Category: Democracy

Introduction

This chapter begins by attributing invention of democracy to the western world. The invention encompasses relevant institutions such as parliament, representation, and common suffrage. Democracy demands that citizens should elect representatives after a certain period. In democracy, voting settles any instance of disagreement.

This combination of factors sums up the integral tenets of democracy. Thus, the author calls it adversary democracy. This model of democracy contradicts the old democratic order. In the old democratic order, people who disagreed reasoned together as opposed to voting. They congregated with their friends with a view to reaching an amicable solution.

This order had no provision for election of representatives. This democratic order encouraged consensus based on mutual respect in pursuit of the common good of society. This model assumed that citizens had a common interest on all matters. It encouraged direct interaction among citizens.

The author calls it unitary democracy. According to the author, these models are contradictory in their nature. The author notes that many scholars are oblivious of this contradictory nature of the democratic models. According to the author, both models have distinct ideals that suit different contexts of democratic discourse.

The author uses case studies to demonstrate the importance and essence of the two democratic models. This chapter seeks to convince readers that democracy has a role to play in society, despite its shortcomings in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It also shows that unitary democracies fail due to their inability to recognize conflicting interests and their timely resolution. The author observes that such conflicts resolve easily by consociational democracy as opposed to majority rule.

To decipher the contradictions of both models, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of competing interests. This will help in diluting stereotypes about democracy and its related institutions. This also helps us to understand institutions that serve the democratic systems. Through such understanding, citizens interrogate institutions such as the Supreme Court and congress.

Unitary versus Adversary Democracy

In this chapter, the author conducts a critical analysis of the unitary model of democracy. The unitary model incorporates the traditional understanding of friendship into the political arena. This chapter asserts the view that unitary democracy has a long history in the field of human organization.

The adversary model replaced the unitary approach in the seventeenth century. This resulted from the popularization of mercantilism and the spread of market relations. Since then, political scholars and theorists view adversary democracy as the only viable model of democracy. They consider unitary ideals as borne out of ignorance and lack of clear understanding on matters related to democracy.

Several theorists have initiated efforts to retrieve the unitary model from its abyss of neglect and isolation. This chapter interrogates the metamorphosis of unitary ideals since the ouster by adversary model.

Unitary democracy derives its strength from the simple nature of its ideals and values. It demystifies the values of friendship by formalising them through political involvement. The author alludes to Aristotles reference to friendship as being a critical ingredient for peaceful co-existence between city-states.

Aristotle praises the unity among citizens in a unitary state. Friendship is synonymous with love, thus its desirable and critical value and importance. Friends enjoy spending time together and sharing experiences that help to cement their bond of communion. Therefore, any state built on friendship must be pertinent in upholding democratic principles and ideals.

This applies because it anchors on presumed equality among its members. According to the author, unitary democracy upholds consensus in solving conflicts that arise within a polity. This emphasizes on the ideals of friendship since consensus only works among individuals with rhyming interests.

The author marvels at how ancient Greeks endeavoured to strike a balance between unitary and adversary models of democracy. The city of Athens allowed practice of both models in its governance of citizens. Adversary democracy has received criticism for its mode of operation.

It leans towards personal interests, as opposed to common interests. Such a model is prone to criticism and negative reaction since it ignores the common agenda of citizens. Previous studies indicate that unitary democracy may not be popular, but it has a degree of consistency and sustainability.

The Inner Logic of Unitary Democracy

To proponents of adversary democracy, the idea of unitary democracy appears illogical and misplaced. They assume those individuals are always conflicting with disregard for equality of all. They further claim that consensus is superficial in its approach to solving conflicts in a polity.

According to them, consensus presents a situation whereby some people shy away from expressing their views for fear of retribution. In order to demystify these assumptions, it is necessary to understand certain concepts that relate to democracy. One such a concept is interests. In unitary democracy, members need assurance for their interests. Being in the polity makes them united with little regard for personal interests.

In fact, they replace personal interests with common interests that aim towards fulfilment of common goals. The author defines interest as enlightened preferences among policy choices. The author notes that this is not the sole definition of the term, arguing that readers should endeavour to consider other forms of definitions and insights on the matter.

The author argues that unitary democracy can sometimes create false consensus by manipulating members feelings to make unnecessary decisions. The author argues that fulfilment of personal interests is fundamental. The author asserts that no collectivity of individuals can have identical interests.

He argues that groups can agree on certain issues but certainly not all. According to the author, an ideal unitary democracy would require people to cultivate a common interest on all policy matters. It is impossible to forge a perfect unitary system of democracy.

The author concurs that success of a democracy model depends on the extent to which members cultivate a platform for common interests. The unitary model requires members to have respect for each other. According to the author, members work together to achieve goals and aspirations that contribute to their common good. This equality helps to fuel the sustenance of a democratic system by ensuring that members have maximum regard for interests of other members.

The author concurs that unitary democracy is prone to intimidation and coercion in an effort to force members into conformity. The author demonstrates that both models of democracy have flaws and shortcomings. However, such weaknesses should neutralize by pursuing their positive attributes. This ensures a just and free society devoid of oppression and human conflict.

For a long period of time, Israel has been considered as the state with the possibility to unite its Jewish and democratic peculiarities. Many inhabitants of Israel want to believe that the intentions expressed in the hymn of hope to have the Jewish spirit yearning deep in the heart and their eyes turned toward the East, looking toward Zion¹remain to be effective and working all the time. However, the historical evaluation of the situation in Israel and the development of the Israel-Palestinian conflict that led to the Israel war of independence in 1948 and continues today shows that it is not an easy task to be both, a Jewish and a democratic state, due to the existing political, cultural, and social obstacles that took place in the region. In this paper, the idea that it is impossible or, at least, inappropriate to be both, a Jewish and a democratic state will be developed using the Shapiras findings and evaluations and personal understanding of the situation.

From the very beginning, it is necessary to underline how doubtful and provocative the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel can be. On the one hand, it is created for people to protect their rights and provide the same conditions under which people have to live. In this document, the inhabitants are identified as people with their spiritual, religious and political identity and cultural values of national and universal significance.² Besides, it is declared that the State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration in order to foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants and promote freedom, justice and peace and equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.³ On the other hand, it is an evident fact that such declarations are not created by people. Shapiro tells about the intentions to motivate people using some personal interests and neglect the importance of a certain common idea that may unite people but not divide them. Such contradictions and oppositions between Jewish and Palestinian people on the same land led to the war in 1948.⁴

The war began as soon as Britain left Palestine, and the Jewish representative wanted to divide the region in regards to the interests of its inhabitants. Palestinians wanted to prove their rights to stay on their native land and follow the traditions that helped to stay free and democratic. The Jewish people found it effective to use their military reorganizations and opportunities to prove the power of their religion on the same territory. In one year, more discussions took place to increase the land of the Jewish people and to diminish the role of the natives of Palestine. In 1964, the Palestinians were able to form their own forces to protect their interests, and more attacks and fight took place. 1977 was the year associated with hopes and alternatives that became available to the participants of the conflict. Peace agreements were defined as the possibility to solve conflicts. In the 1990s, the Declaration was signed. However, it is wrong to forget that all those agreements and conclusions were made at the expense of human lives and happiness. More than 700,000 Palestinians were exiled from the country because of the inability to make any except groundless assumptions and evaluations.⁵ The reactions of people were full of emotions and free from logics and analysis. People wanted to promote changes without having some clear reasons and explanations and neglected the possibility to alternatives that could be attractive for both, the Jewish representative and the native inhabitants of Palestine.

The lessons that could be taken from the South African Apartheid movement served as a powerful example for many countries of how cultural, political, and religious discontents could influence and determine the quality of a human life. Still, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was an exception. The participants of that conflict did not want to take some lessons and make choices. Instead of defining one power and one solution, the region was divided into two parts: the land of Zion and Jerusalem.⁶ Maybe, for a particular period of time, it was justified to divide the land. Still, it is not the best solution of the problem because it seems that the land is located on a volcano that can relive one day, and the same misunderstandings and contradictions may take place again.

In general, regarding all evaluations and ideas offered, it is possible to say that the State of Israel is not the place for discussions concerning human rights, inequalities, and the roles of minorities in the society. It is the land of hope and forgiveness that can be achieved by any person. If in the Declaration, the idea of Jewish immigrants and anyone, who wants to be free and supported, is supported, it can be justified as by the state as well as by its people.

