What Are Political Power and Liberal Representative Democracy - Admission/Application Essay Example

What is political power and should we be concerned if it is concentrated in the hands of a few? Political power is the ability of one actor to control another’s political behavior. It is the ability to influence, coerce or dictate how an individual or group participates in the political process, or if they participate in the political process at all. Politics is different than political power. Politics is the mechanism that individuals and groups use to obtain political power over others. Political power is important because political power has the ability to shape the policies and institutions of government. Ideology can be put into practice through the skilled use of political power. An important aspect of political power is an understanding of the concepts of force and influence. Political power is gained through politics, but power is exerted through force and influence. The real measure of political power is when you can cause someone to act in a political manner that they would not otherwise do without your influence. One of the most dangerous situations in any governmental system is when political power is concentrated in the hands of the few. This is a dangerous situation because the desires of the few will be represented in government and the desires of the many will be ignored. The entire governmental system can be bent to the will of only a few powerful individuals or groups. This is especially damaging in a democracy because this system of government is built on the belief that all people should have a say in the government. When many people participate in a democracy that only has the illusion of fairness, then citizens will become disenchanted with governmental participation. They will choose to disengage from their responsibilities as citizens and even more political power will flow to the political elites. A democracy that has the political power concentrated in the hands of a few important actors is not a healthy system. This system is a recipe for corruption, abuse of power and discrimination. 2. Define globalization and evaluate if the process is reducing the importance of the state. Globalization is the growing economic and cultural interdependence that is occurring today. It is a process that has been happening for decades now and has been helped by several important events. Globalization is encouraged by economic treaties and trade between nations. The steady shifting of manufacturing establishments from Europe and North America towards the developing world has been facilitated by these economic agreements (Lechner, 2009). A good example of an agreement that encourage globalization is the recent trade treaty signed between The United States and South Korea. This will make importing beef less costly for South Koreans and importing Korean cars easier for Americans. The North American Free Trade Agreement is another regional trade agreement that has lead to globalization. In addition to agreements between governments, multinational corporations have grown in strength these last few decades. The rapid rise of these massive businesses allows them to influence decisions made by sovereign governments. For example, if a powerful multinational corporation does not like the tax policy in a certain nation; they simply will threaten to move their business elsewhere. This will result in a loss of tax revenue as well as jobs for the nation, so often they will concede to the demands of the multinational corporation. The end result of globalization is the traditional power held by the nation-state is being diminished. Barriers to travel, trade and production are being eliminated. Erecting these barriers in the past was a key way nations could exert control over their national policies. Today, multinational corporations have enough power to tell the nations what they want them to do within their own legislatures. 3. What is ‘liberal representative democracy’ and does the model provide an appropriate combination of freedom and equality? The term ‘liberal democracy’ was invented during The Enlightenment. A liberal democracy brings to mind certain characteristics that are mostly associated with human rights and individual freedoms. In a liberal democracy, citizens are able to take part in the political process by voting. The representative nature of these democracies dictates that people elect representatives as opposed to directly voting on proposed legislation. Liberal democracies allow all adult citizens to vote regardless of gender, race or religion. Some people may confuse the term liberal democracy with the differences between liberal and conservative political ideologies. The use of the word ‘liberal’ in this sense means something different. Liberal, conservative and centrist ideologies can all be expressed in a liberal democracy. A liberal democracy is not a perfect political system. It can always be manipulated by individuals and groups that control media outlets or have the ability to influence legislators through campaign contributions or legal, yet unethical favors. Liberal democracies are not without bigotry, oppression and racism. That said, these blemishes do not eliminate the fact that this sort of political ideology is the very best at protecting and promoting freedom and equality. Many liberal representative democracies have specific individual rights incorporated into their constitution and other founding documents. The entire premise of this system of government requires human rights such as expression of free will and the right to oppose the current sitting government. The rights of all must be protected in order for a liberal representative democracy to be effective. The right to peacefully remove the government helps to ensure that major abuses of power do not occur. Liberal representative democracies are not perfect, but they are excellent systems for ensuring freedom and equality. 