Public Speaking in a Democracy Essay
Democracy is considered to be one of the forms of political government, where the role of people is crucial indeed. The majority becomes the ruling power that supports individual freedom and equality before the law. Public speaking is regarded as one of the most effective ways to attract voters’ attention and make them believe that democratic actions are worth attention and recognition. This is why if public speaking is poor or boring for the audience, the ideas of democracy may still be unheard.
It will be very difficult to improve the situation and take into consideration the demands and requirements of ordinary people. Public speaking actually matters for a democracy, because it is a good and sometimes the only chance to save democracy that is eroding now, to improve communicative skills, and to underline the problems that prevent people from happiness and well-being and need to be solved within a short period of time.
Public speaking as the way to save democracy from eroding. A team of sophisticated journalists and writers admit that “democracy is eroding and that there is no need for rhetoric. Yet, if some effort is not made to help young people understand democracy and the role of public speaking in this form of government, all will truly be lost” (Evans et al., 325).
Democracy is that golden middle in governmental forms that cannot be controlled too much but still serve as an example of working and organized group. This is why in order to create a proper government, it is necessary to consider the needs and interests of people and take the necessary steps to meet these demands.
However, if these needs are not spoken aloud, they can be hardly recognized, let alone that they can be hardly met. Public speaking may become a powerful mean to inform people, to persuade the government to define the problems and work on them, to think about the possible improving ways, or at least to entertain people and give them a hope that everything will be better.
Democracy needs to train public speaking skills. There are certain rules that need to be followed to present effective public speaking and be able to achieve positive results of these speeches. The role of public speaking is crucial indeed, this is why it is better for a democracy to train their skills as frequent as possible.
First, it is obligatory to plan your speech before speaking: a speaker should clearly define a topic, purpose, and audience. Second, if there is a chance, it is better to train a speech for several times: to talk slowly, provide examples, divide the text into several meaningful parts, and leave some time for questions.
Third, public speaking will be effective for a democracy in case examples, reliable facts, and evidences are given. The audience should have a chance to comprehend why a point is important and what makes its urgent. If a democracy wants to be heard, it should plan each step and each word carefully.
Public speaking may improve general state of affairs from a democratic perspective. A democracy would like to support and improve a variety of tenets, and one of them is a free educational system (Evans et al., 328). People have to get a chance and study free. If citizens are not educative, they do not have enough opportunities to make decisions, introduce their thoughts, and ask for support.
Public speaking should help them prove that education needs to be free. With the help of educative and informative speeches, the supporters of democracy are able to introduce their thoughts, their demands, and the ways of how to achieve all these demands.
Letters and protests lost their effectiveness nowadays, this is why public speaking is one of the final attempts to achieve justice and comprehension. “Free elections are necessary in democracy” (Evans et al., 326), and people are deprived of the opportunity to vote and introduce own ideas for free. This is why it is high time to remember about public speaking and use it to its full extent.
In general, public speaking is integral for a democracy. For the government, it is very difficult to listen to every citizen and take into account the demands of each person. This is why it become more effective and more helpful to unite ideas, organize them in a logical way, and speak clearly and confident.
If it is necessary to give one clear answer why public speaking matters for a democracy, it should sound like this: a democracy is a kind of voice of citizens, and public speaking is a means to make this voice audible to the ruling top. If this means is broken, citizens are not heard, and their demands are not taken into consideration.
Ordinary people lose their chance to improve their lives, and general state of affairs worsens considerably. This is why people should save their positions, should care about their interests, and should make their speaking being noticeable. Public speaking is obligatory for a democracy, because its absence may lead to total collapse of successful society.
Evans, A.L, Evans, V., Lami Kanra, A. M., and Jones, O.S.L. “Public Speaking in a Democracy.” Journal of Institutional Psychology 31.4 (Dec. 2004): 325-329.
Socialism vs. Democracy Compare and Contrast Essay
The clear understanding of the various forms of both political and the economic systems is of paramount importance in effective governance of countries and their most critical institutions and industries. The understanding of these political and economic systems will help significantly in making good use of the philosophical issues in formulating the guiding policies to run these organization for the common good of all citizens of given countries.
Different countries of the world usually practice different approaches in providing various services to their people and this in most cases depends on the nature and the cultural practices of given parts of the world. It should be noted that some systems of governance may work so well in a given country, but this does not guarantee the effective operation in other countries if it is adopted.
In the recent time, the various countries are trying to adopt partially some aspects of governance and incorporating them in their systems to see if they can work productively and thus this has led to mixed systems of governance. For example, a governance system, which advocates for the market which is controlled by forces of demand, and can also implement some price controls on goods and services, which are so critical to its citizens. Thus, it can protect its people from exploitation from business people, who want to maximize their profits at the expense of their fellow citizens.
In this case, we are going to look at some differences between socialism and democracy and compare and contrast the fundamental believes and concepts (Morris, 2008, p. 1). We will also look at the key people who helped with the ideas which led to both socialism and democracy and also look at the countries where they are practiced. Finally, we will address the philosophical issues and how they support policy development in various countries and, also, in organizations.
Differences in socialism and democracy
The most distinct difference between the socialism and democracy is that in socialism we are mostly focusing our energies on the governance of the economic activities and the economic systems of a given country while in the democracy we are concentrating on the political governance of people and the various organizations in given counties of the world.
In socialism, we have the economic and the political activities concentrating on the ownership of the ways of production and sharing of the resources which are based on the collective property by the community as a whole. In these cases, the economic systems emphasize the running of corporative societies at the public level.
Here the production is done by people as a community at large in organized public associations and the benefits which accrue from these civic associations are shared on individual merits and also depending on the number of efforts a given member has rendered in such organization. In this case, democracy will only be focusing its efforts to ensure that these public associations involved in the production of essential goods and services are managed by under democratic terms.