Bibliography

HaTikvah (The Hope). 2016. Web.

Shapira, Anita. Israel: A History. Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England, 2012.

The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. Jewish Virtual Library. 2016. Web.

Footnotes

1  HaTikvah (The Hope), 2016. Web.

2  The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, Jewish Virtual Library, 2016, Web.

3  Ibid.

4  Shapira, Anita, Israel: A History, (Lebanon: University Press of New England, 2012), 156.

5  Ibid., 157.

6  HaTikvah (The Hope), 2016, Web.

In his essay, Dahl investigates exactly who governs the modern state in the country where every adult has the right to vote, but not everyone has access to knowledge, wealth, and social lifts. Dahl states that understanding US power dynamics requires dissecting the decision-making process to see who has the chance to participate and who benefits from the outcomes. In the paper, the researcher points out the three key domains that are especially important for capturing the power struggle: public education, urban development, and the party nominating process. While Dahl does not deny that the US environment is prone to systemic inequalities, the researcher puts forward a hypothesis that, in actuality, the political stratum is homogenous and not as enclosed as it may seem.

A political stratum is defined as a group of individuals who take an active position in the political life of the country. They ensure the reciprocal relationship between the leaders and the followers because their concerns, preferences, and desires inform the decisions of the former. A political stratum is characterized by constant communication, conscientiousness, and refined political knowledge. At first glance, one might think that joining a political stratum is only possible for the elites. Dahl counters this misconception by showing that such communities consist of aristocracies, the middle class, and the working class, all at once.

The first reason as to why the heterogeneity of a political stratum is not only possible but also common is because it does not discriminate against views. Dahl writes that within a stratum, there is no domineering paradigm of political thinking, to which all members need to adhere. Therefore, regardless of ones political affiliation and stand on relevant issues, he or she can find their place in the community. The political landscape of the United States only confirms this hypothesis made more than 60 years ago: today, the country is highly fragmented and polarized.

The second reason that is worth to be mentioned is the meritocracy inherent to the United States. Meritocracy is the principle behind building social hierarchies that discriminate by a persons ability and not his or her origins. Dahl explicitly states that many US citizens have the same resources at their disposal but show vastly different outcomes. This discrepancy can be explained by each persons ability to utilize what they have, exert an effort, and achieve their goals. Therefore, a political stratum may be available to anyone who tries hard enough and uses their resources most efficiently.

Lastly, the author associates the penetrability of a political stratum with the rise of professionalism in the United States. Since the year of the publication, the country has made even more progress in improving its education and providing talented individuals with opportunities to advance in life. Dahl points out two key characteristics of professionals that allow them to find themselves in a political stratum.

Firstly, a professional has more control over their own life: he or she is likely to be less strained for time and finances. Such a person organizes their day how they wish, meaning that they might as well find time for political education. The second characteristic is skillfulness: Dahl is convinced that professionals have more skill to harness political power. They do so through knowledge, which they constantly acquire because they have the motivation to do so. In summation, the penetrability of a political stratum is explained by the diversity of opinion, meritocracy, and high professionalism of its members.

Bibliography

Dahl, Robert. Who Governs?. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (1961): 110-119.

Introduction

Engaging communities in social, political, economic, and cultural processes have been recognized as a major element in building well-functioning democratic societies. The important role of a community is explained by the understanding that community-based organizations strongly predict collective efficacy and collective civic action (Sampson 209). It is noteworthy that communities are not just units of social interaction but rather more complex entities; indeed, they should be regarded as environments where internal interactions constantly occur, thus generating narratives, establishing agendas, and raising issues. However, there are also interactions between these environments, and they influence both society and public administration. Active communities, or those that are willing to participate in social processes beyond themselves and affect regulations and policy-making, make a positive contribution to the development of democracy (Butin and Seider vii). The reason for this connection is that those communities that opt for active engagement adopt the attitudes and positions of civil society members instead of estranging themselves from public administration decision-making.

Within recent decades, a remarkable body of academic literature has been dedicated to community engagement. The primary focuses of these studies have been on the various forms of engaging communities in public life and social justice processes. These forms may differ in terms of organization, style, ethos, and policy approaches. Also, it is important to differentiate between two directions of community engagement. On the one hand, it can be encouraged and organized by public administrators who ask citizens, for example, to help identify and prioritize neighborhood problems for action (Skogan 101). On the other hand, communities may be willing to participate in public life without encouragement, as they make decisions about what issues to address&build the networks of relationships through which [community] members are invited to&actions, and link these local efforts to broader citywide organizing projects (Wood 23). These and other aspects of community engagement initiatives need to be addressed to explore what a good city (in the context of community engagement) may look like in the future.

Encouraging Communities to Engage

The first form of community engagement is the effort made by public administrators aimed at encouraging communities to participate in social and political processes. A distinct feature of this form is that engagement is initiated from above by administrative bodies seeking support from communities. First of all, it should be noted that bureaucracies in their classical form are often unwilling to carry out such engagement efforts. When a bureaucratic system is established, it assumes control over policy-making, and it is inherently focused on itself and its internal operations and procedures instead of involving members of the general public in decision-making. This characteristic of bureaucracies has been repeatedly discussed in classical political science literaturefor instance, by Weber, who explored bureaucratic power relations (15). In this work, it is concluded that a societal action, which is methodically ordered and led, is superior to every resistance of mass or even of communal action. And where the bureaucratization of administration has been completely carried through, a form of power relation is established that is practically unshatterable (Weber 15-16). This shows that bureaucracies tend to resist community engagement because they strive to control societal actions and do want to not share their privilege of performing those actions with anyone beyond their system of operation.

Public administrators generally prefer to act according to the rules of the bureaucratic systems of which they are apart. There is also the issue of lack of trust in the public, which contributes to bureaucrats unwillingness to involve communities in policy-making. However, there have been examples of authorities striving to encourage communities to participate, thus overcoming the predisposition to resist such participation. One of these examples is an initiative established in Chicago, Illinois, called Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS). The program was announced by the city police department to encourage residents to help the police deal with crime in particular neighborhoods across the city. The rationale for this program was law enforcements recognition that the police alone cannot solve the Citys crime problems. It takes a combined effort of police, community, and City government working together (Skogan 104). Under CAPS, people were asked to attend meetings where they could discuss topical issues and challenges and communicate them to the authorities.

Moreover, it was especially stressed that the meetings were not designed for residents to come and complain; instead, people were asked to do something to help the police. Since the program was funded from the city budget with taxpayers money, it was especially important for the authorities to convey to the public the idea that they were being allowed to act, which is exactly what they were paying taxes for. CAPS was not the only form of civic engagement in Chicago, and observations over several years showed that people who attended CAPS meetings were more likely to participate in other public organizations, activities, and initiatives, indicating a higher level of civic engagement among attendees than non-attendees (Skogan 120). At the meetings, residents mostly discussed social disorder, public drinking in their areas, drugs, and gang activity. A particularly important discovery made in the CAPS program was that the highest attendance rates were seen in the most underprivileged, violent, and drug-filled neighborhoods and the areas with the lowest rates of health care and lowest-quality education. Skogan notes that residents of many of the citys most troubled neighborhoods had a place to go to get help (137), a place where they could be heard by public administrators. This is a valuable finding because it shows that community engagement may be driven by peoples utter discontent with the social situation in which they live and with the authorities efforts to address the situation.

Similar efforts were made in Seattle, Washington, where community engagement was pursued through the creation of neighborhood centers. These facilities often shared space with other municipal services, such as police departments or libraries, and served as a location for residents to come to deal with a wide range of administration-related issues. For example, in neighborhood centers, residents could pay their utility bills and parking or traffic tickets and receive business licenses and passport services. Further, residents could also sign up for educational and training programs. Most importantly, neighborhood centers held meetings where people could discuss their concerns and suggest actions (Sirianni 78). Because there were mechanisms in place for translating the results of discussion into actual policies, residents had an opportunity to participate in neighborhood planning. This shaped the paradigm of collaborative governance; investing in the initiative was regarded by the citys public administrators as contributing to a more democratic form of city management.

Bureaucratic systems are designed in a way that makes them reluctant to share their responsibilities. When bureaucrats view public administration as a function of which they are in charge, they tend to estrange residents and members of the general public from participating in administrative processes. One of the factors of this estrangement is that authorities may consider residents incompetent or incapable of addressing administrative issues. However, the examples mentioned above demonstrate that sometimes public administrators do look to the help of residents and encourage them to participate by creating environments in which they can share experiences, discuss issues, and suggest actions. This form of community engagement can be beneficial in terms of providing authorities with feedback and support from communities.

