Month: March 2012

The Internet and democracy are interrelated in many more ways than we realize. As we witness unprecedented technological advancement in our time, we must ask ourselves: how exactly does this breakthrough affect democracy? Some people think that technology has a positive impact on achieving democratic ideals, but I beg to differ. I think that technology actually does more harm than good.

In a quick glance, the Internet may seem like a great tool to engage anybody from anywhere in the world. It’s marked by the era of cosmopolitanism, where people are communicating and acting at a global level. It may seem as though Internet is helping democracy by encouraging and allowing citizenship participation in international affairs and other matters. However, the wide use of Internet has not necessarily linked every part of the world, as people often tend to presume. The gap between the wealthy and developing nations is only steadily increasing, and the Internet still remains a privilege accessible to a small portion of the world population.

There are many social networking sites and forums on the Internet that allows people to have a direct connection to whatever they are pursuing in the digital world. This changes what people expect from democratic participation. With the speed and availability of content and sharing information, people generally want to put their two cents directly to anything of their interest. Because of their familiarity with the Internet world, they will expect institutions to act the same way as the Internet – fast, efficient, approachable, and made solely by their direct participation. However, it is unrealistic – and possibly dangerous – to have such an expectation because democracy in the real world does not work that way. Being used to the convenience that the Internet brings to our lifestyle, people are less likely to actively do something to build a more direct participation as citizens – instead, the Internet helps us become lazy and only expect as we stare at our computer screens.

Secondly, the Internet has tons of platforms for people to make coalitions and promote interest groups. This can seem encouraging because it reinforces the plurality of political entities and ideas that exist in the world. However – just like any bureaucratic procedures and policymaking – a high number of political actors does not always yield high efficiency. Like the analogy that a ship will sink with too many captains, the presence of too many political groups and forums can actually diverge from the goal of practicing effective politics. Information can get lost, people spend more time arguing against others than promoting their agenda, and not every group is represented equally. The Internet world is similar to the real one in that, sometimes, unfortunately, those with money and power have the loudest voices. Even if anybody can easily get involved and make their voices heard on the Internet, it’s hard to fight through the red tape and censorship and have tangible, widespread presence in this vast digital realm.

Lastly, the Internet isolates people. In contrast to what people generally believe about the Internet – that it connects everybody because there is information everywhere – it, in fact, does the exact opposite. While it is true that there are all kinds of information on the Internet accessible to people, we don’t consider everything. The digital media allows us to easily pick and choose what we see, when we want to see it. This only encourages people to focus only on what they would like to see, or what they are comfortable with. How often would somebody use the Internet to access information that doesn’t serve their interests? Not very often. This can eventually lead to isolation and separation between different people. People need to come together and find commonalities in a democracy – this is the exact opposite of the steps we need to take for establishing democratic ideals.

On a less theoretical note, the Internet serves to help people harm others. For example, terrorists use the Internet to create their own virtual sub-culture and to recruit people. Also, the Internet is another means of attacking the government and threatening the security of the state through hacking and viruses – a method that terrorists have been using. Because of the vastness of the digital world, it is close to impossible to detect every single unlawful action.

I recognize the usefulness of the Internet, but it hinders the kind of cooperation and participation needed to achieve democratic ideals. The digital world can make people have unrealistic expectations of democracy, create too many subgroups that result in loss of focus, and isolate people based on their interests. Can we deny the benefits that the Internet brought us? Of course not. However, the way that we treat the Internet currently serves as a major hindrance to democracy.

As a writer, I like to return to my past writings and see what can be changed. I believe that any written work, as formal as a political science research paper and as casual as a personal blog post, can always use some editing and rewriting. I was glad to find that the mini assignment for this week is polishing a past blog post of our blogs. I sifted through my first few blog posts in “Democracy in the News” because posts in that category generally were derived from other news articles. I knew that I had used less “I”s and personal opinions in the beginning, attempting to ‘report’ stories. Now that I know that the purpose of our blog in this class is to discuss politics from our very own perspectives, there are a few articles I’d like to edit. I chose the one on Arab League and Syria in particular, because I was honestly repulsed by the dryness of the tone and the lack of voice in the writing. I tried to add a more personal tone to the article in general, and began the article with a ‘hook’. This hook serves to capture the reader’s attention and give them a preview on what the rest of the post will be about.  I also changed the structure of some sentences, realizing that I tend to write very looooong sentences with lots of conjunctions. See the original post here.

— edited version.

