Democracy

Democracy is best defined as the government of the people, by the people. The classical example of democracy is that of ancient Athens, where the whole populace would meet in the marketplace to vote on decisions. It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others have been tried. In my opinion, democracy is not a perfect system, but it is the best form of government when compared to others and is the most effective among all different types of government. In a democratic government, power is given to the people.

This allows the people to have a direct say in who governs them, via the votes cast by every adult member of the population. As such it ensures that a government is made up of those who are truly representative of the people, satisfying the population of electing a government that will think about them, care about them and provide for them. Furthermore, when power is given to the people, the people will be more careful when using their power as they will have to bear the consequences if the leader elected is corrupted or not a wise leader.

By giving power to the people allows decisions to be made according to the will of the people and also prevents the abuse of power. Citizens are kept informed by the media and are thus fully capable of making an informed decision. Furthermore, the will of the people is far more representative of different groups in society than the condescending rule by elites, who have no understanding of different ways of life. Only the citizens of a country understand what kind of leader they truly needs and in a democratic country they will have the ability to vote for them.

Democracy empowers the people and allows them to participate in decision-making, which is why it is the best form of government. Besides power, democracy also allows the freedom of speech and that allows a nation to improve and progress. Democratic nations allow citizens to criticize leaders, their policies and laws. Being open to criticism allows leaders to listen to opinions of the citizens and understand what the citizens truly needs. This allows policies to be improved and the nation to progress better.

By silencing the people and censoring any constructive criticisms, citizens will gradually stop thinking critically and start to follow laws blindly. This will be detrimental to the innovation and creation of ideas in a nation. Allowing criticisms can ensure that citizens think critically of how policies and laws will affect them, constantly sharpening their thoughts. Having a population that thinks critically is vital to the progress of a nation, and a democratic government that allows the freedom of speech can allow the nation to improve and progress, thus being the best form of government.

As mentioned earlier, democracy is a not perfect form of government. Citizens of a country have never received any training and do not possess any skills needed to face and solve the problems that a state faces. Also, the masses are easily manipulated and tend to act according to their feelings. For example, after the 911 terror attacks in New York, many citizens of America pushed for the use of nuclear technology against Middle East. If America were a full democratic country, it would have already been engulfed into another nuclear war, and the consequences are heavy.

As such, expecting the people to elect the “best tools for the job” is unrealistic. Government from above can see, by virtue of its position and advantages, what is a better solution for problems. Therefore, democracy may not be as effective in certain situations as other forms of government. Furthermore, real, effective leadership must come from above and not from below. The government should give orders, make laws and not take orders from the people. Democracy functions on the unrealistic assumption that all citizens are as capable as the leaders and is able to make the best decision.

This is what makes democracy imperfect and ineffective. In conclusion, democracy is, to a large extent, the best form of government. The best form of government is that which teaches us to govern ourselves. However, if man were angels, no government would be necessary. Hence, a balance should be striked between governing the people and allowing them to make decisions themselves, and democracy is the only form of government where such a balance can be found.

In recent years, many Muslims have come to accept the notion of democracy but there is a variety of opinion as to its precise meaning. They have sought to delineate Islamic forms of democracy, or popular political participation, seeking to provide an Islamic rationale whose legitimacy finds its roots in tradition.

The Islamification of democracy has been based on a modern process of reinterpretation of the traditional Islamic concepts of political deliberation or consultation, community consensus, and personal interpretation or reinterpretation to support notions of parliamentary democracy; this also extends to include representative elections, and religious reform.

Islamic organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhoods in Egypt and Jordan, Algeria’s Islamic Salvation Front, Indonesia’s Muhammadiya and Nahdatual Ulama ostensibly have advocated the principle of democratic elections and, have participated in parliamentary elections (Common Dreams NewsCenter, 2005) As with the interpretation of Islam, notions of democracy and the structuring of administration of justice take on different forms in different Muslim countries with different experience.

Throughout the Islamic world, governments have adopted varying degrees of self-representation in response to unique historical circumstances. Turkey, for example, is a parliamentary, secular democracy. Indonesia is one of the world’s largest republics, but an uncertain one as the nation still struggles to evolve a representative political system after decades of repressive authoritarian rule.

Iraq is currently a case study in nation-building in the aftermath of the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein and Iran is a theocratic republic with a growing democratic reform movement. Whilst many Islamic states have moved closer to democracy, the aforementioned groups and States along with several other Islamic States, particularly in the Middle East, advocate the death penalty as a capital punishment for many different types of crimes. It has been claimed that Iran’s execution rate is second in the world only to that of China.

