Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Democracy Is The Worst Form Of Government Politics Essay

commonwealth Is The Worst Form Of government Politics Essay res publica is a strong and emotive concept. It has sparked vie and discussion since its first inception in ancient Greece, right by means of to its modern conception of western liberal land. Today, it has become the predominant identify of government around the world, and, indeed, countries go to war to def residual the values and principles that it enshrines. Huntington outlined country as involving two dimensions contestation and participation, and that it implies the existence of those civil and policy-making freedoms to speak, publish, assemble and organise that are necessary for governmental debate (1991, p. 7). in that respect are, of course, problems peculiar to democracy however, do these problems warrant the description of democracy as being the least worst option?Perhaps one of the nearly prevalent criticisms of democracy is that it can lead to ineffectual government. When Aristotle first realised typ ologies and started to categorise political systems, he considered democracy to be a depraved form of rule by many an(prenominal). This belief of the masses being defective to govern is still evident in Britain up until 1862, and by chance counterbalance 1928 when universal suffrage was introduced. There are still free securities industry economists up to this day, such as Milton Friedman, who believe that democracy produces inefficient economicalal systems. They argue that in order to create effective economies, governments need to make what are gener all(prenominal)y considered to be deeply unpopular decisions such as mass privatization, de-regulation and removing workers rights particularly relevant at this time of economic austerity. This is an employment of the governing paradox (Flinders, 2010, p. 311). In part this is due to what they see as an inherent contradiction surrounded by Capitalism and Democracy that as economic agents, people are expected to act in the ir own self-interest, whereas, when it comes to shape their ballot, they are expected to act in the interest of the society as a whole. However, elective countries tend to be to a greater extent prosperous (Dahl, 1998, p. 58). India, for example, the worlds largest democracy, grew by 5.5% in the first quarter of 2012. In more general terms, the air jacket predominantly America and Europe consist of the most developed economies in the world, the overwhelming majority of which are democracies.Increasingly, at that place have been those who have argued that antiauthoritarian national governments have become ineffective in the face of globalisation. Democracy has spread around the world, in a development that Fukuyama referred to as the end of history, but now, as Gilbert (2009) argues this is being undermined by the process of globalisation. Indeed, in that respect is now a structural crisis in Democracy (Ghali, 2009), where the need for presidential term is stretching beyond states. Indeed, national legislatures are increasingly impotent (Gilbert, 2009). olibanum we see ineffective global governance, and there are concerns over how popular any solution can be. Is it feasible to consider classlessally elected global institutions? Or should we consign ourselves to the economic oversight of appointed economists at the solid ground Bank and the IMF? The solution lies not with Gilberts radical devolutionary ideas, but quite a with the case put forward by Ghali for a United Nations parliamentary Assembly (2009). We cannot answer the problem that globalisation poses by shrinking extraneous from it, we must embrace it and accept that global democratic oversight is become increasingly necessary.The globalisation of democracy, on the other hand, has brought benefits. Namely, that it has brought peace (Dahl, 1998). Since the Second World War, there have been few wars between democratic countries. This is because democracies are construct on the basis of rat ional debate and discussion that tends to limit aggression. Although, there is an argument to be made that this era of peace between democracies owes itself more to free trade, and market economies rather than democracy itself. Nevertheless, there is a correlativity between democracies and peace. However, we should not defend democracy on the benefits that it happens to bring about. A defence of democracy must come from first principles, that it is intrinsically darling.Democracy is fundamentally a pluralist system of power distribution, in that it diffuses power among many different competing groups albeit perhaps not equally. Thus, democracy achieves a greater take aim of political equality amongst citizens than any alternative (Dahl, 1998) reflecting the fundamental belief that all humans are born equal, and that consent for governance must be derived from the governed. Moreover, this allows individuals to value their own interests. Human nature dictates that we all desire r ound control over our needs and wants, and J.S. Mill stated that this, the ability to entertain ones own interests, protects us from evil at the hands of others. This competition between different groups within society is what protects democracies from authoritarianism. In short difference is good (Flinders, 2010). Debate and discussion, the exercise of the right to freedom of speech, are the pillars upon which democracy is built. Furthermore, democracy is inherently a system of rights (Dahl, 1998, p. 48). Democracies, by definition, grant basic political and civil rights to its citizens, so that they may participate fully in the democratic process. In order for citizens to participate, to hear the voice of the people, it must therefore be necessary to grant them the right to freedom of assembly that would not be granted within an authoritarian or totalitarian regime. Enshrined in democracy is the belief in equality, and thus, establishing and enforcing rights gives that greater de gree of equality than any non-democratic alternative. Moreover, granting these rights protects nonage groups from persecution and allows them to protect their interests, as written previously. The society we live in has evolved so much over the generations. Society is no longer as solid it once was, it is increasingly made up of heterogeneous (Flinders, 2010) groups all of which embody different and varied interests, all of which must be to a greater, or lesser extent, respected. Otherwise, we commit ourselves to rule by an elite, a select few who determine their interests are above those of all others.And therein lies democracys intrinsic goodness. It enshrines some(prenominal) principles political equality, that all citizens should have an equal say in who governs them guaranteed and oblige political and civil rights that allow citizens to be a part of the democratic process and to protect the rights of minorities. These rights and freedoms therefore allow citizens to preserve their own interests, and to protect themselves from persecution. Of course, democracy has its problems. There will always be problems, but the idea that power should be spread, albeit unevenly, amongst citizens and not concentrated in an elite is perhaps one of the most noble. Maybe this is why Winston Churchill, an aristocrat, treated democracy with such revulsion.

No comments:

Post a Comment