Category: Democracy

Democracy is a system of governance which entails the representation of people, and it is based on consent where the mandate to rule is not permanent but subject to renewal over a period of time. Most African states are underdeveloped and democracy is far from being achieved, and this has presented the greatest challenge to its citizens and the world at large (Lindberg 78-84).

In 2007, the general elections in Kenya were claimed to have been rigged in favor of government. There was civil unrest which led to destruction of property and loss of lives, the peaceful country which had enjoyed relative peace since its independence in 1960s had joined the growing list offailed states in Africa.

The Chinese official newspaper reported that the western democracy was unsuitable for Africa (Goergy 4). The comment supported the widely held opinion that democracy and development is not possible in Africa.The African continent has experienced a lot of conflicts, wars and more failed states than any other continent.

The conflicts among the countries have provided a lucrative market for arms and weapons from the developed countries. This infiltration of arms and weapons into the hands of civilians undermines development and democracy in the continent.

Somalia has been without a government for over two decades now, and there is no hope of having one in the near future. Most civilians are armed because guns are easier to come by, and they have joined different factions in the country, each trying to take control of the country. The country now is the most unsafe place in the whole world. Under such a grim situation, development and democracy is simply not possible(Ake 95).

The situation has been made worse by the western democracies when they imposed the democracy as it is understood in the west. This attempt to impose the whole concept of democracy, as it were, in America in a single package has been the major cause for chaos in the continent witnessed to date(Shtedman 54).

The current political events in Africa point to a crisis of commitment to democratic leadership. Despite advancements in intellectualism, education and the influence of globalization, the continents leaders are disregarding the national constitution and subverting the peoples will as they continue in their unaccountable leadership and wild corruption.

In early 1990s there were celebrations that Africa would finally embrace democracy especially with fall of Communism and ending of the cold war, but this quickly faded away as ordinary people find themselves reduced to helpless spectators and marginalized as the political class and their families squander the public resources.

Zimbabwe was considered the jewel of Africa in 1980 when it gained its independence, now it has been held ransom by Mugabe, who has been in power as the president since independence. He has refused to give up power, even after being defeated in the elections, and he has sunk the country into economic ruins. The elections that were held in Zimbabwe are a clear testament that African leaders have no sense of respect and dignity to democratic ideals (Chika 22).

Uganda which has been seen as another hope of emerging African democracy has been plunged into a state of dictatorship. President Museveni of Uganda has forced himself for a third term in office despite the constitution allowing for only two consecutive terms.

He appointed his wife into the cabinet and appointed his son as head of the military to maintain a firm grip to power, while his close associates are campaigning for a life presidency. The security forces have been used to crush opposition voices and suppressing any dissenting opinion. This is the state of affairs in most countries across the continent, and under such circumstances development and democracy will never be experienced (Chika 24).

In Cameroon things has not been any better either, the president wants to extend his office term illegally. In Nigeria, the most populous country in the continent and which had taken some strides towards democracy has once again slid back, almost into anarchy.

The former president, Obasanjo who was celebrated as one of the best leaders in the continent is now facing charges of abuse of office and corruption during his tenure. These, among other numerous cases in the continent, demonstrate that democracy and development will not work in Africa (Chika 23).

The case of Rwanda and Burundi where mass murder and genocide took place that shook the whole world is still clear in our memories. These barbaric atrocities were committed and supervised by those in leadership. This shows how democracy will not work in Africa.

The civil war in Sudan which has taken more than a quarter of century, led to the splitting the country into two independent states early this year, and tension is still high between the two countries showing that not all is well and war can break out any time. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is endowed with mineral resources and has the largest deposits of diamonds, Gold and Uranium in Africa, yet it has remained among the poorest countries in the world, because of corruption, and poor leadership.

Africa has clearly shown that it is reluctant to take any bold steps towards democracy and instead its taking the calamitous steps once again into the dark ages where lack of accountability, misrule and despondency is the norm. Democracy and development is not possible in Africa (Stedman 120).

Works Cited

Ake, Claude. Democracy and Development in Africa. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1996. Print.

Chika, Charles. The African Executive: Is Democracy Working in Africa?. 2008. Web.

Georgy, Michael. Reuters: China View of Africa democracy hits sensitivities. 2008. Web.

Lindberg, Staffan. Democracy and Elections in Africa. New Delhi: JHU Press, 2006. Print.

Stedman, Stephen. The Political Economy of Democratic Development. London: L. Reinner Publishers, 1993. Print.

One of the current and most burning topics for discussion among American citizens is the choice of the President in 2020. The US presidential election is characterized by the presence of many solid democratic representatives with their ideas and values. To make sure people choose correctly, it is recommended to consider a sociological perceptive and analyze if any of the nominees are able to meet the majority of core American values developed by Williams in 1975.

In this paper, attention is paid to the Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders. He is one of the longest-serving congressmen in American History, who is known due to his passion for redistributing wealth and solving inequality issues in society (Graham; Haltiwanger). Some political leaders fail to understand the essence of individualism, humanitarianism, religion, or love, and Sanders, relying on his experience, can restore the worth of a sociological perspective and these values during the presidential elections.

In the mid-1960s, sociologist Robin Williams introduced 15 core values to determine human behaviors in American society. They include the importance of achievement and success to attain wealth and power, individualism to appreciate personal development, and material comfort with appropriate medical care, housing, nutrition, and other favorable economic conditions. People have to consider their best interests to elect their leaders, to choose the number of children for their families, or to share their public opinions (Neal and Youngelson-Neal 15).

The sociological perspective shows that American society is a constantly changing social product with specific backgrounds that influence human attitudes and behaviors. Some human needs are identified after their birth, and many needs are developed with time when the impact of the environment cannot be neglected. American society is a complex concept with many determinants, and the election of the President in the country is one of the most significant events because it shows the achieved progress and preferred values.

People have to investigate the positions of several candidates and make their choices independently. The position of Sanders is not difficult to understand as it includes several core values inherent to American life. He shared his clear vision about healthcare (to provide all with care in a cost-effective way), immigration (to restructure the current policy), and LGBTQ rights (to support peoples interests) (Haltiwanger). He also wants to change the current education system and make public colleges tuition-free, as well as improve foreign policy and reconsider the relationships with Iraq (Haltiwanger). Sanders already participated in the 2016 debates, and now he knows what people expect from the politicians.

He is one of the best representatives for US citizens to protect their core values from a variety of perspectives, including the sociological one. The world continues changing, and it is hard to choose one position and stick to it for a long period of time. However, when a person uses the values that were created decades ago, it proves his dignity and ability to weigh the lessons of the past and the present.

As well as any presidential nominee, Bernie Sanders has enough strong and some weak positions in his campaign. No one is perfect in this world, and Sanders does not want to prove his uniqueness but focus on the issues that are important for people. He thinks about American society as a whole, not as groups of individuals. To be successful and invincible, the United States has to be united. Internal inequality concerns, uncontrolled wealth, and social inabilities should be solved to provide people with a chance to live happy and equal life and enhance development at different levels. Such outcomes can be achieved within the frames of the position introduced by Senator Sanders.

References

Graham, David A. The 2020 U.S. Presidential Race: A Cheat Sheet. The Atlantic. 2020. Web.

Haltiwanger, John. Bernie Sanders is Running for President in 2020.Heres Everything We Know About the Candidate and How He Stacks up Against the Competition. Business Insider. 2020. Web.

Neal, Arthur, and Helen Youngelson-Neal. Core Values in American Life: Living with Contradictions. Routledge, 2017.

Introduction

The educational system of a society is fundamental to the development and ultimate advancement of the community. Educators and governments all over the world have acknowledged that the educational structure and practices adopted can have a significant effect on the education of the population.

This can lead to significant impact on economic and social outcomes for their citizens. Therefore, all governments are constantly seeking to come up with the most effective system. An effective educational system which yields high results is therefore seen as being essential for a nations well being.

In a bid to provide effective education, most countries have developed unique educational systems which are as a result of the various cultural backgrounds or even political orientations of the particular nations.

The United Kingdom is one of the nations which have set out to come up with an effective education system for its population.

The year 1989 saw the introduction of a National Curriculum of subjects which were to be followed by all maintained schools in England and Wales. For the first time, compulsory subjects under what became known as the core were dictated by the central government.

The government also had a greater say in the educational affairs and British schools became subject to multiple state regulations and were obliged to follow the state regulated curriculum. The National Curriculum requirements cover a broad range of subjects and following of the curriculum is mandatory.

This brings about the question as to whether the National Curriculum for England and Wales is aligned to the democratic ideals that England subscribes to. This paper shall argue that the National Curriculum for England and Wales is contrary to the ideals of a democratic learning society.

Introduction of the National Curriculum

There are numerous definitions of curriculum and each definition depends on particular context that one is looking at. In this context, curriculum is best defined as A program of activities designed so that pupils will attain, as far as possible certain educational ends and objectives (Taylor & Johnson 1974; Hirst 1968).

Before 1988, decisions about curriculum in the UK were as a result of compromises between central and local government with the central government coming up with broad policy initiatives while the implementation of the said policies was left to the Local Education Authority (LEA).

The LEA in turn left policy implementations to the various schools leading to a great variation between teachers in different schools. As such, prior to the year 1988, the role of curriculum creation was left to schools and local authority advisors.

The central government undertook a policy of non-intervention in the school curriculum which was regarded as a secret garden that was beyond the realms of politicians (Kelly 2009, p.189).

The National Curriculum of England and Wales was established following the 1988 Educational Reform which introduced a curriculum consisting of basic subjects that were mandatory to all state schools.

While the 1988 Educational Reform Act consisted of various other changes, the National Curriculum was arguably the most major change implemented. Conway (2010, p.5) asserts that this curriculum was meant to ensure that schools taught science and technology, as well as literacy and numeracy.

The Education Reform Act also sought to bring about closer monitoring of students performance in school and to ensure that teachers were teaching in accordance to the law. The curriculum also specified the associated national assessments that would be undertaken by pupils at various key stages.

The degree of central control that came about as a result of the 1988 Educational Reform was alien to British tradition. Through the National Curriculum, the secret garden era of education which had until then characterized Englands education system was brought to an end.

