Category: Democracy

Introduction

The Democratic Party of USA is the oldest political party in the world. It gained a lot of popularity in the years of Great Depression when it came up with policies to tackle unemployment and fuel industries. It also sponsored the most famous president in the history of America, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who is the only president to have been elected for four years. It has become popular in its support for civil rights, social welfare and the Third countries aid. The Republican Party on the other hand, was founded in the 1854 during the anti-slavery movement by members of the former Democratic-Republican Party supporting the extension of slavery in the Nebraska and Kansa territories fell out with their party members opposed by the act who argued that territories should be allowed to decide on their own (Chace, 2004). The two parties are the main rivals in the US and exhibit many differences in their view of Government and governance. These are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Political ideology

The Democratic Party supports a strong federal government that control business and industry in the interest of the public example during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson (1913-21), he made reforms which saw the breaking up of monopolies and a wider federal control of banking and industry. This is as opposed to the Republican Party view which supports a laissez-faire capitalism government structure which advocates for less government control of the economy. The republican law makers were opposed by the economic stimulus package design to revive the economy in the face of global recession by Obama but were defeated by the majority Democrats in the Congress (Chace, 2004 & CQ Researcher, 2009).

Taxes

The Democratic Party advocates tax cuts to the lower income bracket citizens in order to maintain social justice while the Republican Party supports reduced taxes to the upper income class as way of stimulating the economy and as support of individual progress in economic freedom. This is demonstrated by Obamas 10 billion dollars stimulus package which creates $1,000 tax cuts for 95% of working class families which was passed by the congress earlier this year mainly due to support by the democrats majority in both houses as it was widely criticized by republicans. This is in contrast to the Ronald Reagan presidency in 1980, when he immediately embarked on major tax cuts for the wealth after his election (CQ Researcher, 2009).

Social programs

The Democratic Party is a major champion of federal government funded social services and benefits to the poor, aged, unemployed and other marginalized groups. Government funded social programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, social security etc. President Roosevelts New Deal Social Programs which encompassed programs to alleviate the suffering of majority of unemployed population by providing emergency and short term government aid, youth work in the national forests and temporary jobs. This introduced social programs such as the social security, statuary minimum wage; The Obama health care programs are government financed which have drawn criticism from the Republicans (Goldman, 1986).

Foreign policy

The Republican government is of the view of strong national defense and USA security interests as a priority. Ronald Reagan made major military build up after his election in 1980. In 1991, the incumbent Republican president joined forces with other nations which drove away Iraq military from Kuwait and the Bush foreign policy which saw the American armies attack Afghanistan and Iraq a war yet to be worn but costing the government a lot in terms of resources and lives of soldiers. On the other hand, the Democratic governments have adopted internationalism and multilateralism in dealing with foreign issues. The Democratic Party opposed the Vietnam War under Johnson presidency. The party also follows mutual diplomacy as opposed to churning particular political systems like its rival. Jimmy Carter was instrumental in Camp David Accords where peace agreements were made between Egypt and Israel which led to signing of peace treaty in 1978. The Obama policy is not to be left behind which operates on mutual relationships between USA and other countries and resolving of disputes trough established international institutions such as United nations (Chace, 2004 & CQ Researcher, 2009).

Civil Rights

The party opposes legislations dealing with civil rights especially the racial integration in schools and the military. During the Eisenhower presidency the Party opposed the passing of the civil rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 though he went ahead and passed them due to pressure from the civil rights groups and international community. The party opposed the federal mandated racial integration. Democratic Party supports the civil rights and racial desegregation. During the presidencies of Truman, Kennedy and Johnson the passed the civil rights Act of 1964 and the voting rights Act of 1965 (Goldman, 1986).

Works cited

Chace, J. 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft & Debs- the election that changed the country. Simon & Schuster, 2004.

CQ Researcher. The Obama Presidency: Can Obama Deliver the Change he Promised. CQ Researcher, 2009, Vol 19. Issue no. 4: pg 73-104.

Goldman, R.M. Dilemma and destiny: the Democratic Party in America. Madison Books, 1986.

Introduction

Winthrop Jordan had the commission in mind over the particulars of the whites over blacks, that is American approach towards the Negro, 1550-1812. His main argument in this matter is that whilst racism did not at first lead the colonists in enslaving the blacks, the concept of the native hereditary inferiority on the component of Africans and African Americans finally coalesced in the beginning of Republic, promoted by the environmentalism in the Revolutionary period (Jordan, P. 28). Despite lacking sufficient strength, the fight for the new revolution carried the analysis for the American slavery using the upcoming methods at its initial stages of development and more so it continued with its vision to educate appropriate work in the current revival. Jordan paid his full attention on the attitude of the white men towards the Negroes especially in the first two centuries upon the African and European settlement which later advanced into the current United States of America.

Jordan commenced his intellectual scrutiny on the origins of the American slavery by tackling on the English behavior of Africans before the beginning of the institution. He rather persistently showed in their beginning contacts the English came across the Negroes plainly as another category of people (Jordan, P. 6). He then elaborated the beginning of the slavery in the new world, pressuring the unintentional nature or the unthinking decision of the entire enterprise. In this concept Jordan put forward that the English was not enthralled in the slavery matter as the most proficient kind of labor to them and likewise not necessarily as a means of exercising the inflexible intuition with reference to the inferiority towards the Africans.

That kind of conception was realized later in the course of action. Secondly, there was the enlightenment on the development of the slavery society within the second incitement concentrated on the growth of the slavery society in the English colonies. For such schemes to be successful there should be the procedural in place to organize the labor force. Thus, Jordan deals with the growth of the master-slave association which is burdened with the challenges of control, discipline and freedom. The more daunting portion in the events is the sorts of men who became the white attitudes towards the interracial sex (Jordan, P. 34). The main aim of maintaining the two types of men anticipated the difference results and also the similarities in the physical and spiritual world.Once more, Jordan asserted that the whites societies considered themselves and their own culture was bound to influence their views towards the Negro.

The third part of the information reviewed the manner in that kind of change revolutionized the manner in which the white thought concerning the blacks. As the white meditated about the conception of the freedom, liberty and the natural rights, they were pressured to surrender their kind of unthinking decisions and the compliance to the kind of labor that was formed amongst them as racial slavery. Jordan affirmed that the American Revolution ascertained the turning moments in the American society causing the crystallization of the modern racial discrimination. Jordan lastly showed the growth for the racism within the generation which preceded the revolution.

