According to the Merriam-webmasters collegiate dictionary (1999. pp. 1246), torture is derived from torture, a French term, which in Latin is Tortura meaning twist. 1948, United Nations General Assembly, after the second world war adopted the Universal declaration on human rights, which prohibits (Bagaric, Mirko & Clarke, 981) the use of torture or any other form of inhuman or demeaning treatment or punishment In the constitutions of most countries and in the international law the use of torture is prohibited(Waldron & Colin, 59). It is seen in many quarters to be barbaric. Geneva Convention comes clean on the treatment of prisoners of war, in which forces representing the enemy state or organization and captured in the war are expected to be treated humanely. (Lauterpacht,139) Following the September 11 attacks, and subsequent war in Afghanistan, many combatants believed to have been fighting for Al Qaeda and against the US-led forces were captured. This presented a challenge to the nation-state. The Bush administration saw them as outside the traditional definition of enemy combatants as they were not fighting for a state. In response to detention at Guantanamo bay, there have been criticisms of torture on the prisoner especially the use of waterboarding. It is unethical, but state security agents are times put in a corner as they struggle in defense of home. The Bush administration claimed that they were able to prevent another attack by the terrorist due to the information they may have extracted from such combatants. Torture to some extent is considered important unethical and inhuman because it may cause mental and physical suffering. The use of torture styles such as awkward positioning, loud music and even extreme heat and cold leads to trauma and fight (Schmid& Ronald 15) In other instances sexual terror torture, damages reproductive organs in cases like electric shocks on the genitals, and spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
In 1812, E. Gerry, Massachusetts governor’s party redistributed the state. Thus, the origin of the term Gerrymander. It occurs when a state is divided into election districts in order to strengthen the party in terms of numbers across many districts, but concentrating the voting numbers of other parties in few areas. Caucus means a closed-door political meeting. It happens when policymakers or politicians decided to elect a member or decide to meet to push for or oppose a certain policy. A nomination caucus is when members of a particular party decide to shape up a strategy that may include deciding who carries the flag of their party. Caucus for example; the women caucus pursues their own interests. Plurality is said to occur when a candidate winning a large number of votes is declared the winner. There is usually a minimum threshold that a winning candidate must get in order to plurally win. When votes are split by many candidates, especially more than two, the one with the highest percentage wins by plurality. According to Online Etymology Dictionary (Retrieved, December 7, 2009), Filibuster was used to refer to Southern states adventurers in America who wanted to overthrow the central government. It was seen to be a tactic of kidnapping the debate. Filibuster occurs when there are attempts to prevent a vote or delay the vote especially through widening and lengthening the debate on a given proposal. Cloture is similar to closure or guillotine. This is a procedure in parliament used to bring a discussion to a quick conclusive end. Cloture was used against filibusters by President Wilson(1917) when they sought to change rules through the senate. President pro term is also called president pro tempore. This term refers to the highest-ranking senator in the United States senate. It is usually the vice president as stated by the constitution. Usually votes, only in case of a tie. In of absence of the vice president, the president pro term is the senior senator from the majority party. But this is often delegated to the junior senators of the majority party. The President’s pro term is third in line with the presidency.
Works Cited
Bagaric, Mirko & Clarke J.., Not Enough Official Torture in the World? The Circumstances in which Torture Is Morally Justifiable. The University of San Francisco. Law Review, Volume 39. 2005. pp. 581.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. United Nations, 1984.
Greenberg, Joy K. The torture debate in America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Haiman, (2005). Pp 73.
Schmid, Alex P. Ronald D. The politics of pain: torturers and their masters. Boulder, Colo: West View Press. (1994). Pp 15.
Waldron J. Colin D. The Story of Cruel and Unusual (Boston Review Books). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. (2007). Pp 59.
In their book “A centripetal theory of democratic governance” published in 2008, political scientists and leading researchers John Gerring and Strom Thacker attempt to develop a comprehensive analysis of the role of political institutions in developing good governance. Using an empirical study, the researchers sought to address the questions on why some democratic governments become more successful than others and the impact of various political institutions on the quality of good governance.
With the help of empirical study to address these questions, the two researchers developed a relatively new theory in political science- the “centripetalism theory”- arguing that it contradicts the traditional dominant paradigm of decentralism. Nevertheless, the researchers have made several references to the consensus model of democracy that was previously developed by Arend Lijphart (27). In this case, it becomes evident that the two researchers attempt to build on the work of Lijphart.
In fact, they conclude that their work can be viewed as a refinement or reconceptualization of the consensus model. They conclude that this is not a problem, arguing that they would rather be delighted if their theory is viewed in either way. Using an in-depth analysis of the arguments and the empirical study developed in this book, it is worth viewing Gerring and Thacker’s centripetalism theory as a refinement rather than reconceptualization of Lijphart’s consensus model.
Brief review if Lijphart’s Concensus Theory
First, it is important to review Lijphart’s consensus model and the centripetalism theory developed by Gerring and Thacker. Lijphart’s consensus model, which is one of the best protocols for analysis governance, democracy and the impact of political institutions, should be discussed first.
In his 1999 book “Patterns of democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries”, Professor Arend Lijphart develops a detailed analysis of the type and nature of democracies that have survived and applied in various parts of the world. He uses an empirical study with a sample of 36 countries from all over the world to examine the nature of various types of democracies and effectiveness of each method in achieving social, economic and political goals (Lijphart 62).
The aim was to examine the types of governance systems that produce the required goals. In this model, these goals or measures of government efficiency were the expected outcomes in terms of economic growth, human development and social development.
In addition, the idea was based on the assumption that the political system is the main causative factor that determines whether other social aspects such as the economy, social and human growth will occur and their directions. Moreover, Lijphart based his theory on the idea of democracy, leaving out other non-democratic styles of leadership.
Brief review of centripetal theory
First, it is important to develop a brief but in-depth review of the “centripetalism” theory developed by Gerring and Thacker in order to determine whether it refines or conceptualizes Lijpohart’s consensus model. In their book “a centripetal theory of democratic governance, the two researchers argue that their aim is to set forth a theory for democratic governance applicable to any and all political and social settings where multiparty competitions at the national and local politics are dominance.
The authors argue against a number of previous theories. They use the term “centripetal” in reference to this combination. Noteworthy, they theory is limited to political institutions at the national level. First, unitary (rather than federal sovereignty) is needed in a country that seeks to achieve inclusive governance. Secondly, the element of parliamentary executive is better than a presidential system. Finally, the authors argue that a closed-list PR electoral system is needed instead of a preferential-vote or single member district system.
The researchers then used an empirical study to tests this hypothesis. They tested the impact of the three institutions in a wide range of outcomes of governance to determine whether the three institutional needs have an impact of including various groups within the society as well as addressing their needs.
According to the book, the results provide evidence that the three institutional elements of political institutionalization in centripetal system of governance show that the degree of achieving good governance is high in centripetal governance compared to other systems.
Comparing Lijphart’s consensus theory and the centripetal theory
In his analysis, the author uses statistical evidence to show that Westminster democracies are not more effective than democracies based on consensus. It assumes that the majorities have the right to form the government. Their interests are also addressed since they are well represented in the government. This is based on the idea of majoritarian, a popular method applied in most countries after independence in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Although Lijphart analysis about five different patterns of democracies in the world, his main argument is that consensus democracy is better than the other forms due to a number of reasons (Lijphart 57). In chapters 14 to 17 of the book, Lijphart presents a statistical analysis and evidence to determine the impact of Westminster democracies in yielding different policy outcomes in a better and more consistent manner than consensus democracies.
Using statistical evidence, the author uses a number of variables or economic outcomes like inflation, deflation, growth as well as corruption and other indicators of the effectiveness of political institutions in the countries tested in the study. For instance, in some variables or indicators such as inflation, the author’s statistics indicate that consensus democracies yield better outcomes than the Westminster democracies.
On other indicators such as economic development and corruption, Lijphart’s model shows that consensus democracies to slightly better than Westminster democracies, an indication that the consensus democratization produces good outcomes in various parts of the world where they are applied, citing countries like Canada, Switzerland, Belgium and Germany. Specifically, Lijphart’s model revealed a number of special advantages of consensus democratization in dividend societies.
For instance, the model reveals that consensus democratization has a major advantage in its attempt to include almost every segment of the society, where the majoritarian model is ignored. For instance, Lijphart’s statistical analysis indicates that majoritarian democracy has a negative impact of excluding a large segment of the total population in a country.
A good number of examples rejected and excluding the opinion of up to 49.9% of the total population (Lijphart 138). This means that almost half of the total population in a given country is excluded from the policy making processes, despite having important contribution to the social and economic development.
