While there are various forms of government systems, our country is a democracy. This system is believed to be the most beneficial to the society and most developed nations in the world use it. In a democracy, the people choose their government leaders and the government is accountable to the people. This paper will highlight three of the most important features of American Democracy.
The first most important feature of our democracy is that the citizens hold the power of government. While it might appear as though the government is all-powerful, this is not the case since the government derives its power from the people. Through their right to vote, the citizens elect their government representatives.
This feature of democracy ensures that the principle of rule by the people is achieved since it is the people who empower the government to work. Voting is an extremely important aspect of the democratic process since it is the primary means through which the citizens exercise their political influence by voting in leaders of their choice.
The elected individuals are accountable to the citizens who have the power to vote them out of office if they feel that they are not effectively serving them. The appointed representatives are therefore obliged to act in the best interest of the citizens who voted for them.
The democracy ensures that the fundamental rights of the individual are protected. There are laws in place that give individuals rights and protect their civil liberties. The American democracy is founded on the premise that each person possesses some rights that cannot be overridden even by the welfare of the state.
These rights are perceived as fundamental and inalienable and they are not subject to political bargaining. The government has a duty and obligation to promote, protect and defend these fundamental rights for all American citizens. The democratic system ensures that the rights of its citizens are enforceable under the law of the land.
The state is not allowed to trample upon and get away with violations of the fundamental human rights of citizens of the country. The system of governance is accountable to the people meaning that the leaders have to be concerned about the rule of law and defense of the fundamental rights of their citizens.
The third important feature of our democracy is that political decisions that have significance in the lives of the citizens are decided upon through voting therefore making sure that majority rule triumphs. While the needs of the citizens are addressed on a national platform by their elected members such as congressional representatives and senators, the citizens are able to vote directly on laws or constitutional amendments through referendums.
This ensures that the government does not engage in action that is contrary to the will of the people. Citizens are also able to vote on local issues such as levying taxes and deciding local ordinances. As such, citizen participation in political decision-making is not only limited to electoral cycles.
While there are many other features of our democracy, these are some of the most important. Due to these features, the superiority of the citizens over the government is ensured since the people choose the government and are involved in the major decision-making. The fundamental rights of each citizen are also guaranteed because of our democracy.
If one asks what the government of the United States is, the answer is most likely to be democratic. The word democracy, with all its positive connotations, invokes the image of people exercising their political rights by voting in open elections for the candidates they support and trusting and respecting the emerging results. Even though the United States did not start as a democracy and it took hundreds of years to ensure voting rights for the general populations in its entirety, these are still not the grounds to view American voting as a success. While there is a technical possibility of voting, the trust in the system is rapidly declining and, unless it is regained, Americans can lose the conviction that their votes matter as they should in a democracy.
If one looks at the history of election rights in the United States, it would be easy to paint as a triumphant march toward voter inclusion. Yet the country did not begin as a democracy on the contrary, it started on the premise that voting was not a right but a privilege and, as such, should be reserved for property-owning white males (Keyssar 9). The first major expansion came during the so-called Jacksonian Democracy when states began dropping property requirements, and considerable numbers of propertyless white men received the right to vote (Keyssar 50). The next major step came in 1868 when Congress passed the Fifteenth Amendment and proclaimed that voting rights would not be abridged based on race or condition of servitude (Keyssar 100). Finally, yet another step in the long process of expanding legal voting rights to the broader population, women received voting rights on the federal level in 1919, with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment supported by President Wilson himself (Keyssar 219). Thus, if one looks superficially at this progress, it may seem that the history of voting in the United States was an ultimate success.
Yet the problem with this approach is that it only considers the situation de jure rather than de facto. If one thinks about it logically, legal opportunity to vote does not necessarily mean that people can or will exercise their political rights in practice. American history demonstrates a broad range of political practices designed to limit voting rights for certain groups most often African Americans in Southern states. During and after the Reconstruction, Southern whites terrorized the black population into refraining from voting, often with the use of violence (Epperly et al. 758). Another approach was disenfranchising selected groups, such as those convicted of a crime which, in the Southern judicial system, tended to be overwhelmingly black (Epperly et al. 759). These examples demonstrate that it was perfectly possible in the United States to have a Constitution that seemingly guaranteed universal suffrage and the political reality that undercut it in local, regional, or sectional interests. With this in mind, it becomes harder to paint the history of voting in American democracy as a success it begins looking more like a failure.
