It is not a recent suggestion to say that freedom and democracy seem to be in conflict. The many different ways freedom and democracy seem disagree vary from person to person. In my role as a citizen I see these conflicts in everyday life through my family life, school, and the technology. A family is a form of democracy in itself. As a child or young adult we are governed by our parents. They provide the laws and decide on the appropriate punishment if we break these laws. There is not as much freedom while living in a parental governed household versus living in a politically governed country. As dependants we do not have as many freedoms as independent people. As children or young adults we tend to follow in our parents footsteps, that is to say they influence our decisions. The religious and political views they hold may influence our religious and political views in the present or later on in life. While living under the governing of our parents we are financially dependent on our parents. We need them to provide some means of income to pay for necessities such as a home, food and clothing. For this we admire our parents. Although there may not always be an agreement we respect our parents for governing us and being our leaders. School also governs our lives. Similar to our family life the teachers and other adults serve as our leaders. Some freedoms we may see in our country’s government such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion do not hold the same significance in an educational environment. In school speaking freely can be considered an insult to the teacher and can cause more harm than good. Religious views also cause some tension in schools. Many schools do not support religious views and teachers are prohibited from discussing the subject with a class. Unlike family life and schools technology enhances our freedom. Some more recent developments such as the television, the internet, computers and cell phones enhance our freedom but also...
...rule, some make an attempt to set up a government in which the people ruled themselves. This form of government is called a democracy, or “rule of the people.” History has also revealed through the Greeks and the French Revolution, that a democracy that gives complete power to the people, “absolute democracy”, is nothing more than a short prelude to tyranny.
Democracy is a unique type of government, and the purpose of this essay is to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses that a democratic government provides. I will detail that many components of this type of society are both strengths and weakness as each component has beneficial aspects as well as unavoidable pitfalls.
A democracy is a government by the people, in which the power is vested in the people themselves. The people then elect representatives who conduct their power in a free electoral system. The Declaration of Independence, which says that all men are created equal, was written on the premise of a democracy.
According to John Locke, who wrote The Social Contract, before acknowledging that an individual is part of a specific government format, such as a democracy, one must understand that being an individual in society means you personally agree to partake in a social contract, which is basically an outline for the rules, standards, and conduct of that society. But what makes this a democracy...
...Direct Democracyvs Representative Democracy
The term Democracy is derived from two Greek words, demos, meaning
people, and kratos, meaning rule. These two words form the word democracy which
means rule by the people. Aristotle, and other ancient Greek political
philosophers, used the phrase, `the governors are to be the governed', or as we
have come to know it, `rule and be ruled in turn'.
The two major types of democracy are Representative Democracy and Direct
Democracy. Clearly the arguments for and against each form of democracy are
plentiful. However, it is my belief that theoretically, Direct Democracy is the
superior form of political rule. Due to problems with in the direct democratic
system, its use as a practical form of government is not even thinkable.
Therefore, in order for any form of democracy to function, Representative
Democracy is the superior form of political rule.
Jean Jacques Rousseau is considered by many to be the `Grandfather' of
direct the democracy theory. Rousseau's ideal society would be where the
citizens were directly involved in the creation of the laws which are to govern
their lives. He maintained that, "all citizens should meet together and decide
what is best for the community and enact the appropriate laws. Any law which
...Internet Freedom and Democracy
Recently people more aware about real democracy because technological developments and internet help people who access the internet simultaneously. Especially internet has a great contribition. Internet’s most important two features which are pure information and easy accessibility are gift from network developers to general public. Some believes that this intervention is very helpful for humanity and some others argues that internet will be a tool for mean and malevolent people such as terrorists,racist or pedophiles.
Democracy’s most well known feature is being free as can as possible. Person who lives in democratic country can do what s/he wants to do without abusing the other people’s rights,feelings and freedoms. Accordingly on this definition, people can access to internet when they want. They can communicate with each other or surf on the internet and no one can stop users. Internet is a new way of promoting democracy. It is a new area that capable for keeping in touch with billions of people. It does not need to rest or it never dies. However this event depend on governments and authorities’ attitude towards the internet. As you imagine that, internet’s simplicity creates powerful interaction. This interaction ability leads billions of people’s attention. This interaction power and lots of people’s attention may cause a handicap for Authorities. Becouse of this...
...Does democracy ensure freedom? I believe democracy can ensure freedom, but not always, thus my answer is maybe. For democracy is a form of government that rely on a system of law in which individuals are treated equally while having fair access to the legislative process through electing official who will act in their constituent’s interest and voice their concern. Through proper protection with legislation, individual'sfreedom can be ensured. Yet the nature of democracy favour majority thus it is possible for politician to cater to the mass to secure vote and have access to the seats of power. Democracy is unable to act if the votes are tied, such flaw can leads to politician abuse their power tilting the result either way to further his own goal. If elected official no longer voice the population yet game the system by continue to appease the majority, minority right and freedom can not be ensured.
