Democracy and Democratization
- Discuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.”
- Would you favor national referendums to settle such issues as abortion, gun ownership, tax rates, or other controversies, or should we leave it to our elected representatives and the courts to make authoritative decisions on these issues?
- Would you define democracy primarily in political or economical terms, or both about equally?
Would you define democracy primarily in political or economic terms, or both about equally?
ReplyDeleteI would define democracy primarily in political terms, simply because democracy is still very much an ideology, although the idea of democracy is most prevalent in high income, highly educated countries. It seems that the two, the economics and the politics of democracy, are closely linked by modernization.
My view is that if you have an affluent, well-educated population, with the opportunity to participate freely in their government, there is little need for revolution and regime change. Democracies can be flexible, can change and grow over time. Affluent democracies of a modern society, whose people communicate well, know how to compromise and specialize, will be stable for the most part.
Melissa, you make a great point in saying that if you have a well-educated population there is little need for revolution and regime change. Education is essential to our nations prosperity and its' future. Education creates positive benefits for all people to promote equality that is essential to build our economy.
DeleteWould you favor national referendums to settle such issues as abortion, gun ownership, tax rates, or other controversies, or should we leave it to our elected representatives and the courts to make authoritative decisions on these issues?
ReplyDeleteThis is a tough question to answer. I think that the truly big issues should be settled by the representatives and the courts. When it comes to voter referendums there are just to many people that vote what their political party tells them to or those that vote emotionally and not intelligently. Am I always satisfied with the decisions of the courts or politicians? No I am not but that's part of living in this country. However, I can see the other side in this issue. I think some issues like taxes, gun control should be left to the states to decide for themselves. Besides, we've seen time and again the will of the voters be overturned by the courts anyway. I understand the frustration when this happens because after all, the voters are paying the bills in this country. So like I said earlier, we're not always happy with their decisions but sometimes that's just the way it is. Lets just let the courts and politicians decide because that's why we elected them.
I agree we should leave SOME things up to the courts such as taxes or gun ownership. Any other controversy that does effect a person's right to choose how they care for their body should be left up to that individual. Abortion has always been a touchy and controversial subject. Officials shouldn't have complete control over the yes or no decision. I was told the state of NC banned abortion. That's taking a person's right to choose leaving a desperate person to turn to dangerous alternative methods. Although I'm no a fan of abortion I still believe that decision should be left up to the individual not the state or officials.
DeleteI agree there is a difference between individual decisions such as abortion that should not be regulated by law. No one should be forced to have a child they do not desire, nor should a child be aborted by force. India supplies free steriliztion to women who wish to have no more children. I feel that is a good choice to give citizens in a state with over population issues. China has a national program of one child that allows the wealthy to pay for the rights to have more, while the poor do not have that same choice to make. In concerns over taxes, elected officials might make better choices than citizens who wish to pay as liitle as possible. Gun ownership is a constitutional right...it should require a national referendum to change that right.
DeleteWith the way our government election process works today, we are a very uninformed and uneducated voter base. I do not believe we can leave huge issues up to our elected officials soley, as we do not know who we have sent to Washington in most cases, or at best we know where they stand on one or two issues. I am much in favor of national referendums as we get a much broader and general opinion of the country's stance on these "hot topic" issues. I think allowing the masses or large electoral vote is the best way to make these large sweeping decisions that are can be morally or religiously charged.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment on the underinformed and uneducated having influence on national laws. What if only active voters were consisting of college graduates? That might be a step into the extreme and unfair. However the current apathy of American voters is an issue that needs attention.
DeleteBut what of the legions of blue collar employees of the last century, who proverbially showed up at 17 on the assembly line and retired with a gold watch at 65? Where they not deserving of a vote? On the contrary, they fought hard to be heard through their unions, and, I would say, were probably better politically informed on some matters than many a college student today. Our country was founded on the idea that only some men were deserving of the vote, and we have been moving steadily, away from that idea ever since. Generally speaking, while we have had some terrible leaders, people take an interest in what affects them and probably have a better idea of what they need or don't need than politicians. I think more referendums would be good thing. The people who don't care won't vote, and the people who do care probably care because they have already researched and formed an opinion.
DeleteDiscuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy in its own way can be seen as a form of peace in that it utilizes compromise. True in a democracy the majority rules, but there is an order of check and balances that prevent the major form having total control. Democracy tend to indorse economic independence aka an free market.This allows individuals to provide for themselves in a matter, more or less, however they feel. The right to earn a living, legally, is a very strong component in the compromise. Basically, even if a persons party is not in dominate power they overall way in which they live their lives will go undisturbed. That is a peaceful act. Nothing is forced.
Discuss evidence for and against the proposition that democracy promotes peace.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy promotes peace in the sense that tyranny and authoritarianism aren't possible when the majority of the power is in the hands of the people. Under democracy, in theory, the people have the power to control who goes into office, and can decide whether or not they support these people. The key part of this idea is the novelty of choice, and how people feel safer when they have the access to choices. In the case of democracy, there isn't going to be a high volume of bloodshed and war in relation to individuals who hold political power because it is so spread out and people can decide who gets elected for office. This leads me to my next point; the distribution of power can lead to a halt in progression. When there are so many different hoops to jump through and so many people to pass through in terms of getting a law passed or whatever the case may be, it is a slow process with democracy. This slow process of change could most definitely upset the people and they might resort to violence if they don't see changes soon enough.
William , you are correct in your assertion that democracy produces "red-tape" and slows down the progress of change. After WWI the world nations creating a new democracy increased to 22, but due to weak economies and a slow process of change, 10 of those nations became dictatorships before 1940.
DeleteIn response to question number 2:
ReplyDeleteThis is a very hard question to answer. Some of this controveries are very persnal ones. Abortion is especially a controversial one, and when it boils down to it you nwver know who in the elected representatives or the courts are for or against it. You also dont know what would result in a national referendum when it comes to issues such as abortion. But, I have heard more unintelligent arguements on controversial issues such as abortion, gun ownership, and tax rates than intelligent ones. So, all I can help but do is lean towards the elected representatives and courts to make authoritative decisions on these matters. It can be a bad thing for us citizens when we do leave tthese decisions up to the high powers, but some of these decisions can be vetoed in time.
While I agree with a lot of what you are saying I would argue more strongly for the need to allow the government to do the work that it is built to do. In the case of issues such as gun ownership, abortion, and tax rates it is important to allow for elected officials to make decisions that reflect the opinions of the voters rather then giving sweeping power to the executive branch of the government in the form of letting them make such important decisions without checks or balances from the other portions of the federal government.
Delete
ReplyDeleteDiscuss evidence for and against the proposition democracy promotes peace. Democracy can promotes peace because the citizens are in control over who they elect into office. In a democracy you have the freedom to choose how you live your own life. You are in control of your economic status to a certain degree. The book states "democracy can bring stability to historically divided societies since each group can aim to secure a share of power through elections". This can be seen when voters of many different ethnicities and economic status come together in agreement on why that one person is the best person for the job.
Votes are based on majority rules. This can be a disadvantage in today's world where money can buy freedom and corruption in being uncovered. Voters can also be seperated by their ethnicities and economic status. The minority groups votes can be washed out by the spread of money. Money also makes the difference in who's educated and who's not. This can create conflict and voters start to believe the saying the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Would you define democracy primarily in political or economical terms, or both about equally?
ReplyDeleteTo be innovative and grow it is important to have open access to information, confidence to speak about issues that are of concern, and the willingness to take risks and work together to empower both political and economic standards. New ideas foster our ability to overcome issues that we face in order to have justice and equality. Political democracy provides political government to all people while economic democracy provides empowerment to our communities. With economic power, there is purchase power to ensure local control of economic decisions. In democracy, people have a direct say in the country's affairs. These two important issues, and I fell that democracy is political but has a continued affect on our economy.
I think that democracy has more to do with process of law, and political policy than it has to do with economics. Unless you have money, you don't have any economic power, but people in a democracy will always have the inherent rights a democracy provides regardless of how much money they make.
DeleteI also agree that democracy is defined more in political terms but the political power that democracy brings than affects the economy depending on decisions the government makes. As william mentioned regardless of how much money they make citizens have rights that democracy provides. I think this a key point to why democracy is more political than economic, all citizens have the ability to participate in electing members that hold political power. People with money unfortunately hold a lot of power in the US. But in order to win elections candidates cannot only appeal to the upper classes. Democracy gives the common people power which I think is very important to not let only the small percentage of wealthy people to hold all the power.
