Hi everyone,
Here is the first draft of my paper on measuring democracy! I chose the Middle East and used 3 datasets provided to us. I’m looking forward to reading other peoples’ essays!
There is a website that I frequent because it puts up a lot of interesting information in fun graphs, infographics and pictures. Information is Beautiful posts a wide range of topics from China’s censorship to illegal drugs. The following image is from their “Left vs Right (World)” post, outlining the basic gist of the left-wing and right-wing political ideologies.
There is only so much that you can include in a diagram trying to distinguish the political left from right. This is a generic point to start understanding the main differences between the two sides but we need to keep in mind that there are many degrees of variation on political views (even within the same one). This diagram makes the right-wing way of thinking to be completely cold, calculated and rational, while the left-wing ideas promote more positive views on humanity. While it is true that the right-wing tends to support war, morals and discipline, it should be understood that left-wing can have corruption, discipline and rules.
And what about the people that do not fall strictly into one wing or another? When I was younger and just beginning to learn about political terms and ideas, I was massively confused. What the media taught me was that (I watched a lot of US politics on CNN) you are either left or right. There I stood, utterly confused at how I could possibly believe in personal AND economic freedom supported by a minimal government role in each aspect. For example, on this graph, I agree with the leftist thought of being progressive and supporting personal freedom. However, I also believe in the right wing ideals of non-interference in society, low taxes, and economic freedom.Yet, I do not believe in organized religion and I fully support gay and abortion rights.
What this diagram shows is that many of us are still stuck in a dichotomous way of thinking, when there are eons of possibilities for a political perspective. Left and right are the most basic division in politics but that should not encourage or pressure people to conform to simply one side or another.
If you have friends from Hong Kong or mainland China, you should have realized that there is some cultural tension between the two regions. Although people from both regions are Chinese, there seems to be a degree of racism between the two populations. Some of my friends from Hong Kong would smirk at someone squatting on a sidewalk and say, “He must be a mainlander.” Through my personal observations, I noticed that they degrade each other and take pride in the fact that they are not the other.
Hong Kong was a former British colony that was returned to China only 15 years ago. It’s evident that the Western culture still thrives in Hong Kong – more than in mainland China – like how it allows freedom of speech and practices rule of law. Half the members of the Hong Kong legislature are elected, while the leader is chosen by a pro-Beijing committee. Because of these cultural and political differences, Hong Kongers undoubtedly feel that they have a separate identity apart from the Chinese.
The latest dispute arose when a mainland tourist ate and spilled noodles on a Hong Kong subway, which bans food on the trains. It’s easy to think that the Hong Kong residents again saw this as a typical act by someone from a less Westernized society. This was most likely a resurge in the Hong Kong’s attitude towards a separate identity.
It should be accepted that Hong Kongers want to maintain their own identity. What good will it do to force Hong Kong to assimilate to the rest of China? It will only create more hatred and conflict, and urge Hong Kong to try to break away even harder. Beijing does have economic control over the global financial city of Hong Kong, and I’m sure it never wants to lose that.
China needs to realize that a cultural and political identity cannot suddenly be overturned, and that if it wants to keep Hong Kong a satisfied region within its borders, it should accept the differences that naturally exist.
Back in November, 2008, California introduced a referendum known as Proposition 8 that banned same-sex unions. Two years later, it was overturned by a court ruling. And now, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says that the initial Proposition is unconstitutional.
Proposition 8 originally stated that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California”. Then, two same-sex couples challenged the statement because it violated their right to equal protection. The 2010 overturning of the ban claimed that Proposition 8 was a violation of civil rights.