This implies that the leadership which is governing these public corporations will have to be chosen by the majority and also the decisions be considered on majority basis since in democracy the guiding principle is the common presumption that majority is always right and their decisions rule those of minority (Viklund, 2006, p. 1).
This is clear evidence that the power to govern is derived by seeking a mandate from the people either directly from the people themselves or indirectly from their trusted representatives who have been given such mandate to choose on their behalf by the people themselves.
In the socialism there is excellent emphasizes on the adoption of the most recent and effective technological advancement to ensure that the different organizations are run by applications of scientific principles to make sure that economic activities are doing well. This will effectively counter check the adverse effects of capitalism from finding the entrance in a socialism community or nation in which a few business people take advantage over the others to enrich themselves.
It is also well known that the emergence of socialism was a result of efforts of people trying to curb the effects of industrialization and continued ownership of crucial sectors of the economy by private sectors. Some socialist advocates for the ways of production of goods and services and also their distribution to be put under state control and ownership while the others concentrate on putting the modes of production under the hands of the cooperative workers.
In the other side, democrats advocate or approve nationalization of the organizations, which offer some essential services and goods selectively. This means that it is only the organizations which are involved in providing the most necessary and critical products and services are supposed to be owned and controlled by the state or other wards the public as a whole (Sarup, 2006, p. 1).
It is also obvious that in socialism we have what can be described as a command economy. This is because the prices are pre-determined by use of try and error method by the responsible board which is in charge of fixing the prices of consumer goods and because the political system controls most of the production of essential products and services and also their distribution. This is quite different from democratic systems because of their political organizations which advocate for individual ownership of assets and, also, the private acquisition of business organizations (DuRand, 1997, p. 1).
Basic believes and concepts of socialism and democracy
The socialists believe in collective ownership of goods and services, and thus they are always ready and willing to sacrifice to higher magnitudes for the sake of betterment of the communities at large and not their well being alone. Their economic and political organizations are usually structured in a way in which they can promote the common good of all people.
Here community and public efforts are highly appreciated other than the individual efforts. Here the concept of planned economy is of great concern in the economic systems and also the political organizations in the sense that the number of goods and services to be produced and also to be distributed together with the recommended prices are usually pre-determined by the responsible departments in both the political organizations and, also, in the economic systems. In one way or the other democrats may tend to agree with socialist by trying to incorporate some of the socialism practices in their political organizations and the economic systems (Morris, 2008, p. 1).
For the democrats may decide to put measures to control the production and prices of some essential good to respond to the wishes of the majority who may not be in a position to afford some of the most basic and crucial goods and services. This will comply with the common belief of democracy that the wishes and decisions of the majority will always dominate under all situations.
Even though democrats can sometimes change their systems of governance to reflect on the wishes of the majority they firmly believe in the free market whereby the forces of demand and supply determine the prices of various goods and services.
Karl max and Aristotle
Karl max came up with what is recently called Marxism in which he tried to explain how socialism came about. He argued that conscious of the people who work very hard to earn a living in terms of salaries and wages made fell like slaves and creating the desire for them to seek freedom from such slavery and drop the passion for being capitalists and go for collective ownership (Crespo, 2003, p. 1). He also reasoned that it is the social well being which influences the consciousness which is very vital for the existence of humanity and thus promotion of socialism.
Socialism is practiced in countries like the Republic of China whereby the socialist and centrally planned economies are practiced, and it is worth to note that here the cooperative workers are highly regarded. On the other hand, the Aristotle has worked very hard to explain the democratic forms of organizations.
In this case, Aristotle contrasted the governance by many people, governance by a few people and governance by a single person. Here he suggested that the most essential principle of democracy is freedom and liberty. He also said that the decision made by the majority of the people should be taken to form justice (Baron, 2008, p. 1).
Democracy is mostly practiced in most parts of the world because it is widely acceptable by people even though it is not friendly with some parts of the world and especially in African, even though it is highly embraced in the United States of America.
It is evident that the philosophical issues and how they support the formation of the various policies in both socialism and democracy are of paramount importance in multiple governments. This is because it will help in evaluating the various political and economic organizations in a given country. It will be for well good of all governments to adopt forms of governance which will promote the continued existence of humankind.
Here we have looked at differences between socialism and democracy, their most common believes and concepts and also the people who led to the ideas of socialism and democracy and the countries where are practiced. We have also incorporated the philosophical issues and how they support the policies mentioned.
Baron, D. (2008). The Difference Between Socialism and Communism. Web.
Crespo, P. (2003). Democracy & free markets vs. socialism. Web.
Durand. C. (1997). The Idea of Democracy and the Idea of Socialism. Web.
Morris, D. (2008). Socialism VS Democracy Obama VS McCain. Web.
Sarup, K. (2006). Democracy vs. Communism: Lessons from history. Web.
Viklund, A. (2006). Democracy and Socialism. Web.
American Government, Balancing Democracy and Rights Essay
Landy and Milkis’s discussion demonstrates that the discovery of America was a process that hardly begun with Christopher Columbus but begun many years earlier when the first people crossed the Bering strait as early as 9000 BC today known as Alaska,2.
The crossing led to the creation of a new continent, a new civilization, new tools, and new interactions with European settlers. These settlers interacted with the natives and largely influenced the natives’ way of life. These interactions also led to constant conflicts with the natives and the settlers eventually losing to the settlers.
A typical example of the outcome of the conflicts could be linked to the discovery of 10,000 skulls by the Spanish in 1517. That was before Columbus’s visit. At the time, the new civilization groups from the south and Central America developed numerical systems, accurate calendars and tools for their self defense. Both the South and the North civilizations consisted of agrarian societies.
The growth of population, diseases, commerce, and dreams for new treasures, led to the voyages of Christopher Columbus into the new colonies leading to the establishment of new English settlements, French settlements, and the Spanish settlements. Religion played a critical role in colonial settlements in America.
