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?
I define democracy first and foremost in political, not economic, terms. While some structural theories of democratization posit that an increase in wealth due to capitalism will inevitably lead to democratization, thus making economics the primary characteristic of democracies, I do not agree. While a surge in GDP caused by the free market can help precipitate democratization, it does not necessarily cause it. In fact, one of our readings tells us that "in policy areas other than civil rights and personal freedoms, existing democracies do not necessarily perform better, or worse, than nondemocratic regimes" (Di Palma, 16). According to this evidence then, what truly differentiates democratic regimes from nondemocratic regimes, is their treatment of civil rights and personal freedoms. Di Palma goes on to tell us that social progress, not economic progress, was the driving factor of early democratization in Europe (17). While democratization may lead to an increase in economic freedom and opportunity, this definition does not encompass or wholly define democratization. We read that "the emphasis (in democracies) is on free and universal suffrage in a context of civil liberties, on competitive parties, on the selection of alernative candidates for office, and on the presence of political institutions that regulate and gaurantee the roles of government" (16). All of these essential functions of democracy are political in nature, and underly the economic characteristics of democracies.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. I have never associated democracy in economic terms, even though I see how some could. I think of Democracy as our ability to choose those that make up our governing body and have a say in the issues that arise. The ability to be represented. I do not think of our free market system as a direct element of democracy. I say that because I could see a monarchy operating as a free market economy just as easily as we do as a democracy in various cases. I really like the Di Palma quote about the treatment of civil rights and personal freedoms, as that is essentially what democracy should be about and I would like to think is the international perception of what we have here in the U.S. On the other hand, I do recognize that having a democratic system will ultimately lead to a certain form of economic system (such as our free market) so an equal perception of democracy as a political and economic operation is understandable, just not the way that I generally perceive the term.
DeleteI agree with Bradley. Democracy is about the people it represents. It is about our civil rights and our freedom of choice and fairness. We should be able to stand as citizens and demand our wnats and needs, due to the fact that we are a democracy, and our votes chose our representation, so we should demand that they due what they were elected to do. Its not about economics it's about the people.
DeleteI, too, agree. I think structural theories take a limited approach and overlook other important factors in examining the spread of democracy. I see democracy as a political function, but it only works if the majority of citizens are educated and involved in the political process.
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?
ReplyDeleteI believe leaving the settlement of national issues to elected representatives and the courts is the only way to uphold the democracy of our state. These types of authoritative decisions are always very case sensitive and complex to the point where an average citizen may not be involved enough politically to fully understand their options and make these large scale decisions if a national vote was conducted. I am a believer that certain jobs are best done by professionals. An electrician will be more successful performing those duties than I would be, as a politician is more equipped to assist in the authoritative decision process than I am. We elect these representatives to most effectively represent us, and leaving these major issues up to a national referendum would contradict that system. I also look at a potential national referendum situation as very costly to administrate and conduct. In business, it only makes sense to spend big money if your return on investment will be positive, but we do not know whether or not that would be the case in this scenario, making me wary of the option.
The current system is not without flaw, but has proven to be a fairly reliable representation of the people. Our four year voting system is effective in that it forces change, allowing popular opinion to vary mid-presidency, as we seen with the recent congressional election. The Republican Party experienced gains in both the House and Senate in the midst of President Obama’s second term. Allowing our elected officials to handle the authoritative decision making process is comfortable, as it allows for engagement of citizens, but does not require anyone to be more overly involved politically than they want to be. A national referendum system could easily crease political burnout throughout our nation, as some are already disinterested enough to not be involved. Our current system is fair, balanced, and has proven to be a successful manner in determining these issues. If it isn’t broke, it doesn’t need to be fixed.
I agree that national referendums may contradict the very foundation of our representative democracy. The very point is that our appointed officials can devote a larger amount of time and a deeper understanding to the issues that confront our society and then, based on their analysis, make the decisions that they feel best represent their constituents.
DeletePerhaps the best evidence for or against a national referendum can be seen from Athens "little democracy". Obviously Greek democracy is the bedrock upon which current democracy is built, but that does not mean the Greek system was without flaw. Indeed, history reveals that one of the major faults of Greek direct democracy was that it was an expensive, inefficient and indecisive system. I believe that we would still experience the same shortcomings were we to have direct national referenderums. Instead, we should draw from their experience and allow our elected officials to represent us on these issues.
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?
ReplyDeleteYes and No.
I believe that national referendums can not fully settle all issues, due to the fact our elected representatives are choosen by the people to represent our interest. On national issues and concerns on subjects such as tax rates and gun control can be debated in our nations senate and high courts, but abortion can not be. Abortion is clearly a woman's choice. Some may argue that it's murder and other's may argue that it's a personal choice, but it shouldn't be decided by our courts to teel us that this procedure is right or wrong, it's a personal and or moral decision based on who a person is.
