Recent orders
Democrats & Republicans
Democrats & Republicans
Both democrats and republicans fear the hard road head they see ahead. The groove that has cut between the two is growing bigger day by day even inside the houses, yet they are the ones supposed to govern this great nation together for the next term. The American people decided to leave the Republicans to control the lower house but let the democrats stay on top of them so they voted in President Obama. Even though they expressed frustration due to the stand still that almost pulled the nation into defaulting on its loans in the last year, they showed a sort of 50-50 split among the supporters considering the very narrow win against a republican, Mitt Romney. This will be a divide that will in a major way; slow down the progress of any issues maybe for the next 2 years and this might soon be an arousal of a crisis in the American nation. During the campaigns, Obama put his focus more on giving help to the middle class and the high number of believers of “yes we can”. Even with Mitt Romney and his allies spending more than $1 billion trying to throw him out, Obama’s tactics were more of a coalition of identity rather than ideology. Other than winning himself the seat, as a democrat of the nation, he also won himself a seat in history next to those other eight men who were re-elected more than once.
Even with the re-election of democrat and President Barrack Obama, the republicans continued hold of the house with House Speaker John Boehner saying that they will have as much mandate as Obama. They had made it their goal four years ago that they would work towards the loss of power for President Obama. Mitch McConnell, a senate republican leader, in his remarks following the elections said that the voters were not looking at the failures and excesses of the president’s first term. This showed their effort toward throwing him out of the white house. The republicans also went against the health care law that Obama tried to push through. They did not give even one single house or Senate vote for it but instead beat down the efforts towards ending tax cuts targeting the richest households, instituted during the Bush era. They had tried to use the high rates of unemployment in the states to show his incapability for a second term. In an attempt at deficit reduction, republicans have failed to raise taxes targeting the rich citizens.
Democrats however think that Obama has learnt his lesson in his first term that has led him to the realization that at times he will have to get involved in not just the crafting of, but also the negotiation of legislation. In addition, democrats topped up that such tax hikes by the republicans might always accompany such deals. By re-electing Obama back to power, the democrats made sure even with the number of republicans in the house, democrats sat on the throne. It is probable that the larger number that voted him in were democrats.
Obama proceeded to show the urge for unison between the republicans and democrats in the house when in his victory speech he stated that he was looking forward to working with leaders from both sides of the divide in order to meet the challenges that can only be solved through collaboration. This greatly supports my personal view of the situation. The United States of America will either have to change this name or rephrase by the end of this term if they do not set aside their differences and lead this nation together.
democratic self-government , democracy, political science
Political Science
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
During the better part of the 19th and 20th centuries, authoritarian regimes predominantly dictated, controlled and influenced the political life in many Asian, Western and African countries. In the modern times however, many countries have displayed examples of democratic system of governance that have not only been successful but has also deterred re-occurrence of dictatorship. However not all the countries have pure democratic ruling because the system that have put in place not only encourage impunity but not effectively let go dictatorship. It has been a great challenge installing democracy in some countries especially those in Africa. The Islamism is a good paradigm that the western style democracy faces a lot of challenges in large parts of the world. There has also been return of the centralized authoritarian ruling in Russia. Although democracy has been progressing very well, the progress may be negated behind by those countries that resist letting go of the authoritarian ruling. Africa for example is a good example of the victims of authoritarian ruling (Magstad, 140). However Zambia served as emulation when they let go of dictatorship and allowed their country to be democratic.
Totalitarian regimes are termed as false utopias because they make promises that are they never fulfill. There is usually complete domination and those in control seem to run everything without the opinion of the followers. Those countries that have totalitarian governments aim at achieving total political, economic and social control of the people. The outright characteristic of this type of ruling is that those in power have the total say over the society and the state in general (Magstadt, 151). These are some of the reasons that make it to be referred as false because it is concerned with the needs of the society but is only concerned with gaining power over those who are in charge. This kind of ruling involved a lot of violence especially the killing of innocent people who were deemed dangerous for no particular reason.
