Month: October 2021

The term democracy in America has recently been in the news for all the wrong reasons, and for very good reasons too. A certain breed of Americans who think they know what democracy is should probably have their heads cut off, because this form of government is anything but democratic. Unfortunately the leadership of our country has not learned how to speak the language of democracy, and so we have the unfortunate situation of American style democracy in America where the elected leaders, the legislature, and the popular vote do nothing.

The phrase democracy in America is commonly misused by academics and politicians alike, sometimes using it to compare the United States with Europe or with some third world countries, when in fact the twenty-first century version of the American system of government is much different than any other nation in the world. The most accurate comparison that one can draw between today’s America and any other place in the world, other than perhaps China, is that there is an extremely high degree of individual freedom in America, the highest degree in the world. This means that citizens can choose which laws they live by, which they cannot, and which they have no say over whatsoever. Without having to worry about being ruled by an iron hand, without fear of taxation or arbitrary rule by an autocratic regime, American citizens enjoy freedoms so wide-ranging that nearly every other country on earth can be compared to America.

But is all of this really true? Is America the shining example of a healthy democracy, or is it just a bunch of spoiled, decadent, weak-minded, self-centered, and selfish babies crying out for a better life who need to be coaxed, cajoled, or lectured into accepting something other than the current golden egg: the industrial age. Well, if you’re anything like me, and you know the answer to this question, you’re too smart to be fooled by anyone whose answer you hear. No matter how hard they try, no matter how slick they make themselves, no matter how arrogant they purport to be, no matter how much they whine and how little they achieve, the reality is that democracy and free markets don’t mix well.

The problem with America’s political system has nothing do with America; it has everything to do with the flaws of our political system. It is nothing unique to America. It is something all humans do to some extent. For instance, if we lived in a strictly merit-based society, with no ethnic, national, or linguistic barriers, then everyone who applied for the most top level positions would automatically be eligible for them based solely on their merits. If we instead had a merit-based political system in America and everyone had the same opportunities as everybody else, then somebody with more merit and ability would be left over and that person would be more likely to become a successful entrepreneur and/or leader, because he would have more competition. And that’s exactly what has happened in America – lots of top level jobs have gone to highly qualified CEOs thanks to an almost foolproof merit-based process.

The funny thing is, all this is taking place in an increasingly “meritocratic” (to use an adjective that describes something arbitrarily selected) and democratic (to use an adjective that describes a government characterized by wide ranging and liberalized opportunities) country. One can only imagine the level of liberalism and cultural relativism that will prevail when Hugo Chavez becomes president of Venezuela and allows his people to freely select from a menu of economic goodies that are designed to keep their poor country in poverty. That would be quite ironic, since Hugo Chavez is claiming to want to bring democracy and freedom to his poor country. The fact is that Hugo Chavez will never have his people participate in those things, because their fates are sealed. For them, democracy and freedom means living in extreme poverty and suffering terrible consequences.

It is unfortunate that the people calling themselves the champions of democracy and freedom have abandoned the principles that allowed them to flourish as a bulwark against aristocracy. Instead they advocate a form of social Darwinism in which the survival of the fittest rules. Apparently the aristocracy is no longer extinct in America and, thus, the Democratic Party has little to offer the disenchanted masses in its bid to win back the lost Obama-Fournier base. There is a time for political equality and a time for aristocracy. I hope someone else reminds me of that.

The law is law made and enforced by governmental or civic bodies to regulate conduct, having its exact definition often a question of longstanding debate. It’s been differentially defined as the craft and science of civil law. Historically, civil law dealt with disputes between individuals or associations, such as corporations and government departments. Today, however, civil law also includes crimes, offenses against the state, private rights, and corporate matters. Private citizens can have their rights protected under civil law as well as government officials and/or officers of higher rank.

Civil law emanates from the rules governing the relationships between persons and society at large. The societal aspects of civil law often extend beyond the individual. Common law is the body of law developed by the courts over the course of time in response to the problems faced by contemporary society. The common law arises from three sources. These sources include the traditions of society, common law that emerged in societies after societies formed; and legal theories that developed out of these traditions.

The common law has developed through time in response to accommodate the increasing complexity of modern life. These laws attempt to provide a long description of the ways in which people interact with each other and with society as a whole. This is done by developing a body of laws that are commonly referred to as “norms of conduct”.

