In the modern world, democracy is one of the most popular forms of government. Its attractiveness comes from the freedom of the majority to make changes to policies. The United States of America popularized the concept, which was then adopted in different ways by countries around the world. Part of its attractiveness to groups from various backgrounds is that it can also adjust to the needs of the people. Despite its popularity, democracy has both positive and negative outcomes in response to what is desired. These negative consequences make this form of government difficult to manage; however, many still consider it the best option. While the ultimate outcome that people desire is the freedom to make their own decisions and control their future. …show more content…
In this case, he says that information and technology are also a result of democracy. By giving the average person access to more information and more efficient technology, it allows anyone to express their ideas. He states that “today’s information revolution has produced thousands of outlets for news that make central control impossible and dissent easy” (332). Here he says that with the advancement of the internet, anybody can express their opinions whether true or false, and with the nature of the internet, it is impossible to control. This then leaves the discernment of truth to the people. He considers this form of unregulated democracy to be foolish, because of the lack of rights and representation. This also leads to the democratization of violence from more readily available weapons and plans, that with some time and effort can be used for violent means. In addition to violence, unregulated information rapidly changes the ideas of the people who will listen. When enough people agree with what they see or hear online, the perspective of the people can be influenced, quickly changing society. An example of this can be found in China. In mainland China, popular media sharing websites, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are blocked to prevent ideas from spreading too rapidly. It is mostly used to prevent activists from sharing their information with each other or negative political …show more content…
While true democracy allows for the complete freedom and well-being of the majority, liberal democracy sacrifices a few of the freedoms of choice to prevent the misuse of power on others. Each of these has both positive and negative impacts for the people, with differences on the majorities and minorities. The issue with true democracy lies in its unregulated nature. When faced with rules by majority, one can sometimes find cases where even large groups of people can make incorrect or illogical assumptions. By having regulation on the choices of the people, there is a smaller chance of making such mistakes. In one instance the Indian state of Kerala had democratically elected to become communist. From this decision, their local government became a mix of communism and democracy. With the cost of some freedom, they created rules which help to increase education and literacy in the state, while still being able to choose when they wanted to move to another system. In this case, the increased regulation allowed the people to become better. However, when too much power is given to the government, the freedom of choice for the people is taken, causing them to think of their government negatively. Zakaria uses this example, “Dictators such as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe go to great effort and expense to organize national elections – which of course, they win handily. When the
In conclusion, Carr and Gladwell’s essays have proven that the internet positive effects are outweighed by its negative effects. Carr has found he is unable to finish a full text anymore or concentrate. He thinks that the internet has taken our natural intelligence and turned it into artificial intelligence. Gladwell discusses how nowadays, social activism doesn’t have the same risk or impact as former revolutions such as the Civil Rights Movement. The internet is mostly based on weak ties based among people who do not truly know each other and would not risk their lives for their
Before that can be established, I think a definition of democracy should be stated so that it may be called upon later in this essay. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, democracy is stated as "the principle of social equality and respect for the individual within a community" .
Democracy is control by the people. On the surface, this appears to be a superior form, but as Plato warned it is slow to react, oppresses of the minority, and lacks skilled leaders (Perry,
To begin democracy simply is defined as being for the people, but Zakaria explains how western countries governments version of democracy has meant liberal democracy, a system that has the qualities where there is not only fair and free election, but also constitutional limitation of power that the government has, separation of powers and protection of basic rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, religion and property. Liberal Democracy avoided civil war by providing protection of its citizens and their rights. This form of democracy differs from the historical and theoretical form of democracy. There are many different forms of government besides liberal democracy, in fact, many countries goes through many types of government before becoming a liberal democracy. Countries tend to start of with self-elected ruler that do not protect its people rights, this form of government is an Illiberal Autocracy, then they go on to become a Liberal Autocracy, still self elected but protects its peoples rights, and then finally become Liberal Democracy. Another form of government is illiberal democracy; this government is not free and fair.
~The Problem with American Democracy is not too Little Democracy, but too much. Discuss ~
While many people throughout the world see social media as a trendy new application in the service of personal amusement, the political upheavals in the Arab world have shown how it can change the dynamics of modern day activism. The Arab Spring Uprising interlaced social unrest with a technological revolution. Blogs, news websites, twitter feeds, and political list servers became avenues for communication, information flow and solidarity. Being capable of sharing an immense amount of uncensored information through social media sites has contributed to the success of many Arab Spring activists. Social media played a role in facilitating the events of the Arab Spring, but the main issues are rooted in a broader set of economic, political, and social factors. This paper will examine how social media impacted the Arab Spring Uprising. Specifically, I will look at how social media introduced a novel resource that helped to created internet activist communities, changed the dynamics of social mobilization and revolutionized interactions between protesters and the rest of the world.