On the other hand, Gerring and Thacker have shown that they have no intention to refute Lijphart’s consensus theory at all. In fact, they have attempted to cite and reference a good number of ideas and methods used in Lijphart’s process of developing his theory.
In addition, the conclusion that the consensus theory is the best and most applicable in achieving a political regime that includes the opinions, views, needs and interests of the minority in policy making has not been refuted.
It is also worth noting that Gerring and Thacker have not attempted to support the previous claims that Westminster democracies are the best in achieving democratization of political and social institutional at the national and local level, neither have they attempted to refute the empirical method that Lijphart used to develop his consensus theory.
Instead, they have borrowed from most of his ideas, especially in their focus on inclusion of the excluded people in the majoritarian systems of democracy. Therefore, it is important to start at this point ion showing how the centripetal theory has is based on Lijphart’s ideas, which means that Gerring and Thacker’s argument is a refinement of Lijphart’s theory.
In advocating for the consensus model using statistical approach, Lijphart has contradicted two major arguments developed by the proponents of majoritarian-based Westminster democracies. First, he contests the notion that the problem of exclusion of a part of the population from policy making process is not relevant because there is a chance of the minority assuming the majority status within a short time.
In refuting these claims, Lijphart points out that most societies in the world have deep ethnic, religious, cultural, religious or ideological differences. Thus, there are little or no chances that the minority will turn out to be the majority with time, while the degree of homogeneity is relatively low. Thus, none of the two conditions holds, which means that a large portion of the population will be excluded from policy making processes when Westminster democracy is applied.
How the centripetal theory of good governance builds on the ideas of Lijphart’s consensus theory
An important point of consideration is that the centripetal theory appears to have a more internal consistency than Lijphart’s consensus theory because it has expanded the idea of reducing exclusion and dependency on the majority opinion based on specific inclusion of the minority in specific political institutions. In fact, it has attempted to expand the idea of reducing the degree of exclusion, focusing on the national-level political institutions.
This is an important aspect that indicates the authors’ ability to refine some aspects of the consensus idea. However, the major burden for the centripetal theory is to develop a comprehensive support for the claim that the institutional arrangements at the national level are likely to achieve normative value. In addition, the burden of proving the claim is made larger by the fact that the outcomes of arranging the executive, electoral and sovereignty into the suggested nexus are not immediate, which makes an empirical study difficult to carry out.
Thus, the authors ignore other aspects of the society and focus on political arrangements, and then attempt to determine the outcomes of these arrangements on a number of indicators that are not essentially political. This feature proves that the theory is primarily meant to build on or refine Lijphart’s consensus theory. For instance, it is evident that the researchers base their claims on the realization that political exclusion of minority groups, as suggested by Lijphart, is the basis of poor democracy and violence in majoritarian systems.
It appears that Gerring and Thacker were interested in narrowing down Lijphart’s observation to a smaller unit, that is, the political system, and focus on its impact on the other indicators of good governance. Though not supporting the consensus theory, the authors tend to develop an understanding that political institutions have a direct connection with the quality of governance through some causal mechanism, where they act as the causal factors to the outcomes of human and economic development.
Therefore, this understanding expands Lijphart’s assertion that the political system is the primary and most important feature that defines democracy and influences the social, economic and developmental outcomes. It is therefore worth noting that Gerring and Thacker wanted to refine Lijphart’s assertion through an empirical study on the political institutionalization, which is an aspect of the consensus theory narrowed down to a single unit (the national political set up).
On his part, Lijphart was interested in examining the various democratic styles of political leadership as the center of social, economic and human growth. It is also worth noting that the terms Westminster democracy, consensus and majoritarian democracy have been used intensively in the book.
In brief, the term Westminster democracy refers to the democratic styles of leadership in countries whose constitutions were based on Westminster conferences in the 19th and 20th centuries. In particular, these were former British colonies. Their voting system is based on simple majority, where even one vote can make one the automatic leader, leaving out the opinion of the remaining 49.99% (Lijphart 139).
According to Gerring and Hacker, federalism and unitarism fail to achieve good governance due to their internal weaknesses. In this context, the authors argue that federalism has a negative impact on the internal party coherence. It is evident that these claims were directed against the ideas of majoritarian democracies, which are supported in the Westminster pattern of democracy. In essence, Gerring and Thacker were refining the definitions of poor democracy in Westminster majoritarian systems that were observed in Lijophart’s work.
Gerring and Thacker have attempted to narrow down the wide pattern of majoritarian and Westminster democracy into smaller units of unitarism and federalism. In this way, they used an empirical evidence to show that the majoritarian democracies fail to address the political needs of every aspect of the society due to lack of convergent opinion. In essence, this is a clear indication of the authors’ attempt to refine Lijphart’s observations in his consensus theory.
In fact, Lijphart’s study reveals that most nations in the world have deep cleavages or divisions based on social, cultural and ethnic differences, which results into diverse opinions, needs and interests at the local and national levels. Thus, if the majority voting is used to determine the political institutions, then it is most likely that a large population is left out of the government.
In addition, Lijphart’s model reveals that the deep divisions within the society make it hard for a possible crossover, which prevents today’s minority from becoming the majority over a long period. In addition, Lijphart points that the likelihood of an overlap between the interests of the majority and those of the minority groups is significantly low, which means that the voting system will always make sure than a large group of the total population is excluded from the policy making system.
Lijphart argues that this is the major cause of violence in various nations that apply majoritarian system of Westminster democracy because the minorities feel that they will remain excluded from the policy making system. On the other hand, Lijphart’s model reveals that consensus democracy is the institutional solution to these problems.
It allows democracy to function by involving and incorporating the rights, interests and views of the minority groups, which influence politics that are dominated by the majority groups (Lijphart 7). Although Lijphart agrees that there might be less or no turnover in the legislative institutions, the government will be a representative of a wide range of citizen’s interests, which is rare in Westminster democracies.
Although Gerring and Thacker have attempted to narrow down Lijphart’s theory into political institutionalization only, it is worth noting that they have also shown that Lijphart only conceptualized his theory along a single spectrum of majoritarian and consensus. They argue that a polity is majoritarian to the extent that a small group of individuals uses the simple majority or plurality to govern a rather diverse and heterogeneous society, excluding the opinion and interests of a large group.
In addition, the authors conceptualize Lijphart’s view by claiming that a polity can also be consensual to the extent of allowing leaders to rule through super-majorities. They claim that this is a major weakness in the consensus theory because it assumes that the rule through super-majorities is a move towards consensus, while in reality, it is still a majoritarian system of governance that has the basic weaknesses of the Westminster democracies.
Nevertheless, rather than refuting Lijphart’s theory based on this weakness, the centripetal theory attempts to fill this gap by refining the argument by Lijphart. In this case, the centripetal theory uses the institutionalization of the political system at the national level to address the problem identified in the consensus theory. The authors argue that ten institutions are relevant in this determination.
For instance, they argue that the effective number of parties represented in the national parliament, the minimal winning one-party cabinets, the executive dominance and the disproportionality of the electoral system are significant matters that need institutionalization. In addition, the theory argues that constitutional rigidity, judicial review systems, the independence of the central monetary system and federalism are also important institutions that should be focused on when refining Lijphart’s theory.
The authors use Switzerland as the empirical example of a nation that has used consensus institutionalization along the aforementioned political and economic institutions. They further argue that Lijphart’s idea of better governance across a range of expected outcomes should be emanating from the institutions that have been developed under consensus system.
However, they note that Lijphart’s argument has failed in this case because the set of institutions in a country like Switzerland bears a casual resemblance of the refuted veto point model, which Lijphart criticized for its ineffectiveness to bring good governance.
Thus, Gerring and Thacker cite this weakness in Lijphart’s theory as a major issue that needs further refinement. In addressing this problem, the authors use their centripetal argument to show that Lijphart was able to use the idea of operationalization of political institutions to avoid the problems associated with decentralism and Veto models of governance.
Moreover, the centripetal theory finds another major issue in the consensus theory. Gerring and Thacker reveal that a key issue in the consensus theory concerns whether the decentralization of key institutions can lead to mutual defection or cooperation.
If there is cooperation through power sharing instead of defecting, Lijphart reasons that better policies are set to emerge. To refine this argument, the two authors used an in-depth theorization of this point based on integrating it into the ten-institutional typology that have used as a paradigm for good governance in their work.
Finally, Gerring and Thacker reveal that Lijphart’s model used a factor-analysis approach to the institutional factors before conducting tests on a wide range of measures for good governance. They reveal that Lijphart’s model differentiates between federal-unitary and executive-parties dimensions.
However, they reveal another weakness in Lijphart’s model based on the finding that only a few tests provided evidence of a relationship between good governance and the variables chosen across all the 36 countries used as the study sample. To resolve this problem, the authors have used the centripetal method and a larger sample of countries.