Yet another example of how American democracy does not live up to the expectation of its entitled voters is much more recent. Democracy as a political institution rests on the assumption of fair elections and this assumption can only serve as a solid foundation as long as the enfranchised citizens perceive elections as fair. Yet this is not the case in the contemporary United States anymore. In 2016, both Democrats and Republicans questioned the integrity of the election. Despite winning in the Electoral College, Donald Trump made unsubstantiated claims that the elections were characterized by widespread fraud that benefitted Hillary Clinton as his opponent (Hasen 636-637). Democrats, on the other hand, maintained that Trumps team engaged in voter intimidation, which proved to be unsupported as well (Hasen 639). While dissatisfaction with presidential elections occurred at least as early as 2000, after George Bushs controversial victory, the 2016 elections demonstrated that the issue became much more acute.
The situation repeats itself on an even greater magnitude in 2020. On the one hand, Trump refused to admit his loss and, currently, files suits intended to have election results overturned in several states (Gerhart and Remmel). On the other hand, even the Democratic senators, such as Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden, and Amy Klobuchar, expressed their concerns that Dominion Voting Systems used to count votes were unreliable and potentially possible to manipulate (Miller). These claims do not necessarily reflect the reality of the election process it would be much better for American political system if they proved entirely false but they reflect another profound issue: regardless of their political affiliations, American voters doubt their democracy.
To summarize, voting in American Democracy currently appears to be a failure rather than a success. History demonstrates that, despite legal enfranchisement, the reality of voting can be subject to many restrictive measures that severely undermine the principles of democracy. Moreover and, arguable, more importantly American voters begin doubting their political system and the integrity of their elections. Granted, having doubts and having proofs are different things, and it would be better for American democracy if the allegations of electoral fraud were completely false. Yet the sheer magnitude of these allegations is a significant issue in its own right. As of now, many American voters do not trust their elections, and if the political system fails to regain this trust, it may pave the way for the ultimate failure of American democracy. At the end of the day, the problem is as simple as this: democracy requires peoples trust in the voting process, which is lacking today and, thus, American political institutions face what might be their most serious challenge of the last decades.
Works Cited
Epperly, Brad, et al. Rule by Violence, Rule by Law: Lynching, Jim Crow, and the Continuing Evolution of Voter Suppression in the U.S. Perspectives on Politics, vol. 18, no. 3, 2020, pp. 756-769.
For this paper, the Parliament of the United Kingdom was chosen as the example of a democratic legislature. The Parliament represents the country where different nations co-exist, unites them, and creates cross-national communication on the political level. The supreme authority in the United Kingdom means the legislative power on all territories that belong to the British Crown. The critical point about the UK Parliament is the importance of tradition in its structure and functioning, affecting the selection process, the arrangement of power, and the communication between the members of the Parliament. Brexit is one of the most critical events recently, and the UK Parliament had a pivotal role in this process. It is possible to state that the UK Parliament reacts successfully to the challenges of modern politics despite its traditionalism, as Brexit shows.
The Legislature
The representation of four national parts of the United Kingdom as one political institution is the primary function of the UK Parliament. It includes the political voices of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which are the parts of the UK. This process of merging lasted for several centuries, which shows that the tradition of the British parliamentarian rule has a long history. For instance, the Parliament of Great Britain appeared due to the combination of the Parliament of Scotland and the Parliament of England in the 18th century. Before that time, the United Kingdom was represented by different legislative institutions. The Parliament of the United Kingdom was formed in the 19th century after the Parliament of Northern Ireland joined the UK legislative institution (Ihalainen et al., 2018). Therefore, every part of the United Kingdom had representatives in the Parliament, which allowed it to preserve balance in decision-making.
The tradition of historical roots determines the power arrangement in the UK Parliament. There are two assemblies in the Parliament, which allows to state that it is bicameral. The peculiar detail is that there are three parts in the bicameral legislature due to the monarchy in the United Kingdom. The three parts of the Parliament are the House of Commons or the primary chamber of the Parliament, the House of Lords, and the Crown-in-Parliament, which represents the British monarchy (Ihalainen et al., 2018). A person cannot be a member of several Houses simultaneously, which ensures that the principles of democracy and pluralism are pursued. This example shows that pluralism allowed the Parliament to preserve democracy even when the monarchs powers were not limited as it is nowadays.
