that globalization is good in terms of its force to reduce the authoritarian power over the international countries. Globalization is normative and unstoppably desirable. Multipolirization and international democratization constitute a mutual unavoidable system and irreversible historical process. Multipolarity implies the decline of the United State domination which is in fact unavoidable. However, the analysts observed that the time and the hour for the United State decline is a thing that is not easy to predict.. They still held that the United State decline will occur because nobody is willing to persevere with the authoritarian conditions, and hence the only way to be free from such power is becoming and attaining a democratization system.
Multipolarization emerged as a result of the need of the southern countries to call their right to development. This notion can be dated back to the 18th century during the European clarification; however, it became significantly clear in 19th European romantic nationalism. It has been known that northern countries put their investment in southern countries which results in the flow of advanced technologies to the underprivileged.
China poses an exceptional set of troubles both for the United State and the world economy. Despite this factor, China is and will remain a low-income developing country, its vast population and its changing domestic economy make it a much better contributor to world trade and the financial markets compare to other developing countries in the world. Since the political supremacy in China still remains highly consolidate under the China communist part, it is viewed by many analysts in the western as a historic generally in a time when democracy is normally perceived to be as growing in the international political zone.
The hesitant involvement of civil society within ethnic nationality has been one of the most significant aspects of the social and political situation in China. Efforts to promote democracy are already ongoing in the country especially in areas that are affected by ethnic conflict. Although these local initiatives will not bring about national-level change in themselves, any centrally-directed reforms are unlikely to succeed unless accompanied or even preceded by such grassroots participation. For China to achieve its dream of being a democratic country, the communist government must collaborate with the citizens and the civil societies and work jointly towards formulating strategies necessary for attaining the multi polarization.
Reference:
Zhang, Ting. Click on Democracy: Will the Internet bring democracy to China? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans Sheraton, New Orleans, LA, 2004.
Cai Wenguo. GATT documents: Jacobianson and Oksenberg, Ya Qin, 1992.
Billeter, “The System of Class Status See Marshall Sahlins, Culture and Practical Reason.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976.
Andrew J. Nathan, Chinese Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.
Jonathan Unger. Education under Mao, Class and Competition in Canton Schools, 1960-1980. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.
The democratization of Japan is one of the most significant historical facts in the world. In just a short time beginning in the Meiji era, Japan embarked on a journey to change its systems. The success of postwar democratization is still visible in the present day Japan. There are several virtues and flaws that apply to Japan’s democratic system but the main issue in this democratization is the elements that made democracy fully acceptable in Japan. The building of a post-war democracy in Japan was widely a successful endeavor and various nation builders have attempted to replicate this success. Nevertheless, the enduring question when it comes to democratization of post-war Japan is who can be credited with the successful execution of this post-war process. This essay argues that the Japanese people are the main agents in the successful democratization of post-war Japan due to their support of the new constitution and their spirit of cooperation.
It is often argued that by the year 1945, democracy was not an alien concept in Japan, but a failed one. The country had various elements of democracy at the time including universal male suffrage, plural political parties, and other aspects of civil rights. Consequently, the Japanese people were familiar with democratic systems and that is the reason American powers pushed for a parliamentary democracy. The Americans’ only contribution in this regard was in realizing that Japan was more receptive towards a parliamentary system as opposed to a ‘balance of powers system’.
Another credit of the Japanese people was that they had initiated various social movements even before the occupation. These movements sought to fight for greater political inclusion, social justice, and labor rights. The presence of activism within the Japanese population can be credited with nudging the advent of the parliamentary form of government. This is a clear indicator that the Japanese were not forced into participation through the influence of Allied Forces and the occupation. The population already had some ‘heat’ even before 1945. The argument that the force of the Americans that brought change to Japan fails on account that there was a history of resistance in the country. Therefore, if the Japanese did not want the democratic institutions they could have easily mounted a resistance.
The cooperation of the Japanese people is the ultimate contribution of democratization in post-war Japan. In support of this argument, scholars point out the fact that “Colonel Charles Kades insisted that no restrictions (could) be placed on amendment of the constitution…and his faith in the Japanese acceptance of democracy was well founded” (Moore and Robinson 26). Furthermore, the new constitution received support from all quarters of population mostly because it promised a reprieve against oppression and suffering. Although the Americans facilitated this process, the real credit should be given to the Japanese people. Overall, the Americans only gave Japanese what they required but it was the people who modeled it to their own specifications.
