Blog Discussion Group Five
Blog post due at 11:55pm on October 3 and comment due at 11:55pm on October 6.
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 would define democracy in both political and economical terms because our government can stabilize the three systemic conditions of aggregate demand, the financial sector, and prices. Using the United States as an example here, our country's government "uses its revenues to acquire goods from the private sector, employ labor, and provide incomes for consumers independently of their employers of their providing goods and services in exchange." (Caporaso, p. 121) We also use our government as a means of problem solving. "History clearly confirms that modern democracy rose along with capitalism, and in usual connection with is, modern democracy is a product of the capitalist process."(Almond, 468) This quote applies here because democracy has been historically supportive of capitalism. The democratic method was the took that helped form reconstruction. "Since successful capitalism requires risk-taking entrepreneurs with access to investment capital, the democratic propensity for redistribution and regulative policy tends to reduce the incentives and the resources available for risk-taking and creativity." (Almond, 472)
ReplyDeleteYour opinion about the democracy can be defined both political and economical terms is very impressive. I agreed with this. Moreover, you used the example of US is very appropriate. The citations you cited here was very persuasive. However, besides the quotation, I think maybe your comments seems a little short, by the way. To sum up, you did a very good job here!
DeleteThank you, Makayla, for the way that you simplified that. I was thinking along similar lines today in relation to topics regarding how Marxist sociologists in the 1970’s were struggling to understand how their application of Marxist theory until then could not fully explain all of the inequalities and disparities they observed in American society. It occurred to me that there were many things which Marx, as bright as he was, just did not foresee.
DeleteMy evolving thought experiments on this are that he saw free market economics and a polity deluded by the lure of Capitalism as the chief problem creators (Marx, Capital: The Process of Capitalist Production, 53). Whereas, Almond asserts to the contrary that they became the main problem solving mechanisms of human society (467). Part of that seems to be rooted in Marx’s definition of ideal democracy as a stateless enterprise, an anarchist utopia where each worker ‘freed from the bonds of coerced labor’ would autonomously rule himself (Marx, The Paris Manuscripts, 1844).
He failed to see how the polity exercising power guaranteed by the state, through representative democracy and political-economy, would restrain and correct Capitalism. Such democracies would accomplish that by what Almond described as their “propensity for redistribution and regulative policy.” Even the tendency of economic regulations and government directed transfer payments to “reduce the incentives and the resources available for risk-taking and creativity” served as a check on the excesses of unfettered Capitalism (472). As Almond further puts it, “social insurance, health and welfare nets, and regulatory frameworks [mitigated] the harmful impacts and shortfalls of Capitalism,” which absorbed revolutionary energy by mollifying proletariat angst.
DISCLAIMER: This is an intellectual exercise, a college assignment. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the political views of the author.
Discuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.”
ReplyDeleteDemocratic peace theory, referred to as democratic peace, is a theory of international relations, political science, and philosophy. The theory argues that all countries that implement democratic institutions (and more precisely, all free-democratic countries) do not or rarely have wars with another democratic state. But in fact, the theory does not mean that the democratic state will not launch a war; nor does it guarantee that the democratic state will be less than the other countries (such as autocratic) country involve in the war.
After the original version of this theory has been put forward, many of relevant studies have further explored the link between democracy and peace, and there is less conflict between democracies and less violent acts of scale.
This theory holds that “the democratic state has not war”, which is mainly determined by the “democratic” political system of the restraint mechanism. The “democratic state” can not avoid the war with the “non-democratic countries”, “democratic countries” continue to maintain the world’s democratic peace at the same time, as war help those “non-democratic countries” rebuild democracy. Through the establishment of democracy, the “non-democratic countries” achieve peace. On June 1, 2002, Bush publicly stated in his speech at West Point that in order to “support peace in mankind”, he would have to wage war on “the threat of terrorism and tyrant”.
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?