The process of selecting the candidates for the Parliament does not change for centuries, which is part of the political tradition in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister is the head of the UK Parliament, and the Queen appoints the person from the House of Parliament. The majority of the House of Commons should agree with this candidate to ratify the Prime Minister. Nowadays, the Prime Minister gives the monarch the piece of advice concerning the appropriate candidate for this position (Ihalainen et al., 2018). These details show that the monarchs power in the UK Parliament is more symbolic than real, and it is also part of the British tradition.
Selecting the candidates for the House of Lords and the House of Commons is also a traditional process, which means that the basic expectations about the legislators behavior are predetermined. For example, the members of the House of the Lords should have high social positions that suppose their hereditary status, education, and place in British society. The Lord Temporal and the Lord Spiritual are the Peers of the Realm and the bishop of the Church of England reciprocally. Similar rules preserve nowadays and make the election process easy to forecast. They are expected to sit together in the Parliament and vote similarly, which is also regulated by the tradition (Ihalainen et al., 2018). It allows us to assume that tradition is essential in the debates in the UK Parliament, and the British do not think that it is a violation of the rules of democracy. Instead, the functioning of the electoral system based on the predetermined rules contributes to the preservation of balance in the Parliament, which is critical in making the thought-through decision.
The status of the Parliament implies that it makes all political decisions based on votes. Some critical decisions require the agreement of the Queen, who has the right to veto documents. Though, most political findings that the UK Parliament ratifies are consistent with the will of the Queen (Ihalainen et al., 2018). In all cases, the Prime Minister has more practical rights in legislation and political life of the country than the Queen, which makes the Parliament the principal place where the debates happen, and the majority makes all political decisions of representatives.
Current Events
Brexit is the current event that is of particular interest because it reflects the autonomous political power of the UK Parliament. Most British citizens voted on the referendum in 2016 for the existence of the European Union, claiming that the United Kingdom does not profit from membership in this coalition. At the same time, Brexit was a biased political decision, and the British Parliament rejected this initiative initially. The main concern that the Parliament articulated was the risks from the withdrawal from the trade deal with the European Union. The Parliament agreed that the country required a transitional period for Brexit, which promoted this decision actively by the Conservative party and Boris Johnson as the Prime Minister (Gamble, 2021). This information shows that challenging decisions require long debates in the Parliament, and most voters should agree to one legislation to ratify the results.
The example of Brexit shows that the UK Parliament emphasizes the importance of hearing different voices to make balanced decisions. The referendum is helpful to give the politicians a clear understanding of the views that most citizens have. The tradition of public debates in the UK Parliament allows the House of Commons and the House of Lords to elaborate the compromised solution like the one-year transition period for leaving the European Union. In addition, the situation with Brexit shows that the Prime Minister has absolute power in the UK Parliament, and the views of the party of the Prime Minister determine the overall political discourse in the country.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the tradition is critical in the formation, structure, and functioning of the UK Parliament. This legislature has a long history, and British citizens pay much attention to preserving the national heritage. It explains the symbolic presence of the monarch in the UK Parliament and the Queens participation in the final stage of the decision-making process. Brexit illustrates the claims about the work of the UK Parliament because it shows the nations autonomy to make decisions concerning their future. Brexit shows that the UK Parliament allows Great Britain to preserve independence in the European Union regardless of the countrys membership in European legislatures.
References
Gamble, A. (2021). After Brexit and other essays. Bristol University Press.
Ihalainen, P., Ilie, C., & Palonen, K. (2018). Parliament and parliamentarism: A comparative history of a European concept. Berghahn Books.
An in-depth examination of the conceptual foundations of democratic teaching requires critical reflection on existing theories. Since democracy as a form of a political system is an extremely widespread and desirable system, most social units seek its full embodiment. This approach, in turn, generates a great deal of debate since the realization of democratic ideals is viewed differently by different individuals.
More specifically, the schools of a democratic system of most significant interest are deliberative democracy and democratic participation. The first term should be understood as those teachings that view political decisions as the product of fair, responsible, and conscientious citizen participation through debate and deliberation. In this case, the democracy of the system is proportional to its informational openness. On the other hand, aggregative forms of democratic participation traditionally view groups or collectives of individuals as units of political interest. In a sense, there is a relationship between the two terms, which Iris Young (2001) explored in detail. More specifically, Young viewed deliberative democracy as an evolutionary development of political participation forms, as it implies a shift from justifications of collective or individual claims to models of political engagement. Aggregative forms of political participation realized through activist movements, protests, and pickets, do not have a focus on the practical transformation of problems. At the same time, deliberative democracy realizes the political interest of every citizen in a thorough discussion.