They found that a larger sample provides evidence that additional links exist between good governance and the inclusion of several opinions, views and needs of the diverse groups of people in a given nation.
Thus, it is evident that the idea in Gerring and Thacker’s model was to build on the ideas and methods that Lijphart had developed when developing his consensus theory. It is clear that the aim of using a larger sample in developing the centripetal theory was partly to determine whether additional links exist between the outcomes of good governance and the level of institutionalization of the political units.
Finally, it is worth noting that Gering and Thacker’s empirical research did not have a large deviation from the method used by Lijphart. Their research methodology is relatively similar to Lijphart’s methods in that both cases were primarily quantitative in nature. In addition, sample selection, target population, study process, variables, methods of data handling was relatively the same.
As such, it is worth noting that the objective was not to refute or conceptualize Lijphart’s model. Instead, Gerring and Thacker’s objective was to refine the methods, findings and arguments developed in the consensus model using a more pronounced and advanced research.
Conclusion
Although Gerring and Thacker have developed a new theory that has significant differences with Lijphart’s consensus model, it is clear that the attempt was not to refute Lijphart’s claims and ideas. Instead, the authors carried out a research with an aim of building on the previous claims and findings by Lijphart. In addition, the theories of majoritarian and Westminster democracies have been refuted intensively in the centripetal model, which supports Lijphart’s point of view.
Similarly, the idea of reducing or avoiding exclusion of some groups of people from the national policy making process is supported in both theories. Although the centripetal theory attempts to define the exact institutions that should be nationalized to avoid exclusion and control of the majority, it is clear that the basic knowledge used in developing this idea is similar to Lijphart’s point of view.
In addition, other aspects such as the use of statistical approach, similar study populations and study methods provide a clear indication that Gerring and Thacker’s centripetalism theory as a refinement rather than reconceptualization of Lijphart’s consensus model.
Works Cited
Gerring, John and Strom Thacker. A centripetal theory of democratic governance. London: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print
Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University press, 2012. Print.
Deliberative democracy justifies decisions made by citizens to ensure that they make law that is fair and acceptable to everyone. Citizens are supposed to give reasons according to the set principles so that they can be treated equally in the process of making the final decision. Moral conflicts are solved to ensure there is fair treatment to all and everyone is an autonomous agent of the society. In situations where power is used in democratic politics, an explanation is given for everyone to understand and not engage in war. In situations where disagreements arise between two parties, deeper understanding is necessary so that conclusion is arrived at and everyone is satisfied. Parties with different needs where solution is difficult to get should vote so that the party with majority votes is considered as the winner because it is the one that majority of the citizens prefer.
Definition of Deliberative Democracy
According to (Thompson 2009 pp 15-16), Deliberative democracy is justifying decisions of citizens and the people who are their representatives. Citizens ensure the law they set on each other is justified and the leaders explain why decisions are made and give response to the decisions made by citizens. Deliberation is not required in all issues every time due to the room created by deliberative democracy for other decisions to be made that allow executives to order secret operations and different groups to bargain. Deliberative democracy asks citizens to give reasons that agree with the principles that allow individuals in need of cooperation not to be rejected. The reasons given are not procedural because many people need war and war attracts interest of the nation or peace in the world. Deliberative democracy is a government where equal citizens who are free justify their decisions through a process where they give accessible and mutually accessible reasons.
How to Use of Deliberative Democracy to Resolve Moral Conflicts According To Our Authors
According to (Thompson,2009 pp17-18), When resolving moral conflicts, deliberative democracy is used to ensure that people are given fair treatment and are not taken as if they are passive subjects that are supposed to be ruled or objects but instead, every person should be taken as an autonomous agent to participate in governing the society. Deliberative democracy agents participate in presenting, giving response and ensuring their representatives take an active part to make sure the law is justified to allow them live together. Justifiable decisions are made through deliberative democracy and respect for one another is expressed. Citizens are not satisfied with using interest groups to assert power through voting or bargaining because decision for going to war should not be made by use of referendum or by logrolling.
There should always be explanations for the reasons why power is used in democratic politics. When the government fails to give the reasons for engaging in war, citizens have the right to question justification of the government for the war and the respect it gives the citizens. Deliberative democracy ensures that the reasons given for going to war are accessed by all citizens who need to know them. The government should impose their will by allowing citizens to give comprehensive reasons but not imposing will on them. Every citizen should be involved in the deliberation to ensure it does not take place in privacy. Deliberative democracy allow individual to think about what would benefit the society as a whole and vote according to the will of majority.
In resolving moral conflicts deliberate justifications begin when the people who are involved get to understand the essential content and accept it. Citizens may decide to rely on experts who give them advice if the conclusions made are properly understood and there is independent basis where citizens believe that the experts are trustworthy. For example, if the experts have given reliable judgment in the past or they have done critical scrutiny of checks and also balances in the past.
(Thompson 2009 pp19-20) argues that, deliberative democracy is used in bringing about binding decision where participants of deliberative process do not argue for the sake of getting the truth which is taken as a deliberative virtue but their aim for discussion is to influence government’s decision and have a process for affecting the making of future decisions. Deliberation may end temporarily where leaders make decision. In resolving moral conflict, democratic deliberation ensures that it is possible for dialogue to continue even after decision is made in order to give citizens a chance to question and criticize decisions that were made before for them to be able to move forward. When the process of making decision is open and the results obtained are provisional to ensure that there is human understanding in the process of making decision thereby avoiding conflicts that might arise.
What I Think About Values and Procedures They Talk About
According to the values and procedures they talk about, citizens should be allowed to publically discuss the law and justify it to each other because, once a debate is held and ordinary citizens are allowed to participate and give their point of view together, a better decision is arrived at that satisfies every one other than when an individual expert is acting alone. Citizens will be satisfied when they see that no one is favored or discriminated in the process of decision making thereby avoiding conflicts that could arise if there was no equality and fairness.
Could you use deliberative democracy to solve this dilemma?
(Guttmann, 2009 pp24-25)Deliberative democracy could be used in the case where confederate flag of state of Alabama still flies over the statehouse. NAACP pressurizes the governor to take the flag down while the concern of DAR is preserving the southern heritage. Solution to the controversy of the confederate flag that is acceptable to both groups can be found by meeting with the interested parties. Both parties should be helped to get justifiable conception so that they can agree together whether the flag will continue to fly over the statehouse or will be taken down. Once the two parties decide together, collective decisions will be made based on the reasons why NAACP wants the confederate flag to be taken down and DAR favors the flag to rise in order to preserve the southern heritage. The argument should not be on who should be listened to or whose views will be favored but deliberation will be applied to help those with need that is not provided to accept decision that is made collectively.
The two parties who are arguing about confederate flags should be helped to have a deeper understanding of the need that they have. The consequences of either raising the flag high or lowering it down should be well understood. When the two parties are well informed about their differing needs, they will come together and consider reasoning together and decide on whose need will be considered depending on the merits and demerits of coming to a conclusion that will satisfy them. For the deliberation between the two parties to be successful, both parties should have enough knowledge, equal resources and be ready to listen to the views of their opponents.
The decision made should be mutually respectable in the process of making decision. The source of moral disagreement need to be responded to so that both parties can come to an agreement and consider each other need so that they can get solutions to their differences. When an agreement is arrived at, a decision will be made about the confederate flag and no one will feel that he is discriminated and the other one favored in the process of making decision. The conflicts that arise about the flag should be considered and the two parties helped to reconcile with one another so that they may not confront each other or be threat to security of one another.
What to overcome to help citizens communicate with each other about this problem?
According to, (Guttmann, 2009 pp22-23), the citizens should be helped to understand that both parties have different needs and at the end of it all, one party will be considered and the other party will have to change its view and accept the decision that will be made. The decision to be made will have to be accepted by both parties and it is necessary that the party whose need will not be considered be ready to adjust accordingly so that the disagreement between them may be solved effectively. The people who will be helping both parties to make decision should be neutral and listen to both of them carefully so that after listening to both sides; a fair conclusion can be made that will satisfy both parties. If the decision making process involves people who are in favor of either of the parties, disagreement might arise and the parties involved would not be contented and disagreement might continue even in the near future.
Incomplete misunderstanding should be overcome through a deliberative forum that is well constituted in order to come to understanding of the parties as individuals and collectively. When both parties are involved in an argument, they learn from one another and understand their collective misapprehension for them to develop new policies and views to successfully withstand their critical scrutiny. We should overcome the belief that we know the right resolution before listening to the parties that are involved in conflict. This is because, the decisions we make affect other people and making our decisions alone can affect the issues they have and even complicating the situation and affect the interests of both parties. Deliberation should always be given a chance even if it takes some time so that we may arrive at a genuine conclusion and have defensive ground where the views of both parties are tested fairly.