4. Identify 3 political ideologies of your choice along with their defining characteristics. Providing reasons to support your answer, which of these ideological perspectives do you think provides the best perspective on freedom and equality? Communism is one of the political ideologies that have been around a long time. The defining characteristics of Communism are all aimed at eliminating the struggle for power and wealth that has been happening since civilizations began. Communism calls for the elimination of private and personal property. In the ideal situation, this natural evolution of human society would happen voluntarily, but according to Communists, the bourgeois will always oppress the proletariat, so sooner or later there needs to be a revolution. On the way to a utopia that involves no personal property or class strife, Communists feel it is acceptable to oppress individuals and groups that do not agree with the ideas of Communism. Individual wants and desires are not important or respected under Communism. Liberalism is a political ideology that places much emphasis on individual rights and freedoms. It believes that human nature is basically good and that the concentration of power is always suspicious. Liberalism places much faith in the power of the majority to do the right thing. Government and governing is viewed as an important part of the social contract that exists between the government and the citizens of a nation. Conservatism is an ideology that is most concerned with maintaining existing traditions and institutions. Conservatism believes that a certain amount of social stratification is natural. They believe that there will be winners and losers and the government has no business meddling with the process of social natural selection. Conservatism stresses individual responsibility and prefers rule by those that have distinguished themselves in some way rather than a rule by the majority. Liberalism is the best political ideology for ensuring that freedom and equality are preserved in a government. Communism forces people to adopt a system that takes away personal freedom and property rights. Even though they claim it is for the best in the end, there may be equality, but no freedom. Liberalism allows for a broad array of personal freedoms. Conservatism rejects new ideas about equality and favors the most wealthy and powerful people in a society. As a result, equality suffers. 5. Why do some feminists view women as oppressed? Does their perspective accurately depict the situation of women in contemporary Canada? Some feminists view women as oppressed because men have traditionally held political and economic power. They point to the fact that despite decades of women being in the workplace in numbers that now equal men, men still are the ones running the corporations, directing the armed forces and dominating government. They believe that there are many institutional and cultural barriers to success for a woman. Many still feel that a woman’s first priority is to her family and her children. As a result, many women feel guilty about continuing their careers after having children, or not bearing children so they can focus on their careers. Some industries, such as finance, have shown a clear bias against women serving in senior positions. The reason for this is believed to lie in the fact that male senior executives are not comfortable training and employee that will need to take days off to care for sick children or to have maternity leave. Unfortunately, some of these beliefs of feminists are manifest in modern Canada today. It is true that women have more opportunity to distinguish themselves in education and the workplace, but women are still discriminated against due to the many cultural expectations placed upon them. 6. Using examples of your choice identify how ‘sustainable development’ differs from ‘unsustainable development’ An example of sustainable development can be found in the establishment of carbon neutral neighborhoods and housing schemes. Sustainable development meets the needs of people today without compromising the ability of the environment to sustain the needs of future generations (Faucheux, 1998). Developments and housing schemes that focus on a combination of land uses and alternative energy sources facilitate sustainability. Neighborhoods are more walkable and scaled so that travel on foot or bicycle is not only possible but preferable to automobile. Public transportation is cheap and efficient in these communities because the infrastructure is built to accommodate trains, not cars. Energy for homes and businesses are provided through solar, wind and other sources. Even municipal utilities, such as waste disposal and water treatment are done using sustainable methods that do not ruin the environment. This sort of community is a sustainable community. An example of unsustainable development would be the mining of tar sands and the creation of the Keystone Pipeline. The extraction of oil from these finite tar sands requires a tremendous amount of fresh water and energy. The water will be unfit for consumption in any way after it is involved in the extraction process. The piping of this oil to the United States for refining will simply add to global warming and will continue the dependence on oil for energy. The mining of tar sands and the building of the Keystone Pipeline will create jobs and help keep petrochemical prices low for the United States and Canada. The problem is the whole process creates waste that damages the environment keeps North America from developing sustainable energy sources. It is a conservative approach that attempts to maintain the energy system that currently dominates most aspects of the Canadian and American economy today. 