However, this assertion has also been variously dismissed by the regime as exaggeration of the facts (Gelbart, 2010). Nevertheless, the death penalty is legal and permitted for certain crimes in Iran. Capital punishment can be administered for the crimes such as treason, rape, sodomy, terrorism, murder, the trafficking of drugs, paedophilia, kidnap and armed robbery (FIDH, 2011). The present Iranian regime has been a subject of controversy and stringent criticism in the West for some time now.

The current central disputes focus predominantly around the research and manufacture of nuclear weapons although it has also received controversy for its policy on execution and capital punishment, perhaps the most controversial occurring over the execution of those under 18, considered by law as not yet adult (minors). These State-legitimised executions have been raised as issues because they directly violate the Convention of the Rights of the Child, a treaty signed by Iran which protects children from execution (EMINE, 2012).

Iran has attempted to defray these allegations by claiming dispensation in these cases (and some others) because certain sections of the Convention have been deemed incompatible with ‘Islamic jurisprudence’ (DN. SE, 2008). The Iranian regime has also received criticism for the alleged use of stoning as a means of exacting the death penalty, although these allegations have been denied by the Iranian judiciary as Western propaganda, along with the allegations of the execution of minors (BBC NEWS, 2005).

In February 2012 a new penal code was adopted by Iran which officially legislated against the administration of the death penalty to minors (those under the age of 18) and those of who are subject to diminished mental development. In some rare instances the death penalty can still be applied to minors who commit murder between the ages of 15 and 18 years old but only if the judge is completely confident that the crime was entirely and absolutely premeditated and that the perpetrators in question are as mentally developed as adults (Bozorgmehr, 2010).

The issue of Iranian executions carried out against minors has also been a salient point in the campaigns of numerous human rights groups. These groups claim that in spite of Iran’s signing on the Convention on the Rights of the Child they are actually the largest executor of minors in the world. This may be due to the disparity of definition regarding children in Iran. The Islamic Penal Code (Article 49) defines a child in Iran, as stipulated by Islamic law, as ‘someone who has not reached the age of bulugh (puberty)’ (Human Rights Watch, 2008).

This discrepancy may be due to Iran’s use of the lunar Islamic calendar for the determination of criminal responsibility, as opposed to the standard solar calendar, which is longer. This means that in some cases a criminal who faced the death penalty Iran would be tired as an18 year old in accordance with Islamic years but only be 17 years old in the Western standard solar calendar (O’Toole, 2007). As Marx (1843) famously asserted ‘Religion is the opium of the masses’.

Throughout all history, religion has played the starring role in much of human conflict, with philosophical, political, sociological, as well as physical repercussions. Most of religions profess and share positive life philosophies and values, although it is commonly recognised that some religious entities and States have used their power to realise crimes against humanity. Some religious regimes have also used the respective doctrine of their associated religions, to carry out perceivably draconian brutality against their people, be it for political disagreement or legal dissent.

It is difficult to foresee how Islamic societies can realise their tremendous potential without genuine political reform. Evidently, it is not Islam that is the greatest obstacle to serious democratisation and reform against the death penalty. On the contrary, the most important impediment is the continuing resistance of established political regimes, whose leaders espouse the language of democracy but rarely permit political liberalisation beyond that which they can orchestrate and control.

Mona Yacoubian (Gelbart, 2010) makes a persuasive case for greater international involvement in urging the Iranian government toward greater reform. The key to the success of democratisation and reformation of the death penalty in Islamic societies is imposition of more freedom, expanding freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, and freedom to form independent organisations. The process may be long and slow but it must be real, sustainable, and measures should be taken to prevent the reversal of it.

History shows that many governments in the Muslim world have become adept at promising democratic reforms only to fail on their promises ad deliver more oppression. In this regard, the international community needs to exert sustained pressure on the existing governments to sue for liberalisation, democratisation and extension of civil liberties: only through such routes can true societal freedom be attained. Real and genuine reforms are needed; liberal and moderate voices cannot be heard in an environment of fear and repression.

The United States and European countries should stop implicitly and explicitly supporting all Middle Eastern dictatorships and oppressive regimes (rather than just those who operate in accordance with their political machinations); this they should do in the name of stability and to promote peace and strengthen the voices of liberal Islam, rather than propagating sometimes spurious propaganda in order to exercise military power and at the same time undermining their own arguments.

Muslim countries must also gain experience with democratic institutions and practices. Nonetheless, the success to the development of democracy will necessarily be dependent on the success of the citizens to ultimately resolve their inner crisis, but this situation in turn will always be hampered unless the general unrest and political instability either plateaus or resolves of its own volition.