The new settlements and the spirit of colonization, though for a time dampened by the Roanoke fiasco, were actively revived by propagandists like Richard Hakluyt. New settlers arrived after experiencing severe voyages into the Americas. The new English’s settler never integrated native Indians into their social lives.
Colonization of the societies was characterized by greed, diseases, political mistakes, kidnaps, wars and political unrests, and religious squabbles. In addition to that, the insatiable need for the commercial interest of the Europeans led to the establishment commercial ventures such as the Virginia Company among other commercial ventures. Commercial ventures and other interests led to the European contest for the colonization of North America largely influenced by the scramble for available resources.
That was also evidenced by various acts that gave England an advantage to collect taxes on goods exported from the Americas. The scramble led to the creation of several states among them being the south western Borderlands, etc., and dominant middle ground societies, culminating in the glorious revolution as a new administrative structure (Landy and Milkis), 34.
The administrative nature of the English led to the amalgamation of the colonies into the English culture leading to cultural influences in subsequent periods on the natives. With time, the colonial population grew exponentially outnumbering the native population. That was due to improved living conditions at the time.
In addition to that, it population growth and demand for labor led to the establishment of different servitude systems as a source of labor particularly in established plantations and the agrarian sector. Women were very important especially in the emerging agrarian economy as they were viewed as weak and basically meant to serve the needs of their husbands (Landy and Milkis),66.
The need for cheap labor especially in rapidly developing tobacco plantations reinforced the demand for more slaves Africa, driving the Portuguese who had practiced the trade to intensify it from West Africa. The trade contributed to the rapid growth of the new America that was experiencing new developments of witchcraft, religion, education, and political orders. The concept about law was the basis of the constitution that lead to the great imperial crises after the 1750s.
By the 1750s, the establishment of the British Empire experienced no objections from most Americans, who largely benefited from trade protection, trade benefits, and military protection. However, later differences were manifest leading to the 1775 war, the beginning of the American independence. That was largely due to political and religious tensions that were characterized by conflicts such as the Anglo French conflicts, and later wars between the French and the Indians.
These wars served the basis of a number of treaties, lack of commitments to run the colonies, and approaches to integrating colonies such as the great stamp act of 1765. A string of protests due to colonial resistance were catalyzed by incidents such as the Boston Massacre, leading to the basis of the philosophy of the revolution. The colonial masters were hated and people wanted new leadership, leading to revolutions that lead to the change in the course of history (Landy and Milkis), 102.
The turning point was intensified by a seven year war which commenced on April 1775 that was characterized by both political and military. The political affronts stemmed from the need to establish structures and the military affronts were identified with the British. That was the beginning of the war for independence with different perspectives on the administrative styles and structures.
That saw states mobilizing themselves for war traversing New England, Mid Atlantic region in 1776 to 1778, amassing resources for war, with a gradual influence and perspective of the war. The war has since been argued as a social or political.
The consequences of the war led to the establishment of new institutions and state governments in a confederate. In addition to that, the revolution was the genesis of many unanswered problems such as the state of the native Indians, land distributions, and a new political order (Landy and Milkis), 128.
The confederation was a source of discontent for most Americans and the inability of the confederate to effectively and satisfactorily provide solutions for economic problems, instability, factions, and rebellion despite the adoption of a constitution leading to huge subsequent political wars.
However, advocates of a new government came up with several conventions that led to opponents and proponents of federalism, such as Hamilton.
That was when the federal program was enacted and the beginning of the rise of republicans and federalists. The establishment of national sovereignty was enforced and a number of treaties signed such as the jay treaty. Subsequent events led to the election of Thomas Jefferson to presidency leading to the dawn of a new era of political tranquility (Landy and Milkis), 163.
Thomas Jefferson’s era was marked with a vision of educated and sturdy citizens, independent farmers, and a diversified economy. It was during Jefferson’s era when bureaucracies that dominated government operation were dismantled. The era saw the implementation of new learning institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania, the first medical school.
At that time, the spirit and ambitions that dominated current societies at the time were political and economic centralizations. However, these ambitions led to a war between America and Britain that settled leading to the period referred to as an era of goof feelings and nationalism in 1812 (Landy and Milkis), 183.
At that time, diverse nationalistic views espoused by Americans included the quest for nationalism, with the adoption of the declaration of independence as distinguishing marks of the Jefferson era. America experienced a rapid growth of its economy in the 19th century, stimulated economic growth, a better transportation system, diversification of industries, rapid patterns of migration westwards, leading to the era of good feelings.
Agreements were signed in this period that saw different parts being incorporated together, establishment of courts, rising opposition, and new presidential elections that led to a new dawn in American history. Landy and Milkis), 216.
No distinctions of class were evident at the time when Andrew Jackson was inaugurated as president before a large assembly of people in 1829, an era commonly referred to as the age of Jackson. The era was characterized by a concerted war against class, legitimization of political parties, a distinct view of democracy, and views about the concentration of power in Washington. The period marked the removal of the Indians for settlers, and a strong federal bank. Landy and Milkis), 234.
Jackson was the driving force behind new approaches to the changing face of politics, later seen as a nationalist. However, new coalitions led to the capture of power and the election of the Whigs president.
An exponential rise in the American population, rapid immigrations, and the rapid growth of the agricultural economy, urbanization, created the trend for economic growth. In addition to that, rapid industrialization with the advent and discoveries of new technologies, improved communications infrastructure, and efficient communication added to the economic growth of America. Canals were developed, elaborate rail transport system were developed giving rise to the new age of commerce and industry.
Factories were created and rapidly developed with new sophistications, improved living conditions, unequal distribution of wealth, changing cultural trends in the mid nineteenth century leading to a widening of the gap between the North and South Landy and Milkis), 260.
Landy, Marc and Milkis, Sidney, M. 2008. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2 edition.