Works Cited
Moore, Ray, and Donald Robinson. Partners for democracy: Crafting the new Japanese state under Macarthur. Oxford University Press, 2004.
The history of the Democratic Party has seen significant policy shifts since the end of the Civil War. Today, the party boasts as the sole supporter of the interests of middles class Americans, farmers, and workers.
Throughout its 19 and 20th century history, the party held socially conservative ideologies hence drawing substantial backing from working-class white males. The party’s New Deal programs of the 1930s, which immensely shaped the country’s economic direction, received widespread support from working-class Americans.
From the 1930s onwards until 1960s, the politics of the Democratic Party was primarily shaped by working-class Americans, a tremendous shift in the history of the party. This was because conservative working-class citizens supported pro-working class economic reforms. This coincided with the time when the party sponsored the Labor Relations Act effectively controlling labor unions.
Before then, unions worked independently from the government control. In the 1960s, Democratic politics rallied against global anti-Communism and safeguarded fundamental freedoms for all American citizens. The party’s policies supported effective governance system, and disproved big government and supported civil rights movements.
The Democrats promoted state rights and endeavored to use federal taxes to redistribute wealth from industrialized North to the poor Southern states. During this time, the party adopted significant policies supporting progressive labor reforms, tariff revisions, and regulation of large corporations. After WWII, there was a major shift in the Democratic manifesto as the party developed a program to safeguard civil liberties.
The program outlined stringent policies to curb anti-lynching and anti-poll tax, established a permanent Fair Employment Practices Commission and a Commission on Civil Rights, and outlawed segregation in armed forces essentially abandoning its conservative position on State Rights.
Historically, the Republican Party represented Northern interests passionately supporting capitalists and America’s wealth elites and oversaw the Reconstruction in the South. Today, the Republicans strongly refute past social injustices hence forsaking several elements, which characterized America’s liberal past, thus propelling the country to its present liberal ideals such as securing independence for labor movements.
The Republican platform espoused socio-economic changes promoting industrialization, liberalism, and capitalist systems. Since the Civil War, significant shifts in Republican politics have seen strengthened Federal government policies, developed federalism and industrialization.
Because of the party’s shift in political principles, it lost significant support in the Southern states after the Great Depression because of its persistent criticism of wealthy Southerners and big corporations.
However, after World War II, the Republican Party abandoned its domestic policy and shifted its political ideals to focus on international diplomacy. In the 1990s and early 2000, the Republicans reduced the size of the government and balanced budgetary allocations thus abandoning its conservative philosophies that favored big government and favoritism in budgetary allocations.
During the 19 and 20th centuries, Republicans supported economic policies, which favored investments in corporations and big businesses.
Lately, the Republicans have taken up the “social agenda” historically adopted by Democrats. Interestingly, this shift in the party’s political ideals has put the party at odds with its conservative supporters in the South. Consequently, this shift in political philosophy has divided America’s working-class, some of whom have voted against their individual economic interests.
Today, republican voters have embraced the free-market system and abandoned their traditional wealth redistribution system. Through taxations, corporations and big businesses have become the largest recipients of redistributed wealth and this has created unnecessary socio-economic and political imbalance making conservative Republicans to think that they are taxed to pay for liberal programs.
Upcoming elections in the United States of America will be conducted on November 6, 2012. The current posts set apart for the Republicans are 10 whereas Democrats have two independents and 21 positions. The expected presidential candidates are Baraka Obama, the current President of the United States of America representing Democrats and Mitt Romney, representing the Republicans. The Democratic Party was formed before the U.S. gained independence from the British by anti-federalist factions. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other people who were opposed to federal system organized factions into Democrat-Republican Party in 1972. The Republican Party was formed by modernizers and anti-slavery activists in 1854. The party became famous after election of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President in the United States of America (Von Drehle, 2012).