ReplyDeleteSince this question is based off all of my “favor” I will not be using any references or examples from the articles or textbooks. This is all coming from my mouth and I hope it brings some good debate.
Just looking at the question I see some great topics that can be talked about. I think these are some very big topics in our world today and I will be more than glad to answer this question. With these topics I have mixed emotions about. For the abortion topic I myself am not in favor of it at all and don’t like to hear about it when it happens. But let me say that it should be ones right to decide if they would like to have an abortion. This is a free country and I think that the people should have the right to make that decision. However I wouldn’t always agree with what they would be doing it’s still there right. So no elected representatives or the courts should be able rule abortion.
With gun rights I am all for people to be able to own a gun. However I do think that the way it is now and how a normal citizen can’t own a machine gun is perfectly fine. People can have guns but there is no need to have enough guys to shoot down an army. And also with this topic. The thing is guns don’t commit the crimes themselves. People have to use the guns to commit the crime. Guns used in the correct way are perfectly fine. Courts and the government shouldn’t be able to control if a citizen can purchase a gun or not.
So coming to a conclusion I think that the elected representatives and the courts need to stay out of peoples personal lives. If someone makes a decision that will better their life and their future then the courts shouldn’t have a say so.
I completely agree with you about the gun rights. I also believe the average American should not have the right to own an assault rifle. I believe there should be better screening behind who can/cannot buy a gun. Mental illness is a big part the of the reason why these shootings are happening, but there are also differing opinions behind these shootings and I'm not going to get into that. I just think there should be another method of assessing the mental health of someone buying a gun.
DeleteDiscuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.”
ReplyDeleteOne of the main reasons as to why many people believe that democracies act differently than other states is due to the fact that democracies rarely fight with one another. This is referred to as the ‘democratic peace theory.' The evidence in support of the democratic peace theory is rather extensive, and is among the strongest findings in international relations.
I think that Democratic peace theory is reliant on the ideology of civil liberties such as personal and political freedoms, democracy and economic growth. A liberal democracy can therefore be defined as ‘a state that instantiates liberal ideas', one where liberalism is the dominant ideology and citizens have leverage over war decisions. Democratic peace is the theory that liberal democracies are less likely to go to war with one another as with other forms of government, specifically due to the nature of liberal political ideology and the pacifying influence of democracy.
People who argue with this say that the democratic peace theory fails to take into account is human perception. It has not been shown with sufficient credibility that war planners refrain from violence proportional to the apparent level of democracy of their enemies when devising their strategic plans.
Since the evidence suggests that the logics do not operate as stipulated by the theory's proponents, there are good reasons to believe that while there is certainly peace among democracies, it may not be caused by the democratic nature of those states.
I believe it would be difficult to argue against such a theory. History itself supports it very strongly. People in democracies have power power when it comes to governmental decisions than those who live under an authoritarian rule. The demands of the people to pull American troops out of Vietnam is an example of how the people's power within a democracy. Another aspect that supports the theory is that most democratic countries are allies in one way or another. As democratic states, we would much rather discuss all possible ways to problem-solve before going to war.
DeleteWould you define democracy primarily in political or economical terms, or both about equally?
ReplyDeleteI would define democracy as primarily a political term. Democracy is a “form of self-government in which all adult citizens participate in shaping collective decisions in an environment of equality and open deliberation (Hague and Harrop P84).” Most democratic nations follow a capitalist or socialist form of economy. This is similar to how most authoritarian regimes are communist based economies. Because democracy is based on individual autonomy, it is only natural for those nations to follow a capitalistic approach, or something close to it. People in these countries are left to their own devices to find a job, or create their own businesses. Those who are in communist based countries are assisted heavily by the government. Both capitalism and communism are forms of economy strategies, but they are not political terms. They are a byproduct of the political regime in a country.
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?