Civil law involves the rules governing disputes between individuals, organizations, and governments. Each person involved in any dispute has the same set of legal rights and responsibilities. But different institutions have different responsibilities and rules in relation to how they deal with those duties. When a dispute arises, whether it’s between businesses or individuals, a lawyer is often called upon to determine who has more legitimate standing and is capable of resolving the dispute in a fair and reasonable manner. These decisions are generally guided by a set of legal principles known as “laws of contract” and “acts ofarreavement”.

Another branch of law is criminal law. Criminal law involves the punishments inflicted upon people for crime. It also involves the punishment inflicted upon those who committed crimes in the past as well as those who are presently engaged in criminal activities. Many lawyers become involved in criminal law after graduating from high school or college, as many jurisdictions require aspiring lawyers to take and pass an ethics exam prior to practicing.

Justicary law involves the investigation and determination of crimes and their punishments. This branch of law is the most complex, because there is a great degree of deference given to the wishes of the courts when it comes to interpreting what crimes are not crimes. This can be a very complicated and demanding area of the legal system. In some areas, the federal government alone is empowered to appoint judges, and they are obliged to respect the decisions of the courts even if they believe there are strong public arguments against their decisions. A number of states also appoint several supreme court judges, and they are all required to obey the decisions of the courts unless they consider themselves beyond the reach of the state supreme court.

Democracy in Indonesia is defined as government by the people and for the people. The basic unit of government is the constitution which is voted for and accepted by a majority of inhabitants within a nation. A constitution is not a written document but rather a set of rules or laws that define the relationship and standing of the nation, its government, and its citizens. This document is then put to test whenever an event occurs that may require changes to it. For example, if a candidate for national office promises to modify or abolish a particular law, a constitutional amendment is required to make that happen.

democracy in Indonesia is seen in the constitution and political system as a representative form of representative government. The presidential office is divided into two types of offices: the president himself/ herself and vice-president. The head of the National Bank of Indonesia also acts as a presidential candidate for presidential elections in 2021. The system of checks and balances ensures that no one person has the power to abuse the power of the other. A major concern for many Indonesian citizens is the increasing level of social polarization in society. Some worry that social polarization will lead to increased instability and insecurity in the country.

The rise of hardline groups, such as the Islamic revivalists and the hardline groups associated with the Golkut religion have exacerbated the problem of increasing polarization in Indonesia. Political analysts forecast that these groups will lead to more political instability in Indonesia in coming years. The rising Islamism in Indonesia has also contributed to increase in intolerance and discrimination against the Ahmadiyya community and other non Jakartaese, due to their traditional religious beliefs. There are reports of violence against Ahmadiyya and Christian communities in Aceh province in Indonesia. Aceh has been plagued by conflict since 2021 when it became part of Indonesia. Violence against the Ahmadiyya community, Christians, Muslims, Chinese and foreigners have displaced hundreds of thousands from the region.

Recent months have seen a significant increase in violent attacks against minorities in Aceh, including Christians and Buddhists. There are also reports of forced disappearances and abuses against Chinese in Aceh. The Indonesian government has promised to address issues of social media incitement and violence against minorities during the past few weeks, but this promise has yet to materialize. The escalating number of skirmishes between hardline groups and local residents in Aceh further exacerbates the problem of increasing polarization in Indonesia. This will further deteriorate the country’s ability to fulfill its democratic path.

There is no doubt that Indonesia is experiencing a historic stage of great change. democracy will become the ruling party’s main political platform in running the country. The current government has failed to live up to its inclusive vision for the nation. There are serious concerns on the horizon, especially in terms of the upcoming 2021 election, when the governing party is expected to once again seek the support of the Islamic groups to further marginalize the Balinese and Chinese communities in areas like northern Aceh.

Ethnic Cleansing In Aceh: As the ethnic Chinese vote for a boycott in the upcoming elections, there will be further incursions by the hardline Islamic movements into other parts of Aceh to push them into the sea. The northeast has already been heavily affected by recent ethnic cleansing. Although the government has declared a cease-fire in many fighting areas, many people fear that the conflict will worsen and transform into a sectarian campaign. If ethnic cleansing is happening in Aceh, it is likely that the province will be even more devastated than before. For this reason, the prospect of a peaceful, fair, and multiparty election in Indonesia in next year is very doubtful.

The democracy concept has been developed into a political philosophy by some of the greatest minds of all time. Despotism, Machiavelli, democracy and constitutional government are just some of the many forms of political systems that have developed throughout history. These famous individuals have all argued about the right mix of democracy and monarchy for their respective nations. Some people would argue that there isn’t enough balance between these ideals, and that societies have become too polarized to move toward any form of polarity.

