Every free action is produced by the concurrence of two causes; one moral, i. When I walk towards an object, it is necessary first that I should will to go there, and, in the second place, that my feet should carry me. If a paralytic wills to run and an active man wills not to, they will both stay where they are.
Democracy, with all its problems, also has its paradoxes. Regular elections lead to short government life-time. This seems to result in more emphasis on short term goals and safer issues that appeal to populist issues. It also diverts precious time toward re-election campaigns Anti-democratic forces may use the democratic process to get voted in or get policies enacted in their favor.
Communism economic preferences, and liberal vs authoritarian political preferences may allow for non-democratic policies under the guise of democracy Democracies may, ironically perhaps, create a more effective military as people chose to willingly support their democratic ideals and are not forced to fight.
Some of these are discussed further, here: Voting in non-democratic forces Two examples of this paradox are the following: Hitler and his party were voted in. He then got rid of democracy and started his gross human rights violations and genocidal campaigns as a dictator.
Hamas was also recently voted in by Palestinians. The lack of aid, upon which the Palestinians have been quite dependent contributed to friction amongst Palestinians who support Hamas and those that do not and this has been amplified by the worsening economic situation there. The Hitler example highlights the importance media and propaganda play and the need for continued open self-criticism to guard against these tendencies.
Minorities losing out to majorities Another criticism of democracy is that sometimes what the majority votes for or prefers, may not necessarily be good for everyone. A common example plaguing many countries which have diversity in race and religion is that a dominant group may prefer policies that undermine others.
Some quick examples include Nigeria which has large Christian and Muslim populations; some Muslims there, and in other countries, want Sharia Law, which not all Muslim necessarily want, let alone people of other faiths. If only a very slight majority can override a very large minority on such an important issue as how one should live, then there is a real chance for tension and conflict.
Another example is India, often help us an example of pluralism throughput the ages, despite all manner of challenges. Yet, unfortunately an Indian government report finds that its claims to religious integration and harmony are on far shakier grounds than previously believed.
This can come through various outlets, including, a diverse mainstream media, institutions such as religious and legal ones, schooling, family upbringings, etc Equally important are the underlying economic conditions and situations of a country. Generally, it seems, where economically people are generally doing well, where the inequality gap is not excessive, people have less of a reason to opt for more defensive, reactionary or aggressive policies that undermine others.
The fear of the public and disdain of democracy from elites while publicly claiming to supporting it People often see democracy as an equalizing factor that should not allow the elite or wealthy in a society to rule in an autocratic, despotic, unaccountable manner.
Instead they have to respond to the will of the people, and ultimately be accountable to them. Furthermore and ideally, it should not only be the wealthy or elite that hold the power. There should be some form of equality when representing the nation.
However, this has also meant at least two accompanying phenomena: Interestingly, leading up to the US mid-term elections, amidst all sorts of allegations of corruption coming to light, in an interview by Democracy Now!
Karl Rove, the influential, but controversial, advisor and strategist for President George W. What people do not realize about [Karl Rove] is that everything about him is political utility. When he looked at what was going on with the megachurchesImportance of Voting Introduction The importance of voting is a fundamental aspect of a democracy.
The United States is a constitutional republic in which the population votes on . The Voting Wars By Richard Hasen - In his book, The Voting Wars, Richard Hasen argues that parties involved in election reform issues generally fall into one of two groups: one focused on removing any potential fraudulent votes, and the other focused on expanding .
Introduction “I am very grateful to BPP Law School for giving me a forum to look at some current issue of political and legal interest. For this afternoon I have chosen the relationship between.
A man was sitting at home. It happened to be an Election Day. He sat watching TV as a public commercial came on. The woman on the commercial said, “Vote! Take the opportunity to use the gift our country gave us. The man said, “I don’t need to vote. My man will win.” Sadly his man did not wi. Introductory note (a) General Duty to Give Evidence.
A privilege is an exception to the general duty of a witness to offer evidence. Commonwealth benjaminpohle.comti, Mass. 1, 5 . Division of the Assembly, and other Motions relating to Voting.A Division of the Assembly 1 may be called for, without obtaining the floor, at any time after the question has been put, even after the vote has been announced and another has the floor, provided the vote was taken viva voce, or by show of hands, and it is called for before another motion has been made.