This concentrates on the forty years preceding the formation of the United States and the initiation of the racist ideology, in the beginning Jordan scrutinizes the community in which the thriving ideology came up (Jefferson, P. 15). As he dealt with the matters of economy, cultural and also political matters, within his first period of analysis, he elaborated how the enlargement for the slavery and the separation of the free and also religious Negroes within the white community affected the virtual thrive within the economic differences. Many of the people had the willing and wish that the slavery could have been dealt with although they also find it indispensable within their fledging country. With the like of Jefferson, together with his other supporters in the institution, the nation had no other alternative other than to go deeper into the chaos of the slavery and racism.

In order to continue with the activity of the slavery, the whites appealed to the innate, the heritable inferiorities that could not be gotten out. The influence of the American scholars during the post revolutionary period was to fight America as the origin of the white men. Moreover, the people in the United States did not classify the people races of the European or non-African descent apart from their apart from the dissimilarity towards the people of the African descent. Like any other big task, the Whites over blacks remain challenging and discerning even after forty years. Berlin and Jordan both distinguish slavery as a single system in many and all proposed that the respective communities were hustling to come up with the best solution for controlling the slaves within the present systems. John Thornton did what Jordan among other subsequent scholars lacked to do (Jefferson, P. 15). He viewed at the African culture, finding to not only explain the slavery features from their standpoint but also to elaborate on what the slaves perhaps brought into the institution. Many historians disagree with the elements of the Jordans thesis, but there is no colonial American scholar mainly those with slight interest in the race issues can overlook the White Over Black as it offers a good foundation in which to build the basis and growth of the American slavery.

Evidence

One of the crucial absurd assumptions acknowledged implicit by majority of the Americans, is that there is only one race, the Negro race (Winthrop Jordan, the White Mans Burden, Part Five, Thought and Society, p.165-229). That comes with the main reason why the court had to come with its analyzed contortion to bring enough evidence which the non-Negroes were to be construed as being part other members in the aim of being protected under the laws which opposed the racial discrimination.

Americans took the people of the African descent as a race not their own and not as people of the European descent or the American appearance (David Standards essay titled, On Racism and Genocide, p.269-281). That was enough evidence why in the United States of America there was distinction for black scholars and scholars and also black women and women. Even so, the terms utilized are often to represent the geography or language instead of biology matters.

When the geography terms designated the people of African descent, they proposed difference from the true denotation if compared to other people. The colonizers in the North America referred to them as Euro Americans although most of them felt the term Afro-Americans was appropriate (David Standards essay titled, On Racism and Genocide, p.269-281). Most learners in the United States readily comprehend that nobody was a European since the Europeans belonged to other nationalities but it came as a surprise to them that nobody either an African, since Africans likewise also belonged to diverse nationalities.

The second absurd postulation in separation from the race in its categorized American form sees it for granted that almost everything the people of the African descent did, said or thought is racial in nature (Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1782)). People who watched the updates of the presidential elections of 1988 realized that many of the Afro-American voted in the favor of Jesse Jackson despite the earlier revelation of the polls that many of the voters were there for his favor. Perhaps most of the intellectually incapacitating of all belonged to the third assumption that any situation dealing with the people of European and African descent automatically are kept under the heading race relations. The argument by definition and tautology thus reinstates the argument by analysis in anything concerning the people of African descent. There is the high capability that majority of the Americans historians considered slavery as part of their basic system in the race considerations. Some of historians have gone into the extent of referring slavery as the ultimate segregator (Jefferson, Letter to Governor Harrison 1803). They never see the sense in the Europeans who segregated the Africans would transport them to their continent when they could have accomplished their mission in the African region. Not many people have come with the decision of investigating for the English colonialism in opposition to Irish. Moreover, very few historians have ever analyzed the torture in Russia as a common problem, despite of the Russian analyzing fictions for the sake of their innate as considered by Americans.

Soft thinking concerning the matters leads into slapdash language which on the other hand promotes misinformation. The terms black and white, Negro and Caucasian do not emerge anywhere in the constitution like wise to any legal document in which jargon of the kind would result into hopeless imprecise (Douglass, What to the slave is the Fourth of July?). One of the burning issue is whether the slave owning citizens would take the advantage upon the non slave owning citizens in a more precisely whether the slaves would be included in the total population for the intention of apportioning representations in the congress which would be advantage for the slaveholders in the states with huge numbers of slaves and for inspecting the answerability for direct taxes being disadvantageous to them (Lincoln, 1858 Debate Speech). When the well meaning people affirmed for the rhetorical effect, which the constitution considered as Afro-Americans to be only the three filths human, it is an error which the historians of America should accept as their blame.

Conclusion

When the practically whole society including even the educated and intelligent people commits themselves to the belief in the propositions that can fall into absurdity against the slightest scrutiny, the purpose is not delusion or even absurdity or any kind of hypocrisy rather it is pure ideology. Jordans thesis tried to elaborate how Ideology may be difficult to be analyzed by anybody rationally that may remain trapped in the terrain. It more so puts it how it is difficult for the historians to cater for the issues as compared to religion or social matters; If the race can only be defined as innate and natural chauvinism of color does its very invocation as in the historical explanation do more (Jordan, P. 26). The current insurmountable problem which comes out is the genetically assumption and thus the racial prejudice cannot be basically structured as it might have rose historically. The preferable solution is to assume that having raised historically, the race then stops to be an historic phenomenon and turns into an external motor of history.

Race is not considered as an item in the human nature or a serious matter to be put into consideration rather than their own ideology. It happened that the assumable initial moment in the known understandable purposes as its aim to divert for the similar reasons. The racial ideology in America is the main invention for the beginners in USA. Those practicing the liberty to be immutable and holding into the Afro-Americans as slaves were pressured to stop by taking race as the self evident truth. Jordan argues the Jefferson mentality that race as a consistent ideology did not come into the being concurrently with slavery, but it took longer time than slavery did to become systematic. The common thing majority of the people stopped to see reviewed that people are easily pressured when professed as inferior by nature. The reverse of it focus more clearly that people are more often perceived as inferior by the Nature when they are already taken as oppressed (Jefferson, P. 15).

All the human societies whether overtly or tacitly, presuppose that the nature has ordained its social arrangements. Jordan also argues the Jeffersons approach that the historians can realistically view the colonial Americans in the action of ground preparation for the race without the foreknowledge of what could raise in their layer foundations. Ideology can be gotten as the main description in which the people formed their assumable sense in the social life which they formed in their daily life. It can also be taken as the consciousness way that gets well in the manner which the people understand their fellows.

Work cited

Douglass John. What to the slave is the Fourth of July? Publisher, Rowman & Littlefield, 2009, 676 pages.

David Standards. Essay titled, On Racism and Genocide, Publisher, Springer p.269-281.

Jefferson. Notes on the State of Virginia Publisher, Rowman & Littlefield 1782, 296 pages.

