Author: Democraticfront

Democracy, which means “rule by the people,” is widely credited with allowing citizens to influence important decisions about their own lives and holding leaders accountable. It seems to have other benefits, too: countries that establish democracies seem better governed than autocracies and are more likely to grow their economies, while democratic governments often practice fairer trade policies. But what is it exactly, and how do we make sure that it works?

The word democracy derives from two Greek words: demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning power or rule. The first meaning refers to the idea that a government depends on its citizens for its legitimacy and is therefore subject to the laws of the state. The second meaning relates to the idea that citizens have a right to participate in political life, and can even take on some governing roles themselves, like being members of popular courts or of regional or confederal councils.

Today, most democratic systems are based on the idea that people vote to elect officials who represent their interests in government and formulate and implement policy in the name of the public good. These representatives are ideally suited to this task because of their ability to deliberate on complicated issues in a way that individuals and small groups cannot easily do, as well as their access to a wide range of information about what the public needs.

One of the most fundamental problems with democracy is that citizens often do not fully understand what they are voting for when they go to the polls. This can lead to decisions that citizens later regret, because they did not see the long-term impact of their choices at the time of voting. Fortunately, there are ways to address this problem. Citizens can stay informed by reading the news and talking to their elected representatives about issues they care about. They can also raise their concerns with groups that work on specific issues, such as environmental or humanitarian organizations.

Other common arguments for the undesirability of democracy claim that it leads to moral decline and social disintegration. However, these claims are usually based on misunderstandings or a lack of understanding of what democracy actually means. The truth is that most democratic systems around the world do not experience the ills attributed to them in this context, and in fact, they tend to promote human rights, fairness, and prosperity.

The most important thing is to understand that democracy is not a static concept, but that it requires citizens to remain active participants in the process. That can mean voting, protesting, or running for office. It can also mean making efforts to stay informed about the decisions and actions that are being taken in their name, so that they can speak out against policies that violate their rights or harm society. It can also involve engaging with the wider public in robust discussion and debate, whether online or in person. All of these activities will help to ensure that democracy continues to work in the future, so that everyone can enjoy the freedoms and opportunities it provides.

Democracy is a common value shared by humanity. It should not be hijacked by any state to advance its geopolitical agenda or counter human development and progress. Yet, for long time, the US has been monopolizing the definition of democracy and instigating confrontation and division in the name of democracy. It wantonly interferes in the internal affairs of other countries under the pretext of “spreading democracy” and seeks regime change to install pro-US governments. These actions are at odds with the core values and tenets of democracy, and have been resulting in chaos and instability in many regions and countries.

The abysmal performance of the US government reveals that the American democracy is in serious trouble. The gunshots and political farce on Capitol Hill are a painful reminder that the beautiful appearance of America’s democracy conceals a dark underbelly. Despite all of the rhetoric of American pride in its democracy, the truth is that most Americans are disillusioned with their politics and pessimistic about the future of their country.

Moreover, democracy in the US has been weakened by a host of problems that undermine its fundamental principles and structural integrity: the power of money and corporate influence in elections; wrangling between political parties; racial divisions; social injustice; and the polarization of the society. It is not surprising that most people around the world, including some US allies, view American democracy as a shattered and washed-up has-been.

As the founders of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence envisioned, a democratic system of government should be fair, just and equitable to all. But in reality, the US has become a democracy in name only. The nation’s electoral system is rigged; the Supreme Court has been turned into a weapon in the political warfare between two Americas; and the separation of powers has been eroded by partisan struggle.

The most glaring example of the hollowness of democracy in the US is the way that it deals with racial and religious minorities. The scourge of racism is an indelible stain on the democracy that claims to be the “shining city upon a hill.” Even though racial segregation has been abolished, the American society is still divided along racial lines. White supremacy is the dominant force in the US, and racial discrimination continues to ravage communities across the country.

The US cannot claim to be a model of democracy when it does not have the courage and conviction to address these underlying problems. The US should abandon its self-proclaimed hegemony and focus on the fundamentals of democracy in order to reclaim its rightful place as a global leader and global citizen. Consequently, large investment institutions should ensure that democracy is at the heart of their investment strategy, and actively encourage their CEOs to continue fighting for the cause of democracy in the US and the world. This is the responsibility of investors, which can be most effectively discharged when they act together as a united front in defending democracy.

