A perfect government, as history has shown us, is next to impossible. While the degree of histories’ many governments is quantifiable, none can be defined as perfect. Whether it’s the size of the state, complexity of the time and issues, the rulers, the people, or unforeseeable matter-whatever it is-the human race has yet to find a perfect form of government. Consequently, while approaching this issue, the question is not which group is “right”? Rather which system more benevolently serves the people, since “democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people”. Despite participatory democracy being the most democratic of the two systems of government, representative democracy feasibility and efficiency, makes it the most formidable for Mars.
Participatory democracy, in its true form, is dismissed simply for its practicality of use. With a population of 11 million it would be impossible for everyone to join in on every legislation and law. However impossible it may be, representative democracy is true democracy. People have absolute equality and freedom. Furthermore, considering Marquis de Condorcet theory-which could be manifested into implying that the majority will be correct-participatory should lead to more utilitarian laws and legislations (pp 213). However, this argument faults in its application, because it assumes voting to be as simple as right or wrong. Yes we could use technology to help us vote and learn about politics but technology and moreover the media is the biggest problem for this system. The media would surpass the government as they could manipulate the people through information and advertising (not to say that this is not currently happening). In addition, who would set the agenda? Th...
... middle of paper ...
...the globalization and the complexity of the worlds issue, is it impossible for representatives not to be corrupted. For example, Hugo Chavez relations with United States have lead many North Americans to dislike him, even going so far as to call him a dictator. However, in effort to restore his country and specifically the impoverished minority, he decided to terminate Venezuela’s foreign policy with the United States. This has allowed him to redistribute oil money back into his country. Thus many Latin Americans would call this a intelligent and morally correct decisions, however many North Americans (partially due to the media and conflicting information) condemn him and this policy. While some may persist that proper education would simplify this and similar issues, in contemporary society proper education (not only from schools but media as well) is impossible.
Now fast forward to a colony on mars. It is a brand new colony and is using past historic figures, ideas, and events to use as a government. The best option for this colony would be to have a democratic government, not to be confused with the democrat party. This government would be voted on by the people as actual votes. There would be a president, but their job would be to make sure that the officials underneath are doing the duty they are supposed to do, and to make sure things that are voted on are followed through. But one thing that is evident in some laws and the reason for the move to mars is the need to advance as a society. Everything would be decided by majority vote when it comes to elections. Everyone would have equal rights;
The united states is a democratic nation that chose to be governed by those who reside on its soil rather than royalty across the ocean in 1776. The framework for how the country would be ran was established in the constitution which was created without the use of democracy since none of the founders were elected. “The “committee of five” included Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson who were all firmly in the revolutionary camp. The committee also included Roger Sherman, who had some doubts but still backed the independence movement and Robert R. Livingston” (Braunwarth Chp2.4.2). These revolutionaries created the set of rules that they thought would lead to a democracy which poses the question; Can a country that states that
America, at its founding, was radically democratic relative to the time period, but was still far from being a true democracy. In 1776, as the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were many restrictions on voting: only white, property owning, males had the right to vote. This leaves out all women, all Natives, all African Americans, and all men who were not rich; all of those groups made up a large percent of the population. The founding fathers of the United States also didn’t fully believe in the people’s ability to vote intelligently. John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail that women were too consumed in childcare and were too delicate to be trusted with the power of voting. He also said to James Sullivan, another politician, that if voting were to be more widespread, that it would be dangerous because it could, “confound and destroy all distinctions, prostrate all ranks…” (John Adams 1776).
Kyi Suu San Aung. "The Quest of Democracy." Reading The World: Ideas That Matter, edited
The ideology behind American democracy can be defined by equal opportunity. More specifically it is ability for all citizens to have equal economic opportunity, such as education and also equal political opportunity, such as being able to vote and bail out of prison. The novels Our Kids and Just Mercy, by authors Robert Putnam and Brian Stevenson respectively, are both intellectual literacies following stories of inequalities in America. Focusing on two distinct types of inequality-socioeconomic and race- each book gives explicit insight to how it is affecting American democracy. Socioeconomic and racial inequalities are undermining the foundation of democracy. Citizens in poverty and racial minority groups are finding themselves to have unequal opportunities in education, incarceration, political efficacy.