The birth of the modern Commonwealth, as we recognise it today, really began with the independence of India and Pakistan from Britain in 1947. In 1949, India’s desire to become a republic and to cut constitutional ties with the British monarchy while remaining within the Commonwealth, forced leaders to rethink the principles of Commonwealth membership. The London Declaration of the same year dropped the word ‘British’ from the association’s title.

Removing the requirement that member countries have the British Monarch as their Head of State, the same Declaration recognised King George VI as the “symbol of their free association and as such Head of the Commonwealth”. India was thus welcomed as the first republican member in a modern, and voluntary, association. So exceptional was the spirit of accommodation on all sides in reaching this agreement that the Indian Prime Minister, Jawarhalal Nehru, was moved to say at the time that the Commonwealth could bring “a touch of healing” to the management of contemporary world problems.

Committed to racial equality and national sovereignty, the Commonwealth became the natural association of choice for many new nations emerging out of decolonisation in the 1950s and 1960s. Ghana achieved independence in 1957 and became the first majority-ruled African member. Jamaica was the first to claim independence in the Caribbean in 1962; and, in the same year, Samoa became the first among countries in the Pacific (excluding Australia and New Zealand). From this point on, the Commonwealth expanded rapidly.

Important Milestones in History

In 1965, an important milestone was reached when Commonwealth leaders established the Commonwealth Secretariat at Marlborough House in London. This was to be the association’s own independent civil service, headed by a Commonwealth Secretary-General. The Secretary-General is now elected by Heads for no more than two four-year terms in office. Mr Kamalesh Sharma, an Indian diplomat, took up office as the most recent Commonwealth Secretary-General in April 2008.

He is the fifth, and follows the Canadian Arnold Smith (1965 – 1975), Sir Shridath Ramphal, from Guyana (1975 – 1990), Chief Anyaoku, from Nigeria (1990 – 2000) and New Zealander, Don McKinnon (2000 – 2008). Previously, the Commonwealth had been administered through the government of the UK, but this move made the Secretariat answerable to all member governments. It carries out consultations on their behalf, helps them with policy-making, the spread of information and the delivery of agreed Commonwealth initiatives.

A year later, in 1966, the Commonwealth Foundation was launched to support the work of a growing number of Commonwealth professional associations and NGOs and to promote Commonwealth art and culture. Two further milestones occurred in 1971. First, leaders adopted the Singapore Declaration of Commonwealth Principles which gave the association a formal code of ethics and committed members to improving human rights and seeking racial and economic justice. The leaders declared their belief in peace, liberty, human dignity and democracy.

At the same time, they declared their abhorrence of racial prejudice, colonial domination and wide disparities of wealth. The Heads declared: “We believe that international co-operation is essential to remove the causes of war, promote tolerance, combat injustice and secure development. We are convinced that the Commonwealth is one of the most fruitful associations for these purposes…(and that it can) provide a constructive example of the multi-national approach which is vital…(and) based on consultation, discussion and co-operation.

Secondly, they established the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation. Based on the concept of mutualism, the Fund was among the first to advance the idea of technical cooperation among developing countries. In 1991, building on the principals adopted in Singapore, the Harare Declaration set the Commonwealth firmly on new course for a new century: that of promoting democracy and good governance, human rights and the rule of law, and sustainable economic and social development.

As part of the Harare priorities, the Commonwealth provides assistance to countries in transition to democracy by helping to draft legislation, review and amend electoral procedures and otherwise create the framework for democracy to take root. Between 1990 and mid-1996, the Commonwealth observed some 18 elections or referendums to further this work. At a 1995 summit in New Zealand, leaders adopted the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme to give practical expression to the Harare principles, particularly democracy, evelopment and consensus-building.

They agreed on practical steps to address serious and persistent violations of these principles and established a mechanism – a Ministerial Action Group of Foreign Ministers – to carry this forward. It was in this context that, in the face of human rights abuses by a military regime, they took the unprecedented step of suspending Nigeria’s membership.

If we take a look at American History, we see that many African Americans before us accomplished many things, in various disciplines, such as become the surgeon general of the United States, Win an Olympic Gold medal, Become a President of an Ivy League University, become CEO of a Fortune 500 company or even become President of the United States. These and the others on the extensive list of African American Firsts did not come easy or were given. In the words of Cohen, “They had to work hard, be respectful, and always have your superior humanity on display for whites to observe. With more and more 1st being accomplished, it has become more possible for many African Americans to reach hose same positions or go further. Today, in the year 2014, we also have new problems to face in terms of this new technology. Black twitter, for example, is an unofficial title for a community on twitter that has a huge impact online and in the media. Whether there is a primetimes television show or some breaking news story, Black twitter has you covered. Seemingly as a voice for all black Americans, this is heavily skewed by its demographic.