The major changes implemented by the National Curriculum were to a large extent the direct result of the Auld enquiry into the William Tyndale School.

The reports on this school which had broken down into chaos due to the administration being entirely unconstrained by any form of centrally prescribed curriculum resulted in the 1988 Education Reform Act.

In the William Tyndale School in London, a teacher was given free rein in his own lass and the teacher in question proceeded to give his pupils free rein as well.

The Auld Report was under the backdrop of unfavorable coverage of the radical teaching practices adopted at Tyndale Primary school which had led to a breakdown of the school.

Bartlett and Burton (2007, p.205) state that this situations let do an increased public concern over education standards and a national curriculum was seen as the only means through which appropriate schooling could be for students could be ensured.

The National Curriculum for England and Democratic Ideals

Democracy dictates flexibility and inclusion in decision making for all members of the society. Wolf and Macedo (2004) rightfully assert that democratic participation is not limited to participating in the electoral process but also includes decision-making and some levels of involvement in a number of social contexts.

The National Curriculum of England and Wales is based on the ideology of curriculum as prescription (CAP) as is evidence from the rigidity of the curriculum. CAP supports the notion that expertise and control reside within central government, educational bureaucracies, or the university community (Goodson 1989, p.1).

The agencies of CAP hold all the power and control and the schools merely serve to deliver the services as prescribed. Schools are allowed a degree of autonomy but only if they accept the rules as prescribed by the in control forces.

This scenario which is characteristic of the National Curriculum is contrary to the ideals of democracy where all actors are supposed to have a say as to how institutions are run. The fact that autonomy is tied to accepting the rules prescribed by the governing bodies is also more characteristic of a dictatorship than a democracy.

The National Curriculum led to the imposition of new obligations to the teachers who had previously relied on independent strategies to fulfill their roles.

From the very onset, teachers were in a state of disorientation due to the requirements and demands that were place upon them by the National Curriculum (Hopkin & Sharp 2008).

Prior to the introduction of a National Curriculum, teachers undertook various implementation strategies when teaching subjects such as science and history.

These strategies were based on the perceived needs and interests of the students and the teacher implemented the strategies that were most effective for the given situation. The National Curriculum imposed on teachers strategies that were deemed by the government as most effective.

This happened without consultation of the teachers who are in the best position to determine what the best strategies for teaching are.

Education can be used as a tool for instilling ideals in the minds of children since they are highly impressionable. This is well in line with Vygotskys social development theory which proposes that the social interaction of the child plays a very important role in the cognitive development.

Vygotsky asserts that children are influenced greatly by the adults [educators] with whom they interact with in the school setting. The National Curriculum of England and Wales is responsible for the perpetuation of capitalistic ideals as well as hierarchies of roles and authority.

Hulya (2006, p.44) asserts that governorship from industry, sponsorship, work experience outside education for students and teachers and an enterprise culture, including local competition between schools and colleges, are all work related dimensions of educational life.

The traditional elitist curriculum was therefore displaced by the National Curriculum which attempts to form an explicit connection between school subjects and work. The National curriculum is structured such that the core subjects are those which the government deems to be of interest.

Scholarship is therefore deviated into fields which serve the purpose of central control. Fields of study which do not serve this purpose are displaced or given little relevance. This restricted role of schools to mirror the organizational patterns of the world is in line with the Marxist perspective on education.

The dominant teaching model used in the UK is the Aims and Objective model. While this model has been a pervasive feature of UK curriculum and lesson planning since the middle of the last century, this approach has gained greater prominence following the 1988 curriculum and pedagogical reforms (John 2006, p.484).

Owing to the emphasis on competence in skills for teachers, teachers are required to demonstrate that they can set challenging teaching and leaning objectives and use them to plan lessons showing how they will assess pupils learning (John 2006, p.484).

While the model has its inherent merits, it is forced upon teachers and students. There exists a belief that students need to follow the model since the standards documented by the National Curriculum require as much from them.

This overlooks the fact that classroom teaching is dynamic and more complex than the policies indicate. The model is therefore incompatible with emancipatory education and actually places children in danger of being indoctrinated with whatever content the makers of the curriculum deem necessary.

Bruner (1996) declares that opportunities for self-conscious reflective-ness are in danger of disappearing all together since this model emphasizes on items of knowledge being bundled up into well-written objectives.

Having teachers present different interpretations of controversial topics is crucial in the promotion of pluralism and democratic values (Arthur and Philips 2002, p.72). By having a rigid model, teachers are forced to give a uniform interpretation therefore encouraging conformity.

Democracy is a choice and therefore, key democratic ideas and material should be taught to children without necessarily imposing them on the children (Sears & Hughes 2005, p.18).

The overly prescriptive manner in which the National Curriculum was implemented and the intensive external examinations to which students are subjected has resulted in a situation whereby ensuring satisfactory results is the key priority of schools.

William (2003) asserts that this has created an incentive to narrow the curriculum by teaching only what appears in the test. Teachers are able to predict the aspects of a subject that come up in the tests and the ones which do not.

As a result of this, emphasis is laid on the examinable aspects of a subject at the cost of a holistic approach to teaching the subject (William 2003, p.3). Teachers are seldom interested in encouraging pupils to make meaning of their education. Instead, students are encouraged to cram in preparation of the numerous tests.

This is contrary to Jean Piagets Constructivism theory which argues that individuals generate meaning from their unique experiences (Deanna 2007).

Students should therefore be encouraged to make meaning of the things they are taught as opposed to being spoon feed with already pre-conceived ideas by the teacher all the time.

Children should therefore be shown the attainable goals and let to create their own unique meanings so as to motivate them. Valid reasons must also be provided as to why particular actions are undertaken.

A schools curriculum should be designed in such a manner that it promotes the intellectual development of the pupils. This development should be wide encompassing various differing aspects of life.

While the National Curriculum has as its core goals the promotion of the intellectual development of the pupils, it does this in a very rigid manner and does not stimulate growth through discussions.

While the core academic subjects as prescribed by the National Curriculum are seen as essential catalysts for the intellectual development of every child, the intensive testing regimes that are as a result of the National Curriculum deprive schools of the freedom to encourage these developments.

Primary school work was to be thought of in terms of activity and experience, rather than of knowledge to be acquired and facts to be stored (Marsden 1997, p.232). Teachers have no incentive for indulging their students in stimulating discussions that are necessary for an all-rounded intellectual development.

Democracy is characterized by equal treatment for all the citizens. In a school setting, this would imply that all the students are given equal amounts of attention by their teachers. The National Curriculum of England and Wales predisposes teaches to give more attention to some of the pupils at the expense of others.

The position of a school in the performance table which also dictates the amount of government funding is directly determined by the average marks attained by students in tests.

In a bid to raise the schools aggregate, some of the schools in Britain have adopted Setting and streaming so as to maximize the chances by students passing tests. Streaming constitutes tracking which involves the separation of students according to some measure of cognitive ability that they exhibit (Andersen & Taylor, 2005; Lucas 1999; Oakes 1985).

The underlying ideology behind tracking is that students have varying cognitive abilities and by grouping them, educators can effectively gear their programs to best meet the ability level of the students in question.

As opposed to mixed-ability teaching which places the different ability students in the same environment, a tracking system of education places homogeneous groups together so as to facilitate the provision of a more specialized teaching for each group according to its specific needs.

The tracking system is evidently structured around Banduras self-efficacy theory. In this theory, Bandura proposes that a persons attitude and abilities play a crucial way to the way they perceive situations and consequently respond to them.

The differing abilities in students will consequently lead to different perceptions and hence varying cognitive abilities. Stiggins (2008) suggests that this grouping has a negative effect on the low achieving students.

Whereas high achieving students are propelled even further by this assessment which divides students into winners and losers, low achievers feel alienated and succumb to hopelessness up to the point where they stop trying to make a difference in their academic lives (Nichols & Berliner, 2008).

An infallible truth is that knowledge must rest on a foundation. This foundation plays a huge part in how the knowledge is perceived in the mind of the pupil to whom the knowledge is being imparted.

Progressive educational policies are supposed to empower children to recognize and resist commercial and political forces that are around them in the real world. The National Curriculum fails to do this since it contains in it weak substantive content.

Conway (2010) asserts that the current school curriculum has as its unexamined foundation industrial and political ideals. The National Curriculum is a subject-based enterprise that is portrayed by progressive education lobbyist as a curriculum for the doomed.

This curriculum has been decried as a reversion to nineteenth-century didacticism and utilitarianism, to early twentieth-century academic parochialism and protectionism (Marsden 1997, p.235).

This is because the National Curriculum exalts political and commercial forces as opposed to presenting an unbiased outlook to the pupils. Such a foundation predisposes the children to being influenced even more by political and commercial forces.

The Marxist perspective on education suggests that the school system instead of performing the role of reducing social inequalities actually legitimates them.

This promotion is by providing an open, objective, and ostensible meritocratic mechanism for assigning individuals to unequal economic positions (Hogan 1979, p.396). In a society that is striving for equality, the National Curriculum is bent on ranking pupils in a hierarchical manner.

The National Curriculum fosters the belief that success depends on acquiring good grades in the assessment tests that pupils are subjected to.

Key to the construction of any Educational Curriculum is coming up with a definition of the educational purposes that schools should set out to attain. This is in line with Vrooms Expectancy Theory which proposes that for motivation to occur there must be some attainable goals that the person can reach.

This creates a relationship between the input and the expected outcomes. Marsden (1997) asserts that as a result of the National Curriculum, teachers have deviated from their previous objective of teaching children to teaching subjects.

Ideally, the curriculum is supposed to be structured in such a manner that it encourages students to take up a critical stance towards knowledge. Students are not supposed to be passive recipients of preconceived concepts. They are supposed to be critical of the information that is availed to them by their teachers.

The National Curriculum provides little incentive for teachers to stimulate critical thinking by their students. This is because the National Curriculum is characterized by a serious of high-stake tests that are used as the ultimate assessment tools for the pupils.

These assessments are used as the primary determinant of the competence of the pupil in the various subjects. Teachers have come to discover that in this high-stakes setting, rote-learning provides a short-cut for pupils to improve scores.

