Blog Discussion Group Five
Blog post due at 11:55pm on February 19 and comment due at 11:55pm on February 22.
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?
Question 3: "Would you define democracy primarily in political or economic terms, or both about equally?"
ReplyDeleteI would define democracy as equally important in both political and economic terms. Democracy is defined as “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.” (via dictionary.com)
Politically, a democracy has the key features of separation of powers, a constitution, elections, and political parties. A large fundamental belief in a democracy is equality. According to an editorial by civiced, “Equality in democracy may be said to have the following dimensions:
• Political equality means that each citizen is to be able to vote in elections and to stand for office. No one is to have more than one vote, and electoral districts are to have approximately the same population so that each vote counts roughly the same.
• Legal equality means that all persons (non-citizens as well as citizens) are to enjoy the equal protection of the laws. That is, no one is to be discriminated against by law on account of accidents of birth such as race, ethnicity, gender, or ancestry; nor on account of personal choices such as religion, group membership, or occupation.
• Moral equality means that each citizen (in most circumstances noncitizens as well) is to be given equal concern and respect in the eyes of the law and in the policies of governments.”
Today, Democracy is the only form of government that people around the world view as legitimate. Thirty years ago, only a quarter of the states of the world were democracies. Since then, democracy has rapidly expanded throughout the world. Today 120 countries—three in every five countries—choose their leaders in free and fair, multiparty elections. In turn, the political diversity of democracy is expanding rapidly.
Given that it is expanding so largely, economics is very important. An economic democracy is structured by capitalism and the free market. Some sort of democratic control of investment is essential if an economy is to develop rationally. Investment decisions in the present shape fundamentally our collective future. Democratic control is essential. Many will argue that a democratic economy is the only one that will thrive long term.
You can make cases that one is more important than the other. Politics can be considered the point of a democracy, to regulate them. A democracy wouldn’t be without elections and political parties, and its assurance such will remain equal. With the economy, democracy can be considered the only way to keep the economy equal. That without democratic standards, advantages and injustice within would be too easy. However, the key word in both these arguments is equality. A democracy is founded on the people’s belief of equality. Ultimately, in this debate of politics and economy, one cannot exist without the other.
"The Concepts and Fundamental Principles of Democracy." Civiced.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2019.
"Democracy." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2019.
"Different Systems of Democracy." A Short Definition of Democracy. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2019.
Schweickart, David. "Economic Democracy." TheNextSystem.org. N.p., 1 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Feb. 2019.
Question 1: Discuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.”
ReplyDeleteMany argue that "democracy supports development and reduces the likelihood of violent conflict." ("The") That's due to the fact that democracies support the majority's decisions, and the minority is less likely to revolt or rebel because they're outnumbered. In pleasing the majority of the population, the government is less likely to face an angry or upset society that plans to rebel and/or overthrow the government, or cause chaos. In today's modern America, we exist with a democratic government because it supports the decisions of the majority of the population (and also because it's what's outlined in the Constitution). Because the majority is pleased, there's no reason to overthrow the government or its officials, nor try to change the kind of government currently ruling. In addition, because the majority agrees, the government can move forward as necessary, and therefore develop. There aren't minority groups holding them back because decisions are always made based on the majority.
Through personal experience, however, I've witnessed how democracy can cause a divide and, inevitably, anger and near-chaos. Last semester, my class of about 16 or 17 students had to plan an entire event that was related to our FYS theme: Monsters. We attempted to follow the Quaker code (which is fairly similar to a democracy, only that EVERYONE must agree) and hear everyone's ideas and opinions. It was hard to get people to agree, and I could feel the tension in the air from it all. I could tell people were angry and frustrated afterwards, and passive-aggressive comments were made about one another. Luckily, nobody got physical and we were able to work things out in the end. But it was through that struggle that I realized democracy doesn't always work. Not only that, but democracy doesn't always promote peace. In fact, in this scenario, it caused tension and almost chaos amongst my peers.
One could even say democracies fail when being used for something as simple as a family dinner. A majority of the family wants one dish, but there are two or three family members who disagree and want to eat something different. There are a couple of ways it could go from here:
1. The majority rules and the few family members who didn't want that meal are unhappy. They may not eat the meal and grow angry at the person in charge of making said-meal, or they may eat the meal, but still be unhappy about the ordeal. Or,
2. The person in charge of making the meal decides to please everyone to avoid this conflict. While this may be stressful on the person and even seem unnecessary, in their eyes, it's better than having one group mad and the other contempt. They see it best to please everyone to promote peace. This is something a democracy is unable to accomplish.
