Democracy

Is Latin America a more democratic place today than it was in 1945? Given the word and time restrictions, an in depth analysis of each Latin American country’s democratic progression across the time period would simply not be feasible. Instead I will attempt to look at Latin America’s progression as a whole and will provide examples of specific countries situations where relevant, in particular Venezuela. Firstly it is important to distinguish between two ideas. One is democracy. For democracy to work, there must be free and fair elections.

There must be more than one political party. The people of the country should have a good education so that they can make informed choices. They should share a common culture. All must accept the idea that everyone has equal rights. Finally, there must be rule by law, not by power. In other words there must be a separation of power, which means that the judiciary has to be a completely different body from the governing power of the country. Many nations in Latin America have had dif? culty achieving democracy because all these factors are not present.

The second idea is that of democratic culture. This involves the existence of constitutions, respect for rights, transparency when it comes to policies and governmental decisions and crucially, no corruption. Latin America, when viewed as a whole, is generally viewed as a more democratic place now than in 1945 but it would be wrong to assert that during the past 68 years Latin American countries have undergone a steady increase in democracy. Brazil is a prime example of a country that has gone through fluctuations in democracy throughout the period.

Currently in Latin America, despite being in a state of relative poverty when compared to the rest of the world, the majority of countries have become, at least formally, electoral democracies. 13 countries are now classed as free, 8 as partially free, with only Cuba and Haiti being deemed as not. Venezuela, following the recent passing of Hugo Chavez, is at a crossroads on its journey to democracy. However many question how democratic a ruler Chavez actually was in his time as president. One of two very important relationships to analyse is that of democracy and the level of development in a country or in this case Latin America.

This leads on to what is one of the most stable relationships in social sciences, the positive correlation between high levels of wealth and established democracy (Lipset 1959). To back this statistic up, a democratic regime has never fallen after a country has reached a certain level of income per capita, which is said to be $6055 (Przeworski 2000). In 1945 Latin America was still recovering from the economic shockwaves caused by the great depression of 1930. This global economic crisis meant that the rest of the world was not demanding any imports from Latin America.

At the time these would have been mainly raw materials and this lack of export revenue for the South American countries had a detrimental effect on their situations in the majority of cases. During the decade or so after the great depression, around 1945, the effects will have trickled down and income per capita and GDP levels will have been significantly reduced. This will in turn have destabilised democracy attempts and can be viewed as a reason for why Latin America was less democratic then than it is now. Without the economic and financial means it is very difficult to achieve a fully functioning democracy.

Of course it is worth pointing out that we are nearing the end of a fairly gruelling global economic downturn today but the consequences for Latin America are far less in this instance. The economic growth in Latin America has been very modest throughout the 68 years in question but more importantly it has been volatile. Periods of prosperity in several countries have been followed by long periods of stagnation and even negative growth. This volatility can be seen in Latin American countries progression since independence in terms of democracy as well.

Take Brazil as an example. The country became independent in 1822 and was ruled by a monarchy. In 1930 this monarchy was overthrown and the country was under a dictatorship for a couple of decades. In 1956 an elected leader was installed only to be replaced by military rule 10 years later. Finally in the 1980’s, as a result of yet another economic decline, Brazil was yet again ruled by an elected president. The other significant relationship that needs to be looked at is that of democracy and corruption.

Corruption is usually defined as a violation of the norms of public office for personal gain (Nye 1967). It has been suggested that corruption permeates everyday life in Latin America with only very high profile cases ever being unveiled in a court of law and even then this only happens in the more democratic countries (Blake and Morris 2009). Here are a few statistics to back this assertion up. In a 2004 survey 42 % of respondents ranked the probability of paying a bribe to the police as high, while 35% expressed the same ease of bribing a judge (Blake and Morris 2009).

In a 2005 survey, 43% of respondents in Paraguay and 31% in Mexico admitted to having paid a bribe just within the past twelve months (Blake and Morris 2009). Democracy has a complex and multifaceted relationship to corruption (Doig and Theobald 2000). It provides alternative avenues to obtain and then use power and wealth. This leads to brand new opportunities for corruption. However despite the fact that democracy makes it easier for corruption to exist, when there is a democracy it becomes of even greater importance to supress corruption as it strikes at the very meaning of democracy itself.