7. What are political parties? Do political parties facilitate or undermine the democratic process? Political parties are organized groups that are bound by ideology or a set of political, social or economic values. Political parties organize funds and events that attempt to get representatives from their party elected to positions in government. Often a political party will have something called a platform. This is a statement of beliefs which gives a general idea of how the candidates from that party will go about running the country if elected. In many nations there are multiple political parties. Liberal representative democracies often have two or three major parties with a host of minor parties that hold very little power come election time. Political parties are necessary for the purposes of organizing rallies, making the party platform known and choosing leadership. They are great for voters because they are able to paint a simplistic picture of each candidate in their party. So, for example, in the United States, when a voter hears that someone is a Republican, the voter immediately has an idea of the types of things that person will stand for. This is true of the parties in Canada as well. Even though they are convenient, political parties actually undermine the democratic process. The party machine chooses who goes up for election. They control vast sums of money in democracies such as the United States, and they limit true choice that should exist in a free democracy. In a nation that has only two major parties, voters are forced to choose one or the other. Because party platforms are often presented in such a rigid manner, many people feel as though they do not really belong in any party. This leads to low voter participation and apathy towards the entire system of government. Party politics are often more nasty that the politics of the general government. For this reason, political parties actually undermine the democratic system they are participating in. 8. Identify four principles of liberal democracy. Would you argue that any of these four is more important for society than any others? The four principles that are most associated with a liberal democracy are a belief that individuals are important and act in a rational manner, a belief in reason and progress through a government that is able to compromise, a belief in society where the nature of society is built upon relationships between individuals and institutions that create benefits for both and a belief that concentrated power is generally a bad idea (Holden, 1988). While all of these principals are important, they are all founded on the belief that the individual is of worth and that individuals will act in a generally rational manner. This rationality of the majority is what ensures the nation stays on the right track or corrects course when off track. Without the sanctity of individual will and consciousness, the other aspects of a liberal democracy cannot function. For example, a nation of citizens that have no guarantee of individual rights will not be free to vote in elections. They will not establish societies based on positive examples of helping one another because help would be something individuals would not give to one another. It would be orchestrated by agencies within the government, a government that was not elected by the will of the people. The loss of individuality in a society means that people are no longer free to do good to one another as neighbors. Many of the problems in a society are not able to be solved by the government, but they can be addressed by good neighbors acting within the freedoms granted by a liberal democracy. If you take away this part of the liberal democracy, the functioning of the entire society will be negatively affected. Individualism and rationality is the foundation that the other principles are built upon, therefore, it is the most important of the four principals that support a liberal democracy. 9. What are the most important factors affecting the success or failure of interest groups and social movements? The first import factor in the success of an interest group or social movement is the ability to generate broad support. This can take the form of campaigning, contacting individual members of the society or working through mass media. Getting the word out is an important part of success for a social movement. Many times, commercials or public service announcements are used to sway public opinion about a certain topic. Many talented individuals spend their professional lives helping interest groups and social movements articulate their vision to the citizens of a nation or nations. Of course, all of this advertising and campaigning take money. That is the second most important thing a group that is trying to change society needs to get. Raising money is often a tricky proposition because often, interest groups are going up against powerful corporations and individuals. The playing field is rarely level. As a result, some environmental groups such as Greenpeace resort to risky stunts to get their message out. Other powerful individuals use their wealth to influence voters and citizens. This is currently a very contentious issue in the election season in the United States. Some individuals that are billionaires are pumping money into social issue and social movement societies as a means of influencing them to vote a certain way in the upcoming presidential elections. People that want to change the society need a source of income to make it happen. Finally, the interest group must have a message that resonates with the core values of the society. They must link their message to ideas of justice, fairness or equality. The message must not be viewed as undermining the basic beliefs of the nation. If this is the case, then it is likely the social movement will fail. 10. What is the ‘notwithstanding clause’ and should it be removed from the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The ‘notwithstanding clause’ was inserted into the 1982 Canadian Charter of rights as a means of appeasing the provincial governments. They were mad because the appeals process for conflicts involving the provinces and territories against the Federal government were going