Communities Self-Organizing for Engagement

A different form of community engagement is the grassroots movement. Such movements occur when a community organizes itself into a manageable structure that creates networks of cooperation and employs tools for interacting with public administrators. The purpose of such interactions is to influence various aspects of decision-making that affect members of the community. An example of this form of community engagement was demonstrated in San Antonio, Texas, where a local community initiated a job training program and managed to receive funding for it from the mayor. The achievement was carried out by a self-organized body called Communities Organized for Public Service (COPS). Acting as public speakers and community representatives, COPS members proposed an approach to job training that was different from the existing options provided by official administrators (Warren 187). The groups main effort was aimed at persuading city authorities to fund the program and support it. After several years of implementation, monitoring, and evaluating, the job training program designed and introduced by the community was confirmed to be effective, as the employment rates among program graduates were higher than those among participants of different job training programs. This is an example of how a local community concerned about a particular social issue (in this caseunemployment and the ineffectiveness of job training) can demonstrate a coordinated effort in introducing a solution and influencing public administrators. Inspired by this case, Warren compared it to the biblical story about dry bones coming together and growing flesh as a symbol of community revival (3). However, uniting around daunting social problems is not the only possible way for communities to become engaged in public management.

Another group of examples comprises cases where existing self-organized structures become more empowered over time and more willing to participate in social and political processes. In the United States, such cases are often associated with church communities. The role of the church in the emergence of engaged communities and the creation of cooperative networks should not be underestimated. Churches not only bring together people who share the same faith, but they are also places where people know each other, see each other regularly, and work together for a common purpose (for example, managing charity projects). Therefore, congregations are often established organizations with organized inner operations that know how to cooperate and manage tasks. This is why church communities are more likely to succeed when dealing with public administrators.

Upon reviewing a case of a local organizing community at a Catholic church, Wood concludes that the best faith-based organizing federations have matured organizationally to the point that they can sustain collaborative partnerships with elected officials while simultaneously using conflict constructively (51). Church communities do not merely raise particular issues and appeal to public authorities regarding those issues (although they may do this, too); rather, they maintain contact with public administrators and commit to communicating with decision-makers. This continuous engagement requires communities to be organized and systematic. An important aspect of this form of organization is that it features a balance of forces among lay leaders, clergypersons, and staff organizers; under these circumstances, no single party unilaterally controls the structure, which facilitates higher flexibility and ensures a better quality of decisions. Community engagement in the given example is driven by committees built according to the democratic values and principles of the people in these communities, as opposed to engagement organized by authorities and public administrators. Similar conclusions were made by Sampson, who studied church communities in Chicago and stated that churches are the most promising environments in terms of organizing civil society structures and promoting community engagement (204). The very nature of a congregation facilitates its role as an engaged community.

Another example of grassroots community engagement comes from a group known as the DREAMers. This is a term used to describe a political group and a community of supporters that advocated for the adoption of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. The proposed legislation was designed to protect the rights of undocumented young people in the United States. A particularly interesting aspect of this case is that before engaging in a political and social discussion as DREAMers, these people were not a community per se. They were young people from immigrant families who grew up in the United States and considered themselves Americans. However, at a certain age (usually upon graduating from high school), they faced numerous complications associated with their legal status. Without a social security number, they could not apply for college or scholarships, receive a license, or complete several other legal acts. Many of these young women and men had not even known that they were undocumented, and this discovery was shocking for them. An awareness campaign brought these people together, as they learned that they were not alone and that there were people who were willing to help them (Nicholls 49). Moreover, there were political forces that supported them. Undocumented young people from all over the country combined their efforts and created a political group to advocate for the DREAM Act.

The goal of the DREAMers was to convince the public that they deserved residency and equal rights; the challenge was that the DREAMers faced a highly xenophobic environment in which many people held negative attitudes toward immigrants. The community of undocumented youth conducted a comprehensive communication campaign to convey to the public that they were good immigrants (Nicholls 56) who respected the American lifestyle and traditions, which is why they should be treated as Americans at an institutional level. In the early 2000s, after September 11 and other terrorist attacks, immigrants were widely seen as a threat, and the purpose of the DREAMers campaign was to transform their negative image into sources of economic, civic, and moral rejuvenation (Nicholls 49). After growing into a separate immigrant rights movement by 2010, the DREAMers declared themselves to be a community and political group willing to act. The movement even published its manifesto: We organized ourselves and created our strategy, used new tactics and we rejected the passivity of the nonprofit industrial complex. At a moment when hope seemed scarce, we forged new networks of solidarity. We declared ourselves undocumented and unafraid! (Nicholls 75).

This movement exemplifies how people from different backgrounds who shared a common issue united into a structure that can be described as a community and publicly declared their goals. By becoming involved in an extensive social discussion, the community demonstrated its readiness to engage in decision-making and became an important consideration for legislators. The DREAMers made efforts to acquire social and legal status and benefits through an active public information campaign, thus contributing to the immigrant rights discussion on the national level. Even though the DREAM Act was not adopted, the DREAMers became a significant political force. In the context of community engagement, they showed that not only self-organized structures (e.g. congregations) and local groups (e.g. neighborhood councils) can become communities that are involved in social and political processes, but also that people who have similar social problems can form communities and participate in policy-making even though they live far from each other and have not previously had networks of cooperation.

Benefits of Community Engagement

For both forms of community engagement, there are recognized benefits for all involved parties, including both communities and public administrators. The most widely acknowledged benefit is that community engagement makes a positive contribution to the proper functioning of democratic institutions. Democracy needs engagement because, without the participation of citizens, public administration is deprived of feedback and support, which increases the risk of making poor decisions (Hughes 167). Communities are precisely the structures most capable of providing such feedback and support, especially when they are organized, have representatives and mechanisms of self-regulation, and are willing to be involved in public administration. For this reason, some researchers regard community-building as a way of revitalizing American democracy (Warren 10). Engaged communities act not only as sources of support and feedback for public administrators initiatives but also as critics and structures that control policy-making in a sense. This improves democratic procedures by creating a system of mutual control and division of power (Wood 50). Finally, engagement is beneficial for the communities themselves. In the context of self-organization, the totality of the institutional infrastructure&seems to matter in producing healthy communities (Sampson 209). When aiming for participating in public administration, communities adopt certain organizational tools and become united around common goals, which makes them stronger and more productive. An engaged community is an empowered community, which is beneficial both for its members and the quality of governance.

Conclusion

Upon comparing and contrasting different forms of community engagement, it becomes clear that there are two major types: engagement that is encouraged and facilitated by public administrators and engagement that is self-organized. The former occurs when authorities strive to collect feedback and gain support from communities despite the resistance of bureaucratic systems. The latter occurs when communities create networks of cooperation and appeal to authorities to address certain social and political issues. Both types of engagement have potential benefits for communities in the form of empowerment, as well as for public administrators in the form of building a more democratic system of control and division of power. In a good city as viewed by researchers and political scientists today, communities are engaged and more willing to participate in social and political processes, thus establishing an environment in which policy-making is more collaborative and more oriented toward the needs of citizens.

Works Cited

Butin, Dan, and Scott Seider, editors. The Engaged Campus: Certificates, Minors, and Majors as the New Community Engagement. Springer, 2012.

Hughes, Owen E. Public Management and Administration. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Nicholls, Walter. The DREAMers: How the Undocumented Youth Movement Transformed the Immigrant Rights Debate. Stanford University Press, 2013.

Sampson, Robert J. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. University of Chicago Press, 2013.

Sirianni, Carmen. Investing in Democracy: Engaging Citizens in Collaborative Governance. Brookings Institution Press, 2009.

Skogan, Wesley G. Police and Community in Chicago: A Tale of Three Cities. Studies in Crime and Public Policy, edited by Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 100-137.

Warren, Mark R. Dry Bones Rattling: Community Building to Revitalize American Democracy. Princeton University Press, 2001.

Weber, Max. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Edited by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, Oxford University Press, 1968.