To sum this idea up, corruption undermines the essence of citizenship, distorting and crippling democracy (Blake and Morris 2009). It is clear from the statistics in the previous paragraph that corruption continues in today’s Latin America to have a tight grip over many if not all of its countries. Therefore it is very difficult to say that democracy has come on in leaps and bounds since 1945 when as crucial a factor as corruption is still such a plague to the region. Another factor when looking at democracy in the continent is the level of education.

People must be aware of the fact that there is more than one option in a democracy. It is also crucial that the population of a country understands the concept of propaganda. A democracy can only work in a country with a certain level of education otherwise it can easily be classed as brainwashing, especially with the level of influence that the media can have over an ill-educated population. An example of what a lack of education can do in a democracy is that during the elections in which Chavez was voted in, he very nearly missed out on the appointment because his main rival was a former Miss Venezuela.

The implication of this is that a worrying amount of the Venezuelan public didn’t vote for Chavez because there was a far better looking female alternative. Of course this could just be cynicism and she may well have had a very impressive manifesto and realistic yet progressive goals. During Chavez’ time in power though, he managed to substantially increase literacy along with reducing poverty by over half. Chavez had many positive effects on Venezuela, not least providing them with 14 years of stable rule. However his recent death has thrown the country off its feet and they are at risk of descending into political turmoil.

Further examples of why Latin America was less democratic in 1945 include the fact that leading South American countries such as Columbia and Argentina had still not given women the right to vote. Universal suffrage is something that can be found in certain definitions of democracy for example Dahl’s and was definitely holding those countries back at that stage in their bid for democracy (Dahl 1971). To conclude, it is safe to say that Latin American countries are in a better overall place than in 1945 but that corruption in particular is holding them back.

A country needs to be not only ready for democracy but also willing to accept it. It can definitely be argued that not all Latin American countries are ready for democracy but one final point may indicate that they are nearing acceptance of it. This is that something the Latin Americans care greatly about is their national identity, an idea that is very closely linked to democracy. Therefore with the rapid increase in globalisation endangering this coveted national identity, South American countries are rapidly warming to the idea of being democratic. Bibliography: Charles H. Blake & Stephen D. Morris (1999), Corruption and Democracy in Latin America, published by the University of Pittsburgh Press. * R. A. Dahl (1971), Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, published by Yale University Press. * Alan Doig and Robin Theobald (2000), Corruption and Democratization. * S. M. Lipset (1959), Some Social Requisites of Democracy, Economic Development and Political Illegitimacy. * A. Przeworski (2000), Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-being in the World 1950-1990, Cambridge University Press.

Political Identity can be referred to the collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a political party of your choice is recognizable or known. Politics exists all around the world whether it involves the government, religion, debates, events, or individuals in general. It can be quite difficult to determine one’s Political Identity as this consists of various concepts. I am a follower of the Liberal Party of Ontario which is aligned with the Canadian Liberal Party. The following essay will be discussing the influences that have impacted me in order to create my own Political Identity.

Politics consists of three distinctive categories such as, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. The Liberal Party generally stands between the view points of both the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. This party has formed the Government of Ontario since the year 2003. The Liberal Party is extremely open to embracing changes and creating opportunities for individuals in our modern world. As in individual, I tend to follow a middle path in which I consider both sides of the decisions I make.

I am also quite open to learning newer concepts and I have the ability to adapt to any changes that my arise. Thus I believe that my Political Identity lies with the Liberal Party as my actions can relate to the ones made by this party. As a child, I was unable to understand the concept of politics, though I was taught to support the Liberals. However now that I have matured, I have discovered why many individuals choose to support the Liberals, as opposed to the other political parties. Due to the positive attitude towards change, the Liberal Party is the reason why Canada is seen as such a multicultural country.