Human history is pock-marked with innumerable wars and revolutions. The cause for most of the revolutions has been the choice of freedom. The opportunity to live a life without physical, mental or emotional restrictions has been and still is of supreme importance to man. This has resulted in the most widely followed discipline of political governance: Democracy.
In deciphering what constitutes the brilliance of democracy then, we find that it is not citizens’ ability to make informed decisions or an unflawed and subtly manipulated election process, but the unapparent way in which democracy persuades citizens – informed or not - and leaders – corrupt or not – toward working to build better, more prosperous societies.
For example, in Saleem Kassim views, “As a result of the many technological advancements and innovations that have revolutionized how individuals communicate, an abundance of information has become available to everyone.” Saleem Kassim’s point is that anyone and everybody can put out information that can be seen by everyone when you are an internet user. For example, the news can tell you that there’s nothing happening in a certain country; whereas, someone from that country can post on twitter and upload videos showing anyone that decides to see the truth of what is really happening in their country. Kassim also states, “Ultimately, public information supplied by social networking websites has played an important role during modern-day activism, specifically as it pertains to the Arab Spring.” In other words, Kassim believes that digital communication has brought people together to fight for something that is a good cause. To have people aware of the truth and to have someone do something about it. Indeed it is highly likely that we bring people together for a good cause but digital communication can also cause a downside through having no censorship on what you post. When more people are brought up of current events trending they decide to hope on board to see if there is anything they can do to help. Not to mention, Graff and Birkenstein view it the same way. Like I mentioned earlier, Graff and
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.
As the times change, so does the latest technology. In the mid-1900's it was the television, before that the radio, and now in the late-20th and 21st century we have the internet. With the coming of every new media outlet audiences and media moguls migrate. Along with the migrations are the politicians who try to use the new form of media to more easily reach the public. It's come to the point where the internet increasingly work with democracy directly; some elections in the United States even going so far as to hold online polling in a general election. "Online voting is increasingly making its way int our political process," writes Vote.com President Dick Morris, "the 2000 Arizona Democratic Primary tallied 39,942 online votes," (Morris 1034). However, should the internet really be used to such degrees in the case of democracy? There is an ongoing debate among scholars on the topic. One thing to consider is whether or not the many accusations stating that the internet is an aid to terrorism outweigh the positive effects of how the internet has strengthened democracy and has had a crucial part in turning oppressed nations into less oppressed, democratic states. On the subject of terrorism being aided by the internet, making it easier for terrorist factions leaders to inform their people, could it not be argued that these factions leaders could use other means of communication, maybe only a little less effectively and therefore nullifying the accusation that the internet is the culprit? After extensive research, it's clear that the internet does not harm democracy; on the contrary, the internet strengthens it in a way that no other form of media has done before.
With power widely and evenly dispersed in society, rather than concentrated in the hands of the elite, pluralism complements democracy and ensures that those in charge respect the concerns and interests of the individual. In conclusion, it can be seen that pluralism and toleration are widely supported by liberals since they promote individual sovereignty whilst benefiting society at the same time.
Democracy is what keeps the peace in societies, it gives the people power to do whatever they desire. It gives them the freedom that humans need to live a happy and peaceful life. Most of the advantages he talks about are great, but I am only going to talk about the three
Zakaria, F. (2007). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Revised Edition). New York: W. W. Norton.
The foundation of the modern political system was laid in the times when the world was strangled in slavery. In those moments, enlightened minds in Greek came up with the new system that was there to remain for the next thousands of years. This system, now known as democracy, is a form of government in which supreme power is vested to the people themselves. People have the right to elect their leaders directly or indirectly through a scheme of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. A new democratic government is usually established after every 4-5 years, and it is trusted with the responsibility to cater to the needs of all the people irrespective of the fact that they voted for them or not. Although the minorities may not be very pleased with the idea of democracy, however, a democratic government is certainly the best because it establishes social equality among people, reduces the conflicts in the state to a minimum, gives the chance to vote repeatedly, and creates patriotism.