Democracy Is Not An Exception

Some long standing societies have failed to become democratic, even with popular support for such a political system for many different reasons. One, tradition and change is hard. Some states have such a thick religious, cultural, etc. history that they do not know how to incorporate democracy with what their state has, needs and wants. Two, they do not want a democracy. They want to be different and try something new to become better or even equal to the presence that the United States used to play as the main actor of politics worldwide. They see the United States diminishing in ways that it does not wish to, so it does not go with the democracy route. Three, some leaders may find that fear works better than anything else. Isolating people

In all nations of the world, there is a Constitution that is suppose to be a guide on all the aspects of life. The Constitution guarantees and protects the rights of citizens. The United States of America is one of many nations that have tried in the past to try to uphold democracy through the Constitution. The main question that has been a major area of concern is whether the Constitution upholds a “true” democracy or created more of a republic system. Although our government now is trying to become more towards a democratic system, when the Framers created the Constitution they had the intentions in building a more republican democracy. According to an article written by Alan Keyes, the word “democracy” is not even stated within the Constitution and this is because a democracy did not stand for what the Founding Fathers wanted for our constitutional government “democracy does not achieve what America’s Founders understood to be the essential purpose of constitutional government” (Keyes, 2016).

Democracy: a government by the people, in which citizens rule either directly or through elected representatives - the latter description more relevant to today’s societies. Quite evidently, democracy is not perfect; like any other political system, it is subject to a plethora of flaws. For instance, it is no secret that voters tend to make illogical decisions – not out of sheer malice, but as a result of being wrongly informed. Politicians also make erroneous choices, whether they do so because they are dishonest or simply out of touch with the true will of their constituents. Further, anyone who has studied the government of a parliamentary democracy knows gerrymandering can have a powerful say in determining elections. Despite these and

Before going too far, by new technologies, this essay focuses on new, computer-and-internet based media technologies as the fact that they play an important role in widening and strengthening information access that is significant to democracy (Barber, 2003). There are numbers of these types of technologies including, but not limited to, social media, online surveys, voting and deliberative polling, internet-based focus groups, and online petitions (Keane, 2009). Their emergence is highly supported by various

Over the years the media has made citizens major role players in politics. Ross Perot opened eyes by putting the 1992 Election in the media and thereby allowing voters to become directly involved in politics. The Internet, the new form of mass media “has turned into a major political and media industry” (Grossman 16). Because of the rise the Internet has taken, the idea of direct democracy has risen. The foundation of direct democracy is in self-government. The claim is that the presence of the Internet will increase citizens’ involvement in political issues by allowing them access to more information. This is significant because it takes a look at the impact of technology on society and politics, as well by

In Here Comes Everybody, Shirky suggests that digital tools enhance democracy, (Shirky, 2008) and this paradigm shift indicates that individual voices can be heard in the digital era; for instance, the use of social media platforms including status-posting on Facebook and tweeting on Twitter. Moreover, the mounting popularity of online social movements deserves a careful examination. Castell believes that the digital social networks are decisive tools which facilitated modern-day movements, and that the Internet empowers people to exchange emotions, which then become the impetus that transform collective feelings into collective actions. (Castells 2012, pp. 1-19) In the light of the Arab Spring, it is evident that the protest organizers had strong online presence, and the Internet acted as a bridge from the activist core to the mass publics. While this echoes with Castells’ idea of the creation of counter power and the Internet being the cradle of society communicative autonomy (Castells 2012, p. 1-18), the analysis of the Arab Spring suggests that this concept could be somewhat reductive. In the wave of protests, the megaphone effect exceeded all the other results brought by the social media. According to research, majority of the online clicks came from outside of the stakeholder countries – this may illustrate how the Internet is drawing external attention instead of being the nucleus

This is achieved through the influence of the media among all people. In accordance to Shelley Boulianne in an article written by John Wihbey it was observed that citizens who “consume more news media have a greater probability of being civically and politically engaged.” Meaning that social media, as used by e-activism can help incorporate more people into the political atmosphere of the United States. Furthermore, Boulianne concludes “social media plays a positive role in citizens’ participation.” This in theory could solve the problem of uneven participation rates, seeing as the use of social media affects more of the population and an extended variety of