Republicans versus Democrats
According to Von Drehle (2012), information gathered in the U.S. indicates that the Republicans stand a higher chance of benefiting from the upcoming elections than the Democrats. The majority of American citizens is not satisfied with the work of President Obama and wishes to have a change in the presidency. For instance, only 28% of the population says that they have realized positive changes within the last four years of Obama’s leadership. Moreover, most of the serving parties in Greece, Britain, Spain, France and Italy have been thrown out of power. John Fund, a conservative commentator, stated in the National Review that Democrats are worried about their fate in the forthcoming elections.
Economy
A major issue making American citizens lose faith in Obama’s leadership is the economy of the country. Studies have shown that 60% of the population disapproves the procedure through which Obama has handled the economy of the country. In an interview conducted through television, Obama said that he did not deserve a complete grade in development of the economy. This shows that he is also aware of not giving the citizens the best as far as the economy is concerned. The issue of the economy is very crucial during the election and a major determinant of the person to be elected. Cary Covington, a tutor of Political Science at Iowa University argued that the economy is the most important issue during each election. The recent development of the economy is very poor and slow. This issue is likely to affect President Obama’s influence in the next elections because citizens have not realized the change President Obama promised during the last election (Crowley, 2012).
Crowley (2012) argues that the Democrats and Republicans have different views on the issue of economy. The Democrats value free market as well as taxation and distribution of wealth to the poor and middle class from the rich. This includes small businesses, which provide employment opportunities to the largest population in the United States of America. On the other hand, Republicans hold that hard work is the only way through which the poor and middle class can improve their standards. President Obama, Clinton, and other democrats hold that taxes should be increased to cater for the needs of the government. Republicans hold Arthur Laffer and President Reagan’s view that tax reduction increases revenue and promotes growth of the country. The issue of protectionism or free trade causes major differences between the two groups. The issue whether the United States of America should protect its jobs through pursuing a mercantilist policy like China or operate a free economy and concentrate on developing competitive strategies remains a controversial issue in the country. The Republicans hold that free trade increases wealth in the society whereas Democrats are concerned with protecting the welfare of workers in the United States of America.
Unemployment
On the issue of unemployment, Democrats prefer a fiscal stimulus whereas the Republicans prefer the monetary stimulus. A close examination of the economy of the United States indicates that government expenditure is higher than income. The cost of items such as rental equipments, cars, groceries, gas, and diapers among other items has doubled within the last eight years. This situation hinders Americans from leading a happy life because despite their hard work, their earnings are not enough to cater for their needs and bills fully. The effects of the economy are felt by the people at the grass root level because they bear the burden of purchasing goods at high costs. Questions arising from this might be the causes of deterioration of the economy. The most important thing is to examine the source of problems in the economy and find solutions. The upcoming elections will be concerned with tracing and finding solutions to problems affecting the country. Because of different views concerning improvement of the economy of the country between Democrats and Republicans, Americans are willing to have a change in leadership (Erikson, Wlezien & Erickson, 2012).
Negative Campaigns and Advertisements
Recently, advertisements aimed at painting a negative picture of President Obama have been aired in many states by the Republican Super PACs and Conservatives. These advertisements have damaged the image of President Obama in most of the countries. Although the chief pollster of President Obama, Joel Benenson, dismisses these advertisements as false and negative campaigns against the President, he admits that the opposition side is spending much money is gaining popularity throughout the states. The Democrats are worried about losing the votes of baby boomers in the major states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Florida. The majority of the elderly aged above 65 years support Romney rather than President Obama. This is the group creating the gap between President Obama and Romney. A recent poll conducted by CNN in Florida indicated that Romney is supported by 51% of elderly men whereas President Obama is supported by 45%. Celinda Lake, the Democratic pollster, stated that President Obama differs with the elderly, especially white seniors. She said that Romney’s advertisements and campaigns against President Obama on the issue of requirements at work have destroyed his image on White seniors. This is the reason that the majority are in favor of Romney (Brownstein, 2012).
The Role of women in the 2012 Elections
Celinda Lake stated that independent and non-college educated women of the White origins are not decided on how to vote. She argues that this group is a major determinant of the next president in the United States. According to Scott McLean, a professor of Political Science at the University of Quinnipiac, most of them have backed Romney. She suggests that Romney is likely to win the election if President Obama’s efforts to persuade them to vote for him do not succeed. She suggests that President Obama must come up with a good speech that assures Whites of his ability to bring changes to the country if he is to win their support (Cost, 2011).