Imperialism and Globalization Definition Essay
On Imperialism and Globalization
One of the modern world’s greatest concerns at present, the issue of globalization has affected certain countries and states much more than one can imagine. Bringing numerous changes to people’s life, their state’s policies and economy, globalization mixed with imperialism creates a fusion that can affect people’s lives in the most negative way.
In spite of the fact that Haiti is already past the threatening state of affairs that it experienced at the times of imperialism, it still survives the aftereffects left by the reign of the latter.
Although imperialism and globalization are rather widespread terms, they are quite hard to define, since they embrace a number of various phenomena and issues. However, incorporating certain ideas, scientists managed to find the definition for these all-embracing terms.
Unifying the political, economical and social ideas, one can produce a definition that could encompass all the spheres that these notions touch upon.
With help of this approach, one can find the most suitable definition for the abovementioned notions. Thus, it can be considered that globalization can be defined as an attempt to make the world states work in unity, whereas imperialism can be considered an aggressive attempt to capture the territories of the other state.
The USA and Haiti: Surviving Hard Times
One of the most famous examples of imperialism can be considered the relationships between the USA and Haiti. Though it was quite logical that the United States applied such approach to the Haitian territories, the fact of the imperialistic aggression could not be denied.
According to what Social Studies School Service says, the reasons for such behavior in the distant 1915 were quite clear: “The U.S. certainly doesn’t want a German naval base come close to the United States and the Panama Channel” (194). As Renda marked, “By 1913 President Wilson and his advisers were searching for a way to translate that position into definitive control” (30).
Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Canada and Haiti
Another case of imperialistic behavior towards the Haitians was registered as the Canadians made attempt to intrude into the policy and economics of Haiti.
It is quite peculiar that this event took place in the XXI century, namely, in 2000-ies. As UTA Edco emphasized, “One of the most retrograde tendencies occurring within the Canadian non-profit sector has been its increasing collaboration with Canadian imperialism, notably in Afghanistan and Haiti” (188). It is worth noticing that such step was rather unexpected for the entire world.
Because of the Canada’s joining the imperialistic ideas, Haiti faced certain threat. Indeed, some time later the imperialistic Canada attempted to intrude into the state and impose their policy and their economics on the state and its citizens. According to UTA Edco,
The Canadian Haiti Action Network has been extensively involved in exposing Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) funding and support for pseudo-human rights groups that have been used by the occupation forces and comprador Haitian elite to justify the detention of political prisoners such as Father Jean Juste in Haiti. (188)
Conclusion: The Reconciliation
Fortunately, the bone of discord that has remained for so long between Haiti and Canada, as well as Haiti and the USA, is now long forgotten.
Trying to establish new relationships with each other and attempting to integrate into a single entity with help of the globalization process, people feel much freer nowadays. However, globalization, as the process involving certain hardships, must demand much time. Thus, it will take another couple of decades for the states to reconstruct their relations.
Renda, Mary A. Taking Haiti: Military Occupation and the Culture of U. S.
Imperialism, 1915-1940. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press Books, 2001. Print.
Social Students School Service. Imperialism and Progressivism. Culver City, CA: Social Studies School Service, 2007. Print.
UTA Edco. Upping the Anti #6. Toronto, CA: Thistle Printing, 2008. Print.
What True Majority Democracy Is About? Essay
Roark envisioned democracy as something that was inevitable for the wellbeing of the nation (25). However, he was not of the opinion that it was inevitably good. There is a dilemma caused by democracy and this, according to the author, is democracy itself. The dilemma exists in the reconciliation of freedom and majority rule.
If the majority is the one that rules, how can there then be true freedom? Majority rule made it possible to have a majority based tyranny that subverts the liberties which constitute an acceptable doctrine in politics. Majority rule, however, in this context, is not interchangeable with mob rule. It does not whatsoever depict a numerical advantage as voting has its limitations and can only account for so much.
Madison, in the federalist papers, cautioned against a monetary majority which is characterized by wealthy property owners who have power over a very large portion of the government hence defeating the purpose of a greater good envisaged by the democratic doctrine (51).
He was very concerned with the numerical majority’s interest being overtaken by those of a monetary majority which could have been largely considered aristocratic. All these concerns raised are genuine and therefore in an effort to understand what true majority democracy is about, one must examine closely what a majority is constituted of.
Plato dismissed democracy as mob rule and decided that the problem could not be solved in any manner of way (509). He thus insinuated that, democracy and in turn, a tyranny resulting from this majority was the worst form of leadership any one country could adopt. Thus, the only solution he could conjure up was to have an out-of-world leader who would inevitably be in a position to balance power as it was meant to be.
Another thought is that democracy is simply the will of the majority. Thus, so much time should no be wasted in a bid to discussing the liberties accorded to the minorities as they inevitably lost in the ballot His was simple as it was based on popular sovereignty.
However, does the person that inevitably looses, become the minority? Or is the minority a group of people who are always destined to loose because they have a set of circumstances that do not elevate their status so? If he considered the latter, then his theory is not consistent with what democratic principles hold ideal.
A second weak point in his theory is: what factors did he consider when calculating who the majority is. Was it on a local, state or global scale? The answer then is that the factor that determines how the majority is calculated also determines who the majority is thus punching holes into his theory.
In most aristocratic societies, an absolute leader oppressing his subjects is what drives them to fear. However, in a democratic society, the fear stems from the fact that the majority use their power to suppress the freedoms and rights of the minority. It thus comes to the conclusion that, fear in either case is elicited by legitimate powers.
These powers are accorded by the structure of the government and are used in a systematic and unjust manner to mistreat others. The problem stemming from a democracy, like America, is in the justice system being institutionally skewed to one-sided thinking, thus, it is more complicated than an aristocracy. Therefore it is a problem of the people and their own selves; in this era.
Land is a major source of equality and inequality. In a bid to control the majority of people who own large tracts of land whereas other do not, there is a need for land redistribution. The solution thus lies in federalism as a constitutional order. Federalism has a clear separation of powers and would assist in ensuring that majorities, either monetary or numerical, would not corrupt the entire system as there would be autonomy in every branch.
