Are Corporatist Interests a Threat to Democracy and Citizenship in the Modern World - Literature review Example

Are Corporatist Interests a Threat to Democracy and Citizenship in the Modern World? By (insert your name here) The Name of the Class (Course) Professor (Tutor) The Name of the School (University) The City and State where it is located The Date Introduction There is consensus among modern political studies that transitional corporation continue to have unbalanced influence on democracy, domestic politics, and political ideologies. Again, there is concern that legitimate governance is embedded not only on the understanding of the link between political, political ideologies, democratic ideals and politics. However, it is the interest of corporatist that threatens democracy and citizenship in the modern world. The aim of this paper is to critically assess the effects of corporatist interests as a threat to democracy and citizenship in the modern world. We link this view with aspects of governance like politics, democracy, and ideological frameworks on democracy. There is consensus among different researchers that the definition of politics remains multifaceted. Accordingly, it means that an understanding of the term would require myriad perspective. Beginning with Dunleavy (2014), politics means study of the state. It is therefore the role of state to assess the influence of corporatist interests. While taking case studies on developed democracies such as United States, United Kingdom, Canada, India and Ghana, the author defined politics as the study of states in their past, current and future structures of governance. It therefore means that corporatist interests when tolerated erode democracy that defines politics. In as much as this definition is confined to aspects of governance, it provides ways in which political institutions and theories help in the general understanding of corporatist interests. Recent political science scholars see politics as an art which is concerned with the foundations of the state as well as principles of government (Etzioni-Halevy 2013; Rommetvedt et al. 2013; Binderkrantz, et al. 2015). Specifically, Etzioni-Halevy (2013) observed that politics is the general understanding of either the activities of political life or studies of these activities. Relating this definition to the aspect of principles of government the understanding Bader (2014) provides is that the activities are generally regarded as the various organs of government. A point to note from these definitions is that they emphasize on the institutional and legal structure of politics without paying attention to the essential principles of politics such as facts and realities of governance, structure of governance, democracy and politics. This in turn means that the governed must have the capacity to reject illegitimate authority emerging from corporatists. Contrariwise, modern political thinkers have refined the understanding of politics by including the concept of power, science and influence. These scholars see politics as influence, power and authority. Politics is therefore that game that allows people to acquire prominent position (Otjes and Rasmussen 2015). Studies have shown agreements and disagreements on the ways in which politics can be studied. Perspective given by Bader (2014) indicates that politics can be studied as a conflict resolution. Basing his case studies from different countries that have had political turmoil as a result of failed democracy, disputed general elections or political standpoints Wilks-Heeg (2014) noted that study of politics should take the dimension of bringing about changes or resisting changes. Conflict resolution as a study of history should therefore provide framework of findings solutions especially when people seem to be competing for the limited resources and specifically, corporatism as the persistent rival school of representative government. This view was supported by Pridham (2016) who noted that the modern emphasis of politics is to study how disagreements and reconciliation can be arrived at amicably. Different approach argues that politics can be studied as political institution and theories that help define those institutions (Giuliani 2016). Beginning with theories study of politics has been attributed to different systems of government and theories that formulate politics. On the other hand, theory of origin of state as developed by Rousseau was adopted in Pridham (2016) research when argued that politics is studied in line with these theories so as to help in understanding foundation on which future analysis and understanding of governance is based. The ascendancy of the corporatist world view over the individual citizen perspective has been helped by characterizing democracy as inefficient and subject to emotions. The move to move from democracy as a game of the government by people, for people and of people is changing as a result of different political ideologies and dynamism in contemporary political institutions. Assessing democracy as ideal domain in governance, Binderkrantz et al. (2017) placed his definition on maximalist and minimalist variants and as such, looks at the term as a situation where governance is placed to protect freedom and rights of its citizen against rogue governance or arbitrary arrests. Expanding on this definition, modern trends in democracy expects that every player should seek to have equal justice, social, political, economic and social representation and participation in decision making processes. Relating this argument within the context of maximalist and minimalist variants Binderkrantz et al. (2017) noted that democracy should seek to protect liberty of the electorates and by extension, see these electorates as the final decision makers. Recent political decisions witnessed in Canada (when Liberal government moved in to respect key economic decisions citizens had made regarding Brexit and market regulations) and political system in Australia where there is complete representative democracy that for long, has been founded on liberal democratic tradition shows that citizens are not only the key decision makers but the framework of democracy has evolved that people are now allowed to vote for candidates from among multiple political parties, who would represent their interests in the parliament. This perspective indeed controls corporatist interests as a threat to democracy and citizenship in the modern world. Relating these examples within the context of democracy as ideal concept that has been interpreted differently, the term is currently seen as an element of country’s organized principles that have been placed to regulate essential decisions on governance (Eising and Spohr 2016). Democracy is more than just providing government