The Liberal Party has helped changed the lives of many individuals that had been living an unfortunate life. If it were not for the Liberals, I would not be in such a well developed country. My parents had not been blessed with such a pleasant life. They had came across many hardships in life and hoped that their children would not experience such a life. Throughout the 1970s, the Liberal Party granted permission for the Ismaili Muslims from Africa to enter Canada, in order to have a better lifestyle. This is when my parents fled from East Africa and entered Canada.

Migrating to Canada has had a great positive impact on their lives, along with the lives of many others. Hence my family and friends have been voting for the Liberal Party for many years. This has impacted my Political Identity by a whole lot. There are many factors which contributed to the choice of my Political Identity Living in a society in which immigrants from all around the world are present, has assisted in shaping my Political Identity. While attending school, I am exposed to a variety of races. Therefore schools tend to enforce Liberalism as well.

Due to this, many students choose to follow the Liberal Party. Not only do I follow the Liberals because I such a society, but also because the Liberals have given individuals the freedom of their choice. During the past, the women of Ontario were not granted the permission to abort their children. If one chose to give up her baby, she was to cross the border to fulfill her desire. However the Liberals brought a change in which a woman is free to act upon her choice. Also, same-sex marriages were not permitted at any costs.

Yet recently, by law, individuals are allowed to wed any sex of their choice without being ridiculed. Although these acts may have seemed immoral in the past, they have come to be accepted by our society. I too feel that individuals should have the right of freedom when it comes to choosing what is best for their lifestyle. Thus I support the decisions the Liberals have chose to create based on our modern society. Overall, I believe that the Liberal Party is an exceptional party that has performed many changes that have been beneficially for many individuals.

Although I felt compelled to support the Liberals because my family supported them, as a matured person, I now feel that the Liberal Party is worth supporting because not only has it assisted my the members of community, it has also assisted people from around the world. This party has also given individuals the right of freedom in order act upon their desire. Though it has limitations, the Liberal Party strives to strengthen its economy and create opportunities for its people. As a person, I believe it is important to accept change and keep oneself open to new opportunities. Therefore my Political Identity can be recognized as a Liberal.

Since I vlslted Jamestown In 1957, my country has become a much more diverse society just as the Commonwealth of Virginia and the whole of the united States of America have also undergone a major social change. Buchanan mentions how dfferent not only Jamestown was 400 years ago but also how different her cltlzens were. For example, the citizens massacred Native Americans and enslaved Africans. Jamestown was not yet built around the ideas of democracy and equality. The American Revolution was another key example; it was fought for freedom and distance from Britain and not for equality. The only persons of power at the time were rich white men. Buchanan makes the point that America 400 years ago was not based around democracy, equality and diversity, so why should we value that in the present?

In 1957 the Queen visited Jamestown, Virginia. The changes noted by the Queen were extreme. “Virginia has indeed become a radically changed society. No longer does Richmond proudly call herself the Capital of the Confederacy. Lee-Jackson Day is out. Marun Luther King Day Is In. The confederate flag flies nowhere. ” This demonstrates how much can change in 350 years. Buchanan believes that 2007 Virginia is ashamed of 1957 Virginia, and the state should be proud of who she was in 1607.

America In 1607 was did not celebrate diversity or multicultural beliefs, so why should they now? Buchanan describes early American settlers as having an “us-or-them” sentiment. For example, the early settlers thought that their Christian faith made them superior beings and those who opposed them were inferior. Another point that Buchanan makes Is when other culture such as Native American. African, or Spanish cultures were introduced to Americans they were not only rejected, but fought against in a violent manner.

In 2007 Vlrglnla culture and diversity Is not only welcomed, but celebrated. Buchanan believes that this is not what the Founding Fathers of America had in mind during the creation of our country. In his concluding thoughts, Buchanan remarks that America Is a changing nation specially in the areas of diversity, democracy and equality. No longer is religion taught In schools, and with It dies the beliefs that founded this nation. ton Native Americans in the United States and Patrick J. Buchanan By Scaldare In the introduction, Patrick J.

