Amid the chaos and violence of World War II, Indonesia’s nationalist leader Sukarno inspired his countrymen with patriotic rhetoric to resist Dutch attempts to regain control. Amid the optimism of this newfound independence, a constitution was drafted in 1945 that enshrined democratic aspirations. A formal separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government was established. In 1955, a national election was held for parliament and the presidency. The sweeping reforms that followed the election of Sukarno’s successor, President Abdurrahman Wahid, created the conditions for an Indonesia with strong institutions and broad popular participation in civic life.

The Indonesian electoral process continues to improve with each passing election, and elections at the local and regional level are largely free and fair by international standards. Foreign observers have consistently reported improvements in electoral management, including reductions in vote-buying and intimidation. The system of pilkada serentak, whereby voters select their own regional and district representatives in indirect elections and the national legislature elects a president and vice president, has been effective at increasing voter engagement and promoting good governance.

While the legal framework for political parties and competitive groupings is broadly democratic, party competition in Indonesia remains limited by strict funding rules and a requirement that new parties undergo a lengthy fact-checking process. In addition, election laws tend to favor large parties by increasing eligibility requirements for candidacy and raising ballot-box thresholds.

Nevertheless, many analysts have lauded the consolidation and stability of Indonesian democracy and have credited it to the country’s vibrant civil society. But the same analysis also suggests that it is difficult for non-governmental actors to create change when they face a government that does not seek their input and a state that remains adept at inhibiting dissent.

Although a robust private sector exists, it is vulnerable to corruption and government-owned enterprises dominate a number of sectors. In some cases, state-owned companies reportedly abuse land rights, with indigenous communities and ethnic Chinese in Yogyakarta particularly affected. A substantial percentage of the population lives below the poverty line, and social protections such as child care and health coverage are inadequate.

The legal system is largely independent, but corruption and other problems mar the efficiency of the judiciary. Judicial decisions can be influenced by religious considerations, and due process is violated in some cases, especially during interrogation of suspects. Police also engage in arbitrary arrests and detention, and existing safeguards against coerced confessions are sometimes not enforced. Indonesians’ personal social freedoms are generally respected, but freedom of religion is constrained by restrictions on non-Muslim worship. The country also has a well-functioning informal economy, with the labor market providing opportunities for millions of Indonesians. In addition, the country has a strong educational system that includes a broad range of vocational training. In the future, these strengths can be bolstered by strengthening policies that promote economic mobility and technological education. The country also must invest in infrastructure, including better roads and public transportation.

Democracy is an ideal system of government that has been praised by many for its ability to provide equal rights to all people and represent them in society, allowing citizens to voice their opinions and make decisions. However, a democratic system of governance is not without its drawbacks. Some of these issues include voter ignorance, political manipulation of the media by influential individuals, and high costs associated with holding elections. Furthermore, democracy may lead to social and economic inequalities between different groups of people due to differing socio-economic statuses and their resulting voting power. Ultimately, it is up to individuals to decide whether or not democracy is the right form of government for their own country.

Traditionally, philosophers have justified democracy along at least two different dimensions: instrumentally, by reference to its outcomes compared with other methods of political decision making; and intrinsically, by reference to values that are inherent in the method (Caplan & Rawls 1977; Brennan 2016). More recently, there has been increasing interest in the idea that democratic institutions can enhance the moral character of citizens. This is based on the observation that people who take part in making public decisions are forced to think carefully and rationally about their choices, and also to listen to other viewpoints before acting. This can have positive effects on the characters of participants, as it makes them more willing to compromise and respect others.

However, it should be noted that democratic participation is not necessarily a good thing, and it is possible for the institutions of a democracy to become corrupted or undemocratic as a result of the pressures of politics. For example, a politician might choose to use his or her office for his or her personal gain rather than for the benefit of the community; in this case, the institution becomes less likely to be seen as legitimate and trustworthy.

In addition, it has been argued that democratic systems can lead to inequality because they are not always effective at addressing the underlying issues of poverty or disease. This is because it is often impossible to enact policies that address these issues effectively without taking into account the interests of different social and monetary classes. It is therefore important for democracy to be practised at a local level, where issues of concern are more easily addressed and the impact of votes is greater.