Freedom is a fundamental human right and the foundation of self-fulfillment. It affirms the dignity and worth of all members of society and gives individuals the power to realize their full potential as humans. Freedom should be promoted and protected at all times – and especially in these challenging, unprecedented times.

What does freedom mean to you at this unique moment in history?

This question can be approached in a number of ways. For example, in a classroom setting you could have everyone take two minutes to write or draw out their own definition of the word freedom. You would then ask them to share their definitions with a partner and discuss them. You could also have them list all the rights, privileges and freedoms they feel they enjoy as citizens of the United States.

The idea of freedom is a complex one with many different meanings and applications. The term is used in a wide range of contexts including the political, the philosophical, the legal and the social. In a political context, freedom is often associated with democracy and is often discussed in relation to the concepts of liberty and equality.

Another common use of the term freedom is in reference to specific types of liberties or rights such as freedom of speech, religious freedom, and freedom of movement. This concept of freedom is often viewed in relation to other types of rights such as the right to own property or to receive education.

In general, the word freedom is interpreted as the capacity to choose one’s actions and behavior without constraints. It is important to note, however, that no one actually has complete freedom – there are always constraints. These may be external, such as laws or the culture of a society, or they may be internal, such as a person’s priorities and desires.

Philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that true freedom involves the capacity to exercise a choice with which we are satisfied. To be free, he said, a choice must satisfy us, and that satisfaction cannot come from the mere fact that we are not bound by an external force. This view of freedom is known as transcendental freedom.

The concept of freedom is not universally agreed upon. For example, some people consider themselves to be free only when they can express their thoughts and opinions without fear of retribution, while others believe that freedom must also include the ability to speak out against injustices. In addition, some people think that only certain groups of people – such as women or minorities – should be allowed to have freedom.

Despite the different interpretations of freedom, most people agree that it is necessary in order to function as a society and for individuals to be able to achieve their full potential. In these uncertain and challenging times, it is even more important to work together as a global community toward the goal of promoting and protecting freedom for all.

Law is the system of rules and procedures by which a government or group sets and enforces limits on human behavior. It is the basis for enforceable contracts, property rights, and criminal, civil and administrative justice. The nature of law differs from nation to nation. Some legal systems are more repressive, whereas others are more democratic and liberal. The most important function of law is to keep the peace, but it also protects minorities against majorities, maintains the status quo, and provides for orderly social change. It serves these purposes most effectively when the people or groups that make and enforce it have some degree of political power. Governments that do not serve these functions tend to fail. Rebellions against oppressive or authoritarian laws are a familiar feature of history.

The most controversial question about law involves the method of interpretation. There are many ways to get from input – the text of the law or constitution or statute – to output – its meaning. A related debate concerns which factors should be given greater weight in legal interpretation. For example, some theorists give primacy to the intentions of the lawmakers (the legislature in the case of statutory law, or the framers or ratifiers of a constitutional law). Other theorists take the opposite position – that legal interpretation is a pure exercise in linguistic analysis, and the only legitimate interpretive considerations are those provided by the text itself.

In a common law system, whose historical exemplar is England, judicial decisions (called “case law”) are one of the most important sources of legal authority. These judgments set precedent that is in effect (though not formally) binding on subsequent courts, as they decide other cases of similar facts. In contrast, some Continental countries have codified laws that are more or less prescriptive.

Other topics in law include labour law, which addresses the tripartite relationship between worker, employer and trade union; tort law, which covers civil wrongs; and criminal law, which deals with offenses against public order. There is also a body of law called administrative law, which relates to the procedures by which government agencies create and enforce rules.

The most common sources of legal authority are statutory law, regulatory law and case law. Statutory law are codes enacted by legislative bodies, regulatory law are guidelines established by executive agencies based on statutes, and case law are decisions made in ongoing adjudication. The latter is particularly significant in the United States, where court decisions can be overturned by higher courts if they do not follow established precedent.

In addition, there are special forms of law for particular types of transactions, such as contracts, taxation, immigration, insurance and banking. Finally, there is canon law, which concerns the judicial canons that guide religious courts. Articles on legal education and the legal profession also pertain to the nature of law. For articles on the relationship of law to politics, see political structure; ideology; and political party.

