Questions related to Democracy
Marta Wojciechowska states:
"As the saying goes, history is written from the perspective of the winners. We could say the same about democracy. Its written meanings, historically, have been constructed and written by those who are considerably privileged."
What method would you propose to uncover marginalised perspectives of democracy?
In his essay, John Capps raises a number of difficult questions: "What should we make of how 'democracy' is used in so many different ways? What can we learn from this? And does this make the job of explaining and defending it harder?" (See: https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-open-texture-of-democracy/)
His questions make me think of a recent article by Pascal D. König & colleagues (see: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00104140211066213?journalCode=cpsa) which argues that not only do people support democracy - they support different kinds of democracy in their polities!
There is something of a "model wars" afoot here where e.g. supporters of "liberal democracy" are struggling against supporters of "direct democracy" and they are being struggled against (or just not engaged by) supporters of "stealth democracy". There are, to my understanding of the empirics here, usually more players than this.
That point also returns me to the so-called "unbreakable law of >=2 democracies" that University of Canberra students and I formulated years ago: we wager that you won't find a polity in the world (perhaps you could in just the smallest village or family?) in which just 1 kind of democracy prevails - there will always be 2 or more kinds in play.
So what, indeed, should we make of how 'democracy' is used in so many different ways? Are these model wars good for democratisation/the future of democracy or not? How can we amplify the good if there is any?
In their essay, Erica Dorn and Federico Vaz make the assertion that:
"Current democratic structures designed to be representative of the people cannot adapt to the increasing number of people on the move. As a result, an overwhelming gap exists between the rapidly changing reality of democracies made up of ineligible voters, and the need for inclusive participation in the democratic process."
How, therefore, can representative democratic structures account for an increasingly mobile demos?
In his essay, Ramon Van Der Does (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-best-use-of-our-limited-resources-in-service-of-democracy/) argues that: "We already know the cures for many of democracy's ills. What we lack are ways to realise the transition towards a deeply democratic society".
Why is that the case? What is preventing us from achieving deeply democratic societies?
"The shapes and meanings of democracy are evolving swiftly — perhaps with an overwhelming speed. So, there may be a need for a genetic understanding of democracy’s words."
This is Petr Specian's phrase which can be found in his ECPR essay here: https://theloop.ecpr.eu/science-of-democracy-and-the-owl-of-minerva/
What is your understanding of Specian's proposed genetic methodology and how should it work? In other words, how can a genetic methodology of words allow us to track the evolution of democracy?
Alexander Hudson, of International IDEA, sheds light on how democracy measurement is changing and, arguably, getting better at what it is trying to do for the anthropos. His essay, here (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/how-to-measure-democracy-a-practitioners-view/), opens the question of what exactly is being measured when democracy is under measurement.
What do you think? If you were to measure democracy how would you go about doing it?
Friedel Marquardt avers the following:
"[The] naming and recording of various definitions of democracy gives place to those definitions that may not have been considered or acknowledged before, often eclipsed by more prominent definitions like liberal democracy. Identifying a manifestation as 'democracy' and applying the term to it has the effect of recognising a wide range of practices as democratic. It gives them legitimacy among the other more prominent democracies identified." (For more, please read Marquardt's essay here: https://theloop.ecpr.eu/who-gets-a-say-in-the-meanings-of-democracy/)
Which practices around you, perhaps ones you conduct yourself, are not formally part of the "canon of democracy" but should be?
In his essay here (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/mountains-of-data-need-a-democratic-horizon/), Rafael Khachaturian argues that it is important for people to develop their own theory of democracy through self-reflexion.
Which method(s) can be used to develop such a "self-reflexive" theory of democracy? How does it work?
In his essay (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/untangling-description-deception-and-denunciation-a-linguistic-twist-to-the-science-of-democracy/), Rikki J. Dean clarifies that we need to both be able to identify types of democracy and, thereafter, to sort them from "real" and "fake". But how do we do this without a universal concept, a singular truth, of what democracy is?
In his essay (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/can-you-put-food-inside-words-are-invitations-not-containers/), Christian Ewert argues that narratives - or stories - are powerful. This is so because they can be shared and, through that virtue, they can inform others, challenge beliefs, broaden horizons, lead to changed thoughts, even new outcomes in behaviour, policies, and so forth.