Consisting of mainly young adults, this community becomes very negative and often creates moral panic and suppresses ACH other in the black community. The post-racial thesis suggests that in the post- civil rights era, material conditions have improved for Black Americans, but the conditions Black Americans face today are markedly better than the conditions that earlier generations had faced. As one example of many pressures black youth are facing, this shows that material conditions may have increased but the pressures are still prevalent In Democracy Remixed: Black Youth and the future of American Politics, a book by Cathy J.

Cohen, discusses about the political life of young black people, not emitted to their relationship with the state and or government but between their peers, other members of the black community and the larger society. In relation to the post-racial thesis, this book contains arguments that serve as a counter to the post-racial thesis by discussing many issues that young black people face. In chapter 2, she introduces the phenomenon called moral panics and how they affect the black community, especially black youth.

In chapter 5, she discusses forms of alienation that black youth face and how they engage in the public sphere, attempting to voice heir own public agenda. In chapter 6, she engages the ideas that young black people develop in light of the election of the country 1st black president and what this means to them. Chapter 2, “Gangs Rap Made Me do it”, talks about moral panics and how Bill Cowboys and Don Emus are examples of creating such things. Earlier on in the chapter, they discuses some statistics developed by The Black Youth Project.

These statistics showed results from surveys filled out by African Americans ages 30 and above and group based on levels of income The topics of the survey included Rap Music’s perceived Influence on Black Youth, The behavior of too many young black Americans threatens to progress of respectable black people who are trying to do the right things, and reasons young black Americans find it hard to get ahead. These topics were surprisingly posed to non-youth about three topics that involve black youth in America.

Many of these adults had an opinion on all of these questions, because of moral panics. Cohen states that moral panic is a concept typically used by scholars to explain irrational and inflated reactions to lesser events that have been exaggerated by the media. Through the media, the crisis itself is shrouded by the massive uproar generated by the public. Bill Cowboys, known for his comedic background, spoke at Constitution Hall in Washington, D. C. Where they were commemoration the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.

The topics that he received fire from were the ones directed to poor black people and the black youth. From Cowboys perspective he is trying to let it be know that everything black people do, is a representation of all black Americans. His comments toward poor members in the black community included “These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids, $500 sneakers for what? And wont spend $200 dollars for ‘Hooked on Phonics. ‘ ” Here we have an older African American who is removed a generation from those parents he are addressing.

This alone shows that there is a problem with the consecutive generation. This also highlights that the generation of parents who are buying the kids expensive sneakers are more worried about looks that education. We can infer that the kids wanted the expensive sneakers because of social pressures to be wealth. Also, His comments on Black Youth culture is that the out of today are uneducated when it comes to knowing about their African American and their African culture.

He makes remarks about how black males are putting on clothes backwards and sagging of pants, and women wearing short skirts and piercing. This is another example of pressure that the youth are facing because Bill Cowboys is probably not the only person making these remarks. The pressures of previous generations in its self are making it hard for the young black American to live. She introduces the 21st century, the average youth has a lot of things to deal with. Bullying, growing up, peer pressure, family, school

The Global Environment In the past, managers have viewed the global sector as closed. Each country or market was assumed to be isolated from others. Firms did not consider global competition, exports. Today’s environment is very different. Managers need to view it as an open market. Organizations buy and sell around the world. Managers need to learn to compete globally. Tariff Barriers A tariff is a barriers to trade. Tariffs are taxes levied upon imports. These seek to protect jobs in the home country. Other countries usually retaliate.

Free trade: in a free trade agreement, each country seeks to specialize in things they make most efficiently. If India is more efficient in making textiles, and the USA in making computer software, then each country should focus on these. Distance & Culture Barriers The second leading cause of trade barriers. Distance closed the markets as far as some managers were concerned. Communications could be difficult. Languages and cultures were different. During the last 50 years, communications and transportation technology has dramatically improved.

Jet aircraft, fiber optics, satellites have provided fast, secure communications and transportation. These have also reduced cultural differences. Effects on Managers Declining barriers have opened great opportunities for managers. Managers can not only sell goods and services but also buy resources and components globally. Managers now face a more dynamic and exciting job due to global competition. Free Trade NAFTA: North American Free Trade Agreement. Abolishes most tariffs on goods traded between Mexico, Canada and the U. S. Allows unrestricted cross-border flows of resources.

Many U. S. firms have now invested in Mexico. This is a manufacturing opportunity. Wage costs are lower in Mexico. Can serve Mexico with a plant in Mexico and reduce freight. Managers face new opportunities and threats. Global Task Environment Suppliers & Distributors Managers buy products from global suppliers or make items abroad and supply themselves. Key is to keep quality high and costs low. Global outsourcing: firms buy inputs from throughout the world. GM might build engines in Mexico, transmissions in Korea, and seats in the U. S. Finished goods become global products.