Independent Voters
Brownstein (2012) highlights that President Obama has lost the support of independent voters who helped him win the 2008 elections in Nevada, Colorado, and Indiana. A report by ABS News in a post poll conducted in Washington indicated that President Obama receives the support of 39% while his rival Romney is supported by 53% of the independent voters. This is because independent voters underrate President Obama’s work in the economy while Romney is recognized for creating more job opportunities at Bain Capital in the course of his tenure. Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster, states that independent voters doubt the capability of the government and the people running it including President Barrack Obama. Another challenge facing the Democrats is the fact that youths and Latinos who support democrats are less concerned about voting compared to groups that support the Republicans like baby boomers and employed Whites. For instance, the results of the latest poll indicate that 47% Latinos show voting interests in the next elections in comparison with 84% seniors and 68% of non-Hispanic origin (Brownstein, 2012).
Conclusion
According to Rasmussen reports, 73% of the United States voters disagree with President Obama’s leadership. They argue that the country is headed in the wrong direction. Before President Obama assumed office, the same number was not satisfied with the previous leadership. This shows that changes have not been made in the country. Only 27% supports the direction in which President Obama is leading the country. Since Americans voted for President Obama in order to bring changes in the country, he has failed because the majority doubt whether giving him a second chance will have any effect. They are opting for another person with the capability of bringing changes. Ron Kaufman, Romney’s adviser argued that Romney has the potential to change the economy of the country and most Americans are willing to give it a trial. According to information gathered, the republicans stand a high chance of benefitting from the upcoming elections in the United States (Cost, 2011).
References
Brownstein, R. (2012). Obama versus Romney. National Journal, 16, pp. 1-15
Cost, J. (2011). Election 2012: An unusually clear policy choice. Policy Review, 170, 3-13.
Crowley, M. (2012). U.S. election 2012: The race moves south. Time International, 179(3), 28.
Erikson, R., Wlezien, C., & Erickson, R. (2012). The timeline of presidential elections: How campaigns do (and do not) matter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Von Drehle, D. (2012). U.S. election 2012 can anyone stop Romney? Time International (South Pacific Edition), 179(2), 12.
The 15th and 19th Amendments are examples of when the Constitution has been changed to expand democracy. The 15th Amendment stated that individuals who used to be slaves could not be deprived of their right to vote. This alteration included the statement that such occurrences were impermissible, notwithstanding an individual’s race or skin color (Richards 161). The 19th Amendment gave formal consent to the understanding that all females should be given the right to vote. Thus, these two ratifications demonstrate situations when the Constitution was changed to become more inclusive and to avoid inequality or discrimination.
Various amendments have been added to the Constitution since its creation to reflect and react to the requirements, issues, and needs of the current population. The document has been amended 27 times; however, some of these changes were not always carried through (Vile 215). Certain ratifications provided evidence of changes in society that required formal consent. For instance, the prohibition of slavery or discrimination against women consolidated the actual need for equality. However, the 18th Amendment, forbidding alcohol production and consumption, was canceled after ratification. This instability highlights the need to take control of the existing problem, but the amendment was called off because it was deemed inappropriate to create laws managing the private habits of residents (McClanahan 231). Thus, it can be assumed that ratifications appear as a reflection of changes within the nation, and its growth over time.
The Constitution could be amended further to include the possibility of allowing immigrants to be elected to the presidency. At present, only those individuals who have a citizen parent are eligible to become the president of the country (McGinnis and Rappaport 113). However, many promising individuals who have held high public office have no such possibility. Therefore, the inclusion of this population group could expand democracy in the country.
Works Cited
McClanahan, Brion. The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution. Regnery Publishing, 2013.
McGinnis, John, and Michael Rappaport. Originalism and the Good Constitution. Harvard University Press, 2013.
Richards, David. Conscience and the Constitution. Princeton University Press, 2014.
Vile, John. A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments. 6th ed., ABC-CLIO, 2015.