Buchanan notes that Queen Elizabeth II went to the Jamestown since its founding. He quotes the Queen, “Since I visited Jamestown in 1957, my country has become a much more diverse society Just as the Commonwealth of Virginia and the whole of the United States of America have also Buchanan mentions how different not only Jamestown was 400 years ago but also ow different her citizens were. For example, the citizens massacred Native were extreme. Virginia has indeed become a radically changed society.

No longer out. Martin Luther King Day is in. The Confederate flag flies nowhere. ” This 1607. America in 1607 was did not celebrate diversity or multicultural beliefs, so why makes is when other culture such as Native American, African, or Spanish cultures violent manner. In 2007 Virginia culture and diversity is not only welcomed, but In his concluding thoughts, Buchanan remarks that America is a changing nation taught in schools, and with it dies the beliefs that founded this nation.

The essay briefly focuses on the delivery of the Healthy Child Programme age 0-19 (HCP DOH 2009) and the “Giving all children a healthy start” policy by the Department ot Health 2013 (DOH 2013). The government brought the Healthy Child Programme 0-19 years old, out in October 009 (HCP 2009) to support partnerships that work closely with children and their families.

The HCP has made a great impact on the way the health professionals work, as it gives them a guideline on how to structure the delivery of care given to the families. Ensuring that appropriate preventative health care and support is given to the more deprived families that require more guidance. On the other hand the “Giving all children a healthy start in life” Policy (DOH 2013) ims to help children who grow up in the most at risk families and to help parents give their children the best possible care.

This policy also embraces the aims of the HCP, as one of its main focuses, is to help children be as healthy as possible by preventing Illness and encouraging healthy behaviours from pregnancy onwards (DOH 2013). Both these policies make an Immerse dfference In which the health professionals deliver their services, particularly the specialist community public health nurses (SCPHN).

As the policies are a guideline for the SCPHN to follow, and to make sure that they are delivering and offering the most appropriate support they can give to their clients with their best ability. References Department of Health (2012) Getting it right for children, young people and families. Department of Health (2013) Giving all children a healthy start in life. Department of Health (2009) Child Programme: from pregnancy to the first five years ‘OF2 Department of Health (2009) Healthy Child Programme: from 5-19 years old.

First Past The Post, like other plurality/majoriAdvantages and disadvantages of FPTP systemty electoral systems, is defended primarily on the grounds of simplicity and its tendency to produce winners who are representatives beholden to defined geographic areas and governability. The most often cited advantages are that: It provides a clear-cut choice for voters between two main parties. The inbuilt disadvantages faced by third and fragmented minority parties under FPTP in many cases cause the party system to gravitate towards a party of the ‘left’ and a party of the ‘right’, alternating in power.

Third parties often wither away and almost never reach a level of popular support above which their national vote yields a comparable percentage of seats in the legislature. It gives rise to single-party governments. The ‘seat bonuses’ for the largest party common under FPTP (e. g. where one party wins 45 per cent of the national vote but 55 per cent of the seats) mean that coalition governments are the exception rather than the rule.

This state of affairs is praised for providing cabinets which are not shackled by the restraints of having to bargain with a minority coalition partner. It gives rise to a coherent opposition in the legislature. In theory, the flip side of a strong single-party government is that the opposition is also given enough seats to perform a critical checking role and present itself as a realistic alternative to the government of the day. It advantages broadly-based political parties.

In severely ethnically or regionally divided societies, FPTP is commended for encouraging political parties to be ‘broad churches’, encompassing many elements of society, particularly when there are only two major parties and many different societal groups. These parties can then field a diverse array of candidates for election. In Malaysia, for example, the Barisan Nasional government is made up of a broadly-based umbrella movement which fields Malay, Chinese, and Indian candidates in areas of various ethnic complexions.

It excludes extremist parties from representation in the legislature. Unless an extremist minority party’s electoral support is geographically concentrated, it is unlikely to win any seats under FPTP. (By contrast, under a List PR system with a single national-level district and a large number of seats, a fraction of 1 per cent of the national vote can ensure representation in the legislature. It promotes a link between constituents and their representatives, as it produces a legislature made up of representatives of geographical areas.