Presuming consensus could not be attained, the best sort of agreement public administrator secure in resolving the issue is that
Public administrators should allow the people who want the flag to rise and the ones who want the confederate flag to be lowered to vote or have their preferences recorded in survey of public opinion. Then, those who represent the people can decide to base on vote of the majority. The decision of the majority should win because, that is the only way to have a solution and decide on one issue and not the other in order for one of them to hold since it is not possible to consider the need of both parties in a situation where one party has to win and the other one loose.
(Guttmann, 2009 pp20-21) found that, the preferences of the citizens are noted and put in a cost-benefit analysis filter for optimal outcome to be obtained. This involves correction of preferences that are based on faulty heuristics or misinformation and modification of preferences that produce results which are irrational. Experts who have experience are then given a chance to find policies and laws that maximize the welfare of every citizen in order to serve interest of the general public. Use of preferences is necessary for making decision in a democratic way because preferences need no justification and consider the reasons that are significant.
References
Thompson, D. and Guttmann A. (2009) Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University Press, pp 15-25.
A total of seventeen Arab countries with an estimated population of 250 million inhabitants are governed by a form of a system that attempts to incorporate both elements of democracy and religion.
This system of governance used by these countries have only appeared recently with the emergence of the democracy concept which is a new ideology; traditionally all Arab countries have always been governed by religion do,ctrines that are very much like what Khaled refers as natural or caliphate political systems in his “Islam and Challenge of Democracy” article.
In an attempt to embrace a modern ,ideology of democracy Muslim nations adopted two core elements of the democratic system; the rule of law and limited government which they hoped would achieve the necessary transition towards a democratic government system, but this has failed.
Instead, what the Muslim countries made in selectively choosing to adopt and apply some few elements of a democratic system is a hybrid system that still placed much power in Islam at the expense of democracy. In this paper, I seek to demonstrate why democracy and religion are a mutually exclusive phenomenon that cannot coexist in the same government by analyzing the governance system of Turkey as a case in point.
Features of a Democracy
The concept of democracy is based on the ideology that allows citizens in a country to exercise their free will in choosing their leaders as well as in voicing their opinions. It is for this reason that makes the democratic system rely on electoral institutions that are meant to oversee the process of electing leaders in a national election activity that is meant to be fair and transparent.
It is, therefore, a form of a governance system which gives citizens greater control to the instruments of power and a platform that involves them in running of the government. It is a form of civic governance in which the people directly elect the government leaders to represent their views. The origin of democracy dates back to prehistoric times in Greek where it was first used.
Democratic systems can be divided into two major categories, majority rule, and liberal democracy. Majority rule of democracy is the type that is driven by the decisions of the majority in any one instance. The logic behind this democracy is that people cannot uniformly agree on any one issue, and at the same time, the people must be allowed to choose what they want.
This form of democracy, like the rest uses a voting system which citizens use to express their desires. The other form is liberal democracy which is the most widely used worldwide. This form incorporates other values such as human rights, due process of law, civil societies, and so on. There are other forms of democracies that many other governments use, some not so democratic yet which are passed as free democracies.
Democratic form of governance is built on two important tenets; freedom and equality; this are the hall marks of a democratic system. It is the reason why democracy is very popular especially in the modern world. It has so many activists agitating for democratic processes in every other area including institutions all over the world. Indeed the values of democracy sold by the leaders to the masses are impossible to resist in all its forms.
And if democracy by itself is not enough to be sold as a form of fair, open and just method for governance, then it can come in various other forms tailored to suit the needs that the people may desire as is the case in Turkey which is our focus of analysis or perhaps Iran where democracy is still referred as the system of governance.
The form of governance in Turkey does not incorporate both democracy and religion in governance and is therefore very different from what is found in other mainstream Arab countries. In fact more often than not Turkey is often regarded as a model of a democratic government in the Arab region. Foremost, unlike other Arab countries Turkey has deliberately failed to entrench the religious ideologies on it constitution, a feature that makes it to be regarded as a “secular” society.
This form of governance that has disengaged religion from being central to the democratic system of governance that a country relies on is our first indication that shows us the ideals of democracy cannot be achieved with religion as its twin partner. Turkey’s success in achieving an ideal democratic government is founded on the fact that religion is not incorporated in the country’s constitution.
And that is not even all; Turkey provides room for civil societies that play a crucial role of checking the powers of the government when they are excessive; civil societies are integral to democratic systems all over the world. Finally, Turkey has adopted proactive measures that are very deliberate in ensuring that Islamic does not significantly influence the way of life in all the other aspects of society.
This reasoning is similar to what Muslim jurist had to say about religion in democratic countries “..law made by a sovereign monarch is illegitimate because it substitutes human authority for God’s sovereignty”. But because democracy provides the citizens with the instruments of law rather than religion as is the case for Islam, what happens is that these two ideologies become incompatible with each other.
So does religion hamper the democratic systems of governance in Islamic countries? To answer this questions let us relate the unique features that differentiate one type of Arab country that is considered very democratic, in this case Turkey with another typical Arab country that claims to be democratic despite the influence of its religion that greatly limits its democratic system of governance.
In any case if the failure of democracy in all the major Arab countries which are known to be activists of incorporating religion in governance is anything to go by, it would appear that religion and Islam in specific are incompatible with the concepts of democracy.
Not surprisingly the Arab countries that have experienced greatest failures in democratic systems are those that have placed much emphasize on Islamic religion in the running of their States. Iran which can only be described to have a semblance of a democratic system is a typical example that only seems to think that democracy only involve establishment of an electoral institution that is not even fair or just.
Conclusion
The truth about good democratic governments is as simple to fathom as it records on human rights if the majority of Arab countries that still incorporate Islamic in their governance had a functional democratic system we would hope to see an improvement in areas of human rights records.
As I have elaborated on the paper, Islamic and democracy are at far ends of one spectrum and cannot possibly be merged. In my opinion, the attempt to incorporate the concept of democracy in governance by Arab countries without having to relish Islamic is tantamount to hoodwinking the world and their citizens to believe in a democracy that does not exist.
It is very clear that the website for the Republican Party is all aboua t winning in the just concluded GOP elections. In the home page, there are two major graphic images that immediately caught the eye of the visitor. The first one is a GOP store sell,ing t-shirts that says I Fired Pelosi: Guess Who’s Next! It is of course about their overwhelming victory at the polls. The second is a link to the newly elected Republican leaders.
In the bottom-half of the homepage one can see the major subgroups of information that they want to relay to visitors and members of the party. The first sub-group is all about winning the elections and aptly titled Steps to Victory. The second and third sub-group is also related to the elections and focused on destroying the credibility of the Obama government while highlighting the achievements of the party.
The website was designed to be easily accessible to the younger generation of voters. It is evidenced by a link that will allow volunteers and members to create some sort of a virtual social network linking them together and empowering them to contribute more to the GOP elections. However, it must be pointed out that a significant portion of the site was devoted to the impact of women as leaders and as volunteers therefore it can be said that the Republicans targeted the youth and women.
The Republicans on the other hand made an appeal to logic by using research data taken from the Federal government. One article pointed to the failure of the Obama government to deal with financial reforms issues and that after almost two years in office the American people had yet to see genuine financial reforms.
This is the reason why their website is more convincing than those of their political rival. The Republicans pointed to this weakness to convince people why they should volunteer and donate money for the Republicans to win in the GOP elections.
The Democrats
The overriding message that one can get from their website is this: Change that Matters. As a result, the site can be seen as a mixed-bag of information not necessarily focused on the GOP elections. Nevertheless, it has to be pointed out that there is a clickable link on the topmost portion of the site that says: Elections. Interestingly a significant amount of information that can be accessed talks about the Obama government and there were many videos and articles where the core message is Obama’s victory in the past presidential elections.
One can also sense that the Democrats were on the defensive while the Republicans were on the offensive. For example the featured stories that took up space in the homepage talked about the significance of voting for Obama.
In one video a young woman said that her vote changed history. In another video the message was all about the impact of the 2008 presidential elections. It is clear that the main objective of the site is to preserve the gains of the presidential elections and not to focus on the GOP elections. It has to be pointed out also that their secondary goal is to focus on the middle-class families as well as the minorities.
The Democrats relied heavily on emotions as a major tool of persuasion. This can be seen in the videos where they featured young people talking about how they were able to change the course of history by voting for Obama. The appeal to emotions was also very much evident in another video featuring the Lozada family.
This technique is easy to understand, emotions are stirred not by hard and cold facts but by focusing on the individual or a family. There was no clear argument as to what they can do to institute financial reforms. This is the reason why their website is less convincing when it comes to asking for support in the GOP elections.