Moreover, according to Young, it is fair to say that the agenda does not allow for a clear distinction between the two forms of democratic philosophy. In particular, the practical implementation of democratic foundations is still represented by both aggregative forms, including radical models or associations of citizens and the deliberative form. There is severe tension between the two since the two models cannot coexist.
Reference
Young, I. M. (2001). Activist challenges deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 670-690.
Democracy is where the government allows all its bona fide citizens an equal opportunity in decision making. It is also about giving citizens an equal participation through representation by leaders. It is a fact that the United States was the first country in the world to have a democratic constitution.
This qualifies the American constitution to be the oldest in the world. The United States may appear to be democratic in all the aspects of governance. The government has even tried to extend the democracy to other countries. Looking critically at the operations of the United States, one is left with many unanswered questions. To a greater extent, it could be concluded that the United States is not a democracy.
Gerrymandering
Democracy lacks when gerrymandering is allowed to take place. This has to do with manipulation of district boundaries for elections purposes. It is either done to assist or hinder the residents of a district with regard to the elections (Buckler 1). In the final analysis, the equality that the constitution stands for is lost.
Electoral College
The Electoral College is another process that puts democracy of the United States to the test. Although it appears to be a well set process, the Electoral College denies the citizens the right to elect their leaders directly.
When the citizens cast their votes in a presidential election, they give the electors in the college the voting power depending on which party has taken the lead in a particular state. This system was put in place by the founding fathers but it works against the tenets of democracy. It is not practiced anywhere else in the world since it is a dilution of democracy.
Republic vs Democracy
In the pledge of allegiance, the word republic is used instead of democracy. According to experts, the sovereignty is vested on people in a republic government. The word people may be in singular or plural form in its use here. The same sovereignty is vested on a group of people when we talk of democracy. Here, the minority gets their will and the majority their way. This means that its the majority who dictate what the minority are to follow. Based on the foregoing, the pledge of allegiance negates democracy.
Racism and Discrimination
The United States has one of the ugliest faces of racism and discrimination in the world. For so long, the Black Americans and other minority groups have been segregated. In an apparent attempt to create self defense, these groups discriminate against the whites. The current leadership indicates aspects of discrimination. If democracy really exists, the people would look at one another as fellow countrymen without putting color first.
Foreign policy
The foreign policy adopted by the United States causes a lot of confusion among its citizens and other people from outside. The government has been fighting countries whose leaders do not seem to agree with its policies. In most instances, the United States interests in such countries seem to be the driving force. The trend is an attempt to dictate to other countries the kind of leaders that should be elected.
Democracy should never be about one country interfering with the internal affairs of another. Another issue that puts the democracy of the United States to question is the International Criminal Court at The Hague. United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute and hence its citizens cannot be tried at the court for crimes against humanity. This does not mean that the countrymen are not involved in atrocities. The government has been at the front line in forcing other countries to adhere to the courts requirements through all means.
Works Cited
Buckler, Justin. Population Equality and the Imposition of Risk on Partisan Gerrymandering. Case Western Reserve Law Review 62.4 (2012): 1037-1055. Academic Search Premier. Web.
Platos Republic references multiple topics about politics and discusses how they can potentially improve peoples lives. This fundamental work by Plato presents arguments for justice in society; however, many experts criticize it for being anti-democratic. They mention that Platos narrative supports the idea that democracy is worse than timarchy and oligarchy. However, the examined work by Mason Marshall presents a neutral opinion on the topic, providing proof for two opposing perspectives. Ultimately, the article by Marshall examines the existing arguments for democracy in Republic and claims that experts do not have sufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions.
Discussion
The primary argument that democracy is worse than timarchy and oligarchy derives directly from the text of Republic, where Socrates agrees that only tyranny is worse than democracy. However, as Marshall notes, Socrates praises the primary principles of democratic freedoms and human rights. In other words, Socrates believes that freedom in itself is a virtue but fears that people with unrestricted freedom might demonstrate dangerous and unproductive behavior (Marshall 4).
Another argument is that philosophers have better lives under democracy than under stricter regimes because of the associated freedoms. This perspective is a contradicting point, and Marshall explains why philosophers, in fact, do not have better lives under democracy (Marshall 6). In a hypothetical situation, he states that people with equal rights might vote for the philosophers execution, and the court will have to agree due to the majority rule of democracy. This example contradicts Socrates thesis that philosophers might have better lives under democracy.