As such, teaching well (which includes letting pupils follow subjects of interest) is incompatible with improving test scores.

The National Curriculum has led to the acceptance of established modes of power relations with the people who are most closely connected with the running of curriculum and schools, the teachers, being omitted from important debates and policy making on schooling.

Evidence of this is by the fact that role of the teacher in the National Curriculum has been greatly diminished despite teachers being in a position to provide for an assessment that is more complete. Harlen (2007) asserts that

Teachers judgments can, when moderated, provide more accurate information than external tests because they can cover a much wider range of outcomes and so provide a more complete picture of students achievements. (p.138)

Teachers are the parties who are with the students for the longest time with interactions between the two parties taking place both inside and outside of the classroom environment.

Instead of empowering schools, the National Curriculum has turned school head teachers into bureaucrats which are detrimental to the well being of the school.

Before 1988, the prime role of head teachers was as curriculum managers in their respective institutes. The head teachers had no say over the budget of their schools and hence concentrated their efforts on coming up with an effective curriculum for their schools.

The National Curriculum brought about a situation whereby head teachers have less control over the curriculum and hence they could not play the role of curriculum manager.

The New curriculum gave head teachers greater financial control over their own budgets. Head teachers have therefore become more involve in the bureaucracies of school operation.

Lawton (1973) goes on to assert that a good deal of what is taught in schools should be decided by reference to the common cultural heritage. This is because the society greatly influences the growth and development of the child.

The postmodern perspective on education places emphasis on education being specific to the cultural contexts and needs of a people. By definition, culture is a system of values and norms that are shared among a group of people and that, taken together, constitute a design for living (Vance & Paik 2006, p.39).

This definition underpins the notion that culture has a huge impact on the lives of the individual. According to Banduras social learning theory, people often acquire their social skills through observation, imitation and modeling.

He states that in as much as we acquire intellect through class work, the social skills that we have are learnt from other people. Bearing in mind that schools in the UK exist under differing cultural backgrounds, a centralized curriculum does not serve the best interest of the people.

This is because schools are created to serve the interests of the society. The National Curriculum through its tests systematically under-represents some aspects of the assessed subjects. The possibility of increasing a pupils scores is therefore tied to increasing competence on only part of the domain.

The National Curriculum assessment mechanisms inevitably lead to a narrow sampling of the knowledge and skills of the student as compared to teacher assessment.

Johnson (2011) asserts that there is therefore lack of the ability to provide a truly holistic view of the development and achievements of the student by use of the National Curriculum.

Acquisition of funds is a very important matter in all education institutes. Before the enactment of the Educational Reform Acts of 1988, the LEA was responsible for controlling and funding of schools. Schools were given leeway and allowed to run in a fairly autonomous manner.

The National Curriculum led to the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) being greatly empowered to run a system of schools inspection. These inspections are carried out every 4 years to monitor the quality of education and identify areas in which the school is under-performing.

Funding of schools is tied to schools keeping in line with the requirements of the department for Education as specified by the OFSTED. Hulya (2006, p.43) declares that centralized curriculum control through the National Curriculum is the price to be paid for the local management of schools.

Child-centered pedagogy is one of the progressive education approaches that the National Curriculum effectively nullified.

Froebel was one of the pioneers of progressive education and his belief in a Divine unity inclusive of nature, the child, the home society and the moral order significantly impacted the UK elementary education from the 1950s. (Marsden 1997, p.224).

Child-centered education aims at giving children the freedom to develop naturally in a democratic environment. It stresses on the notion that the child must be allowed to develop in its own unique manner without the guidance of teachers.

The Plowden Report of 1967 commended the child-centered approach to classroom teaching and impacted upon state education by promoting progressive education. The Plowden report revealed that play is the central activity in all nursery schools and that the accusations that play was a waste of school time was misconceived.

The report pointed out that play  in the sense of messing about either with material objects or with other children, and of creating fantasies  is vital to childrens learning and therefore vital in school (Central Advisory Council for Education 1967 193).

The introduction of a National Curriculum for England and Wales led to the government having more power over the education services. This in turn limited the possibility of progressive education blooming in state schools.

Harlen (2007) reveals that Child-centered education was officially discouraged by the 1992 DES report which dismissed discovery learning and recommended more subject-based lessons and whole-class teaching.

Considering the fact that child-centered pedagogy allows that child to develop in a unique manner in a democratic environment, dismissing of this pedagogy by the government meant that children could only be taught in the manner that was prescribed by the National Curriculum.

The National Curriculum did away with child-centered education and in its stead promoted subjective learning. Children were to be taught to respect school rules and develop a habit of self restraint.

Kelly (2009) declares that these teachings on what constitutes good behavior are in actually sense teachings on the respect for the socio-technical division of labour. Children are therefore indoctrinated into respecting the rules of the order that are established by class domination.

The National curriculum promotes a Pedagogy that is not child-centred and personal growth and development is promoted through inhibiting it by repression.

Arthur and Philips (2002, p.72) express deep concern that education and in particular school history may be used as propaganda whereby the government or one political actor will try to subvert it for the purpose of indoctrination or social engineering.

Parents have always wanted to play a bigger role in the education of their children by being involved in some aspects of policy making. Before the national Curriculum was implemented, Hulya (2006, p.43) reveals that parents had little control over the choice of school or curriculum that their children were subjected to.

Following the National Curriculum, parents were free to choose schools and have a bigger say over the education of their children. The Education act of 1988 specifically highlighted the parents right to be more closely involved in decisions that were related to their childrens education.

However, Hulya (2006) points out that the alleged giving of parents a voice as consumers of education is contradictory by the imposition of a centrally determined National Curriculum.

This centralization effectively drowns out the parental voice resulting in a situation where parents have little if not even less control over the curriculum just like in the pre National Curriculum years.

The increased politicization of the educational debate in the late 1970s is what led to the Educational Reform Act of 1988. These reforms further increased the role of politics in the education system of the UK.

The implementation process of the national curriculum was and continues to be undertaken by a relatively few number of people. In the build-up of the National Curriculum, The proposal of educational reforms was left to a small number of civil servants and researchers.

The National Curriculum was enforced in law by placing responsibilities on three principle actors: head teachers, the OFSTED and governing bodies. The interpretation of regulations depends on OFSTED inspectors and this power may be abused by the inspectors.

The inspectorates from the OFSTED can be very powerful controllers therefore infringing on the independence of schools. This is contrary to the democratic ideals where power is not concentrated among a few individuals but rather distributed among a greater number of people.

In this scenario, education can be seen to be an instrument of elite domination and students are socialized into values that are dictated by the ruling elite.

Discussion

The 21st century has been characterized by an emphasis on democracy and an upholding of the principle of equality which holds that selection is on a basis of merit. Equality of opportunity has been pursued with the view of ensuring equal opportunity to all the members of the society.

The school system has been one of the principle means through which democratic values have been perpetuated. Until the 1988 Education Reforms Act, the autonomy of schools was guaranteed in the UK.

This is because it has always been theorized that government intervention in the school curriculum is a major tool of totalitarianism.

While the UK is not a totalitarian state, this paper has demonstrated how government intervention in the school curriculum sits uneasily with ideals of a democratic learning society and predisposes the UK to becoming a totalitarian state.

This is because the provisions concerning the curriculum and testing by in England and Wales are too prescriptive amounting to a form of authoritarianism.

The curriculum has turned Englands state schools into non-creative institutes where the primary role of the teacher is to struggle to preserve order while preparing pupils for the many tests that they face throughout their schooling.

The role of head teachers has changed from that of curriculum managers to bureaucrats with little say over the curriculum. The National Curriculum has resulted in complicity by scholars even as whole fields of study are displaced in favour of subjects that are of interest to the policy makers.

Progressive education whose benefits have been documented by many reports including the famous Plowden report have been dismissed for subject-based lessons which emphasize on material that the National Curriculum stipulates.

This doing away of a pedagogy that was proven to be in the best interest for the children by the government in a unilateral manner is more characteristic of an authoritarian rule than a democracy.

This paper has noted that the National Curriculum was implemented as a result of the Auld Report Findings which indicated that the ILEA had no policy for standards of attainment and there was no accountability of teachers.

The National Curriculum was therefore envisioned as a way to establish standards of quality education for England. While it is true that the free-rein approach implemented in the William Tyndale School resulted in chaos, this was not a universal phenomena but rather an isolated incident.

The radical reforms that led to the implementation of the National Curriculum were therefore not warranted since the William Tyndale School fiasco was not a representation of what was going on in the rest of the UK schools.

While it would not be a good idea to abandon the National Curriculum of England altogether, major changes need to be imposed to make it compatible with the ideals of democracy.

As it currently stands, the National Curriculum is too politicized and more compatible with a monolithic system which serves the interests of the state monopoly.

While central control gives the government a chance to act as a watchdog on behalf of the taxpayers, central control also bring about the possibility of authoritarianism.

Conclusion

This paper set out to demonstrate that the National Curriculum for England and Wales sits uneasily with ideals of a democratic learning society by performing a critical analysis of the National Curriculum.

To this end, the paper has highlighted ways in which the National Curriculum threatens or even goes against the principles of democracy.

By restricting students to a rigid curriculum that is prescribed by the government, the National curriculum may be a tool for promoting propaganda. Teachers have also been forced to adopt strategies that they do not necessary agree with and teach children with the sole aim of passing tests.

From this paper, it is evident that the National Curriculum is a tool for the mitigation of democratic ideals in the UK.

The fact that the National Curriculum can be used as a tool for propaganda, and hence authoritarianism, should be cause for concern for all citizens since the school system through the curriculum followed should be a vehicle for promoting democratic values.

For a nation to be a true democracy, it has to be positively disposed to act in manners that are consistent with democratic values. This paper has demonstrated that the National Curriculum and England and Wales effectively undermine most of the democratic values that the UK subscribes to.

References

Andersen, LM & Taylor, FH 2005, Sociology: understanding a diverse society. (4th ed.), Cengage Learning.

Arthur, J & Philips, R 2002, Issues in History Teaching, NY: Routledge.