The doctrine therein is simple; by reducing the chances of establishment of a tyrannical order, the interests of the minorities would be justly protected. By decentralizing power and the functions of government, the wealthy and influential would be prevented from controlling them which is in contrast to them being centralized.
This approach was envisaged by the Author as the best approach to democracy in the future, but he did not oversee the systematic occupation of all political positions by a cartel of the wealthy and influential over a long period of time. The government has largely resembled a monarch and it seems that positions of power are occupied by protégés of their predecessors.
Tocqueville was convinced that in order for prevention of a tyranny of the majority, there was need for a strong and decisive judiciary that would expeditiously endeavor to cap the excesses arising from this tyranny (103). “Restricted within its limits, the power granted to American courts to pronounce on the constitutionality of laws is yet one of the most powerful barriers ever erected against the tyranny of political assemblies” (Tocqueville 104).
Only the judiciary itself has the power to protect the minorities’ rights and freedoms from the control of the majority. Although he predicted that democracy in America could survive due to the uniqueness of the philosophies adopted and also due to land equality that was evident then, he cautioned against two things.
First, he cautioned against the ‘unnatural’ love for money which had the power to make people overlook their civil responsibilities. As is evident today, economic self-interest has led to the abandonment of active involvement in supervision of the democratic order.
The connection between the love for money and democratic inequality is overwhelming. When a person is so into money, they ultimately ignore the political process reducing considerably the chance of a numerical advantage. This is detrimental as it gives way for other people with self interests to use the government to further their agendas.
To curb this, the government should ensure that all citizens are actively involved in the political system and also ensure that the basic needs of a citizen are met so to avoid distractions of any manner. Meeting basic needs does not insinuate free hand outs, but rather the creation of opportunities that make it possible for a person to eke out a basic life.
Secondly, Schlesinger cautioned against individualism (97). This drives citizens, otherwise democratic; to keep off public related issues. When a democratic individual is so bogged up in his own life, it is a fact that they ultimately ignore the public concerns. This creates an avenue for tyrants to ply their trade. It could contribute to others being oppressed since their voices are suppressed by the concerns of a private life.
A person cannot be actively involved in one aspect his life without consequence to the other. There thus needs to be a balance between private and public life. The government should therefore challenge its citizens continuously so as to elicit interest in the political process and ensure active participation of all citizens and discourage tyranny.
The structure of the American government should thus be reevaluated to weed out the corrupt few whose dealings are only focused on the satisfaction of their own interests. In the same respect, there must be no individual or single group that is allowed to have absolute influence on any political issue or process.
Citizens should also be actively involved in all processes as individuals. Forming political associations with the aim of subverting majority rule is also paramount. Advocacy should be on the involvement of each and every person in the political process.
“It naturally follows that these individuals, operating under the guise of enlightened self-interest, will form political associations with the purpose of both forming and resisting majority rule” (Welch 95). Citizens not only need to be involved but also enlightened to elicit self-interest.
The way out of any democratic stalemate is negotiation and not violence as is witnessed in many areas around the world. America may be considered as performing relatively well in terms of true democracy, however, there is more that needs to be done.
Tocqueville proposed a dual mechanism that aims at striking a balance between inclusive political processes and mechanisms. This balance could be essential in the control of the social processes.
There is therefore need for the government to develop avenues that allow people to give their views and not be secluded. This inclusivity would go a long way in ensuring that all protests, opinions and views should not only be seen to be heard but also acted on to avoid violent means.
Madison, James, Hamilton, Alexander & Jay, John, The Federalist: A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States. New York: Random House, 1967
Plato. The Republic, Translated by Grube G.M.A. and Revised by Reeve, C.D.C. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992
Roark, Eric. Tocqueville’s Fix: Solving the Riddle of Democracy with Enlightened Self-Interest. Columbia: University of Missouri, viewed on 29 April, 2011 <www.sussex.ac.uk/cspt/documents/10-2.pdf >
Schlesinger, Arthur. Individualism and Apathy in Tocqueville’s Democracy. London: Rudgers University Press, 1988
Tocqueville de Alexis. Democracy in America. Edited by Mayer, J.P George and translated by Lawrence, George. New York: HarperCollins, 1969
Welch, Cheryl. De Tocqueville. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001
Democracy and Its Types Research Paper
Democracy is type of political administration in which the governing individuals of a country are voted in by the people (Dahl, 2003). The people have basically equal say when it comes to making the laws that govern their country.
In addition, democracy goes to the extent of allowing the society to overrule verdicts that have been passed by the legislative body. These verdicts may revolve around economy, social and cultural factors (Dahl, 2003).
For a nation to be termed as democratic, it should have fundamental civil liberties for all kinds of people residing in that nation, and distinction of authorities between the organizations of the country. These organizations are usually the judiciary, legislature and the executive.
A democratic government should also have liberty of expression; this means that all the individuals should be allowed to air their thoughts. Furthermore, it should put the interest of the society without favouritism first. At the appropriate age, the citizens should be allowed to choose their representative through a fair election.
Lastly, every citizen should be allowed to worship in whichever manner they wish as long as there will not be a conflict of interest. All these factors should be written down in a constitution of that particular state (Arendt, 1993).
Currently, there is proof of democracy in United States of America. From the 2008 elections, we realize that every citizen had an equal right to vote for their desired representative of the state. Apart from that, the elections were fair and free from fraud or any irregularities. In thee U.S constitution, there is a bill of right which ensures that every citizen is treated fairly by corporations or other fellow citizens (William, 1962).
There are various kinds of democracy. The three main types of democracy are: semi direct, direct, and indirect democracy. Other types of democratic systems stem from these three.
Direct democracy is a type of democracy in which the citizens contribute directly in the decision making processes of a nation. Besides, the citizens influence the executive, legislative and judicial powers of a country without the use of intermediaries. In the indirect democracy, ruling is done by the use of an elected body to act as their representative.