The democracy in America system is one that is currently under discussion. The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Bill of Rights all embody the main ideas behind democracy. They describe a country with a government form in which all citizens are allowed to participate and have their say in how that country runs. There are three key elements to this ideal, all of which are necessary for a vibrant democracy. These include freedom, equality, and liberty.

Freedom is necessary for a successful democracy, and is defined by the Declaration of Independence. The United States is not without freedom; however, many feel that it is extremely difficult to exercise this right given the social conditions that prevail in America today. For this reason, they feel that a far better system is necessary to guarantee that everyone is able to exercise their right to vote. For those who believe that American democracy is generally good, it is also important to note that the French have a tradition of democracy which is more decentralized, and has fewer constraints on its citizens than does America.

For those who believe that democracy in America is bad and that a more centralized system is needed to guarantee a level of equality, they should consider the observations of Gustave de Mably. In his book, “Social Problems of Urban Residents”, he discussed the fact that America has a poor performance rating when it comes to economic prosperity. Many citizens of the United States live in extreme poverty. They have relatively weak educational qualifications, and are saddled with high levels of debt. This dearth of personal equality is what makes the political life of America problematic, and has been the cause of much despair and rebellion.

Those who believe that a democratic revolution is inevitable and necessary because of the way the American people are treated by the government, or the lack of fundamental freedoms in the United States, need to look at the way in which the Chinese communist party has gained power. Their system of oppression has kept the people in check, and despite any kind of international observation, the people of China are happy to live in a society where their freedom of speech is protected, and they enjoy overall prosperity. They do not enjoy widespread violence, and yet they seem to have a high level of national happiness despite the fact that freedom of speech is severely restricted, and political crimes are widespread. In short, the Chinese people are not experiencing a ” democracy ” in America – they are experiencing a socialism.

The greatest threat to democracy in America is not a revolution, but rather the continued existence of a form of slavery, known as capitalism, with its ability to create both wealth and vast unearned wealth for a select few. A cursory glance at history would seem to bear this fact out. The capitalists have always needed an obedient masses who have the capacity to produce the goods that they desire. The individuals who have been able to attend to this need have always been seen as backwards, and this group of self-interest politicians we call the politicians. In short, the interests of the slaveholder are always more important than those of the democracy, and the United States, much like any other country, was created by and for the people, and only the people.

Freedom, in general, is the power to act or make changes without constraint. Something is free if it is not constrained in the state of its existence and can evolve freely. That is why people say things are free: they mean that whatever is being endowed is at its disposition to be used. The power of freedom thus stems from the fact that it is compatible with the fact that humans are rational creatures and capable of altering whatever their minds decide.

People’s freedom is most frequently associated with the individual liberty of speech and press, which includes freedom of expression as a right, and an interest in being able to hold certain views about, and to criticize, government and other public institutions, and a willingness to accept different opinions, even contradictory ones, about important issues, such as political party politics or religion. However, these freedoms also extend to a broader range of actions. Freedom of speech and press also give way to protection against defamation and other defamation as well as other actions aimed to intimidate or defame another individual. A person’s freedom of action, therefore, encompasses not only physical freedoms but also mental freedoms as well. This is where the concept of public health and freedom of health comes into play.

Public health is one instance of freedom of action that stems from the desire to maintain good human welfare. Good public health is necessary to the efficient management of the economy and the well-being of the people. For this end, people have a right to seek advice and be provided with information that they may need in making good decisions for themselves and their families. Also, the right to freedom of thought and freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution and other legal provisions are necessary to safeguard the welfare state and guarantee the equal rights of citizens regardless of their race, tribe, color, sex, religion, or sex, and to ensure social equality.

Political freedoms, on the other hand, are the opposite of economic freedoms because economic freedom is rooted in economic prosperity. For this reason, human beings have been willing to fight for the economic freedom, which they believe is necessary to ensure their liberty and freedom. Also, unlike economic freedom, a person’s freedom of action and freedom of speech are tied tightly together. Consequently, when a person thinks that he or she is being attacked by another for his or her beliefs or opinions, he or she can take measures to protect those freedoms by going to the court and filing for a lawsuit.

Freedom of speech and press is another aspect of economic freedom that has become a cause cockey between economic freedom and political freedom. Because the press is an institution that promotes freedom of speech and dissemination of information, those who cannot find the courage to speak out for their freedoms face severe repercussions. For this reason, even if the press enjoys a free press charter, some areas have made it a requirement for any citizen to register as a reporter before covering a story. Also, laws against defamation and violence are designed to protect the vulnerable from the defamation and physical violence that may be directed at them.