Central Advisory Council for Education 1967, Children and their Primary Schools (The Plowden Report), London HMSO.

Conway, D 2010, Liberal Education and the National Curriculum, Trowbridge, Wiltshire: The Cromwell Press Group.

Deanna, K 2007, How To produce a high achieving child, Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 757-763.

Dylan, W 2003, National curriculum assessment: How to make it better, Research Papers in Education

Goodson, I 1989, Studying Curriculum: Toward a Social Constructionist Perspective, Occasional Paper no. 44

Harlen, W 2007, Assessment of Learning, London: Sage.

Hogan D 1979, Capitalism, liberalism, and Schooling, Theory and Society Volume 8, Number 3, 387-413,

Hopkin, R & Sharp, GJ 2008, Science within the primary curriculum: a regional perspective on preparation to teach, Educational futures, Vol. 1(2) December 2008.

Hulya, G 2006, Influences and Controls: The National Curriculum in England and Turkey, Journal of Turkish Science Education, Volume 3, Issue 2, December 2006.

John, PD 2006, Lesson planning and the student teacher: re-thinking the dominant model, J. Curriculum Studies, Vol. 38, NO. 4, 483498.

Johnson, S 2011, A focus on teacher assessment reliability in GCSE and GCE, Assessment Europe. Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation.

Kelly, AV 2009, The Curriculum: theory and practice, 6th edition, London: Sage.

Marsden, WE 1997, Contradictions in Progressive Primary School Ideologies and Curricula in England: Some Historical Perspective, Historical Studies in Education no.2: 224-236.

Sears, A & Hughes, AS 2005, Learning From Each Other: Toward a Democratic Approach to International Collaboration in Civic Education, International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2005.

Stiggins, R 2008, Assessment through the Students Eyes, Educational Leadership, vol. 40: pp. 214-217.

Taylor, PH & Johnson M 1974, Curriculum Development, NFER.

Wolf, PJ & Macedo, S 2004, Educating citizens: international perspectives on civic values and school choice, Brookings Institute Press.

Democracy

Democracy can be defined as a form of government where all the citizens in the country have equal rights to make a decision in electing their leaders. The citizens of such a region or country have equal participation in electing their leaders. In addition, any member of the country may vie for any seat if he or she wishes to be a leader. The citizens of such a country may participate directly or indirectly in electing their leaders who act as their representatives in the national building. The leaders help in creating the laws, as well as governing the region and initiating development projects. The law that governs a country also considers the social, cultural, and economic factors of the country.

Democracy can also be defined as the government initiated and driven by the people, and it originated from a Greek word the demokratia. Democracy is different from other forms of government in that power is held by democratically elected leaders. These leaders exercise their power as stipulated by the countrys laws. The law is supreme, and no one is above the law. The law reigns supreme, and it is considered to be the final judge if one of the citizens contravenes the rule of law. A democratic government is practiced in most parts of the world. In this case, people are given the right to select their leaders depending on the qualities of the leaders. The leader selected by the majority vote is declared the winner and has the mandate to rule for a given period. A democratic government is not always fair as some people when exercising their democratic rights may elect a leader who fails to gunner the majority vote and thus their vote does not count (Lansford, 56).

Religion

Religion can be defined as a collection of cultural systems and belief systems that relate the peoples spirituality. Religion also incorporates the moral values of people who follow these guidelines or doctrines. Religion also includes the cultural belief, values, norms, and social practice of people. Culture is the cultivation of the soul or mind of a person to follow a given set of guidelines. Cultural belief is the cultivation of a persons mind to follow a given set of rules as established by a certain group of people. It is the philosophy of a person to have a set of similar and accepted norms that are followed by his or her peers. Cultural values are the accepted ideas of a certain group of people follow. The values are seen as the just, right and fair to all who follow the guidelines in a given society. Cultural values can also be defined as the commonly followed standards of acceptable behavior in a given society or community. A cultural norm is accepted behavior among people of a certain group.

The norms are seen as behaviors that dictate the law of the society. Sociologists usually view norms as the laws that govern a given group of people where individuals are required to follow the set norms. It is a societal expectation for individuals to follow and adhere to the set cultural norms as they outline each days responsibility. Social practice is the art and design that involves activities that are unique to a given community setting and are geared towards the interests of the community. Social practice involves broad social networks and cultural practices where expert legal advice is required to define any social disagreement. Social practice involves evaluating the difference in social and shared understanding through the skills of a given individual among the community. Social practice tries to bring the social mind of individuals in the community to one understanding for better policy formulation in the society (Odell-Scott, 61).

Religion is sometimes used to mean the faith of people where people have a belief in a superior being who they pray to and worship. Religion gives people the power to exercise their freedom of worship. In some communities, all the people are required to adhere to a certain set doctrine that constitute the full membership without fail. Across the world, there are more than 4200 established religions that govern the behavior of people and their morals. The different religions have holy places where they undertake their religious services and are led by a clergy or a leader appointed to guide people in worshipping. Religion has been in existence for quite some time. In fact, it has been argued that religion is as old as the human race. In this case, the followers of a given religion exercised their freedom to worship a Supreme Being. Religion is universal as people around the world subscribe to various religions. However, there has been an attempt for each religion to expand beyond countries and borders in an effort to seek acceptance of all human races. There exists different religions in the world today including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and the Chinese folk religion among others (Kunin, 23).

Democracy and Religion

For quite some time, religion has been used to influence the governance of different countries. This is especially in the African continent and some part of the Middle East. In such countries, the democracies have been attributed to the extent of following a religious doctrine. When the European countries established colonies in Africa, they first came as missionary. In this case, they spread the gospel to the primitive Africans who had no formal government system. They came as Christian missionaries before subjecting the local people to the rule of law in their home countries. It was a move to harness the resource of these African countries. This led to the introduction of Christianity that was different from the traditional African religion, and people had to follow the changed religious beliefs. The rights of Africans were infringed, and most of them suffered at the hand of these Europeans (Vries, 47).

Some religions in the world are related as they originated from the same source. For instance, most religions trace their origin from Abraham and are thus referred to as Abrahamic religions. Abrahamic religions include Judaism, Christianity, the Bahai Faith, Samaritanism, and Islam. Islam and Christianity are regarded as some of the worlds major religions. The two religions have impacted on the democracy or rule of law in countries. Christianity can attribute its origin from Abraham who is viewed as the servant of God. They follow a holy scripture called the Bible, which has two Testaments: the Old Testament and the New Testament. Christianity is based on the teaching and the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is regarded as the son of God. The Christians believe in the holy trinity of the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. However, they have been divided to form Catholic Church, the Eastern Christianity, and the Protestant. The religion is widely spread in the world. Therefore, it has a great effect on the governance of many countries. In some cases, the religious doctrines do not allow their followers to exercise their democratic right. In this case, religion bars individuals from participating in democracy or endorses candidates to be elected by followers (Tilly, 58).

Religious Democracy

Religious democracy can be defined as a form of leadership or government where the morals and values of the religion play a role in the way the government is run. Religion has a role in influencing the rule of law in a country. The religion can influence the democracy of a country if most of the citizens in the country are members of the same religion. In this regard, religious doctrines propose the required values to be followed. In some instances, the dominant religion dominates the democratic process whereby the minority groups are not elected. This is seen as an abuse of democracy in that the religion with fewer members cannot form the government as the minorities are not consulted in constituting the government. The leaders of the religion claim that democracy is not abused when the faith is not embraced.

On the part of the Islamic religion, most of its teaching is contained in the holy book known as the Quran. The teaching guides the lives of its followers in their daily activities, and they determine how leaders will be elected. Thus, the religion has a lot of influence on the governance of most countries where the religion dominant. The religion is one of the Abrahamic Religions, and it is widely followed in the Middle East, Northern Africa, and some Asian countries. The religion has strict values and morals that followers have to follow. Therefore, it plays a big role in influencing the behavior of individuals in a country. In some countries where sharia law is applied, religion forms the basis of governance of such countries and dictates the behavior of people. In countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are regarded as Islamic republics, the Islamic doctrines take precedent and thus its role in the country governance is paramount.

Some of its teachings discriminate against women empowerment and thus do not regard women as leaders. In this case, women cannot be elected as leaders, and this is an abuse of democracy (Odell-Scott, 61). Democracy is geared towards giving citizens the power to elect their leaders without outside influence. When this right is infringed by a religion, then democracy ceases to exist in such a society. Democracy is supposed to be a right of individuals to elect their leaders. However, when the right is abused through religious forces, then the power does not lie in the hands of people. It is seen to lie in the teachings of a given religion. Some religious teachings are not at par with the rule of law. Religious interpretation should not contravene the rule of law, and the followers of any religion should be allowed to choose leaders of their choice. Religion should not mixed with democracy as it can deny the people the right to elect leaders of their choice (Vries, 47).

Works Cited

Kunin, Seth D. Religion: The Modern Theories. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press, 2003. Print.

Lansford, Tom. Democracy. New York, N.Y: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark, 2007. Print.

Odell-Scott, David W. Democracy and Religion: Free Exercise and Diverse Visions. Kent [u.a.: Kent State Univ. Press, 2004. Print.

Tilly, Charles. Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print.

Vries, Hent. Religion: Beyond a Concept. New York: Fordham University Press, 2008. Print.

Introduction

Britain is one of the leading democracies in the world today. However, monarchy is still a part of its political leadership structure several centuries after the Britons embraced rule by the people. According to Jones (2008), the position of the Queen as the head of state remains controversial as some people claim it is an anachronism while others argue that it is a proud tradition. Since the monarchy has lost major executive powers to the politically elected prime minister and the cabinet, many people still believe that the queen is still in power. The prime minister, as the head of government, is expected to consult the queen on important matters that concern the nation. The royal family is also symbolically seen as the head of the countrys military. Both critics and supporters of the British monarchy have strong arguments for or against its continued existence in modern society where the real power lies with the people through their democratically elected leaders. In this paper, the researcher seeks to determine if indeed monarchy is an anachronism in a democratic country such as Britain.