Wood, Richard L. Faith in Action: Religion, Race, and Democratic Organizing in America. University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Introduction

The differences between the democratic regimes and the republicans have been described using all sorts of criteria. Points of references have ranged from ideologies to actual policy implementation. The democrats are now considered to be leftists, progressive, constitutional and realistic. For the same values, the republicans are considered to be rightists, conservative, patriotic and ideal. Democratic regimes have been marked by social handouts, liberty, security and democracy. Republicans have been marked by corporate handouts, conformity, war and theocracy (Demsunite, N.D.). These differences have influenced the two parties performance and ultimate legends.

Backed by the evidence of over ten administrative phases and over fifty years of observation, one conclusion becomes self evident: the democrats are much better than the republicans. And it doesnt really matter which aspect of the administration is being looked at. Where the republicans have shown inconsistent performances between different administrations, democrats have more or less stuck to their distinguishing principles, and excelled while at it. Their performance has in particular been vivid on the economy. And while on the same line, their administrations have consistently shown lower levels of unemployment.

The evidence for this point of view is supported regardless of any attempt at modulating the data. Take out the best and worst performing presidents over the last ten administrations, and the democrats come out tops (Steve, 2005). It can be argued that the presidents have little to do with an administrations performance. But such an argument would be turning a blind eye to facts. Any administration regime is heavily influenced by the person at the top. The general public actually judges a regime based on what is known about the president. So the president is a critical aspect of how well or bad an administration is running. Yet, as already stated, presidents have not changed the glaring facts that favor democratic regimes over republicans.

Wealth sharing

An irrefutable fact is that democratic regimes tend to foster a more equitable wealth sharing between the rich and poor. Under democrats, the lower 20% of the population tends to match the income growth (in terms of percentage) of the top 5%. The actual figures are 2.63% per year for the poor and 2.11% for the rich. Compare this with the average income growth of 0.6% amongst the poor and 2.09% for the rich under republican regimes (Steve, 2005). Clearly, Republican administrations tend to cater unfavorably for the interests of the rich. The vast majority of the population (95%) thrives better during democratic regimes.

The differences dont stop there. Apparently the citizens themselves have split down the middle in terms of their national interests. And for the common man, it seems like the democrats have their best interests at heart. Republicans tend to view more for the interests of the elite. This has in particular been exhibited during campaigns for the labor rights of the working class. In 2001 for example, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union found that 206 democratic congressmen out of a possible 261 unanimously voted in favor of the workers rights. 232 republicans out of a possible 269 voted against it (John, 2002). The implications are clear: the republicans were against the working class within the country. Woe unto the labor class during republican regimes.

Elections

The elitist nature of the republicans becomes even more vivid during elections. Democrats tend to get a higher fraction of the votes from the seemingly downtrodden: the working class, women, and the minorities (African-Americans and Hispanics) (Joseph, 2008). They are viewed by these groups to be better advocates for equitable working environs, for civil rights, for republican freedom and so on. On the other hand, the Republicans tend to get more support from big business owners and any other interest group active against policies that might level the field between the rich and the poor (John, 2002). Over half a century of evidence supports this claim: voters have consistently fallen into those broad interest categories during election periods. The ultimate post-election effect, of course, is a widening gulf between the rich and the poor during republican regimes, and a narrower one during democratic regimes.

The differences between the democratic and the republican approach to issues have made them to be called the mommy party and the daddy party. A perceptive observer cant help drawing the connection between the traits of the parties and their human analogues. The democrats have stuck to their laid down principles over the years, more or less. The republicans, on the other hand, have been so flexible with theirs that it is doubtful whether they actually had principles in the first place (Michael, 2005). In a sense, it is like they have been unfaithful to their spouses, the principles  a distinctly paternal attribute.

Personal freedom

Another point on which the Democrats seem to excel better than the Republicans is on personal freedom. Democrats have been termed as social liberals- encouraging personal freedom and responsibility. On sensitive issues like abortion, democrats have distinctly respected individual choice, even in the face of cultural and moral backgrounds. The general trend is towards a less invasion of the individual by the government. On the other hand, Republicans can be considered to be social conservatives. They tend to encourage government influence over the individual. Moral issues are seen to be a prime focus of the legislature, and hence the government. And on any sensitive, the republicans tend to stick to the traditional ways of dealing with things (Demsunite, N.D.). While this may provide stability at some level, it also shows a lower level of adaptability to changing environs.

Entitlements

Ironically, while the republicans are willing to deal with the moral concerns of the citizens, they tend to shy away from supporting the general public in terms of social amenities. These include welfare, healthcare and social security. The republicans tend to outsource these responsibilities to the private sector, stating that they will be better managed then. The democrats, on the other hand, integrate these social amenities, called entitlements, into the government programs. The democrats rationale is that the private sector, while efficient, has the potential of being unstable in the long run. Corporate greed can also ruin the delivery of such services by the private sector (Demsunite, N.D.). And in a sense, outsourcing these entitlements would be running away from the financial responsibilities that they come with. Thats what the republicans do.

Environment

Republicans also shrug off the responsibility for the environment. The most remarkable evidence for this was when they voted against the Kyoto protocol. According to them, any policy that forces the government to regulate its own companies impact on the environment will hamper that governments competitiveness on the global scene. While they appreciate the importance of the environment, they advocate for self regulation by the companies. Any further intervention by the government is seen as unnecessary government expenditure. Democrats view the environment as a critical investment, and actively seek means of conserving it. They have in the past formed policies that give tax credits to companies making the effort to reduce environment degradation. They have also formed green energy policies over the years- whereby renewable energy sources are promoted (Demsunite).

War

Another key point of difference between the two is on their perspectives to war. To the democrat, war is a cost. To the republican, it is an investment. This difference has resulted in all manner of consequences, over the years. Republicans, on the main, have always considered war to be a valid, first option, when international relationships become strained. They have no reservations at all about sacrificing long-standing international alliances in order to maintain their supreme status in the global scene. Ultimately, they are more likely to result to war than the democrats. The democrats are not opposed to war though. They perceive it as a valid option, but to be used only as a last result, if diplomacy and other approaches fail. To them, international alliances are of prime importance, and are to be fostered whenever possible (Demsunite, N.D.). Over the years, this has made the democratic regimes perform better on the international scene in terms of popularity.

The economy

Republicans values are not unique. They are but a distillate of mankinds most basic goals: prosperity, comfort and so on. They oppose unemployment and dislike inflation. And like everybody else, they dont like paying taxes. However, a problem arises when these goals are given a higher importance than other equally critical issues like equality and the environment. The result is an under-utilized, biased government structure that is highly inefficient. For example, over the last half century, federal spending under republican regimes has gone up by an average of 60 billion dollars. The spending under democratic regimes has only gone up by 35 billion dollars for the same time period (Michael, 2005).

Probably the only feather in the republicans hat is the fact that they actually do cut taxes. Taxes tend to go up more during democratic regimes. But is this really a positive aspect of the republicans? When taxes are cut, the immediate effect is a reduction on government revenue. Sometimes, the republicans argue that this reduction will ultimately stimulate the economy, and level off. It is not clear how this is supposed to happen, but decades of evidence dont seem to support this.

An even more cryptic rationale for cutting taxes is that it will reduce spending. Here, the cold hard facts from the Economic Report of the President clearly depict a different scenario. Government spending rises faster under republican than under democrat regimes. Republicans simply sink deeper into debts. For example, since 1960, the annual government debt under republican regimes has averaged about 130 billion dollars. Compare this with the democratic debt of 30 billion dollars for the same time frame. And while the republican debt has been growing by about 36 billion per year, the democratic debt has actually been shrinking by 25 billion (Michael, 2005).

Conclusion

Faced with all the above facts, one cant help seeing the superiority of the democratic regimes. In fact, the question that remains is how the Republicans have managed to still be a formidable force up today. The answer to this is complicated  a mixture of personal ambitions and conservative mindsets by some in the population. But as already shown democrats have managed to develop a system that will withstand the test of time. Republicans, on the other hand, will need to radically change some of their policies, if they are to remain relevant. But as matters stand, the ratings for the democrats continue to rise.

Works cited

Demsunite N.D. Democrats vs. Republicans. 2009. Web.

John Owen 2002 Democrats vs. Republicans. Web.

Joseph Crane, 2006 Democrats and republicans: The perspectives Dewey P. S. pg 211-216.

Michael Kinsley Democratic Superiority, by the numbers The Washington Post, 2005.

Steve Benen featuring Hilzoy: Political Animal. Washington Monthly, 2005. Web.