In summary, democracy is an important tool for promoting prosperity and liberty around the world. While it has its flaws, it is a vital means of governing that should be encouraged in all countries where it is possible and appropriate. In the end, it is up to individual nations to determine whether or not a democracy suits their own national contexts, and to work together internationally in support of the development of a global democracy.

The development of democracy in the United States was a revolutionary step. It helped negate feudal autocracy, and the abolitionist movement, civil rights movement and affirmative action are all achievements of the American democratic revolution. The concept of “government of the people, by the people and for the people” proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence has become an international standard.

However, as a practical matter, the US democratic system has fallen far short of its ideals and is plagued by problems. Money politics, identity politics, wrangling between political parties, and the growing chasm between the most liberal and conservative Americans have all led to a loss of faith in democracy.

The US’s ill-conceived attempts to promote its own “model of democracy” in other countries are also damaging. It wantonly interferes in the internal affairs of other nations under the pretense of “spreading democracy”, causing political chaos, social unrest and military conflict, with disastrous consequences.

What can be expected from a democracy is not only the full set of institutional procedures, but more importantly, substantive democracy, meaning that the citizens’ participation in society should be guaranteed. It is impossible to uphold public ethics, ensure economic prosperity and advance public well-being with such a hollow democracy as the US has today.

To be a real democracy, a nation must have the right to choose its rulers, not only at elections but through various processes throughout the entire year. It must be a democracy that respects the right to life, liberty and equality of all citizens. To be a true democracy, the government must be accountable to the people and answer to the citizens’ calls for justice.

It is impossible for a functional democracy to be achieved when the whims of the wealthy dictate the rules of the game and the rules themselves are constantly changing. It is a hollow democracy when election campaigns are nothing but a noisy circus show where politicians feign interest in the common good and woo voters with high-sounding promises, and when they forget them once elected.

Moreover, a truly functional democracy must have the right to make laws and to protect its citizens’ interests. The US’s current system of government is in violation of this principle, as the Supreme Court has been hijacked by partisanship and its decisions reflect the wide schism between “two Americas”. In addition, the US wants to export its so-called model of democracy around the world but it is not achieving the desired results. Its democracy transplants have a record of failed transplantation, plunging other countries into political instability, economic turmoil and war. The country needs to do some soul-searching about its own flawed democracy and stop meddling in other countries’ internal affairs under the pretext of promoting democracy. Only then will it have the courage to face up to its own problems and learn from others’ experience. Only then will it be able to give the world the example of a truly functional democracy.

If democracy is to work, people must be able to govern themselves. This is why most democracies establish rules and procedures that put power under public scrutiny. But these laws, and the systems that implement them, are only as good as the people who carry out and enforce them. And when they aren’t up to the task, a democracy is in trouble.

As the world grapples with a range of global challenges, many Americans and other citizens are questioning whether democratic institutions are up to the challenge. A number of experts have raised concerns that the American system of democracy is not working, with partisan polarization and dysfunction in Congress symptomatic of a system that has lost much of its credibility.

In this environment, political infighting, money politics and vetocracy are stifling the ability of politicians to deliver on the promise of quality governance that citizens expect from their government. The resulting estrangement of the American public from political process and institutions has contributed to the rise of extremist ideologies and populism, a trend that is amplified by the lack of effective media as a gatekeeper.

A recent survey by CIPE found that Americans are pessimistic about democracy and the future of their country, with only 19% saying they feel very confident in the results of the presidential election. This is a new low, and one that is likely to have long-lasting consequences for the legitimacy of the US government and its role in international affairs.

It is difficult to understand the current state of American democracy when we consider its history. The founders of this republic created a system designed to address the problems faced by a newly developing nation. They did so by combining the advantages of a monarchy with the checks and balances of a republic. They aimed to ensure that the government was responsive to the citizens and protected them from tyrannical leadership.

Today, America’s democracy is a shadow of its former self. The oligarch class dominates the political and economic landscape, while the multiparty system is a façade. The two major parties fight constantly for the support of wealthy and influential donors who control the state apparatus, manipulate public opinion, and enjoy enormous perks.