ReplyDeleteThese topics in these questions are very sensitive between our two parties of government, and I am going to try and express my opinion in the nicest way that I can. First, I would like to start out with abortion. I come from a Christian background, and that is what derives my strong opinion against abortion. Please do not criticize my opinion, as I have not criticized yours with mine, in this post. Second, I believe in the right to have second amendment rights. I also believe that people cause violence, not the weapons themselves. People who create violence with guns, are not of good mental stability. With that being said, there are medical laws and regulations that permit gun salesmen from doing a complete and thorough background check on individuals who purchase them. Being able to see a criminal record is not the same thing as being able to view a medical history of the individual. Lastly, believe it or not, I do believe that the tax rates are too high for middle class individuals. A decision of equal tax rates or a higher rate for the wealthy upper-class should be introduced.
With everything I have shared with you above, I believe in electing representatives who honor my beliefs. For those of you who do not share these same beliefs, you also believe in electing a representative who believes the same, and who will fight for those beliefs. We will never be able to settle these major controversies amongst ourselves. Therefore, I think it is in our best interest to continue electing the people who can honor our beliefs as mush as possible. I realize this will still create the divide between our two political parties, but no one wants to compromise. We all want our beliefs to be the right ones, no matter what side we lean towards.
DeleteI agree that we should elect the political officials whom we believe best represents our ideas. Referendums are great for local and state legislation when concerning how to spend tax dollars, but are not a good idea on the national level. Hague and Harrop talk about some of the negative effects of having a referendum vote to include "wealthy companies waging expensive campaigns on issues and which they have an economic interest," "government control over the precise wording of the question to be put to voters," and "intense minorities seeking reforms to which the majority is it different." (P. 205) Switzerland has the most referendums but voters can end up with voter fatigue and turnout may be greatly reduced. Therefore, only those who are truly passionate about an idea would even go out to vote Hague and Harrop, p204) the law may not be a true representation of what the people really want.
For example let's look at abortion laws. We take for granted the research that went into the compromises behind what is legal abortion what is illegal abortion, like which trimester is acceptable to have an abortion. If abortion had only been a referendum it would strictly be is it legal or is it illegal. It would be a majority takes all policy which can be a disadvantage for both sides. If abortion was just completely illegal, based on a referendum vote, then medical conditions, rapes, and any other negative circumstances that result in a pregnancy could not use abortion as a resolution. If abortion was voted to be legal based on a referendum then a person could have an abortion in the third trimester for whatever reason they felt necessary.
So I am opposed to National referendum because they give you a All or Nothing limit, or not a true representation of what the people may want or need, and reduce the power of research compromise and negotiation.
I agree, electing representatives who honor our beliefs is important because the people would not be able to settle these major controversies amongst themselves. I believe representatives are important because citizens might not have the time or energy to take part in every decision. Also, not all people are skilled enough to make decisions on very important issues that have an impact on every citizen. Another issue with national referendum is that people may not be passionate for every issue. Therefore, only the citizens that have great passion on an issue will vote.
DeletePersonally, the most important part of answer is that democracy is a political system designed by members of humanity so democracy itself might have peaceful attributes but these attributes only matter if they are followed by the state using this system. It only starts to promote peace, in this example, when it is effectively combined with the state. More importantly as a system it has aspects that are inherently more peace promoting than others. For example, the aspect of an election with winner take all election structure could promote violence if minority groups felt the system was unfair. Additionally, one economic approach to democracy, a capitalistic democracy, that has a struggling working class might have corrupted “existing systems of private property […] and […] [view] the free market as destructively competitive---aesthetically and morally repugnant.” (Almond 469) In terms of promoting peace democracy has a lot of potential which gives it an edge of other political systems. Elections, transparency, and opportunity to participate in government give the public many avenues to voice their grievances before they feel it is necessary to take up arms. The most peace promoting aspect of democracy however is the fact “it is not a static accommodation, but rather one which fluctuates over time.” (Almond 473) The adaptability of democracy allows it to constantly change to serve the public and reduce the chance of violence over a significant period of time.