Jefferson, Leter to Govenor. Harrison 1803, 170 pages.

Winthrop Jordan. The White Mans Burden, Part Five, Thought and Society, The university of Michigan p.165-229.

From the lecture, I discovered that the word democracy partly originates from the word demes which means the small division of the bigger sections that Athens was divided into during the ancient time. The second half of the word is the Greek word Kratos which means the rule. Similarly to modern times, democracy means the rule of the people, which implies that the citizens of a certain regions major political decisions are delivered collectively. However, there are also two main differences between Athenian and modern democracies.

The major and most palpable difference between the two systems is who was considered eligible to vote. In Athens, only adult men could influence the citys political and administrative decisions, while women, children, and enslaved people did not have this right. Although most modern states also do not allow underage participation in the voting process, women and adults of all classes are eligible to express their civil will officially. Therefore, it can be concluded that modern democracies are generally more inclusive and representative than ancient ones.

Moreover, the prevalent number of modern democracies are representative, whereas, in ancient Greece, they were direct. It means that while citizens could directly vote for proposed laws and foreign policies in the past, individuals nowadays should elect representatives who would make legislative and policy-related decisions for them. Despite the fact that the original Greek way may seem fairer and more attractive, it is necessary to consider that, nowadays, this procedure would be nearly impossible. Indeed, in Athens, for instance, only approximately 30,000 residents had voting rights, whereas today, most countries have a population that is counted in millions and even in billions of citizens. For this reason, it becomes clear that voting for each bill would be associated with tremendous temporal and monetary investments compared to a representative system.

Nevertheless, in a conclusion, it can be argued that the gist of modern democracy is not different from the one in ancient Greece. The idea that postulates that people can and should be the bearers of political power still remains the same. Despite the fact that there are some differences between the old and the modern systems, they rather reflect the evolution of society than changes in the main principle of democracy.

Looking into the history of democratic developments, it is possible to state that anti-democratic movements have played a key role in the path of democratization. Moreover, it is important to add that the anti-democratic movement in general and active campaigns against democracy, in particular, have fostered the establishment of democratic institutions throughout the world. Even the American democracy was born as the result of social conflict.

According to Lijphart, the Westminster model of democracy provides a throughout insight into the essence of democracy not only in the United Kingdom but in the rest of the world as well. Lijphart argued that by concentrating power in the hands of the majority, the Westminster model of democracy sets up a government-versus-opposition pattern that is competitive and adversarial (p. 16). Furthermore, the conflict characterizes the representation of the interests of the major group. There are few large and strong interesting groups and they function in different sectors. There is no multiplicity of interest groups under the Westminster model.

However, it does not mean that the United Kingdom is an undemocratic state. On the contrary, the conflict within this model fosters the democratization of society.

Democracy as a form of government is universally recognized as the only effective system of governance. Nevertheless, the history of global democratic development is marked by anti-democratic movements. One of the main purposes of anti-democratic movements was to show the failure of democracy to protect or represent the rights and freedoms of minorities. In essence, democracy is the rule of the majority; it serves the interests of the dominant groups. Minorities, on the other side, are left with the single option  to accept the interests of the majority as their own. Even though the minorities can become majorities as the result of new elections, there are always groups the interests of which are neglected for the sake of the majority.

The role played by anti-democratic movements can be defined as consensus-oriented. Lijphart argued that societies need a democratic regime that emphasizes consensus instead of opposition, that includes rather than excludes, and that tries to maximize the size of the ruling majority instead of being satisfied with a bare majority (p. 33). There are several perfect examples of consensus democracy. For example, the European Union is a multiethnic entity; however, conflicts are rare.

In specific terms, democracy grants and supports the following rights: to vote, to be elected, of political leaders to compete for votes, free and fair elections, freedom of association, freedom of expression, alternative sources of information, institutions for making public policies depending on the votes.

These are the fundamental requirements for democracy. Nevertheless, this list is not self-inclusive as democracy stands for the broader meaning. Democracy is the government for people and by people. However, the majority rule undermines the core values of democracy, the ones which emphasize the importance of majority representation as minorities are simply excluded from the rights.

Special attention should be paid to the voting rights of women. In this example, the anti-democratic movements have played their key role  granted the voting right to women. Before 1971, women did not have the right to vote in Switzerland. Australian aborigines had no voting rights until 1962 while the United States had no universal suffrage until 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was passed (Lijphart, p. 52). The women had to fight, of course through social campaigns and peaceful actions, for their voting rights.

It is important to add that the concept of democracy is not stable as it is changed and modified with every generation.

Today the idea of democracy is rather different than it was only 100 or even 50 years ago. Modern democracy grants equal rights to all people in all aspects of their lives. The racial, gender, or any other differences are not legally recognized. In other words, race and gender have no importance in modern society as democracy ensures equal protection to all people. One of the most recent examples of the anti-democratic movement is the attack on the U.S. on September 11, 2001. The conflict between the Western and Islamic countries is very long. In addition to the ideological differences, political differences have also played an important role in conflict development. The United States responded to the attack with the war in Iraq. The result of the war is the establishment of democracy in the country. From one side, democracy establishment through military intervention is not a democratic way of bringing peace. On the other side, the anti-democratic and anti-American movements resulted in the democratization of the previously oppressed society.

Speaking about democracy development and the role played by anti-democratic movements, it is helpful to refer to the most anti-democratic system of Nazism. Relying on the definition of democracy, Nazism fits the core values of democracy perfectly as it was the system of the majority  only a dominant group of people was given rights and freedoms while the others were oppressed and excluded from the political and even social life of the country. From one side, active and open oppression of the minorities is absolutely undemocratic. From the other side, the rule of the majority is democratic in essence because the interests of the dominant groups are met.

In relation to Germany, the Nazis rose to power because of the strong social support. Nazism is often considered to be negative because of the oppressions and the actions of Hitler during World War I and World War II. The millions of murders of the Jewish people and the repressions against other nations turned Nazism into a hated ideology. Nevertheless, it is important to mention that in essence, Nazism is nationalism. Nazism is based on the belief that the interests of the nation should be protected, that the rights of the citizens have to be taken into account above the interests of others. Therefore, Nazism gained wide and stable social support for several decades. Nevertheless, in the early 1930s, the traditional supporters of Nazism turned against it. Traditionally, Nazism was supported by the social class defined as bourgeois, rich families for example. The voters supporting these parties turned against democracy as Mann argued that in the early 1930s anti-democratic moods were especially common because of the overall economic depression. The industrial workers gave their voices to the left; the Catholics voted for Catholic parties; the bourgeois parties had the support of the rest of society. The anti-democratic movement added popularity to Nazism which turned into political might. The Nazis did not appeal to the selected group of votes; they especially appealed to Protestants of all classes and radicalized them.

