History
The Future of Freedom
In his book, The Future of Freedom, Fareed Zakaria writes that we must make democracy safe for the world. The American democracy sets the standard around the world for liberal democracies, but transitions across for other countries across the world toward a liberal democracy is often difficult and with poor decision making, close to impossible. Liberal democracies are the systems in which people choose their government and live in an environment of freedom. In Zakaria’s book, he warns the readers of several telltale signs that their process toward a liberal democracy is in trouble. He uses examples of different countries doing it right and doing it wrong- the ones discussed in this essay will be Russia and China.
After the communist collapse in Russia, Zakaria writes that Russia concentrated too much on a quick fix. The leaders wanted to mimic the American democracy an instituted “free and fair elections,” but they forgot about establishing a stable economy. Robert Kaplan writes in his essay, “Was Democracy Just a Moment?” that countries need to establish a stable economic system before they try to institute a political system or else that political system will fail. Specifically, Kaplan thinks that there should be a strong and large middle class in the nation before it leaders think democracy will work. Kaplan was not the only intellectual to say this; Aristotle believed that a strong middle class bred a strong society. The idea about this is that democracy cannot work if the majority of a country is poor and starving while a small minority has all the money. The poor will be too preoccupied with trying to survive than maintaining the government. Russia relied too much on its natural resources instead of trying to build a functioning economy (Zakaria, 92). Zakaria writes, “Russia’s fundamental problem is not that it is a poor country struggling to modernize, but rather that it is a rich country struggling to modernize” (92). By making the mistake of first fixing the political system before the economy, and then mismanaging its resources, Russia’s political system fell prey to corruption. Zakaria writes, “Yeltsin did little to build institutions in Russia. In fact he weakened almost all competing centers of power-the legislature, the courts, regional governors” (93). ...
... middle of paper ...
...e his blessing for open economic markets (Zakaria, 83). That leads us to the present time.
With examples like Singapore, China hopes to maintain its current situation. Zakaria writes, “Their role model is former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. Lee achieved the dream of every strongmen: to modernize the economy, even the society, of his country, but not the politics” (85). Ironically, Zakaria feels Chinese officials should return to the teachings of Karl Marx for help. He writes, “Marx understood that when a country modernizes its economy, embraces capitalism, and creates a bourgeoisie, the political system will change to reflect that transformation” (Zakaria, 87). Zakaria holds hope that the leaders will come around and accept the inevitability of China eventually becoming a liberal democracy. All of those involved, realize that that process will be a long and strenuous one because hardly any leader ever gives up his power willingly.
Works Cited
Kaplan, Robert D. “Was Democracy Just a Moment?” The Atlantic Monthly. Boston: December, 1997.
Zakaria, Fareed. The Future of Freedom. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.: New York, 2004.
...oved to be singularly influential and daunting. This is, perhaps, the greatest obstacles to achieving true democracy in Russia—the authoritarian and repressive traditions that refuse to die out with the passage of time.
...) and bring China under uniform thought as well. Thus, in his attempt to accomplish his goals he placed less emphasis on freedom and more on developing a sturdy political backbone. Deng, on the other hand, wanted to thrust China in the global community for economic fortune at the expense of everything Mao had established. In the process, he brought a freedom and wave of democracy to the People's Republic, endowing the Chinese citizens with dreams of wealth and prosperity that were never even considered in the time of Mao. As China, progresses further into the twenty first century, its role seems quite unclear. A return to Post-revolutionary authoritarian communism seems unlikely, as does the institution of a true democracy but perhaps a new form of stability will arise to grant greater liberty to individuals or possibly even another Tiannenmen lurking in the future.
Throughout history freedom has had many different meanings and definitions; based on race, gender, and ethnicity. According to the dictionary freedom means the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint (“freedom” def. 1). Freedom may seem like something given to everyone however it was something workers had to fight for. Not everyone believed that workers’ rights needed to be changed, which led to a long battle between workers, employers and the government. To the working class people freedom meant making higher wages, having regulated hours, workable conditions and the right to free speech.
The American Ideological Consensus is that “…the American people have shared much of the same ideals, the same basic principles, and the same patterns of belief” (McClenaghan 104). When America filled itself with ideologically homogenous people, their beliefs started to define our nation and became American identities. If asked what they think of America, peoples of other nations would say that the roads are made of glass, opportunity is in the air, and civil rights are plentiful. These accounts maybe accentuated; however, the underlying message is that the American people have more freedoms then the peoples of other nations do. The most widely known American identity is freedom, and even though that American identity has been tried and tested throughout much of its history, it can still be said that America is a land of liberty.