Given the power of stories, which Agustin Goenaga (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/what-democracy-should-be-for-us/) also highlights, should we all be doing more to tell stories to others, to so called "lay persons", from our research - especially to sing praise of the works of those we admire?
Freedom and rights to live as natural as did some countries did ,and social problems arises from loneliness' and lost life ,so do we need to follow religion and conservative life as democracy seek or go to optimum life ?
In his essay (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/to-understand-democracy-we-need-democratic-theory/), Tom Theuns mentions that "democracy is sometimes used in a deliberately misleading way". What are examples of this?
The Top 3 reasons why journal lists (e.g.., FT50, UTD) are stupid:
3. They attempt to motivate people who are already motivated.
2. They’re an autocratic means of manipulating a democracy.
1. External rewards decrease intrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation drives productivity.
Nigeria urban population has grown from 20% of the total in 1920 to 65% in 2020 and is projected to continue growing to 75% by 2050. While the rural population is expected to decline in 2050, the urban population is expected to increase from the current 155 million in 2020 to 180 million by 2050. This upward trend of urbanization is expected to continue in both more developed regions and less developed regions.
Are people happier living in the rural area or in a Urban area? The urban/rural gap is present regardless of country income level (based on World Bank classifications). Individuals living in cities are more likely to report access to financial resources, the ability to afford food, and having people they can rely on. people living in rural areas are less likely to report that they have a bank account than those in Urban areas. This is most pronounced in low-income states. Lack of access to bank accounts can substantially affect peoples' lives.
Reginald Oduour explains that prior to Western Imperialist incursions into Africa, many peoples therein had consensus-building (not majoritarian) political systems. Today, there is a huge emphasis on elections and many people seem to be under the illusion that democracy parses with election/voting. How do we break electoral majoritarianism's spell?
Patricia Roberts-Miller writes that people need to deliberate about the democracy they want to have. Brigitte Geissel is also arguing this in her forthcoming (Routledge) book on democratic innovation.
Does anyone know of an instance where such a deliberative event may have happened?
Taina Meriluoto argues that "total democracy" refers to the way democratic arrangements are pervasive in Finnish society. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/democracy-what-a-lovely-mess/
In your experience, does this extend to:
1) Individual psychology?
2) How families/households govern themselves?
3) How schools, workplaces, apartment buildings, etc., govern themselves?
How pervasive is democracy in Finnish society and what kinds of democracy? Where are they happening? What is considered "common" here?
I have come to the conclusion that chieftaincy and Democracy have similar features. Both have three arms of Government ie Executive, Judiciary and legislative. Why do we have to adopt one to neglect the other, Can we enhance African chieftaincy to suit the African space?
The recent American election has brought Trump to the fore again, a man under investigation for his last term in office, and throughout the world autocracies have climbed to the forefront, some run by known criminals.
In addition, autocracies, according to Acemoglu and Robinson in Why Nations Fail (2012), advance poverty. Are we going backward, not just to more war?
If you look carefully as how exism movements like Trumpism or Italianism or Brexism or Brazilianism come to exist under majority rule based democracies, they all need the same conditions to exist,....without this condition they can not come to power....
which raises the question, what is the necessary and sufficient condition for an exism movement to come to exist under majority rule based liberal democracies?
What do you think?
Michael Saward argues: "it is important for us to know what people have made of democracy – or what they have made and could make with it. It may well mean some things, plural. And lots of different people and groups may have answers to offer. Meanings will be multiple, possibly incommensurable, as will any models built on them."
Which examples, do you think or guess, are not well known to mainstream democracy studies and democratic theory?
Kei Nishiyama says "teaching democracy is hard work". https://theloop.ecpr.eu/if-democracy-is-hard-to-love-how-can-we-teach-it/
What are effective ways of teaching democracy? I'm thinking especially outside of schools!
Laurence Whitehead writes that different cultures hold different meanings of democracy. Whilst there is no universal concept of "democracy" the concepts or meanings of democracy held by various cultures across the globe are still mutually intelligible. He says we can learn from them, learn from each other, as a world family, and I think he is entirely right.