Blog in favor of Republicans
A blog entitled The Great Democrat Pre-Election Charade was written to warn voters that the Democrats will use fiscal responsibility rhetoric to entice them to vote for them (Adamo, p.1).
However, the blogger asserted that this is a desperate move by a desperate party trying to reverse the damage that they had done to the economy when their candidate President Obama was unable to make good on his promise of financial reforms. Adamo clarified that this has something to do with reneging on his campaign promise to destroy the evil lurking in Wall Street (Adamo, p.1).
This is a passionately written blog, but it will not convince those who are not already hard-core Republicans. First of all, the blogger did not use research data and another reliable source of information to support his arguments. Second, the blogger revealed his bias early on by using language that is not clear and can have double-meaning.
For instance, he said that the Obama government “confiscated and squandered” trillions of dollars of public funds. He seems to imply that Obama stole these funds, but he cannot prove this claim. Finally, the author presumed that Obama and his administration are working with Fidel Castro, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hugo Chavez.
The main purpose of this blog is to appeal to the emotions of the voters, especially those who are angry and frustrated because they lost their jobs or their houses to foreclosures. The counter-argument to Adamo’s claims is straightforward; he simply has to show evidence and not criticize the Obama government using baseless accusations alone.
Blog in favor of Democrats
The blog entitled Are Republicans Lying About Financial Reforms was written to anticipate campaign rhetoric that will be unleashed by the Republicans against the Democrats (Seltzer, p.1). It was indeed influenced by election fever and it aims to stem the tide with regards to the public backlash as a result of a sluggish economy.
This time around the author did not appeal to emotions alone but to logic. Seltzer did not hurl baseless accusations against any candidate instead he explained the rigors of financial reform and why voters should not believe what the Republicans are saying regarding the failure of the Obama presidency in particular and the Democratic Party in general when it comes to institutionalizing reforms.
Seltzer assured the voting public that the Obama administration is not doing something illegal or even something novel. He said that what is needed are sound principles and sound strategies that had been adopted in other countries and proven successful. He created a very persuasive argument when he cited that Canada has five of the largest banks in the world and yet it did not require a bailout from the Canadian government because they instituted these reforms (Seltzer, p.1).
He concluded by saying that if the U.S. government will copy the same successful strategy then there is no reason why it should fail, the only thing needed is for the voting public to continue to have faith with the Obama administration and therefore by association the Democratic party.
Seltzer can easily persuade his readers because he used information that is readily obtainable. It is easy to conduct background research on Canadian banks and afterwards the potential voter will know that he is telling the truth. However, the counter-argument to Seltzer’s proposition is also straightforward: Can the Obama administration duplicate the same feat and succeed in creating financial reforms in this country?
Works Cited
Adamo, Christopher. “The Great Democrat Pre-Election Charade.” 2010. Web.
Democrats. “Change that Matters.” 2010. Web.
Seltzer, Marc. “Are Republicans Lying About Financial Reforms?” Web.
The lessons of Ancient Greek history remain relevant to the modern world. Some of the most profound and insightful works on political science were written then, around 2,500 years ago, and scholars today still recognize their importance for understanding how states and societies work. One of the most common themes explored by Ancient Greek politicians, historians, and philosophers is a democracy, and their insightful reflections are widely acknowledged today. Thucydides, a Greek politician, and historian wrote several works about the conflict between Athens and Sparta in the 5th century BCE, and the ideas expressed in those works have become very influential. Particularly, Thucydides speculates on the natures of empire and democracy and declares a fundamental incompatibility between the two. His arguments for this incompatibility can be grouped into four categories: the need for strength, the ability to have pity, the development of culture, and self-expression.
First of all, Thucydides emphasizes the very core of the conflict between empire and democracy, which is the fact that an empire must be strong and tyrannical. He states that an empire is by necessity a despotic system, where obedience is ensured “by the superiority given [to the empire] by [its] own strength and not [people’s] loyalty” (Thucydides, Mytilenian Debate). The idea is that empires must impose strong regulations on their territories and maintain a high level of centralized control. Thucydides goes on to argue that in an empire, poor laws that are strongly enforced are better than good ones that are enforced poorly. Loyalty is another major consideration because people who are blindly and ignorantly loyal to authority are better for an empire than smart and active people who are not necessarily loyal to those in power. In democracies, the situation is very different. The ignorance of the public and a strong, controlling government are not factors that contribute to democratic development. While the primary interests of an empire are extending its territories and providing security by subjection (Thucydides, The Melian Dialogue), a democracy seeks security through satisfying its citizens rather than intimidating them into submission.
The second reason for the incompatibility between empire and democracy is that a democratic system allows for compassion, which poses a threat to imperial order. Thucydides identifies “three failings most fatal to the empire—pity, sentiment, and indulgence” (Thucydides, Mytilenian Debate). He explains that one should never express pity towards those who do not return it, and the conclusion is that an empire should be merciless; otherwise, it is inevitably self-destructive. A way to justify this imperial worldview is to analyze how a state that conquers other territories perceives its role. There is an argument that the intention of Athens in expanding the empire was seen by its citizens and rulers as part of its mission to bring order to barbaric regions. One example from Greek mythology particularly illustrates this worldview: Homer describes Cyclopes as “lawless and inhuman” creatures that “neither plant nor plow, but trust in providence, and live on such wheat, barley, and grapes as grow wild without any kind of tillage” (Homer, Odyssey). Athens could have seen its neighbors as Cyclopes lacking proper statehood (Thucydides, The Funeral Oration of Pericles). Therefore, the Athenians regarded the empire’s conquests as bringing good to other cities and considered their possible resistance to be unreasonable.
Third, Thucydides reflects on such aspects of democracy as self-organization and the culture of people in a democratic state, both of which are contradictory to the operation of empires. In a democracy, “administration favors the many instead of the few” (Thucydides, The Funeral Oration of Pericles). When governance is spread among citizens instead of being concentrated in the hands of a ruling group, the system is inherently one set against imperial order because empires need to control their territories. By having the ability to interact with each other and participate in decision-making, citizens of a democratic state develop their own culture that is different from that of the center of an empire, and at some point, they may opt for their own culture and get rid of the imperial burden altogether.
This idea corresponds to the modern understanding of pre-industrial and ancient societies. Scholars associate the emergence of statehood with the emergence of governments, i.e. rulers who took power that had until then been dispersed (Crone, 6). In a sense, democratization is the opposite process, as it provides access to power to a larger number of people. The willingness and ability of people to organize their labor and interactions pose a serious threat to an empire because empires can only work when social processes are initiated and controlled from the center. Local self-organization makes territories realize that they can do without the empire.
Finally, there is the idea that democracy is not merely a form of governance or a set of procedures—it comes with values that are fundamentally incompatible with imperial systems. One of these values is the freedom of self-expression, which inevitably becomes highly appreciated in a society in which equality is recognized. It is a known fact that Ancient Greece was a slave state, and slaves were excluded from society and not regarded as equals to free citizens, but free citizens were declared equal among themselves according to Athenian law. Thucydides wrote that democratic laws “afford equal justice to all in their private differences” (Thucydides, The Funeral Oration of Pericles).
Moreover, the author states that in a democracy, such characteristics of a person as being part of a certain class or economic status do not stand in the way of his or her social advancement and service to the state. Even a poor person can gain respect and recognition by being an active citizen. According to Thucydides, this is a consequence of a democratic government because, as he wrote, “The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life” (Thucydides, The Funeral Oration of Pericles). To support this idea, there is the concept of government as a facilitator of interactions. In early societies, it was impossible to organize massive cooperation because it required consent from every person, which was hard to achieve (Crone, 9); thus, the government became the tool for managing interactions by imposing order and control.
From Thucydides’ arguments, it becomes evident that empires and democracies are incompatible. Although Athens was a democratic empire, its inner contradiction is what determined its short existence. Empires require a high level of control—even to the extent of tyranny—over their territories and a low level of compassion, while democracies foster self-organization and various freedoms that come into conflict with an imperial order. This valuable understanding has become very influential in modern political science, and the lessons of Ancient Greek history as told by Thucydides should be learned today to ensure the proper development of democratic states.