Few societies can draw on such a deep well of social and political tolerance as Indonesia’s. The world’s third-largest Muslim democracy has been able to sustain democratic institutions and conduct credible elections for more than two decades since the fall of Suharto’s New Order regime. While Indonesia’s political culture may be a model for liberal democracies struggling with partisan polarization, it’s not without its flaws.

One major concern is the role of religious identity in politics. The Jakarta vote was a stark case in point. The winning candidate, Anies Baswedan, ran a campaign blaming Ahok for allegedly supporting Islamist extremism, a charge that Ahok vigorously denied. The fact that Anies won easily suggests that religious identity was a significant factor in voter decision making.

Another concern is the state’s continued use of repressive laws to limit freedom of expression. Despite the fact that most Indonesians say they believe it’s important to express personal views on a range of topics, only about two-thirds actually engage in civic activities such as contacting an elected official or joining a protest.

Nevertheless, Indonesians generally hold positive attitudes about the health of their democracy and their country’s economy. More than half of those surveyed in a recent Pew Research Center survey said they were optimistic about the future of their nation.

The challenges facing Indonesia are broader than a single election cycle, however. The coronavirus pandemic has tested the strength of Indonesia’s democratic system in a way that has also challenged many other large and diverse democracies around the world.

As a result, the country’s political leaders have proposed returning to indirect regional elections in which local executives are selected by provincial legislatures rather than directly by voters. This would be a major departure from two decades of reform and undermine one of the key sources of democratic accountability—the ability for voters to evaluate and punish incompetent executives through an electoral process.

Finally, a third concern is the extent to which the military continues to shape political campaigns, party selections and elections in the country. While President Joko Widodo has made a point of dismantling the military’s influence, former commanders still play a prominent role in politics, including in his administration. Meanwhile, intimidation by nonstate actors—including armed groups with links to the military—remains a serious problem. Overall, these factors suggest that if Indonesians do not act swiftly and wisely to address the challenges they face, the long-term viability of their democracy could be in jeopardy.

Democracy is the system of government most commonly associated with freedom, equality and human rights. The word itself is derived from the Greek words demos (“people”) and kratia (“rule”). This political system involves the active participation of citizens in governing themselves, either directly by referendum or indirectly through elections. The nature of this participation has evolved over time and across countries, from direct democracy to representative democracy. How the people participate has a profound impact on the legitimacy and durability of democracy.

This fundamental question about democracy is being asked more and more as democracy is challenged around the world. The rise of populist movements and demagogues threaten liberal values. The Brexit vote and the Trump presidency have left many people questioning whether popular votes are credible or even meaningful. Even in the West, a more technocratic form of politics has taken hold that is less responsive to the needs of people and may be out of touch with technological, demographic and cultural changes.

The debate about democracy is a vital one, as it concerns the very foundations of how we govern ourselves. The answers that are given to this question will determine the type of society we live in, how much protections we have against discrimination and exploitation, the degree to which we can be secure in our lives, and even whether or not we can sustain economic growth.

There are two major ways that the legitimacy of a democracy can be evaluated: instrumentally, by considering the benefits that come from using it in comparison with other methods of making political decisions; and intrinsically, by examining the values that are embodied in the method itself. In general, there is room for improvement on both fronts in any democratic system.

One example of an instrumental benefit is that democracy allows for the equal sharing of resources amongst a society’s members. This can be done through formal mechanisms, such as the equal value of each vote or proportional representation, or through informal ones, such as free and fair debate.

Another instrumental advantage of democracy is the ability to protect individual rights. These include the right to free thought, conscience and religion (UDHR, Article 18), the ability to pursue one’s own interests and satisfy their needs without being subjected to coercive state interference, the freedom of association and private property, and voting rights.

A number of philosophical arguments support more political egalitarianism in a democracy, including increasing the frequency of elections, improving electoral systems to make them more reflective of the people’s will and making them more transparent, and relying more on mechanisms like citizens’ assemblies to delegate power more directly.

While the simplest way for people to get involved with democracy is to vote, it’s important that they engage in all other forms of civic responsibility such as volunteering, activism and public discourse. This will help them to become more aware of the issues that affect them and the people around them and will allow them to have a more direct impact on how society is formed and managed.