But what are democratic cultures and how can we "grow" them? What does learning from each other look like here?
There is a necessary and sufficient condition for exism movements to come to power under majority rule based democracy and rule of law when competing in elections; and there is a necessary and sufficient condition for exism movement to lose power when going through reelection.
Exism movements like Trumpism, Brexism, Brazilianism and Italianism came to power under the same condition to gain power; and both Brazilianims and Trumpism lost power when seeking reelection under the same condition to lose power, Trumpism fell in 2020 and Brazilianism fell in 2022.
And this leads to the question: Under majority rule and the independent rule of law, what is the necessary and sufficient condition for exism movements to lose power?
What do you think?
This is an academic question, please provide your own comments, not third party comments
In her excellent and provocative essay, Anna Drake states that "democracy benefits and harms people in selective ways". How can we unravel this statement more?
Sonia Bussu says "that the way we understand democracy has been colonised by ‘liberal democracy’ and capitalism." We know from others, like Wolfgang Merkel and John Keane, that liberal democracy is intimately entwined with capitalism. So if one goes perhaps the other does too. What, therefore, does a non-capitalist, post liberal?, democracy look like? Visions of the future are sought!
True imperfect market theory suggest that imperfect markets do not exist when there is both market equality and freedom at the same time, which raises the question: Is a market where there is only economic freedom a true perfect economic market?
Think about it, what do you think?
Normative assessment requested:
Should Artificial intelligence be supervised and guided by a central delegated institution with a framework or shall it be left to bottom-up Laissez-faire?
Quite a different approach in the Renaissance Societies in comparison to the Confucian-influenced ones.
What is the better long-term "utility", given ethical constraints?
Cherish your ideas.
In his essay, Erik Liam Severson argues that Wittgenstein brings a lot to the table in terms of helping us understand what "democracy" means linguistically. What would you add?
This question is conceived from Phil Paine's short essay in the ECPR's "Sciences of the Democracies" series. Paine is a thoroughly-travelled & reflexive practitioner who has published well-cited research articles especially in the history of democracy. His perspectives have always fascinated me and his emphasis against "democratism" (ideology/ies of democracy/ies) has done so again.
What do you think?
I think Yes, what do you think?
Below are some articles with some food for thoughts shared recently in order to understand the nature, structure and expected working of exism movements
Sustainability thoughts 133: Stating the expected step by step road from majority rule based liberal democracies to permanent authoritarianism: The case of the 2016-2020 rise and fall of Trumpism
Moral and Amoral Liberal Democracies: How Targeted Chaos Can Affect the Democratic Process?
The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically
Sustainability thoughts 131: How can the shift from normal liberal democracies to extreme liberal democracies be used to extract the democratic structure that leads to the rise of temporary and permanent authoritarianism from within?
Sustainability thoughts 131: How can the shift from normal liberal democracies to extreme liberal democracies be used to extract the democratic structure that leads to the rise of temporary and permanent authoritarianism from within?
Can abstention be a way of paradox political participation? And if so, how could we "measure" or analyse it?
In many democracies, participation in elections is declining. In some cases, we can assume that non-participation/abstention in elections is a kind of political statement that expresses dissatisfaction with representative democracy. Would you agree and if so, how can we best analyse this phenomenon with our methods in political science? Qualitative research definitely, interviews, surveys, observation, participatory research? Looking forward to your suggestions.
I hope you are doing well. I recently wrote an article dealing with democracy in Russia. What do you think? Will there be democracy in Russia, what factors are in play? Article can be found here below:
Best wishes Henrik
Hello Seniors I hope you are doing well
Recently I've read some very good research articles. In those articles datasets were taken from V-Dem, Polity and Freedom House. Though they have shared the link of supplementary datasets and the process of how they analyzed these datasets in SPSS or R in brief but I couldn't understand and replicate these findings. It may be because I am not very good at quantitative data analysis.
So I want to know how could I better understand this Datasets analysis easily like V-Dem etc. Is there any good course online, lectures or conference video etc. Or good book?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks in anticipation.
