Blog Discussion Group Five
Blog post due at 11:55pm on October 2 and comment due at 11:55pm on October 5.
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?
Personally, I would favor a national referendum to settle such large scale issues. The reason for this is that the current approval rating of representatives in the United States being less than 20% (https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia%27s_Polling_Index:_Congressional_approval_rating). This means that a vast majority of Americans feel as though their representative may misrepresent their wants. A national referendum may be hindered by Americas low voter turnout however a higher of influx of Americans vote than approve of their representatives.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy would for sure be defined primarily in political terms. When people here the word democracy they think of politics and what it means to deal with political issues. Democracy is a political system that allows for the office to be selected through a free and fair election. All people are able and can vote for who they believe would be the best candidate at each position in the election. They decide who they think will fit best in running their country. The citizens are able to make a decision of who they want their political leaders to be and the decisions will be finalized by the government. To me I do not see democracy falling under economical terms. Yea it may effect the economic side and shift economy at some point but none of that really defines what democracy is really all about and what it stands for. It don't discuss the political side of things.
ReplyDeleteI agree, while democracy can cause economical changes it does not mean it would be defined under economical terms. If the political democracy causes the shifts then it should be defined as political, especially because it perfectly fits the definition of political democracy.
DeleteThere are arguments on whether a democracy promotes peace or not but, there is evidence in our society today that shows how a democracy can promote peace but also do just the opposite. A democracy can promote peace because it allows for the people to make the choice of who they want representing them by voting. It gives the public a chance to elect their leaders who may have a similar mind set to what they believe is the correct way to run society. With that being said this can break the peace because not every individual is going to vote for the same person, so the majority is getting what they want while everyone else is left to deal with leaders they don't want. Even if the majority votes for a specific President or Vice President there are certain bodies in our government, The United States Electoral College, that can overturn that vote and put whoever they want into office. Although the people vote for these body of electors they still have the power to change the masses choice which in turn can create conflict in a democracy(James Ostrowski, Mises Daily Articles).
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to defining a democracy I typically only describe the political side of a democracy, I usually do not add in the other types such as economic. This is the case because whenever someone is wanting to know about a democracy, for me they've only asked about the political aspects of it and nothing else. But if I were to define an economic democracy I would define it as an idea of a CEO, VP, business owner, etc. shifting the decision making authority down to the lowest part of the chain, to the people who are most affected such as the hourly paid employees, customers, deliver people, neighboring stores, and more. The main function of an economic democracy is to delegate the power to the people who allow the business to run and give them more say in how things are handled(David Schweickart, The next system project).
I would favor national referendums to deal with those topics as opposed to leaving it to our elected representatives and the courts to make authoritative decisions. As elected representatives may not be supported by the majority of the population they are representing, national referendums would give the opportunity for a more just way to combat these issues. As national referendums are meant to “deal with a flaw in the mandate theory as voters can voice an opinion on a major issue,” it will allow the people of a political party to have a voice if they oppose or do not accept all of the ideas of their elected representative. (https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/british-politics/referendums/)
ReplyDeleteI agree that national referendums have the possibility of representing the people more accurately than elected representatives, however in the case of the United States a national referendum may be subject to the same drawbacks of our election system. Simply put people will not participate, and if the national voting averages are anything to go off of a referendum may end up being more misrepresentative than our current system.
DeleteTo properly define democracy, it is a political system based on four main things, the first being representative government, the second being, that citizens participate in any and all political process (if they desire) the third, would fall under the realm of freedom, meaning the basic freedoms we have as citizens and fourth the clarity of all political acts and the process. When the word democracy is brought up in conversation, my mind immediately switches to political thinking, not economical. Although economics is clearly involved in all government forms, I would define democracy primarily in a political stage. As much as I might be okay with the economic side to democracy, I do not think it defines democracy as much as the political side of it does.
ReplyDeleteI think you gave a very good description of democracy. I like how you didn't just define it in one sentence but instead break it down into four different parts. I'm also the same way when it comes to defining it. I too mostly define democracy from a political stand point and hardly include the economical side of it.
DeleteWould you define democracy primarily in political or economical terms, or both about equally?
ReplyDeleteI would define Democracy as primarily political. Political democracy promotes a free election, where every able bodied person is allowed to vote to the politician they believe best fit. It allows the people to choose who should be in power, though it does have an economical side I see it primarily as political. A political Democracy is defined as the "Representative Government, citizen participation in the political process, the basic freedoms of citizens, and the transparency of political acts and the process in general" (http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/culturaldiplomacynews/participant-papers/eu/Maria-Eremenko-Political-participation-Model-by-Verba-in-the-EU-and-Russia.pdf)
Based on the listed criteria, I believe that democracy is political. Americans have the freedom to participate in the elections to bring into power the person they choose (if number of votes allow), we have the basic freedoms (speech, etc).
I agree with you that democracy is a political term and like the examples you gave to support this. Your source provides suffiecient ideology to continue you point as well as advance it. Freedom of participation and elections is an important part to the definition and figuring out whether it is political or economical.