Conclusion
After examining the arguments, Mason Marshall summarizes that it is simply impossible to draw a definitive conclusion about whether Platos Republic is anti-democratic or not. The main argument about the usefulness of philosophers in Republic does not answer this question, and experts must make educated guesses about Socrates true intentions concerning democracy. Marshall does not provide a subjective opinion on the topic, but he firmly believes that this discussion lacks vital information and will only lead to an impasse.
Work Cited
Marshall, Mason. Democracy in Platos Republic: How Bad is it Supposed to Be? The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter, vol. 348, 2009, pp. 1-9.
Any political, social, or economic concept emerged as a concept first based on clever and calculated assumptions and logic. However, it is rather a common occurrence to have something theoretical manifest unexpectedly and differently in practice. The given article critique focuses on R. W. Sharpless Plato on Democracy and Expertise, published in 1994. The core message made by the author is that conceptual frameworks and systems need to acknowledge the malleability of the truths underlying these ideas to allow future flexibility and improvement.
Thesis
The central message permeating the writing is that the rigidity of truth on which the conceptual model of democracy is built is a problem since any system needs to acknowledge the malleability of the underlying assumptions. In other words, all complex systems originate from a series of assumptions, which creates a long logical chain with an increased possibility of miscalculations and misjudgments. Therefore, it is critical for the authors of an idea to be aware of such issues in order to create room for improvement while preserving the central tenets.
Summarization
The first argument is that the general populace and public opinion are not irrational but rather vulnerable to manipulation. The second one is made in regard to Platos desire to reach the correct judgments and knowledge, even if that means deceiving the public. The final argument is about Platos view on education and public ignorance, where even an ideal version of democracy does not lead to the perfection of the educational system for discussions but rather indoctrination under the ruler.
Assessment of Article
In order to support the thesis, the author used the direct and explicit interpretation of Platos work on democracy to highlight the logic and truths behind it. For the first argument, the author states that political goals which from their very nature are best settled in practice by general discussion and agreement, not by a relatively small group of experts (Sharples, 1994, p. 51). In other words, the author critiques Platos logic of public irrationality by showing that the alternative offered by the philosopher is not better. Relying on a small group of experts creates an incentive to put their well-being above the public. For the second argument, it is stated that indeed Plato explicitly says that rulers can lie to their subjects for the subjects own good, though the subjects must not lie to the rulers (Sharples, 1994, p. 52). The author arrives at this conclusion within the bounds of a reasonable logic based on Platos statements.
Moreover, the arguments are made on Platos take on education and the knowledgeability of the public. The third argument is substantiated by the statement that Plato & does not see the consultation and involvement of all citizens in decision-making as something that could have any value in itself (Sharples, 1994, p. 53). The arguments support the thesis rather well, but more improvements could be made by referring to the current systems. The logical sequence in the thesis support process made sense since the author questions the rigidity of Platos assumptions and truths. No major error, mistake, or logical inconsistency was uncovered, but exemplifying evidence from the real world would have illuminated the arguments better. The strengths of all three arguments are a direct and close interpretation of Platos statements, but the weaknesses include the lack of examples and real-world implications. In general, the thesis is well-supported, but further improvements can be made.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the overall evaluation of the article is positive, informative, and insightful, but the arguments could be improved by adding real-life examples from a wide range of republics and democracies existing today. A person interested in the systemic flaws of democracy and democratic institutions will benefit from the reading since it reveals the questionable assumptions made at the origins of democracy. The benefits will include gaining insight into the role of a ruler, education, public opinion, and power structures in Platos vision of an ideal democracy. Therefore, it becomes evident that the authors critique of the philosopher is substantiated and well-supported since the system in which many people live needs to be explored for potential flaws noted by its initial founders and establishers.
Democracy remains one of the fundamental core values promoted by the United Nations (UN). It is believed to be a powerful model for promoting peoples rights, development, security, and welfare. When countries pursue this concept, chances are high that the level of accountability will increase whereby the people enjoy good governance, the presence of strong institutions, and fair elections. Throughout the 20th century, many countries in the developing world began to pursue this critical value in an attempt to promote economic development and empower their citizens to achieve their potential. However, this goal remained a mirage for most of the nations in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. A detailed understanding of the major obstacles to the realization of democracy can guide political leaders to put their states on the right path. Since independence, both Nigeria and Pakistan have experienced numerous challenges and hindrances that explain why democracy has failed over the years, such as prolonged periods of military rule, coups, corruption, absence of strong institutions, and the ineffectiveness of different leaders. The purpose of this paper is to give a detailed comparative analysis and description of the reasons why democracy has failed in Nigeria and Pakistan.