I am looking for papers that talk about short term thinking in democracies/elected politicians. I remember reading something in democratic theory about this a long time ago which argued that elected politicians can be short term in their decisions because they need to win the next election and need to please people now. I am reading Stephen M. Gardiner's book The Perfect Moral Strom and he applies this argument to why Western democracies have failed to take action on climate change (The costs of climate action are mostly felt by the present generation and most of the cost of climate change are felt by future generations). My question is have people done empirical studies of this to see if politicians are short term in their thinking and what are some good essays in democratic theory on this? Thanks in advance!
Might those of us associated with the "Western" concept of (neo)liberal democracies, in which we champion the rights of individuals, perhaps above and beyond any potential obligations to society, stand challenged by the accusation that we disrespect the imagination of individuals? Do we make too many assumptions about individuals, whether in our Western democracies or outside them?
If we had respected the imagination of one Vladimir Putin, for example, might we have been in a better place to have acknowledged his capacity to act on that imagination, and his ability to create the space in which to play with it? To what extent can Western democracies be accused of a disrespect for the imagination of the individual, and its role in the negotiation of an emergent reality? Interested in the views of all those who might offer critical insight.
US President Donald Trump said the international terrorist organization ISIS was founded by former US President Obama. Why isn't the account being asked in the US, which is claimed to be famous for its democracy? Why isn't the court of such an important and serious claim?
Newly established democratic countries are badly affected from crony capitalism or Cronyism as business elites and politicians formulate rules favorable to themselves and kill the real and fair business environment. Collusion between economically rich and political masters has been the real threat to democracy where everybody are equal before the law.
Hi dear scholar! With best wishes for you all. I know a little about heterogeneity problems in a model, such as slope heterogeneity due to cross sections differences. Is there any other heterogeneity exist in panel data ? To solve this slope heterogeneity we split the units into subgroups based on a characteristics such as income level, democracy, etc. Or use interaction term even in homogeneous models, or use heterogeneous mode such as DCCEMG, CS ARDL etc. Please let me know if there is another method. Thank you
How do Western imperial powers compromise the notion of democracy and people's right in self-governance on the one hand, with political, cultural, and military expansionism on the other?
For example, how could America's long cherished institutions of democracy and liberty as acclaimed human rights hold integrity before the American public? Is it pragmatism on the part of the public, or being subjugated to the political authority, or ignorance about the current American international policy?
Liquid democracy and the future of governance is a very important scenario to discover. I am planning to work on Southeast Asia as a case study. If anyone is interested, please share your views.
My master's thesis main question is how did self-organized\ARI's in visual arts apply cultural democracy values in their art production and consumption in the last 10 years. And I am looking for papers on cultural democracy in general and how it was applied in an independent\autonomos area, not as an official public policy.
We need a Global Wealth Tax How rich are the rich relative to the poor? If they had ten times the wealth, no problem. It has always been that way. But what if the ratio was a million to one? That's undemocratic power. You know when democracy has gone. Elections become a sham, and leaders become increasingly incompetent, dishonest, and corrupt. Sound familiar? The existence of just one billionaire -- a single person with the wealth of a thousand millionaires, or a million workers with $1000 each -- is a sign that democracy is on the way out. We now have 3000 billionaries, including three smiling centibillionaires (Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg). A centibillionare has the wealth of 100 billionaires or 100,000 millionaires. Capitalism may have its pros and cons, but this is getting ridiculous. If we want our democracy back, we have no choice but to reduce the wealth of the wealthiest. If we want peace, we have to do that gradually and fairly. In a word: democratically. Don't despair. It can be done. Big changes have happened before. Our main task is to think clearly and tell the truth.
The history means evolution from Antique period to modern time (for democracy, for example).
It needs to understand the roots of modern European values, transformation of them from century to century, the reasons of these transformations.
After eight months in the COVID-19 pandemic and millions of infections, there are some that still think this is a conspiracy and go against the advice of the expert in the field just because their leader said so!. How can a literate society become so polarized and influence to such a degree that fail to see the obvious? Is it the lack of transparency, mistrust, or lack of correct information? Can such a society be healed? How would you rebuild trust?
A question for deep thought: Does the democracy in its current form, based on the model of ancient Athens and Montesquieu's idea of a tripartite power model with political parties in power, not causing a gradual collapse of the market economy?