to be settled entirely by the judicial system. The provincial governments wanted legislatures to have some form of amending Federal laws they did not like. As a result, the ‘notwithstanding clause’ allows a province to basically put a hold on Federal laws that deal with procedures such as search and seizure and land planning. It does not allow a province to make any changes to inalienable rights such as voting or freedom of religion. The ‘notwithstanding clause’ has only been invoked a few times by provincial governments and it has never gone well for the province. Using the clause is an unpopular move that is very costly politically. The clause seems to be more of a paper tiger than a real threat to the cohesion of the nation. Many would argue that having it on the books makes it tempting for a province to disregard important Federal legislation, thus weakening the unity of Canada. This may be the case, but this argument has no real credence. It is useful in the fact that is broke a deadlock between the provinces and the Federal government during the negotiations that lead to the new constitution for Canada. For the time being, it seems to be a harmless article in the constitution. It does not appear to pose any real threat to the authority of the Federal government because the instances where it can be invoked are actually quite narrow. There may be a time when it should be reexamined because one province or another is suing it to stymie the Federal government, but that time is not now. 11. What is ‘coalition government’ and is it on balance preferable to a ‘minority government’ if no single party commands a majority of seats in the legislature? A coalition government is a government made up of more than one political party that has agreed to cooperate in order to share political power. Coalition governments are common in liberal representative democracies throughout Europe and in Canada. Often, in a coalition government, the major ministries are shared in a specified ratio and decision-making is a collaborative process. In some politically charged environments, such as Israel, coalition governments are notorious for shifting alliances, thus creating a collapse in the ability to rule and a call for more elections. A coalition government is preferable to a minority government in several ways. A coalition government does not always function smoothly. There are always disagreements between the different parties in the government, but many of these can be sorted out through negotiation and planning. The problem with a minority government is the ability to govern is severely impeded. Minority governments have a difficult time getting any legislation to pass. They often are thwarted by their opponents because their failure is in the best interest of the other political parties. Minority governments are notorious for being governments that are viewed as helpless and as lame ducks in some cases, but this is not true in Canada. The case of Canada, and in some other nations such as Sweden, sees minority governments that stay in power for a long time and get things done through informal agreements with a host of other parties. These parties are never close enough to form coalitions, but they are useful to each other in some way so they cooperate. In many countries, minority governments are often voted out in no confidence votes, but not in Canada and Sweden. 12. Compare and contrast the main characteristics of Parliamentary and Presidential systems of government. Which system do you think is more democratic and why? The Parliamentary system of government is different from the Presidential system of government in several ways. The first is the fact that the chief minister, or prime minister, who often acts a counterpart to the President in a Presidential system, in not an elected official (Dickerson, 2009). The Prime Minister is chosen by the Parliament. This means that the process of making and passing legislation is less cumbersome than in a Presidential system. There are other structural differences that this sort of system provides as well. A parliamentary system can change leaders and hold elections at any time. In a country like the United States, a Presidential system locks the electorate into a four-year election cycle. The problem with this stems from the fact that every two years, the House of Representatives in the United States holds elections. A president could lose control of the House of Representatives half-way through the term. This results in political gridlock and much partisan fighting. In a Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is more likely to work together with the Parliament. There is more open debate in a Parliamentary system than in a Presidential system. This leads to deals being struck more quickly and a more nimble government. The Parliamentary system is a more democratic system because a single election affects the government more than in a Presidential election. Parliament is more responsive to the people than is a President that is guaranteed to govern for a set number of years. In a coalition or minority government, change demanded by public opinion or changing circumstances is responded to quickly. A President does not need to do anything about it unless it is an election year. The make-up of Parliament is often a reflection of the ethnic make-up of the nation. This cannot be said of the President in most presidential systems. Works Cited Dickerson, M. O., Thomas Flanagan, and Brenda O'Neill. An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach. Toronto: Nelson Education, 2009. Print. Faucheux, Sylvie, Martin O'Connor, and Jan Van Der Straaten. Sustainable Development: Concepts, Rationalities, and Strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1998. Print. Holden, Barry. Understanding Liberal Democracy. Oxford [Oxfordshire: P. Allan, 1988. Print. Lechner, Frank J. Globalization: The Making of World Society. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print. Read More