A failed state is a state that doesn’t have a central, stable form of government. It cannot defend its own territory, collect taxes, or manage the economy. This sets it apart from other nations because it cannot function on its own and often requires help from a strong state. A state becomes classified based on the number of responsibilities it can live up to compared to the number of responsibilities it should.
I think that Mexico is in the beginning steps of becoming a failed state. The drug cartels are running the northern part of the state dragging political figures, police and citizens into harm. The government of the state is slowly starting to crumble and the economy is going down with the rest of the country. Although drugs make money, this money is not counted in the GDP and is not taxable since it is illegal. Also, the money made from drugs is also being used to pay off government officials.
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/161675
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
The Future of Freedom: Illibeal Democracy At Home and Abroad
What do you think Zakaria means by illiberal democracy? What events surrounding the publication of this book in 2003 might have motivated Zakaria to write this book?
When Zakaria talks about illiberal democracy, I think he is trying to prove to his reader that although governments may claim to be free in every way possible, even the most 'free' governments, who claim to be the most liberal democracy on the planet, are not as even close to what they either strive or pretend to strive for. Zakaria dives into his work trying to show the reader through examples of history and modern day that governments are not at all what they appear to be and that there is a very different government hiding behind the rhetoric that the people under the government hear every day.
To have a true liberal democracy, a country has to meet a certain amount of qualifications. Another name for liberal democracy is a constitutional democracy meaning that there are certain rights guaranteed to every citizen under some form of a constitution. Zakaria seeks out to try and refocus the minds of the people of the world by showing them how much governments actually follow their constitutions and how much they manipulate the words to weave their way around it. He strives to shift the peoples’ jaded or misdirected views back into balance and show the people what is really going on in the world of politics.
This idea of liberal democracy is broken down to its most basic form throughout the book. Zakaria clarifies that democracy, liberty, and liberal democracy are three very different things. To use a quote out of his book he says, "Democracy is flourishing; liberty is not". To explain this bold statement, Zakaria explains a few different things to his reader. He explains that although a person may have rights, the leader in charge may not recognize the rights even though this leader may have been elected through a free and fair election. He also says that although there may be democracy and liberty both present at the same time, there might be a little too much democracy causing liberty to not even be an issue.
Time and time again, Zakaria comes back to the base of democracy. Zakaria says on the first page of his book, "'democracy' means 'the rule of the people'". Although the people may still have this rule since the power in governments is shifting downwards towards the people, democracy is still not free or 'liberal'. These freedoms that are guaranteed to people in constitutions are not exactly what the people think they are being guaranteed. Zakaria explains this by using many examples but three in particular stuck out at me. Zakaria talks about even the most common rights that people talk about: political, economic, and religious rights. He uses these examples because people are very familiar with these rights are considered the core rights.
A good example would be looking at women and the right to vote. Pre-suffrage, in the 1920's, women could not vote. This was no unconstitutional because the constitution stated that "man could vote". The US was not considered to be any less democratic because women couldn't vote, it was considered normal to the government (predominantly men) at the time. Another example is segregation and slavery. Zakaria brings up that point that slavery and segregation did not end in the United States because people voted it out. Slavery and segregation ended because of fighting and wars. The best way to say it is as he said it, "In the end, slavery died not because it was lost in a vote but because the forces of the North crushed the South". Although Great Britain is considered to be a liberal democracy, it has a state religion, which is breaching the division of church and state.
The Supreme Court, the highest court in the US, is not very democratic or liberal at all. Nine justices serve on the court at any given time. This would not be a problem. The problem is that the strongest, most representative body in the United States government is not very representative. The people do not get to decide who the nine justices are, the president does. Although the people can vote on who the president is, the president normally switches every 4-8 years (minus death, etc.) however, the justices serve life terms on the court. This is not very democratic at all when you actually sit down and think about it.
Zakaria uses his book to explain, in an understandable way, that although governments may seem to be very free and open and transparent and perfect, there are many flaws in the system and illiberal democracy is not just some term that political science majors spit out at each other over coffee in Starbucks. Illiberal democracy is a serious problem that deserved time and thought. If a democracy does not follow the rules that were set in a constitution, then it is no longer a democracy or free at all. Zakaria does not try to argue that democracy is a bad thing or that is does not work at all, he just tries to show everyone that it is possible to have too much of it.
I think when Zakaria was writing this, he was looking out at the world and seeing so many different conflicts that he had to start at the basics and establish where these ideas of democracy and liberty and show how overtime liberal democracy started to come together. There is an excerpt that is carefully placed in his book that says, ”Elections, open, free and fair, are the essence of democracy, the inescapable sine qua non. Governments produced by elections may be inefficient, corrupt, shortsighted, irresponsible, dominated by special interests, and incapable of adopting policies demanded by the public good. These qualities make such governments undesirable but they do not make them undemocratic. Democracy is one public virtue, not the only one, and the relation of democracy to the other public virtues and vices can only be understood if democracy is clearly distinguished from the other characteristics of political system”. Just because the elections are fair, does not mean the leaders are and just because there are protected freedoms, the people are not necessarily free. Zakaria makes the point that things are not what they appear to be and his book proves his point that democracy is not necessarily free.