In today’s world, people’s freedom of action and freedom of speech are being threatened by violence and intolerance. Therefore, human rights activists work constantly on improving the conditions for freedom of speech and press along with other freedoms in the political arena. The advancement of civil liberties ensures that people enjoy greater levels of freedom, which is necessary for freedom to flourish. When more people have the freedom to express themselves, politics no longer threaten the individual but enrich his or her life.

The term “democracy” has many meanings. One commonly used meaning is representative government. A form of government where one segment has a preponderance of votes. An election to govern a representative government is normally called a plebiscitary election. A government led by a democracy, also known as a constitutional democracy, is described as a constitutional democracy.

Within a democratic political system, the institutions of the democracy ensure that each citizen has the opportunity to participate in the political process and have their say in how the country is run. This provides citizens with a sense of involvement and a voice in how they are governed. Each political party in a democracy may hold a manifestos or a presidential election.

The most famous form of democracy is modern liberal democracy. These are named after the French Revolution where a group of citizens banded together to remove the absolute power of the King and institute a form of democracy in place of absolute rule. This group set up institutions that were considered to be democratic. In most modern liberal democracies, freedom of speech and press is protected. The rule of law is highly developed and the political system is controlled by a constitution. Privacy is not an issue as people can freely criticize government policies without repercussions.

In contrast, there is a form of democracy known as authoritarian democracy, which has a strong centralized executive authority, and is ruled by a party that is ruled by a bureaucracy. Industrial society has greatly increased in developed nations over the last century and this has brought with it the need for higher wages, more leisure time, and more opportunities. As these opportunities have become available, there has been a growing gap between the haves and have nots. In most cases, the haves outnumber the have nots in wealth and income levels, so a division of wealth has resulted.

Many have labeled modern-day liberal democracy as dangerous because it gives too much power to the individuals. Others have said that a democratic polity would likely fail because it cannot provide social services or protect its citizens from major threats. A few, such as Jean Loriot, have argued that liberal democracy is inherently prone to corruption. For this reason, he has classified contemporary democratic societies into three groups, each with varying levels of corruption. Group one, which includes many western European and North American countries, is considered to be the world’s democracy and enjoys strong levels of economic prosperity, technological advancement, and social welfare.

Group two, consisting of eastern European and Latin American countries, consists of relatively poor, uneducated, and corrupt societies. The third grouping, which is comprised of Asia-Pacific nations, consists of relatively wealthy, advanced civilizations, yet has one of the highest rates of infant mortality and poverty. Based on these definitions, we could argue that democratic societies are not inherently incapable of providing social services or protection to their citizens. However, in order for us to evaluate the level of democracy in different societies, we must apply the criteria suggested in this article to determine what exactly democracy means.

The law is primarily law developed and imposed by governmental or social institutions to control behavior, having its precise legal definition again a matter of long-standing debate. It is often alternatively defined as an art and science of civil law. Some philosophers define law as a human construct based on rational reflection on right and wrong. According to this view, law is a purely rational concept, which does not reflect any underlying moral or ethical principles. However, most other philosophers hold that law has both rational and non-re rational aspects.

In a further discussion, the term ‘law’ is used to refer to the set of rules or principles that govern conduct in the legal sphere. This includes legislation, norms, and duties just like any other set of rules. It is further divided into two main areas, ethical law and criminal law. The former deals with rules that affect individual liberty and moral right, while the latter deals with rules that affect the State and its authority, enforcing obedience to the law.

In addition to these differences, there are also significant temporal differences. In the United States, there are three major bodies of law: Federalism, Civil Law, and Common Law. Federalism refers to the separation of powers within the State. For instance, in the case of Congress, the branches of government are separated from one another so that each branch has the prerogative of acting in its own interest. Civil law, on the other hand, refers to disputes over private domains such as land, property, and business that are not covered by common law jurisdictions. Common law jurisdictions include cases such as those that deal with takings, property rights, corporate law, and criminal law.

For purposes of this article, we will be focusing on the last category of laws – criminal law. Criminal law encompasses crimes against the state, private citizens, or society in whole. It is one of the most important categories of law because crime can and does have a wide effect on society. When crimes are committed, the State is justified in using its police power to apprehend those responsible for the crime and bring them to justice. The criminal justice system is integral to the operation of our legal system. For this reason, it is important for students to have a clear understanding of what this category of law entails.