Distributors: each country often has a unique system of distribution. Managers must identify all the issues. Customers & Competitors Formerly distinct national markets are merging into a huge global market. True for both consumer and business goods. Creates large opportunities. Still, managers often must customize products to fit the culture. McDonald’s sells a local soft drink in Brazil. Global competitors present new threats. Increases competition abroad as well as at home. Forces in the Global General Environment Political-Legal Forces

Results from diverse and changing nature of each countries’ political system. Representative democracies: such as the U. S. , Britain, Canada. Citizens elect leaders who make decisions for electorate. Usually has a number of safeguards such as freedom of expression, a fair court system, regular elections, and limited terms for officials. Well defined legal system and economic freedom. Totalitarian regimes: a single political party or person monopolize power in a country. Typically do not recognize or permit opposition. Most safeguards found in a democracy do not exist.

Examples include Iran, Iraq, and China. These are difficult to do business with given the lack of economic freedom. Further, human rights issues also cause managers to avoid dealing with these countries. Economic Systems Free market economy: production of goods and services is in private ownership. Production is dictated by supply and demand. Command economy: decisions on what to produce, how much, done by the government. Most command economies are moving away from the command economy. Mixed economy: certain economic sectors controlled by private business, others are government controlled.

Many mixed countries are moving toward a free enterprise system. Recent Trends Current shift away from totalitarian dictators toward democratic regimes. Very dramatic example seen in the collapse of the former Soviet Republic. Also very pronounced in Latin America and Africa. With this shift, has come a strong movement toward free market systems. This provides great opportunities to business managers on a global level. Many businesses are investing millions in former totalitarian countries to seize these opportunities. Changing Political and Economic Forces Sociocultural Forces

National culture: includes the values, norms, knowledge, beliefs, and other practices that unite a country. Values: abstract ideas about what a society believes to be good, desirable and beautiful. Provides attitudes for democracy, truth, appropriate roles for men, and women. Usually not static but very slow to change. Norms: social rules prescribing behavior in a given situation. Folkways: routine social conventions including dress codes and manners. Mores: Norms that are central to functioning of society. much more significant that folkways. More examples include theft, adultery, and are often enacted into law.

Norms vary from country to country. Hofstede’s Model of National Culture Individualism v. Collectivism Individualism: world view that values individual freedom and self-expression. Usually has a strong belief in personal rights and need to be judged by achievements. Collectivism: world view that values the group over the individual. Widespread in Communism. Prevalent in Japan as well. Managers must understand how their workers relate to this issue. Power Distance A society’s acceptance of differences in the well being of citizens due to differences in heritage, and physical and intellectual capabilities.

In high power distance societies, the gap between rich and poor gets very wide. In low power distance societies, any gap between rich and poor is reduced by taxation and welfare programs. Most western cultures (U. S. , Germany, United Kingdom) have relatively low power distance and high individualism. Many economically poor countries such as Panama, Malaysia have high power distance and low individualism. Achievement vs Nurture Achievement oriented societies value assertiveness, performance, success. The society is results-oriented. Nurturing-oriented value quality of life, personal relationships, service.

The U. S. and Japan are achievement-oriented while Sweden, Denmark are more nurturing-oriented. Uncertainty Avoidance Societies and people differ on their willingness to take on risk. Low uncertainty avoidance (U. S. , Hong Kong), value diversity, and tolerate differences. Tolerate a wide range of opinions and beliefs. High uncertainty avoidance (Japan and France) are more rigid and do not tolerate people acting differently. High conformity to norms is expected. Long Term Outlook Long-term outlook is based on values of saving, and persistence.

Taiwan and Hong Kong are cultures that are long -term in outlook. Short-term outlook seeks the maintenance of personal stability or happiness right now. France and the U. S. are examples of this approach. International Expansion Importing and Exporting: the least complex method of expansion. Exporting: firm makes products and sells abroad. Importing: firm sells products made abroad. Licensing: firm allows foreign organization to make and distribute goods for a fee. Helps the home firm since it does not have to set up a complete production and distribution network.