I think when Zakaria was looking out at the world in 2003, he was looking specifically at the countries we are studying. I think he was looking at the world powers such at Russia, China, Iran, and the US and seeing how the governments functioned and really looked at if it was working or not according the the already established ideas of what government should be and how it should be run.
When Zakaria talks about illiberal democracy, I think he is trying to prove to his reader that although governments may claim to be free in every way possible, even the most 'free' governments, who claim to be the most liberal democracy on the planet, are not as even close to what they either strive or pretend to strive for. Zakaria dives into his work trying to show the reader through examples of history and modern day that governments are not at all what they appear to be and that there is a very different government hiding behind the rhetoric that the people under the government hear every day.
To have a true liberal democracy, a country has to meet a certain amount of qualifications. Another name for liberal democracy is a constitutional democracy meaning that there are certain rights guaranteed to every citizen under some form of a constitution. Zakaria seeks out to try and refocus the minds of the people of the world by showing them how much governments actually follow their constitutions and how much they manipulate the words to weave their way around it. He strives to shift the peoples’ jaded or misdirected views back into balance and show the people what is really going on in the world of politics.
This idea of liberal democracy is broken down to its most basic form throughout the book. Zakaria clarifies that democracy, liberty, and liberal democracy are three very different things. To use a quote out of his book he says, "Democracy is flourishing; liberty is not". To explain this bold statement, Zakaria explains a few different things to his reader. He explains that although a person may have rights, the leader in charge may not recognize the rights even though this leader may have been elected through a free and fair election. He also says that although there may be democracy and liberty both present at the same time, there might be a little too much democracy causing liberty to not even be an issue.
Time and time again, Zakaria comes back to the base of democracy. Zakaria says on the first page of his book, "'democracy' means 'the rule of the people'". Although the people may still have this rule since the power in governments is shifting downwards towards the people, democracy is still not free or 'liberal'. These freedoms that are guaranteed to people in constitutions are not exactly what the people think they are being guaranteed. Zakaria explains this by using many examples but three in particular stuck out at me. Zakaria talks about even the most common rights that people talk about: political, economic, and religious rights. He uses these examples because people are very familiar with these rights are considered the core rights.
A good example would be looking at women and the right to vote. Pre-suffrage, in the 1920's, women could not vote. This was no unconstitutional because the constitution stated that "man could vote". The US was not considered to be any less democratic because women couldn't vote, it was considered normal to the government (predominantly men) at the time. Another example is segregation and slavery. Zakaria brings up that point that slavery and segregation did not end in the United States because people voted it out. Slavery and segregation ended because of fighting and wars. The best way to say it is as he said it, "In the end, slavery died not because it was lost in a vote but because the forces of the North crushed the South". Although Great Britain is considered to be a liberal democracy, it has a state religion, which is breaching the division of church and state.
The Supreme Court, the highest court in the US, is not very democratic or liberal at all. Nine justices serve on the court at any given time. This would not be a problem. The problem is that the strongest, most representative body in the United States government is not very representative. The people do not get to decide who the nine justices are, the president does. Although the people can vote on who the president is, the president normally switches every 4-8 years (minus death, etc.) however, the justices serve life terms on the court. This is not very democratic at all when you actually sit down and think about it.
Zakaria uses his book to explain, in an understandable way, that although governments may seem to be very free and open and transparent and perfect, there are many flaws in the system and illiberal democracy is not just some term that political science majors spit out at each other over coffee in Starbucks. Illiberal democracy is a serious problem that deserved time and thought. If a democracy does not follow the rules that were set in a constitution, then it is no longer a democracy or free at all. Zakaria does not try to argue that democracy is a bad thing or that is does not work at all, he just tries to show everyone that it is possible to have too much of it.
I think when Zakaria was writing this, he was looking out at the world and seeing so many different conflicts that he had to start at the basics and establish where these ideas of democracy and liberty and show how overtime liberal democracy started to come together. There is an excerpt that is carefully placed in his book that says, ”Elections, open, free and fair, are the essence of democracy, the inescapable sine qua non. Governments produced by elections may be inefficient, corrupt, shortsighted, irresponsible, dominated by special interests, and incapable of adopting policies demanded by the public good. These qualities make such governments undesirable but they do not make them undemocratic. Democracy is one public virtue, not the only one, and the relation of democracy to the other public virtues and vices can only be understood if democracy is clearly distinguished from the other characteristics of political system”. Just because the elections are fair, does not mean the leaders are and just because there are protected freedoms, the people are not necessarily free. Zakaria makes the point that things are not what they appear to be and his book proves his point that democracy is not necessarily free.
I think when Zakaria was looking out at the world in 2003, he was looking specifically at the countries we are studying. I think he was looking at the world powers such at Russia, China, Iran, and the US and seeing how the governments functioned and really looked at if it was working or not according the the already established ideas of what government should be and how it should be run.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)