The Russian government was run by a union called the Soviet Union. This union had emerged from the totalitarian regime and therefore it involved domination. The people were tied of having such kind of a ruling therefore decided to fight it. The citizens of Russia were more determined to promote nationalism, a belief in self determination and egalitarianism. They could not anymore take in the fact that there were people like them trying to take control over their country. They believed that it was high time to promote equality in their state and society as well. Russia has faced a lot of rebellion by many of its neighboring countries. This is because most of those countries became victim of the nuclear weapons that the Soviet government had deployed at the time of its reign. There was a lot of tension among those newly independent nations (Magstadt 242).
Economic development and political stability do go hand in hand. If a country is politically unstable, the most possible outcome is that the economy is usually at stake. In most cases it is not possible for a country that is politically unstable to do well with its economic structure. For example the economy of a country is highly affected when that country is experiencing internal wars most of which are politically driven (Magstadt 288). On the other hand if a country is politically stable, the economy is not much affected. If leaders ensure that their countries are politically stable it will not consume time trying to maintain peace but rather use that time to improve the economy of that particular country. It may not be necessary for either factors to depend on each other but each contributes to the success or failure of the other.
The concepts of citizenship and democratic self-government have certain correlations. Citizenship requires that one be patriotic and strives to see his country and fellow citizens develop and prosper. Democratic self government is based on the principle of popular mandate and sovereignty. As such citizenship enforces democratic self-government as the citizens would have their democratically elected leaders to rule their independent and sovereign territory on their behalf, while at the same time maintaining law and order but guaranteeing the same citizens fundamental human rights and freedoms.
I cannot claim to be politically active because basically politics puts me off. This is because most people misuse the positions that they acquire making it look like a bad venture. If people would change their perspective about politics, not viewing it as a base of competition, politics would have some relevance. Those involved in politics always think of what they will gain out of it and not how they will help those involved. For one to be a good leader and citizen they have to stick to the regulations and norms of that state. That is what would increase my level of participation and support towards politics (Magstadt, 352).
In most cases, people who seek political offices and are in search of fame do not do it for the good of the public. It is usually a matter of what will make them famous and what they will gain out of all that. These kinds of leaders will not show that they are there to cause any harm and neither will they show any good that they are willing to do to their followers. Their main aim is for them to gain the leadership and to ensure that they are re-elected the next time there is an election. For a good leader, his or her interest is not whether they are elected but rather to ensure that they fulfill the major needs of the society. Some of the leaders that were driven by the desire for fame include George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison (Magstadt, 401). According to them leadership was a way of pursuing fame but at the same time they were patriots and were ready to serve their country.
Works Cited:
Magstadt, T., Understanding Politics, Cengage Learning Academic Resource Centre, CA: California, 2009.
Democracy without Democrats
Name
Institution
Instructor
Date
Democracy without Democrats
In this article, John Waterbury argues that lack of sustainable democratic involvement among the Arab Middle East countries is fueled by the existence of several factors. The most prevalent cause of the failure of democracy is the continued warfare and conflict that many states in this region have experienced. This as a resulted has created authoritarian political leaders who further suppress the possibility of exercising democratic rights among the citizens. In addition, existence of middle class with no decision on whether to support democracy or not has made the situation worse. This worsened by the fact that most of these middle class citizens depend on public employment thus have to follow what the authoritarian leadership tells them while those in private sectors live in fear of losing their financial position if they go against the government. In addition, the existence of the culture of obedience among the Islamic communities have made the citizens become slow in seeking for democratic change as they have to obey what their law and leaders state.
The reasons for those seeking the need for democracy may also be termed to lack a specific goal. While some groups in the Middle East states have lobbied for the end of authoritarian leadership, most of these groups are motivated by divided interest thus creating lack of unity in pushing for democracy. According to the writer, those who have put an effort towards seeking democracy are the people in the community who may have failed in accomplishing their political agenda and as a result, they feel that democracy is the suitable way of achieving their personal goals. In addition, existence of oppression towards the poor and religious groups in Middle East makes those belonging to such groups feel that democracy may help in ending the oppression. This shows that democrats are not entirely rejecting the current regime but they feel that democracy is an alternative way to ending the existence of conflicts of interests.
