Spineless Citizens and Corrupt Politicians Illustrated in Ibsen's An Enemy of the People

Though a democratic government is great in theory, without educated and capable voters it’s potentially inefficient and incompetent. However, Athenian democracy thrives due to an informed public. Accordingly, so does the society it governs. “Our public men have, besides politics, their private affairs to attend to, and our ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters; for, unlike any other nation, regarding him who takes no part in these duties not as unambitious but as useless, we Athenians are able to judge at all events if we cannot

Also, Hairston threatens to tell the town about Henry’s father being sick in the hospital because of his mental illness. This tactic is effective because it makes Henry believe he has no other option and thinks he has to listen to Mr. Hairston. It puts him in a very tough situation that can lead to conflict making either decision. To conclude, Mr. Hairston proposes that Henry destroy the village using three effective tactics. All three try to convince the young boy to do so and this leaves him with a very difficult decision in the

Senator Smith felt terrible after that experience and confronted Joseph Paine how he felt. Mr. Paine explained that he was new and that it would take no time to start doing something that carries weight. Mr. Paine encouraged Smith to write his own legislation and present it to the Senate. This filled Mr. Smith with purpose, so he began to work on his legislation. He needed Ms. Saunders help though, and she didn’t think much of him because he was “too sappy”. His idea was to make a boy’s camp in the summer so they could experience the outdoors and each other coming from different places. The only problem was that the same place that he wanted the camp was where a dam was to be built, part of the bill that would benefit the group of people, and Ms. Saunders realized that this would cause problems.

Despite being one of the oldest and most consistently stable democracies in the Western world, the American government, and American democracy as a whole, has frequently come under fire in recent years. Whether it is political parties, pundits, bloggers or citizens, Americans and non-Americans are all lining up to take shots at what they diagnose as a storied democracy crumbling before their eyes. Two of Robert Dahl’s criteria for a healthy democracy are enlightened understanding: are citizens able to acquire the political information necessary to participate in their own democracy, and control of the agenda: do the American senators and members of congress have exclusive and

Singer’s premise that educated and ethical citizens are the solution to a repressive government is a strong, yet controversial claim. However, I believe that the reality of this statement relies on human nature, something that can be unpredictable. Many governments have covered up their actions in order to blind the public to the corruption and evil that has taken part in, as well as to retain their power over their people. Singer argues that a

The serenity of the village is the direct representation of the negligence of everyone in it towards

The American public as a whole, however, is wise and acquires political knowledge from more informed sources. James Surowiecki asserts in The Wisdom of Crowds that individuals can be impolitic; however, groups can reach wise decisions. Surowiecki claims, “Even if most people within a group are not especially well-informed or rational, it can still reach a collectively wise decision.” Surowiecki’s argument illustrates that a national referendum would thwart the ill-informed nature of the American voter as a national referendum is a collective decision. American voters can be irrational and ill-informed; nevertheless, most American voters acquire their political knowledge from more educated sources. The acquisition of political knowledge from more well-informed sources undermines the irrational nature of the American voter. Martin Gilens argues in “Two- Thirds Full? Citizen Competence and Democratic Governance” that cue taking enables ill-informed citizens to make a decision on a controversial issue. Gilens contends, “Taking cues from more knowledge elites or acquaintances is a sensible strategy for citizens who lack the ability or inclination to gather the information needed to formulate a preference on a given policy issue.” The collective wisdom of the American public and cue taking enable American voters to overcome their ignorance of politics and past political

At the end of the story on pg. (152) Figure one says, “Just stop a few machines and radios and telephones and lawn mowers… throw them into darkness for a few hours and then you just sit back and watch." The Figure while saying this intended this to mean that all they did was take away their things and watch the town destroy themselves so that the people would be the only criminals. Figure one says something again on pg.(152) he says, “They pick the most dangerous enemy they can find… and it’s themselves.” This is truly what happens the people pick the most dangerous thing they can find and they start killing each

If the population is kept in the dark of what is happening in their own country, then they cannot be expected to play an educated role in their society. For example, during elections the citizens are supposed to choose a new individual to run their town, state, or nation, but they cannot truly convey who they want if they do not know anything about the candidates. That is because “elections can express the will of the people only if the people are reasonably well informed about the issues on which they base their votes” (Singer 467). The citizens need to be informed so they can make imperative decisions that not only affect them but others in the general public as well. It is vital as “‘decision-making that is based upon lies or ignorance can’t lead to a good conclusion’” (Singer 467). If someone were to withhold significant knowledge from the community for some obscure reason, that could end up having a detrimental effect on the

In the era of the contemporary United States, a country that has had the longest standing democracy, we are used to thinking very highly of its system. However, throughout our history, there have been a couple of critics to the system of democracy. It comes as no surprise that democracy does have its issues. One of the first pieces of literature where democracy was mentioned and analyzed at a deeper level was The Republic by Plato. This ancient Greek philosopher did not completely agree with democracy, regardless of the fact that ancient Athens was the first civilization that gave rise to it. In fact, in a numerical list that he composes on which are the best ways of ruling, Plato puts democracy at one of the lowest levels. In order, Plato’s list of types of government from most desirable to least desirable looks like this: 1.) Republic (The ideal city) 2.) Timocracy 3.) Oligarchy 4.) Democracy 5.) Tyranny. Additionally, In The Republic, Plato tells us his beliefs and values on certain aspects of life through the eyes of Socrates. So, even though Plato himself does not appear in The Republic and instead Socrates does, nonetheless, Plato and Socrates shared the same ideology when it came to democracy. As we know, Plato did not agree with democracy. As a result, in this paper, I will explore the greatest intellectual strengths and weaknesses of Plato’s view on democracy.

In the case that politicians do not live up to the ideals and criteria they were chosen for, a merit of democracy is that it allows the citizenry to punish these officials – not necessarily through extreme forms like impeachment, but perhaps by simply electing someone else in the forthcoming election. While, as previously addressed, not all participants in the election process vote based on truthful information, some citizens do. It must be remembered that not only those in authority

Democracy is a unique type of government, and the purpose of this essay is to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses that a democratic government provides. I will detail that many components of this type of society are both strengths and weakness as each component has beneficial aspects as well as unavoidable pitfalls.

Democracy is often referred to as the rule of the many, but Aristotle called this definition incomplete. In his book “Politics”, he explained that in a city if the majorities are aristocrats and if they have political authority, then it is an aristocracy not a democracy. He therefore defined democracy as when “free people have authority and Oligarchy as when the wealthy have it” (1290b). Plato viewed Democracy as a flawed system with too much inefficiency that would make any implementation of a true democracy not worth it. While Aristotle viewed democracy as a system that could work if it is limited to certain restrictions and if it is the regime that best fits the culture of the people to be governed. In this essay it will be argued that Plato’s view on democracy as a flawed system is more prevalent or more compelling if the current political arena around the world is observed.

one essential conviction, expressed in the word democracy itself: that power should be in the hands of the people. Although democracy today has been slightly inefficient in this idea, with the wealthy, elite class challenging this right, “it nevertheless claims for itself a fundamental validity that no other kind of society shares….” To completely understand the structure of democracy, one must return to the roots of the practice itself, and examine the origins in ancient Greece, the expansion in the Roman Empire, and how these practices combined make what we recognize as today’s democratic government.

Democracy and its critics is a political science book written by Robert Dahl In 1989 and published by Yale University Press in America. The book looks at the assumptions of the democratic theory and is able to test them in relation to the questions raised by critics. Thereafter, Dahl suggests the ways in which the states must move towards improving their democracy.