The modern era in the world distribution of power and regime of authority is claimed to be the one of democracy. After centuries of slavery and inequality, of silent voices of the poor who had nothing else to do but to watch the rich distribute the riches of the world, as well as after the coming of Nazism that shook the global perception of the inherent right of a human being to life and decent living conditions the community came to understanding of the fact that urgent, drastic action has to be taken to make things change and to establish a new form of government that would enhance and promote equality, that would make everyone equal before the law. The reign of totalitarism over the significant part of the world called USSR also made people realize that the voice of masses should be taken into consideration when making significant decisions on the state level, which brought about high interest to democracy as a form of political power in a country.

Another favorable factor that increased the popularity of democracy was its successful implementation in the most advanced countries of Europe and in the USA. All these events in the world history strengthened the thought that democracy is the only right and progressive form of authority in a state that will finally bring the overall population of the state to coherence in the expression of their will as well as in the extent to which they can influence the state of affairs in their native state.

However, there is hardly anyone in the world who is ignorant about the origin of the word democracy  it was used as long ago as in Ancient Greece and became the name for a form of ruling in Athens, the state that since then became the icon of implementing democracy in its daily governmental practices and did it, according to the accounts of peer historians, quite successfully. The modern society thus has to understand what the term originally meant, what were the democratic practices in Athens, what in general the Athenian democratic model looked like and what lessons contemporary states should learn to make their democracies true ones. To answer these questions more or less accurately it is appropriate to turn to the work of John Duhn titled Democracy in which the author investigated the rise and fall of this form of authority, took a deep look into what it actually was and observed the changes this notion suffered in the course of centuries. Nobody will argue that nowadays the true meaning of democracy has changed enormously, hence pushing the humanity to the necessity to look back and find what was lost in the course of history and what can aid the establishment of genuine democracies in the modern world.

Dunn at first accounts on what was called democracy in Athens, emphasizing the fact that the form of power originated as soon as the need to institutionalize power rose and the need for respect of the human dignity was recognized:

This regime, which is called democracy (demokratia), because it is administered with a view to the interest of the many, not of the few, has not merely made Athens great. It has also rendered its citizens equal before the law in their private disputes, and equally free to compete for public honors by personal merit and exertion, or to seek to lead the city, irrespective of their own wealth or social background (Dunn 26).

The difference from the usual distribution of power was astounding  never before poor people representing the majority of the nation (as usual) obtained the right to speak freely and to make their contribution in the evolution of their state. The main distinguishing peculiarities of democracy were, according to the opinion of Dunn, mutual politeness, deep respect to the law, determined openness of the state towards any other nation, sobriety in judgment, respect for wisdom etc (Dunn 26). Such qualities of any state would be highly desirable for any contemporary nation, and as soon as they were implemented and really worked in practice, the state would really be called a democracy.

Another peculiarity of a democracy established in Athens was that the power was factually concentrated in the hands of the poor, because the law protected them more as compared to the rich class and those who had a distinction in the state due to their wealth or origin:

the democracy of Athens was a robust but flagrantly unedifying system of power, which subjected the nobler elements of its society to the meaner, transferred wealth purposefully from one to the other, and distributed the means of coercion clear-headedly and determinedly to cement this outcome and keep the nobler elements under control (Dunn 28).

Though it is hard to imagine the form of power like that implemented in the modern times, still ideally a democracy had to look like that, and there is a clear and wise explanation for such a choice of preferences that is sadly neglected nowadays by the democratic power in the majority of countries. The upper class was always distinguished by certain power (due to origin or wealth they had an opportunity to influence the public opinion), so they represented a threat for the actual government of the democracy. For this reason all effort was directed at diminishing the upper classs measures of influence and power, thus ensuring stability of power in a state.

Secondly, the nation was not only given the power  this power was effectively ensured by the law:

The poorer majority of Athenss citizens are very well advised to insist on their opportunity to share the public offices on which the safety or danger of the people depended, the roles of general or cavalry commander, not randomly across the citizen body but by popular election of those best equipped to hold them (inevitably, the wealthier and more powerful) (Dunn 28)

So, what changed in the course of time shaping the modern understanding of the term democracy? What did the world community lose on their way to the long-wanted democracy and what should they take as lessons from the ancient times to make it truly effective? Much has to be done, according to the opinion of Dunn who undoubtedly admits how much has changed in the set of characteristics that used to be attributed to democracy and that are associated with it nowadays:

Today the term democracy has become& too highly cathected: saturated with emotion, irradiated by passion, tugged to and fro and ever more overwhelmed by accumulated confusion. To rescue it as an aid in understanding politics, we need to think our way past a mass of history and block our ears to many pressing opportunities (Dunn 39).

Democratic states that exist nowadays have proclaimed the power of the nation due to the severe and cruel fight for the rights of man initiated in different parts of the world in different periods of time (it is enough to recollect the French Revolution or the October Revolution in the Russian Empire)  these multiple facts show how badly people needed and wanted it. On getting it, they appointed those figures who they considered able to control the affairs in their country and who were subordinate to the will of the nation to expression of which it was lawfully entitled under the conditions of a democracy. But can anyone nowadays state absolutely confidently that the principles of equality are realized in his or her country to the fullest extent? There hardly be anyone like that.

Reasons for disillusionment can be found in the power of the few that is seen nowadays and that cannot be neglected  in contrast to the ancient times, people in modern democratic states can hardly be sure that they all will be equal before the law and that their opinion matters as much as the opinion of the ruling class. Masses still express their opinion at public referenda and during elections, during polls that are arranged to keep track of the public opinion and to try to shape the countrys policy according to it. But in fact the power has long ago gone to the hands of those few who have the power and the wealth to dictate their own conditions for the world order. This change happened as soon as our society entered the era of consumerism, the epoch of business that can be run in any sphere of human lives.

It is enough to recollect the whole arsenal of mass persuasion means like mass media  every day they shape the public opinion to make people think that they really want this or that while in fact they are only told to want that. Learning from the experience of Athens one should ask him/herself a question of whether he or she truly wants something or the life they lead is only a series of responses to marketing campaigns tested on them. The true wishes of the nation are lost in never-ending political races for power, promises and appeals designed to raise the wish to vote but not the wish to want something genuinely.

One more lesson that can be taken from the Athenian model of democracy is to encourage deep respect of law and wisdom in a state. Despite the simplicity of this lesson, it is hard to find a state where law is respected as the objective, strong intermediary between the nation and the state, as well as between the members of one nation. Nowadays law has become so sophisticated and unintelligible that people do not believe in its power to protect them anymore and do their best to cheat on it. Nonetheless, if the law were simpler to comprehend for an average citizen of the country, and there were multiple examples of its enactment disregarding the class and the power of a person, law would be respected much more, and it would be observed much more obediently by all people without exception. As for wisdom, the lesson pertains to the authoritative representatives of power in the modern period of time. They are too obsessed by the rhetoric they apply to influence the minds of people that they can hardly focus on the wisdom of their expression. Wisdom has been substituted by persuasion in lack of understanding of the fact that true wisdom does not require any persuasion; it will reach its goal for sure.

Nonetheless, no matter how great the ancient idea of democracy may sound, there is a fresher, more objective and, logically, more critical viewpoint of its essence:

The brilliant democracy of Athens was stained by slavery (and also by the exclusion of women); while in extending their dominion, the Romans never made it possible for those who could not easily get to the city of Rome to participate effectively in governing the republic (Dahl 5).

As one can see, slavery really existed next to democracy, and the state was called in such a way because slaves were not considered people equal to the public of Athens. As in the case of the slave past of the USA, even the poorest and the most miserable citizen of the country was still considered much higher in position than a slave. Another remark as for the democracy in its pure form is that it cannot last for long  according to observations of Dunn (45), any constraint applied to the nation will be regarded as enslavement, and the chaos that can follow such rejection can be taken under control only with the help of tyranny. This is why pure democracies do not exist; however, there is always an ideal form to which each state may long.

As it may be seen from the present account of democracy nowadays and several millenniums ago, there can hardly be a single definition of a genuine democratic state that will correspond to all requirements of the notion. Even under the conditions of Athens being considered the ideal state with the democratic form of governing, there are many remarks that throw a shadow on the democracy it really represented. Still, there is much to be done to ensure democracy in modern states, which can be done with the help of looking back and learning from the lessons, mistakes and victories of the past.