Why do I think so:
first, since the Western world has:
a) crowd manipulation technologies (social engineering),
b) mass media (especially television, Internet)
c) is in the credit money regime, and it easily creates electronic money
in democracies based on the rule of political parties, there is a tendency to a very high rate of debt borrowing by governments (debt often above the critical limit of 90% in relation to GDP), but also to allowing such debt from the electorate. Societies have become very demanding, expecting multi-faceted welfare and even a basic / guaranteed income for the unemployed. The oldest democracies, such as Greece, Italy (including ancient Rome) or France, have been plunging for many years into gigantic debt, both domestic and foreign, contributing to the weakening of their region (Western Europe), and they also set a negative example for young democracies from post-communist countries that you can expect a lot of expenses from your government and live beyond the means (i.e. at the expense of future generations now, with impunity)
Secondly, I observe the process of state appropriation by the ruling parties, i.e. taking up positions in state-owned companies and in public media by politicians and their supporters, who often finance a selected political party in the election struggle during the next elections.
Third, I see a process of growing negative selection for the highest state positions in Western democracies. People with low professional achievements and low personal culture are becoming more and more often (see examples of the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece and many others) among the highest political authorities, we notice it especially since the end of the 20th century people who are poorly prepared to govern with low professional qualifications, low morals, but pushed by big corporate capital and / or by the party power apparatus. These new leaders of modern democracies are unable to introduce wide-ranging economic reforms (pension reforms, health care reforms, or urgent ecological shifting of the economy), put off difficult matters to be dealt with now.
What reforms does modern democracy need for the economy to have healthy finance, clear and simple fiscal system, healthy society, people who can not only get an education in a given country, but also a creative job?
Hi, I am interested in focusing my dissertation on corruption (specifically in Colombia or Latin America). As the theme is very broad, I would really appreciate if you could give me some suggestions on what to focus my research on so that I can come up with a narrowed research question. Also, if you have specific corruption theories I could look into that would be great. (I already looked into underdevelopment theories such as neo-patrimonialism and dependency theory).
I have brainstormed some ideas that can be linked to corruption:
- underdevelopment (health, education, infrastructure)
- as a threat to democracy (institutions, transparency, public policy, unpunishment)
(International Political Economy)
The coming of exism movements in 2016 led to the coming of extreme democratic outcomes within majority rule based liberal democracies like in the USA.
And this brought a change in the nature of democracy as it has led to a shift from true democracy thinking to temporary democratic authoritarianism thinking.
We are probably familiar with the structure of the forces competing for power in a true democracy, I think. but not with the forces competing in a temporary democratic authoritarianism system. Which raises the question, what is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism? Any ideas?
Feel free to express your own views so we can exchange ideas in a positive academic environment as this is an academic question, not a political one.
The organic linkages between development, democracy and governance, are monumentally huge, if empirically supported, then what happened in Libya?
Who has done or wants to do research on how technology can scale moral courage--can make it far easier to recruit &commit critical mass numbers of volunteers for nonviolent civil resistance. campaigns? And how can I reach them to invite them to a brainstorm session (maybe several) on what might be the behavioral levers that are most likely to motivate most "concerned" but not activist people to minimize their fears sufficiently and inspire "their better angels" to commit to tactics that history has proven are the most effective for achieving positive system change in the battles against greed, racism, autocracy and ignorance; to be able to recruit the numbers necessary to vastly improve our chances to save what is still savable of Mother Nature and democracy in the little time we have left.' Entre to senior level programmers, or crowdfunding social media mavens would also be especially appreciated, as well as possible research interns. Any location.
We all know about the traditional perfect market of Adam Smith and its place at the heart of pure or perfect capitalism.
We usually associate perfect market thinking with no government intervention unless there is market failure, but the perfect market of Adam Smith, like any other possible perfect market, can better be defined in terms of equality and freedom so as to be able to link it for example to imperfect markets such as dictatorship based markets or link it to distorted markets from the democracy point of view, which leads to the question, what is the conjunctural necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of perfect markets for example a la Adam Smith?
Feel free to provide your views, and keep in mind the angle of this question is “equality and freedom”, not government intervention or supply and demand interactions, even though they are linked.
This is an academic question, not a political one, and as usual my questions usually have a simple answer.