The result is that a minuscule percentage of the population has a very large impact on legislative priorities and the passage of legislation. This makes a mockery of the idea that we are a “democracy of the people, by the people, for the people”.

The US needs to take on more international responsibilities and provide more public goods to the global community, rather than using its self-styled “model” as a justification for military intervention and subversion in Latin America and the Caribbean. In the process, it would help to reclaim the true meaning of the word democracy. Tocqueville understood this, and his thoughts are as relevant today as they were in 1823.

Freedom is a complex concept that means different things to everyone. The definition of freedom is highly personal and it varies by individual, culture, religion and more. People often define it as being able to do what you want, when you want and not having to worry about others or their opinions. It is important for individuals to understand what freedom means to them and work towards it.

The word freedom comes from the Latin word “libertas,” which means liberty or the power of doing what one wants without being hindered by constraints. The meaning of freedom is also closely linked to the idea of autonomy, which refers to a person’s ability to act on their own based on their own beliefs and ideas without having to consult others or adhere to traditional structures or rules.

Some philosophers argue that freedom is a fundamental human attribute, and that all humans are born free. This view is sometimes referred to as the intrinsic freedom argument. It is a form of libertarianism and is a central tenet of some political ideologies.

Others believe that there are certain limitations to freedom, and that the notion of freedom is only a practical fiction. In this view, the ideal state of freedom is one where a person can choose what they wish to do, but in practice they are limited by external forces and limitations. The most common example of this is the law that prohibits vandalism, which limits a person’s freedom to choose to break laws, but in reality they are not free to do so.

Other philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, argue that freedom is only possible in the mind and not in the physical world. He claims that in order for a person to be free they must have an unerring idea of what is good and how to achieve it, and they must have the ability to work toward this goal without being constrained by an external force.

Still, others think that the idea of freedom is relative and that it depends on the context in which it is being discussed. For instance, some people believe that all people are free to express themselves without having to worry about being judged or punished, while others believe that freedom should be reserved for specific groups such as women and minorities.

To help students better understand the complexity of the concept of freedom, it can be helpful to have them work in small groups. Each group should be assigned one of the different freedoms that made it onto the list that they created as a class. They should then spend at least 10 minutes creating two frozen representations of society – one showing a society practicing the assigned freedom and the other depicting a society without it. Then they should share their results with the class and discuss what aspects of freedom they saw in each image. This can be followed by a discussion on how to move forward in a way that promotes the idea of freedom for all of humanity.

Law is a system of rules established and enforced by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior. Its precise definition is a matter of longstanding debate and has been variously described as both a science and an art.

The law serves many purposes, but four are especially important: establishing standards, maintaining order, resolving disputes, and protecting liberties and rights. The laws of a nation can serve as the foundation for achieving these goals, but a government’s structure and methods of operation also play an important role. A dictatorship, for example, may keep the peace and maintain the status quo, but it can also oppress minorities and restrict freedoms. A legal system that includes checks and balances, such as a free press and independent judiciary, is more likely to promote social justice.

There are numerous kinds of law, encompassing everything from contracts and property to crime and international relations. Some laws are based on scientific principles, such as Newton’s laws of motion, while others are based on human experience or customary practices. For example, some cultures rely on a concept of law that does not divide reality into natural and non-natural/human.

The laws of a country are based on the traditions and values of its people, which often have religious roots. The legal systems of Western Europe and North America, for example, are rooted in Christianity, while those of Japan and Southeast Asia are based on Buddhism. In addition, the indigenous cultures of Australia and Canada have their own traditional systems of law.

Despite the wide range of laws, many have much in common. They generally regulate agreements between private parties, impose sanctions on people who break the rules, and protect certain types of property. Most countries have a judicial branch, which is responsible for interpreting the law and enforcing it.

In some countries, such as the United States, a bill must pass through two houses of Congress to become law; this process is known as bicameral legislation. During this process, the House and Senate work together to create a final form for the bill, which must be approved by both houses before it can become a law. The executive branch, however, can refuse to approve the bill; this is called a veto.

In addition to regulating agreements between private parties, many laws are directed at federal agencies, which implement them and often create new regulations. As a result, the number of laws is constantly changing and expanding. These changes are not always positive, and the law has been criticized for creating a bureaucracy that is expensive to operate, inefficient, and unresponsive to public needs. For this reason, some people call the law “a monster.” Others argue that it is necessary to provide a stable, functioning society.