References

Dahl, Robert. After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society. Yale University Press, 1970.

Dunn, John. Democracy: A History. Open City Books, 2005.

Introduction

Democracy is one of the topics, which have received tremendous coverage and audience throughout human history. This essay critically analyzes liberal democracy by focusing on two major schools of thought, which have been the epicenter of most discussions, surrounding this topic. Throughout this analysis, positive democracy will be the most preferred; it allows the involvement of citizens, empowers them, promotes values and allows rational thinking.

Liberal democracy

Liberal democracy is commonly referred to as constitutional democracy, since it supports equal representation of people, including those from minority groups. Under this form of leadership, elected representatives do not exercise power within their own limits, but are limited by the constitution (Chan 2002, p. 10).

Under such limitation, they are required to uphold certain principles to protect different liberties and promote equality of all citizens before the countrys constitution. There are several liberties, which have to be further protected by these representatives, including but not limited to freedom of speech, private property, religion and the due process as stipulated by the constitution (Rosen & Wolff 1999).

Importantly, societies, which observe liberal democracy, ensure that such liberties are guaranteed through well-established institutions (Constant 2010, p. 122). Most of these systems also discourage majoritarian rule, which aims at promoting the rights of majority without paying attention to minorities in the society.

As observed in most liberal societies around the world, representatives of these democracies are usually elected through fair and free elections. Even though this is the dominant case, it is worth noting that there are federal republics and constitutional monarchies, which equally embrace liberal democracy (Berlin 1958, p. 124).

In the understanding of the concept of liberty, it is equally important to underscore the fact that it promotes freedom within a society. Nevertheless, this ought not to be mistaken for ones free will. The latter is independent of the ruling system while the former is pegged on societal governance.

It follows that there are numerous ways in which politicians view the existence of liberty, which have resulted into an array of ways in which the relationship between a government and individuals can be understood, without undermining any group or individuals in the society (Carter 2012). Under liberal democracy, it suffices to mention that there exist positive and negative liberties, recognized by different countries around the world.

Based on these two major classes of democracy, it has been found that most societies prefer positive liberty as compared to negative democracy (Heywood 2004, p. 253). The following segments of the essay focus on the understanding of the two types, existing differences, and supporting reasons why countries need to be encouraged to promote positive liberties in the society.

Positive and negative liberty

Among the people who did exhaustive coverage on the issue of positive and negative freedom is Isaiah Berlin, who believed that each interpretation of the two different types was fit to answer a set of unique questions (Berlin 1969, p. 121).

In general, Berlin posited that negative liberty focuses on what can be done by members of a given society, without being interfered by other people or the government. On the other hand, positive liberty is well understood, by identifying the source of control or interference, which determines what to do or become at any given moment in life (Crocker 1980, p. 5). In other words, one makes a final decision as a result of certain interference from the existing authority to avoid contravening the law.

From this description, it can be viewed that negative liberty is simply freedom from interference, while positive liberty advocates being in control of something, which has been done (Miller 1991, p. 1). Notably, the two sides can seem to be so close, especially in cases where there is no any form of interference, and when one is in full control of the situation, through gaining autonomy.

This however is not always the case since autonomy requires one to make and execute actions, which have to be endorsed by the ruling system. As a result, the society may suffer from an internal conflict since one may choose to act on something they want, with full understanding that the course is morally wrong (Christman 2005, p. 80).

It has also been argued in other cases that one can only be autonomous by making choices and acting in accordance with individual higher rational self. Based on this analogy, it can be argued that people can be forced to be free since they can be influenced to act rationally in life.

In other words, the system imposes what it considers to be rational (Crocker 1988, p. 121). Still on the same note, positive liberty can be increased and guaranteed when negative liberty among people is restricted through established mechanisms. Berlin notes that this is concerned with increasing the freedom of the people being ruled (Berlin 1958, p. 7).

Negative liberty

It is mainly concerned with individual or societal liberty from any form of interference, which could be from other people or constitutional regulation by the state (Patell 2001, p. 1). In the absence of this interference, one is always free regardless of whether the other party has the capacity to do what you have decided to do or not.

It is also important to double emphasize the fact that negative freedom does not promote autonomy, instead, it allows one to act in the manner in which he or she wants. It therefore follows that a person is considered to be free if he is not coerced by anybody or even the ruling government, while doing what they want (Gray 2006, p. 508).

Negative freedom further supports that liberty is pegged on the existence of doing something without being interfered. Nevertheless, this may also depend on other factors like the nature of available options, their significance and challenges involved among other determinants (Gray & Pelczynski 1984). Many believe that correct negative freedom can only be achieved by preventing harm to others through actions.

It follows that negative freedom may not consider the rights of minorities as everybody is allowed to do what is fit, without any form of interference. On this basis, those who do not have the ability to do certain things may never get a chance in their entire lifetime due to limited capability (Holtug 2002, p. 357). As a result, positive liberty is more preferred. The following segment of the essay analyzes this aspect of freedom from a political point of view.

Positive freedom

Under positive liberty, the role of the ruling government is crucial in designing and determining what is good for its citizens. In other words, a persons freedom to execute and act is based on the restrictions of the government (Miller 1984, p. 38). In most cases, the influence of the government is felt through the constitution.

In describing positive liberty, it is mainly based on three major components, which are effective freedom, autonomy, and political freedom and interference. All these aspects of liberty argue against the approach of negative liberty as proposed by some theorists and philosophers throughout history (Nelson 2005, p. 59).

According to positive freedom, the ability to do something is paramount for one to execute an action and not merely as a result of the absence of interference (Perry 1992, p. 155). For example, one may have the freedom to go swimming, yet there are no facilities to enable him or her act.

While this is one of the limitations of negative liberty, positive freedom increases peoples ability to do something they are limited to, through provision of relevant resources and establishment of facilities like schools, sports grounds and heath centers among others (Plaw 2005, p.138).

While negative freedom focuses on what an individual deems right to do, it is essential to attach value to any form of freedom (White 1970, p. 185). Under positive freedom, liberty does not play its meaningful role when there is no value attached to it. Besides having the freedom to act, availability of resources is equally important.

For instance, one may not be allowed to use public transport without having a ticket, which is bought with money. This means that negative freedom may not allow a person to enjoy some facilities and services regardless of their desire to do so (Cooter 1987, p. 142).

In addition, positive liberty promotes an autonomous society. Under this school of thought, an autonomous person usually has the free will to act on his or her own values (Dimova-Cookson 2003, p. 508). As a result, they may only consider following other peoples values if they accept them without being influenced by other forces. The state can therefore restrict ones freedom to allow you to realize what is universally acceptable as rational (Lacewing 2011).

Moreover, autonomy allows people to think for themselves, understand their options and make informed decisions, after considering the benefits and negative consequences of a given course of action. Of great significance is the fact that autonomy augments the need for one to uphold values, which are important in determining meaningful actions in life (Lincoln et al. 2004).

Unlike negative liberty, which may promote majoritaniasm, positive liberty allows citizens to be involved in the formulation of laws of governance. However, positive liberty can only promote majoritaniasm in cases where there is coercion and injustice. This may affect minority groups living in a positive-liberty.

Berlin (1958, p. 2) notes that to coerce a man is to deprive him of freedom. These laws are usually designed in a manner that covers the rights of everybody, including minorities, who may not have a voice under negative liberty due to their limitations (Rothbard & Hoppe 2003).

Conclusion

From the above critical analysis of liberal democracy, it suffices to mention that negative and positive liberties are important components of leadership. Of great significance is the fact that each type of leadership has pros and cons, which have to be weighed before adopting any of them.

While negative liberty has been praised for lack of interference, it may lead to majoritaniasm and denies people the ability to do certain things. I chose positive liberty because it allows the involvement of citizens, empowers them, promotes values and allows rational thinking.

References

Berlin, I 1958, Two Concepts of Liberty. Web.

Berlin, I 1969, Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford University Press, London.

Carter, I 2012, Positive and Negative Liberty. Web.

Chan, S 2002, Liberalism, Democracy, and Development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Christman, J 2005, Saving Positive Liberty, Political Theory, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 79-88.

Constant, B 2010, The Liberty of the Ancients and the Liberty of the Moderns. Web.

Cooter, R 1987, Liberty, Efficiency, and Law, Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 141-163.

Crocker L 1980, Positive Liberty: An Essay in Normative Political Philosophy, Springer, New York.