Within the realm of criminal justice, there are two basic classifications of wrongs: Misdemeanors and Felonies. Misdemeanors are less severe offenses and involve the violation of a law that is not itself a felony, but has a reputation for being regularly violated (e.g., a white-collar crime). Misdemeanors are commonly punished by reduced fines, probation, community service, or incarceration. For example, the offense of rape is not a felony, but the word “rape” is often used as an additional or definitive verb, implying the possibility of such a crime, and thus the punishment.

The second, and arguably the most important, category of criminal law is that between crimes against society and crimes which are morally wrong but do not meet the above distinctions. These fall under what is known as the gray area. Gray area includes a broad range of crimes and behaviors, including murder, theft, child molestation, sex crimes, domestic violence, graffiti, and driving under influence. Although the definition of the gray area varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, earning a doctoral degree in criminal justice is usually required if you want a career in the legal field after law school.

Democracy in Indonesia is an oxymoron in the most fundamental sense: the concept of democracy was adopted as a universal principle by the western world during the period of empire, but in practice, only a small percentage of countries has fully embraced the concept of democracy. Today, democracy is practiced in more than hundred countries around the globe, with the remaining twenty-five to twenty-five percent in partial democracy. Indonesia is one of the few countries in the world that practices a high level of democracy, with a multiparty system in place since Indonesian independence in 1957. However, Indonesia has undergone a dramatic democratic breakthrough in the past decade, with the coming to power of Suharto and the moderate turn taken by the majority of Indonesian citizens during the last election. The current constitution approved in 2021 guarantees protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and strengthens the role of the parliament as a constitutional institution. The document established by Suharto remains subject to change with subsequent elections due to take place in 2021.

However, a key feature of democracy in Indonesia is the principle of checks and balances, which ensures that the elected government is not hampered by the presence of a powerful elite or a political party that may abuse their power for personal gains. In Indonesia, as in other cases where a multiparty system of government is elected, one or perhaps two members of the legislature are appointed by the president and his/her committee. The checks and balances mechanism, therefore, ensures that elected officials do not abuse their power for personal gain. In addition, the checks and balances mechanism ensures that the government functions properly. The existence of checks and balances in a country guarantees that it is stable and that the ruling party is able to maintain a strong grip over the country. Since there are strong forces supporting different parties and competing for political power, this checks and balance ensures that the government does not fall into disarray.

After Suharto’s death, democracy in Indonesia was brought to the next level. Under president Muhamed Hendroprieti, who was named vice president and later prime minister, the system of checks and balances was strengthened further. In the next election, which took place in early 2021, the National Democratic Party (PDP) won the presidential polls and remained in power until June 2021. The moderate Islamic Party, however, was second behind the PDP in the presidential polls. After this period, there was a new leadership in the form of a constitutional assembly, known as the Barangay, which was formed to counter the growing threats from the three main political parties in Indonesia – the PPP, the NCP and the PRC.

In order for a country to have a democratic system of government, the executive and the legislative branches of government have to be functional. Unfortunately, this is yet to be achieved in Indonesia. Although the constitution guarantees free and fair presidential elections, many individuals and groups are not registered to vote, have their rights suppressed or are excluded from public service. Media is also severely restricted in terms of coverage and distribution. This is creating an environment of a censorship that is more pronounced than in any other country in Southeast Asia.

If democracy is to survive in Indonesia one must understand that it will require a fundamental change in mindset and ideals to make the transition to democracy work. The current constitution guaranteeing free and fair elections must be amended. There should be an end to the discrimination faced by minorities in terms of gender, ethnicity and religion. Basic educational and health facilities must be made available to all and political prisoners must be released and protected from ill-treatment.

A fully functional and independent national parliament is required before any meaningful changes can be seen in Indonesia. The current system of checks and balances protects citizens from abusive actions of the majority, but it is not strong enough to guarantee full democracy. In spite of this, it has been the hope of the United Nations and most analysts that Indonesia will move towards democracy eventually. It would then join the other Southeast Asian countries of the world, allying itself with the democratic ideals of mankind. Sadly, we see a few malcontents clinging to the power they feel provides them with a sense of legitimacy, rather than the freedoms and prosperity that other people of their land enjoy. These individuals must be held accountable for their actions.

Freedom, by definition, is the power to act or freedom to choose. Something is free if it is able to change freely and isn’t limited in its current state. This means that whatever the conditions are in the world, you have the right to alter your situation to some degree. You don’t have to be a slave, just choose to be free.

