Identification of 5 Politic Terms
In the politics of the west, democracy has come to represent the almighty in a number of ways. Almost everyone argues that he believes in it and those who are against it turn into the heretics. Various groups claim to have the sole understanding of it, but only a few are ready to state its true meaning. Under such situations, any work that talks about democracy ought to start by specifying a clear definition of the term democracy. Several authors define the term democracy as a predetermined array of legal and political institutions. In this notion, a political system may be democratic if it comprises of fair and free elections plus the freedom of association and expression. An ideal definition of democracy has some advantages. It offers standards that one may make a comparison with the alternatives and institutions to make judgments with their relative worth.
A less unrealistic commencement may also serve this purpose, but the current systems may get to its “ceiling”, making it hard to differentiate systems that suit all of the evaluative criteria. To call a system democratic gives an argument form against people who sought to question the character of those practices and values. Whichever way to define democracy, comprehensive deliberation ought to involve citizenry. Therefore, the citizen turns out to be the hub of the efforts and democratic ideal at the democratic reform. Eventually, the significance of the institutional democratization relies on the willingness and ability of the members of demos to turn out as vigorous autonomous citizens. If citizenry fervently availed itself of the democratic opportunities, its society may move to the democratic model. Some critics state that inexorably flawed social institutions prevent the probability of democratic citizenry. The critics refuse to envisage that democracy is an achievable ideal. In this notion, there are a number of democracies, and none of them need motivated citizens.
The federal system is both a philosophical and political notion that talks of how the government gives power. Federal systems may be distinct in the application, but most of them consist if a central government with certain powers over the entire unification. There are several countries that work with the system of the federal government and these include Canada, the United States, Brazil, Germany and Australia. Often, the federal governments are contentious for a primary reason. While most of the federal systems accept a central government as necessary in running, the systems fail to mention how mow much power ought to be granted. For instance, in the US, there is a controversy of running over the state versus the rights that has been available since the creation of the system. Likewise, the European Union has faced the same argument since its development in the 1990s.
A number of people have not been comfortable with the amount of power that has been granted to the federal government. The federal system offers powers that relates to the entire nation that is offered to the federal government. For example, most countries that have a federal system of government, it is only the national government that can pronounce war on another nation. State power focuses on the subjects that affect the residents. For instance, Nevada cannot dictate the laws that are enacted by Montana. There is often a controversy over the description of an issue to the state government. The United States is regarded as the oldest nation with the federal system of government. Anti-federalists like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson have stated that a powerful government system may only replace the monarchy system and allow for curbing of liberty. A number of experts cite the civil war as a crucial moment in terms of federalism, and this suggests that the national government made it clear that the country would be united under the federal government. Other countries like Switzerland have found the federal system effective. Federal system constantly changes with adjustments and rules to every country that implements it. It often needs a lot of discussions between the states and the governing bodies, which a number of experts argue is a beneficial and essential relationship. As opposed to the ancient autocratic and monarchy systems, federal government rarely states that it is made unquestionable and perfect by the higher authority.
German nationalism was not different from the nationalism of other people. The German nationalists made what they believed to be a vast discovery. They learnt that their country was the strongest in Europe. They made a conclusion that Germany was strong enough to suppress Europe and even the whole world. This is because Germans are numerous compared to any other people in Europe. Outside the borders of Reich, there exist numerous Germans. The Germans argue that Russia ought not to be considered because it is not a standardized nation, but a mass of distinct nationalities. Besides, the population of Germany is increasing at a faster rate compared to that of its “hereditary” enemy, France. The nation of Germany enjoys an advantage of taking up a central place in Europe. Therefore, it dominates deliberately the entire Europe and some parts of Africa and Asia. The nation also enjoys in warfare the benefits of standing on core lines.
The Germans are also vigorous and young while the western nations are degenerate and old. The Germans are virtuous, diligent and ready for war. The French are morally corrupt, the Russians are barbarians and the Italians are weaklings. The Germans are the best when it comes to war. The battles of Sedan, Waterloo, Leipzig, Katzbach and Rossbach have proved that the French are no match for the Germans. The Italians are always ready to take their heels. Therefore, it is obvious that Germany is predetermined for domination. History and fate had chosen Germany when it endowed them with their vast qualities. Unfortunately, this great country has not determined what is not discovered what its duty or right demands. The Germans have participated in internal antagonism. Christianity has weakened the warlike ardor of Germans. The renovation has divided the nation into two aggressive camps.
In political science, Robert Dahl introduced the term Polyarchy to define a government whereby power is vested in more than three people. This government was initially adopted in the United States and later some countries also implemented it. Dahl argued that the basic democratic principle that involves collective decisions requires an individual in a political society to be offered equal consideration. Polycracy defines the same government form. A polycracy country is one that is governed by more than an individual, unlike a monarchy. The original theory of Dahl concerning polyarchal democracy is available in his works, “A preface to Democratic Theory”. His theory evolved during the years and the description is rather different. In this book, Dahl offers eight instances that measure the level of majority rule in a group. He states that all the members in a group execute the duties we presume to comprise an expression of partiality among the scheduled options like voting. In the tabulation of the expressions, the assigned weight of every person is equal. The option with the highest number of votes is considered the endearing choice. Any person who recognizes a set of options, at least one that he considers preferable to the options that are scheduled, can put his preferred option among the ones that are scheduled for voting. Every individual has the same information regarding the options. Options that have the highest number of votes relocate any option that has fewer votes. The orders of all elected officials are implemented. Dahl assumes that all of the conditions can be computed, and he advocated for the use of the term polyarchy referring to an organization that has the highest scores on the eight conditions. Dahl also wrote another book, “Democracy and its critics” and gave the attributes of a polyarchy. In his book, the control of governmental resolutions regarding the policy is vest officials who have been elected. The elected officials can also be calmly eliminated in free and fair elections. All of these adults have the right to vote. Citizens have the freedom of expression, especially in politics, including denigration of the officials. Citizens also have access to optional information sources that the government does not monopolize. The processes of polyarchy may not be enough for attainment of full democracy. For instance, poor people may not take part in the bureaucrat process.
Why there is no socialism in America
One of the main reasons why there is no socialism in the United States is the American dream. This is the notion that every man ought to succeed when he is one his own. This is an outlook and an attitude that has been in existence since the beginning. Every year, the wall street journal and the heritage foundation release the index of economic freedom. They measure the average number of those people who are in an economic freedom score of 1-100. During the Bush administration, the US was amongst the countries with the freest economy. Within four years, the US dropped from top five to the top ten freest.
There have also been unparalleled levels of spending by the fed plus a transfer of riches from citizens to the administration. During the Bush administration, the United States had a debt that was more than $ 4.9 trillion. In the Obama administration, this debt further increased at an alarming rate. Obama has tried to reduce this debt by raising taxes, instead of reducing expenditure. In his 2012 budget, Obama proposed 43 tax hikes that amounted to $1.5 trillion. With the high taxation rates, employers have a high burden with their businesses. Obama also increased the spending of the welfare by 42 percent. Instead of reducing the welfare state, Obama proposed for its expansion with the Obamacare. These are the reasons for the dropping of the index of the economic freedom in the US. It is no wonder that there is no socialism in the United States.