Blog Discussion Group Six
Please answer one question from the following list. Blog "post" due at 11:55pm on November 5 and "comment" due at 11:55pm on November 8.
Democracy and Democratization
1. Discuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.”
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?
3. Would you define democracy primarily in political or economical terms, or both about equally?
Democracy and Democratization
1. Discuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.”
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?
3. Would you define democracy primarily in political or economical terms, or both about equally?
3. I think democracy is inseparable from both political and economic definitions. Democracy at it's core means the freedom to choose and to have a say in the direction of our society. Usually, "democracy" is discussed in purely political terms. For most, democracy seems to mean the right to a free and fair election. However, if we only have this we do not have democracy. Society's direction is not solely determined through the state. Rather, it comes from the institutions which we interact with everyday- especially the economy. Here, we have very little democracy. Most workplaces function more like dictatorships or oligarchies than democracies. Despite spending many of our waking hours working for someone else- we usually have very little say in how the places we work operate. We do not get to appoint managers through a vote, nor do we get democratic say in scheduling, wages, and workplace etiquette. These are all determined by our bosses and we risk losing our job if we step out of line. Until we have workplace democracy for everyone, I do not think we can say that the United States has lived up to its democratic ideals.
ReplyDeleteCade is always well spoken and knowledgeable and I admire that. As far as the workplace I see how the connection is made, but later in the post one can infer that workplace democracy may occur through unions. With that being said I definitely agree with the above statement about close entanglement of democracy being a political and economical fusion.
DeleteHello Cade!
DeleteI agree with your view on democracy as both political and economical. The statement that you have written is phenomenal! Your view on democracy is outstanding. Mainly society views democracy as a political term; the main focus on this term as political is elections. As you stated, "democracy seems to mean the right to a free and fair election. However, if we only have this we do not have democracy. Society's direction is not solely determined through the state." This term can refer to economics just as well as politics.
1. Discuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.”
ReplyDeleteOne must gravitate to the first question since most developing countries or superpowers that follow the more autocratic agenda diplomatically suffer economically. Countries that are democracies tend to not fall into civil conflict or are affiliated with terrorist groups. This previous statement may seem prudent, but if one has served in the armed forces may have seen first hand how this question can be applicable. Furthermore, our text Essentials of Comparative Politics by Patrick H. O’Neil elaborates further on this question on page 173. If countries are broke, they tend to skew toward civil war. So, even if the proposition was democracy and peace the final result concludes that GDP and social welfare have a high impact.
The Democratic Peace Theory argues that democratic states are less likely to engage in armed conflict with each other. This Theory and the examples given to prove this theory convinces me that democracy can promote peace. But democracy is “a system that is flexible, rather than fixed” (Hague and Harrop, 43) which means that democracy allows for individuals with different views to be engaged politically- giving the high possibility of conflicts and tensions within the system. Not just within democratic states, but the Democratic Peace Theory does not deny the fact that democratic states can be involved in armed conflict with non-democratic regimes; there are several instances of a democratic states- i.e. the United States- that engages in warfare with other countries with conflicting regimes or ideologies. I would say that democracy can promote peace but to some extent.
ReplyDelete3. I would focus on the political definition of democracy more than the economic definition because I believe that through the political definition it can be related to the economical definition. Democracy tries to separate the power in a government system, in order to create equality and freedom. Once you are able to create political equality in which everyone has an equal say in what occurs in the country, then the democracy on the economics side will balance itself out. Economics is too difficult to predict, and therefore I believe that if you are able to focus on the political side it should help the economical side, strictly looking at their definitions.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy can create peace but it can also create war. When we look at the United States and how they have pushed other countries to become democracies but after leaving the country or state to fend for themselves and enforce this democracy some countries tend to suffer. The purpose of a democracy is to give a country the right to choose who will elect them but in cases where countries are very poor or violent attempting to bring this system can cause harm. Cases like this include countries in central America which after US involvement are now suffering from poverty and gang affiliated violence. Democracy can bring great benefits to its citizens with greater wealth and control of elected officials.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add to your point that democracy may not always bring peace. Especially if we assume the opposite of peace is violence, and then expand the definition of violence to beyond that of only physical demonstration. Violence could pertain to economic, political, social or emotional categories. In the case of the oppression of American Indians in North America, a democratic government authorize the genocide of many nations of people. Although the United States is the first democracy, we have made unforgivable mistakes. In this same example violence was enforced politically by painting the west as a cursed wilderness made for exploitation. The only thing stopping a "utopia" that was eventually built with the resources of that wilderness, was the millions of people that lived all across North America before colonists from Europe arrived. Social violence was and still exists in the form of racism both social and institutional. Economic violence came in the destruction of the barter-trade routes as well as the destruction of natural resources and the Indian removal act.
DeleteThis all serves as a question for us all to remind ourselves of when we examine what the United States has done with the concept of manifest destiny and the world. We must question our own democracy and our own peace or violence that is inflicted on ourselves, our neighbors, and our world. Democracy can perhaps create peace one day in a form other than that which it exists today.