On isues that affects us all the same such as taxes and gun control I believe it's our government duty to regulate these issues. When 95% of the American population is ranked from higher middle class to poverty, compared to 4% of the population ranked as rich, and 1% ranked as wealthy stake holders, that accumulate more wealth than the 99% of our countries economy, and pay less taxes than all other classes, our government should regulate our system. Taxes are debatable, for affect us all. our antional tax system is unjust.
Gun control is another subject and or issue that needs to be regulated. The access to obtain afirearm is to easy. Government needs to pass laws that makes it more difficlut to purchase guns. Mental Health background checks should be put in place for anyone who wishes to purchase a gun. These mental health background checks should include childhood history as well.
I believe some things should be in our government hands and some should't.
I agree with your statements Scott. I agree that your opinion about gun control and abortion are spot on. I think that abortion is a choice, whether I agree with their decision or not is irrelevant. Guns need to be better controlled for sure. There are so many illegal guns that need to be controlled on the way in as well as the guns that are already in the US. There needs to be better control, yearly licence renewals, background checks, and regulations on what guns can be sold to the public. There is no need, in my opinion, for anyone to have an automatic weapon if they are not fighting a war. Taxes are a whole other can of worms. That is a sticky subject that I think can be left up to the big wigs. I want no part in that, and assume that most people would not like to be in that position.
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?
ReplyDeleteI am in favor of national referendums to settle such issues as abortion, gun ownership, tax rates or other controversies. I believe that by leaving these kinds of decisions to the people themselves, it would allow for the people to truly express their thoughts and ideas. The people may not be the experts or top people of their fields, but it would be the true voice of the people. People who have dealt with gun violence will have the right to vote against guns right. People who are Pro-Life will be able to voice their opinions using national referendums.
It seems to me that when you bring interest groups and even representatives of the states it can lead to people making authoritative decision based on things like their personal feelings or the feelings of a particular interest group. The interest groups are trying trade their donations and volunteers to the elected representatives and the courts that can help raise their topics to a higher platform.
Also the minorities that are perhaps small and do not have a representative, their voice may not be heard. People who are afraid to rally against something they believe is wrong, would have a voice if they were able to vote on something utilizing a pole.
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?
ReplyDeleteThere are a few of these where I think that it would be best to have a bit more control of, and a few that I think need to have less control of. I believe abortion is a woman's right to choose. I don't think the government, representatives, or courts should have any determination in that situation. Gun control should have much more regulations. There should be many more steps in order to purchase and even own a gun. There should be thorough background checks and yearly safety classes required for owning a gun. I also don't see any reason that anyone should own an automatic weapon unless it is just for show and there is no ammunition for it. Tax rates are best left up to the government to control only if they have the best interest of all in mind. There should not be an increase in taxes with no benefit. Certain issues need to be controlled and monitored by the government, and certain issues need to be left in the hands of those involved in the situations.
I agree with some of your statements. The statement you made about gun control is right on point in my opinion. Even though there is a constitutional right to bear arms there must be a control over who can own a gun and which guns a person should be able to have. That is not controlling people its, in my opinion, protecting people. There are to many innocent people each year dying because of the wrong people having access to guns. I think that weapons license need to be reviewed and renewed on a regular basis. But that doesn't effect the many people that obtain guns by illegal means. Maybe the government need to look at how the guns are getting in the country by illegal means? Those are just some suggestion on how the elected officials and the courts can make decisions that referendums can't make on issues such as gun control.
DeleteNow the abortion issue I agree in some ways with you and in other ways I don't. The statement that you made about abortion being a woman's right to choose. I am a woman myself I don't want the courts and elected representatives telling me what to do with my body but we are talking about a human life. There are so many different circumstance for an unwanted pregnancy like rape, and health risk to the baby and mother. There are just some pregnancies that result because of the irresponsibility of the man and woman. There are so many different birth control methods out there so being able to have an abortion because of irresponsibility, I don't agree with. Maybe the government and courts should put stipulations to having an abortion.
Would you favor national referendums to settle 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?
ReplyDeleteI think that we should leave the issues of settling abortion, gun ownership, tax rates or other controversies to our elected representatives because that is what they are there for as a representation of the people as a whole. They are there to speak for us in a civilized manner. These issues are "hot" topics and if we have referendums, that is opening the door for anyone to say what they want with no respect for other people's feelings and a fight could break out or worse.
Another reason is because the courts settle disputes based on previous cases and laws of the present. They don't make laws based on personal feelings. The courts make decisions based on careful analysis of the issues. Courts are used to interpret the law. I also think that using national referendums to settle issues instead of using it as an opportunity to voice opinions is not going to settle anything. Because people would spend more time arguing and would not get anything settled. Its just going to create more problems. Let's leave this to the law makers and the courts to decide on these issues.