institutions that check on freedoms and fundamental rights. That is, there is need to draw from regimes or states that put different mechanisms to ensure that there were freedoms and fundamental rights but did not qualify as a democratic state since there were no governance and exercise of power. A clear case is the recent political temperatures in Egypt where upon Mohammed Morsi ousting there were freedoms and fundamental rights but limited governance and exercise of power (Christiansen et al. 2017). The Egypt case indicates that democracy is now interpreted differently. It is not about freedoms and fundamental rights but also governance and exercise of power. Arora-Jonsson (2017) supported this view noting that freedoms and fundamental rights is essential but the mass (electorates) should be allowed to come up with policies or laws that publicly control different institutions of governance. Borrowing from Arora-Jonsson (2017), ‘there is need to understand a mature democracy as such will establish a clearer separation of powers so that the fundamental human rights and freedom are not only exercised but citizens can see the judiciary as a tool they can engage to champion for human rights and freedoms’ (p. 105). The option that now leaves different political ideologies is that democracy has defined in terms of different principles including election, rule of law, separation of powers, and the parliament. There is need for a state to provide mechanism for free and fair election, the extent to which a country has put structures that permit citizen to be equal before the law and clear separation of power between the three arms of government (judiciary, parliament and executive). The link between political ideologies and democratic ideal is based on the extent to which politics or the study of political science look at the 21st century and how the century presents major political origins, ideologies and development in shaping organs of governance. According to Häusermann (2017) the democratic ideal provides systematic comparison of different ideas and consequences inherent in every ideal. Supporting this view, Rice and Somerville (2017) introduces the concept of ideologies, ideals, political, political ideologies and democratic ideal arguing that these are concepts that provide framework on corporatist structures and democracy and citizenship to help students learn critical instead of dogmatic thinking which will in turn; help them in developing open minded thinking to criticize political beliefs. Borrowing conclusion from Bader (2014) democratic ideals calls for understanding across the political spectrum to engage in persuasion, more so by contrasting some cases which can be allowed to continue for social or pragmatic reasons. On this basis, we relate our understanding to politics as ‘the study of shaping and sharing elements of power’ to link democratic ideals and politics. The two terms therefore means a politics and democratic ideals as persistent pattern or link that involves authority, power or rule. Wilks-Heeg (2014) recently expounded on political ideologies as ways in which government or the society can be organized. Proposing ideologies such as liberalism, socialism and absolutism, political and political ideologies differ on the applicability of these principles in governance. Conclusion This study notes that assessment of corporatist interests as a threat to democracy and citizenship in the modern world remain multifaceted. We relate corporatist interests and political, political ideologies, democratic ideals and politics as ethical sets of governance, doctrines, principles and symbols of political movement that provides analysis of some political as well as governance blueprint on social order. We conclude that corporatist interests is indeed a threat to citizenry and democracy but ending this trend means redesigning approach towards democracy so that corporatist interests becomes a system of negotiations between those various interests. Reference List Arora-Jonsson, S., 2017. The realm of freedom in new rural governance: Micro-politics of democracy in Sweden. Geoforum, 79, pp.58-69. Bader, V., 2014. Sciences, politics, and associative democracy: democratizing science and expertizing democracy. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(4), pp.420-441. Binderkrantz, A.S., Bonafont, L.C. and Halpin, D.R., 2017. Diversity in the News? A Study of Interest Groups in the Media in the UK, Spain and Denmark. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), pp.313-328. Binderkrantz, A.S., Christiansen, P.M. and Pedersen, H.H., 2015. Interest group access to the bureaucracy, parliament, and the media. Governance, 28(1), pp.95-112. Christiansen, P.M., Mach, A. and Varone, F., 2017. How corporatist institutions shape the access of citizen groups to policy-makers: evidence from Denmark and Switzerland. Journal of European Public Policy, pp.1-20. Dunleavy, P., 2014. Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice: economic approaches in political science. Routledge. Eising, R. and Spohr, F., 2016. The more, the merrier? Interest groups and legislative change in the public hearings of the German parliamentary committees. German Politics, pp.1-20. Etzioni-Halevy, E., 2013. Bureaucracy and Democracy (Routledge Library Editions: Political Science Volume 7) (Vol. 7). Routledge. Giuliani, M., 2016. Patterns of democracy reconsidered: The ambiguous relationship between corporatism and consensualism. European Journal of Political Research, 55(1), pp.22-42. Häusermann, S., 2017. Political decision‐making in Switzerland. The consensus model under pressureSciarini, Pascal, Manuel Fischer and Denise Traber Palgrave Macmillan (2015), 291p., ISBN 978‐1‐137‐50859‐1. Swiss Political Science Review, 23(1), pp.97-100. Otjes, S. and Rasmussen, A., 2015. The collaboration between interest groups and political parties in multi-party democracies Party system dynamics and the effect of power and ideology. Party Politics, p.1354068814568046. Pridham, G. ed., 2016. Securing democracy: Political parties and democratic consolidation in Southern Europe. Routledge. Rice, C. and Somerville, I., 2017. Political Contest and Oppositional Voices in Postconflict Democracy: The Impact of Institutional Design on Government–Media Relations. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22(1), pp.92-110. Rommetvedt, H., Thesen, G., Christiansen, P.M. and Nørgaard, A.S., 2013. Coping with corporatism in decline and the revival of parliament: interest group lobbyism in Denmark and Norway, 1980–2005. Comparative Political Studies, 46(4), pp.457-485. Wilks-Heeg, S., 2014. The politics of sustainability: democracy and the limits of policy action. The challenge of sustainability: Linking politics, education and learning, p.43. Read More