DeleteI would consider democracy as a political term. When you hear the word democracy is about a political ideology on government. Democracy is a form of government. Democracy is based on four main elements. These four elements are, (A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections, The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life, Protection of the human rights of all citizens, A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens). The first element it states is democracy is a political system. Democracy may change an economy but the term democracy should be known as a political term.(Lecture at Hilla University for Humanistic Studies)
ReplyDeleteI would favor to leave issues to our elected representative and the courts. To have national referendums to settle issues could be used to resolve issues when the governing party is divided without splitting the party. Elected representatives could avoid having to take an unpopular position on a controversial issue and have voters decide. They are elected to be our voice in the government. They need to be able to take unpopular positions if that is what their supporters would agree on their position. A down fall of having national referendums is the voter’s capacity or information to make informed decisions based on their knowledge of the issue and the ramification of their decision. Lower voter turnout can negatively affect the outcome. A yes or no vote of the referendum might not encompass the issue in its entirety. Democracies are designed as representative systems with checks and balances. You elect your representative that best has your same values and should vote on issues as you would. (http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/ese/ese08/ese08a/ese08a03)
ReplyDeleteThis is mine. Not sure why it came up with Unknown. I posted again under my name.
DeleteI would favor to leave issues to our elected representative and the courts. To have national referendums to settle issues could be used to resolve issues when the governing party is divided without splitting the party. Elected representatives could avoid having to take an unpopular position on a controversial issue and have voters decide. They are elected to be our voice in the government. They need to be able to take unpopular positions if that is what their supporters would agree on their position. A down fall of having national referendums is the voter’s capacity or information to make informed decisions based on their knowledge of the issue and the ramification of their decision. Lower voter turnout can negatively affect the outcome. A yes or no vote of the referendum might not encompass the issue in its entirety. Democracies are designed as representative systems with checks and balances. You elect your representative that best has your same values and should vote on issues as you would. (http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/ese/ese08/ese08a/ese08a03)
ReplyDeleteHello Gwen,
DeleteI fully agree with your assessment that elected representatives should be responsible for settling important issues. You make some very good points about why our representatives were elected and I also believe that is why we elect them. In addition, national referendums scare me…the general populace is easily swayed by charismatic politicians and the 24-hour news cycle doesn’t help. Most people rant and rave from one topic to the next and if important issues were decided by national referendum I feel it would simply be a matter of the uneducated leading the dumb. Too much of our populace simply isn’t either well read on a topic or only listens to their own echo chambers (CNN or FOX), merely just repeating rhetoric. As a separate issue that would go along with this, I feel the way we elect people just be examined. The Chinese system of rigorous tests before an prospective civil servant is confirmed would be a great addition to our system. To support this idea, just take a look our current president (or a few others throughout history) and ask yourself, would they make they cut? If the answer is no, they should not have been elected. Thoughts?
Democracy does not define itself as specifically in political or economic terms, but as equal parts of both. Democracy may have begun as a great concept to give the mass populations a voice, each citizen a vote, though economics has become a large factor in the election and governmental process. As a candidate has more donations and finances for advertisements, or they discuss business incentives and opportunities with donors, often times promises are made which will directly affect the reelection of the representatives. This concept is often referred to as the kickback, pushback, effect. Even with this aspect of quasi collusion, democracy is a great form of protection for the citizens, as it ultimately symbolizes unity of the masses and the security of public resources and use of tax funds without monarchical rule.
ReplyDelete1. http://class.guilford.edu/psci/guo/course/syllabi183/data105/readings/linz.pdf
I personally believe that Democracy does define its self under a political term. Democracy is a form of government and us the people have our opinions on who we believe is the best for our country. When you mentioned that it may have started where it gives each citizen a vote... well we still get to vote as citizens of the United States and make our own decisions. I do agree that It would not be considered an economic term but there it to much evidence relating to politics and political debates that tell me it is considered a political term.
DeleteBy most accounts, democracy promotes peace in many different ways. According to The Open Society, these ways vary but can include a lower likelihood to either fall into armed civil conflict or experience humanitarian catastrophes. In addition to those facets of a democratic society, I would also add that, in general, a democratic society has some less apparent but also very important benefits. Some of these less tangible benefits are promoting equality and diversity or providing safeguards against authoritarian leaders –both which help promote peace (though some authoritarian leaders can apparently slip by). The democracy, being that it is governed by and for the people, is much more likely to have a higher level of involvement from its citizens as they have a larger stake in what the government does and provides .
ReplyDeleteSo, if there are so many benefits to a democracy, why aren’t all countries adopting such a model? Unfortunately, there are also many arguments against democracies promoting peace. According to politics.oxfordre.com, one such argument is that peace experienced my democracies are not causal - that although peace can create a democracy the reverse does not hold true. Democracies, on their own, do not promote peace. I would submit that democratic societies, especially in the Trumpian era, are not as peaceful as they should be. With party affiliation and personal politics “trumping” the norm of government service by and large promoting peace and harmony, I believe we are moving into a new era, one where peace may be hard to come by.
Thoughts? I would appreciate haring from my peers.
References:
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/democracy-advantage-how-democracies-promote-prosperity-and-peace
http://politics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-287
I do agree with you that democracies do ultimately promote peace and help reduce the treat of individuals in superior or authoritative positions from abusing power. Though, in a way it might only transfer, redirect, the conflicts from citizens against the state, to now primarily citizen against citizen. This is something which can certainly be seen in today's political climate as the aggression of citizens increases when voicing there opinion and showing support for there party.
Delete