Discussion

In the United Kingdom, the monarchy has a very great history in terms of leadership. According to Brooker (2009), the royal family was once the imperial leader of the country, responsible for making an all-important decision about the state and government. However, the country has systematically embraced democracy where the prime minister has all the executive powers while the queen is still considered the head of state with some ceremonial duties. A section of the society believes that in the current democratic space in Britain, monarchy is an anachronism that should be completely abolished to save taxpayers money from unnecessary expenses. However, a great number of Britons still believe that monarchy still plays a very critical role in this country and should be allowed to continue for as long as it takes. It is important to look at these two arguments before coming up with a conclusion if indeed monarchy is an anachronism in Britain.

Monarchy as a proud tradition

According to Fraser (2014), monarchy is a proud tradition in Britain that cannot be easily abolished. The view of this scholar towards monarchy is supported by the majority of Britons who believe that the royal family has a special role to play in this country. These people say that those who are opposed to the existence of monarchy in the country have not taken time to understand its social, political, and economic importance. They have several factors to support their arguments in support of the monarch. The following are some of the factors that they give in support of the monarchy.

Monarchy is a symbol of continuity, stability, and ethics in the countrys leadership system. Political leaders come and go, but the monarch lasts for a very long time. Since assuming her throne, Queen Elizabeth II has worked with numerous prime ministers for the last sixty years. As new political leaders come to the office, the queen offers continuity in the leadership of the country, making it politically stable. She has been there for so long that she understands both the past and present very well. She offers critical advice to the political leaders as they come to power. The presence of the queen as the head of state instils a sense of responsibility and ethics among the political leaders. They are constantly aware that there is someone who has been in the leadership position in this country for so long that they understand all the government dynamics. If they try to go astray, they are aware that someone will notice it and bring them back to the responsible leadership path. That is why cases like mega corruptions and grafts have not been common in this country (Bentley & Wilsdon 2012).

Monarchy is a politically impartial institution that is not affected by political forces. Sigel (2009) says that politically elected leaders always have their allegiance to their political parties that assured them of the office. For that reason, such leaders will always be biased when it comes to addressing issues on party lines. However, this is not the case when it comes to monarchy. They are not put into position by any political group. Therefore, the fear that they might be ejected from the office is not there. It means that whenever the political leaders are tempted to govern the country based on selfish party interests, the queen is always there to make them see the sense of being impartial as leaders. As such, she protects the interest of the minority in the country.

The queen is a true symbol of unity in the nation because she is not affiliated with any political parties. According to Wagg (2013), politics always divides a nation into different groups. Such balkanisations may be dangerous to the stability of the country. For example, David Cameron is a Conservative. Although his allegiance is to the people of the United Kingdom, he might be more inclined to serve the interests of the people of his party. A section of the society who are members of the Labour Party may not consider him a true symbol of unity in this nation. It is a good thing that he is not the head of state. People who believe in his party and those who do not believe in it have the queen as their symbol of national unity. This is very important for the stability of the nation. It eliminates the concept of the winner has it all that is very common in most of the democracies in the world, including the United States. In this British system, the losers still have hope that their interests may not be ignored as long as the queen is still the head of state. She is the truest representative of all people in the country, whether they form the minority or majority groups. A survey by Bernadus (2013) showed that over 72% of Britons still believe in monarchs and want it to continue.

The queen and royal family provide a globally-cherished image of ancient Britain which earns the country a special position in the world. Research by Olechnowicz (2007) revealed that the presence of the queen as the head of state in Britain has given the country a unique position in the global society. Every world leader wants to meet the Queen of the United Kingdom. She is not only a symbol of leadership in the country but also in the international arena. This gives this country a special global image. The prime minister, as a political leader, can have issues with other world leaders. However, the queen is still seen as a symbol of peace and unity. Many people still come to the country as a tourist to visit the royal family. All these factors give the country a unique political and economic position in the world.

Monarchy provides a very important link with Commonwealth nations as the queen is seen as its legitimate leader. The queen is still a very common symbol of attachment between the United Kingdom and so many other nations around the world. Great nations such as Australia and Canada still have the queen as a symbolic leader, creating a permanent tie among these countries. The close political ties between the United Kingdom and these countries promote mutually beneficial trade. Within the United Kingdom, the queen is still seen as the glue that sticks England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland together. The society in this great country cherishes the monarchy and its emotional attachment with the monarchy. Bogdanor (2007) notes that attempts to pull Scotland away from the Kingdom were defeated due to several reasons, top of which was the desire to have the queen as their leader. These people have seen the consequences of having power hungry politicians as the head of state and government in so many countries around the world. They are comfortable having the queen at the top, even if her position is ceremonial. Blain and ODonnell (2013) also note that Commonwealth is still a very powerful economic, political, and social organisation that benefits the United Kingdom in so many ways. The country sits at the helm of this important global organisation by the virtue of its head of state, the queen, being its legitimate leader. If the position of the queen is eliminated, the country shall automatically lose this prestigious position in this block of countries. There are chances that the Commonwealth may even lose its worth in absence of the monarch.

Monarchy as a ludicrous anachronism

The existence of monarchy in Britain has not been without criticism from a section of the society that believes it is a ludicrous anachronism. The opponents of this system have strongly argued for a complete abolishment of this system because they believe its time has long gone. In this section, the researcher will look at specific arguments pushed forward by the opponents of this leadership system.

In a democratic space, a hereditary leadership system has no place. According to Tiersky, Jones, and Genugten (2011), in modern democracies, the power lies with the people. Through democratically held elections, they get to choose who should rule them and for how long. The queen is the head of state. She receives other heads of state that comes to the country. This should not be the case in a democratic country. The position is so important that the holder should be elected by the people. The queen is not elected by the people. Anyone uncomfortable with her position can do nothing within the democratic space to eliminate her. Murphy (2013) says that it is ludicrous that the leaders of the West are criticising African leaders who want to cling to power for life because one of the leading Western democracies has a head of state that serves for her entire lifetime unless she makes a personal decision to leave her office. This makes her not very different from the African leaders who want to stay in power for their entire life. As long as the queen is still the head of state in the United Kingdom, Murphy (2013) says that the country lacks any moral authority to demand that African leaders should serve for a specific term limit. Similarly, countries such as the United States, France, and Germany should not force other life presidents from power as long as they are comfortable with the leadership of the Queen of the United Kingdom.

The prime minister of the United Kingdom has increasingly become powerful rendering the monarchy irrelevant. Over the years, the position of the prime minister has become very powerful in the country. Although the prime minister is expected to consult the queen over several issues, the United Kingdom has seen some imperial prime ministers such as Margret Thatcher who transformed the economy of the country. This powerful position of the prime minister leaves no space for the queen in the leadership system.

The monarchy spends millions of pounds every year for no specific roles that are of importance to the nation. The royal family is maintained by the taxpayers money. However, they have no specific roles in the leadership system that makes them justified to be taken care of by the state (Murphy 2013). The huge amounts of money used to maintain the royal family can be channelled to other developmental projects which are of great importance to the country.

Monarchy is a symbol of social class where the poor are segregated. Britain, just like in many other kingdoms around the world, had a caste societal system of the royals and the peasants. In the United Kingdom, the current royal family was at the top of the hierarchy. The peasants suffered a lot under this system, especially given the fact that those in the lower caste were not supposed to rise in ranks even if they were hardworking individuals. Such sad histories should be brought to an end in modern society where the worth of a person is determined by mental and physical capacities. The country has many people whose forefathers suffered a lot during this era. Since they may want to forget about such negative histories, the presence of the queen at the helm of the countrys leadership still stirs such sad events. Abolishing monarchy will be a sign that the country has abolished the caste system and all its forms.

Conclusion

The debate about whether or not the monarch is an anachronism in a modern democratic country such as Britain is still raging on. The proponent and opponents of this system have given their reasons why they believe that the system should or should not be abolished. A critical analysis of both sides of the divide shows that they have valid reasons. For instance, the argument that the position of the queen reminds this society of the sad past where the poor suffered at the hands of the rich is very valid. However, the arguments put forward by the proponents of this system are also legitimate. Monarchy not only promotes political stability, peace, and unity in the country, it gives the country a unique position in the world as head of Commonwealth nations. The country should be cautious before declaring it entirely unnecessary.

List of References

Bentley, T & Wilsdon, J 2012, Monarchies: What are king and queens for, Demos Publishers, London.

Bernadus, I 2013, Britannica Book of the Year 2013, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago.

Blain, N & ODonnell, H 2013, Media, monarchy and power, Intellect, Bristol.

Bogdanor, V 2007, The monarchy and the constitution, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Brooker, P 2009, Non-Democratic Regimes: Second Edition, McMillan Publishers, London.

Fraser, A 2014, False Hopes: Implied Rights and Popular Sovereignty in the Australian Constitution, Sydney Law Review, vol. 16, no. 13, pp. 214-229.

Jones, J 2008, Negotiating change: The new politics of the Middle East, I.B. Tauris, London.

Murphy, P 2013, Monarchy and the end of empire: The House of Windsor, the British government, and the postwar Commonwealth, London, McMillan.

Olechnowicz, A 2007, The monarchy and the British nation, 1780 to the present, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sigel, R 2009, Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Challenge for Multi-ethnic Societies, Routledge, New York.

Tiersky, R, Jones, E & Genugten, S 2011, Europe today: A twenty-first century introduction, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham.

Wagg, S 2013, Come on Down: Popular Media Culture in Post-War Britain, McMillan, London.

Introduction

The problem of internal and external control when discussing government is not new. It has plagued people since they started uniting into communities and considering the establishment of laws to be followed by their members. Now, the question of balance between democracy and political power is as relevant as it was decades ago, being the center of the debate in the United States and the rest of the world. The risk of the government abusing its power over citizens and national systems exists in all areas of everyday living, including education, health, and citizenship.

However, one of the most controversial spheres in which political power is contested is taxation  the economic relationship between the government and its residents. If one considers the quote by James Madison, it becomes clear that the governments tax decisions cannot be placed only on the political institution itself. At the same time, peoples individual choices may not be effective in finding the best solution.

The present essay considers the ideology of Madison in relation to the current state of tax policy in the United States and European countries. Looking at the connections between money, power, and influence, the essay argues that the lack of control over the government leads to the abuse of political power, which drives economic inequality and furthers corruption and unequal representation of commercial interests.