The assumption of citizens having power in the political process is correct to a certain extent. Citizens do gain power in the political process by participating, but it must be done in the masses to be successful in getting what they want. Individually, the people have very little say on what goes on, however, every person 's vote counts and will make some difference in the outcome. If every person participated in the political process, they would have more power towards electing political officials, choosing what laws are passed, and they also have the ability to get public issues noticed when they feel they are being neglected. On the other hand, even if every person in the country voted, there is still that possibility that the people could be ignored due to a bigger and louder voice known as the wealthy. The people who have most of the power to affect the political process are the few people in the world that hold most of the wealth. These people have the ability to convince congressional representatives to vote against a certain law that is not in favor of the wealthy. They do this by supporting the political officials financially by donating money for their campaigns. Overall, citizens do have some power in the political process and have the ability to force the politicians to hear their opinions, but there is always the chance that the wealthy can overrule the people 's vote with the power of their
Democracy: a government by the people, in which citizens rule either directly or through elected representatives - the latter description more relevant to today’s societies. Quite evidently, democracy is not perfect; like any other political system, it is subject to a plethora of flaws. For instance, it is no secret that voters tend to make illogical decisions – not out of sheer malice, but as a result of being wrongly informed. Politicians also make erroneous choices, whether they do so because they are dishonest or simply out of touch with the true will of their constituents. Further, anyone who has studied the government of a parliamentary democracy knows gerrymandering can have a powerful say in determining elections. Despite these and other flaws however, democracy still seems to work.
Several forms of government have been formed since the development of centralized power. The form of government that has showed the most international growth in the last century is democracy. There are currently over 160 democracies in the world today. These democracies, however, are not complete democracies. They are representative democracies that have been created by the leaders of our predominantly patriarchal international system. Due to this, many citizens of these democracies are considered second class citizens and their views are not heard by their supposedly democratic society. A solution to this problem is participatory democracy. Participatory democracy is better than the existing patriarchal society because it allows the progression of society as a whole, eliminates political oppression, and creates a predominantly equal political culture for the citizens it governs. There is much evidence that proves that the advantages of participatory democracy heavily outweigh the drawbacks and that it is a better way of government than patriarchy. This evidence can be found in historical analysis, scrutiny of the patriarchal international system, the development of participatory democracy, and the values of a participatory democracy versus the values of a patriarchal democracy.
This paper is going to explore the topic of e-democracy. As our society becomes more enthralled with technology and communication via the Web, it is important to consider what kind of methods and tools we use to communicate about issues that vastly affect everyone. Although some believe that there are positives and negatives regarding e-democracy, every subject is going to have pros and cons. Throughout this paper, I am going to explore what the “mainstream” media has written about e-democracy and both the positives and negatives of it as well. By using previous research, I would like to express why I think e-democracy’s positives outweigh the negatives and how society can benefit from such a technological breakthrough.
More specific arguments originate from the participatory theory of democracy and the critique of a lack of responsiveness and legitimacy of representative (party) democracy. The two sets of democratic institutions are distinguished by basic features of direct participation: (1) direct democracy focuses on specific issues, in contrast to voting on candidates and general programs for long terms of office, and (2) citizens themselves act as decision makers rather than delegating these powers. Like electoral systems, a variety of procedural forms, designs, and regulations are likely to influence processes and outcome. One must also keep in mind that direct-democratic processes cannot operate in isolation but are always linked to the structures of an overall political system that includes major representative institutions. Thus, interactions between the two types of institutions will be an important challenge for analysis. For instance, as George Tsebelis notes, referendum voters can be seen as an additional veto player. Some authors contend that direct democracy may undermine representative democracy, while others focus on the deliberative functions for a democratic public sphere and the capacity for integrating citizens in the democratic process. One can also assume that basic
Voting is the easiest and simplest way of public participation, as well as making the voters feel like they are directly involved in the process. Certain aspects, such as the Electoral College, eliminate this feeling of involvement. The best way for elections to work would be a nationwide popular vote. This would bring a meaning to the term “true democracy” and will get the people, as a whole, the chance to participate in electing the highest officials.
The idea of an ideal democracy is not a particularly obtainable idea, considering the different in culture and history of countries this could be a dramatic change to previous authoritarian regimes. Although we can work towards this idea of an ideal democracy reaching this goal will be a much harder task. The attributes that contribute to having an ideal democracy are free and fair elections, their capability to implement policies, political participation of the masses and universal adult suffrage, and a multiple party political system.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.
The foundation of the modern political system was laid in the times when the world was strangled in slavery. In those moments, enlightened minds in Greek came up with the new system that was there to remain for the next thousands of years. This system, now known as democracy, is a form of government in which supreme power is vested to the people themselves. People have the right to elect their leaders directly or indirectly through a scheme of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. A new democratic government is usually established after every 4-5 years, and it is trusted with the responsibility to cater to the needs of all the people irrespective of the fact that they voted for them or not. Although the minorities may not be very pleased with the idea of democracy, however, a democratic government is certainly the best because it establishes social equality among people, reduces the conflicts in the state to a minimum, gives the chance to vote repeatedly, and creates patriotism.
In true democracy, there is no doubt that voices will rise against the ideas for public participation. Over the past years, certain visible feature relating to public participation and the increase and there had been a rise on the decision making process where citizens get involved. The public participation in the policy process, to truly implement the principles of democracy of the public process should aim to be rational and fair to achieve effectiveness.