Crocker, L 1988, Positive Liberty, Nijhoff, London.

Dimova-Cookson, M 2003, A New Scheme of Positive and Negative Freedom: Reconstructing T. H. Green on Freedom, Political Theory, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 508-532.

Gray, J & Pelczynski, Z 1984, Conceptions of Liberty in Political Philosophy, Blackwell Publishers, London.

Gray, J 2006, On Positive and Negative Liberty, Political Studies, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 507-526.

Heywood, A 2004, Political Theory: An Introduction, Palgrave MacMillan, London.

Holtug, N 2002, The Harm Principle, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 357-389.

Lacewing, M 2011, Liberty. Web.

Lincoln, A, Cuomo, M, Holzer, H & Boritt, S 2004, Lincoln on Democracy, Fordham University Press, New York.

Miller, D 1984, On the Connection between Negative and Positive Liberty, Politics, vol. 4, pp. 37-9.

Miller, D 1991, The Liberty Reader, Oxford, London.

Nelson, E 2005, Liberty: One Concept Too Many, Political Theory, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 58-78.

Patell, C 2001, Negative Liberties: Morrison, Pynchon, and the Problem of Liberal Ideology, Duke University Press, North Carolina.

Perry, M 1992, An Intellectual History of Modern Europe, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Plaw, A 2005, Re-visiting Berlin: Why Two Liberties are Better than One, Journal of International Political Theory, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 138-157.

Rosen, M & Wolff, J 1999, Primary sources available in Political Thought, Oxford, London.

Rothbard, M & Hoppe, H 2003, The Ethics of Liberty, NYU Press, New York City.

White, D 1970, Negative Liberty, Ethics, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 185-204.

Introduction

The last two centuries have been characterized by the emergence of ideologies which have brought about potent political movements advocating for change and transformation of the government systems of the world. While some of these ideologies have been largely ignored and practiced by an inconsequential proportion of the population, there are those which have been widely embraced and used by states all over the world.

These varied political ideologies have differed in terms of their philosophies, policies and agendas. Arguably the most prevalent political ideology is democratic capitalism which is championed by the western world and is currently the most popular system in the world.

Revolutionary communism and democratic socialism are two other potent political ideologies. While communism remains to be a former shell of what it was in the past, democratic socialism still has a significant following though out the world. Both these political systems differ profoundly from the capitalist ideology which hugely favors the capital contributors in the society.

This paper will undertake a concise yet informative comparison between revolutionary communism and democratic socialism so as to arrive at a conclusion as to which of these systems is better off. The political questions on which these two movements agree as well as those which they disagree on will be articulated. A discussion on which of these systems offers a better government will also be presented.

Brief overview of Communism and Democratic Socialism

Communism by definition is a system or form of common life in which the right to private or family property is abolished by law, mutual consent, or vow (Woolsey 1). This definition parallels the ideals of socialism which are centered on giving power to the workers who not only form the majority but responsible for the creation of wealth.

Socialism therefore calls for them having an equal share to the profits that they help generate. Socialism and communism share some major characteristics with the major difference being that while socialism is only an economic system, communism is a political system.

Communists advocate for the socialist system which is characterized by centralized planning agencies and the single legal party. Notable Communist regimes are the collapsed Soviet Union and China. In these regimes, the single party is authorized to set goals and organize activities of the workers collectively as well as devise plans that balance the need to reward skilled workers against the need to prevent high income inequalities that characterized capitalist societies (Kornblum 479).

Socialism is regarded as the primitive stage of communism in which public ownership maintains a dominant position in the economy especially in key economic sectors. However, this system does not hold some of the radical views as expressed by the communism ideal.

As such, democratic socialism can be seen to be and evolved or precursor to the communism system which advocated for an absolutely socialist nation. Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few (DSA). As such, the government structures that are set up under the capitalistic ideology out to be transformed so that the ordinary citizen has a greater say in decision making.

Similarities

Arguably the most apparent similarity between social democracy and revolutionary communism is that both see capitalism as a grossly exploitative system that results in numerous social injustices (Schwartz and Schulman 4). Both of these political systems argue that capitalism inevitably gives rise to vast disparities of wealth as the working classs efforts are used to make the wealth industry owners even wealthier.

Both systems blame industrial capitalism for destroying important human values such as compassion, religious believes and altruism among others and replacing them with naked exploitation as everything is based on money (Wren). The two systems also see capitalism as hugely undermining the individuals sense of personal value since the working class who are responsible for creation of wealth are never paid or valued enough and instead, the wealth goes to the capital owners.

Both social democracies and revolutionary communism praise the efforts of the laborer who turns the raw materials into something of greater value and as such believe that he should play a bigger role in decision making. The very symbols of communism which are a hammer and a chisel reinforce the importance with which the working force is held in revolutionary communism.

Kornblum notes that Karl Marx, the acclaimed Father of Communism taught that the socialist state which communism sought to create would be controlled by the working class led by their own trade unions and political parties (479). Social democracies on the other hand advocate for an increase in the power that the worker has as well as an increase in the share that they receive from the profits since they are deemed to be the most important piece in the economy.

Social democrats and communists alike view capitalism as being socially unjust and somewhat undemocratic. While capitalism purports to be democratic in nature, Schweickart questions this proposition by highlighting the enormous role that money plays in contemporary elections and the fact that major media outlets which influx public opinion are owned by and controlled by the wealthy (8).

As such, capitalism results in the elite being in power as a result of their enormous wealth and vested interests in media. Schwartz and Schulman note that while capitalism proposes an economic and political relationship that is free and private to all; this is not feasible since such a contract is not made among economic equals and as such, only the well off benefit (1).

A significant similarity between communist parties and social democratic parties is their relationships with trade unions. The BBC suggests that communist trade unions played a significant role in government and were used as the communist partys transmission belts which increased the power of the communist regime.

Democratic socialists on the other hand back up trade unions and propose for the incorporation of democracy in industry which results in a situation whereby the workers are not only drones but play an active role in establishing their destiny. Democratic socialists continue to enjoy a close relationship with trade unions since they view building of strong trade unions and community organizations as the only means through which the imbalances that capitalism has created can be redressed (Schwartz and Schulman 4).

Differences

A significant difference between communism and democratic socialism is with regard to property ownership. In communism, the private ownership of property is abolished in favor of public property which is run by the state for the good of all the people.

As such, changes to communist regimes are characterized by the widespread repossession of land and property from the rich and a management of the same by the state. On the other hand, social democracy does not call for the abolishment of private property but rather believes that the public should have some measure of control on the use of property.

This is in line with the democratic socialism belief that private property may exist at the same time that large corporations are owned by the state and run for the benefit of all citizens (Kornblum 478). Social democracies advocate for the promotion of majority social ownership in which there exists a property-owning working class. Guo notes that social democracies propose a system whereby stock ownership by individual workers is the main form of public ownership in the society (124).

Another difference between democratic socialism and communisms is in their idea of how the change into their political ideals can be made. Revolutionary communism holds it that the capitalism would never let go of their hold on community and political power and as such, only a violent revolution can result in the changes that communism calls for.

The 1917 Bolshevik revolution that threw off the Czar in Russia and led to the establishment of a communism state were marred with violent uprisings. This revolt was led by the workers and the peasants just as the communism mandate proposes that such revolutions would occur. The socialist revolution that occurred in china also had a violent history with little sympathy being shown to the bourgeois democracy that had once ruled the nation.

Social democracy on the other hand believes that the changes they propose for the society can occur through an evolutionary process that follows the democratic means that are a part of our modern society. The prevalence for following of democracy by social democrats is evident with most European countries having parties which identify themselves as social democrats.

Social democracy and communism also show huge differences in the economic model that they follow. Communism follows the non-market, centrally-planned economy. Schweickart notes that modern day social democracies have distanced themselves from this economic model and rather follow a post capitalistic economy that retains market completion, but socializes the means of production and in some instances extends democracy to the workplace (9).

This difference in their economic outlook can be best articulated in the difference between the socialist principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his work to the communist principle of from each according to his ability to each according to his needs (Bornstein and Fusfeld 117).

Discussion

While both revolutionary communism and democratic socialism continue to play second fiddle to capitalism, both are influential ideologies. The demise of the Soviet Union was without a doubt a major blow to communism and Ziblatt notes that the collapse of communism presented a significant challenge to the ruling communist parties of East Central European as they lacked the central leadership, Moscow (123).

