Social Welfare Democracy and Government - Essay Example

?Running head: Social welfare democracy and government Social Welfare Democracy and Government Social Welfare Democracy and Government Part 1 Everyone who is entitled to vote should do so. A person’s entitlement to democratic privileges arms one with the responsibility of carrying out essential duties and responsibilities. Democracy is defined as a government ruled by the people; it is a form of government where the supreme power is vested on the people and exercised directly by them or by a representative who is elected through the free electoral system (Dictionary.com, 2011). In effect, in a democratic system, the right to vote is an entitlement for each citizen because the government processes are based on the will of the people. Since not all citizens can be allowed to carry out government processes, a representative voted by the people would be the next best thing for a democracy. Inclusion is also about being made a part of the process. In the democratic scene, inclusion is an important element because it helps ensure that the conceptualization and implementation of policies encompass all members of society (Young, 2002). Therefore, in the process of ensuring the adequate implementation of democracy, everyone who is entitled to vote should do so because it allows them to be included in the democratic processes and it helps ensure that the spirit of democracy is carried out to its fullest extent (Young, 2002). Representative democracies are very much founded on the rule of the people as supported by the election of government officials. In the history of the United States and in other representative democracies, during our early years, only free white males were able to vote and in some areas, these voters had to be property owners as well (Bardes, Shelley, and Schmidt, 2008). Women were not allowed to vote in the elections; and in the US, it was only until the 1920s when they were finally granted the right to vote. Today, the right to suffrage is universal. Since all votes count equally, regardless of gender, ethnicity, and economic standing, the only way to make fair decisions is to submit to the majority will (Bardes, Shelley, and Schmidt, 2008). In order to ensure that majority rule does not become oppressive, provisions to protect the right of the minority groups have also been set forth. If no protection is granted to these minorities, the majority might end up violating the fundamental rights of other minority groups (Bardes, Shelley, and Schmidt, 2008). In effect, it is important for everyone to vote in order to ensure that their right is represented and protected; in order to ensure that even if the majority rule would apply, the rights of the minorities would still be represented in the bigger picture. In order to guarantee the continued existence of a democracy which represents the will of the people, there must always be free and competitive elections. Therefore, the opposition can have an equal right to win the elections (Bardes, Shelley, and Schmidt, 2008). In order for elections to be totally free and open, freedom of speech and of the press must be respected so that opposition candidates can present their constructive criticism against the government (Bardes, Shelley, and Schmidt, 2008). Even as all citizens must have the right to vote, there may be certain restrictions to the exercise of this right. These restrictions are based on legal and proprietary provisions which are part of the democratic processes of different countries. In the United Kingdom, laws provide for certain criteria by which citizens are qualified for the right to suffrage. First provision is that only individuals whose names appear on the electoral register are allowed to vote (Electoral Commission, 2006). In order to vote in the UK Parliamentary elections, the voter must be 18 years of age or over on the day of the elections. He must also be a British citizen, a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Irish Republic who is residing in the UK. Finally, he must not be made subject of any legal incapacity to vote (Electoral Commission, 2006). During general elections, the following are not allowed to vote: those under 18 on the election date; members of the House of Lords; EU citizen residents in the UK; citizens of any country aside from the UK, Irish Republic, and Commonwealth countries; convicted citizens detained due to their sentences; anyone found guilty within the five years previously of corrupt and illegal practices in relation to elections (Electoral Commission, 2006). The provisions set forth help control and regulate the right to vote. An important qualification in the right to vote is the age requirement which helps ensure that the voter has the intellectual maturity to make informed decisions about political leaders. Everyone should have the right to vote because this right must be the general rule and restrictions to this right are the exception (Keyssar, 2009). The history of the applications of democratic processes has gone through various changes and adjustments and these adjustments have been made in order to currently implement a democratic and inclusive society with inclusive governmental policies. Everyone should have the right to vote because governmental processes are supported by the taxes paid by the people (Keyssar, 2009). Government is run by taxpayer’s money. Therefore, the people must have a right to dictate on the people who can carry out the spending, the budgeting, and the different governmental policies. Their right to vote helps ensure that governmental processes are based on the rule of the majority – a rule which helps ensure adequate control and appeasement of majority will. Everyone who is entitled to vote must vote in order to ensure that the people who are put into elective positions are the will of the larger community – not of a small minority only (Robert, 2001). The rule of the majority is part and parcel of the process of achieving order and preventing chaos in society. If minority rule were to govern, there would be widespread dissatisfaction among the majority of the people who may not want the direction of political governance. With these