ReplyDeleteWould I define democracy primarily in political or economical terms, or both equally?
ReplyDeleteConsidering that our democracy operates on a free-market economy, I would first define democracy primarily in political terms. However, many acts passed through congress have economic implications for everyone. Caporaso and Levine (1992) explain that the two realms can be intertwined writing, “When we use ‘economic’ in the sense of economic calculation, then politics become one place to apply such a calculation. Economics is a way of acting, politics is a place to act … the intelligibility of our action depends on the connection between the means and the ends” (p. 31). Whether it’s operations are genuine or not, the government is posed to serve the interests of the public. In most cases, a person’s economic standing runs parallel with his or her ability to gain necessary resources that provide them with sustainability. Referring again to Caporaso and Levine (1992), it’s evident that others agree. “While the idea of public provides an approach to politics, it does not stand alone. In one sense, it identifies the raw material out of which politics takes place. The activities of government are concerned with taking binding decisions for society as a whole. … In this light, the public and the government are not two unrelated approaches” (p. 18). However accurate this statement may be, it’s clear to most American’s that our government could do more to enhance public access to resources and strengthen the middle class. Politics seems to be the gestapo in creating these more fair and equal economic conditions for society.
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 favor national referendums to settle these types of issues. Unfortunately I believe that most representatives in our government today either vote based on their religious or personal views or vote in favor of those making the largest campaign deposits instead of voting for those that they are actually representing. Instead of looking at abortion as a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body, government representatives approach it from a moral and religious perspective. And yes I understand that there are individuals who have voted for representatives specifically for this reason, so yes in that situation they are supporting the views of their constituents. However there are other representatives that ignore the majority opinions of their constituents based on their own personal feelings on the topic. When it come to gun control, individuals from both major political parties have voiced their wish for stricter gun laws and the banning of ownership of certain types of weapons. However representatives have shot down these proposed bills in support of the individuals with the deepest pockets. These politicians are not representing their constituents but are instead representing themselves. Until this can change, I do not believe that we can trust our representatives to make decisions on these issues.
It is difficult to decide what I would prefer, considering your perspective.
DeleteWhile one would hope that an elected representative would want to do his best to actually represent the people and their wishes, you are correct that many have proven that is not of great import to them.
I think I would still choose a representative over a national referendum for most of these particular issues, and hold out hope that they would be dedicated to their position of power and feel some sort of obligation not to act selfishly. So many of these issues are deeply personal, and may require a more personal touch than a national referendum may offer.
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 be in favor of national referendums to settle issues such as abortion, gun ownership, tax rates, or other controversies. “Referendum requires the public to cast votes on a specific proposal or a change to the constitution” (p.155 O’Neil). With the turnout at the polls at an all-time high and decreasing, I don’t feel the people would receive a fair and justified result on critical issues. This would increase some people’s motives to vote, however misinformed people, protest vote, or individuals voting strictly based on religion could swing critical issues into a negative result. Issues regarding abortion should not be up to the government to decide but the individuals that are directly affect the issues. Referendum is a true democratic feature, however; no democracy is prefect and corruption happens at all level of government. Some critical issues shouldn’t be in the hands of the government.
I definitely agree that referendums could have skewed results if a large percent of the population did not vote. Would it make sense to involve some type of punishment in order to encourage voting? It would be an odd predicament to undemocratically force people to participate in a democratic referendum. Even outside referendums voter participation is a problem that isn't going away anytime soon. I think rather than a punishment people just need to get more involved with local politics because it definitely feels like you can make a larger impact when it's a smaller stage.
DeleteI agree with you i feel that the American people should be given the right to settle issues such as abortion, taxes and gun ownership because it is our lives that are going to be directly affected by it not those who are sitting on capital hill. I like how you brought up the negatives to doing this because I didn't bring that up in mine. Yes i agree that there will be problems will voter turn out and poorly informed voters
DeleteDiscuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.”
