Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The evolution of democracy
Strength and weaknesses of democracy
Strength and weaknesses of democracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The evolution of democracy
Immunitarian Democracy
1. Does "community" refer to democracy? If not, could it or is it too deeply embedded in the conceptual lexicon of the Romantic, authoritarian and racist Right? This is the question, one already asked by American neo-communitarianism, that is emerging again in Europe at the precise moment when, some, especially in France and in Italy, are risking thinking community anew. At issue is not only a legitimate question, but in some ways even an inevitable one, in which democractic culture deeply examines its own theoretical precepts and future. This doesn't change the fact though that it's the wrong question or that it's badly put. Wrong or badly put because it takes as its term of comparison -- in order to be related to the category of community - a concept, that of democracy that is utterly incapable of "understanding" it, not only because its modern meaning at least, arrives much later, but also because it is flatter and increasingly overwhelmed in a dimension that is entirely political and institutional.
With respect to this lack of depth and substance of the politicological notion of democracy, community has a very different semantic width, both on the vertical level of history and on the synchronic one of meaning. This isn't the place to attempt a complete reconstruction, though my recent research beginning with the etymological origins of the term communitas and even more before that of munus in Latin does confirm the historical and semantic richness of the concept (R. Esposito, 1998). What we can infer from the above discussion, however, is that the correct question isn't whether the community can become a part of the democratic lexicon, but whether even democracy can be a part or at a minimum acquire some of its meaning in the lexicon of community. Without wanting to show my hand too quickly, a first step is required, which focuses more on the second term. Here we aren't helped at all by the conceptual dichotomies with which 20th century philosophy has tried to define community, one that lost along the way the original meaning of community. I'm not talking only of the one constructed by the so-called American communitarians with respect to their presumed adversaries, the liberals, who constitute rather their exact interface in the specific sense that they unconsciously share the same subjectivist as well as exclusively partisan lexicon, applied not to the community but to the individual (where communities like individuals are distinguished between them, one from the other).
The ancient Greek word "demokratia" was ambiguous. It met literally "people power". But who were the people to whom the power of the long? Was it all the people -all duly qualified citizens? Or only some of the people -- the masses? The Greek word demos could mean either. There is a theory that the word demokratia was claimed by democracy's enemies, members of the rich and aristocratic elite who did not like being outvoted by the common herd, their social and economic inferiors. If this theory is right, democracy must originally have meant something like "mob rule" or "dictatorship of the proletariat".
Before that can be established, I think a definition of democracy should be stated so that it may be called upon later in this essay. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, democracy is stated as "the principle of social equality and respect for the individual within a community" .
At first glance, it seems implausible the word democracy isn't written in the United States Constitution, or in the Preamble of the Constitution, or even in the Declaration of Independence. One would assume a concept so paramount to modern American culture would surely be derived from one of its oldest and most endeared documents. Alas, it is not. The Constitution only specifically mentions two entities, the government and “We the People”. Defining government is an easy enough task, but who are “We the People”? Originally consisting of only white male property owners, eventually adding in other races, income classes, women, and astonishingly, corporations, the definition of “We the People” has evolved numerous times. Corporation is another key term the architects of our government failed to define for us, perhaps that is why it found its way into the phrase “We the People”. A grave dilemma lies in this fallible defining of terms. Granting corporations person-hood legislatively shifts the power of democracy from human interests to corporate interests. This corrosion of human interest can clearly be noted when examining the battle over corporate power highlighted in the court cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company.
ABSTRACT: Totalitarian political systems in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe destroyed and repressed the civil society that used to exist in them. The authoritarian and totalitarian ethos was formed under a powerful influence of ideologies of the communist parties and politocracy in these countries so that the political ethos of politicians dominated the political ethos of the citizen. The breakdown of the real socialism and its unsuccessful attempts to complete accelerated liberal modernization of these societies caused turbulence of social values in addition to the general moral chaos. The moral crisis has deepened; anomie increased as well as the society’s inclination to commit crime. This makes difficult the creation of the cultural matrix of the civil society and its moral values. The liberation and development of the political ethos of the civil society as an element of the democratic political culture require structural and mental changes in these societies. They imply abandoning the value matrices of the traditional and political societies based upon collectivism, tribalism, authoritarianism, egalitarianism, ethnocentrism, etatisme and mythologization of the past. They require the use of the citizens’ active potential as well as that of their associations, their readiness for political commitment, self-initiative, respect of the general interest and a courageous defense of freedom and social justice.