Democracy is a political process in which citizens elect representatives to govern them. It aims to guarantee the rights and interests of citizens, uphold social order and ethics, and advance public well-being. It requires that those elected to government respect democratic norms, including self-restraint in the exercise of power and the rejection of violence. As such, democracy is a fundamental principle of civilized society. When people feel that their democratic system is not upholding these principles, they will lose confidence in the country and become disillusioned with democracy.

Today, US democracy is in crisis. The American people are more pessimistic about the state of their democracy than they have been in years. A recent poll by the Washington Post showed that Americans have a low level of satisfaction with their government’s performance, and many are pessimistic about whether the country can resolve differences between people with different political views.

The US claims to be a model and beacon of democracy for the world, but its own democracy is in crisis. The country’s democratic procedures and systems have been seriously eroded by money politics, political polarization and a dysfunctional system of checks and balances. This has caused great harm to the nation and undermined global stability. The United States’ use of its so-called “democracy” as a means to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries is creating political chaos and social unrest, undermining international peace and security.

While the Founders of the US promoted direct democracy, they realized that it was impractical in a massive and diverse population spread over a vast geographical area. They therefore opted for indirect democracy, whereby a smaller group of representatives elected by the people would make decisions on behalf of them. Nonetheless, they still maintained the idea that their system was a democracy of the people, not of the rich and powerful.

In reality, pure democracy is a flawed and unstable concept. In America, a person can’t run for office without a lot of money, which makes them beholden to those who write the campaign cheques. This is why politicians spend more time begging for money than legislating, and legislative work is largely written for them by lobbyists. Moreover, the political infighting and squabbling exacerbated by money politics, vetocracy and ideological antagonism have led to a fractious and polarized democracy.

The US must do some soul-searching about its democracy at home. But it also needs to rethink how it uses its so-called democracy as an imperial tool for the rest of the world. It is high time that the US stopped using its own faulty democracy as a template and beacon for other countries, or else it will cause great damage to them as well. Rather than exporting its own problems and promoting a bloc politics, the US should pragmatically reassess its diplomatic methods and focus on cooperation rather than confrontation. Otherwise, the US will find itself unable to defend its own democracy and the world’s peace and stability will be at risk.

In the wake of a global pandemic that shook world markets and brought the nation to the brink of recession, Americans have grown increasingly worried about democracy. Most see it as a weak and vulnerable system that needs major reforms to work well. Some say they have lost faith in democracy altogether, while others worry about the ability of American citizens with diverse political views to work together productively. Still more say the country is no longer a model of democracy, and nearly half think the US should abandon its role as a leader in international affairs.

A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows a wide gap between what Americans consider to be important goals for democracy and their perceptions of how well it works. On 23 specific measures involving the political system, elections and democracy abroad, majorities say the United States is either doing very poorly or not at all well in terms of upholding these goals. The biggest problems involve how well the United States is doing at ensuring fairness in elections, preventing corruption and protecting the civil liberties of all people.

More than a century ago, French sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville traveled to America in 1831 to study its prisons, but the trip would yield a wealth of broader observations that he would codify in Democracy in America (1835). One of the most influential books of the 19th century, this classic text remains an invaluable explanation of America to Europeans and a critical warning about the potential dangers of individualism and equality.

De Tocqueville arrived in a nation that was changing rapidly and profoundly. Jacksonian democracy was reshaping the American political landscape with its philosophy of “manifest destiny” and physically expanding the country from sea to shining sea. Suffrage had been granted to most white men, and industrialization was transforming America from an agrarian to a capitalist society. These changes improved living standards for the average American but also aggravated regional tensions between North and South.

Tocqueville’s profound insights about the nature of democracy—that it depends on an individual’s ability to associate with others and that, as those associations become more frequent, he will be able to influence government decisions—are as pertinent today as when he wrote them. The American political system remains as powerful and as fragile as it was in Tocqueville’s day, with serious problems ranging from strategic manipulation of election results (like vote fraud) to efforts by executive branches to reduce the independence of the civil service and the judiciary.

HeinOnline has partnered with Alan Keely, retired Associate Director for Collection Services at Wake Forest Law School, to present this fully-searchable, interactive edition of Democracy in America that provides students and researchers with unparalleled access to the historical content that inspired Tocqueville’s thinking. With full-text links to primary sources, and an annotation by Keely that illuminates Tocqueville’s references and sources, this digital edition takes the reader back to 1831 to experience America as it was in Tocqueville’s time.