Elected members represent defined areas of cities, towns, or regions rather than just party labels. Some analysts have argued that this ‘geographic accountability’ is particularly important in agrarian societies and in developing countries. It allows voters to choose between people rather than just between parties. Voters can assess the performance of individual candidates rather than just having to accept a list of candidates presented by a party, as can happen under some List PR electoral systems. It gives a chance for popular independent candidates to be elected.

This may be particularly important in developing party systems, where politics still revolves more around extended ties of family, clan, or kinship and is not based on strong party political organizations. Finally, FPTP systems are particularly praised for being simple to use and understand. A valid vote requires only one mark beside the name or symbol of one candidate. Even if the number of candidates on the ballot paper is large, the count is easy for electoral officials to conduct.

However, FPTP is frequently criticized for a number of reasons. These include: It excludes smaller parties from ‘fair’ representation, in the sense that a party which wins approximately, say, 10 per cent of the votes should win approximately 10 per cent of the legislative seats. In the 1993 federal election in Canada, the Progressive Conservatives won 16 per cent of the votes but only 0. 7 per cent of the seats, and in the 1998 general election in Lesotho, the Basotho National Party won 24 per cent of the votes but only 1 per cent of the seats.

This is a pattern which is repeated time and time again under FPTP. It excludes minorities from fair representation. As a rule, under FPTP, parties put up the most broadly acceptable candidate in a particular district so as to avoid alienating the majority of electors. Thus it is rare, for example, for a black candidate to be given a major party’s nomination in a majority white district in the UK or the USA, and there is strong evidence that ethnic and racial minorities across the world are far less likely to be represented in legislatures elected by FPTP.

In consequence, if voting behaviour does dovetail with ethnic divisions, then the exclusion from representation of members of ethnic minority groups can be destabilizing for the political system as a whole. It excludes women from the legislature. The ‘most broadly acceptable candidate’ syndrome also affects the ability of women to be elected to legislative office because they are often less likely to be selected as candidates by male-dominated party structures. Evidence across the world suggests that women are less likely to be elected to the legislature under plurality/majority systems than under PR ones.

It can encourage the development of political parties based on clan, ethnicity or region, which may base their campaigns and policy platforms on conceptions that are attractive to the majority of people in their district or region but exclude or are hostile to others. This has been an ongoing problem in African countries like Malawi and Kenya, where large communal groups tend to be regionally concentrated. The country is thus divided into geographically separate party strongholds, with little incentive for parties to make appeals outside their home region and cultural–political base.

It exaggerates the phenomenon of ‘regional fiefdoms’ where one party wins all the seats in a province or area. If a party has strong support in a particular part of a country, winning a plurality of votes, it will win all, or nearly all, of the seats in the legislature for that area. This both excludes minorities in that area from representation and reinforces the perception that politics is a battleground defined by who you are and where you live rather than what you believe in.

This has long been put forward as an argument against FPTP in Canada. It leaves a large number of wasted votes which do not go towards the election of any candidate. This can be particularly dangerous if combined with regional fiefdoms, because minority party supporters in the region may begin to feel that they have no realistic hope of ever electing a candidate of their choice. It can also be dangerous where alienation from the political system increases the likelihood that extremists will be able to mobilize anti-system movements.

It can cause vote-splitting. Where two similar parties or candidates compete under FPTP, the vote of their potential supporters is often split between them, thus allowing a less popular party or candidate to win the seat. Papua New Guinea provides a particularly clear example. It may be unresponsive to changes in public opinion. A pattern of geographically concentrated electoral support in a country means that one party can maintain exclusive executive control in the face of a substantial drop in overall popular support.

In some democracies under FPTP, a fall from 60 per cent to 40 per cent of a party’s share of the popular vote nationally can result in a fall from 80 per cent to 60 per cent in the number of seats held, which does not affect its overall dominant position. Unless sufficient seats are highly competitive, the system can be insensitive to swings in public opinion. Finally, FPTP systems are dependent on the drawing of electoral boundaries. All electoral boundaries have political consequences: there is no technical process to produce a single ‘correct answer’ independently of political or other considerations.