In a democratic nation, power can easily be transferred from one party to the other amicably through voting. The power of ruling and governance, therefore, comes from the electorates. The residents of nations that are lucky to exercise this kind of democracy have great advantages over others in nations governed by other forms of governance. A government that has been elected through a democratic process allows for other aspiring governments to try their luck at leadership upon the completion of their term in office (Manali par. 5). Democracy also gives people a sense of participation in their governance. They have the feeling that they are recognized as citizens of the nation and that their voice and opinions matter (Government of Sweden par. 2). The challenge to the leaders, therefore, is to provide good leadership and governance to reciprocate the good work of the voters. Leaders should be held politically accountable for their actions. Moreover, in a democratic culture, gender equality, as well as respect and tolerance for all individuals and groups, are exercised. There are also functioning political parties, independent media, and active Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) as well as private institutions which operate freely. Arising differences and conflicts are also dealt with peacefully. On the other hand, democracy is not always a success and its lack does not imply the failure of a nation. Countries such as Iran who do not practice democracy are still governed well. They are even much better than countries which practice democracy since the citizens of such countries may not be well aware of the political scenarios in their countries hence they may end up making the wrong choices during elections. According to Manali, the fact that a democratic system of government allows for the conduction of elections after a constitutionally stipulated period could imply that the incumbent government emphasizes more on short-term goals, at the expense of long-term objectives that would serve the interest of the electorate. Walter Williams, in response to the call of President Bush for Iraq to become a democracy, says, “I can’t think of a worse place to have democracy. Iraq needs a republic… [With] decentralized and limited government power… in Iraq if a majority-rule democracy emerges, given the longstanding hate and mistrust among ethnic/religious groups, it’s a recipe for conflict” (Williams par. 5). Williams suggests that Iraq should adopt the cantonal system of government as practiced in Switzerland. There are various ethnic groups within Switzerland. For a long time, the various ethnic groups had been entangled in a conflict about their governance. In a bid to cultivate a lasting solution amongst the warring factions, the government of Switzerland allowed them to self-govern themselves. In effect, the warring factions were bale to live amicably.
Even as democracy may be hailed as the best form of government, nonetheless, the system has its fair share of disadvantages, such as leaders who lose focus on the need to prioritize the long-term goals of their country’s development at the expense of their political survival. Whereas a democratically elected creates a sound environment for the private sector, the media and NGOs, however, there are totalitarian states that have enjoyed this status for years and are an envy of many.
Works Cited
Government of Sweden. Democracy and good governance. Ministry of foreign affairs. 2006. Web.
Manali, Oak. Advantages and disadvantages of democracy. Buzzle.com. 2010. Web.
The world history witnessed a great number of changes in the political state of countries, in the form of ruling and the change as well as the form of power in every state existing nowadays. One can hardly find a state that has remained unaltered in its form of ruling from the ancient times until the present day. The politics as well as any other notion in the world experiences the effect of evolution, development and change, so the form of states is fluent, continuously changing in the course of centuries. Historically, democracy has been recognized as the most progressive form of power, and at the contemporary moment of historical development practically all countries have proceeded to this form of ruling in different ways.
Thus, looking at the present political map of the world researchers have become obsessed by determining the ways and influential factors that have made their more or less significant contribution to the democratization or de-democratization process that took place on the territory of all states of the world. There are different theories of democratization that put forward different factors and influential forces of democratization; all of them have their right for existence since they are grounded and reasoned by a multitude of facts and observations. However, a comprehensive analysis thereof will help estimate the most credible and generalizable theories that may be applied to as many states as possible and will explain the democratization processes in the most efficient way.
There is a strong scientific basis for the formation of a grounded opinion about what a democratic state is and how it has reached the stage of a democratic political form of power. Here historical, economic and social studies may be relevant depending on the extent of their realization in every particular state and their importance on the nationwide scale. For example, the study of Tilly is highly important as to determination of the main features of a democracy and the characteristics of the democratization and de-democratization processes in every particular country. He sees the three main characteristics of these processes as follows:
Increase or decrease of interpersonal networks of trust commonly represented in religion, kinship and trade (Tilly 23);
Increase or decrease in the insulation from public politics of the major categorical inequalities such as race, gender, ethnicity, religion etc (Tilly 23);
Increase or decrease of autonomy of major power centers. i.e. armies, the church, patron-client relationships etc. (Tilly 23).
From the following list one can see how diverse and complicated the process of democratization, or the opposite process of de-democratization can see in every separate state, and which inner processes it can grasp. However, the most important finding of Tilly (23) can be seen in the conclusion that neither of the processes is ultimate and every state finds itself in the continuous, never-ending process that can obtain any forms and directions.
Barrington Moore makes the main emphasis of his study of democratization on the revolutionary origin of the discussed phenomenon. Moore shows how contemporary free democratic states have come to the stage of development that is called democracy, and on the example of such states as Great Britain, France, US, China etc. he shows how strong revolutionary incentives were and to what dramatic changes they brought to the pattern of rule on their territories. Throughout the whole book Moore argues that a democracy cannot be created without a revolution, and conservatism as well as passiveness in the periods of drastic changes inevitable in any state only lead to the formation of negative political forms that never do any good for the people living in those states, no matter by whose interests that revolution is guided.
The first main finding of Moore lies in the fact that knowing the country’s history essential in the issue of determining all relevant factors of its evolution and development. The writer proves his point on his examples of all six investigated countries and analyzes the way all of them accepted or resisted the change (it is enough to recollect such “hard” variants of modernization as the French Revolution or the Civil War in the USA) (Moore).
Moore (413) sees three main ways to a democratic state that any country can passed or has already passed. The first way is the one of capitalism democracy – it is seen by him in the bourgeois revolution in which the middle class representatives take part and that can lead to the annihilation of the former forms of government and economic relationships between the members of society and to establishment of substantially new forms that will satisfy the majority of the population. Such change was evident for him in such countries as Great Britain, France or the USA.
The second path that a state can follow in the democratization process is the reactive capitalism route that can obtain freaky, threatening forms and can lead to such political phenomenon as fascism. Moore sees the problem with this path in its lack of revolutionary incentives that is used for manipulation and establishment of authoritarian forms of power that aim at destruction rather than creation (Moore 178, 228). He discusses the emergence of fascism on the example of Japan where the existence of a set of “conservative and reactionary forces” shaped the corresponding political situation in the country (Moore 30). As the author states,
“the adaptability of Japanese political and social institutions to capitalist principles enabled Japan to avoid the costs of a revolutionary entrance onto the state of modern history. The price of avoiding a revolutionary entrance has been a very high one” (Moore 313).
The third way seen by Moore as a possibility for democratization is communism. According to the author’s opinion, communism is a half-finished form of democracy that results from the revolution guided by peasants. He investigates communism on the example of China where communism has been arrived at with the help of the nation’s movement for freedom and justice, and sees the socio-economic roots in the formation thereof. Exploring the relationships of peasantry with the ruling class in China before the revolution, Moore finds the growing incompatibility of interests of the latter and the former, and sees the revolution incentives in the peasant upheavals that became the main dominant form in the imperial China (Moore 93). Hence, there is no doubt that the main target of the Chinese revolution was the establishment of communism as the only appropriate form of ruling from the point of view of the repressed and deprived peasant class.
Among other observations of Moore one should seriously consider such incentives for democratization as the commercialization of trade, which was the main driving force in England (Moore 25). Commercialization, in the opinion of the author, does not leave any chance for survival for such obsolete forms of relationships as peasant-lord ones. As he stated regarding the British evolution, commercialization was the main milestone in the transition from a feudal seigneur who was a “lawless tyrant” to more economically grounded and just relationships in the national and international markets (Moore 10).
Gill, in contrast to Moore, stresses economic prerequisites of democratization. At the very beginning of his analysis Gill recollects the “third wave” of democratization that took place during the last quarter of the 20th century:
“Long-standing dictatorships across the globe fell, to be replaced by regimes both professing democratic principles and having considerable success in translating those principles into practice” (Gill 1).
According to the account of Gill, the third wave concerned the transition of communist states to the democratic regime, and the majority of states have witnessed two prior waves of democratization in the course of the 18th and 20th centuries. The first one took place in 1828 and resulted in the establishment of the primitive democratic forms in such states as France, England and the USA. The second wave occurred in 1943 at the end of the Second World War, when some states got free from the fascism regime and started to pursue their way to democracy. However, the reverse side of the medal revealed itself in the formation of strong communist superpowers, one of which is indisputably the USSR. Only in 1974 the third wave of democratization began, culminating with the collapse of the USSR and freeing the Eastern Europe from the reign of communism (Gill 1).
After the consideration concerning the evidence certifying the world-wide way to progress and democratization Gill continues with the account of possible factors that have played their role in the formation of democratic states. His first assumption concerns the possible influence of cultural factors, but the conclusion he further on makes does not leave any chance for the cultural paradigm to be accepted as a more generalized explanation of democratization:
“The focus on culture was more successful in the attempt to explain democratic endurance, with the commonsensical argument that a regime is more secure if its structures and processes accord with the popular (and elite) values than if they are in conflict, but even here the link between values and institutions remained somewhat ambiguous” (Gill 2).