I agree. People usually do not vote with the constitutionality of the issue in mind. They vote with their feelings usually. I also believe that too many referendums could overwhelm the population and cause voter turnout to be even less than it already is.
DeletePeople vote for representatives to make these decisions for us. I am completely fine with leaving it up to the courts and representatives. Referendums would undermine our system of checks and balances.
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?
ReplyDeleteI would not favor a national referendum in these instances. Asking for the general population to vote on these individual topics would overwhelm the voter and decrease voter turnout even more. Even on the state level, referendums have not tended to bring out large portions of people to vote. For instance, when North Carolina voted on Amendment One, few people actually showed up to the polls to vote. The amount of voter apathy in the United States would make these referendums unfair.
I think that the courts should really have the most say in the matter. The elected representatives' job is not to interpret the constitution. The courts job is and they have more insight on issues than the general population. They also protect the rights of minorities more than the general public would. People vote in their own self interests as well. Minorities have limited access, whether lack of transportation or job obligations, to the polls. Therefore, they would not be able to vote in their own self-interest.
I disagree, people who are interest in voting will vote regardless. We are fickle people we react on emotions. Why should we leave it to our elected representatives on matters like abortion? People see abortion as a crime but they don’t take in consideration the reason why this woman is wanting to have an abortion. No sin is greater than another. Abortion is an individual topic because it’s pertaining to an individual.
DeleteThe government creates polices designed to offer protection and create opportunities. These programs tend to be controversial and subject to much debate in our system. Why should there be a debate on a woman right to choose. The government should not have any determination in the situation.
I strongly agree on leaving it to our elected representatives and the courts to make decisions of issues that effects many. Such as gun control and taxes rates.
I agree and disagree. Very mixed feelings about this. Yes I do agree that some will not bother to vote in general if they are indifferent to the issue or not well informed, enough to know the effect will have on their lives. I agree that some will need an official to understand, interpret and represent their interest. Some individuals need an advocate.
DeletePersonally I don't want any elected official making any personal decision for me but if I had to choose it would be the judicial instead of some suit who doesn't know nor is aware of my issue blindly pass or institute a law.
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?
ReplyDeleteThe government has created polices designed to offer protections and create opportunities. These programs tend to be controversial and subject to much debate in our system. I strongly value personal freedoms the belief that everyone should be able to decide what is best for themselves and exercise those decision with limited government interference.
I strongly believe in a national referendum to settle such issues as abortion. If the decision only effects one person making the decision, then he or she should have the right to do so. Women should have the right to choose when it comes their bodies. Why would you take that right away from a woman that has been raped?
If the issue effects many then the elected representatives and courts should make the decisions that is best for the people at large.
Gun ownership and taxes rates, I believe ideally should be handled by elected representatives and the courts. Gun control has gotten out of control. It should be a law that you have to go through a psychological evaluation before you can get a permit to get a gun. If everybody had a gun it would detour some of these mass shootings of innocent people.
We would like to assume that the representatives speak for all groups within the cultures that make up America; given special interest groups, lobbyists, bribery and other unfair practices these days we rarely get true representations.
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?
ReplyDeleteNo. Absolutely not. I do not and would not agree with a national referendum to decide personal fates for abortions. gun ownership and tax rates. These issue could very well infringe on our constitutional rights and not define specifically or overlook the the circumstances and situations that could arise on a case by case basis. Especially with the abortion issue. I think that would be walking a fine line between these referendum and constitutional freedoms. Perhaps the best way would be to leave it up to the courts , I think they come the closest to actually having the ability or discernment on a case by case basis. Individually hearing the situations, knowing the issues. Although that still doesn't make it flawless or just on every issue but does create better odds.
I hear what you are saying, but also feel frustrated by decision-making models in which elected officials often make decisions that do not reflect the majority opinion. Or, many times, the elected officials are behind the times in terms of public opinion. For instance, if all of a sudden, 51% of a population is in favor of gay marriage, it will take lots of time and lobbying and election cycles before the people are able to indirectly influence the political process. It seems like referendums often cut out the middle man. All though I agree that these decisions should be moderated by courts that ensure the constitutionality of any decisions that come as a result of public referendums.
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?
ReplyDeleteI am not in favor of national referendums to settle issues considering outcomes could be volatile (like the stock market). This is essentially mob rule and would ultimately lead to one segment or another getting their rights trampled all over. Emotions rather than rule of law could determine outcomes.