One of the most important parts of the American ideal is freedom. Freedom is the basis for democracy and is the foundation of a republic. Without freedom, a republic would cease to exist because a basic human right, which is the freedom of speech and press, is no longer guaranteed. The right to bear arms is also threatened in the US by gun control legislation that limits citizens’ right to defend themselves.

There are many types of freedoms. Freedom of speech and press is one of the most important. Freedom of religion is another. Political freedom is the right to peacefully vote and choose how a country will operate. Economic freedom is the ability to choose how your money is spent.

Individual freedoms are rights that only the individual possesses. These rights include freedom of speech, press, worship and other civil liberties. Government control over the masses is what modern critics refer to as political freedom. This is the right that citizens have to defend their freedoms against the public authorities.

Economic freedom, in the eyes of the American ideal, is about liberty, justice and equality. It is based on the fact that all human rights are natural rights and all economic and social systems are compatible with human rights. Therefore, economic freedom is the opposite of all other forms of freedom. It is the foundation of a just society where all citizens have an equal right to pursue happiness as they see fit.

Unfortunately, political freedom is almost never fully realized because the people who claim it never find a way to exercise it. Citizens too scared to stand up for themselves end up caving in to public opinion and submitting to whatever the public wants. Sadly, most Americans think that economic freedom and personal freedom are the same thing. The truth is that they are not. In actuality, political freedom protects economic freedom.

Political freedom means that citizens are allowed to make choices about how their lives will be ruled by the state. It also means that citizens can decide how much power they will allow the state to have over their lives. However, economic freedom does not mean that citizens are left to fend for themselves. For instance, if the United States did not have its currency, individuals would have to finance their own necessities themselves. Since that is not possible, the US government would step in and provide for these necessities through taxation.

Now that you know the difference between the two terms, you should learn how to use this information to improve your personal and economic freedom. To do this, you should use the template message above. This message can be placed on your bumper, your desk or anywhere else where you think it will serve you well. It is an excellent way to remind yourself of your liberty and how it is important to protect it. The template message “economic freedom is the key to personal freedom” is a powerful reminder of the freedoms you are entitled to enjoy as an American citizen.

If one has to choose between the dictionary definition of ” democracy” and the political theory of democracy, the latter would have to be the correct choice. Of course, “democracy” has a variety of different definitions throughout the world. One nation’s version of “democracy” may differ slightly from the other’s.

The word ” democracy” can be defined as a form of government in which the society shares power or decisions making authority. It also can mean that the societal system works to maintain freedom, equality, and consideration of human rights. In modern times, “democracy” has been used to describe a number of social institutions. Some of these include representative government, constitutional government, direct election of leaders, multi-party democracy, and multiparty politics.

The major premise behind democracy is equality before and after law. This means that all individuals have an equal right to participate in societal decisions and activities, regardless of race, gender, religion, disability, or age. Additionally, American democracy also ensures equal opportunity for everyone. It also promotes social peace, social justice, economic prosperity, and environmental conservation.

By its very nature, a democratic polity requires and encourages open debate and discussion. A key feature of a democratic political system is the right of citizens to criticize their government and elected officials without reprisal. Many scholars and political scientists note that this “democratic paradox” stems from the American enlightenment ideal of “rights of the petitioning individual”. Because the framers of the US constitution recognized the rights of individuals to peacefully assemble and petition the federal government, the US political system works to ensure that all citizens have the rights to participate in elections and free speech. Consequently, a free press plays an important role in the overall protection of democracy in America.

Historically, throughout much of the western world, democracy has been linked to a lack of self-interest on the part of citizens. Historically, in most nations, the term “self-interest” referred to the need of wealthier citizens to exert political power and wealth in order to fund higher education, medical care, and other public services. In Europe, however, the concept of self-interest is not linked to any national interest or wealth. Rather, citizens are motivated by a desire to serve as good representatives of their nation and the world, and to stand up for what is right. Because of this, Europeans have long been skeptical of democratic theories such as self-interest, and democratic societies have often been plagued by high levels of corruption and cronyism.

Additionally, in both Canada and the United States, the concept of democracy is linked closely to social equity. According to Martin Luther King Jr., “ither wealth or poverty is more evil than the other. Far from becoming an end in itself, liberty and equality help to make possible the greatest good for humanity.” From this standpoint, the statement that separates the United States from most European nations during the history of either country’s existence is that America cares more about social equity than wealth or level of wealth per se.