Franchising: company sells a foreign organization the rights to use brand name and know-how in return for payment and profit percentage. International Options Strategic Alliances: managers pool resources with a foreign firm and both organizations share the rewards and risks. Allows firm to maintain control which is a problem with exporting, licensing, and franchising. Wholly-owned foreign subsidiary: firm invests in production operations in a foreign country. Many Japanese auto firms have done this in the U. S. This is very expensive but can yield high returns. International Expansion

Coleman Wahlborg Richard English IV, 1A 9 September 2011 Felons and Voting This year 5. 3 million people will be unable to vote not because they are mentally unable, not because they are underage, but because they are felons and ex-felons (Holding, 2006). Ex-felons are people who committed a felony and have served their punishment, dictated by the judiciary system, and are living in the community. When previous convicts are released from prison they are considered citizens again. Being a citizen, one is promised certain rights and responsibilities.

As an ex felon one is a free citizen who can exercises the rights and responsibilities granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. Since former felons have earned their rights back shouldn’t this include voting? Whether ex-felons should be able to vote or not is a very popular issue among people. The two sides in the issue can be fairly biased. Some people might know felons that they think should be able to vote and others are on the other side of the argument. However, research says that there are several reasons why ex-felons should and shouldn’t be able to vote.

The Fourteenth Amendment states, “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or the immunities of citizens in the United States. ” This law sets forth that citizens have privileges and no one has the right to deprive citizens of these privileges. Current felons are not members of society, but previous felons’ civic rights are restored when they complete their sentence. Denying ex-felons the right to vote abolishes their rights (Krajick, 2004). Only two states allow current felons to vote, and ten states permanently prohibit former felons from voting (Zotti, 2000).

This means that people who used poor judgment in the past, paid their debt to society, and were released from jail, are still being punished and shunned from being normal everyday citizens. Prohibiting ex-felon voting is not only a punishment to them, but also to society (Should felons be allowed to vote, 2008). The people of United States will be fortunate if 40% of eligible voters cast a ballot for the next presidential election (Holding, 2006). “Instead of prohibiting felon voting, we should require it” (Holding, 2006).

We should be finding ways to get people to the polls, not keeping them away. Ex-felons who are going to return to their ways are not going to be interested in having a voice in the government. Individuals who are not already deterred from crime by the threat of confinement are not likely to be swayed by the prospect of losing their right to vote (Mauer, 2004). Individuals who have changed are the ones that want to vote, and the ones who have not changed will most likely wind up in the criminal justice system again “Voting is not a privilege; it is the basic right that defines a citizen.

Those denied it are, in effect, stateless — people without a country” (Krajick, 2004). Voting is a right that defines a citizen in the since of when a person votes they are considered responsible and knowledgeable for not just complaining about the government but casting a vote to try to change things. When one does not vote, and is disconnected from the government in which they live, and they are stateless because they have no control over decisions that are made.

The efforts to block ex-felons from voting makes those individuals feel more detached from society, which increases the chance that they will continue to break the law (Williams, 2010). Past felons feel they cannot get involved in their government because they are turned away, which essentially leads so many ex-felons to resort to their old ways. In 2000, the Alexander v. Mineta Supreme court case that dealt with the Equal Protection Clause came to the conclusion; “The Equal Protection Clause does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote. However, the Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive sanctions, and demands that punishment for crimes should be graduated and proportioned to the offense (Karlan, 2004). Therefore, felons who are released from jail have been punished for their crime; more punishment on their part is inhumane of society. The states that continue to exclude all felons permanently are outliers, within the United States and the world (Karlan, 2004). People who argue that ex felons should not have the right to vote believe that they have presented poor judgment and it is absurd to let them help in he choosing of our representatives (Carlson, 2006). This is agreeable to a certain extent, but when one takes a deeper look, the harsh answer is former convicts are stereotyped by most people. While these previous felons have presented poor judgment in the past, who is to say they will never change (Chapman, 2006)? The government lets ex-convicts marry, have children, drive and have the freedom of religion. In many places, the assumption is that ex-felons cannot be trusted to help choose our leader.

If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we would never let them out in the first place (Chapman, 2006). There are many reasons why felons should be able to take place in the voting system; however there are reasons why they shouldn’t be able to. Felons become felons by presenting an act of poor judgment in most cases. Felons cannot vote for similar reasons that children can’t vote. “We don’t let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don’t trust them and their judgment.

We have different reasons for not trusting them, but it seems to me that that is their common denominator” (Clegg, 2004). People who have committed crimes in their life have already shown us that they are not trustworthy people (Clegg, 2004). “And, as to equity, if you’re not willing to follow the rules yourself, you shouldn’t be able to make the rules for everyone else” (Clegg, 2004). Because voting determines in the long run who will make the rules for our country, there is no reason why the country should allow people who can’t follow the rules, vote on the rules. Now, I will freely concede that there are felons who ought to have their right to vote restored, but that should be done on a case-by-case basis, weighing (a) how serious the crime was, (b) how recently it was committed, (c) whether there has been a series/pattern of crimes, and (d) whether the individual has otherwise shown that he or she has turned his or her life around” (Clegg, 2004). Clegg states that not all felons are in the same category. It is understandable that murderers should not be allowed to vote. On the other hand, some people really have gone through a long process to change their life around for the better. The right to vote is not granted to those under the age of eighteen. That age limitation demonstrates that voting rights may be restricted when there is reason to doubt the potential voter’s good judgment” (Latham, 2006). Latham shares similar ideas to Clegg on how the age limitation on voting and whether felons should be able to vote are connected due to prior judgment or lack there of. The interests of convicted felons might also differ from the primary interest of the American citizen body who want to be protected from criminals (Latham, 2006).