On the other hand, the semi direct democracy is a type of democracy which contains both the rudiments of direct and indirect democracy. A good example of semi direct democracy is deliberative; this is a type of democracy which combines both the direct and representative components (Arthur, 1996).
In indirect democracy, representatives are not chosen by the society but are haphazardly selected from the community. The best examples of indirect democracy are the representative and the parliamentary types of democracy. Representative is a type of democracy in which societies choose a body which makes implementations and decisions on behalf of the society. On the other hand, parliamentary democracy is the one which the country’s rulers are elected by the members of parliament (Arthur, 1996).
United States of America has a representative type of democracy; the state elects a body of people who represents the entire society in matters relating to their interests such as political, economical, culture and social (Dahl, 2003).
In conclusion, there are many other types of democracy not discussed here. They include cosmopolitan, religious, Supranational, Consensus, social and inclusive democracy. Democracy is not only political; it involves all factors that affect an individual in a nation (Dahl, 2003). Such other factors may be related to education, health and corporate governance.
Arendt, H. L. (1993). What is Freedom? Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. New York: Penguin.
Arthur, W. C. (1996). Liberisation and the problem of knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dahl, R. A. (2003). The Democracy Sourcebook. Chicago: MIT.
William, R. H. (1962). The Theory of Political Coalition. New York: Yale University press.
Democracy: Definition, Types, Systems and Benefits Definition Essay
Democracy is a type of governance where people participate in making laws and rules; “it is the political regime where people will become the law of the country” (Lane and Erson 2). This article will give a description of what is democracy, types of democracy, systems of democracy and its benefits in public administration.
Democracy can be viewed as a majority rule. When democracy is implemented, there is no favor given to any person or a group of people. All people are treated equally while assigning positions and only consensus determines if a person qualifies for a position or not (Lane and Erson 2).
Characteristics of democracy are based on “separation of powers i.e. legislative power, executive power and judicative power, the constitution, laws, decrees, elections, political parties and referendums” (Democracy 1). Democracy is beneficial in that it enhances economic growth, good health, and environmental conservation. It also promotes peace in a country. This makes it important in formulating policies and public administration.
Systems of Democracy
There are three major systems of democracy namely, direct democracy, presidential democracy and parliamentary democracy. Direct democracy gives equal rights to its members where the head of state is elected from the people in the government periodically.
All parties are included in the government and laws are made through a special procedure which finalizes with a referendum e.g. in Switzerland. Presidential democracy is where the president is elected by the citizens and is given a lot of power in the government and can oppose a proposed law e.g. USA and France.
Parliamentary democracy is whereby the head of state is either a king or a queen. The government is made by members of parliament who have the power to dismiss it. Their laws are made by the government which is composed of the leaders of different parties e.g. Germany, UK and Spain (Democracy 1).
Types of Democracy
There are five types of democracy. The liberal democracy came up from the West after people had suffered in the Western countries because of unfair policies which were being applied.
The citizens were seeking freedom when they decided to unite and decide what laws were going to guide them in their country. It came into action through reaching citizens at their places of work, schools and media. This type of democracy gives each citizen his/her rights other than a group of people.
This is in contrast to the liberal-republican type which recognizes group and gives them their rights e.g. in Canada, Switzerland and Belgium (Smooha 424). In this case communities can have their own individual rights. The multicultural democracy is where the laws recognize different community practices but they do not make them administrative.
This moderately assimilates the citizens. Consociational democracy is whereby people are more equal in distribution of resources and power. Lastly, ethnic democracy is where rights are given on group basis. The least of the groups may hold a protest to oppose a law (Smooha 426).
Democracy involves many citizens in deciding who rules and which laws will be used in a country. It is beneficial because it gives freedom and reduces violence amongst the people. Countries may decide to have direct democracy, presidential democracy or parliamentary democracy. They also choose from five types of democracy namely, liberal democracy, liberal-republican democracy, ethnic democracy, consociational democracy or multicultural democracy.
Democracy. Different systems of Democracy. Democracy, n.d. Web. http://www.democracy-building.info/systems-democracy.html
Lane, Jan-Erik and Erson, Svante. Democracy. New York, NY: Routledge, 2003. Print.
Smooha, Sammy. Types of democracy and modes of conflict management in ethnically divided societies. Haifa, 2002. Web.
The Possibility of Democracy and Development Within the African State Research Paper
Democracy is a system of governance which entails the representation of people, and it is based on consent where the mandate to rule is not permanent but subject to renewal over a period of time. Most African states are underdeveloped and democracy is far from being achieved, and this has presented the greatest challenge to its citizens and the world at large (Lindberg 78-84).
In 2007, the general elections in Kenya were claimed to have been rigged in favor of government. There was civil unrest which led to destruction of property and loss of lives, the peaceful country which had enjoyed relative peace since its independence in 1960’s had joined the growing list offailed states in Africa.
The Chinese official newspaper reported that the western democracy was unsuitable for Africa (Goergy 4). The comment supported the widely held opinion that democracy and development is not possible in Africa.The African continent has experienced a lot of conflicts, wars and more failed states than any other continent.
The conflicts among the countries have provided a lucrative market for arms and weapons from the developed countries. This infiltration of arms and weapons into the hands of civilians undermines development and democracy in the continent.
Somalia has been without a government for over two decades now, and there is no hope of having one in the near future. Most civilians are armed because guns are easier to come by, and they have joined different factions in the country, each trying to take control of the country. The country now is the most unsafe place in the whole world. Under such a grim situation, development and democracy is simply not possible(Ake 95).
The situation has been made worse by the western democracies when they imposed the democracy as it is understood in the west. This attempt to impose the whole concept of democracy, as it were, in America in a single package has been the major cause for chaos in the continent witnessed to date(Shtedman 54).