References

Lijphart. The Westminster Model of Democracy. Mann. Fascists.

Summary

In the most populous city in central China, a Chinese filmmaker documented an interesting experiment in democracy. The participants in the said experiment were the third grade students of the Evergreen Primary School in Wuhan, China (PBS, 2007, p.1). Based on the schools tradition it was the duty of the teachers to appoint the class monitor (PBS, 2007, p.1). The student appointed to the said position wielded significant power when it came to managing the class, keeping the students on track of the learning objectives (PBS, 2007).

The class monitor also doled out punishment to the perceived violators of the schools code of conduct (PBS, 2007). In the year 2007, a historic change occurred, because for the first time in the schools history the teachers decided to utilize a democratic form of selecting the next class monitor.

In this particular class, the teacher had chosen three candidates, two boys and one girl. Luo Lei and Cheng Cheng were both males. Xu Xiaofei was the only female in the group. One feature of the campaign protocol was the retention of the services of two handpicked assistants for every candidate (PBS, 2007, p.1).

The candidates had to perform three tasks, and at the end of the presentation the students were given the responsibility to choose the next class monitor. First, the candidates were expected to showcase their talent in a talent show. Second, they must engage each other in a debate. Finally, they were expected to make a speech as a final appeal to the voters.

There were two major components to the campaign process. First, the parents did everything in their power to prepare their son or daughter for the rigors of the electoral process.

Parents supported them when they made the preparations for the talent show. Parents were also helpful when it came to the preparations for the debate and the speech. However, Luo Leis parents went beyond the expected responsibilities of parents. In Luo Leis case, his parents utilized their financial resources, status in the community, and personal connections to increase Luo Leis chances of winning the elections.

The secondary component to the election process was manifested in the creation of alliances and the personal campaign methods utilized by Luo Lei, Cheng Cheng, and Xu Xiaofei. Each candidate used their personal networks, friendships, and social skills to persuade fellow students with regards to their competency to lead as class monitor. In their free time, the three candidates forged alliances and made promises to make life better for their fellow classmates if chosen to lead as class monitor.

The filmmaker focused on the emotional and physical toll of the selection process. Xu Xiaofei for instance expressed her desire to quit. In many occasions Cheng Chengs angry outbursts were some of the compelling scenes in the said documentary. At the end, Luo Lei was declared the winner. Luo Lei was jubilant while his opponents and their ardent supporters were reduced to tears.

What is Democracy?

According to political scientists, democracy is both a real regime and a political ideal (Ersson & Lane, 2004). They expounded on this definition by saying that democracy is the political regime where the will of the people becomes the law of the country (Ersson & Lane, 2004, p.2). In addition, they also highlighted the importance of neutrality, which is the assurance that no choice alternative is given a favored position (Ersson & Lane, 2004).

At the same time a true democracy believes in the ideal of anonymity, which is the assurance that no person is given a special position (Ersson & Lane, 2004). Finally, a true democracy anchored its belief in the rule of the majority, and in an election the winners garnered at least 51 percent of the votes (Ersson & Lane, 2004).

The above-mentioned statements are critical in the analysis of Chinas chosen form of governance. These statements are also important in the evaluation of the impact of the social experiment at the Evergreen Primary School in Wuhan, China. An overview of the electoral process applied to the social experiment participated by third grade students highlighted the gaps in Chinas pursuit of democracy. An overview of Chinas election system will lead to the same conclusion that China is not yet an example of a democratic regime.

Economic Growth and Democratization in China

A significant number of political analysts are confident that China is on the road to greater democratization. This assertion was based on the premise that there is a strong connection between economic growth and democratization. In other words, greater economic growth creates greater demand for more personal and political freedom.

Henry Rowen a Stanford economist made a prediction a few years back that if China maintained a 5 percent per capita growth in gross domestic product, then, by 2015 it will reach a critical threshold of $7,000-$8000 per capita GDP (Tsai, 2007, p.2). Henry Rowen made the positive forecast that at a certain level of economic growth, several factors are in play, and these forces will compel the Chinese government to transform itself into a democratic regime (Tsai, 2007).

At the turn of the 20^th century, an economist name Xia Xi Lollar pointed out the positive correlation between a market economy and democracy. There are several pieces of historical evidences to support the views of Lollar and Rowen. According to historians, China successfully transitioned from totalitarianism to authoritarianism (Tsai, 2007).

They also pointed out that China is on the verge of starting the longer-term, second transition towards democracy as evidenced by the significant expansion of Chinas private sector (Tsai, 2007, p.3).

Chinas Educational System Reinforcing Social Stratification

Chinas unique social stratification is a byproduct of the Cultural Revolution and the impact of the Chinese Communist Party (CPP). The Cultural Revolution was spearheaded by the late dictator Mao Zedong.

The top leaders in the said movement were labeled as revolutionary heroes, and it did not come as a surprise that their heirs became the managers of Chinas modern state-owned enterprises (Goodman, 2014). The grandchildren of the so-called revolutionary heroes became wealthy private entrepreneurs in the 21^st century (Goodman, 2014). The present form of social stratification is a major impediment towards the full democratization of the country.

In addition to the heirs of popular leaders and reformers of China, privilege and wealth were also distributed to the trusted and loyal members of the CCP. Thus, the presence of the CCP created a negative effect on the stratification of Chinas social structure. This is manifested through Chinas educational system. In fact, the documentary entitled Vote for Me provided outsiders a glimpse of the social stratification within China.

Consider for instance the fact that the teachers did not give the students a free hand when it comes to choosing their leaders. It was the teachers who narrowed down the choices to three students. This is an important aspect of the social experiment, because according to the definition of a real democracy it is important to allow the general public to make decisions without interference from the government. In other words, it is not acceptable to favor one group or one entity over the other.

In the said documentary it was obvious that there were certain students who had more access to resources and social power. It is interesting to find out why Luo Lei was the class monitor for the past two years.

It is also interesting to point out that his familys wealth and influence played a major role in his ability to secure the position of class monitor. It is also interesting to find out the family background of Luo Lei, and to discover why his father wielded tremendous influence with regards to the police department and the transportation department of the city.

It can be argued that the social experiment at the Evergreen Primary School was an example of a democratic exercise. However, several aspects of the electoral process must change in order for it to be considered an example of a democratic form of governance. It is important to find out if poor students and those who were not related to party officials or wealthy entrepreneurs of the city can have a fair chance of winning the election for class monitor.