considerations, it is therefore important for people who are entitled to vote, to actually do so. Part 2 Social group receiving welfare The 1970 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was the first step towards protecting and establishing benefits for disabled people. It gave disabled people equal opportunities in society, free of disadvantages (BBC News, 2010). It gave these disabled individuals education and support at home through practical assistance, meals provided at home of in community centres, and adaptation of homes to meet their needs. Special education facilities were set up for children who were blind and deaf, and those who were autistic and dyslexic (BBC News, 2010). They were also given access to building through reserved parking and sanitary facilities in schools, universities, railways, shops, offices, and other buildings. Disabled badges for cars were also introduced in order to issue exemptions for parking and other types of access. Adjustments in footpaths, pavements, and other public roads were also provided (BBC News, 2010). The 1986 Disabled Persons Act saw the implementation of social services which provided written assessments of disabled individuals while looking into the capabilities of informal carers in deciding on care needed by the disabled (BBC News, 2010). The 1995 Disability Discrimination Act set forth that it was illegal to discriminate against individuals by reason of disability in relation to employment and in the providing goods and services (BBC News, 2010). Then, the Disability Rights Commission in 2000 set forth the different rights founded on the 1995 Disability Act. On a wider scale, in 2008, the UN introduced the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which urged member nations to protect equal rights and prevent discrimination against the disabled (BBC News, 2010). Welfare reforms have been set forth, according to Prime Minister David Cameron (BBC News, 2011) in order to implement the following changes and items: a single universal credit by 2013; tax changes to enable people to keep more of their income; changes to the living allowance of the disabled; to provide more details to the back-to-work programme; to cover those refusing to work after a maximum three-year loss of benefits; to discuss annual benefit cap of about 26,000 pounds per family; and review of sickness absence levels (BBC News, 2011). The ideology behind the welfare reform has been supported by the US debate on social welfare which has also been considered by the Conservatives and then by the Labour government. The first ideology set forth a strong focus on pro-active welfare policy (Walker and Wiseman, 2011). Social assistance in the UK has been reconceptualised in order to minimize emphasis on the requirements of income support and to give more attention to the situation of individuals gaining assistance. The second ideology was based on mutual obligation; in effect, beneficiaries expect to look for work and the rest of the society must ensure that they can be given opportunities for work (Walker and Wiseman, 2011). Since these welfare reforms have been implemented, benefits for service users have been seen. Strong evidence have been seen that such changes increased family earnings leading to a rise in total family income and a decline in poverty levels. In general such benefits for service users have given them better opportunities to manage their resources and resolve their needs as a family with special needs (Schoeni and Blank, 2000). Welfare reforms have also led to changes in the processes of social workers. Adjustments in the review processes implemented by social workers have been changed in order to accommodate the welfare reforms. These changes have interviews and assessment on appropriate allowances for the learning disabled and their families (Fiske, 2002). In terms of the delivery of social services for welfare groups, it matters who provides their services. The delivery of social services to individuals with learning disabilities has to be the responsibility of the government who are implementing welfare reforms in the UK. There is a need for the government to be involved in the delivery of welfare services to people with learning disabilities because only the government can come up with a standard program which can benefit the most number of people. Social welfare in the historical sense was an important concept after the rise of the nation states and since then, many people viewed these two concepts to be one and the same. Some analysts have argued that nations are the main community on which welfare provisions are based (Miller, 1990). Therefore, the nation has a larger support from the rest of the community in terms of issuing support for the people who are entitled to welfare services. There are social differences and divisions which are apparent in our society and these differences in social standing have largely determined people’s access to basic health needs. For the learning disabled who may also belong to the socially disadvantaged, they often have difficulty affording and ensuring access to adequate health services. For which reason, social welfare and its corresponding reforms are important aspects of securing the delivery of social services, especially to those who need it the most (Fiske, 2002). Social divisions are basically social classes, ranging from the poor to the rich, with the middle class in between (Anthias, 2001). In most instances, those who have the money and finances can dictate and control the power structure in society. For the most part, the rich are able to control the flow of resources; and their involvement in businesses and other financial enterprises almost guarantees that they have control of political processes. The delivery of social services by the government matters because the government can ensure the integrated delivery of welfare services. This is apparent in the program of the NHS called the Health and Social Care Integration Programme (HSCIP, 2011) which helps connect the NHS with the Department of Health initiatives, the local government, and other agencies which are providing social care. There is also a greater possibility that the government can set forth anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive policies in its welfare programs; whereas other programs from other sectors may be more discriminatory in whom they would favour for their welfare benefits (Trevithik, 2000). Economic position, for the most part sets forth disparities between the rich and the poor. The rich are able to afford most of their needs. In terms of productive relations, some have the means of production and others sell their labour. Finally, the richer people are also distinguished from other people in terms of occupational status with some having higher educational advantages as compared to others (Spicker, n.d). These disparities and differences often define the social ranking of the members of society. Such ranking also often define their access to social services and their actual need for it. For those who have better privileges and rankings, they are also more likely to not need government assistance; however for those who are underprivileged and who have lower rankings in society, they are likely to need access to welfare services (Veenhoven, 1994). It matters that it is the government who provides these services because these available services sets forth a semblance of equality for the people amidst a largely disparate world. Moreover, the criterion for access to welfare services would be based less on affordability and social standing – but based on the government’s duty to serve as equalizer between the rich and the poor members of society (Paxson and Waldfogel, 2001). About two percent of the UK population have intellectual disabilities. This percentage has changed considerably when the realization sets in that there has been a 53% increase seen over a 35 year period from 1960-1995 (Cooper, et.al., 2004). Individuals with disabilities experience health inequalities as compared to the rest of the population; their life expectancy too is considered at a lower scale than the general population. They also have higher health needs and these are often unrecognised and unfulfilled (Cooper, et.al., 2004). There are various issues which affect the issuance of support for the provision of services for individuals with learning disabilities. Some others claim that it matters very much who actually provides their services. Other agencies and groups, in both the private and the public sector can actually provide services. For the most part, it is often presumed that welfare states attribute more value for insurance payments, as compared to the larger market and charitable groups. This presumption has room for both doubts and for support. In relation to other welfare providers, the government or the state is in the best position in the delivery of quality welfare services (Veenhoven, 1994). Through its laws and other support subsidies, the state is capable of implementing quality standards in its services. The development of its services can also be conceptualized based on formal and academic studies. Such planned social engineering is set to deliver better products as compared to commercial firms and charitable institutions (Veenhoven, 1994). Furthermore, only the state can ensure continuity in its supply and the state would not easily get broke. The state services also consider the general population more comprehensively. The state also supports its constituents, regardless of the behaviour of the people; whereas, churches and even families would likely reward or support their members who would behave well (Veenhoven, 1994). The state also helps provide welfare for those who cannot pay their insurance premiums. Through a financial safety-net which is available to everyone, the state eliminates the possibility of irrevocable damage, including chronic illness caused by lack of medical treatment during economic recessions (Bartley, et.al., 1997). State provisions can sometimes not turn out well for those who need welfare services. The better intentions can sometimes be overwhelmed by unintended effects (Veenhoven, 1996). One such effect can be that of the monopoly perverting the system, and another effect is that the supply of resources for welfare can be manipulated by politicians (Veenhoven, 1996). Such monopoly and manipulation can sometimes diminish the quality of services; and it can also impact on adequate and appropriate allocation of resources which are similar to consumer products in socialist and communist nations (Veenhoven, 1996). In other words, issues have been heard in relation to services of the welfare state with the resources not reaching those who are in need. In effect, the delivery of benefits would take longer to reach the people and procedures would be too bureaucratic to follow. Other critics also point out that the state is not effective in the delivery of welfare services when it cannot even eliminate its primary issues on poverty. On the other hand, the larger private market seems to be doing its job in this regard (Pierson, 1992). Undoubtedly, welfare services may also cause harm at some point. Moreover, different negative effects in the overprovision of services have been raised. Too much welfare has been seen to reduce responsibility and increase dependence, thereby, leading to demanding attitudes from constituents (Murray, 1984). In these cases, the welfare of the people can be advanced well through the stimulation of the people into taking things into their own hands. It is possible however for the welfare state to still be largely beneficial to the citizens, especially to those who would benefit from the welfare services. However, these benefits may be overshadowed by unintended benefits. One such unintended benefit is the impact of such services on the economic growth. Wellbeing is manifestly higher in rich nations and in the process of debates and discussions, economists have pointed out that welfare expenses can potentially ruin the economy. In effect, the benefits of state welfare are diminished by the losses in wealth (Veenhoven, 2000). In further reviewing this assessment, this analysis does not seem to apply when studies reveal that welfare states do not show lower economic growth. Furthermore, economic gains or declines do not seem to affect the average happiness rates of richer