In retrospect, the uprising of new media has flaws and loop holes that have the ability to undermine the authenticity of public freedom. This may be achieved through rhetorical manipulation. Democracy is essential in representing the rights and freedom of individuals. Caudill (2008) discusses a true key in achieving authentic democracy is access to truthful information. Globally it is evident that this is not the case when comparing countries such as Australia to Tunisia, not all governments provide transparency to its publics. Government and supra-state policies vary worldwide and impact individuals differently. When looking at the example of Tunisia, the government’s inability to effectively communicate with its country resulted in ongoing political unrest. It is evident how tools such as social media can reach out and impact countries such as these with democratic

Through the 18th and 19th centuries, theorists came to define Civil Society as a network of active voluntary associations and organizations independent of the state that came together for collective action and cooperation, particularly against state abuse of people’s freedoms and rights. A key underlying aspect of this conventional definition is, as is emphasized by Tocqueville- a dense network of associations functioning via face to face interaction on a more or less permanent basis. The 21st century however introduces a new variable in this equation which, some scholars argue, can drastically change the way civil society is theorized to function- Social Media. Social media has emerged as a catalyst in modern day struggles for democracy and

Technology has opened the door to a new world where our technological advancements have ultimately created the tools that are necessary to enhance our lifestyles and bring immediate change to society. In the past, society was not thoroughly developed. In fact, many individuals struggled in methods of communication. Technology has played an immense role in our development and bringing change to our lives. As our society has continued developing, technology has unfolded rapidly introducing methods that have expanded our scientific field, but most importantly it has created stronger methods of communication where society is able to interact with any individual and share a message. In the articles, Small Change and Democracy in Cyberspace, we explore the author’s perspective towards technology and its impact on social

The core idea is that whether citizens can participate in the political process and how much influence it has on the political agenda. Although participation is the key element in democracy, it has yet achieved its perfection in today’s political system. Furthermore, even though Mueller argued that participation such as election are not essential, with digitized democracy in practice, there are endless of ways for citizens to participate. Unlike Mueller, Barber argued that citizens’ participation is the key factor, and that “[s]trong democracy is defined by politics in the participatory mode: literally, it is self-government by citizens rather than representative government in the name of citizens” (Barber 151).

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

The United States government [institution that creates laws and policies that guide the people it is appointed over (Harrison, 9)] was established and built on the idea to become a democracy [structure of government where policies are created based on popular opinion of the people (Harrison, p. 14)] by our forefathers as explained in our constitution. However, our understanding of how a democracy should work may not be the reality of how it does work in our current society. On the surface, the U.S. strives to function as a democracy, but with further understanding, can be perceived as functioning closer to an oligarchy [government in which a small group hold the political power (Harrison, p.

In contemporary New Zealand, over eighty percent of households have access to the Internet. Technology permeates almost all aspects of our cultural lives, so developments in technology can have immense consequences on the way we think, behave and interact. Political culture is not free from the influence of technology. From the printing press, television and now the digital tools utilised in modern New Zealand, technology has helped to shape our political culture. This essay will analyse the way that digital technology, specifically online social media, has impacted political engagement in New Zealand. It is proposed that digital technology has shaped the political culture in New Zealand by encouraging participation, but this new participation is largely superficial. In order to fully examine this proposition, it is imperative to firstly define the concepts of political culture, digital technology and online social media. Following this, new methods of political participation allowed by online tools will be analysed, to determine how they are influencing peoples’ political behaviour. Blogging will be the focal method of this analysis. Finally, conclusions will be drawn on these discussions; in order to determine the way that online social media has transformed and shaped the political behaviour.

Being part of a democracy means that the majority will prevail over the minority with no written constitution or rules to keep the minority from being over powered. Where as a republic has a written constitution for rules that are used to keep the majority from overpowering the minority.  Just defining these two words one can say being apart of a republic seems more fair than a democracy, since there are rules that everyone must follow to keep everything fair and just. In this day in age it just seems that the rules are pushed aside and either party that is in charge can just do as they please. If our way of life were actually followed by the constitution I am all for being a republic. But we all know that it isn’t something that is followed all the time no matter what. So let’s find out which one is better than the two a democracy or a republic.