Political Exclusion : A Universal Norm

Direct democracy is a form of government in which all laws are created by a general vote of society. This means that political decisions are put forward to the people as they are the ones who are going to be directly affected by the outcome of the decision. An example of direct democracy used occasionally in society is referendums. A referendum is a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision. Within this essay I am going to be arguing whether direct democracy should be used more widely by weighing up the

Speaking of polls as a basis of democracy, it is strongly advisable to make a decision by establishing a background and an impenetrable ceiling constantly in order to evade the formation of resentful groups, namely, which could be about half of the voters. This makes the majority less inclining to reconciliation and balancing between interests. If there is no established tradition with the individuals that the opinion of the majority is correct, they should sacrifice their interests on the basis of other considerations of interest. Belonging to a party could be the only way for an individual to have the freedom or to practice a political activity to contribute through the leader of the party that dominates the party.

From the early 1840s to the present day, a democracy can be described as a flawed establishment which has been shaped by the power of wealth and control, complex social relations, and most importantly the people’s desire to live a fulfilling life. Throughout this time period the principles of democracy, such as equality, protection of the people’s interest, and promotion of human rights were shifting in order to increase the democracy efficiency. Therefore the continued importance of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and Constitution remain significant since, in American today, democracy is a system that is continuously being shaped by the people within it.

Since the dawn of human civilization, individuals have been constantly immersed in conflict with each other. Whether these conflicts stemmed from socio-economic inequalities, political disputes, property rights, religious disagreements, or any other contentious matter, the creation of human governments has necessarily been to handle, organize, and resolve conflicts between people within communities in the least destructive manner possible. Governments act as a formal instrument through which individuals in a society can agree upon shared rules, solve problems, and engage in cooperative behavior, and it helps avoid the severe repercussions resulting from revolutionary social upheaval. The purpose of government – as spelled out in the Preamble of the Constitution – is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” While countless forms of government have sprung up over the centuries, only one has been resilient enough and has had the pervasive influence necessary to stand the test of time: democracy. While there are many different types of democracies, this paper will focus on liberal democracy specifically. A liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy that operates under the paradigm of classical liberalism. According to the Center for Research on Globalization, liberal democracy is defined as:

There are two types of democracies, direct democracy and representative democracy. As one would expect, the two are very similar. Direct democracy and representative democracy are both systems of government in which power lies with the people whom are govern though the power of voting. The power of voting is how both systems emphasis the importance of people’s rights. There is also a common sense of self-empowerment to the people being govern in both types of government due to this right. Furthermore, there is a mutual prominence towards majority rule in the two systems.

The research will examine voting rights in relation to voting right inequalities and the society’s effort to have an all minority groups included in the civic process. The research will look into several historical factors that contributed to voting rights inequalities and how the society has evolved to solve issues related to the right to vote.

It is extremely important to protect the rights of the minority people in order to be able to live in a democracy. One of the basis that a democracy follows by is the ability to protect the rights of the minorities, so that everyone’s voice can be heard and respected.

Social exclusion has made major influence on politics from the late 1990s (Stephenson 2007). Secrétaire d’Etat a l’Action sociale of the French government, René Lenoir is said to have used the term ‘social exclusion’ in publications over twenty five years ago. Since then has had a major impact on explanations of individuals who feel separated from society especially through poverty and deprivation (Sen, 2000). Silver (1995) also suggests that individuals who feel socially excluded may be lacking of basic needs of ‘livelihood’ and but not limited to, participating in democratic agendas.

Richard Bellamy says that our dissatisfaction with our current democracy stems from our comparison with the “ideal” democracy we have imagined. Our “ideal” democracy would be direct participatory, meaning everyone is equally involved in making law. Also, there is no prejudice or private interest in this imaginary democracy. As nice as that system of government may sound, with it come a lot of problems. First of all, to vote on all decisions is too time-consuming and would be too much of a commitment expected from the citizens. Next, people can only rule themselves if they can come to a unanimous conclusion on every decision they have to make. If this doesn’t happen, the minority of voters will be ruled by the majority anyways. A more practical

Deliberative democracy is many things, it allows for development of new ideas, while establishing long lasting results. It is localism. Localism is how people from the surrounding area come together to discuss and change the future of a certain part of their community. One example of this is in the video that as played in class. The community in Canada saw that mental health was a serious issue between themselves and other members. To combat this problem they formed a collective to help set a foundation for the future, to provide support and an overall health plan. People from the community came together at feasts, workshops, radio any way to receive the most input from the

In Chapter 1 Perrin analyzes the history of democracy and focuses on the fact that democracy has been developed in different places and at different times therefore it has been interpreted many different ways throughout history. He uses examples of the years 1988 to 1990 and how in simply two years democracy had dramatically changed. In chapters 2 and 3 he draws his focus more on representation. In Chapter 2 Perrin addresses that in order to understand democracy people need to be publicly involved in it. Although Perrin discusses the importance of participating in voting and being informed he also makes it clear that democratic participation goes beyond just voting. Chapter 3 continues on a similar concept but centers on the electoral system and legislative representation and how they shape the public. Perrin states that, “Citizens don’t (usually) just naturally deliberate. Rather they do so when forums and opportunities exist to shape and nurture deliberation” (Perrin, 82). The electoral systems are structures that citizens use to trust to manage the aggregation of public opinion across differences of time and

The majority of the students interviewed feel that there are key aspects of democracy that demonstrate the instability within the government. The first aspect is the inaccurate level of inclusivity in the United State’s government. Democracy was built on the ideals of representation for all people, including all of the diverse groups of citizens. The interviewees mostly made the consensus that people of low-income levels or in minority groups have less representation in the U.S. democracy. “Our government is a majority of white men who are relatively well financed and educated” (Interview, Anna). Having a high income gives you a disproportionate amount of power over low-income families who tend to be a minority. The two outliers in the data thought that democracy is a completely inclusive form of government. They expressed that all citizens have the right to vote, and it is their responsibility to make the effort to go to the polls. In their interviews, the outliers did not consider adverse effects experienced by certain socioeconomic and minority groups that might discourage them to be represented by the government.

Although there are a number of sound propositions brought forth in Kymlicka’s section Freedom and Culture, his argument concerning liberalism and freedom is of particular interest. To be clear, Kymlicka seeks to suggest that liberals ought to recognize the importance of citizen’s membership with respect to their own societal culture because of the role it plays in enabling meaningful individual choice and in supporting self-identity. In short, he wishes to show that minority rights are not only consistent with individual freedom, but that they actually promote it.

During elections in countries with corrupt governments, for example, it has to be decided whether the guarantee of every individual’s right to vote or who wins is more important. (Wong, Lecture, October 24) Moreover, deep divides continue to exist and separate groups in democratic countries by race, religion, language, and class, resulting in tension and, in some cases, oppression. Thus democracy, despite its emphasis on liberty, equality and plurality, can still be problematic.

Moreover, instating the right to choose also facilitates the incentive for people to speak out against an unruly leader. When a large mass of civilians disagrees or is concerned with a party’s implementation of policies, they can extract their title from them. Just because a party is elected, does not mean that they will remain in power for the entire duration originally allotted to them. The presence of foreseeable change is crucial to a societies degree of satisfaction associated with their current governmental system. Alteration gives democracy the upper hand. For example, in Spain in 1982, when Prime Minister Leopolodo Calvo Sotelo completely terminated the party that supported what the people wanted, the people in office forcibly made him resign.