Do you agree with Churchill's statement that "democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the other forms which have been tried from time to time".
Unit 6 Assignment “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the other forms which have been tried from time to time.” Winston Churchill Part A : Source Analysis Winston Churchill insisted that democracy was the worst political type. This view Winston Churchill as British Prime Minister in the middle of the 20th century. This quotation possess both negative and positive side. On the positive side, he mentioned that democracy is not perfect; this sentence contains meaning that certain government has been changed by introducing democracy. However, it also shows that so far, no government created with democracy is perfect. To create perfect democracy will definitely take some time or it might not even be possible. Firstly, all the citizens must be educated since they have to make decisions on certain government policies. Already in some countries like in Russia, this is one of the biggest reason why they are failing democracy. Secondly, passing a law will require plenty of time because there will be more processes required. The idea behind this quotation is very realistic, because the thoughts behind citizens is not always fairly represented. Democracy system is often called Ochlocracy; a political system in which a mob is the source of control. This word was used to
What is meant by the Clash of Civilisations? What criticisms can be made of Huntingtons thesis and to what extent would you regard them as valid?
What is meant by the Clash of Civilisations? What criticisms can be made of Huntington’s thesis and to what extent would you regard them as valid? “The Clash of Civilisations” a term given by Samuel Huntington to explain thesis about “a new phase” in world politics after the end of the cold war, in which he argues that the greatest divisions among humankind will be between “Islam” and “Western” cultures. Huntington agreed with Fukuyama that the age of ideology has come to the end but he did not believe in “end of history”, arguing that all countries will not accept “liberal democracy and free-trade system”. His belief was that now there would be cultural and religious conflicts, as in the past: “the fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future”. Huntington divided the world into the “major civilizations” – this included Western; Islamic; Japan; Hindu etc. In order to prove his positions he argues that the break up of Yugoslavia; Wars in Chechnya; India and Pakistan conflict and 9/11 clearly show the support of his Clash of Civilization ideas. In his eyes, the emergence of new smaller states and the wars between them show the cultural conflict as well as religious one. Wars in Chechnya, he believes, could be seen as “Jihad Wars” thus Chechens fighting for the Islamic state with Sharia law which, he assumes,
Russia and Free Speech
Faizus Amin Model UN Russia and Free Speech. Topic #5 In a speech in the summer of 2000, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that "Without truly free media Russian democracy will not survive, and we will not succeed in building a civil society." From this statement, Putin claims to form a democratic society in Russia and, in order to do that the mass media would have to be free and independent. Despite this goal, Putin has been severely criticized for his "interventionist approach toward Russia's mass media." So, from the perspective of media, is Russia a democracy or not? Does Russia today have a free press, and can citizens exercise freedom of speech with no restrictions? Firstly, a democracy is defined as being a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies with the voting citizenry, and all decisions are made either by the people themselves or by representatives who act through the consent of the people. In a democratic society, freedom of press guarantees the freedom of speech of citizens through a state constitution. Russia does not have a single publication that is truly independent, while the authorities directly control about 80 percent of Russia's mass-media outlets. In fact, public television and radio are entirely state-run. Recently, three women from a music group call "Pussy Riot" were found guilty and
Why do liberals not believe in unrestricted freedom?
Why do liberals not believe in unrestricted freedom? Liberalism is an ideology that emphasises personal freedoms, but within liberalism itself there are many people who disagree on the limits of said freedom. Some people believe that there should be unrestricted freedom, the freedom to do absolutely anything, whereas most liberals believe that this is bad. Over the course of this essay I am going to discuss why most liberals think this is bad, and whether they are correct in their opinion. The first reason why liberals do not want unrestricted freedom, is as Thomas Hobbs said, it would lead to a society where people feel insecure, and therefore not actually free. People that support unrestricted freedom usually have a very positive outlook on human nature, and they believe that everyone would respect each other’s freedoms, if we lived with unrestricted freedom. This is quite clearly not the case, as can be seen from crimes in every society, proving that not everyone is inherently good. Because of this, if we did live with unrestricted freedoms, then “crime” levels would soar, as there would be nothing stopping people from stealing or killing, therefore people would feel very insecure and unsafe. Another reason why liberals do not want unrestricted freedom is that unrestricted freedom tends to lend itself towards an unjust society, where some are freer than others, as
To what extent is the Labour party still committed to its original principles?