The Path to a Democratic Political System

It is not prudent to say that China can never become a fully democratized society. No one can predict the outcome of several social and economic forces that are at work in the said country. However, it can be argued that the path towards full democratization was littered with obstacles and made more difficult because of several problems. One of the major obstacles is the CCPs continuous grip on power. Another problematic issue is the existence of a unique social stratification framework that impeded the democratization of the country.

It is not easy to believe in the idea that China can become a fully democratized country. Even if analysts founded their hope on the spectacular economic growth of China, there are many problematic aspects of the current regime that makes optimism a difficult choice.

The theory that an open market economy creates a powerful force to compel democratic change in the country is an acceptable proposition. However, it can be argued that Chinas political history from the distant past to the present has been characterized by the submission of the masses to the rule of a few.

References

Ersson, S., & Lane, J. (2004). Democracy: A comparative approach. New York: Routledge.

Goodman, S. (2014). Class in contemporary China. MA: Polity Press.

PBS. (2007). Vote for me. Web.

Tsai, K. (2007). Capitalism without democracy. New York: Cornell University Press.

After the 2007 economic recession, it is claimed that many people have defaulted in paying their taxes due to low returns and lack of jobs. The media has focused on the issue mainly because taxation is a sensitive issue to government. Anusha Shrivastava wrote that the Federal Reserve had not done enough during the last few years to boost the economy (1). In this regard, fiscal policies must be designed to ensure maximum taxation.

Policies made should be in line with the states monetary policies. This would stimulate the economy. Brenda Cronin observed that American households had witnessed a rise in their income in the recent days (2). She however predicts that economic growth could be temporary because of financial problems in other states. Cronin argues that there is some hope among Americans that the economy might favor them.

This is welcomed by the state because taxation would be enhanced. Conversely, many people are not sure whether economic growth rate will hold. Citizens argue that one-month growth rate should not be used to speculate good future. Brendan Conway argues that taxation is projected to fall because American stock market is experiencing tensions due to the on-going financial meltdown in Europe (2).

The columnist argues that Dow Jones Industrial unit had already witnessed a drop of 145 points or 1.2% of its total shares. This shows that economic tension is still a threat to taxation. Many citizens would not be able to pay their taxes.

The claims in the media belong to the camp of freedom and community. The columnists are discussing some of the key issues that touch on the freedom of people and their communal living. Citizens are burdened with the responsibility of paying taxes yet they are not in a position. Taxation denies people their freedom because they become slaves only to pay taxes.

Therefore, the columnists present some problems that affect people in society. Citizens are seeking freedom although it is tied to other things. Economic freedom would liberate people from poverty. Cronin argues that the state does not except the poor from taxation. The rich are taxed in the same way as the poor. This represents inequality because the state should tax the rich to feed the poor. This shows that capitalism is a problem to society.

It affects the lives of citizens because it leads to domination, alienation and pauperization. The existing tax system portrays inequalities because it increases the gap between the rich and the poor. The rich pay fewer taxes while the poor are taxed heavily. Such system leads to instabilities in the community because it affects the social structure. Families continue suffering because able members are forced to work hard only to pay taxes.

Karl Marx argued that the economy determines all aspects of life. In this respect, life is depended on production and distribution. Marx focused on the work that people do in order to sustain their lives. The most important aspect of life is the means of production. The means of production such as tools, raw materials and skills are the base of any society. He observed that a small group in the society controls capital. The main aim of the owners of the means of production is to maximize profits.

Plato on his part observed that justice is only achieved when people pay taxes. The best in society should be allowed to rule because they are able to bring justice and order. Citizens must be governed because they are highly appetitive. This means that they can easily be corrupted by the earthly. The philosopher king is compared to gold, meaning that he/she is the best in society (Nettleship 89). Soldiers are likened to silver.

They do not have the best knowledge to run the economy but they help the philosopher king in enforcing the law. Their main role is to make sure that people conform to the set rules. Citizens are like bronze. This means that they are not much valued. Plato argued that citizens must be respected because they are taxpayers. Any government cannot do without citizens. However, Plato observed that citizens must not be given a chance to rule because they are least qualified.

Karl Marx would argue that the state is the property of the ruling class. The state serves the interests of the owners of means of production (27). Marx could further observe that policies made are meant to subjugate and dominate workers. Workers are forced to pay taxes making them to work hard. The owners of the means of production benefit because workers produce more goods to earn more wages. The state makes sure that people participate in economic development by setting standards for each person.

Workers do not benefit from government policies, which make them to rise up to the occasion and fight for their rights. Workers will one day overthrow the ruling class, leading to socialism. Marx argued that taxation is one of the reasons that will force workers to challenge the elites in society. He further observed that introduction of technology would contribute to workers dissatisfaction. Profits will fall among capitalists because of competition, which will force them to adopt technology because it is easy to control.

Plato on his part was against capitalism because it supports democracy. Plato was disillusioned with the way Socrates was treated by the thirty tyrants (Blackburn 35). Socrates was falsely accused of inciting the youth against the aristocrats. Socrates was finally punished by death, something that did not go down well with Plato.

Plato became an opponent of democracy, suggesting that the best form of government should be based on educational qualification. The most qualified would identify how much each person should pay in form of taxes. Democracy is the tyranny of the multitude according to Plato. He highly discouraged democracy because it oppressed some members of society.

Works Cited

Anusha, Shrivastava. Feds Williams: Fiscal Policy Actions Badly Needed. Wall Street Journal, 18 Nov. 2011. Web. Nov. 2011. https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/11/18/feds-williams-fiscal-policy-actions-badly-needed/?mod=WSJBlog&mod=marketbeat

Blackburn, Simon. Platos Republic: A Biography. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2007.

Conway, Brendan. Global Stocks Slide. Wall Street Journal, 20 Nov. 2011. Web. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204531404577051842829678760

Cronin, Brenda. Uptick in household income: Trend or hiccup. Wall Street Journal, 21 Nov. 2011. Web. https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/11/21/uptick-in-household-income-trend-or-hiccup/?mod=WSJBlog&mod=marketbeat

Marx, Karl. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977. Web. https://www.marxists.org/

Nettleship, Richard. The Theory of Education in Platos Republic. London: Oxford, 1935.

Introduction

Nations which are socially and economically developed are the envy of every person in the world due to high living standards in these countries. Consequently, human development is the ultimate aim of any nation. Political leaders usually aim at improving income levels of citizens. People want their social welfare to be enhanced while health standards of a society have to be advanced to increase productivity of the economy. Moreover, respect of peoples rights and freedoms need to be ensured for better social integration and advancement. In a nutshell, human development is the main aim why people wake up every morning to work. Different people have tried to explain the prerequisites of human development while giving the conditions necessary for the society to develop. There are those who argue that human advancement results from democratization while others hold that it is as a result of economic development. However, it is important to note that democratization and economic development have to be balanced for meaningful national advancement to be realized.