With that said, there are advantages to referendums. Referendums require the public to vote on issues. Spurred by participation, the voters tend to gain more knowledge of and better understand the issue(s). In turn, the outcome of referendums inform/educate elected representatives as to the view of the voting public on said issues. Other advantages include increased voter confidence in their personal political competences and increased voter trust in the political system.
However, I believe the disadvantages of national referendums far outweigh the advantages. Referendums, in abundance, can enervate the voters resulting in significant drops in voter enthusiasm and participation causing lower turnout at the polls. Additionally, competing groups in a referendum may possess unequal resources allowing an unfair advantage considering the group with higher funds has more money for campaigning and advertising to reach more people. Further, issues such as abortion, gun ownership, tax rates and other controversial issues tend to bring out voter emotion which lends to votes by emotion rather than rule of law or constitution. Most importantly, a national referendum may facilitate the tyranny of the majority with minority interests being sacrificed at the directive of mob rule. This leads to political issues being resolved by orchestrated hysteria. For these reasons, I do not favor national referendums and believe we should leave the decisions of controversial issues to the representatives we elected.
I recently read an article about Democracy versus Mob Rule which I agreed with. I'm curious to see if others agree or disagree with his article. Here's the link:
http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/democracy-versus-mob-rule.html
Discuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.”
ReplyDeleteDemocracy can be defined as "a government by the people." With this in mind, it's hard to ignore the fact that people do not always agree on what is best for not only their self, but also their society. The concept of democracy was adopted in order to promote the over-all well being of the global population. While many societies agreed that democracy would be beneficial, there has never been a uniform idea of how democracy would work best. Each society identifies with unique ideas of what is best for their nation. When looking closer into this realization we find that individuals carry their own ideas of how to achieve the goals of their governments agendas. While many societies have adapted ways to please the masses such as parties and elections, many have not. Democracies that refuse to listen to the voice of their people will eventually be unable to avoid change. Governments that begin ignoring the voice of their populations, for whatever reason, will often cause those people to fight back or face losing their identity as a democracy.
As long as governments promoting democracy truly keep a common agenda with the societies which they govern, peace can easily be maintained. Even among democracies with several political parties, agreeing on a common overall goal assures the balance of peace. When a government fails to achieve the goals it's population expects, it must listen to the voice of the nation in order to avoid disruption of the peace it was created to promote.
Would you define democracy primarily in political or economical terms, or both about equally?
ReplyDeleteI would make the argument that a true definition of democracy cannot be either solely political, or economic, but is one that comprises both aspects in equal terms. As Linz and Stepan mention in their chapter on consolidated democracies, there are three conditions that constitute a democracy. The first being that the country has an dynamic and independent society; second, that the political society of that country has relative autonomy and an operational consensus on the procedures and policies of governance; and lastly, that the country has a working constitution and a rule of law. These ideals create the basic foundation for the political structure of democracy, but as we all know, modernization theorists would assert that generally any developed nation with a democracy will be naturally inclined to exhibit a capitalist economy in order to support the modern necessities of that society. Linz and Stepan relate that there is a final supportive condition for a consolidated democracy and that is what they have termed a “economic society.” They state that, “modern consolidated democracies require a set of sociopolitically crafted and accepted norms, institutions, and regulations - what we call ‘economic society’ - that mediate between the state and the market.” (p. 21) This inherently implies that no modern democracy has existed with purely a command economy (with exceptions to wartime) or a pure market economy. This is due to a variety of reasons including the fact that pure market economies could never be maintained without some degree of regulation by the government, there will always be market failures in any economy, and lastly because of the fact democracy requires public involvement in governmental priorities and policies (an inherent value and requirement of most democracies) event the purest market economies will be transformed into a mixed economy which is described by Linz and Stepan. Simply put, democracies cannot function effectively without considering both the political nature and economic composition of this type of governance.
Discuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.”
ReplyDeleteFOR:
In theory, Democracy is all about giving power to the people. If the citizens of a country are able to vote on elected leaders, they now have political power. Throughout history, most political unrest and violence occurs when a large group of people feels they do not have enough political power--so they try to push their agenda or overthrow the existing government. So, in theory, democracy ensures that all people have political power and therefore feel no reason to overthrow the existing government through violent means. Obviously, this does not always hold true. Their are still groups of people who are marginalized. But the idea behind democracy is to avoid this.
AGAINST
First of all, no democracy is perfect. And many are very corrupt. In practice, democracy does not guarantee that people will have political power. For instance, what if only certain people can vote? What if none of the candidates running for office represent the wills of the people being governed? These and other practices within democracies can take away political power from groups of people and give them reason to use violence to push their agenda. Furthermore, consider regions that are currently non-democratic. In the process of democratizing the country, many will oppose it. It is likely that wherever people try to democratize a non-democratic state, there will be plenty of conflict and therefore violence.