Freedom is the capacity of an agent to choose and direct his or her actions. For human beings, the freedom to think and act freely is essential for their well-being. Freedom is also the basis for human rights, which entails the protection of individuals against physical and mental exploitation. It is a prerequisite for a just society.

In the modern world, freedom is often associated with civil and political liberty, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. However, philosophers have debated the meaning of freedom for centuries. For example, Immanuel Kant argued that true freedom is the ability to do what one ought to do. In contrast, some people have interpreted freedom to mean doing whatever they want without restrictions.

There are several types of freedom, including negative and positive freedoms. Negative freedom is the absence of obstacles or barriers that prevent an individual from pursuing his or her goals. For example, a person is free to express his or her opinions in public without government interference, but he or she is not free to advocate terrorism, create panic, incite others to fight, or promote child pornography.

On the other hand, positive freedom is the presence of self-control on the part of an individual, or the ability to make choices that are in line with moral obligations and standards. A person is free to marry, but not to cheat on a spouse, or to vote for candidates with whom he or she does not agree.

The concept of freedom has a long history in philosophy, but it is particularly important in contemporary discussions of civil and political rights. Many countries have laws to protect their citizens’ freedoms. For instance, in the United States, the Constitution guarantees a person’s freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to own property.

In a democracy, the freedom to pursue one’s goals is dependent on the willingness of citizens to follow democratic principles and participate in public affairs. In a society where democratic principles are respected, most people can expect to enjoy freedom of expression, choice, and movement.

The word “freedom” comes from the Middle English freodom, which derived from Old English friodum or freodum (“freedom, charter, emancipation, deliverance”). Other words that come from the same root include Dutch vrijdom and Low German freidom. The concept of freedom has multiple uses in Kant’s writings: In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant used it as a transcendental idea; in the Critique of Practical Reason, he analyzed the nature of positive and negative freedom; and in the Critique of Judgement, he described how a person can achieve his or her own positive freedom through ethical action. Kant’s use of the concept of freedom in these three works is unique among philosophers. It is a defining concept in philosophy, and it continues to influence the development of politics and society today.

Law is the set of rules that govern behaviour within a society. These rules are created and enforced by a government, which also punishes those who breach the law. Laws are designed to provide stability and equality in societies. Providing people with a clear starting point of knowledge about what is acceptable and what is not, laws enable them to understand what is expected of them in their daily lives. Having fair and effective legal systems also ensures that citizens have access to a judiciary, which will uphold standards of fairness and justice and protect them from corrupt regimes and public institutions.

There are many different opinions about the meaning of law, and these have been reflected in the different legal systems around the world. The definition of law has changed over time as new social and cultural issues have arisen. For example, Max Weber reshaped thinking on the extension of state power, and contemporary military and policing techniques pose particular problems for accountability that earlier writers like Locke or Montesquieu could not have imagined.

Legal studies involve studying the history of these evolving definitions of law, and how they have shaped politics, economics and society at large. Students can also find out about the way that legal decisions are made, and the ways in which they can be challenged. There are numerous career paths for those interested in the law, from becoming a judge to working as a lawyer or paralegal. The latter two roles tend to be more remunerated, but they both require significant study and commitment to the law.

One of the most interesting debates about law involves its role in society. Hans Kelsen, for example, argued that law’s ability to impose sanctions was crucial to its functions in society. This argument was largely refuted by twentieth century legal positivists such as H.L.A Hart and Joseph Raz, who argued that the coercive aspect of law was far more limited than Kelsen had assumed.

The lawmaking process varies from country to country, but generally involves a parliament or assembly passing bills and debating them with other members. A committee will research, discuss and make changes to the bill before it is voted on by the whole parliament or assembly. If the bill is approved, it will become a law and be applied in that jurisdiction.

The legal system is incredibly complex, and studying it requires extensive research skills. The best way to learn more about the law is to shadow a lawyer or volunteer for an internship. This will give you an insight into the day-to-day life of a lawyer and how to work in the field. It will also teach you how the law is influenced by ethics, morality and social norms, and how it can be used to solve problems and promote societal change. In addition to these practical aspects, studying the law can be intellectually stimulating and help you develop your communication skills.