As such, most of these parties reinvented themselves as social democratic parties. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many parties which were once socialist began to distance themselves from the socialism as it was traditionally understood and reinvented themselves as social democratic parties

Guo notes that while the European social democrats have been criticized by most of the capitalism oriented parties, this has changed with time and in the recent years, these former critics are gradually endorsing the ideas of the social democrats (127).

Firm believers of democratic socialism such as Venezuelas President Hugo Chavez hold it that only this political system can solve the world problems and bring about social justice and prosperity for all. This is a sentiment that has sound theoretic backing since social democracy combines the best from the major political ideologies of the world namely; capitalism and communism.

While most people deride communism and social democracies as being undemocratic, the New York Times notes that capitalism as well comes in various forms and in the same manner that a communism or socialist state might fail to be democratic, capitalism is not necessarily democratic as was the case with Hitlers Germany or Mussolinis Italy.

As such, each ideology should be taken on merit and the making of generalizations should be avoided at all costs. The communism ideal has long lost popularity and communist parties remain unpopular in post-communist democracies. However, their significance in certain organizations such as trade unions remains strong and as such; their influence can still be felt.

Conclusion

Inequality has been universally acknowledged as a major roadblock in the way for economic and social prosperity. Political ideologies propose to solve this by coming up with systems that income inequality is diminished or ideally done away with therefore leading to a utopian society. This paper set out to perform a critical comparison of two political ideologies; Communism and Democratic Socialism, both of which propose to do away mitigate social ills therefore leading to a harmonious society.

From this paper, it has been seen that both this systems have a lot of similarities and that communism is in fact a more evolved form of democratic socialism.

From the arguments presented in this paper, it can be seen that at the present time, democratic socialism is not only more feasible but presents the best system of governance. This is because the absolute equality and communal ownership that communism advances may never be achieved in the world but the ideals that Democratic socialists advances are achievable in the present time.

Works Cited

DSA. Democratic Socialists of America. 2007. Web.

Guo, Baogang. Old Paradigms, New Paradigms, and Democratic Changes in China. Journal of Chinese political science, 2008.

Kornblum, William. Sociology in a Changing World. Cengage Learning, 2007.

New York Times. East Berlin Diary. Web.

Sackur, Stephen. President Chavezs socialist world vision. 2010. Web.

Schwartz, Joseph and Schulman, Jason. Towards Freedom: Democratic Socialist Theory and Practice. Web.

Schweickart, David. Democratic Socialism Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice Sage Reference Project. Sage, 2006.

Woolsey, Dwight. Communism and Socialism in Their History and Theory: A Sketch. BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009.

Wren, Christopher. Communists Meet in South Africa. 1991. Web.

Ziblatt, Daniel. The Adaptation of Ex-Communist Parties to Post-Communist East Central Europe: a Comparative Study of the East German and Hungarian Ex-Communist Parties. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 119137, 1998.

Introduction

Democracy is defined as the rule of the people, by the people for the people (Ellowitz 12). It is characterized by majority rule. In a democratic form of governance, the ordinary people are allowed to rule and govern themselves. This is achieved through the three pillars of a democratic government. These are popular sovereignty, political equity, and political liberty. Popular sovereignty is basically having the people be the ultimate source of authority. Political equity stands for equality in political decision making especially in voting whereby every individual has equal say. Political liberty is the freedom that is necessary to create a popular will.

Main body

Greenberg and page argue that for a democratic government to be established, information is of the essence. For a citizen to govern themselves as they should be in a democratic country, the right to a free and fair election must be observed. It is this right that enables citizens to have a say in the government because they have a chance to select and elect leaders who they feel can be trusted and leaders who will represent them well in the government (Davis 29). In respect to this, a democratic government is obligated to provide the electorate with relevant information that will enable them to make informed decisions in political matters.

Civic education is of the essence and this should be free from biases. Todays publicity is mainly through the media which has been compromised and politically influenced to relay politically biased information. With such influence, there will be no true justice when it comes to political matters and more specifically in voting. Media owners, shareholders, and directors are paid off to push political agendas for some individuals in America today and as it can clearly be seen, emphasis on public policies is not a priority (Greenberg 23). The media has become a profit-oriented entity where public interest has been neglected in favor of political gains.

Opinion polls which are supposed to reflect the perfect will of the people have been turned into a public blackmailing machine to influence voters minds in a strategic public lie. It is true that there is a challenge on the media to keep in good relations with the corporate world for the sake of existence and business, but that notwithstanding, they, the media, have to consider their professional ethics. I agree with Greenberg and page that the American people lack the much-needed information on the people they elect in office due to the lack of enough information on the people vying for electoral office (Greenberg 12). This is not democracy. Democracy is basically founded on informed decision-making by the electorate. This information must be truthful and honest in order to win public confidence.

Conclusion

Nonetheless, this has not been the case in America the greatest self-acclaimed democratic country. The rise of the African Americans to fight for their right to vote marked the beginning of democracy but as it is known things we are yet to realize this goal considering the numerous instances where public votes have been influenced by the media to bend on a particular favored side. This has to stop and let the people be the final judges of course out of a decision made on informed choices. Democracy is a good idea of governance although it is rarely achieved. Greed and love for power compromises the ability of America to realize this goal.

Works Cited

Davis, Calvin. Abraham Lincoln and Greensburg, Indiana. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2012. Print.

Ellowitz, Larry. The Struggle for Democracy. New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc. 2009. Print.

Greenberg, Edward and Page, Benjamin. Struggle for Democracy. 10^th ed. 2010. New York, NY: Longman. Print.

Introduction

Democracy is a type of governance where people participate in making laws and rules; it is the political regime where people will become the law of the country (Lane and Erson 2). This article will give a description of what is democracy, types of democracy, systems of democracy and its benefits in public administration.

Overview

Democracy can be viewed as a majority rule. When democracy is implemented, there is no favor given to any person or a group of people. All people are treated equally while assigning positions and only consensus determines if a person qualifies for a position or not (Lane and Erson 2).

Characteristics of democracy are based on separation of powers i.e. legislative power, executive power and judicative power, the constitution, laws, decrees, elections, political parties and referendums (Democracy 1). Democracy is beneficial in that it enhances economic growth, good health, and environmental conservation. It also promotes peace in a country. This makes it important in formulating policies and public administration.

Systems of Democracy

There are three major systems of democracy namely, direct democracy, presidential democracy and parliamentary democracy. Direct democracy gives equal rights to its members where the head of state is elected from the people in the government periodically.

All parties are included in the government and laws are made through a special procedure which finalizes with a referendum e.g. in Switzerland. Presidential democracy is where the president is elected by the citizens and is given a lot of power in the government and can oppose a proposed law e.g. USA and France.

Parliamentary democracy is whereby the head of state is either a king or a queen. The government is made by members of parliament who have the power to dismiss it. Their laws are made by the government which is composed of the leaders of different parties e.g. Germany, UK and Spain (Democracy 1).

Types of Democracy

There are five types of democracy. The liberal democracy came up from the West after people had suffered in the Western countries because of unfair policies which were being applied.

The citizens were seeking freedom when they decided to unite and decide what laws were going to guide them in their country. It came into action through reaching citizens at their places of work, schools and media. This type of democracy gives each citizen his/her rights other than a group of people.

This is in contrast to the liberal-republican type which recognizes group and gives them their rights e.g. in Canada, Switzerland and Belgium (Smooha 424). In this case communities can have their own individual rights. The multicultural democracy is where the laws recognize different community practices but they do not make them administrative.

This moderately assimilates the citizens. Consociational democracy is whereby people are more equal in distribution of resources and power. Lastly, ethnic democracy is where rights are given on group basis. The least of the groups may hold a protest to oppose a law (Smooha 426).

Conclusion

Democracy involves many citizens in deciding who rules and which laws will be used in a country. It is beneficial because it gives freedom and reduces violence amongst the people. Countries may decide to have direct democracy, presidential democracy or parliamentary democracy. They also choose from five types of democracy namely, liberal democracy, liberal-republican democracy, ethnic democracy, consociational democracy or multicultural democracy.

Works Cited

Democracy. Different systems of Democracy. Democracy, n.d. Web.

Lane, Jan-Erik and Erson, Svante. Democracy. New York, NY: Routledge, 2003. Print.

Smooha, Sammy. Types of democracy and modes of conflict management in ethnically divided societies. Haifa, 2002. Web.