Several forms of government have been formed since the development of centralized power. The form of government that has showed the most international growth in the last century is democracy. There are currently over 160 democracies in the world today. These democracies, however, are not complete democracies. They are representative democracies that have been created by the leaders of our predominantly patriarchal international system. Due to this, many citizens of these democracies are considered second class citizens and their views are not heard by their supposedly democratic society. A solution to this problem is participatory democracy. Participatory democracy is better than the existing patriarchal society because it allows the progression of society as a whole, eliminates political oppression, and creates a predominantly equal political culture for the citizens it governs. There is much evidence that proves that the advantages of participatory democracy heavily outweigh the drawbacks and that it is a better way of government than patriarchy. This evidence can be found in historical analysis, scrutiny of the patriarchal international system, the development of participatory democracy, and the values of a participatory democracy versus the values of a patriarchal democracy.
Participatory democracy is when the individuals under a governed state are directly involved in the legislation and polices that directly influence their lives. Aspiration for participatory democracy dates back to ancient Greece and continues today. When the idea of participatory democracy was invented it was done so in order to make sure everyone in a society had a say in how they lived their lives. In modern times the idea of participatory democracy, how...
... middle of paper ...
...ic policy. Participatory democracy is better in this situation also because it creates a better political environment for the society.
Every form of government will have its flaws and participatory democracy is no exception. What makes participatory democracy better than patriarchal democracy does not only lie in the oppression and injustice of a patriarchal democracy but mostly in how that oppression and injustice affects its citizens. Through inequality among minorities and women patriarchal democracy alienates a huge proportion of the population. Patriarchal democracy also puts power into the wrong hands making its injustice that much more drastic. There is no guarantee that all of these problems would be fixed by participatory democracy, but there is substantial evidence that says participatory democracy would create a better society than patriarchal democracy.
Throughout the 1800s, women across the world began establishing organizations to demand women’s suffrage in their countries. Today, there are still women in countries fighting for their right to vote. Some countries who’ve succeeded in the mid to late 1800s were Sweden and New Zealand. Once they expanded women’s suffrage, many other countries followed. Like Sweden, countries first granted limited suffrage to women and other countries approved to the full national level. Additionally, there were quite a few countries who had taken over a century to give women the right to vote, Qatar being a prime example. Although the fight for women’s suffrage varied in the United States, France, and Cuba in terms of length and process, each effort ultimately
...ic interest. The initiative and referendum are generally portrayed as an expansion of democracy, giving the people an opportunity to be more involved with state legislation when laws ignore the common interest of the public.
...cs should gain its value, and lastly people should vote because it is their responsibility. Moredish Conroy points out, “The traditional ruler view of women rejects the idea that femaleness and political power can coexist.” The traditional idea of what constitute leadership should be rejected. Bashevkin speaks that people must face their own internalized, often unrecognized feelings of discomfort with putting women in positions of power. This should change. Rationally, we all need to engage ourselves in politics because it contributes to our day to day activity. This book is a precondition to change because it promotes awareness by bringing change through monitoring the media, social movements, public opinions, electoral reforms, consensus building, collaboration, stronger motivation, and changing the rule of the game. This assures every citizen, every voice counts.
As I grew older, I began to realize that I very rarely heard female names on the nightly news when the issue at hand involved politics. Seldom did I read women politicians quoted in the newspapers. Hardly ever did I see female faces on the covers of magazines when freshman senators were running for office. This phenomenon was not caused by the media’s lack of coverage on female authoritarians; it was caused by the fact that very few of such women exist. I began to wonder: why is there such a lack of female representation in the United States national government? Furthermore, what are the implications of this lack of representation for women like myself and for the citizens of this democratic country at large?