A primary issue for the convicted felons as a whole is that 2/3 of felons released commit crimes within the next three years; not counting the ones that were not caught. Holding, Reynolds. “Why Can’t Felons Vote? – TIME. ” Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews – TIME. com. 1 Nov. 2006. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. Krajick, Kevin. “Why Can’t Ex-Felons Vote? (washingtonpost. com). ” Wahlborg 2 The Washington Post: National, World & D. C. Area News and Headlines – The Washington Post. 18 Aug. 2004. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. http://www. washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785- 2004Aug17. html

Embracing Defeat represents the really best of historical scholarship of Japan ‘s experience of licking and business at the terminal of the Second World War. Written by MIT Professor John W. Dower, this book shows the loanblend and contested character of the Occupation of Japan by the United States of America. More than merely sing the Occupation through the lens of the vanquisher ‘s strength, the greatest part of Embracing Defeat lies in the alternate position it offers of a complex post-war Nipponese society and the Nipponese people. As Dower competently puts, the period “ through the eyes of the defeatedaˆ¦ wretchedness, freak out cynicism and bitterness ‘ but besides ‘hope resiliency, vision and dreams ‘ ( pp. 24-25 ) in the embracing of licking. He delves into a scope of subjects from General Douglas MacArthur ‘s disposal, the Tokyo ‘s War Trial, Emperor Hirohito controversial function to the common people on the land such as cocottes, rise of Mafias running black markets, workers, administrative officials, political party members, detailing the mind from the most powerful elite to the common man at grassroots. Underliing these subjects, the book is written in a proseful postmodern narrative albeit critical structural analysis.

The book can be divided into three chief parts. The first trades with the popular and subculture of the Japanese. Second portion trades with the political alteration enacted by the occupational elites, in controversy with the grassroots. Last the book trades with the Reconstruction of Japan ‘s economic system. Dower thoughtful and thorough inside informations of each portion means that each portion can be read on its ain. However, the weaving of the intercultural interactions between the vanquisher and conquered across the three parts makes the book Embracing Defeat greater the amount of its parts.

The book starts against the background of societal and economic desperation. Embedded in the heads of many Nipponese is the ‘subcultures of licking ‘ . During the war, ordinary Nipponese people were prepared to give their lives for the emperor and for their fatherland. With the earth-shattering dropping of the atomic bomb, Nipponese society had been shaken to its foundations, and people had to reinvent their lives to believe of acquiring adequate nutrient to remain alive. This psychic prostration formed the societal cloth. Then, assorted subcultures sprang up from illegal trades of the cocottes and black sellers ‘ detonations of entrepreneurial energy and condemnable packs. Likewise, disillusioned authors and intellectuals embraced a civilization of hedonism. Together, they posed forceful challenges to the traditional societal and sexual order against the cavities of desperation and detecting new aspirations with unsure future individuality in front. However, a sense of hope and release was what made it possible for most ordinary Nipponese to ’embrace licking ‘ .

The 2nd portion of the book brings us to the more familiar terrains of business policies enacted by GHQ ( General Headquarters ) command held under SCAP ( Supreme Commander of Allied Powers ) General MacArthur and the receptiveness of the Nipponese people. Here, Dower presents a critical position of MacArthur and the American swayers ‘ cultural haughtiness against the locals. Much to the reverse of making a more classless society, the Americans ruled as masters and the relationship between them and the Japanese was one of hierarchal. They themselves constructed an ‘inviolate privileged caste ‘ ( p. 211 ) and MacArthur business projected a white supremacist ‘imbued with a sense of manifest fate ‘ ( pp. 211-212 ) with MacArthur governing with absolute authorization of a military absolutism and the Nipponese people its ‘subjects ‘ .