Economic Development

Economic development refers to the increase in the wellbeing of a society both qualitatively and quantitatively. It refers to a situation where there is advancement in human capital, development of infrastructure, environmental sustainability as well as increase in social and healthcare quality (Diamond, 2008). It is important to note that unlike economic growth which measures the total increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), economic development goes ahead to measure how income is distributed among members of the society. In this regard, it is important to note that economic growth is a necessary and sufficient condition for economic development and both depend on good political regimes. A society can only advance if at least each and every member of the society experiences some positive life improvement. Therefore, economic development is a holistic approach that is used to measure human development.

Democratization

Democratization is a process by which a nation is transformed into a political system where citizens have a say on how they are governed. It is also the increase in democratic space within a country or a society. As a country becomes democratized, the rights of people are respected and people get the chance to choose their leaders through an open and fair election process (Burnell & ware, 2007). On the same note, democratization leads to a system of governance where the rule of law is respected and people are given equal opportunities to advance themselves. Through democratization, people not only work hard to be economically empowered, but also work comfortably to advance the nation as a whole. However, it is important to note that democratization and good political systems are intrinsically connected.

Issues Necessary for Human Development

Institutions are necessary for any meaningful development in any society. All the important processes like production, distribution as well as democratization are controlled by institutions. Institutions can give right incentives to the economy which will encourage production, increase profits and encourage people to work thus leading to economic development (Diamond, 2008). However, it is important to note that for institutions to work well, property rights and contracts have to be enforceable while capital accumulation should be encouraged.

Moreover, human development is evaluated according to the freedom that exists in the society. Human development should lead to increased choices available within the economy. If citizens cannot choose what to buy, then national advancement will not have been attained. On the same note, human development cannot take place unless there is an enabling political system. As a result, democracy and economic empowerment which are crucial ingredients for accommodative political regimes should be present for human development to take place (Sen, 1999). On the same note, economic growth is an inevitable requirement for economic development because only then can the government offer the necessary social amenities.

Relationship between Democratization and Economic Development

Democratization is as a result of the increase of wealth among people. As people of the lower class get increase in their levels of income, they gain the power to demand for their rights and this leads to democratization. It is important to note that as a nations wealth increases and economic development is experienced, democratization automatically becomes imminent. Research has shown that wealthy nations have highly developed democracies compared to economically challenged countries. Economic development increases the speed of democratization process. At the same time, democratization increases the chances of economic development taking place. Consequently, the two have to work hand in hand for a nation to achieve human development (Burnell & Ware, 2007).

On the same note, well educated people are aware of their rights, can exercise them properly and can be trusted to put in place good leaders. However, good education system is as a result of economic development. Similarly, a democratic political system allows people to demand and even put in place good education systems. On the other hand, there could be no development without a good education system (Pollack, 2003). Therefore, both economic development and democratization lead to a better education system which is crucial for human development.

No nation can develop if its market system is not left to operate freely without interference. Democratization ensures that each person has freedom to engage in any lawful economic activity. On the same note, it enhances the probability of freedom of trade. On the other hand, human development is highly dependent on the ability of individuals to advance their economic status. Consequently, democratization and economic development have a common target of empowering people. Similarly, though the general wellbeing of everybody is important for national advancement, increase in the living standards of the middle and lower class people is crucial. Economic development will ensure equality in income distribution and thus increased chances of lower and middle class people to advance their living standards (Sen, 1999). On the other hand, democratization enhances peoples political rights thus socially advancing them.

Furthermore, as the democratic space of a nation increases, social equality is enhanced. Similarly, economic development is measured by the level of social equality in a nation. Consequently, economic development sets pace for social equality while democratization helps in propelling it forward. In a nutshell, democratization and economic development are complementary issues in the process of human development.

Democracy, Economic development and Political Participation

National advancement is a complicated aspect and cannot be explained using one perspective only. We have seen that democratization and economic development are interconnected in advancing human development. However, the two are also crucial for ensuring that the government in place is favorable. The government is very vital in ensuring that distribution of income is equal. Entrepreneurs will be very unwilling to invest in some areas of the economy which though they are important, they do not give returns quickly or they require massive capital. The government should therefore institute tax and use the money to provide social services to the people (Sen, 1999). Nevertheless, the tax system should not be exploitative and thus discourage people from working.

Advanced democracy means that the will of the majority dominates issues in a given society. Consequently, increased democratic space ensures that people will be able to choose the right leaders who will implement policies that encourage economic development. In democratic nations, citizens have the chance of changing their leaders after a definite duration of time. This enhances confidence of people in their political systems hence increasing their productivity which will in turn lead to economic development (Burnell & Ware, 2007). On the other hand, economic development increases the tax base thus increasing income of the government. Economic development ensures equality in wealth distribution which gives many people the power to have a say in societal issues. Besides increasing democratic space, this also ensures that majority of the people get involved in the process of selecting political leaders.

Conclusion

Human advancement involves interconnection of very many issues. Health, education, economic power, political system and freedom must be enhanced. Human development involves representation of the will of the majority in governance. While democratization enhances human rights and freedom of choice, economic development leads to increased living standards thus enhancing national advancement. Neither democratization nor economic development can in itself lead to human development. As shown above, the two have to be integrated in the efforts of advancing a nation.

References

Burnell, P. J. & Ware, A. J. (2007). Funding Democratization. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.

Diamond, L. (2008). The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies throughout the World. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Pollack, D. (2003). Political Culture in Post-Communist Europe: Attitudes in New Democracies. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. London: Oxford University Press.

Introduction

After the war: The political economy of exporting democracy is written by Coyne. This book is an analysis of geopolitical trends and the development of different political movements and practices. Despite the name of this book starting with war, Coyne actually focuses on the issue of democracy and why the United States has not succeeded in exporting its political values. The author reviews the many war conflicts that the state has been involved in, such as in Iraq or Japan, to answer this question. Coyne (2006) argues that one should adopt an economic perspective, which allows one to understand the motives of human behavior, to understand why the success of democratic expansion has been mixed. Moreover, in his book, the author warns about the threat from the states that are perceived as weak since they do not practice democracy. In total, there are eight chapters in this book, which disclose the different cases of the US deploying troops to different states, the official reasoning for these events, and the outcomes. This paper will summarize the eight chapters of After war: The political economy of exporting democracy.