countries. There are favourable reasons in supporting welfare services for the learning disabled. The quantity of its services helps ensure that those who cannot afford welfare would be served (Cox, 1998). Moreover, the state provides for these services on the basis of universal and encompassing rules. On the other hand, other service providers may be picky in the people they would choose to deliver services to. Family-based welfare services may limit the benefits to kin and religious groups may limit the services to their church mates (Veenhoven, 2000). It is encouraging to note that equality is a major aim for welfare states; and that welfare services can often serve to reduce the disparity between those who can and those who cannot afford health and social services. However, as was mentioned previously, there are deleterious effects to states offering welfare services. The most obvious criticism is based on Marx’s doctrine which points out that a welfare state sometimes supports and preserves class differences (Veenhoven, 1994). Other critics, like the feminists and minority advocates, point out that the welfare state further depresses the position of the disadvantaged people in society. Moreover, the welfare state can unintentionally lead to inequalities among the people by leading them into the so-called poverty trap (Pierson, 1994). Various studies about the income-inequality of different countries which are not welfare states have been carried out. These studies seem to manifest that the state welfare does diminish differences in income (Headey, et.al., 1997). In effect, there may not be significant merit in assuming that the welfare state would impact negatively on a country’s economy. The welfare state may be maintained and supported for the benefit of the people who would likely to need welfare services the most – in this case, those who are learning disabled, as well as those who cannot afford social and welfare services. Works Cited Anthias, F. (2001) The Concept of ‘Social Division’ and Theorising Social Stratification: Looking at Ethnicity and Class. Sociology, volume 35, number 4, pp. 835–854. Retrieved 26 February 2011 from http://club.fom.ru/books/anthias.pdf Bartley, M., Blane, D. & Montgomery, S. (1997) Health and the life-course: Why safety nets matter. British Medical Journal, 1997, volume 314, pp 1194-1196 Bardes, B., Shelley, M., & Schmidt, S. (2008) American Government and Politics Today 2008: The Essentials. London: Cengage Learning BBC News. (2011) David Cameron sets out Welfare Reform Bill plans. Retrieved 26 February 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12486158 BBC News. (2010) Forty years of Chronically Sick & Disabled Persons Act. Retrieved 26 February 2011 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/lancashire/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8697000/8697441.stm Connecting for Health. (2011) Health and Social Care Integration programme. Retrieved 26 February 2011 from http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/hscip Cooper, S., Melville, C., & Morrison, J. (2004) People with intellectual disabilities. British Medical Journal, volume 329: pp. 414–5 Cox, R. (1998). The Consequences of Welfare Reform: How Conceptions of Social Rights are Changing. Jnl Soc. Pol., 27, 1, 1–16 Dictionary.com. (2011) Define democracy. Retrieved 24 February 2011 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy Fiske, H. (2002) Welfare Reform: Its Effect on Social Workers and Their Clients. National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved 26 February 2011 from http://www.naswdc.org/advocacy/welfare/press/fiske.asp Headey, B., Goodin, R.E., Muffels, R. & Dirven, H.J. (1997) Welfare over time, Three world of welfare capitalism in panel perspective. Journal of Public policy, volume 17, pp 329-359 Keyssar, A. (2009) The right to vote: the contested history of democracy in the United States.2009. London: Basic Books Miller, D. (1990) Market state and community. London: Oxford University Press. Murray, G. (19840 Losing ground. American social policy 1950-1980. New York: Basic Books Paxson, C. & Waldfogel, J. (2001) Welfare Reforms, Family Resources, and Child Maltreatment. Princeton University. Retrieved 24 February 2011 from http://weblamp.princeton.edu/~chw/papers/pwadobe.pdf Pierson, P. (1994) Dismantling the welfare state? Reagan, Thatcher and the politics of retrenchment. 1994. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Pierson, C. (1992) Beyond the welfare state? Cambridge: Polity Press Robert, H. (2001) Webster's New World Robert's rules of order: simplified and applied. London: Webster’s New World Schoeni, R. & Blank, R. (2000) What has welfare reform accomplished? Impacts on Welfare Participation, Employment, Income, Poverty, and Family Structure. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved 27 February 2011 from http://www.spa.ucla.edu/ps/pdf/s00/PS234/blank-schoeni%282000%29.pdf Spicker, P. (n.d) An introduction to Social Policy. Public Policy. Retrieved 24 February 2011 from http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/society.htm The Electoral Commission. (2006) Who can vote? 2006. Retrieved 24 February 2011 from http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0017/13274/0906whocanvote_23253-6144__E__N__S__W__.pdf Trevithick, P. Social Work Skills: A Practice Handbook. (2000) McGraw-Hill. 26 February 2011 from http://mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335206999.pdf Veenhoven, R. (1994) Is happiness a trait? Test of the theory that a better society does not make people any happier. Social Indicators Research, volume 34, pp 33-68 Veenhoven, R. (1996) Developments in satisfaction research. Social Indicators Research, volume 37, pp 1-46 Veenhoven, R. (2000) Wellbeing in the welfare state: Level not higher, distribution not more equitable. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, volume 2, pp 91-125 Walker, R. & Wiseman, M. (2011) Refreshing reform: Ideas from British welfare strategy. Focus, volume 22, number 1. Retrieved 27 February 2011 from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc221-part5.pdf Young, I. (2002) Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press Read More