Quote Interpretation

First, it is essential to discuss the issues that are considered in the quote by Madison. As its author notes, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. Here, Madisons view of people becomes apparent  their moral stance is not ideal, thus making them weak to the influence of power while seeking power at the same time. As a result, the problem with governmental control lies in the fact that people, wanting to obtain power, neglect moral obligations in order to harness resources for a select group of individuals or themselves. From this point of view, the need to control government institutions is justified, as it is a way to reduce the risk of corruption and acting in personal interest.

Nonetheless, it also raises another problem  the lack of authority. As governments are created with the aim of creating, passing, and enforcing the law, their power has to be considered vital in the existence of a country or state. Here, the idea of democracy is contested, especially if one considers direct democracy  the system in which members of a community decide on policy without the middle position of representatives. The place of politicians is questioned in this case, putting the idea that law enforcement is a figure of authority into question.

Recent Policy and Political Events

The dichotomy of granting and taking away power is especially visible in the sphere of taxes  people are required to give money to the government, which promises to use these recourses for the common good, returning the money in a different way. The system of taxation, however, is not transparent, thus making the process of collecting taxes confusing for many individuals. Moreover, it differs from country to country, further complicating peoples understanding of why their particular type of policy is enforced locally. As a result, the accountability of the government is questioned  when citizens do not know how their tax money is used, they do not view the system positively. Simultaneously, the political power over establishing taxes is influenced by outside forces that appeal to people with the authority to pursue their own interests.

In the topic of taxes, the idea that government decisions about new policies are affected by outside forces is especially visible during elections, when politicians make statements that define their campaigns and attract voters. In this case, the theoretical idea is that peoples interests are presented, thus guiding the government in a direction that is chosen by the community the system serves. By selecting a person or a party to vote for, people participate in democracy  the decision-making process that involves citizen opinions. As such, it appears that the second type of control discussed by Madison is in place, and members of the state hold the people with political power accountable for their actions. However, in reality, this structure is not infallible and prone to outside control.

Elections for the President of the United States, for example, involve potential candidates campaigning and introducing their vision of the countrys structure for other people. This process often includes the topic of taxation  a major point in any election. However, one should note that any presidents role in the government, according to the US rules, is executive. This means that the presidents goal is to execute and enforce laws, not create them. This responsibility rests on the legislative branch, represented in the US by Congress. In this case, one can use Madisons quote to demonstrate how the current US election system fails to deliver adequate constraints for presidential executive power.

Referring to recent political events, one can consider two election periods  the one that happened in 2016 and end with the election of Trump and the other that is happening at the moment, considering multiple former and current candidates. Trumps campaign included a massive corporate tax cut from 35% to 15%, which transparently appealed to the American corporations. However, after the election, Trumps pledge was not fulfilled, and President Trump changed his position from 15% to 22%.

This case scenario shows how Madisons idea is both useful and weak in the US. First, it shows that non-direct democracy leads to people being unable to control the government through their electoral decisions. Thus, external control of the government is not in place  the presidents pledge was not fulfilled, and the people who voted for him were not satisfied with the choice they were given.

In contrast, the limited scope of Trumps political power prohibited him from lowering taxes further. As a part of an executive branch, it is unclear whether Trump should have been able to influence the process in the first place. Still, some of Congress power was used to suppress his authority over the suggested legislation. Nonetheless, this situation further proves that the current system of power separation is flawed, as the executive branch has significant control over the legislative one, influencing not only law enforcement but law creation as well.

The idea that promises to change the legislature is an effective way of campaigning exposes the imbalance of political power in the current system. While it is clear that political candidates rely on votes, thus explaining their use of this tactic, the supposed executive power of the president should restrict the candidates ability to speak on such issues, declaring their absolute control over prominent topics. In the latest upcoming election, such candidates as Elizabeth Warren introduced the idea of a wealth tax to the American citizens, calling for taxation based on ones income.

As a response, donors from Wall Street threatened the Democratic party to withdraw support from all elected Democratic officials and even support the opposing party and Trump. This event, similar to the previous one, shows the lack of balance in external and internal control of the executive branch. Moreover, it also indicates that money holds another level of political power that is disproportionality available to the countrys small population.

The issue of lobbying and financial support arises in the example mentioned above. In a modern democracy, this process holds a controversial place, often being viewed as another source of power over the government that is unequal and highly impactful on all branches. Acknowledging the noted authority of the president, which affects legislative and judicial branches, the lobbyists ability to control the president and the election further exposes the problem of political power constraints.

According to Kornhauser, lobbying to representatives is different from that of influencing the public directly. For example, interest groups with significant funds can affect a select number of politicians to support corporate tax cuts. At the same time, it may be more challenging to move the public towards a similar choice.

In this case, the concept of representative democracy is in contrast with direct democracy, where people voice their opinions and decide on changes directly, without the involvement of third parties. Interestingly, studies by Genschel, Lierse, and Seelkopf and Asatryan, Baskaran, and Heinemann show how different government structures respond to potential tax policy. First of all, representative democracies often find themselves competing to lower taxes to invite new residents and increase tax revenue. At the same time, autocracies do not feel the need to compete, establishing taxes according to governmental decisions.

Both systems have flaws in which the government lacks internal or external control measures. In a direct democracy, as Asatryan, Baskaran, and Heinemann find, people prefer higher taxes because the citizens are focused on their personal needs rather than the desire to compete. Moreover, in this system, the accountability of people with political power is much higher, thus increasing the transparency of tax-related government spending.

Conclusion

As an outcome, one can see how the USs current system can explain the role of tax policy in elections that are not supposed to be related to legislative branches. The increased influence of the president, an executive position, on other parts of the government, and the existence of interest groups targeting elected and non-elected officials further puts the idea of balance and control into question.

While the latest policy issues, such as the corporate tax cut introduced by President Trump, show that his current power is not unrestrained, it also reveals many flaws in the branches interconnectedness. The president holds significant authority over all departments and can influence and even control law creation, which should be outside of this positions abilities.

Furthermore, lobbying groups have an impact on governmental institutions, further showing how financial support creates unjust policy. In the discussion of tax law, direct democracy is presented to discuss how it has a higher potential of balancing citizen decisions and political power. It is notable that peoples understanding of taxation in this system creates different outcomes, as it requires transparency and accountability while disregarding competition as a necessary point of appeal.

Bibliography

Asatryan, Zareh, Thushyanthan Baskaran, and Friedrich Heinemann. The Effect of Direct Democracy on the Level and Structure of Local Taxes. Regional Science and Urban Economics 65 (2017): 38-55.

Bitonti, Alberto. The Role of Lobbying in Modern Democracy: A Theoretical Framework. In Lobbying in Europe, edited by Alberto Bitonti and Phil Harris, 17-30. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.

Bryan, Bob. Trump Appears to Be Softening on His Red Line for Massive Corporate Tax Cuts. Business Insider, 2017. Web.

Faricy, Christopher. The Distributive Politics of Tax Expenditures: How Parties Use Policy Tools to Distribute Federal Money to the Rich and the Poor. Politics, Groups, and Identities 4, no. 1 (2016): 110-125.

Genschel, Philipp, Hanna Lierse, and Laura Seelkopf. Dictators Dont Compete Autocracy, Democracy, and Tax Competition. Review of International Political Economy 23, no. 2 (2016): 290-315.

Goldstein, David. The Billionaire Backlash to the Wealth Tax Isnt About Money  Its About Power. And Our Democracy Lies in the Balance.Business Insider, 2019.

Kornhauser, Marjorie E. The Invisible Government and Conservative Tax Lobbying 1935-1936. Law & Contemporary Problems 81 (2018): 167-201.

Madison, James. The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments. The Federalist, no. 51 (1788). Web.

Scheve, Kenneth, and David Stasavage. Wealth Inequality and Democracy. Annual Review of Political Science 20 (2017): 451-468.

Introduction

Democracy is a governance system that necessitates the need to put power over the people. According to this kind of leadership, a government is a social body retrieving its authority from the population and should always promote the will of the masses, especially the majority. However, practical administrative systems often get out of control, especially after falling under the control of influential individuals or cartels, making it hard for the people to exercise their oversight mandate. Accordingly, social and political developments over the years have led to the introduction of different ways through which the masses can regulate the government. Examples of such tactics include propositions, referendums, and recalls. Each of these political approaches has a unique history and works by giving the populace the chance to control the administration. However, propositions, referendums, and recalls often promote elitism and thus are not democratic.

Propositions, Referendums, and Recalls

Propositions form one of the most reliable political tactics utilized by Americans to regulate the actions of elected lawmakers. According to Altman (2018), propositions are characteristically desired pieces of statutes that a percentage of the state inhabitants wish to see validated. Consequently, they (propositions) are customarily a product of an initiative(s), a technique utilized by electorates to suggest new regulations or modify prevailing ones through the petition method (Altman, 2018). California Proposition 21 provides the true nature of propositions in the US. Initiated by the states residents, the proposal recommends the state governments regulation of rent (Proposition 21: Rent control, 2020). The suggestion depends on factual aspects linking Californians homelessness plight to rental overprices. However, the proposition fails because most individuals with the right to vote in the state are house owners (Altman, 2018). Therefore, the schemes dependence on the few elite groups to pass makes them non-democratic.

A referendum allows voters, via the petition procedure, to refer the parliaments actions to the opinion poll before they develop into laws. Referendum bills and referendum measures are the two types of plebiscite in the US (Altman, 2018). The latter (referendum measures) are acts freshly conceded by policymakers that are subjected to the ballot due to applications signed by voters. Referendum bills are recommended edicts referred to the electorates by legislators for endorsement or rebuff (Altman, 2018). Most referendums in America do not promote democracy but elite groups dominance. For example, California Proposition 25 is a defeated referendum that repeals Senate Bill 10 (SB 10) that aims to deliver criminal justice to minorities (Panetta & Seddiq, 2020). The defeat comes from the American Bail Coalitions promotion of SB 10s opposition primarily through the interventions of moneymaking bail bond agents (Panetta & Seddiq, 2020). Accordingly, the referendum on California Proposition 25 blocks democracy by granting the haves the power to oppress the have-nots.