Main body

In the first chapter Coyne (2006) addresses whether the promotion of democratic values is possible through violence and force. The reason for this is that the United States has used the excuse of protecting democracy when interfering in the internal affairs of different states. Despite this noble declaration, the number of states that have adhered to the democratic principles after this is low, with Japan and Germany being the most notable examples. The author begins by assessing the case of the USS Maine exploding near the Cunas coastline during the growing tensions between Cuba and Spain. Although these tensions were the official cause of the USs interference, Coyne (2006) also cites the economic interests of America as a case that needs further review. After interfering in Cuban affairs, the United States continues to use the Platt Amendment to justify the deployment of troops to other states. At the end of the chapter, the author offers non-intervention and support for free trade as alternative approaches to the promotion of democracy. Thus, the first chapter briefly outlines the first instances when the United States choose a military intervention with the justification of promoting democracy.

Next, in the second chapter, Coyne (2006) discusses how the knowledge of economics can be applied to politics and understanding human behavior. According to these principles, individuals adjust their goals considering the constraints by using the means available to them. Moreover, Coyne (2006) proceeds to discuss the different actors involved in the pursuit of goals and the variations between them. For example, he states that in the American interventions, the state is the primary actor, and its goal is to support liberal values. However, there is also the army where each individual has their own goals and methods of pursuit. For example, the soldiers may decide to return home (Coyne, 2006). The author also discusses Coases theorems conditions for making an optimal decision while arguing that its applicability in real-life conditions is questionable.

The third chapter begins with a reflection on the conditions in Germany after WWII. Notably, Coyne (2006) mentions that the US expected the remaining German military forces to form a resistance and continue to fight a guerrilla war. However, this did not happen, and one explanation for the lack of such resistance is the change within German society. The citizens cooperated to ensure that the warfare did not continue and supported the peace, which is what held off the potential resistance even before the United States created a constabulary force in Germany. Hence, the societal conditions in Germany and not Americas interference ensured that no war actions continued after WWII.

In the fourth chapter, Coyne (2006) contrasts the case of Japan with that of Germany. General McArthur was in charge of rebuilding Japan after war actions, and he had executive and legislative power to issue laws and direct the process. With this, he controlled the new policies and addressed the gaps in the existing ones to ensure that the Japanese legal system supports democratic values. This contrasts with Germanys case, where the society served as a natural barrier and supported democracy. Next, over the course of the fifth chapter, the author offers an in-depth comparison between Japan and Germany. Coyne (2006) uses the examples of these two states and their reconstruction process as the benchmarks for comparison with other states. For one, the agreement between the Japanese government and the Allies implies full surrender and the establishment of democratic institutions under supervision. Hence, the author offers an in-depth review of the success that Americas efforts had in Japan and Germany.

In chapter six, Coyne (2006) examines the examples of Somalia and Haiti, the cases of unsuccessful attempts to promote democracy. Somalia, in particular, is a good example of failure since Coyne (2006) argues that democracy went against the traditions and social values of this state. Patriarchy and social networks were of utmost importance for the Somalians, which is why the Western types of democracy could not survive in this state. Chapter seven is dedicated to the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, which the author perceives as failures and cases of unnecessary warfare. In this section, Coyne (2006) argues that the state should have never engaged in these conflicts and states that the only viable option is the unilateral withdrawal of military forces.

Finally, in the eighth chapter, Coyne concludes by arguing that democracy and liberal values should be promoted using liberal methods and not warfare. This chapter is a summary of all recommendations the author developed based on the numerous case studies he presents in this book. Hence, by using historical context and economic theory, Coyne (2006) concludes that the United States involvement in other states affairs with the goal of promoting democracy should be limited. Although there are several successful case studies, their success is facilitated by the historical and social contexts, and the risks demonstrated by failures are too serious. The promotion of liberal values is possible only in states that share the same value system and have some preliminary democratic institutions in place.

Conclusion

In summary, this paper is a chapter by chapter summary of After war: The political economy of exporting democracy. Coyne (2006) offers a different viewpoint on the USs attempts to support democracy in foreign countries. He reviews examples of Cuba, Haiti, Somalia, Iran, and Afghanistan to argue that apart from political reasoning, there are also economic benefits that the US Presidents considered when making their decisions to deploy troops. However, the United States has had success in helping Japan and Germany build and sustain democracy.

Reference

Coyne, C. J. (2006). After war: The political economy of exporting democracy. Stanford University Press.

The article The Future of History: Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class? by Francis Fukuyama addresses such urgent theme as saving the middle class social layer as a fundament of democracy, safety and stability in the world. In his article, Fukuyama explains that during the last few decades, some strange phenomenon in the world economy based on an uncontrollable capitalism is getting more and more destructive for the middle class. The value of this article can be hardly underestimated as it strives to preserve the very foundation of peace and security in the world which is seen in the democratic society values guaranteed by the existence of middle class social layer.

Discussing the argument provided by Fukuyama in his article, it should be stated that it is very convincing and thought-provoking. He begins his article relating the events of last three decades which led to a gradual destruction of the middle class social layer. Then, the author shifts to explaining the importance of the existence of a strong and abundantly represented in the society middle class layer as it is a foundation for all the democratic values in the world including human rights and freedoms, and triumph of justice and peace among the nations of the world. Next, through a deep pondering to the history of democracy and liberalism along with other ideologies prevailing in the world during different periods of human history, Fukuyama manages to perceives the audience that humanity has never been so prosperous before as it has happened during the triumph of democratic values in the world. In such a way, the author explains that unless people make some urgent and deep changes in the economic and financial system, the global balance will be shaken.

The main themes of the article are centered around the need to implement urgent and profound measures in order to save the middle class social layer as a guaranty of democracy and liberalism in the world. The author pays a lot of his attention to the sad consequences of the current politics of uncontrolled capitalism for humanity which promotes the interests of a tiny group of individuals in the world which makes the rest of the planets population miserable slaves. He mentions real examples from a modern-day history when the forms of society formation different to democracy led to a disaster. Among such examples are the countries of the Middle East where totalitarianism based on theocracy led to a wave of cruel revolutions resulting into numerous casualties and miseries for all the people of the land including those who had the authority and material prosperity. This illustration is a very important lesson for politicians and the other men of authority as it is everybodys interest to prevent social disaster in the world.

On the whole, the article The Future of History: Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class? by Francis Fukuyama is concentrated around the ides of democracy and liberalism. It strives to prove that they are the only option for the humanity helping to guarantee peace and prosperity for people of the planet. Fukuyama explains that the current state of affairs which causes destruction of the middle class is a way to global collapse. The authors main purpose seems to prevent a global disaster which is so close nowadays.

Works Cited

Fukuyama, Francis. The Future of History: Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class? Foreign Affairs, vol. 91, no. 1, Council on Foreign Relations, 2012, pp. 5361.