Coming to the following conclusion of culture’s inconsistency in the comprehensive analysis of democratization, Gill proceeds to a more credible and successful approach to assessing democratic development – close connections thereof to the economic development patterns evident across the countries that got into the focus of his analysis. The positive correlation between democratization and economic development was proven by 1959 by Lipset (Gill 2-3). Surely, even extensive research in the field did not show any direct interconnections that would enable scholars to generate a common formula of democratization on the global scale, but there are some factors derived from Gill’s analysis that prove to have substantial importance in their relation to economic ties to democratization.
Among the main characteristics of democratization from the economic perspective Gill outlines the change in values and education that the population experiences during economic development – he states that the nation becomes more educated, consequently more tolerant, intelligent and loyal. The growing income and living standards are also of high importance when speaking about the democratization process. The upper class becomes less aggressively directed at the lower and middle class, as with the development of the national economy the threat is minimized. Increased wealth and well-being have proved to lead to the creation of the massive middle class whose interests lie within the general course of the state and to make this class less susceptible to anti-democratic moods and beliefs. Distribution of political power is less unified in economically developed countries, thus lessening the governmental burden for employment and distributing power and wealth in a more reasonable, balanced way. And, finally, restructuring of the society leads to the decrease of the poor groups and to migration of population to economically developed regions. The formation of social, voluntary and independent organizations with the considerable power in a state influences the whole political climate very well, balancing the power and preventing it from being concentrated in the hands of a single group, eliminating the risk of abuse (Gill 3).
As one can see from the analysis, Gill is more centered on the economic factors that shape the democratization process, while Moore is more focused on the revolutionary origin of any democracy in the modern world. Since both authors provide a deep investigation with the consideration of distant historical past of all countries that have become the focus of their research, it is possible to suppose that both theories have their right to exist. But still, the economic perspective seems to be more credible – it is enough to refer to Moore’s ideas on the origin of revolutions that were initially based on the incompliance and incongruence of different social layers and political groups on certain economic issues.
Works Cited
Gill, Graeme. The Dynamics of Democratization: Elites, Civil Society and the Transition Process. Palgrave Macmillan, 2000.
Moore, Barrington. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Beacon Press, 1993.
Tilly, Charles. Democracy. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
One of the greatest ideals of the American society is democracy. Democracy is a cherished virtue on which the American government is built upon and upon which the whole society takes pride in and guards jealously. “Democracy is defined as a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Thus, in a way, the government is ruled by the citizens of the country, in a democracy.” (Patterson 2008 47).
Such is the value of democracy in government that the American society promotes this ideology in other foreign nations and thus forms a core policy in America’s foreign policy. Nevertheless, a question that has being lingering in the minds of Americans as this happens is, what is true democracy and is it really taking place at home?
Over the last few decades, there has been a wide disparity in the society where there has been constant threat on America’s democracy institutions due to the new era of constant and rising inequalities. Disparities of income, wealth, and access to opportunity are growing more sharply in the United States than in many other nations, and gaps between races and ethnic groups continue to persist. As a result the development towards the realization of democracy principles has slowed down in some institutions while in some it has prospered.
Research shows that in order for democracy to prosper, there are three issues that have to play a role they are; citizen involvement, Government receptiveness and patterns of policy/ legislation making. Citizen participation forms the core issue in American democracy thus for any democracy to prosper, citizen participation must be allowed to prosper and grow.
In the American society, generations of Americans have been involved in setting forth the American democracy ideals and have had their voices heard as one voice though there were differences between them for instance, income, religion, race or gender. However over the last few decades the level of citizen participation has declined due to several reasons and thus some voices of the citizens are heard unequally with some of the citizens have an advantage over the others whereby their voices can be heard while others cannot.
Over the last few years there has been a growing need for Americans to effectively and equally participate in the way the government is run. As a result, there has been an increase in effective and efficiently run organizations and committees that are used as a gateway to press for their demands and have their voices heard equally. Out of such organizations, the government through its public officers has been more receptive to the needs and concerns of the participants.
However such organizations do not represent the whole society but a certain quota. Organizing such committees and having the influence to have the government listen to their demands requires a lot, thus, only the privileged members of the society can afford such time, organization and money to run such platforms as they feel that what the government does directly affects them.
On the other hand, citizens of lower and middle class do not actively participate in such forums due to ignorance as they feel that they are voiceless or lack the organization and influence to have their concerns listened to. In addition, government officials do not really take into consideration the concerns of such persons as there are a lot of bureaucracies in the system (Philbrook, 2003, 78).
As a result of the above discrepancies, the question does American democracy work still persists among various stakeholders of the American democracy. Thus a look at whether political action as opposed to inaction collectively advances the citizens agendas. It should be noted that the while the American Government can achieve its obligations in many sectors, its ability to effectively and efficiently achieve success will lay with the participation of the American citizens/society in the process.
Thus participation from the Americans is very crucial for the government to succeed in its agenda and will require participation from citizens who possess the right qualifications, capability, knowledge and commitment. Therefore it’s crucial for the paper to analyze whether the American democracy embodies such values and whether in doing so it propels the wishes and desires of the American society.
One of the largest participation forums of American citizens is in the policy making arena. Many Americans have shown a desire to have changes initiated in many of America’s government agencies whereby, these changes take various forms. Some of the active participants require changes in the way a certain process is carried out while others want to do away with counterproductive legislations and laws and others requiring total change in certain culture for instance the current call for the use of a more comprehensive web 2.0 technologies (Wittman, 2005 47).
Participating in democracy and having ones voice heard is quite a difficult and challenging task as there are several obstacles faced by citizens in the process. Some of the challenges faced by them include deep-rooted rules and structures that form part of the larger bureaucratic procedures. In addition, the groups are faced with financial limitations which hinder their active and effective participation while criticism from opposing sectors such as congress and the media result in the citizens being change averse.
Nevertheless citizens have been able to have their concerns heard and thus participate positively in the American democracy. Citizens have developed an effective structure through which they voice their concerns to the Government agencies through the Public officials who thereby pass it on to relevant agencies. Change by us and other organizations have been able to effectively do this through organizing their participation framework. First, it has been agreed between them that there ought to be a clear goal which the organization wants addressed and not multiplicity of agendas which normally results in ambiguity.
Secondly, the organization has developed networks that include participants who were like minded and thereby had the mass numbers to gain attention from the government. These networks represent diverse members of the society and thus are a true reflection of the multicultural society that America is.
Through these networks, members share their concerns and develop a fine print of what they require done by the government. “In addition they can also provide leverage by building support for change in diverse parts of the organization, replicating changes throughout the organization, and continuously expanding each other’s networks.” (Schelling, 2000 196).
Thirdly, the organization has been able to maintain optimism that the government will take their issues into concern and effect the necessary changes while at the same time cultivating credibility between the government agencies and the public/members.
In addition, before a bill is presented to the President for final approval, it passes through several committees and subcommittees. These stages allow for participation by various stakeholders through debates and amendments ensuring only an acceptable bill is passed. Therefore through publication of the committee report, the public can be called to participate in debating the bill where their opinions will be taken into consideration and the bill amended where necessary before the final stage.
Another process often used by civil societies is petitioning the government through collecting signatures of stakeholders whereby the signatures are presented to government officials (Wolfe, 2007 52)
Cities across the USA are facing numerous challenges as demands by the residents are increasing while resources are decreasing at an alarming rate. As a result, there is a need for both the Government and the public to come up with a solution. Citizens’ participation was thus necessary to bring effective changes through the government. Change by Us is a forum through which citizens can participate in government policies in relation to the change they want in their respective cities.
The group participates through a digital platform which enables the public to collaborate with the public officials to effect the change they need in their cities. Thus, this form of platform acts as a form of civic engagement. The platform enables the public to share ideas on how to better their environment which in turn the government uses to set up policies and legislations.
The online platform was created by a New York media company which was a nonprofit project. “Change by Us is great opportunity to put new technological tools in the hands of innovative community members, so that citizen action can be at the center of community change.” (Hayes, 2011 29)
The American constitutional also provides for a way through which citizen participation can be carried out thus ensuring that democracy is a constitutional right for all Americans. The constitution provides that all government agencies shall keep and maintain a public register which shall be made public through publishing it. The purpose of publishing the Federal register is to ensure public participation and awareness.
Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:
(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public –
(A) descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions;
(B) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;
(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations;
(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and
(E) each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing. Except to the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof, a person may not in any manner be required to resort to, or be adversely affected by, a matter required to be published in the Federal Register and not so published. For the purpose of this paragraph, matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published in the Federal Register when incorporated by reference therein with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register.
Illustrated from; Wolfe, 2007 45
The American democracy is a vital and cherished ideal that is vital for all Americans. Achieving democracy for any country in the world is not an easy task as it calls for tolerance, sacrifices and willingness of the society and government in achieving this. In order for any government to ensure that it remains focused in achieving the needs of its people, it’s vital that there is an open channel of communication between both institutions.