Democracy in indonesia

Amid an economic slump and social conflict, Indonesia has been trying to build democratic institutions that will allow citizens to shape government policy. Despite these challenges, the country has maintained free and fair elections, and its leaders are elected through a majority vote in parliament and by direct ballot for the presidency. The country has also taken steps to strengthen the independence of electoral commissions and to promote transparency in campaign financing.

The country’s new constitution also provides for a supreme court, ombudsman and human rights commission. However, these institutions lack sufficient resources and capacity. The country faces significant problems in addressing corruption and impunity and in providing effective justice services to its citizens. In addition, the state’s control of natural resources and the military’s role in politics undermine the rule of law.

Indonesia’s constitutional system vests substantial power in the president, who is aided by a vice president and cabinet. The executive branch has veto power over legislation, and the military retains considerable influence in the economy and society through its companies and patronage networks.

In the 2019 presidential election, Joko Widodo of the Democrat Party of Struggle (PDI-P) won with 55.5 percent of the votes against his rival from the Great Indonesia Movement party, former general Prabowo Subianto. The PDI-P and its allies dominate the national legislature, the People’s Representative Council (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat; MPR).

The government’s commitment to democratic consolidation has been explicit since 2005. It has designated specific bodies to plan and evaluate the progress of the country’s democratic development, and it regularly publishes a ranking of the quality of its democracy. Its approach, however, has tended to be narrow, focused on elections and bureaucratic reform. To sustain a democracy, it takes more than just elections and institutional reforms. It requires a “democratic habituation” that goes beyond the boundaries of polling booths and parliamentary halls.

The country has a relatively free press and the freedom to organize political parties, but the political system still favors large parties by placing restrictions on party registration and funding. In addition, there are limits on the freedom to practice religion, and people who are atheists or not of one of the country’s official faiths can face discrimination. Finally, civil rights and gender equality remain problematic.

The word democracy comes from the Greek words demos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”), meaning “government of or by the people.” This describes a political system where the will of the people is the primary source of authority for government decisions. Democracies allow the majority of citizens to elect their representatives, and they ensure that laws and policies are based on the public interest. They also provide citizens with the freedoms and rights to speak out and organize.

The idea of democracy has taken on many forms over the years, but it is universally recognized as a key element of human rights. It is embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and developed further in international law through mechanisms such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Despite this, democracy faces serious challenges and is constantly under threat. Whether it is from terrorism and other violent extremism, global economic crisis, the rise of new technologies or growing inequality, there are many reasons to be pessimistic about the future of democracy worldwide. But the work to understand and describe democracy remains important, as it can help us develop solutions for these challenges.

In fact, a democracy that can only be measured by the way it conducts elections is a hollow one, because it does not fully reflect how citizens can take part in government, and is therefore unable to respond to their concerns. It may be possible to improve the democratic process by including more people in decision making, or by giving them greater influence over the outcome of elections. But there is no single formula that fits all countries, and attempts to do so have normally been limited in scope.

To identify the elements that make up a democracy, it is important to survey the public about their views and experiences. However, the resulting data is difficult to interpret. The main reason is that the concept of democracy is multi-dimensional, and it is normal for respondents to assign different meanings to each dimension. In addition, respondents’ understanding of democracy is usually affected by their level of education and knowledge of the topic.

This is a challenge that researchers have faced for decades. Some have chosen to focus on specific dimensions (e.g. electoral systems, media freedom) while others have preferred more flexible measures that do not define necessary and sufficient conditions for a democracy.

To overcome these limitations, the OECD has created the Global State of Democracy indexes, which combine data from 13 existing sources and include five attributes of democracy and sixteen sub-attributes. The indices indicate that on average, people in the 34 surveyed countries are more dissatisfied than satisfied with how democracy works. In particular, they have little confidence that elected officials care about what they think. In addition, only a minority of people think that democracy gives them the power to change things for the better. However, the survey also shows that people in most surveyed countries value fundamental democratic principles. For example, majorities in all countries say that a fair judiciary and gender equality are very important for democracy.