Why Democracy Failed in Pakistan and Nigeria
The founding father of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, embarked on a new journey aimed at making the country a democratic state in 1947. However, this initiative or strategy failed since it took over six decades before similar ideas could become a reality in this nation. Several reasons can be presented to explain why this objective remained hard to achieve. Firstly, the first government after independence failed to implement powerful measures and structures to ensure that elections were conducted smoothly (Haq & Akbar, 2015). This kind of weaknesses created the best environment for leadership to change hands between the military and the civilian population. Such an occurrence is a clear indication that different rulers have been focusing on the most appropriate strategies to amass and maintain power, thereby making it for democracy to develop. Due to political instability, this country continued to record increased cases of corruption and civil-military conflicts. The military has managed to overthrow existing weak civilian governments three times in this countrys history. These events occurred in the years 1958, 1977, and 1999 (Alkifaey, 2019).
The leadership of the military resulted in martial law that made it impossible for the people to pursue their democratic rights and liberties. The absence of powerful political institutions since independence made it impossible for democracy to thrive in this country. However, some liberties and rights have been recorded in the recent whereby the citizens are allowed to elect their leaders. Unfortunately, the only successful transfer of political power from a democratically elected president to another one took place in 2013 (Haq & Akbar, 2015). The occurrence of military coups in the past is something that explains why those in leadership positions have failed to implement powerful mechanisms to support democracy and meet the demands of the greatest number of citizens (Jaffrelot, 2015). With such occurrences, the transition governments that have been in place over the years have failed to provide high-quality public services. The people of Pakistan have lacked new opportunities that can empower them to make evidence-based decisions and eventually realize their potential.
In Nigeria, the idea of democracy has remained a complex issue that many people do not enjoy. After gaining its independence in the year 1960, the leaders of this African country wanted to establish powerful institutions and set the stage for fast economic recovery and growth. However, this dream was short-lived since the first coup occurred in 1966 (Egbefo, 2015). This development resulted in a civil war that affected Nigerians for over 12 years. The concept of democracy would be experienced or restored in the year 1979 (Adekoya, 2019). However, this was a short period of a reprieve since the country was soon in the hands of military juntas (Odo, 2015). After the adoption of a new Constitution in 1999, Nigeria held its first general elections whereby Olusegun Obasanjo became the duly elected president (Adekoya, 2019).
This new change brought a taste of democracy to this country since regular elections have been held since then. The notions of civil liberties, empowerment of the people, and press freedom have become common in the recent past. Unfortunately, the idea of democracy has failed significantly since cases of human abuse, torture, and oppression are still high. Some researchers indicate that Nigeria continues to encounter numerous roadblocks towards the empowerment of all citizens. For instance, this nation is troubled by terrorism and the presence of radical groups, such as Boko Haram. Corruption remains a major problem that makes it impossible for this country to experience the benefits of democracy. The existing government institutions fail to promote evidence-based practices for supporting the demands of this countrys population. Many people find it hard to pursue their economic goals due to the absence of adequate capacities and incentives. Nweke (2015) believes that most of the regular elections conducted in this country tend to be unfair. This malpractice allows unwanted leaders to continue leading the people. Civil society organizations lack adequate resources to engage the government and empower more people.
From these descriptions, it is evident that democracy is a value that can empower nations to achieve their potential and meet the needs of their citizens. The discussion has revealed that both Nigeria and Pakistan have encountered more or less the same barriers towards the realization of their democratic aims. There are outstanding similarities that explain why democracy failed in these states. Firstly, the founders of these two countries wanted to pursue democracy and deliver positive results. Regrettably, they encountered sharp criticisms or inadequate support from different stakeholders. Secondly, military coups have been common in these states, thereby making it impossible for the people to elect their favorite leaders. Thirdly, military governments that have been in power have made it impossible for the people to embrace emerging ideas and practices in an attempt to improve the level of democracy (Yagboyaju & Akinola, 2019). The majority of the intellectuals and messes of Pakistan are in favor of dictatorship rather than democracy (Ali, Latif, & Kataria, 2015, p. 100).