Recalls are essential political devices utilized, typically in the US, at the local and state levels, where electorates can recall a communal official from the bureau before the end of the term. They (recalls) are founded on the code that civil servants are proxies of the common will and must be persistently subject to its regulation (Altman, 2018). Almost all the recalls in the US occur based on interested groups wishes, thus not reflecting the peoples will. For instance, Jonathon Berghorsts recall in 2020 relied on 619 voters, while Broken Bows (Nebraska) population exceeded 3,500 people (Broken Bow, Nebraska, 2022). Comparing the two figures shows that the people involved in the mayors removal from power are below a quarter of the occupants in the area, proving that recalls are not democratic.

Conclusion

In conclusion, referendums recall, and propositions in the US are not democratic. The political initiatives primarily promote interest groups agendas, while the majoritys voice remains unheard. The problem results from multiple issues, including racism, poverty, and peoples lack of trust in the electoral process. Changing such concerns can improve the situation and reconvert the three tactics into democracy. As a nation with a mature democracy, America should serve as an example of an established leadership for other nations to emulate.

References

Altman, D. (2018). Citizenship and contemporary direct democracy. Cambridge University Press.

Broken Bow, Nebraska. (2022). Ballotpedia. Web.

Panetta, G., & Seddiq, O. (2020). Result: California votes to reject Proposition 25 and keep cash bail. Business Insider. Web.

Proposition 21: Rent control. (2020). CalMatters. Web.

Democracy has been variously described as the government of the people by the people. This is system of government governed through the contribution of the citizens directly or indirectly by political representation as opposed to a dictatorship or monarchial system which is governed singularly by an individual. In the classical theme of ancient Athenian society, it is the representation of the will of the people and had to include the views of all citizens in the decision making matters.

Democracy is therefore characterized by representation of the people or constituents in representative political form. John Adams a former United States president quipped that, the only cure for democracy is more democracy. However, there have been claims that contemporary political representation in modern democracies is eschewed and subject to manipulations hence diverting from the true tenets of democracy. This argument has led to participants and observers to comments that democracy is not the most effective way of ensuring political representation.

Political participation is regarded as one of the pillars of democracy as it legitimizes the political leaders right to govern over the constituents. The main form of political representation is through political parties which prospective leaders join and use as a forum to entering the legislative assembly. This evolved from the initial market-place democracies of ancient Greek as it became impossible to accommodate the whole population in debates due to the logistics involved and hence evolved to encompass representatives who were to stand for the wishes of the larger population. The representatives were assumed to be superior in judgment, knowledge and skill as compared to their more mundane constituents. John Stuart Mill termed this arrangement as,

the only government which can fully satisfy all the exigencies of the social state, is the one in which the whole population participate& But since all cannot in a community exceeding a small town participate personally in any but very minor portions of the public business, it follows that the ideal type of perfect government must be representative (Dyson 350).

The representative is elected by the people through secret ballots or in earlier methods acclamation whereby the person with a majority of votes is declared the winner and a legitimate representative. The elected officials converge in the constituent assembly and decide on policy also through voting of the proposed bills or laws that will govern the state or city. The elected officials of the political party with a majority of the officials form the governing party while the minority party or parties constitute an opposition to keep a check on any excesses by the government.

This system of representation has led to the debate over whether constituent democracy is true democracy. The proponents of proportional representation which has been adopted over the last century, point out to it as the most democratic representative government. This is a representation which is dependent on the population of the actual electoral district hence election officials are a percentage of the population. Emerging democracies as well as the older European countries have also adopted the proportional representative democracy e.g. in Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Spain, South Africa etc.

The United States type or style of democracy is unpopular with new democracies and even Britain has gradually moved towards representative democracy, e.g. in European Union parliamentary elections and the new legislators in Wales and Northern Ireland. It has also been adopted in non-political elections e.g. schools, universities or city elections like in the Cambridge city of Massachusetts, the Cambridge University in England etc. The merits of the system include improvement of accuracy, fairness, and legitimacy of elections as equality of representation is observed. Secondly, proponents argue that it lessens regionalism as marginalized or conservative/liberal voters can get elected in areas with biased voting patterns. Democracies using this system have more elected women representatives.

In England and USA, there are only approximately ten percent women representatives as opposed to the thirty percent enjoyed by democracies using proportional representation. Another advantage of the system is the more representative assemblies which are elected as voter turnout confirms. In Australia, turnout is 90 percent while in the United States averages 50 percent in the main elections, and 83 percent in the primaries in Australia and 20 percent in USA. There are more varied elected officials, cleaner campaigns based on issues rather than rhetoric, and less influence and use of campaign funds (FairVote.org 1,2).

On the other hand, critics of the system point out at the large areas of the country that are disenfranchised due to the remoteness and distance to be covered by their representative. In Canada and Australia, they have large tracts of the frontier regions that have very low populations density and who are inadequately represented as the distant and remoteness discourage them to vote while their elected officials have extensive areas to cover in order to access the constituents. In Canada, the Nanavut district with 30,000 inhabitants covers an area of two million square kilometers. This renders the representative and constituents enable to connect or articulate their democratic rights in the vast region (FairVote.org 3).

Political representation has also been described as the use of universal franchise as means of getting the desired leaders or rulers; however it has also been referred as mobocracy or the mob rule. The assumption that the majority is always right sometimes means that the wishes of the minority are disregarded even when logic dictates otherwise. The will of the people always lead to populist policies being adopted by the ruling class as they succumb to the mob and in the process taking myopic view of development issues to avoid the wrath of their constituents. Such measures have negative impact on the minority part of the population who are forced to exist in uneasy pacts with the larger portion of the population.

Examples of these are found in religious policies especially in sectarian democracies of the Middle East and Asia that adopt extremist religious constitution that ignore the plight of the minority. Similarly, populist policies adopted by liberal socialist leaning countries are espoused at the expense of faster economic development to accommodate the wishes of the majority who crave for handouts from the state. An example is Venezuela and Argentina who ditch pro-development programs to accommodate populist policies that are untenable in the long term.

Advocates of the system however point out at the imprudent actions from an adoption of constituent democracy. This is where the constitution is more supreme than the occasional wishes of the majority. The critics of this method give an example of the abortion debate whereby a majority of voters have variously voiced opposition to the practice but the constitution still upholds the rights of the minority as opposed to the majority. Similarly the opposition to sodomy laws and rules, and the over three million demonstrators against Iraq war in London as cases where the will of the people was disregarded hence rendering democracy ineffective.

The critics therefore argue that democracy is only applicable during times of election and is ignored or redundant thereafter as the constituents are ignored in decision making. This trend is not true in some countries where in modern liberal democracies the citizens collect signatures to force debates on pressing issues that could otherwise be overlooked. This are usually over a hundred thousand signatures hence giving voice to the will of the people.

The use of democracy in political representation has also been cited as the reason behind low voter turnout. In established democracies like Britain, France and United States, voter apathy is especially high in parliamentary or municipal elections ranging from 30 to 40 percent. Many reasons are given for this trend but the system use of big party funding, media manipulation and unequal representation are the main factors as constituents view their participation in the elections as being inconsequential. The electoral processes is acknowledged as flawed and subject to manipulation as exemplified in the 2005 general elections in Britain; the Labor Party even without 59.2 percent of votes still managed to garner 356 seats in parliament with a majority of 66 seats.

In France voter apathy has resulted to some extremely lethargic altitude as the incumbent administration are usually voted out as a show of dissatisfaction with the ruling elite. This led to an election of an extreme right-wing candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen who went on to a second round run-off against President Chirac. His run-up to this was fueled mostly due to the public demonstration of disentrancement with the political representative democratic system as practiced in France (Affairs 118-137).

Anne Philips argues that although political representation through participatory democracy is termed as impractical, representative democracy has also proven to be unrepresentative of the majority. She points out that although over half of the population consists of women, they only constitute a small fraction of the population (Philips 2). Traditional theorists have differed on whether political representatives should act as peoples delegates or their trustees. The view of delegates is that of expressing the preferences of their constituents. Trustees on the other hand use their own discretion or perceived higher learning to represent the wishes of the constituents.

Edmund Burke in advocating the latter method argued that parliament is not a congruence of representatives from differing hostile regions but a deliberate assembly of national legislators with a singular concern of the whole nation as members of parliament (Burke 115). The delegate and trustee concepts which require political representatives to follow their voters wishes in the former and own judgment in the latter project conflicting demands on the elected officials.

The advent of marginalized groups due to race, religion, ethnicity, class (both economic and social), regional or remoteness have led to the need for other representatives of the citizens acting outside the formal political system. New players in form of worldwide, intercontinental and non-governmental actors have taken up the role of the peoples representatives for these marginalized groups. Suzanne Dovi argues that the complexities of modern issues and political power have stripped the traditional political powers the sole focus of representing the citizens just as the powers of nation-state have declined in the international arena.

The impact and role played by the international and national non-governmental organizations influence public policies and opinion tremendously and political representation is not solely dependent on the elected officials. She also argues that these changes indicate transformation in political representation to include societal movements, interest groups, and civic organizations which contribute to the representative democracies (Dovi 6).

Modern democracies have evolved to have four types of political representation: promissory, anticipatory, gyroscopic, and surrogacy. Promissory representation is experienced in the formal political representation mode of promises to constituents during the campaign period. Anticipatory representation similarly is focused on the constituents anticipated needs for the coming period while discarding the last set of promises in the preceding election. In gyroscopic representation, the officials search from inner or own experience to generate appropriate concepts used to represent the constituents while in surrogate representation it is when representation is based away from the actual constituency of the citizens.

Democracy in political representation has been found to be flawed in that it is subject to manipulation by the political and social class. Non-elective representation although an alternative forum for expressing the wishes of the marginalized groups, is also equally accused of serving the interests of selfish groups rather than their self-professed special interests. As both groups require funding to manage their affairs, they tend to fall into the trap of the affluent financiers who demand special concessions and articulations in return for their funding.

