Thursday, June 6, 2019
Democracy - Essay Essay Example for Free
Democracy Essay EssayIntroductionDemocracy, it is generally believed, had its roots in Ancient Athens. We know it spread its stems to most of Europe and later to split of Asia by mid 19th century , mostly in the form of parliamentary nation. But in the context of this paper,we be not interested in the histrocity of the idea or concept of democracy, only if in the idea itself. That is to say we want to analyze the meaning of democracy and its different forms, study its efficiency (so to say), job over its limitations and compare it to other forms of presidential term. Whether democracy was conceived of in Athens, Sparta or India is not a topic of interest in this paper (although there may be references to historical events in the evolution of the idea when pertinent). What does democracy mean?Democracy comes from the greek radiation pattern of the plenty. But as I searched for a commentary of democracy in the course of research for this paper, a consistent defintion of it seemed to elude me. So we must examine some of these definitions and try to find a nubble to the idea of democracy, if there exists one. Bunch of different ideas and quotes are out thr on internet put roughly 4-5 of them here and hold forth if them from a current or historical perspective..ive written down one for u The right to dissent without repercussions to ones personal well-being is the core value of Democracy * Nathan SharanskyDiscuss quotes such as this to evaluate how these ideas are implemented in practice.. All this should take up about 500 words..The only core value seems to be raft prevail to elect their governement..how much of the peoples rights are respected after that greatly varies.. Forms of democracyRepresentative..constitutes parliamentary and liberal(most democracies arethese)ConstitutionalDirectSocialistTotalitarian..discuss all thseabout three hundred words..A critique of democacyAn illusionThere was no stone-pelting, nothing.There was no curfew The y fired indiscriminately. (http//www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/kashmir-burns-again-as-india-responds-to-dissent-with-violence-2045905.html). The above was said by Abdul Rashid, a Kashmiri youth whose friend was gunned down by Indian army officials for holding a peaceful, nonviolent, anti-government rally in the summer of 2010. But this was not an anomoly in the process of democracy in India. Kashmir still remains the most militarized zone in the world with about a half a million troops on active duty (for the sake of comparison, the United States had about 165,000 troops in Iraq at its peak)(i read these figures on cia.gov..i dont remember the exact link ). How is that a government for the people is killing its own citizens for holding a nonviolent demonstration? How is such a huge militarization of a province in a democracy justified? Even a basic understanding of the ideas of freedom and liberty that democracy entails shows how abhorrent these actions are.But these things happen, not just in India, but in other developed counties like the United States (Japanese americans in 1942), where the rights of their citizens are violated just when they would want to exercise them. So one must ask, are democracies really for the people? A study of history of goverment criminality in countries like India and the United States seem to suggest otherwise. The almost forceful takeaway of pour down by the Indian goverment in eastern India from farmers (actions which directly led to the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency, something the current prime minister of India called the single biggest internal security challenge ever approach by our country.( http//www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/ACRText/ACR-IndiaAP.html)), seem to suggest otherwise. The locking up of Japanese Americans in internment camps in 1942 by Franklin Roosevelt and the Unites States government seem to suggest otherwise.The indiscriminate pip ofunarmed, nonviolent Kashmiri youths (some as young as 9 years o ld)shouting azadiazadi(freedomfreedom) by Indian security officials seem to suggest otherwise. virtuoso gets the idea. So maybe people like Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca are correct after all. The masses are always characterized by apathy and division, the powers to be by ram down and unity (Femia, Joseph V. Against the Masses, Oxford 2001). Maybe all democracy does is shift the power scale, from domination by a despotic leader to manipulation by a egalitarian government. Maybe the people dont really have much of a say after all. Maybe its just an illusion.Majority ruleMajority always gets its way..discuss gay rights..civil rights in us..womens rights historically..religious parties like shiv sena in Mumbai..rising intolerance of secularism in india..majority rule can get tyrannical and the minority issues ignored when people get to decide resolutions to minority issues.The irrational voterThe best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter . Winston ChurchillTalk about how the common man is largely ignorant about serious issues and hence can vote against his/her interests..u can greatly discuss the recent midterms in us to make this pointbasically ur sayin if we must solve economic issues we talk to economist..if we must solve environmental issues we talk to climate scientists..if we are talking abt what to teach in accomplishment class we take the consensus of scientist not what the common people of the render think (talk abt teaching creationism in schools..a lot of states in us have majority of it people wanting creationism be taught as science even though almost no scientist believe it to be science)not everything should be up for a vote..EconomicallyUr a better person to write abt thisIdealisticShow how its hard to apply democratic principles in practicecorrupt officials..apathetic citizens..uprisings etc.. InstableFrequent elections make the government instableshitload of examples on the internet abt this.. take up we have?It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.- Winston Churchill Compare democracy to other forms of governments like dictatorships, communist states, anarchist, socialist,etc..define and discuss each with respect to western liberal democracy..ive done some of it for anarchist Anarchist Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would depart people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour. (from wikipedia).One such current society is Somalia, and it would not be hyperbole to suggest they are not doing very well. The lack of a state and police have led to nationwide lawlessness, violence and spiralled the country into utter chaos. I think Somalia really characterizes the severe consequences of not having a state and is not a direction one would want their country to go in. Giving people all the power has resulted in the most powerful and the most brutal of them to take power and the rest of people losing all freedom(ironically).