Fourthly, most of the recent leaders have failed to support the establishment of superior institutions that can ensure that all citizens have the right to choose their leaders. These challenges explain why these countries have taken long before having duly elected presidents. On the other hand, some specific differences or obstacles are unique to each country. For instance, the problem of terrorism continues to discourage more Nigerians from engaging in economic activities or pursuing their democratic rights. This is not the case in Pakistan since the number of criminal attacks has remained quite low (Kakar, Waheedullah, & Sultan, 2017).
Corruption remains prevalent in Nigeria, thus making it hard for the established institutions to function optimally, such as courts, the electoral organization, and government-sponsored committees. In Pakistan, the main form of corruption revolves around the established or existing political classes. Additionally, the Pakistani government has been keen to support the press and ensure that the rights of all citizens are protected (Ali et al., 2015). These goals are yet to be recorded in Nigeria whereby media freedom is still a dream for many. With these observations, it is evident that the identified countries have encountered unique challenges while trying to realize the fruits of democracy. Many citizens find it hard to lead high-quality lives or receive exemplary services from the established governments. Present-day leaders in these countries should, therefore, consider these issues and examine the gains recorded in other countries to improve the level of democracy.
Conclusion
The above discussion has presented convincing arguments and reasons that explain why democracy has failed in the states of Nigeria and Pakistan. Since independence, these two nations have experienced numerous challenges and hindrances that have made such a goal a mirage. Over the years, the leadership recorded in these states has shifted from the military to the civilians and vice-versa. This has been the case since coups have remained common in such countries. Cases of corruption, the absence of strong institutions, and the ineffectiveness of different leaders are critical factors that have worsened the situation. Despite the above differences, there is a need for present leaders to collaborate with key stakeholders and introduce superior practices and initiatives that will ensure that democracy becomes a reality in these nations. The result is that more people will be empowered to lead better lives, pursue their aims, and eventually transform economic performance.
Ali, S., Latif, A., & Kataria, J. R. (2015). Democracy in South Asia: A comparative analysis of democracy in Pakistan and India. Journal of Indian Studies, 1(2), 83-101.
Alkifaey, H. (2019). The failure of democracy in Iraq: Religion, ideology and sectarianism. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Egbefo, O. D. (2015). Fifteen years of democracy, 1999-2014: Reflections on Nigerias quest for national integration. African Research Review, 9(2), 57-77. Web.
Haq, S., & Akbar, G. (2015). Local government system in Pakistan: causes of bad governance of local government system. Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, 2(2), 62-67.
Jaffrelot, C. (2015). The Pakistan paradox: Instability and resilience. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kakar, B., Waheedullah, S., & Sultan, R. S. (2017). Challenges and limitations of democracy in Pakistan for promoting peace and stability. WALIA Journal, 33(1), 21-25.
Nweke, C. C. (2015). Democracy, leadership and nation building in Nigeria. Ogirisi: A New Journal of African Studies, 11, 153-167.
Odo, L. U. (2015). Democracy and good governance in Nigeria: Challenges and prospects. Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 15(3), 1-8.
Yagboyaju, D. A., & Akinola, A. O. (2019). Nigerian state and the crisis of governance: A critical exposition. SAGE Open, 9(3), 1-10. Web.
Chapter four of Neil Weinstock Netanels essay discusses the democratic paradigm of copyright and democracy. Netanel attempts to find the link between democratic governance and civil society. The first part of the chapter discusses the role of civil society and its association with democratic governance. Shared purposes and norms identify various civil societies. Civil society plays an active role in bolstering democratic governance.
Civil societies are participatory. They help in fostering a democratic culture. In addition, civil societies provide avenues for self-rule that are outside the control of the government. Civil societies facilitate debate and determination of various policies and social norms.
However, civil societies are not completely autonomous. Government intervention helps in sustaining the activities of civil societies. In addition, government intervention ensures that civil societies engage in activities that provide opportunities for democratic governance. The market may be a barrier to the advancement of the democratic character of civil societies. It may facilitate the development of disparities of power.
In addition, it may provide people with uneven opportunities to engage in civil life. However, the market may also play a critical role in enhancing democratic governance. It may facilitate the development of centers of power that are not under the control of the government. This helps in reducing citizens dependency on the state.
It is a fact that democratic governance should also be a critical component of the governance of civil societies. It would be contradictory to claim that civil societies foster democratic governance when it is clear that they do not have democratic governance in their management. The author did not provide insights on civil societies and democratic governance using this perspective.
The government uses copyright as a tool that enables government institutions to support democratic civil societies. Copyrights production and structural functions help in supporting a democratic civil society. Copyright laws have various incentives that encourage free communication.