The current political events in Africa point to a crisis of commitment to democratic leadership. Despite advancements in intellectualism, education and the influence of globalization, the continent’s leaders are disregarding the national constitution and subverting the people’s will as they continue in their unaccountable leadership and wild corruption.
In early 1990’s there were celebrations that Africa would finally embrace democracy especially with fall of Communism and ending of the cold war, but this quickly faded away as ordinary people find themselves reduced to helpless spectators and marginalized as the political class and their families squander the public resources.
Zimbabwe was considered the jewel of Africa in 1980 when it gained its independence, now it has been held ransom by Mugabe, who has been in power as the president since independence. He has refused to give up power, even after being defeated in the elections, and he has sunk the country into economic ruins. The elections that were held in Zimbabwe are a clear testament that African leaders have no sense of respect and dignity to democratic ideals (Chika 22).
Uganda which has been seen as another hope of emerging African democracy has been plunged into a state of dictatorship. President Museveni of Uganda has forced himself for a third term in office despite the constitution allowing for only two consecutive terms.
He appointed his wife into the cabinet and appointed his son as head of the military to maintain a firm grip to power, while his close associates are campaigning for a life presidency. The security forces have been used to crush opposition voices and suppressing any dissenting opinion. This is the state of affairs in most countries across the continent, and under such circumstances development and democracy will never be experienced (Chika 24).
In Cameroon things has not been any better either, the president wants to extend his office term illegally. In Nigeria, the most populous country in the continent and which had taken some strides towards democracy has once again slid back, almost into anarchy.
The former president, Obasanjo who was celebrated as one of the best leaders in the continent is now facing charges of abuse of office and corruption during his tenure. These, among other numerous cases in the continent, demonstrate that democracy and development will not work in Africa (Chika 23).
The case of Rwanda and Burundi where mass murder and genocide took place that shook the whole world is still clear in our memories. These barbaric atrocities were committed and supervised by those in leadership. This shows how democracy will not work in Africa.
The civil war in Sudan which has taken more than a quarter of century, led to the splitting the country into two independent states early this year, and tension is still high between the two countries showing that not all is well and war can break out any time. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is endowed with mineral resources and has the largest deposits of diamonds, Gold and Uranium in Africa, yet it has remained among the poorest countries in the world, because of corruption, and poor leadership.
Africa has clearly shown that it is reluctant to take any bold steps towards democracy and instead it’s taking the calamitous steps once again into the dark ages where lack of accountability, misrule and despondency is the norm. Democracy and development is not possible in Africa (Stedman 120).
Ake, Claude. Democracy and Development in Africa. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1996. Print.
Chika, Charles. The African Executive: Is Democracy Working in Africa?.2008. Web.
Georgy, Michael. Reuters: China View of Africa democracy hits sensitivities. November 2008. Web.
Lindberg, Staffan. Democracy and Elections in Africa. New Delhi: JHU Press, 2006. Print.
Stedman, Stephen.The Political Economy of Democratic Development. London: L. Reinner Publishers, 1993. Print.
America and Democracy, at Home and Abroad, During and just after the First World War Essay
The aspects of democracy are evident in the America’s context. This is notable especially during and just after the First World War. Democracy is a kind of regime in which all eligible citizens are allowed to contribute to the decisions of the state. This paper discusses the extent to which America made democracy realistic (locally and abroad), during and just after the First World War as indicated before.
It is crucial to understand the provisions of democracy as well as its elements. America is one of the countries that have nurtured the establishment, ratification, and embracement of democracy to extreme levels. At home, the country has a well-structured constitution to ensure that the American citizens enjoy their democratic rights.
Previously, the country experienced racial discrimination, gender inequality, abuse of power, and unquestionable administrative trends. These have changed remarkably. For instance, nowadays, black Americans can hold executive offices, a fact that could not be allowed before.
The aspects of democracy have evolved in numerous sectors of the government. Additionally, election provisions have been set in regard to democracy. Americans have been mandated by the law to exercise their voting rights among other considerable provisions.
Precisely, it is vital to note that the country has made remarkable steps to enact and embrace democracy. These provisions emerged during and immediately after the world war when the country realized the significance of every stakeholder in the governance mechanisms. Democracy has also spread to other countries despite the challenges.
However, the U.S. has hardly inculcated democratic objectives in the Middle East. It is crucial to understand why such challenges exist despite the quest to have conventional democratic provisions. Nonetheless, America has made democracy more a reality both at home and abroad.
The country has initiated various programs meant to enhance democracy in its territories. Other nations affiliated to the U.S. enjoy credible support on their endeavours to establish, enact, and embrace democracy. It is vital to understand the provisions associated with democracy as indicated earlier.
For instance, the U.S. has established and supported a proficient Human Rights department to propel the aspects of democracy within the country. Human rights activists and other relevant lobby groups have been established to ensure that the country achieves its pre-established mandates on democracy. There are considerable challenges that the country faces in its efforts to promote democracy in other countries. This has been pertinent in numerous countries where dictatorship and bad governance still reigns.
Various countries, which participated in the First World War, have made considerable steps in the context of democracy. Viable leadership styles, economic growth, freedom of speech, and human rights provisions are major indicators of democracy. America has spearheaded these provisions since the commencement of the First World War.
At home, Americans are enjoying a considerable democratic environment. This indicates how the country has made remarkable milestones in its efforts to impel internal democracy. The country serves as an example to other conservative nations that have not yet believed in the provisions of democracy.
America embraces a special kind of governance, power sharing provisions, and association of the public in the critical national issues. These are true indicators of democracy despite the looming challenges noticeable in the entire context. Conclusively, America’s endeavours to ratify democracy have been evident. The country has a considerable history on issues regarding democracy.
