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 think I would be in favor of a national referendum on major issues. Elected representatives do not fairly represent constituents anymore as most elected officials identify with Democrats or Republicans. Many voters now days, are forced to identify with those groups, though if given a choice, they wouldn't choose either party as they don't speak fully to their beliefs. If we had referendums where the voters voice could truly be heard in numbers, then it appears the nation would have more of a clear understanding as to where majority of its citizens stances are. The examples of issues such as abortion, gun ownership, and tax rates are very hot topic items. National referendums may cause the referendums to be written and negotiated in a more compromising way when being put to vote by the citizens in order to appeal to everyone. You're not always going to make everyone happy, but this could possibly force negotiations in a way that current elected representatives haven't been able to achieve. It's hard to find a representative who represents any one persons full and total stances on all issues. So when voting for one over the other, a voter is compromising their own interests in scaling which one is more important over the other.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your position. I do feel that after representatives are elected, the voice of the people gets lost. It truly feels that during elections, representatives say several things to appeal to the people and get themselves elected, but it is rare that they follow through with their promises. National referendums could cause representatives to work more for the people that they represent and hold true to the promises made during their campaigns. National referendums could also cause a change in how elections operate and who runs for the elections. In this way, it seems that representatives will be held more accountable.
DeleteI also agree with what you have to say. Elected representatives may coincide with some of the views of certain people, but ultimately may make disagreeable changes in other areas. Referendums can appeal to specific values of many people, and will directly mirror what they want. This can lead potentially to some sort of clashing political system, with values from a variety of perspectives, but as you stated, not everyone is going to be happy with any way it is handled. In many ways it isn't really possible to properly represent multiple positions on topics, though I believe that referendums leave the public without the higher-up to blame. (though this may spark confusion and arguments between the people)
DeleteQuestion: 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?
ReplyDeleteResponse: Margaret Mead once said “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.” Public opinion is the voice of the people who helped build and reconstruct our nation throughout time. It doesn’t take one man, but a whole village to reach a goal. I don’t believe our elected representatives and the courts should make the authoritative decision on major moral issues such as abortion, gun ownership, or tax rates. Our government and others have been corrupt for as long as we can remember. There are countless flaws in the way our leaders are elected are 1) based on a political group list handed to the voter before walking into a voting both, 2) blindsided by social favorism, and 3) nominated on one main particular value that overwhelms the candidates major flaws in the political system. Even though the government may scream that they are connected to our culture and heritage, they bury it under an occurring international issue and reframe from connecting with the people. I mean take a look back when Obama tried to take away guns and enforce a stronger gun control, people all across the south began rioting against the thought. They didn’t once consider taking a pole amongst the people on whether or not guns should be removed from public homes. In doing so it helped “revolutionize the south” ever so slightly by encouraging research and stances on how our founding fathers instigated the right to “bare arms,” thus bring a region socially closer together. Abortion and taxation are the same mannerism, leaving it for the leaders to control and make authoritative choices has honestly got to be one of the most horrifying thought possible for it may spark thousands of interest groups that are relatively close to terrorist groups (since violence has been a long outstanding tendency of getting thoughts and words across the nation, thus influencing a morally incorrect change, but a significant social change). Or remember when the British placed a higher taxation on many of the local goods, that was the representation of the government insisting on authoritative decision that led to a major turning point in history.
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 some of the issues facing our country. This is my position because several elected representatives seem to react to certain issues in ways that affect themselves instead of the people that they represent. For instance, their are several representatives that would not benefit from stricter gun control laws however gun control is a very real issue that needs to be regulated. I feel that if the people got a chance to vote on an issue such as gun control or abortions, a law could be created that would benefit the majority versus a select group. I feel that representatives are elected to address several issues of the people, but the voice of the people tends to get lost after the election.
I think we all agree that referendums would be a way to go, because it gives an immediate voice to the people. But we have to keep in mind that politicians sign off on “when” referendum is to be held. So a lot of topics like gun ownership and abortion is brought up to referendum when a political party thinks they can get the backing of the people on their side, meaning they use referendum to achieve their goals. So for example, if there is a big shooting taking place a party might sign off on a referendum to use that momentum to pass gun control laws. Point is, even referendums could be used in a negative way to achieve someone else’s goals by playing on people’s emotions or lack of information. But with all that said, I agree, I think it’s better to have them.