My first reaction to the latest news on this issue? About time. It surprises and angers me how people can be so ignorant to ban a civil union between two people that love each other. Why should the government, or any other people, have the right to decide whether or not a couple can be recognized as a union? The opponents of gay marriage argue that same-sex marriage can be dangerous to society by producing gay children, or that it is unnatural and unholy. They pass judgment on gay people and the gay community based on their prejudices on what should be the norm in our culture. Yes, heterosexuality is still a dominating social norm but we need to change that and accept those that are constantly denied freedoms and marginalized. Gay people don’t necessarily produce gay children, just as a heterosexual couple can produce a homosexual child. There is absolutely no reason to think that allowing same-sex marriage will harm society. If anything, lifting the ban will encourage openness and development of diversity among us. And, really, why should straight people care whether someone they choose not to support or accept wants to marry someone they love? Discrimination of gay people and banning gay marriage is just as digressive and destructive as racism, religious intolerance, sexism, and anything you can think of.
I hope that more states move in the direction of legalizing gay marriage.
I will be researching on the Middle East region, particularly because there is a lot of political unrest happening there currently. It is one of the main regions of the world that has seen endless struggle to establish democracies. I think it will be interesting to look at measures on democracy in some of the countries in this region – especially because I have always been intrigued by the history and politics of Middle East!
Fidel Castro unveiled a two-volume memoir of his life, titled “Fidel Castro Ruz: Guerilla of Time”. The books include everything Castro could remember from his infancy to the eve of the Cuban Revolution victory in December, 1958. Yesterday, he presented his 1000-page work for six hours to the press.
Castro said he is “willing to do everything possible to share everything I remember well”. He is being encouraged to continue writing and overcome the difficulties of remembering the past.
This memoir certainly will be an interesting read; the leader of the Cuban Revolution and the former Cuban president of 50 years must have a lot of insightful stories to share. I cannot even fathom what it would be like to be part of such a historic event and be a prominent figure in world politics. There is no doubt that Castro has seen and experienced a myriad things – both good and bad – that will affect the reader in one way or another.
There are lots of politicians who simply write memoirs to get their name out and facilitate their political agenda. Would Castro be one of them? I don’t think so, seeing as he is 85 years old and handed over his presidency to his brother in 2008. He knows he is aging and he must show the life he lived and the disastrous world from his perspective.
I define democracy as a system of government that involves freedoms, liberties, fairness, and competition. I believe that these four aspects of political life and participation are essential to forming a democracy.
Freedom
In a true democracy, citizens have the freedoms. A true democracy protects these freedoms, and, in turn, protects the citizens from doing harm or being harmed. A democracy values each individual in society, because a democratic government depends upon its citizens. Under a democratic system, people have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to choose lifestyles and options without government intervention or suppression. I believe that a true democracy would give people the freedom to build their own lifestyle, without constantly oppressing the people to follow certain standards or make certain choices.
Liberties
A true democracy would not be corrupt. A just democratic system provides its citizens with liberties. The government is definitely not a dictatorship, but rather one that is formed by the choices that people make. It is up to the people to decide what political party or leader takes charge. A democracy values individual liberty – allowing people to live as they wish. Liberty is a fundamental principle of democracy because it respects human rights. Citizens of a democracy enjoy both positive and negative liberties (freedom to and freedom from) and, essentially, their human rights are protected and practiced this way.
Fairness
There must be elections in any democracy, but a true democracy ensures that the elections are completely fair. Elections in a real democracy directly reflect the voters’ choices – where the voters are all adult citizens without exception. Elections are never manipulated or involve fraud. A true democracy shows fairness in all political processes and decision-making. In addition, people are treated justly and equally. Everybody is subject to the same rule of law; nobody is better or worse, or more privileged or less. Justice is fairly practiced among all citizens.
Competition
Pluralism is an important aspect of democracy. A true democracy expects competition because there is not one political party or actor that practices monopoly. Therefore, a multiplicity of actors have to be present. Democracy means observing multiple aspects, perspectives and choices in the political realm. There should never be one single actor that far exceeds all others. Politics is inevitably varied in terms of how it is practiced, who practices it, and what ideals it encompasses. Thus, plurality is a very important aspect that creates competition, which is needed for a true democracy.
Democracy is a very difficult concept to define. There still is no concrete definition of democracy, but many people have attempted to provide a comprehensive, yet precise and concise, definition of it. This has resulted in both conceptual stretching and conceptual differentiation (too vague or too specific). I acknowledge the difficulty of making an accurate definition of democracy – so I have provided a statement on what democracy is. These four concepts (freedom, liberty, fairness, and competition) are essential to establishing a true democracy.