I’m becoming more concerned as I read more about what the world is doing for Syria. The Arab League nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman gave Syria a deadline of this Thursday to change up its illiberal, undemocratic government. The Arab League nations have a mission in Syria to stop violence against civilians, release political prisoners, seize weapons from the cities, and establish more open travelling for foreigners. They also hope to convince the current Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to transfer his political power to his vice president and form a national unity government. They have made a clear request on forming a new constitutional council and holding parliamentary and presidential elections. I can sense a slight glimpse of hope that the Arab League is being proactive in this matter – because someone had to step up and do something. If the U.N. is failing to do it, it had to be the Arab League.

The League sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon proposing a national unity government. To me, it looks like the Arab League is serious and diplomatic about transitioning Syria into a more liberal democratic country. The Arab nations do not want military intervention, but want to gather international support through the United Nations Security Council. Will this be possible? We know the speed and efficiency at which the United Nations Security Council works – with major veto powers that can stop coalitions and countries from taking action. My guess is that China and Russia may not fully cooperate in the Security Council on this issue of helping the Arab League.

Nonetheless, as it always is with spreading democratic principles, the issue of national sovereignty arises. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said that the Arab League is violating the national sovereignty of Syria by intruding on its domestic matters. We have to ask ourselves, how much is too much then? When there are serious harms inflicted upon the people and foreign relations, I think it is necessary for the international community to step in. Arab League is definitely not trying to decrease Syrian sovereignty, but sees that solving the unhealthy political conditions in Syria is more important than completely letting Syria to be. Ask the international world what is their top priority: sovereignty, or saving the lives of innocent civilians.

Hopefully, the United Nations and the rest of the world will join the Arab League in efforts to deal with the situation in Syria – sooner than later.

This is an article on Rabble.ca on last week’s Canadian Senate approval of Bill C-10: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/mgregus/2012/03/disastrous-consequences-omnibus-crime-bill

Although the topic itself is very interesting because it discusses Bill C-10 on criminal justice, the style of writing is unattractive. The author starts the blog post with a clear statement of her opinion on how the Bill makes Canada a regressive democracy. While it allows the reader to predict what the rest of the article will be about, it is not interesting enough. The first sentence should “hook” the reader, and author Paula Mallea simply provides a generic sentence about Bill C-10 making Canada a worse democracy. Perhaps she could have made a more explicit and concise statement to accord with her strong stance.

Furthermore, most of her sentences seem to be short and choppy. Throughout the entire article, I felt no general flow. From beginning to end, the sentences were similar lengths and stopped abruptly. Some of the sentences are very straightforward, like her statement that “Bill C-10 will result in serious inconsistencies and distortions of the justice system.” Nonetheless there is an overall lack of transitions between paragraphs and conjunctions between sentences.

I especially dislike Paragraph 5, where she attempts to vary her tone of writing. She fills the paragraph with rhetorical questions, and follows them with a “Why?”. If she asks why, she should at least attempt to explain in her own terms. The “Why?” is nothing but a cliffhanger that leaves the reader very unsatisfied moving onto the next paragraph.

While she brings the reader back to her main argument by repeating her stance in the conclusion, her voice seems very detached from the content. It is detached in that it feels as though she wrote multiple sentences on her idea and just put them in order. The lack of flow in her article leaves the reader feeling uncomfortable and unconvinced about her statements – and that just affects her attempt to make a big point.

Here is a blog post from TIME’s Ideas section on the gendered division in sexual responsibility and rights in America:

http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/05/men-have-sex-too/

Erika Christakis does not start the article with her own statement, but a context of what her article will be about. The short sentence in the beginning definitely makes the reader wonder what exactly her stance will be, and captures the reader’s attention. “Male guardians of the female body” is Christakis’ own term to describe the group that she attacks in her article, and this term immediately informs the reader that she will discuss men who think they can decide women’s sexual issues.

Christakis uses a variety of sentences and words. There is a clearly smooth transition between her sentences and her paragraphs, because I do not feel as though I’m jumping from one stepping stone to another on water. Her subtle undertone of sarcasm also keeps the article fun and exciting. Like Mallea, she makes attacks on others, but she does it more effectively. Using words like “outrage” and “folks”, she builds a personal connection to the reader. Describing some American men’s ideas on birth control as “blood boiling” reveals her very own emotions on the issue. She also devotes a paragraph to asking rhetorical questions, but her questions actually makes the reader to ponder about her questions, rather than to feel disconnected and unfulfilled anticipation.

She brings the reader through a wave of attacks and argument against certain men, like Rush Limbaugh, and then finishes her criticism concisely, to-the-point. “Gentlemen, you’re up at bat.” is all she needed to conclude the article because her content was interesting and informative enough. I’m personally a fan of simple conclusions without windy repetitions of the author’s arguments. Christakis successfully conveys her opinion to the reader and engages the reader effectively to her writing.