The Great Concept of American Freedom Early America was a place for anyone to live their life the way that they wanted, as it is now, but back then this was a new concept. Much of this idea comes from the freedoms obtained by living here. Many other countries in the world had many freedoms, but not as numerous as they were in America shortly after the country was founded. Americans during the late 1700's and early 1800's embraced their freedoms and became leaders and expanders, and what we now consider the founders of many present-day cities and towns. One thing that has been present throughout the generations of people living in America, is the desire to set themselves apart from other nations.
... if we are to disregard Luciani’s deconstruction of the concept of modernity as explored above – which casts doubt over what it means to be modern – it is clear that even in Lipset's terms, modern day China is a testament to the failure of modernization's teleology. As yet, there are no signs of burgeoning political freedom or free elections despite the rising power of the country and the very real probability that it may soon challenge America's coveted 'last remaining superpower' status. Despite the superficial presence of MacDonald's, it remains fundamentally unrecognizable to Western eyes, and there seems to be little chance of it turning to democracy, so long as the regime continues to exercise authoritarian rule by denying a culture of openness in purported favour of one of ‘collective security’.
In the world, each society the government creates a certain idea they follow. Americas idea is freedom and expression. Every society has stability, and if one day the freedom and expression were taken away then our society as we know will collapse. This is similar to Brave New World where they also have their own idea to how they run their society. In their so iety one of the most important idea they follow is order, happiness and stability.
However, what is most informative about this article is how despite the numerous crackdown on freedoms we learn that the vast majority of Russians seemed to be unconcerned with political matters at this time. For the vast majority of Russians they were content with the fact that the government seemed to be keeping things “running smoothly” and the economy on the rise. This feeling, while at first is hard to accept, upon hearing the many accounts of how the once disgraced Russian people were quickly able to rise to the top of the New World Order, I began to understand the feelings of national pride that can so easily manifest itself at the ballot box. This new era however, was not all fine- the hastily drafted Russian policies of the 1990s left many legal loopholes and created a culture where cheating was almost required to succeed. This had always been a problem in post- Soviet Russia, but by the early 2000s the level of corruption was almost unbearable.
Thesis statement: Can democracy and capitalism really exist in Russia? Since the times of the Russian Empire, starting from 1825 Decembrists revolt up till the collapse of Soviet Union, Russian people tried countless times to build a reliable civil society. Yet they have failed each and every single time to achieve it. This paper will explore the examples of the failure of such attempts in the past, and give a consensus opinion on what is needed to create a genuine democratic government in modern day Russia.
Zhao, S., (2003), ‘Political Liberalization without Democratization: Pan Wei’s proposal for political reform’ Journal of Contemporary China, 12(35): 333–355.
The word free can best be defined as the ability to do something at will. In today’s world, being free has infinite definitions. Freedom can be a country that rules itself, a young adult moving out of their parents house, being released from prison, the list goes on and on. Freedom is given to some, but earned through hard work by others.
General Douglas MacArthur once claimed, “I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.” The question of what the world will look like in the future is constantly being mulled and debated over. The answer to this issue is found when studying the people who grasp the power over controlling our lives, the government. It is clear that with the knowledge they possess and many secrets they hold, this sinister system of management will lead to a sickening, horrific and unimaginable reality in the approaching future. The government is gaining authority over countless areas of our existence including food, water, privacy, entertainment, and education. Although the purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness without the fears that are present in a state anarchy, the cost for protection is at the expense of our freedoms.
The most effective way to establish freedom is to fight for things you should have. Being a proud citizen of the United States ensures that you will have the freedoms you need and want because they were already fought for. We can preserve freedom by honoring the people who died and fought for it a long time ago. Also, we should never abuse our freedoms we are given, or they can be taken away. We should follow the laws created to protect us.
Zakaria, F. (2007). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Revised Edition). New York: W. W. Norton.
The current challenges of democracy around the world should prioritize each encounter that should be addressed through networks, global gatherings, and various activities. As a continuous concern, the progress of democracy discusses various strategies and activities. These various strategies and activities lead to lessons that are learned in advancing democracy, making democracy deliver, strengthening democratic fundamentals, and more current challenges. Democracy faces threats from every spectrum as the threats surge the need to reinforce democratic forces through aid and greater international solidarity. Each country reflects on a certain assessment towards the current status of democracy.