DeleteYeah I definitely agree here. It seems as if once the election is over the voices of the people become less heard. When Obama was trying to do some things with the gun laws that was very minor, people went nuts! So I wish we had a vote that could determine what the majority of the people would like to do. Its just so amazing to me how people can have such different thoughts and beliefs, but thats what makes america and all of us lucky we have the freedom to voice our own opinions. As I said I just think the government will never get anything done because they can never agree on anything it seems like. The NRA won't speak to Obama too, so that doesn't help the gun law case at all.
DeleteWould you define democracy primarily in political or economical terms, or both about equally?
ReplyDeleteI would define democracy in a political sense more than economic. When I think of the term Democracy I refer to a political party or the overall style of government and views. In terms of government style that means that we the people vote for our elected officials and we also vote for what policies and laws we want to see go into effect. We operate under the “majority rules” idea. We vote on and elected officials who we feel like best represents our beliefs and they make decisions on behalf of the people.
I agree with your above statement. I answered the same question and I agreed with defining democracy as more of a political term. Especially this year with the presidential election coming up people are focusing on the democratic and republican parties rather than the economical sense of the word.
DeleteI have to say Trey I disagree with you, but at the same time agree. Yes democracy is all about politics, for politics are the very foundation of a strong government with "political parties" for support, BUT the economy is honestly everything. Take a look at today's current political debate, it's a constant twist and turn between giving the people what they want and supply them with they need. The economy helps determine the very thought of government elections through the choice of who can supply a stronger argument on their side. Take a look at Bernie Sanders for an example, he's currently in the process of promoting free college (which plays one of the greatest roles in Americans economy, no payment for college means a drastic decrease in loans taken out annually to help with the payment over a series of interest through the bank) which has boosted his DEMOCRATIC parties support throughout the nations, especially within young folk (who have always been seen as the keys of the future).
DeleteI would define democracy equally in terms of politics and economics because both contribute to the formation and stabilization of democratic governments. Gabriel Almond’s article, Capitalism and Democracy, quotes Robert Dahl: “It is an historical fact that modern democratic institutions…have existed only in countries with predominantly privately owned, market-oriented economies…It is also a fact that all “socialists” countries with predominantly state-owned centrally directed [economies]…have not enjoyed democratic governments…” Dahl is talking about the relationship between capitalism and democracy, but it also verifies that a country’s economic state and politics both contribute to democracy. Almond explains “There is a logic in the relation between level of economic development and democratic institutions. Level of economic development has been shown to be associated with education and literacy, exposure to mass media, and democratic psychological propensities…” Democracy is typically found in well educated, media exposed countries but those countries would not have educated citizens or mass media without a developed economy. I make a point to correlate economics and democracy because I think of democracy as the political structure of a country, but democracy has to have both, a developed economy and political structure, to exist. So in essence you cannot define democracy without mentioning political structure (political) and economic development (economical).
ReplyDeleteI agree with your position on this. Without a stable economy, the stability of the democracy is at stake. Then vice versa, a stable democracy allows the platform for decisions to be made in order to try and create a stable economy. Both must be developed in such a way that they support each other.
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?
ReplyDeleteThis question was very interesting to me and one that I believe could be answered in many different ways. Personally I believe these laws and issues should be up to the people to have a vote. If it is what the majority of the country want then I think it should be happening. People are always bringing the subjects up yet there is nothing the people can really do about them. Also, the governments doesn't seem to be getting many things done as far as the gun laws concerned and nobody from each side will agree. So I say we leave it to the people of the country to be able to have the right to vote on these hot topic issues that are always talked about. Because honestly right now it just feels like none of them will change because both the democrat and republicans won't budge. The two parties are so conflicted its pretty disgraceful for the US.
I definitely agree with your point that laws such as abortion, gun ownership, tax rates, should be for the citizens to vote on. These issues are sensitive because it's the Grey area between rights and needs. Because we have a democracy ran government I feel it to be best for the people to vote. Ultimately we vote to elect our officials based off the issues they support and/or want to change. If we elect the most qualified individuals than everything else will fall into place. The issue I think we are experiencing right now is like you said nether the democratic or republican parties are wiling to budge. Because it is such the topic and concern for Americans due to social issues such as excessive police force and such, I believe that after this presidential election we will begin to see a lot of those hot topics as listed begin to change as well as the laws and policies concerning them...Melissa Jenkins
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?
ReplyDeleteI would be in favor of referendums on major issues because results from referendum would provide undeniable voice of the people. Although currently voice of the people is heard through elected politicians, the problem is what the politician does with his/her power once in office. We see way too often officials in Washington making decisions to side with their party or special interest groups instead of people who gave them the power to make decisions.