ReplyDeleteIn an article written by Mark Lagon for the Council on Foreign Relations in 2011, he stated that "established democracies never go to war with one another. Foreign policy “realists” advocate working with other governments on the basis of interests, irrespective of character, and suggest that this approach best preserves stability in the world". This is a generally accepted concept of the democratic peace theory, yet it is often claimed that moralized democracy is an idea used by the United States to justify their promotion of its progress, or their hand in its spread.
In general, a democratic government is considered good for most parties involved; which in turn promotes a willingness to reach common goals peacefully. Lagon (2011) goes on to state that "Respect for the liberty of individuals is an inherent feature of democratic politics," and in general, people who reap the benefits of more human rights and civil liberties are happier. It is of my opinion (and many others) that happier people are typically less inclined to greet problems with violence, and would rather seek out a mutually beneficial solution for all.
On the contrary, some disagree. One of the larger arguments against the democratic peace theory is that it may specifically be used to initiate war with non-democratic states, as some argue that it was in the Iraq war. Still others argue that forced democratism creates instability and resentment, which may create a polar effect to the original purpose.
I personally believe that there can be a great variety in the types and executions of democratic governments, and many peoples simply don't realize how vastly the concept could be applied to promote peace without the sacrifice of many other ideals.
There are many reasons for why the government exists from passing and enforcing laws to dealing with foreign affairs. However, there are some issues that arise that cannot be determined or passed by government officials. Regardless what I am going to say there is always going to be oppositions to each argument that is going to be approached. I believe that certain issues that have extreme support on both sides of the issue such as gun rights and abortion should be voted on by those who would most be affected by that. Since hundreds of thousands if not millions of people are going to be affected by it I believe that everyone’s should be able to weigh their opinion. Like when the UN initiated the Sí or No vote in chili which was the decision on whether the dictator will remain in power or if the people will take over and make it a democracy. Every citizen was given the right/Choice to vote on this issue. I believe that American citizens should have the right to vote on these issues because it directly affects them not those who represents us who are in DC. Also, these issues deal with personal rights opposed to rules that we live by. Therefore, the government should only pass a bill of the majority of the population agrees with it. The reason, gun rights and abortion are hot topics and will affect everyone
ReplyDeleteWould 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 feel like it should be up to the people and not up to the elected representatives for the right to abortion and or gun ownership. I believe that the tax rates need some sort of guidelines and or basis as the tax rates if left to the people would be to low and it may not be beneficial. I feel like when it relates to the tax rates it should be based off there income and that should be the only basis for it. I feel like there has to be rules, regulations, and guidelines based on the tax rates. The only way that it should be regulated is by the elected officials and or the government. Otherwise we would be in a mess as a government. As if we aren't already.
When it comes to gun regulations I believe there is nothing wrong with having a gun. We have the right to bare arms and I support that myself. Especially with the meanness in the world today and no one feels safe. Should automatic guns be available ....absolutely not. However, people that wish to break the law will continue to do so and will continue to keep things that are forbidden. I feel like having some restrictions is a good thing but there is nothing wrong with having gun rights. We have the right to protect our homes, family and items that we have acquired.
When it comes to abortion I have mixed emotions on this one but I feel that it is up to the woman if she chooses to keep a child or not. There are scenarios that I believe abortion is used for that I personally do not agree with. But I also feels it's up the person based on what they need to do for what is right for there life. I do feel that a man should have a say in that as well. After all it takes two to make a child but it affects the woman's life and choice directly. I don't think that government officials should be able to manipulate that.
I agree with what you have to say about owning a gun to protect your home, family, etc. This was an actual discussion I had with someone the other day. I could not bring myself to understand why people want to ban the use of handguns and the like. How else do you expect to protect yourself or fight for your life and your family's life, if thats what a situation comes to? What if the person threatening you as a gun, because they are chose not to follow the ban on guns? You as the victim become the joke "bringing a knife to a gun fight."