Government ultimately objective is to govern the people for the betterment of people, thus democracy reflects the need for it is form of government allowing people's voice being heard through the elected officials. Each voter's vote count and the majority trumps. Elected official then go on legislate laws that regulation that resolves the population's concern. Such fair access to the legislative process and equality before law ensure...
The essay to follow will discuss what is meant by liberal democracy. The term will be defined and further discussed. In addition, it will be contrasted with that of a socialist democracy. This democratic system will be defined in political terms with reference to valid examples as too will liberal democracy.
The following essay is based on a contrast between liberal and socialist democracy from a political perspective. An analysis of the terms, concepts and the question will then follow. In addition, reference will be made to current examples such as that of the USA, Great Britain, and Chile as evidence for each type of democracy that is being examined. Furthermore, key issues that will be discussed in this paper consist of democracy as a whole, negative and positive freedom within a liberal democracy, and the failure of socialism in the third world. Furthermore this essay will prove that Sweden is not a socialist democracy.
In order to contrast liberal and socialist democracy one must first hold an understanding of what each term means. In order to go about understanding these terms, it is important to first understand what democracy. In simple terms, democracy can be defined as the rule of the people. A democracy is about the people who come together to decide on laws. And...
...Days of Anarchy
To live in a country such as the United States of America is considered a privilege. The liberties that American citizens are entitled to, as declared in the Constitution, makes the United States an attractive and envied democracy. It would be improbable to imagine these liberties being stripped from American society. However, Margaret Atwood depicts the United States as a dystopian society in her novel The Handmaid’s Tale. The first society is modern America, with its autonomy and liberal customs. The second, Gilead, a far cry from modern America, is a totalitarian Christian theocracy which absorbs America in the late 1980s in order to salvage it from widespread pollution and a dwindling birthrate. The principal flaw in Atwood’s Gileadian society is the justification of human rights violations. This justification only limits the liberties citizens experience, and taunts their once freeing rights, such as the prerogative to explore sexuality. Gilead’s only freedom, is freedom from all other liberties, or as Aunt Lydia would describe, freedom from the anarchy that unveiled in the first society.
The novel’s protagonist, Offred, uses two sets of images to recount the vast difference between a “freedom to” society, and a “freedom from” society. She recalls to the reader a photographic clarity of her previous life as an American woman with liberties, and also those of her...
...Democracy and Plato’s Republic
We are in a time when people are questioning the workings of our government is the electoral process of choosing a president an accurate depiction of the public’s needs or wants. Does the government have the best interest of the people at heart or the best interest of the parties? In an economy besieged by recession is the structure of our government viable? These issues have been discussed in the past and different groups have come to different ideas on economic and political structures and how they should be decided. In our country and many other nations around the world, the observation has often been that democracy accompanied by capitalism presents the best, most competent use of resources, and that governments led by those ideals promise the best outcome for the people. Other countries have adopted very diverse governing principles. The Communist ideals adopted by some nations support the establishment of an unobstructed, stateless, classless social order based on common ownership as a means of property and production.
I believe that although the population votes to bring about change, ultimately the decisions of the people are diminished by a higher power. It is not until the people are given control of the outcome will there be a change. I believe Plato's philosophy of life and theory of knowledge is the basis for the democracy of today. It is in Plato’s ideals that there is...
...Dictatorship and democracy are two concepts with numerous views and differences. The first is not ideal for a society which seeks free press, human rights and equality. The second is, even though many facets have to be taken into account. Throughout history, scholars have laid out a range of arguments regarding the advantages and disadvantages of both systems in terms of development. Here, we will try to enumerate some of them.
An authoritarian government is a form of government in which the power is centralized (single person or a group). Dictatorship have ruled in many countries and region of the world for years; Latin America, Africa, Caribbean and Asia (especially the Middle East). In all cases, it was not all evil, where genocide, assassination or corruption were common like with Saddam Hussein. Scholars agreed that some countries have seen a boost in socioeconomic development under authoritarian governments. It was the case for Dominican Republic under Trujillo, Argentina in the 60's, Chile in the 70's under Pinochet, Singapore or Turkey. For these leaders, their countries were not ready for democracy because “ dictatorial governments could better impose rational, long-term development plans” (Handelman, 2011, 35). The father of Singapore’s authoritarian political system, Lee Kuan Yew, declared that discipline is more essential for a developed country than democracy.
Lee also stated that “Democracy...