As the US continues to wreak havoc in a dozen countries, with protests rippling around the world, many people question democracy’s viability. Even the country’s allies are increasingly disillusioned with what it claims to stand for. They see the US as “a shattered, washed-up has-been,” not the shining city on the hill they once admired.

The reasons for this are complex. But they mostly involve the erosion of democratic principles. The fundamental test of a democracy is whether it is free — in the sense that all citizens enjoy rights and freedoms and collectively decide on policies. A democratic society also has to be equitable, ensuring equal opportunities and responsibilities while accounting for different circumstances. It should also be fair, with the rich and powerful not able to abuse their position by buying influence or using the power of the state for private gain.

These basic principles are all being violated in the US. As a result, the US has become a “flawed democracy” in the truest sense of the word.

In a recent article, Stanford News notes that media monopolies have become “invisible killers of civil and political rights”. They restrict access to diversified information, distract people’s attention from public affairs, undermine their ability to discern right from wrong, and discourage engagement in civic activities. They are a major reason why people are losing faith in democracy.

The American political system is also distorted by money politics. According to a report by the New York Times, in the last presidential election, candidates received 91% of their funding from big companies and a small group of wealthy donors. This distorts the way elections are conducted and causes politicians to serve vested interests rather than ordinary Americans. As a consequence, the Founders’ vision of a bicameral Congress and a separation of powers is no longer a reality in America.

It is important to remember that the Founding Fathers never intended their democracy to be perfect. They knew that human beings are flawed and could be easily lured into self-destructive behavior. That is why they designed a system to limit the powers of government, to protect minority viewpoints, and (paradoxically) to guard against leaders who seek personal glory or are willing to use the power of the state for private gain.

As the US grapples with a complex crisis, it is crucial to recall these lessons. Otherwise, the Founders’ vision of enduring prosperity and democracy will become an empty shell.

It is time to acknowledge that the American model of a functional democracy has reached its limits and to pragmatically reassess how democracy should function in the future. If we don’t do so, the world will have little interest in promoting what the United States has done in the name of liberalism and democracy. That would be a tragedy. We should instead promote democracy as a way of life that is adaptive, adaptable and resilient. And that is what our global partners really want from us — not lip service to a flawed but functional democracy.

Freedom is one of the most important concepts that people understand. It is the ability to act and think as you please, without restraint or restriction. Many people think of freedom in a political context, such as the ability to vote for whomever you want or not to be constrained by certain laws. Others think of it in a financial sense, such as not having any debt or being able to buy whatever you wish. Some people also consider spiritual freedom to be an essential aspect of human life.

There are many different possible definitions of freedom, ranging from the ability to do what you want whenever you want to the absence of all constraints, including those imposed by society or the state. However, most people define freedom in terms of the absence of external limitations and restrictions. This can be problematic for those who feel that they have been robbed of their freedom, such as those living in dictatorships. In fact, it is often more accurate to say that those who are free do not feel they need to obey the law or that their freedom is regulated by an outside authority.

Rather, as Kant suggested, true freedom is the ability to act in accordance with your own ideas and values. He also argued that this true freedom requires discipline and self-control, as well as the ability to recognize and acknowledge constraints and limits. This is why it is important to discuss and agree upon what you believe is true freedom, as it allows you to identify when your actions are not in accordance with your values.

The ideal level of freedom would be if you had an unerring idea of what is good and how to achieve it, then experienced no impediment to pursuing that goal. This is sometimes described as having a “single point of reference.” It might be likened to the mind of a Buddha or a perfect being. Unfortunately, there are many internal and external impairments to this level of freedom that can affect the way we live our lives.

In practice, people experience freedom based on their ability to overcome the barriers they face. For example, if you are free to bang on piano keys randomly, but you do not have an instructor to guide your actions, you will not produce beautiful music. On the other hand, if you have an instructor who helps you to discipline yourself, you will be able to play the piano beautifully.

Similarly, if you are free to vote for whoever you want, but you do not understand the value of other rights and freedoms such as privacy or property, you may not appreciate how much you have been freed from tyranny by your democracy. This is the reason why it is important to understand and respect the freedoms of others, as they are vital to the proper functioning of a healthy democracy.