2. In my opinion, national issues such as abortion, gun ownership, tax rates and any other controversies should be determined by national referendums. Most elected representatives that make these laws identify as male. A male should not be able to determine what a female should do to her body, it is unethical. These referendums are for the people to deicide what type of lives they want to live and abide by the laws they vote for as far as the majority goes. Gun ownership should come with a level of credit like when you buy cars or a house. When I think about the elected representatives making decisions on these type of issues I think of the government trying to make the most money out of the population as possible and not taking into consideration that these are everyday people living their everyday lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree Ellis that national issues such as abortion should be left to the female as no male should be able to make that determination for a women. However when it comes to gun ownership it should have never been unless it is for war purposes only and therefore the representatives should leave give that power to the army and not the people as it leads to chaos among society. When it comes to taxation they should continue to make the choice for the greater good of the people and not be so greedy when doing so.
DeleteKeely
1. Discuss evidence for and against the proposition that “democracy promotes peace.”
ReplyDeleteAn argument can be made in favor of this statement’s validity by saying that democracy allows for consensus to be reached in a society by peaceful means. In this way, yes decision making is achieved and this process promotes peace. Democracy also has many manifestations including consociational democracy that has the benefit of bringing together all people and giving all people voices in government. This is quite valuable as violence is often used as a tool for social change, from my understanding, when there is a lack or complete ignorance to a group of people’s voices and perspectives on any or all issues relating to government.
An argument against this proposition may be the monopoly on violence that still exists in the state, even if that state’s government is a democratic government. This has been seen in the way that policy and legislation is carried out in a country by its government. Another argument against this proposition could be that although consensus might be achieved peacefully, a group of people could come to a decision to enact violence which I am assuming is the opposite of peace for this post. This would not necessarily be peaceful. I would say this proposition is then primarily context based.
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?
I do not think there is enough general knowledge in the population today to be able to make informed decisions on such controversial issues. A large number of moderate voters would be quite useful in making some decisions, however, a referendum by definition would have to be accessible to all people with voting eligibility. Therefore, I would say that a referendum would not be valuable or effective in the short-term or long-term. That said, I do not feel any more comfortable with having an elected representative make those decisions either. There is the potential for corruption or biasing in the decision through lobbyists and special interest groups. Yet that is how the system is currently established and run in the United States. A healthy combination of both systems and years of fact based knowledge being taken into consideration over issues as controversial as those might be the best system or method of dealing with decision making.
I agree with Ethan that national referendums settling issues like abortion, gun ownership, tax rates isn't a good idea because the necessary information to make these decisions isn't as common as it should be. When looking at abortion even in cases of rape which can lead to abortion, some members of congress have incoherent opinions regarding it. For example Clayton Williams, a republican from Texas stated, "rape is kind of like the weather, if it's inevitable relax or enjoy it." Or taking a look at people who feel that strict abortion laws are important but don't care about the children in adoption homes. Gun ownership itself is something that is found in the constitution as the right to bear arms but when we look at gun violence and who has the right mental capacity to own a gun the public is not a good display of this.
DeleteI also do not have full trust on either the elected representatives or the general public, who may not be as informed on such issues. But with the long process of law-making in the U.S. legislative system, especially concerning these issues in which citizens have been debating for a long time and have not had a specific policy set in place, I do lean more towards the national referendum side. I have seen referendums play out on the state level and it can be quite nerve-wrecking, however I believe that the people should be given the chance to express their opinions through the ballots (especially since the people are the ones who are affected by these policies on the daily); this could be a more accurate representation of what the people want without having their opinions filtered out by their representatives' vote on these issues.
DeleteI respect the speed with which a national vote would make a decision, however, a referendum without widespread knowledge of the intricacies of the debate would surrender long-term settlement on the issue. Like Mirian says, the information necessary to make decisions is not widely available and if it were, there is no guarantee people have educated themselves to make a decision that large for others. Although to listen more to Nyima, a referendum would have to be context specific. Perhaps a referendum on the practicality of homeowners associations could be decided by referendum, but certainly not abortion or gun ownership. If done correctly, however, a referendum might alleviate some of the federal backlog of bills.
DeleteWould you define democracy primarily in political or economical terms, or both about equally?
ReplyDeleteI would define democracy in both political and economical terms equally. According to the reading from O'Neil, "Bernstein concluded that democracy could evolve into socialism through the ballot box rather than through the gun". The reading also advises that democracy the state can make available a wide array of public goods such as health care, pension and higher education because democracy functions on a foundation of capitalism (private property and open markets).
Would you define democracy primarily in political or economical terms, or both about equally?
ReplyDeleteI would define democracy in both political and economical terms equally. According to the reading from O'Neil, "Bernstein concluded that democracy could evolve into socialism through the ballot box rather than through the gun". The reading also advises that democracy the state can make available a wide array of public goods such as health care, pension and higher education because democracy functions on a foundation of capitalism (private property and open markets).
Keely Crawford
**Make no attempts to publish via phone. I tried it again and have noticed my comments are not posting.