The uprising against the Syrian government that started in March 2011 does not seem like it will improve anytime soon. Twenty people were killed yesterday, adding to some 5,000 people that have died since March.
Last week, the Arab League stepped forward in trying to deal with this devastating situation in Syria, and asked the United Nations to cooperate. However, the U.N. Security Council struggled to reach an agreement on the draft resolution that attempts to convince the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down. Most nations supported the draft resolution, except China and Russia. China and Russia believe that initiating talks with Syria would be more effective than the resolution that calls al-Assad to transfer his power. Russia even made its own resolution that places blame not just on the regime but also on the opposing protestors. This is no surprise, considering that Russia has about $20 billion worth of investments in Syria. In addition, Syria has bought about $4 billion worth of weapons from Russia.
It seems like the international community will have a tough time reaching an agreement on Syria. The Arab League is pressuring Syria to stop violent killings of civilians, but Syria firmly believes that the Arab League is not the “Arab League” without Syria. The Security Council will never pass a resolution as long as China and Russia have veto powers – unless it finds a way to work around the differences and find solutions to please the two Syrian allies. Violence in Syria is only getting worse by day, because civilians are using more aggression in retaliation to government force.
This is a quick 5-minute video that explains the difference between Great Britain, United Kingdom, and England, along with the Commonwealth and British Territories – mixed with some history!
I’m sure that we, as political science students, have mixed the terms Great Britain and United Kingdom in many of their essays (I hope I’m not the only one) and now I finally understand which term to use in which context! Watching this video reminded me of how great the British Empire used to be. There are still eons of mini-islands and cities that are considered British Territories or Dependencies…in addition to the Commonwealth around the world.
How many people in the English-speaking world do you think actually already knew this difference?
Enjoy.
Okay, I know I’ve blogged a couple times already about the GOP presidential race, but I just keep finding interesting and/or relevant issues from it that I can’t help but blog about them.
The latest topic revolves around the American policy in Cuba. Since 1960, the U.S. had an embargo against Cuba titled “Cuban Democracy Act.” This Act reflects the postbellum American view of global democratization. The U.S. intends to maintain this embargo until Cuba decides to move in the direction of establishing a democracy and respecting human rights.
In the Florida GOP primary debates, the U.S. foreign policy on Cuba was a hot subject — mostly because the state of Florida has a lot of Cuban voters who can sway the Republican voting polls. Most candidates seemed to just reiterate the American objective in Cuba: to leave Cuba in isolation and avoid diplomatic talks until the Castro regime falls and Cubans are finally free.
Newt Gingrich wants harsher treatment of Cuba, aggressively persuading Cuba to change its domestic policies on human rights. He said that America should actively reach out to all the Cubans to help them fight against the current regime, and to ensure that a dictatorship is no longer a possibility.
Rick Santorum interestingly stated that he would treat Cuba just the same – even if Cuba were as far as China. He insisted that the embargo be kept to show that the “American” hemisphere should all be on the U.S. side. He said that there should be absolutely no aid or interaction with Cuba unless Cuba gets rid of the Castro tyranny.
Do these men realize what they are saying? The past half-century of embargo against Cuba has not changed Cuba the way American wanted it to, nor did it give Cuba any incentive to change. America opened up to Russia and China – the other Communist countries that the U.S. was so against. Why can’t the U.S. open up to Cuba? Perhaps because Cuba does not propose any economic benefits to the U.S. like Russia and China does. Nonetheless, keeping Cuba far and giving it cold treatment has not benefited America much – if at all.
I liked that Ron Paul thinks differently than the rest of the candidates. He said that the Cuban isolation must end, and America needs to open up trade relations with Cuba. He said that it is no longer 1962 – countries need to talk to each other instead of using force or intimidation. Placing sanctions against nations and using aggression aren’t the democratic principles that America wants to exemplify. It’s time that the U.S. reflected upon its foreign policy in Cuba and made some progress forward.