The lack of competitive suffrage among the non-governmental organization makes their claim of aiding or representing democracy hollow and they are sometimes accused of practicing the same decadent policies that they admonish the elected political class of modern political democracies therefore require a mixture of both plural and proportional representation to ensure less manipulation and equitable representation for the majority of the constituents. Although political representation is faulty democracy, it is still the best form of democracy as acknowledged by Winston Churchill.

Work Cited

Affairs, Oxford Journal of Parliamentary. Disenfranchment From Mainstream. Oxford Journal of Parliamentary Affairs (2004): 118-137.

Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. London: Penguin Books, 1968.

Dovi, Suzanne. Political Representation. 2006. Stanford University Metaphysics Research Lab. Web.

Dyson, R. W. Aquinas, Thomas. Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 350.

FairVote.org. Right to Vote. 2007. Web..

Philips, Anne. Philosophy Bites. 2005. Philosophy Bites. Web.

Steunenberg, Bernard and J. J. A.Thomassen. 2002. The European Parliament: Moving Toward Democracy in the EU. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Without an educated citizenry, democratic rule is bound to fail. Democratic rule means that the people select their leaders and give them informed consent to rule with authority. Unless the citizenry is educated, informed consent is often impossible. Not only does the population need to be educated in order to give informed consent, but without education the people can be too easily led by the wrong kinds of leaders, leading to possibly more costly mistakes or worse.

At many levels and on certain issues, the electorate in a democracy will vote directly upon a proposal, especially at the local levels. What this means is that the electorate must understand the issues at hand completely and the consequences of any decisions. Many issues are extremely complicated, even though they look simple. One example might be a proposal to raise property taxes on large developments and downtown buildings in order to fund construction of a new recreation center.

Without education most people cannot know all the economic implications of something like this. They may think it is simply a matter of taxing big business in order to get something for the whole town, when, in reality, the higher tax will result in lower needed investment in the town, and the resulting higher cost will be passed on to the consumers, thus adding to inflation and raising the cost of the proposed recreation center. This is just one small example of issues that are often decided by the populace in a democracy. In addition, without education, people will not be literate, and so will not be able to research anything.

In addition to having to vote directly on complicated issues, the electorate in a democracy must choose its representative government officials who will make many more very important decisions. Again, literacy is required for them to know what they are deciding. Also, without education, many people will choose based upon emotional reactions, and unscrupulous politicians will use emotional triggers to get votes.

Any politician who does this is not likely to care much about really representing the best interests of the people, since they do not mind using deception to get votes. Democratic rule allows us to select our best leaders, but if the populace is not educated then the leaders will not be of the people, but of a separate elite class, making is very difficult for even the best intentioned to even know what the people want or need. Education provides the tools to become informed upon any subject and make well reasoned decisions, including choosing among candidates for public office based upon something more solid than emotional cues. It also helps people to understand what the politician is really saying in a given speech, which often is very little. A good education will encourage people to stay well informed and participate in their government.

So if the populace is not educated, poor decisions on issues subject to direct vote are much more likely. Worse, it becomes very likely that they will elect someone by popularity and not substance. At best, it can result in the election of lazy egocentrics who simply want an easy job, and at worst it can result in a total change of government in smaller democracies or costly mistakes, because the elected official is not equipped for the job. At worst, smaller democracies will collapse completely, promoting take-over by another form of government, possibly totalitarian, and larger ones will find themselves in a recession and looking bad to the rest of the world. Therefore, an educated populace is necessary for the survival of a democracy.

Introduction

The clear understanding of the various forms of both political and the economic systems is of paramount importance in effective governance of countries and their most critical institutions and industries. The understanding of these political and economic systems will help significantly in making good use of the philosophical issues in formulating the guiding policies to run these organization for the common good of all citizens of given countries.

Different countries of the world usually practice different approaches in providing various services to their people and this in most cases depends on the nature and the cultural practices of given parts of the world. It should be noted that some systems of governance may work so well in a given country, but this does not guarantee the effective operation in other countries if it is adopted.

In the recent time, the various countries are trying to adopt partially some aspects of governance and incorporating them in their systems to see if they can work productively and thus this has led to mixed systems of governance. For example, a governance system, which advocates for the market which is controlled by forces of demand, and can also implement some price controls on goods and services, which are so critical to its citizens. Thus, it can protect its people from exploitation from business people, who want to maximize their profits at the expense of their fellow citizens.

In this case, we are going to look at some differences between socialism and democracy and compare and contrast the fundamental believes and concepts (Morris, 2008, p. 1). We will also look at the key people who helped with the ideas which led to both socialism and democracy and also look at the countries where they are practiced. Finally, we will address the philosophical issues and how they support policy development in various countries and, also, in organizations.

Differences in socialism and democracy

The most distinct difference between the socialism and democracy is that in socialism we are mostly focusing our energies on the governance of the economic activities and the economic systems of a given country while in the democracy we are concentrating on the political governance of people and the various organizations in given counties of the world.

In socialism, we have the economic and the political activities concentrating on the ownership of the ways of production and sharing of the resources which are based on the collective property by the community as a whole. In these cases, the economic systems emphasize the running of corporative societies at the public level.

Here the production is done by people as a community at large in organized public associations and the benefits which accrue from these civic associations are shared on individual merits and also depending on the number of efforts a given member has rendered in such organization. In this case, democracy will only be focusing its efforts to ensure that these public associations involved in the production of essential goods and services are managed by under democratic terms.

This implies that the leadership which is governing these public corporations will have to be chosen by the majority and also the decisions be considered on majority basis since in democracy the guiding principle is the common presumption that majority is always right and their decisions rule those of minority (Viklund, 2006, p. 1).

This is clear evidence that the power to govern is derived by seeking a mandate from the people either directly from the people themselves or indirectly from their trusted representatives who have been given such mandate to choose on their behalf by the people themselves.

In the socialism there is excellent emphasizes on the adoption of the most recent and effective technological advancement to ensure that the different organizations are run by applications of scientific principles to make sure that economic activities are doing well. This will effectively counter check the adverse effects of capitalism from finding the entrance in a socialism community or nation in which a few business people take advantage over the others to enrich themselves.

It is also well known that the emergence of socialism was a result of efforts of people trying to curb the effects of industrialization and continued ownership of crucial sectors of the economy by private sectors. Some socialist advocates for the ways of production of goods and services and also their distribution to be put under state control and ownership while the others concentrate on putting the modes of production under the hands of the cooperative workers.

In the other side, democrats advocate or approve nationalization of the organizations, which offer some essential services and goods selectively. This means that it is only the organizations which are involved in providing the most necessary and critical products and services are supposed to be owned and controlled by the state or other wards the public as a whole (Sarup, 2006, p. 1).

It is also obvious that in socialism we have what can be described as a command economy. This is because the prices are pre-determined by use of try and error method by the responsible board which is in charge of fixing the prices of consumer goods and because the political system controls most of the production of essential products and services and also their distribution. This is quite different from democratic systems because of their political organizations which advocate for individual ownership of assets and, also, the private acquisition of business organizations (DuRand, 1997, p. 1).

Basic believes and concepts of socialism and democracy

The socialists believe in collective ownership of goods and services, and thus they are always ready and willing to sacrifice to higher magnitudes for the sake of betterment of the communities at large and not their well being alone. Their economic and political organizations are usually structured in a way in which they can promote the common good of all people.

Here community and public efforts are highly appreciated other than the individual efforts. Here the concept of planned economy is of great concern in the economic systems and also the political organizations in the sense that the number of goods and services to be produced and also to be distributed together with the recommended prices are usually pre-determined by the responsible departments in both the political organizations and, also, in the economic systems. In one way or the other democrats may tend to agree with socialist by trying to incorporate some of the socialism practices in their political organizations and the economic systems (Morris, 2008, p. 1).

For the democrats may decide to put measures to control the production and prices of some essential good to respond to the wishes of the majority who may not be in a position to afford some of the most basic and crucial goods and services. This will comply with the common belief of democracy that the wishes and decisions of the majority will always dominate under all situations.

Even though democrats can sometimes change their systems of governance to reflect on the wishes of the majority they firmly believe in the free market whereby the forces of demand and supply determine the prices of various goods and services.

Karl max and Aristotle

Karl max came up with what is recently called Marxism in which he tried to explain how socialism came about. He argued that conscious of the people who work very hard to earn a living in terms of salaries and wages made fell like slaves and creating the desire for them to seek freedom from such slavery and drop the passion for being capitalists and go for collective ownership (Crespo, 2003, p. 1). He also reasoned that it is the social well being which influences the consciousness which is very vital for the existence of humanity and thus promotion of socialism.

Socialism is practiced in countries like the Republic of China whereby the socialist and centrally planned economies are practiced, and it is worth to note that here the cooperative workers are highly regarded. On the other hand, the Aristotle has worked very hard to explain the democratic forms of organizations.

In this case, Aristotle contrasted the governance by many people, governance by a few people and governance by a single person. Here he suggested that the most essential principle of democracy is freedom and liberty. He also said that the decision made by the majority of the people should be taken to form justice (Baron, 2008, p. 1).

Democracy is mostly practiced in most parts of the world because it is widely acceptable by people even though it is not friendly with some parts of the world and especially in African, even though it is highly embraced in the United States of America.

Conclusion

It is evident that the philosophical issues and how they support the formation of the various policies in both socialism and democracy are of paramount importance in multiple governments. This is because it will help in evaluating the various political and economic organizations in a given country. It will be for well good of all governments to adopt forms of governance which will promote the continued existence of humankind.

Here we have looked at differences between socialism and democracy, their most common believes and concepts and also the people who led to the ideas of socialism and democracy and the countries where are practiced. We have also incorporated the philosophical issues and how they support the policies mentioned.

Reference List

Baron, D. (2008). The Difference Between Socialism and Communism. Web.

Crespo, P. (2003). Democracy & free markets vs. socialism. Web.

Durand. C. (1997). The Idea of Democracy and the Idea of Socialism. Web.

Morris, D. (2008). Socialism VS Democracy Obama VS McCain. Web.

Sarup, K. (2006). Democracy vs. Communism: Lessons from history. Web.

Viklund, A. (2006). Democracy and Socialism. Web.