Citation: "The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace." GSDRC: Applied Knowledge Services, Web. https://gsdrc.org/document-library/the-democracy-advantage-how-democracies-promote-prosperity-and-peace/. Accessed 18 Feb 2019.
I liked your personal example of how democracy and democracy-like institutions can cause divides. It reminded me of another example of the failure of democracy to properly promote peace: The American Civil War. According to the NPS, the Union had a population of 18.5 million, while the confederacy had a population of only 9 million, not even one third of the total, let alone close to a majority. Following the secession of some Southern states, the Union felt that, in the interest of democracy, it would be best to regain control of the lost states by force. Clearly, this was not a move to promote peace. I think it is important to remember that there is a distinction between what people say and what they do. I believe that democracy promotes peace in the sense that it does not promote violence and dissonance, which can lead to chaos and potentially the overturn of the aforementioned democracy. I believe that democracy promotes peace in the sense that it suggests people be civil. In this sense, every government promotes peace. Even totalitarian states operate more efficiently and effectively when their people are peaceful. While it is true that democracy makes a concerted effort to include as many people as possible in the votes, the decisions, etc., and that this is most often done in the interest of peace, it is not always what happens, nor is peace guaranteed by this effort. Perhaps peace is only promoted in the interest of the preservation of democracy, and when another option arises that better preserves the state, peace is foregone.
DeleteSource:
https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm
2. 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 idea of national referendums seems appealing, especially in democracies, which claim to be ruled by the people, as they would appear to be the most direct method for the people to rule over themselves with.
However, people have a tendency to vote based on public opinion rather than exclusively on their culture. As such, during times of crisis, people are more willing to allow things that they are normally uncomfortable with than in times of relative tranquility. Following the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act was passed. The people's fear of further terrorist attacks convinced them to allow this. In the 1940s and 1950s, Joseph McCarthy launched an accusatory campaign against many Americans, particularly Hollywood types, accusing them of being Communists. Several thousand lost their jobs, and hundreds were arrested. The people allowed this because they feared American Communism.
In 2016 the United Kingdom held a referendum to vote to stay or leave the European Union. 51% voted to leave. This was obviously a divisive issue, and since then many have argued for a second referendum, claiming that the poll was inaccurate and not reflective of the people's opinion. In reality, it's likely due more to the people's belief that it wasn't very serious.
As such, referendums can be much more detrimental than one might believe on first inspection due to people's reactionary nature, combined with the fact that over time people's opinions change as more evidence comes to light and they are given time to reflect on the ramifications of their votes. What we vote for regarding abortion, gun ownership, or tax rates may not be what people 5 years from now want. Or even 1 year from now. And it would be inconvenient to hold a series of referendums every year.
Sources:
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/mccarthy/schrecker5.htm
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/mccarthy/schrecker6.htm
https://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results
Very insightful answer. I appreciate how well thought out it is and completely agree that the majority can become swayed in a wrong direction when put in stressful situations as you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1. Discuss the evidence of whether democracy promotes peace
ReplyDeleteRule by the people sounds great and is attractive to the ear, but can be deceitful. Democracy I would argue is a better system than authoritarian government systems, but it still has its downfalls. People often develop tribal mentalities and want what is best for their "tribe" even at the expense of another group of people. Also the majority opinion can easily be wrong. Just because more people think something does not mean it holds water. If the majority in a country believe that a certain injustice is okay than that injustice can become law and if the minority has enough numbers will rightfully stand up for itself and this can easily lead to anger and tension and even civil war.
-Tommy
https://scholar.harvard.edu/dziblatt/challenges-democracy
https://www.economist.com/news/essays/21596796-democracy-was-most-successful-political-idea-20th-century-why-has-it-run-trouble-and-what-can-be-do
Discuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.”
ReplyDeleteSome would argue that the regime has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is peace or not. There are many other contributing factors such as economics, gender norms and national interest. So, some would argue that the idea of democracy alone can not be used as a means of measuring peace. So since regime type is insignificant the argument is that democracy does not cause peace However, there is the contrary to this argument where democracy is a product of peace. That a society needs to be peaceful in order for a democracy to be able to function but this doesn’t mean that democracy causes peace. Democracy can only cause peace to a certain extent. Usually democracy can cause peace between two other democracies. Two democratic states have never been in conflict with each other so in that sense democracy has caused peace. However there have been quite a few wars fought in the name of democracy so, from that viewpoint democracy has not caused peace in fact it has done the opposite. This is not to say that democracy is causing conflict in fact democracy is a contributing factor to peace and it is very helpful but it is not the sole reason for peace and it is working as part of a larger dynamic system. Altogether there is a correlation between democracy and peace, it is clear that conflicts between democratic nations are dealt with in peaceful ways.