For the quality of democracy to excel, both the involvement of citizens, the receptiveness of the government as well as the policy making processes all have to work in a systematic manner. It is thus evident to confirm that for the American democracy to work, there ought to be proper citizen participation in the American governance.
As much as American democracy works, it is limited to an advantaged few in the society apparently those whom can organize committees to influence the government. This is so because for these committees to have any influence on the government, they require ample time and resources. At the same time, the less privileged that is both the lower and middle class have very little or no influence on the government; this reduces the quality of democracy in America.
The lower and middle class members of the American society tend to be ignorant when it comes to exercising their democratic roles since they have the perception that they lack a voice in airing their views to the government.
Due to bureaucracies in the system of governance, public officials tend to ignore the concerns of people in both the lower and middle classes of the society. This less privileged society faces both economic limitations as well as censure from the media and congress and this results in them not actively participating in making their concerns heard by the government.
On the other hand, there are organizations that have been involved in promoting their stance on the issue of democracy in America. These organizations actively participated in carrying out their democratic rights whereby for them to be considered by the government, they have built large networks that include substantial members who have similar thoughts and demands with regards to their governance.
In addition to this, the organizations are composed of versatile participants of the society hence portraying a picture that their demands are centered on the whole society’s interests. In addition, the American society has several avenues through which it can actively participate in democracy issues, such avenues are also entrenched in the American society thus giving the society a constitutional right. Other avenues include participation in creation of policies and legislations, government projects and other issues of public interest.
Thus American democracy does work well even though there are several challenges faced by the society in ensuring that their voices and concerns are heard equally. There is thus a need for the government to provide adequate avenues through which the public can participate equally, for example through embracing technology which will ensure that the public can access participation forums.
References
Hayes, B. (2011). American Democracy – Its History and Problems, New York: Books, Design.
McEachern, A. (2006) AEA Ideology: Campaign Contributions of American Economic Association Members. Econ Journal Watch 3(1): 148-79.
Patterson, T.(2008). The American Democracy, New York. McGraw-Hill
Philbrook, C. (2003). ‘Realism’ in Policy Espousal. American Economic Review 43(5): 846- 59.
Schelling, C. (2000). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wittman, D. (2005). The Myth of Democratic Failure: Why Political Institutions Are Efficient. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wolfe, A. (2007) Does American Democracy Still Work? Bellevue, WA: Yale University Press.
Today the public often discusses the questions of personal freedom, equality of opportunities, and possible limitations and securities provided by the government according to these issues. However, the currency and significance of these questions is not surprising because they reflect the main principles on which the American society and state are based. Thus, these principles are known as the founding principles of America which originate from the Declaration of Independence.
The principles of personal and political liberty, legal equality and separation of powers determine all the aspects of social and political life of the American nation, and they are absolutely significant for the country’s further growth. Moreover, their importance is proved by the history of the country’s development.
To understand the meaning of the founding principles for the Americans as citizens and for the whole society, it is necessary to provide the proper analysis of them from the historical perspective and with references to the present days. When Americans speak about the main aspects of the development of their society as the democratic one, they accentuate the basic principle of personal and political freedom.
The notion of freedom or liberty can be considered as the foundation for the American society because it was stated in the Declaration of Independence along with the other rights provided by God and that is why they can be discussed as absolute ones, “all men are created equal, … they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Jefferson, 2008).
Nevertheless, there is the controversy in the understanding of the question of personal liberty by the public. If the liberty is given by God, who can control and limit it? Thus, in modern society the question of liberty should be closely connected with the moral issues. The Law is strict according to the breaks of the other people’s liberty. That is why it is possible to say that the person’s liberty is limited by the moral and legal norms when it prevents other people from realizing their own liberties (Rauchut, 2008).
In their work on the peculiarities of the founding principles in America, West and Jeffrey are rather strict in the interpretation of the idea presented in the Declaration, but their consideration offers the fairest vision of the principle, “no one human or class of humans is superior to another human or class of humans in the way that all humans, since they are rational creatures, are superior to dumb beasts” (West & Jeffrey, 2008).
From this point, the principle of liberty is associated with the principle of legal equality. Thus, all the people are equal in front of the Law, and they should follow equal and legal norms and rules. However, what is about their equality of opportunities?
There were many debates on the aspects of this principle which originates from the statement in the Declaration about the equality of all the people and which is supported by the human rights and laws. Do the Americans really have equal opportunities to realize their personal goals and liberties? What about the problem of racial or ethnic division in the society?
D’Souza agrees with the fact that many critics emphasize the idea that equal opportunities in the American society are not more than a myth. However, he also states that “there is more opportunity in this country than anywhere else in the world” and moreover, America “do not extend rights to ethnic groups, only to individuals” (D’Souza, 2008). It is possible to say that the author’s strictness is supported with his firm belief in the principles of the American democratic society, the power of the government, and the rule of the Law on which they are based.
However, all the liberties and rights should be supported by the governmental institutions in order to acquire the legal power. Moreover, the Founders also understood the problem which can come out when all the powers are concentrated in one and the same governmental structure.
Madison stated that the gathering of all powers of the state in the same hands “whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny” (Madison, 2008b). Thus, it is impossible to realize the principles of the democratic society and follow the republican form of government when there is the threat of the development of tyranny at the governmental level. The most effective solution to this problem is the separation of the powers.
The division between legislative, executive, and judiciary powers is the first step to the development of the republican government. However, it was also stated that in spite of the required equal role of all the branches, “the legislative authority necessarily predominates” (Madison, 2008c).
To prevent the progress of this tendency, the solution known as “legislative balances and checks” was worked out (Hamilton, 2008). Thus, the authority was also divided between the national and state governments, and the separation of powers was based on checks and balances in order to preserve stability of the government.
What is meant when politicians speak about stability and responsibility of the government? The “firm Union” should preserve the rights and freedoms of the citizens, and the peace in the state, it should be a “barrier against domestic faction and insurrection” (Hamilton, 2008). That is why the power of the government should be also organized properly. The Founders paid much attention to implementing the principle of the separation of powers as the guarantee of the rule of Law into practice (Rauchut, 2008; Spalding, 2008).
Thus, according to Madison, it is possible to accentuate two factors for determining the governmental work. They are the “dependence on the people” and on the Law (Madison, 2008c; Madison, 2008a). Basing on the founding principles, the Americans can also be sure that their society will not suffer from the tyranny of the government which can reject the principles of the liberty, equality, and separation of powers because the republic is responsible for guarding the society “against the oppression of its rulers” and furthermore, “against the injustice of the other part” (Madison, 2008c). Therefore, it is almost impossible to discuss the founding principles of America’s separately because their basics are closely connected with each other.
The founding principles of the development of America’s democracy have an extremely important meaning for the American society because they determine all the main aspects of personal and political activities of the nation. Liberty, personal and legal equality, and separation of powers are those principles which were stated by the Founders in Declaration of Independence and accentuated the way according to which the state should develop in the future.
References
D’Souza, D. (2008). What’s great about America. In K. C. Mason & E. A. Rauchut (Eds.), Kirkpatrick signature series reader (pp. 96-100). USA: Belleview University Press.
Hamilton, A. (2008). Federalist No. 9. In K. C. Mason & E. A. Rauchut (Eds.), Kirkpatrick signature series reader (pp. 20-23). USA: Belleview University Press.
Jefferson, T. (2008). Declaration of Independence. In K. C. Mason & E. A. Rauchut (Eds.), Kirkpatrick signature series reader (pp. 11-14). USA: Belleview University Press.
Madison, J. (2008a). Federalist No.42. In K. C. Mason & E. A. Rauchut (Eds.), Kirkpatrick signature series reader (pp. 23-27). USA: Belleview University Press.
Madison, J. (2008b). Federalist No. 47. In K. C. Mason & E. A. Rauchut (Eds.), Kirkpatrick signature series reader (pp. 34-37). USA: Belleview University Press.
Madison, J. (2008c). Federalist No. 51. In K. C. Mason & E. A. Rauchut (Eds.), Kirkpatrick signature series reader (pp. 37-41). USA: Belleview University Press.
Rauchut, E. A. (2008). American vision and values. USA: Belleview University Press.
Spalding, M. (2008). Independence forever: Why America celebrates the fourth of July. In K. C. Mason & E. A. Rauchut (Eds.), Kirkpatrick signature series reader (pp. 14-20). USA: Belleview University Press.
West, T. G., & Jeffrey, D. A. (2008). The rise and fall of constitutional government in America. In K. C. Mason & E. A. Rauchut (Eds.), Kirkpatrick signature series reader (pp. 71-75). USA: Belleview University Press.