Electronic communication is one of the fastest developing communication mediums. It facilitates the broadcast, distribution, and transmission of millions of works of original authors. Democracy enables people who have high rhetorical skills to acquire the greatest share of political power. Therefore, free communication is an essential component of a democratic culture. In some instances, free communication may violate copyright laws. The author did not explain how free communication may pose a serious threat to copyright.
Copyright enables authors to have a proprietary entitlement to their works. This facilitates the development of an autonomous sector that encourages the formation and distribution of novel expressions. Copyright enables creators and publishers of the novel expressions to earn financial support for their undertakings in the sector.
This enables them to cease from depending on the government or the assistance of the elite. The paying audience is the source of funds. Copyright imposes certain restrictions on the exclusive control of cultural works. This enables the government to diversify the communicative power structures without unwarranted interference on the expressive content. However, the restrictions of copyright law do not provide a neutral endpoint.
The endpoint of copyright law may signify the beginning of another proprietary right. Therefore, the restrictions may portray the ability of copyrights to enhance democracy. They enhance the democratic notion that expressions and ideas should be free for all people. The limits on the duration and scope of copyrights act as a boundary on the private control of publicly distributed expressions.
Purpose of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) became law on March 23, 2010. The policy network approach was implemented for formulating the policy of the health care reform under consideration. The collaboration of the interested actors was important for enhancing governance and improving the formulation of legislation through their active communication and coordination of their efforts. The reformation program covered a wide range of health care problems, ranging from the expansion of Medicaid eligibility to the economic support of medical investigations. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the issue of limiting the insurers opportunities for denying coverage for patients based on pre-existing conditions.
Acknowledging the fact that the existing insurance system requires transformation, various actors expressed compelling views concerning the measures which need to be imposed for making the necessary changes and enhancing governance. The problem is that contemporary insurers have unlimited opportunities for denying coverage in case if an individuals health is not perfect. The PPACA aimed to limit the permissiveness of the insurance companies and protect the patients rights. The main actors who have competing interests and expressed their compelling arguments in the process of policymaking include the insurance companies, members of Congress, and doctors groups such as the American Medical Association (AMA), for example. The contribution of each of these actors was valuable for improving the quality of legislation which became the result of the collaborative work of the interested parties.
Significances of Reform
With the shift towards democratic governance, the concept of policy networks has been applied to the process of policymaking in various spheres. Thatcher (1998) noted that Continuous expansion has allowed network approaches to be adaptable, but the result has been an increasing gap between their aims and achievements (p. 389). For reducing these gaps, policymakers should select effective methods of communication and coordinate their efforts, trying to find the solutions for the issues instead of focusing on the interests of their group. One of the most effective models is the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). The basic strategy of this framework [ACF] is to use the structure of beliefs in the governing coalitions of policy subsystems to predict changes in shared beliefs that lead to changes in policy over time (Stich & Miller, 2008, p. 63). Despite the current level of development of strategies, the sphere requires further improvements. Grant (1990) pointed at the need to develop further a range of types of policy-making structures (p. 319). Participating in policy networks, actors need to pay attention to the dynamics as one of the main characteristics of the process (Kjun, 1996, p. 90). Therefore, a wide range of approaches to creating the policy networks can be implemented for enhancing governance and improving the results of collaborative works.
The PPACA as the result of a collaboration of policymaking networks demonstrates the effectiveness of the strategies which were used by the participants. Expressing their considerations, the groups with compelling interests allowed viewing the problem from various perspectives and selecting the solutions considering the complexity of the issue. Balancing the competing interests of various groups, the network managed to complete the project of the reform. Limiting the opportunities of insurers to deny coverage without proper argumentation of this decision, the reform under consideration is aimed at protecting patients rights.
Reference List
Grant, J. (1990). Sub-governments, policy communities and networks: Refilling the old bottles? Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(3), 319338.
Kiun, E. H. (1996). Analyzing and managing policy processes in complex networks: A theoretical examination of the concept policy network and its problems. Administration and Society, 28 (1), 90119.
Stich, B., & Miller, C. R. (2008). Using the advocacy coalition framework to understand freight transportation policy change. Public Works Management Policy, 13(1), 6274.
The basic strategy of this framework [advocacy coalition framework] is to use the structure of beliefs in the governing coalitions of policy subsystems to predict changes in shared beliefs that lead to changes in policy over time (Stich & Miller, 2008, p. 63).
Thatcher, M. (1998). The development of policy network analyses: From modest origins to overarching frameworks.