Modernization and Its Correlation With Democracy Research Paper
Some basic points
While discussing modernization and democracy as well as their interdependence, it is necessary to consider the fundamentals of both issues in detail. First of all, it should be pointed out that modernization theory is considered to be extremely important for the processes of democratization. As far as politics and modernization are recognized to be closely interdependent issues, one can probably make a conclusion that certain changes in the developing world were caused by interaction of the issues of discussion.
The thesis statement
In order to understand modernization-democracy link, the advantages and disadvantages concerning the issues’ interdependence, it is necessary to analyze the reasons of the processes of modernization and the ways they transformed democratic prospects.
Modernization and democracy as separate units
Modernization is mostly associated with a model of social evolutionism, which main purpose is to transform certain issues (political, social, etc.) from traditional to advanced, improved or modern.
When speaking about the meaning of democracy, there is a need to point out that there are four aspects of the term, which must be taken into consideration. For instance, one is to remember that the term is associated with collective decision making; therefore, the kind of equality among supporters of the political unit can be regarded as one of the characteristic features of democracy.
The fact that there are many various kinds of groups, which can be regarded as democratic is another important aspect democracy is based on. In other words, there can be “democracy in families, voluntary organizations, economic firms, as well as states and transnational and global organizations” (Christiano, 2006, para. 3). It is also important to remember that there are no normative questions democracy can be associated with. Finally, the equality in democracy is considered to be a relative issue.
Does modernization require democracy?
Generally, it must be noted that the impact of modernization on the democratic prospects should be regarded rather ambiguously, as the distorted nature of various political processes cannot provide us with a reliable understanding of democracy development in different parts of the world.
Taking into account the fact that modernization theory is based on certain cultural values, one is to keep in mind that some democratic values seem to be of the same origin; thus, modernization and democracy involve some common variables, which are connected.
In other words, it is obvious that causal linkages between modernization processes and democratic ones exist for a long time. Grigore Pop-Eleches (2009) highlights the interdependence between the issues and states that “modernization theory has recently made an unexpected comeback as an explanation of cross-national regime patterns, as several statistically sophisticated approaches have assessed the impact of socio-economic development on the initiation and survival of democracy” (p. 1).
In my opinion, the processes of modernization are to be based on strong democratic principles, if democracy represents a highly formal kind. As far as some concepts of democracy can be regarded as rather dangerous, there is a strong need to remember about morally desirable forms of the political unit.
So, on the one hand, one can probably make a conclusion that modernization requires democracy, if the conceptions of humanity and society are inherently fair; on the other hand, one can also state that modernization does not require democracy, as democratic methods are regarded as inappropriate and undesirable.
I am a supporter of the first assumption, as democracy is considered to be extremely important for our society and the processes of modernization should be based on the basic principles of democracy. However, I also understand that the idea seems to be utopian, as numerous conflicts between various political regimes cannot be neglected.
While analyzing the article written by Ronald F. Inglehart and Christian Welzel (2010), one is to keep in mind the basic issues concerning the role of modernization in democratization. Thus, the authors state that:
Certain mass attitudes that are linked with modernization constitute attributes of given societies that are fully as stable as standard social indicators; when treated as national-level variables, these attitudes seem to have predictive power comparable to that of widely-used social indicators in explaining important societal-level variables such as democracy; national-level mean scores are a legitimate social indicator; and one gets maximum analytic leverage by analyzing data from the full range of societies (p. 551-567).
In other words, it seems that without democracy modernization processes will have no sense. Of course, the topic of discussion is rather contradictory, as the problems of democratic citizenship cannot be ignored. The sorts of criticisms concerning a variety of problems of democratic principles give us an opportunity to suppose that in future the situation can become worse. However, on the other hand, some solutions on the kinds of democratic problems should also be taken into account.
Elite theory of democracy, interest group pluralism, neo-liberalism, the self-interest assumptions, etc. should be carefully analyzed, in order to understand for sure whether modernization needs democracy or no. My own assumptions seem to be quite hypothetical, as I consider the so-called ideal or correct democracy.
Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi (1997) state that “Modernization consists of a gradual differentiation and specialization of social structures that culminates in a separation of political structures from other structures and makes democracy possible” (p. 2). Thus, there are the so-called causal chains, which must be taken into account, while analyzing the process of democratization.
For instance, it should be noted that industrialization, education, the process of creating towns, interaction, conscription, etc. seem to represent the sequence of peculiar causal chains, which form social changes and give rise to the final stage of modernization – democratization.
The idea of successful economic development is also associated with democratic influences. For this reason, some countries consider modernization as a necessary step to become political democracies. To my mind, the most important issue, which cannot be neglected, is that many politicians do not understand that democracy is not a product of modernization.
On the contrary, modernization gives democracy an opportunity to survive; thereby, modern approaches to the concepts of democracy are to be developed. Modernization requires democracy, because most of its cultural variables are based on the kind of a political unit. Still, it must be repeated that without democracy, there will be no modernization.
One of the major contradictions concerning the question whether modernization requires democracy or no, is reflected by the idea that “events during critical historical junctures can lead to divergent political–economic development paths, some leading to prosperity and democracy, others to relative poverty and non-democracy” (Robinson et al., 2009).
“Lipset first established the theoretical link between the level of development of a given country and its probability of being democratic” (Wucherpfennig & Deutsch, 2009). In our days, the interdependence between modernization and democracy seems to be obvious; although various contradictions of democratic principles are difficult to analyze.
Christiano, T. (2006). Democracy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2010). Changing Mass Priorities: The Link between Modernization and Democracy. Michigan Population Studies Center. Web.
Pop-Eleches, G. (2009). Communist Development and the Post-Communist Democratic Deficit. Princeton University. Web.
Przeworski, A., & Limongi, F. (1997). Modernization: Theories and Facts. University of California, San Diego. Web.
Robinson, J., Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Yared, P. (2009). Reevaluating the Modernization Hypothesis. Web.
Wucherpfennig, J., & Deutsch, F. (2009). Modernization and Democracy: Theories and Evidence Revisited. Livingreviews.org. Web.