DeleteDOES DEMOCRACY PROMOTES PEACE?
ReplyDeleteThe democratic ideology of individual freedoms and human rights should promote peace, however the association with capitalism often gets in the way. Would the US be involved so deeply in the Middle East if oil supplies were not a factor? Much of the military intervention as taken place under the guise of human rights and eliminating evil dictators. Was the freedom of the people of these states the primary focus or was it protecting the resources of US corporations. If the freedom and human rights were the priority, where was American democracy when Tibet was overthrown and dismantled?....Why were the needs for peace in Rwanda ignored as over one million people were mudered in the late 90s? There seems to to ambiguity on the behalf of American democratic intervention since the VietNam War. I do believe that democratic states do have world peace as a part of of their desires for individual determination and freedom, but it appears that economic needs come first. There lies the conflict.
IS DEMOCRACY DEFINED BY POLITICAL OR ECONOMIC TERMS?
Initially the idea was a political system to supply human freedoms, but the greed of capitalism and the desires of free citizens to have more has transformed democracy into a "money comes first system". The selfish nature of Western cultures has traded the altruism of our ancestors for desire for wealth, conveniance and pleasure. We teach our youth to get ahead, our midle aged to be consumers, and the elderly to remain silent. Wisdom and respect for our fellow man has been replaced by individualism and greed. We have morphed democracy into a system to fulfill our own desires over the needs of others. Democracy is more about economy than politics presently, will there be future transitions?
In answering the question regarding the central focus of Democracy being political or economical, I would say that in today's society there has been a shift over to an opinion that focuses on both parts playing equal roles rather than the original belief that it was a political ideology. The power of money and the economy tends to have a corrupting force upon the ideology of democracy, that is not to say that the people no longer have power, but the interests of the people as well as those in charge now focus more upon creating more economic prosperity. I do not see a change in this in the future especially with the government seeming to shift more and more in support of special interest groups that are willing to pour large amounts of resources in to campaigns in order to ensure the success of their desired candidate. Change could only be accomplished if there were to be a rise in interest by the people in a more politically based system as well as interest on the part of policy makers to remove the economic aspects of the political system such as the increasingly high costs of election campaigns.
ReplyDeleteI would define democracy in primarily political terms. "Democracy comes from the word "demos" meaning "the common people" and kratia meaning "power or rule". Democracy is the idea of the citizens in a society holding power in the form of political participation, competition and liberty. I think citizens participating in electing the government officials is one of the most important aspects of democracy. Democracy is the key to citizens promoting good governing. A government that looks out for the interests of the common people will then promote economic development. In the US a small portion of citizens hold the majority of the wealth. It is getting harder and harder to move up in the class system as there is such a large gap between the wealthy and the poor that closing that gap will take strong changes in the government. The ability of citizens to have a say in who is elected in the government gives power to the "common people" regardless of their economic status.
ReplyDeleteI would also define democracy as a political term because of the variation of definitions between countries. For instance communists democracy means collective equality, while most democratic countries focus on individual freedoms (O'Neil, p.128). I understand the word "political" to mean something relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party, allowing the term democracy to fit right in.
DeleteAs for my rejection of considering "democracy" as an economic term, it does not really have any barring. A country that symbolizes democracy does not automatically refer to standards of profitabilty. Although some countries, like China do consider economics when speaking of democracy, the underlying issue is always about creating equality.
Would you favor national referendums to settle such issues as abortion, gun ownership, taxe rates, or other controversies, or should we leave it to our elected representatives and the courts to make authoritative decisions on these issues?
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think national referendums can be benefical tools in a democracy, I do not think this tool would be useful in the United States. We have so many different cultures and ideas that dictate how we think our country should function, that it would be nearly impossible to establish a consensus in sufficeint time. It already takes a good length of time for legislation to pass; that time would probably triple if citizens where making these decisions. Because our government can already be seen as insufficent, when it comes to making decisions, having something else in place that further delays that process could create additional problems; such as, government shut-downs. Again, I do think national referendums are great, in that they "increase voter's understanding of political issues, their confidence in their own political abilities, and their faith in government responsiveness" (Hague & Harrop, p. 204). However, I think they are most useful in smaller, more cultural aglined countries. Allowing the courts and other elected representatives to decide on controversial issues is probably the most efficient method for our country.