While loaded with the liquors of democratisation and demilitarization, the Americans made contradictory picks from start, lending to the intrenchment of conservative powers such as the imperial establishment, one of the many paradoxes which run throughout the book. ‘The Occupation governments chose non to simply detach the emperor from this holy war, but to resituate him as the Centre of their new democracy ‘ ( p. 278 ) . MacArthur sees the Showa Emperor as a ‘force for good ‘ in continuing stableness and easing the undertaking of the occupying forces. Hirohito was protected from any unfavorable judgment and was absolved of any duty for the war in order to make a new ‘imperial democracy ‘ in Japan. However as Dower reveals, there was being of popular and even official sentiment in favour of force outing Hirohito, trialing him as a war felon and in some instances, of get rid ofing the monarchy. He was after all the manifestation of continuity of the war that the soldiers take orders from. It was the SCAP who stepped in to stamp down this climb force per unit area.

In add-on, Dower points out that the war offenses tribunal was a travesty. The suspects were coached to remain off from any mention to the Emperor even though he held the de facto capacity of influence during the war and he was the chief adult male whom the suspects took orders from. Dower believes that this hindered the possibility of Japan ‘s future democratic development and this symbol continues to be a stumbling block in Japan ‘s dealingss with the remainder of Asia more than half a century after the terminal of the war.

In screening the monarchy from prosecution and shriving Hirohito of duty for aggression, whilst keeping the bastion of peace and Jesus of the state, the US played a polar function in enshrining imperial democracy. Japan ‘s democratic fundamental law was crafted in secret within a hebdomad without audience with Nipponese governments. The footing as underlined by Dower was that MacArthur held the emperor as the caput of the province while war as a crowned head right was abolished and the feudal system will discontinue. Together with the no-war clause under Article 9, the US created the universe ‘s lone univocal peace fundamental law. Against the background of the Cold War events such as the triumph of the Chinese Communist Party in China and the eruption of the Korean War, the Nipponese people however in response to their ain agony during the Pacific war by and big embraced the dovish rules enshrined in the fundamental laws, contending the determination of the US to do Japan as a subsidiary spouse when the former decided to rearm and reindustrialize Japan. On the other manus, there were right-wingers elements assailing on Article 9. Here, Dower adds rich inside informations to that reading about the diverseness of positions among the Japanese, an issue still in argument boulder clay today.

For all the purposes and intents of the broad fundamental law with its enlargement of single freedoms, Dower agues “ the vanquishers worked difficult to engineer consensus, and on many critical issues, they made it clear that the better portion of political wisdom was silence and conformity ‘ ( p. 440 ) . The bureaucratic-authoritarian nature of the authorities maintained rigorous censoring. Subjects refering the business itself could non be criticized. Nor could the atomic bombardment and even unfavorable judgment of the Soviet Union was banned. Labour work stoppages as mobilized by the Communist Party foremost gained strengths and shortly afterwards were banned by MacArthur in the name of economic recovery. Soon, the SCAP compiled a list of suspected Communists and began to collar the development, paralleling MacCarthyism ‘Red Scare ‘ dorsum in USA. However, the pretense continues between the workers and the bureaucratism. Dower therefore highlights the amentia of democracy when freedom of look, a construct so cardinal to a working democracy is being curtailed.

A minor to observe of the book ‘s failing is the deficiency of reference of the land reform plan even though it helped to make the political base for the Liberal Democratic Party for the coming 50 old ages. Land reform relied on the support and cooperation of 1000s of Nipponese and would suit into Dower larger strategy of things of ’embracing licking ‘ . This farther points to the book focuses mostly on urban metropoliss with small reference of the countryside Nipponese people. Still, it is apprehensible given the SCAP radiates its policies from Tokyo GHQ.

In footings of methodological attack, Dower uses an array of English and Nipponese beginnings which includes kids ‘s games, sketchs, movies, constabulary records, letters, newspapers, popular vocals. His research into them is thorough and punctilious. In peculiar, he has made important usage of single testimony such as interviews at multiple societal and political degrees to convey out the pluralistic facet of history. Adding to his heartfelt composing manner, the ten-year-in-making has reached audience outside academic domain, winning the 1999 National Book Award, and the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction.

Dower wise and examining summing up of certification and archival beginnings in Japan and the USA with his graphical authorship in highly traveling manner describes in elaborate history what it was like for an ordinary individual populating in Japan between 1945 and 1952. The book includes many redolent exposure and the screen of the first edition shows a group of Nipponese listening to their ‘divine sovereign ‘ for the first clip over the wireless on the resignation conveying forth the thought of desperation on the land. Dower aims to show the citizens ‘ mundane life and he has done so successfully. At the same clip, he does non pretermit to depict the institutionalization procedure led by the SCAP and bureaucratic elites in the Nipponese authorities. This well balanced building of history at higher and lower degrees of the society encapsulates the complex relationship between masters and vanquished, filled with contradictions, ambiguities and incompatibilities.