Although I am in favor of referendums I can see how referendums could be politicized. Usually general population isn’t informed enough on certain topics to make the “right” decisions. With lack of information politicians could use referendums as political tools to pass their agenda. Referendums for topics like gun ownership would be great way to voice opinions of the people, but lack of information on issues like economical changes could be tricky because average person doesn’t have all details needed to make a sound decision.
I do not think referendums would be a good idea for these issues. Direct democracy is more likely to represent the short term beliefs, or public opinion, of people-- which is vulnerable to being easily swayed and changed on the daily. I think representative democracy through elected officials voting on these issues, although not nearly as fast or as satisfying, is the more stable option and leads the state away from quick divisions and the dangerous possibility of mob rule
DeleteReferendums do seem to be a likely way to hear the voice of the people in some situations. However I do believe that people are often deceived and may not practice due diligence in researching the issues. Politicians are often times well versed in the particular topic along with stats to validate their perspective.
DeleteWould you define democracy primarily in political or economical terms, or both about equally?
ReplyDelete"Thus, even in the extreme hypothetical case of a democracy that began with a pure market economy, the very working of a modern democracy (and a modern advanced capitalist economy) would lead to the transformation of that pure market into a mixed economy, or that set of norms, regulations, policies, and institutions which we call "economic society."(Linz pg. 22)With this being said I would say they are in equal terms of each other. They work hand in hand. You can't have one without the other so that to me means they are on equal ground. Some might argue differently but to me if you need both political and economic issues to be considered a democracy they are the same.
Discuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.”
ReplyDeleteDemocracy has been shown to promote peace as it is very close to a law in international relations that two democratic nations will not go to war-- most likely as the countries have shared values and the governments are accountable to its people.
However, this does not necessarily mean that democratic nations will not go to war. For example, democratic nations will often go to war against non-democratic nations either over general causes of war, or to spread an ideology (such as democracy in Vietnam).
So, democracy, as far as we understand it, promotes peace in states where democracy only has a foothold. But that doesn't mean it promotes permanent global peace, or peace between non-democratic nations.
Discuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.”
ReplyDeleteDemocracy being a form of government doesn’t necessarily mean that it promotes peace. Democracy allows equal rights and representation across all citizens, versus a dictatorship in which rights are at the discretion of the dictator. Democracy lends thought to individuals that they have part in decisions of the government, this encourages peaceful civilized actions instead of irate, violent movements.
On a broader view, I would argue that democracy does not promote peace. As a nation with a democratic government we often find ourselves in the middle of human rights struggles. In order to resolve economic, political or moral disputes we have aided in offering interventions, sending troops, supplies, etc when in many cases it may have been best for the US to take a step back. Historically the US has offered assistance and intervention when the situation didn’t involve US citizens. Our government has a responsibility to protect the citizens, however we have extended that same protection outside out borders. This generally results in a non-peaceful situation for others.
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 these issues. All too often public opinion on these types of issues are influenced by either the person's religious views, own personal biases or plain ignorance. Leaving these important decisions up to the will of the majority could be disastrous. For example, letting the citizens choose the tax rate would almost certainly result in a lower rate because most citizens are only thinking about the direct impact to their own personal lives. Although this lower rate may have a positive affect on the economy in the short run, the lower income taken in could result in less government services, a weaker military, government layoffs, etc.
It is almost impossible for the general public to divorce itself from it's own views and experiences when deciding on these issues. As stated in Caporaso and Levine's book Theories of Political Economy, "The public encompasses either pursuit of self-interests that coincide(a common held interest) or responses to ways in which the individual's pursuit of self-interest impinges on the welfare of others"
I was going back and forth on if I favored it or not and this example helped me understand I did not favor it. You are correct when it comes to people viewing things away from their own beliefs. It is extremely hard to remove yourself from the situation and view it without having an interference from your upbringing or even religious views clouding your judgement. It could lead to a lot of issues and a divided country if it was left to the people to decide. Since we have smaller groups of people deciding for the people they represent it actually causes unity in the people it opposes. It even causes unity in the people they are for. If everyone had a choice in the matter I believe it would cause us as a nation to be even more divided over issues then we are now. I do not always agree with what the government chooses but if we left it to each individual making a choice we might not always come down to a decision.
DeleteI would primarily define democracy as a political term. When the democracy comes up, more times than not it is referring to a political party. Democracy is really based on the belief of being equality. The Democratic Party really took off when it was mostly pursued by anti slavery activist. Now, I could see where it's economical when it comes to tax debates and things of that sort. The first thing that I think of when it comes to democracy is a governing body based on politics rather than economics.
ReplyDelete