DeleteI think the problem with gun ownership, in the wrong hands, comes from medical laws that protect individuals. As I mentioned in my post there is a huge difference in a criminal background check and a mental health background check. What our government needs to start doing, is finding some way to cross that line. I am a firm believer that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
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?
ReplyDeleteMy answer to each of the issues listed is: No, abortion should not fall under a national referendum. Who is the government to tell a woman what she should or should not do with her body. You cannot possibly set one rule, for or against, and it benefit all. That is a personal decision that a woman has to make, whatever her reason, because it is her body, not the governments. Yes, gun ownership and not to say that we want to violate someone's right to bear arms but we do need to make sure that said arms are in the hands of a responsible person. For example, we have rules about the age a person can operate a motor vehicle - we wouldn't allow a 5 year old to drive a car, why? because of lack of experience and it's too much power in their hands. If there is say a documented history of mental illness, a person is a known threat to themselves and/or society, etc... I would agree that they do not need to posses a gun. I believe that a person should have to meet certain criteria before being able to own a gun. Yes, tax rates should fall under a national referendum because without controls in place rules will be made to benefit a certain group while other groups suffer.
I feel that each controversial issue has to be looked at on an individual basis and not blanketed that a certain group gets to decide. Some issues, the government should never have their hands in while others the governments hand is needed. As stated by Hague and Harrop, "referendums are the most important mechanism of direct democracy. Referendums provide a safety valve, allowing governments, particularly coalitions, to put an issue to the people when it is incapable of reaching a decision itself."
So, again I believe that the issues have to be taken as a case by case bases as to who needs to decide the rules and regulations and what is right or wrong.
I completely agree with your way of thinking. I feel that critical issues such as abortion should be up to the person involved. However, other issues such as gun control should be only partially be handled by national referendum. The right to bear arms should always be allowed but with restrictions. Issues such as tax rates should also fall under national referendums.
DeleteDemocracy would have to be defined in political terms. Whether it's direct democracy defined as "the citizens themselves debate and reach decisions on matters of common interest," or indirect democracy "in which citizens elect Parliament and presidential systems," or liberal democracy which is "a form of indirect democracy in which the scope of democracy is limited by constitutional protection of individual rights," ( Haig and Harrop, p43) democracy in its purest form has very little to do with economics. Economics very well may play a role in how people may want to govern themselves, but it is not the foundation of the democratic principle. Now the modernization theory believes that "high-income countries with an educated population and a strong middle class are more likely to have a flourishing democracy and the lower-income countries are more subject to authoritarianism," ( Hague and Harrop p 49) but history has shown that a flourishing economy is not causal of a democracy although there may be some correlation, just as a country like China disproves this theory. Just look at the US, democracy has maintained and thrived even through the ups and downs of our economic system. And actually the ore capitalism flourishes in our country, the more the wealthy and those in poverty separate, and the less the voice of those in poverty have, reducing the purity of democracy in our country. Capitalism and economics as a basis for the foundation of democracy in our country has proved to be a perversion of democracy and should not be a major consideration when defining what democracy is. As seen in the video economics made determine what type of political system a state may want to use to govern its society but economics is not the definition of that government. Economics may be used to define the class systems in a society which determine who has true Authority in the government but again it is not a defining term of a government. The American Constitution is based on the human's guaranteed rights and equality, but nothing about economics; therefore, I feel like the two are separated in definition but intertwined in application.
ReplyDelete• 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, I would not favor national referendums to settle issues such as those listed. I believe elected representatives and the courts would make rational decisions that would best suit the interest of the general population. It is important that citizens do exercise their right to vote because democracy does not function correctly if citizens don’t vote. Holding representatives accountable is crucial because ultimately, they are voting on these issues.