...cipation into democracy, which contains “constant activity, ceaseless willing, and endless interaction with other participants in quest of common grounds for common living” (p. 64, ¶ 3). Participation's goal is to establish public-mindedness, necessitating participation in public discourse as well as public action in the name of developing public products. Participation maneuvers an individual to speak using the language we, as opposed to I, which is the language of consent. A participating citizen is an individual which has a malleable characteristics, for example the transition from bachelor to spouse to parent. Participatory politics is sensible means of comprehending the association which may be developed between an individual and community, and ways that partnership might be integrated .
One example of government is a regime ruled by democratic ideas. A government under this type of rule has specific qualities that distinguish it as a democracy. For instance, many people can have an impact to a democracy; they can possess some power. "It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few" (Benjamin Jowett). However, when one citizen among the people stands out, it can be a positive aspect towards public service. As stated in The History of Thucydides, "when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit" (Benjamin Jowett). A citizen that is different from the rest should not be taken as beneficial towards public service, but as a gift of excellence. A democracy allows citizens to have this ability. In addition, a government under democratic rule consists of laws that create an equity among citizens. "But while the law secures equal justice to all alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized" (Benjamin Jowett). Conflicts and issues can occur in a society, but laws play a role in taming them. This is a reason as to how people are granted the same amount of justness and fairness among each other. Two characteristics among a democracy include having a unique citizen that is right for the public, and allowing laws to protect everyone's fair play.
One of the contemporary definitions of democracy today is as follows: “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives; Rule by the majority” (“Democracy” Def.1,4). Democracy, as a form of government, was a radical idea when it manifested; many governments in the early history of the world were totalitarian or tyrannical in nature, due to overarching beliefs that the strong ruled over the weak.
The most fundamental aspect within a democracy is that ruling is done by the people . Without this, a society could never function as a democracy; it would be one only in name. In the first forms of democracy, this meant that every single citizen was responsible for participating in the decisions that the state made. As society progressed, however, this responsibility was handed off, with representatives being elected by the citizens in order to make the decisions for them, in their interests, thus creating the modern representative democracy . It is important to question whether this has resulted in the people being uninformed and uninterested in politics, and whether it is necessary to have the people stay involved in this process.
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
...ions run on the base of widespread and equal suffrage is fundamental. A further Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women was approved by the United Nations in 1979, and well-established the right of women to take part on an equal base in all phases of democratic government. This international consensus has been tested on many occasions, and there are still a number of states where women are not granted the right to vote, or at least not granted it on an equal basis with men. The establishment and the preservation of women's suffrage thus remains an active focus of political activism across the globe.
When students study about different forms of government, local government is underemphasized compared to the study of state and national governments. This is especially unfortunate because few people recognize that local governments are as responsible for maintaining the needs and requests of citizens as state and national governments. A noticeable method of maintaining stability and order in the locale is by allowing direct political participation by citizens themselves- greater participation compared to state and national governments where federalism (elected representatives produce and pass legislation for its people). Such process allowing citizens to directly participate in politics is known as direct democracy. As displayed at the TriBoard
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.
participation of women in the decision making process is an indicator of development of a democratic
There have been enormous efforts to spread democracy as a political system throughout the world by the developed democratic countries and the international development organizations including the World Bank. By the late 1990s the United States alone spent over a half billion dollars to promote democratic expansion throughout the world (Diamond, 2003). These were done considering that the democratic system leads towards development. As a result in the late 20th century we saw a huge political transformation towards democracy. During the last few decades a huge number of countries adopted democracy as their political system. However, it retain a big question how far democracy is successful in bringing development of a country? At this stage, some people also criticizes the effort of democratization arguing that it is done without considering the context of a country, sometimes democracy is not ideal for all countries and it is an effort to extinct diversity of political system. In studying the literature regarding the debate, we found a paradoxical relationship between democracy and development. Some argue that democracy has failed to ensure expected outcomes in terms of development. While others confronted that democracy has a considerable impact on development. Another group of people argue that form of political system actually does not have any impact on development process. On the verge of these debates, some development institutions and academics throw light on why democracy is not working properly, and what measure should be taken to make it more successful in bringing effective development of developing countries. Consequently, this writing is an effort of revisiting the different views about impact of democra...