The idea of a national community is an idea that is changing as we as members of this national community change as well. Technology continues to become more advanced and is affecting the way people choose to live their lives. The definition of a community is “a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.” National can be defined as “of, pertaining to, or belonging to a nation. Peculiar or common to the people of a nation.” When understanding these two words and combining them, the definition of a national community can be defined as a large community of people who live within the same region, and share a common culture with everyone surrounding
He suggests that many citizens now live in large and dense settings that require contacts with each other in a regular basis, thus social and cultural diversity is one of the key elements of city life (Leeuwen 2010: 632). Through the concept of ‘cosmopolitan citizenship’ he suggests that city life is formed by presence of people from different culture and social groups who have their own foundation of identity, which results in the rise of differences between social groups. He adds that such encounter with differences are viewed in terms of excitement or adventure (2010: 633). This could imply that the people in city are willing to contact the strange and unknown to develop their intercultural skills. This outlook represents the city as an ideal place for acceptance, building connections and respecting other cultures by getting engaged with differences. In contrast to the cosmopolitan citizenship, which is unrealistic as we discussed harmony doesn’t exist by mutual agreement with each other, he introduced another concept of ‘agonistic citizenship’ which suggests that acknowledge the fact that tensions between different social group occurs in a diverse cultural society. Therefore, this notion of
Scholars disagree over how to define the basic elements of fascism, some even insist it was limited to Italy under Mussolini. When the term is capitalised as Fascism, it refers to the Italian movement. Beginning in the 1970’s, some scholars began to develop a broad definition of fascism and by the 1990’s many had embraced the new approach. This new approach emphasises the way in which fascist movements attempt revolutionary change and their central focus on popularising myths of ethnic or national renewal. Seen from this prospective, all forms of fascism have three common features: anticonservatism, a myth of national or ethnic renewal and ...
The following research paper aims to observe whether there are clashes between Democracy and Capitalism, if yes, than in what fields and how they are expressed. I have used secondary data which emphases the relations of these two ideologies and try to reveal the core factors for clash and tension of them, find the real image of these issues.
The most important value of nationalism to democracy lies in the fact that it has the capacity to unite individual citizens into a single entity with shared beliefs. Democracy requires a definition of demos or who are included in the game and who are not (Nodia 6). Wherever the boundaries of the playing field are in dispute, democratic institutions (such as participation, representation, or cooperation) simply cannot function. Thus, for democracy to o...
The point that community has an important effect on the shaping of a person’s character is key in both Pythia Peay’s essay, “Soul Searching” and Winona LaDuke’s interview transcribed in essay form entitled, “Reclaiming Culture and the Land: Motherhood and the Politics of Sustaining Community”. The two authors present ideas, similar and different, of what it means to live in and be a part of community. Through examining these two essays, summarizing and synthesizing, we can gain a better understanding of what community is and how it affects those within it.
Juul S (2010) Solidarity and social cohesion in late modernity: a question of recognition, justice
If one accepts democracy as a practice, the question is then begged what kind of an institution sustains it? This discussion---though ...
For the communitarian, the liberal approach is inadequate because of its insistence on a universal and ahistorical approach to justice. According to Waltzer, there is no way to step outside history or culture(211). People, as much as they would like to believe otherwise, are bound, and somewhat controlled by society's norms and behaviours. For the communitarian, there is no way to detach people from the social realm because it is apart of who we are as humans. We are shaped by the events of history, and shown how to behave within our culture. There is no way to externalize ourselves from the community because of how embedded it is in our psyche(221). With this notion, if a community can have a shared understanding of what the common go...
The term democracy comes from the Greek language and means "rule by the people."(Democracy Building 2012) The democracy in Athens represents the events leading up to modern day democracies. Like our modern democracy, the Athenian democracy was created as a reaction to a concentration and abuse of power by the rulers. Philosophers defined the essential elements of democracy as a separation of powers, basic civil rights, human rights, religious liberty and separation of church and state. The most current definition of a democracy is defined as a “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.”(Dictionary.com). The American democracy was greatly influenced by the Athenian democracy. The Founding Fathers of the American democracy borrowed ideas from the Athenian way of governing. Presently, Americans live in a democracy that is much different than that the Athenian democracy, and what the Founding Fathers of the American Democracy envisioned. Although there are some commonalities between Athens and what our Founding Fathers intended, there are major differences as well. Differences between the modern American democracy the Athenian democracy and what the Founding Fathers envisioned are size of the democracies, the eligibility of a citizen to participate in the democracy and how a citizen participated.
In this essay I will be analyzing the role of diversity in democracy, I will start with direct and representative democracy’s, then continue onto the primary focus of this essay which will be the analysis of an essay by Joshua Cohen, I will conclude by raising some of my issues with deliberative democracy and the solutions required to allow the maximum amount of diversity.