Grace Turner 21st October 2011 ‘To what extent is the Labour party still committed to its original principles?’ The Labour party has often been referred to as a ‘socialist’ party. However, this is misleading. For most of its life – dating back to the eighteenth century, the Labour party has always had less ‘radical’ ideologies than socialism and British ‘socialism’ has always been more moderate than elsewhere in Europe. However, the Labour party abandoned a number of its previous principles in favour of new ones, in order to move to the centre ground and enable the party to compete with the Conservatives. It seems that this was ultimately, a successful strategy as it resulted in Labour winning three general elections and beating the Conservatives. Some people are now of the opinion that the Conservatives have, in fact, moved closer to the centre-ground in order to compete with the New Labour party. Within true socialism, there is the idea that the economy should be based upon ‘production for use’; everything produced is just enough to satisfy human need and demand. Socialism also works to reduce or remove hierarchy. The most radical form of Socialism has been ‘Marxism’. Marxists hold the desire to completely destroy capitalism and its political
Is socialism a relevant ideology in 2012?
Is socialism a relevant ideology in 2012? The definition of socialism is ‘An economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class’. This was a large movement in the mid to late 1900s and was the ideological basis of the early Labour party yet in the 90s however it has lagged in backing and supporters in recent years. A good example of whether socialism is still relevant is to look at Europe where the movement first built up steam. Europe's still have socialist parties, Spain France and Italy are all countries with large socialist parties this large existence of socialist parties shows the ideology still has a large staying power in the world of European politics. However the socialist parties in most countries have failed to make any serious political inroads. In countries where they held power, such as Spain, they were very unpopular. This lack of support for the socialist parties shows that the movement has seemingly lost its appeal as this lack of backing is in stark contrast to the massive support shown toward the Labour party post war who were welcomed into Britain with open arms winning 239 seats and coming into government. This drop in support is indicative of a drop in relevance. Furthermore where socialist parties are in opposition, as in
To what extent have socialists been committed to equality of outcome?
3/12/14 To what extent have socialists been committed to equality of outcome? To a large but not full extent socialists have been committed to equality of outcome. This can be interpreted as ‘absolute’, in Marxist terms where all rewards are distributed equality irrespective of labour. Alternatively, ‘relative’ equality, as endorsed by social democrats, involves the redistribution of wealth through the welfare state and a system of progressive taxation. However in recent years social equality has been substituted by social inclusion in Blair’s Third Way. Here the focus was on “hand ups, not hand outs”, as highlighted by Bill Clinton. Marxists support the principle of absolute equality, arguing that rewards should be distributed equally across society. Social equality underpins community and cooperation. Therefore social equality would come from working together for a common benefit. This would bring about solidarity consequently overriding issues of instability and class conflict. Absolute equality calls for the means of production to be owned by the community under common ownership. This would reduce the inequalities reflected in the unequal structure of society, therefore upholding justice and fairness. Karl Marx believed that absolute equality based on ownership of the means of production would help in the creation of a classless society. This is evidence
Karl Marx.
Brett Clothier 01/18/2003 1st-Sociology Karl Marx Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in the city of Trier in the Rhineland, where he completed his early schooling. His fathers side of the family were all rabbis. His father was a prosperous lawyer who adopted Lutheranism for himself and his family in 1824. His mother was from Hungary, and she never learned to read or speak German. At the age of seventeen, he was sent to the University of Bonn to study law. After he was in a duel, he was transferred to the University of Berlin. Instead of applying himself to studying law, Marx began to read the Latin, English, and Italian classics and became interested in philosophy. At the age of nineteen, he became a member of a group who gathered to discuss the interpretations of religious and philosophical views. The triumph of conservatism in government and education led Marx to hurry to complete his university work. Marx received his doctoral degree in 1841. Marx was convinced that an academic career was over and he turned to journalism. In October of 1842, he became editor of a newspaper in Cologne. In the paper, he defended the wine-growing peasants against the wood-theft laws, and expressed his growing awareness of economic issues. This is where he first thought of the idea of physical force overthrowing physical force. Marx later said that this led him to move from
The cold war
During the cold war, relief and politics were seen as separate. Yet with an increasing recognition that relief alone is insufficient for the complex humanitarian emergencies, many humanitarian agencies have come to rethink the relationship between humanitarianism and politics. This shifting concept of humanitarian assistance is often called a new humanitarianism. It considers that humanitarian aid should be integrated into part of the long term processes of political issues in relation to the promotion of peace and justice. New humanitarianism is political from the start, and its logical consequence, it rejects the traditional principle of neutrality. In classical humanitarianism, neutrality is one of the essential principles, together with humanity, impartiality, and independence. It considers that humanitarian agencies must seek the consent of warring parties to work in the context of violence in order to gain access to all victims in need of help. Neutrality requires that humanitarian agencies not become involved in, or engaged in any hostilities, abstaining from any political or military considerations. The main priority of neutral agencies is the immediate relief of human suffering. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has kept its neutral position at war as the centre of its mission. For the ICRC, neutrality is described as, "in order to enjoy
Is New Labour either?
Is New Labour