http://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-287
I agree with the sentiment that a Democracy does not specifically promote peace. Specially the notion that wars have been fought in the name of democracy. To elaborate, in the recent decades wars have been fought to stop the spread of communism and terrorist organizations promoting authoritarian regimes. Communism is defined as, “a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production.” A primary example of this is the Vietnam war, which was protested and citizens fought against fiercely. As far as terrorism goes, post 9/11 the United States got involved in fighting against middle-eastern terrorist regimes and worked to replace authoritarian regimes with democracies. Authoritarian is defined as, “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.” Most recently the United States has been focused on eliminating ISIS. In the name of democracy, there has been what is considered “unnecessary violence” such as Vietnam and “necessary violence” such as ISIS and other terrorist regimes.
Delete“Communism.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism.
“Authoritarianism.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Feb. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism.
Editors, History.com. “Vietnam War.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 29 Oct. 2009, www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/vietnam-war-history.
Would you define democracy primarily in political or economical terms, or both about equally?
ReplyDeleteI would define democracy as more political than economical, but I think they are related and usually go along with one another. The explanation for democracy given by Hague and Harrop "requires representative government, free elections, freedom of speech, individual rights, and government by the people." It is a government system by which the government is for the people or majority rules in governmental power. These explanations and definitions are more about political power than they are about economics. There are many forms of democracy within the category of democracy so they can look very different. This is also the case with economies within different democratic systems. For example the United States is a democracy and our economic system is based on capitalism while Germany is also a democratic nation but their economy is based on a welfare system. This to me means that democracy is more about political power than it is about an economic system. Just like these last two examples, there can be many types of economic systems within a democratic political system. Also, the subcategories of democracy are defined by differences in political representation and differences in relation to political power. The economy is almost a separate entity in itself from the political system. For example a representative democracy and a liberal democracy are both democracies although different, and the discrepancy is not an economic discrepancy but a political one. Although, most successful democratic nations do have a very similar economic system. Therefore, to me I would define a democracy in primarily political terms.
Hague & Harrop, Political Science: A Comparative Introduction, ch. 3
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
https://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/chapter/state-politics/federal-state
I agree with your statement for the most-part, Evan. On the surface, democracies appear to be primarily in political terms. However, the US is seemingly ruled by a "Power Elite", which are those in the President's Cabinet who have had past corporate affiliations, and are even corporate leaders. These individuals determine which laws are passed and which are not, or which need to be tweaked before they're passed. Ultimately, they also decide where the money goes (Gill). It is due to the Cabinet's political positions, as well as their economic control, that politics and economics go hand-in-hand and define democracy equally. At least, this is the case for the United States.
DeleteCitation: Gill, Timothy. "Why the power elite continues to dominate American politics." The Washington Post, 24 Dec 2018. Web. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/24/why-power-elite-continues-dominate-american-politics/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0196e49072fa. Accessed 22 Feb 2019.
I too believe that democracy is both economic and political. I also agree that politics play a bigger part in it than economy. A democracy is governed by the people but it plays a very big role in economics. I find the point about how different democratic countries follow different economic systems very interesting. You made some very good points about the separation of political systems and the economy.
Delete2/3
ReplyDeleteI believe national referendums would benefit the country greatly when it does come to controversial subjects such as abortion or gun control. The Pew Research Center released a report on public opinion of abortion in 2018 and found that people who were religiously affiliated were more likely to be against abortion in most or all cases, deeming it illegal, deeming everyone who is involved a criminal. I really REALLY believe that religion should not so drastically influence our political system. I believe that we should not restrict people to accessing certain procedures because of any desire to protect an unborn fetus over the health of the mother. Gun control in the US happens to be a completely different issue. Pew reports that 89% of Democrats and Republicans wish for the mentally ill to be restricted from buying fire arms, but 69% of Republicans also support arming school officials with fire arms because of the increase of school shootings, but also dont support background checks at private gun shows. SO. Some of those statistics just dont make sense, if these poeple dont understand that background checks ALWAYS for purchasing guns would probably decrease the need for arming our teachers than I really dont feel confident with countless otehr powerful decisions in their hands.
https://www.people-press.org/2018/10/18/gun-policy-remains-divisive-but-several-proposals-still-draw-bipartisan-support/
Deletehttps://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/