Introduction

The urban condition is the human condition. In 1950, one-third of the worlds population lived in cities, but by 2050, the figure is expected to rise to two-thirds, or 6 billion people. By 2015 each of the worlds ten largest cities will house between 20 and 30 million people. Possibly, even those people who are not included in these figures now owe most of their existence to the demands that cities place on the world economy.

There can be no doubt that the last 100 years have witnessed a major shift in the worlds spatial organization. Recently, there has been a frenzy of research on this problem, much of which has concerned the exact nature of political agency when it is increasingly mediated by urban institutions. Classically, urban political agency has been thought of in three different ways. One has been to imagine the city as a place with powers arising from its particular nature.

The second has been to make claims for the city as a community, and the third has been to argue that in some way cities bestow citizenship. All of these responses are problematic in some way. No one can deny the specificity of place, but increasingly, places overlap with so many other places that it makes it very difficult to say that they are truly concentrated in one location. The second response is even more difficult in light of the extraordinary diversity of impulse and orientation in any given city. And the final response confuses a political category with a place.

Instead of jettisoning these classical interpretations, however, they should be redefined since they continue to have grip in todays world. Indeed, many contemporary global political issues are linked to these three different formulations of urban political agency.

For example, the urban spectacle of anti-war protest cannot be ignored in any consideration of global geopolitics. Moreover, the close juxtaposition of peoples and cultures from around the world in cities has to be placed at the heart of any politics of identity, belonging, and affiliation, while the sheer environmental effects of cities themselves produce both enormous problems and practices that international regulators still sometimes see as beneath them even when they are all around them. Cities matter politically, not merely as sites where the political occurs, but as part of the political itself.

What is the Polis?

There are three instances of urban political agency. The first begins with the question of place specificity. The sheer physical nature of the cityits bricks and mortar, daily routines, wires and wheelsallow many people to continue to think of the city as a bounded space. But all of these mundane things connect up with other spaces, physical and virtual. None of them are complete unto themselves. Think only of the porosity of the modern house, with its multiple inputs and outputs from all over the world (and indeed beyond if we include satellites). Think of the modern park, with people and plants from around the world.

Think of a car drive through the city, which for many people is their key experience of place, involving a constant hum of world noise if the radio is on, but also many sensing of a passing landscape that is never entirely local (the concrete comes from another country, the street lamp comes from another city, the grass seed or turf from a distant countryside). The physicality of the here and now routinely contains the physicality of the there and then.

Who is the Citizen?

Finally, we must consider the issue of citizenship, first by asking, Citizen of what? In the past citizens were identified with cities, then more recently, with the nation-state. Now, with the advent of permanently urbanized space, we can see that citizenship is becoming identified with increasingly more spatial categories. For example, surveys show that people increasingly identify with the planetary scale (citizens of the world), the local scale, and a whole series of spaces in between.

Although this tendency toward multiple spatial identification is stronger among younger people, more and more categories of people also lay claim to an identification with many spaces, such as cosmopolitans, immigrants, professionals, and many other ordinary folk whose lives are increasingly made through their multiple connections with the world. This suggests that people increasingly acknowledge the many spatial affiliations they have always had and are turning these into active political capital.

We cannot yet speak of a new commons of citizenship arranged around an agreed set of wants and demands that form in many spaces at once. But, it is the case that the category of citizenship that was formerly locked into very particular spaces is now being chipped away at and parts of it are relocating.

In this condition of citizenship, the urban is pluralized and distributed. First, the urban continues to house millions of dispossessed, dislocated and illegal people, for whom any idea of citizenship is off the radar. These are people without rights to the spaces they occupy.

The city, with its myriad of spaces, can thus provide a resource to those stripped of citizenship to survive and sometimes prosper. The existence of a whole series of quasi-citizenships also provides some recourse for those without formal political identity; such people can still take part in many urban political activities and can generally find at least some means of political expression. Put differently, the city for them is the only place of acquiring some political capital.

Fraser, Struggle over Needs

Fraser seeks to problematize Habermas notion of public space. She views this as necessary in order for critical theory to actually deal with the public because Habermass concept of the public sphere provides a way of circumventing some confusions that have plagued progressive social movements and the political theories associated with them in part because of a tendency for socialist progressives to conflate issues like the state apparatus and the public sphere.

By referring to private as everything that is outside of the domestic or familial sphere, Habermas conflates the state, the official economy of paid employment, and arenas of public discourse. This is in part because he primarily views the public sphere simply as a theater in modern societies in which political participation is enacted through the medium of talk.

According to Habermas, the idea of a public sphere is that of a body of private persons assembled to discuss matters of public concern or common interest. This idea acquired force and reality in early modern Europe in the constitution of bourgeois public spheres as counterweights to absolutist states.

These publics aimed to mediate between society and the state by holding the state accountable to society via publicity. At first this meant requiring that information about state functioning be made accessible so that state activities would be subject to critical scrutiny and the force of public opinion. Later it meant transmitting the considered general interest of bourgeois society to the state via forms of legally guaranteed free speech, free press, and free assembly, and eventually through the parliamentary institutions of representative government.

Thus at one level the idea of the public sphere designated an institutional mechanism for rationalizing political domination by rendering states accountable to (some of) the citizenry. At another level, it designated a specific kind of discursive interaction. Here the public sphere connoted an ideal of unrestricted rational discussion of public matters. The discussion was to be open and accessible to all, merely private interests were to be inadmissible, inequalities of status were to be bracketed, and discussants were to deliberate as peers. The result of such discussion would be public opinion in the strong sense of a consensus about the common good.

According to Habermas, the full utopian potential of the bourgeois conception of the public sphere was never realized in practice. The claim to open access in particular was not made good. Moreover, the bourgeois conception of the public sphere was premised on a social order in which the state was sharply differentiated from the newly privatized market economy; it was this clear separation of society and state that was supposed to underpin a form of public discussion that excluded private interests.

But these conditions eventually eroded as non-bourgeois strata gained access to the public sphere. Then the social question came to the fore, society was polarized by class struggle, and the public fragmented into a mass of competing interest groups. Street demonstrations and back room, brokered compromises among private interests replaced reasoned public debate about the common good. Finally, with the emergence of welfare-state mass democracy, society and the state became mutually intertwined; publicity in the sense of critical scrutiny of the state gave way to public relations, mass-mediated staged displays and the manufacture and manipulation of public opinion.

References

Fraser, Nancy. 1992. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy in Habermas and the Public Sphere (Craig Calhoun, ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 109-142.

Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth, Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange, trans. Joel Golb, James Ingram, and Christiane Wilke (London: Verso, 2003).