I don't agree with the comment above. Elected representatives and courts are entitled to make laws and regulations that are for the interest of people but they are not inherently rational. Referendums gives the citizen a direct impact into decisions that affect them. It eliminates the middle man of electorates. Both forms of policy making depend on a significant voter turnout but if critical social policy followed the direct will of the people it wouldn't be affected by bias from a two party system that ignores other populations or sway from interest groups and capitalism.
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?
ReplyDeleteYes, I do favor the idea of national referendums to settle controversial issues. A democracy is meant to be for the people by the people or at least provide a reasonable voice to represent the people. In western government and non democratic governments the people have very little say in the workings of politics and are poorly represented. These weaknesses in the democratic process are major contributors to voter apathy. The option for referendums benefit voters by creating high levels of support for significant change and a public space for debate about important issues so that once the vote is concluded there is often a degree of compromise.
A referendum is also a good way to poll the citizens. If government decide to on a course of action and wants to get a feel for public reaction. Lastly when voting on issues that are supported by lobbyist and interest groups giving that vote back to the people builds the public trust that motives behind the vote was less corrupt.
(https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/10011302.htm).
These topics are too much of a personal matter for government to make decisions. And I do not agree with you. If one of these topics betters someones life then why do we need to have someone that dosent care one bit about that person make a big decision like that. With guns I would say that government should put some limitations on who can buy the guys and what size. There has been some problems with big fire arms this past week. But id the government put limitations on firearms the people that are causing the damage would still find something else to do it with. If they want to hurt people bad enough they will find something. But overall I don't agree with what you are saying.
Delete3. Would you define democracy primarily in political or economical terms, or both about equally?
ReplyDeleteI would define it as a three-dimensional political-economic system, but discuss only one of the three dimensions here. Combine Weber’s and Caporaso’s definitions of an economic system as a ‘system which enables agents to satisfy wants as much as possible with available opportunities within given constraints and scarcity’ (Weber 1978, Caporaso 1992). Combine Laswell, Morgenthau, and Dahl to define politics as “ ‘the struggle for power’ [to decide] ‘who gets what, when, and how’ [by establishing] ‘patterns of power rule and authority’ (Morgenthau 1960, Lasswell 1936, Dahl). It’s a struggle to make rules to establish who gets the authority to decide how much each person can freely express their rights, while not depriving the rest of society of an equal opportunity to do the same.
The scarcest of all resources in human social systems is freedom. It’s a resource which must be fought for, constantly maintained, and safely guarded. It is constrained by the expression of another’s equal right to express their freedom, when that expression restricts our own. Likewise, our own expression of freedom is constrained by rules which prohibit us from expressing it in a way that restricts that of another. When a conflict arises over competing expressions freedom, it must reach a state of equilibrium where competitors must either agree to each place limits on their expression of freedom, so as not to infringe upon that of another, or one must jockey to limit the others’ freedom in order to increase their own.
That is democracy, for not all of us can have all that we want, or do all that we wish, whenever we please.
DISCLAIMER: This is an intellectual exercise, a college assignment. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the political views of the author.
Errata: Revision of the last two sentences; changed to --
DeleteWhen a conflict arises over competing expressions of freedom or freedom -v- rights, one of four changes must occur to resolve it. 1) The competition must reach a state of equilibrium where competitors agree to each place limits on their expression of freedom, so as not to infringe upon that of another; 2) The competitors must agree to express their conflicting freedom in separate spaces; 3) One competitor must maneuver to limit the others’ freedom in order to expand or enjoy its own; or 4) The government must intervene, or the courts must adjudicate to resolve the conflicting demands.
This concept of political-economic democracy allegorically compares democracy to a Keynesian Economic System, where the scarce resources traded are a finite supply of rights and freedoms, based upon the laws of aggregate demand in a supply and demand system. For not all of us can demand ALL of the rights we want, or freely to do ALL that we wish, WHENEVER or WHEREVER we please, without any regard for how it impacts the rights and freedoms of another.