Boundary delimitation may require substantial time and resources if the results are to be accepted as legitimate. There may also be pressure to manipulate boundaries by gerrymandering or malapportionment. This was particularly apparent in the Kenyan elections of 1993 when huge disparities between the sizes of electoral districts—the largest had 23 times the number of voters the smallest had—contributed to the ruling Kenyan African National Union party’s winning a large majority in the legislature with only 30 per cent of the popular vote.

The role of the United States in the 21st Century will more than likely remain the same role that is has been since the end of World War Two which is it retain its role of superpower and the epicenter of much of the world economy. Of course, this role could very well change or at least be altered. Case in point, when the Soviet Union detonated a successful atomic bomb and then launched Sputnik into orbit the face of American society changed and the Cold War began. Similarly, the events of Sept 11 changed much of the foreign policy (and even domestic) policies of the United States.

This, much like Sputnik, came as a surprise and without warning (granted Sputnik was not an attack, but it did increase paranoia) and it led to major changes. As such, since the future is impossible to predict it would be difficult to fully say what roles the US will play. While there will definitely be an increased an active presence of the United States in the Middle East, how this will be carried out is dependent on who will be writing the foreign policy decisions. If there was one area on contention worth examining it would be the US’ role in the world in regards to the development of China as a superpower.

China as a nuclear armed economic superpower could raise levels of nervousness in countries such as Taiwan and Japan, but what role will the USA play in Asia? Will it be active or isolationist? Again, time will tell. Regarding the difference between and old system of politics vs. a new system of politics, the political system has not changed in over two hundred years. Granted, political parties and ideologies may change the political system hasn’t. The nation still has a legislative branch, an executive branch and a supreme court.

Additionally, there still remains a certain level of federalism in the United States so the political systems remain fairly the same decade to decade. There really is no fate to American democracy because it is highly unlikely the democracy will be replaced with another form of government considering that 99. 9% of the population seems to like the notion of a democracy. Changing the constitution is a moot point as the vast majority of the amendments to the constitution occurred within the first ten years of the nation’s birth.

In fact, there has not been an amendment to the constitution in over 30 years. Considering that the means of changing or amending the constitution requires a super majority of the Congress and the Senate as well as a 2/3 majority of the states, it is next to impossible to rally support for a single amendment much less a series of radical changes to the amendment. As such, the constitution isn’t going to change. Similarly, the need for the expansion of public welfare vs. the ability to pass legislation that would expand welfare is extremely far apart from one another. Welfare can not be expanded by fiat.

Also, if welfare expansion occurs there is the potential for a backlash from the electorate and this would make politicians very unlikely to advance such legislation when both parties are highly reliant on swing states and tight election victories. Keep in mind, Bill Clinton reluctantly signed welfare reform legislation under the notion that he would lose re-election if he did not sign it. The United States is not a socialist system and the voting public will not get behind an expansion of welfare in light of the 15 year rollback. As such, it is best to examine a cure for poverty outside of the welfare system.

Andrew Jackson, a self-made man, frontiersman, and military hero, was the first President from west of the Appalachians. He was identified with a new kind of democracy—a democracy embracing the entire population rather than only those who were wealthy or owned property. Jackson was neither an original nor a profound thinker, and did not always follow or understand the principles of the “Jacksonian democracy” that bears his name.

However, he did know to interpret the aspirations and viewpoints of the common people who were clamoring for a voice in government. Jackson was a skilled and astute politician, who molded a faction composed mostly of Southerners and Westerners into the Democratic Party. Although politically conservative and a believer in states’ rights, he expanded the powers of the Presidency and was fervently committed to the preservation of the Union.

Jackson had a domineering personality. He was proud, ambitious, and aggressive. Throughout his life, his temper frequently caused him to act hastily or injudiciously, and he was often swayed by personal prejudices. However, his fearless, honesty, and loyalty endeared him to wide sections of populace. His influence was felt well beyond his two terms, and the period from his election of that of Abraham Lincoln is often referred to as the “Age of Jackson. ”