Daily news from all around the world are feeding fear because we hear a lot about death, control, containment-mechanisms and suffering accoring to COVID-19. Following the media we see a lot of "important" people saying "...we need more security, more prevention… we have underestimated that Virus" - And smilingly in fear the we accept measures which may be helpful for prevention for one thing but harmful for our souls on the other hand. Prohibition to meet at the playgrounds for children, prohibition to connect each other, stay togehter in hard times and strongly not to touch each other and many more. Even cashless payment and within this total loss of finance liberty is discussed in political rounds…
So what can we do?! We need a logical but also heartful and soulful handling and very urgent a respectful handling of COVID-19 otherwise the biggest damage will be the loss of humanity!
Aristotle, in his book titled Politics, notes that one of the weak points in a democracy is that because people are considered "politically equal" they imagine they should be equal to everyone else in all other ways.
We see the same cultural movements occurring in our democracies today.
The push for equality in everything is being exploited by politicians everywhere through assorted wealth redistribution efforts, or efforts to lower education standards so that everyone can be awarded college degrees in something.
Prior to the Industrial Age, where almost limitless amounts of money have become available to governmentally empowered social tinkerers, making oneself "equal" to someone else was a personal responsibility. Now it appears "social leveling" has become the responsibility of government.
To make one citizen equal to another in as many ways as the social engineers can devise appears to be the aim of innumerable public efforts.
Is this a wise approach and do you think this will lead to a more harmonious and productive society in the future?
Most of the troubled and poorest countries have high levels of natural resource wealth, comparing with developed countries. Why is the negative affect of natural resources much higher in democratic nations, but not among none democratic nations?
Thanks a lot ahead.
Big tech is constrained by the political environment in which they operate, locally and globally.
If the world is divided between democracy and non-democracy given current capitalism dynamics, we should expect big tech to face fewer constraints; and therefore enjoy more business stability under democracy than under a non-democracy, and this should expected to affect future globalization trends. Which raises the question, Democratic capitalism vrs non-democratic capitalism: Is this the end of true globalization?
I think, perhaps yes and perhaps no. What do you think?
Working on a theory of paradigm shift and flips that is linked to equality and freedom it is possible to see clearly the structure of markets, including deep social markets and red socialism/communism based markets….
This understanding helps us see the options available to markets in terms of flips or shifts when under specific sustainability gap pressures, and it allows us to see which option they would exercise if they have a choice before paradigm death/collapse like the one we saw in 1991 related to the fall of Karl Marx's world/Red socialism.
From this angle, knowing the difference between different types of markets, especially close ones, is very relevant.
Looking at the deep social markets and red socialism/communism based markets, raises the question, can you see what was or is the difference between deep social markets and red socialism/communism based markets?
If you think you can see it please share it or describe it so we can exchange ideas.
The objective in formulating the questioning is the search to identify what is the feeling that the researchers have about the interactions between the strengthening of democracy through the improvement of the popular legislative initiative.
There are apparently clear concepts and they are terminated or with little possibility of reinvention and innovation: State, participation, citizenship, democracy, duties or obligations, rights. They must intersect in a complex symbiosis in the Constitution of each country. The question we must ask ourselves and try to answer is, how is the interweaving between these concepts in our Constitution? Is that joint effective? Are they an illusion?
In a liberal democracy, there is a free market, and in a free market big tech has the freedom it needs to maximize profits even when their actions are not socially and/or environmentally friendly. Big tech can spread easier around the world in countries under liberal democratic structures as the risk of expanding and operating freely there is technically small, rarely futile, than in places where there are non-liberal democracies where the risk of operating freely is very high, even futile.
Usually democracies have been defended by ordinary citizens during elections, not by big tech, but since 2016 and more after the covid19 pandemic big tech has taken a bigger role as it has been expected by their costumer to do so to promote and protect democratic rights using their economic muscle, specially the right to vote/participate, as the case of the USA shows.
Now it seems to be that big tech has realized that profits are more secure the better democracy works, and profits are more at risk when democracy is at risk or when there is no democracy or when democracy ends. They seem to know now that the stability of freedom of operation and expansion is directly related to the freedom that comes from operating under a true democracy.
In other words, current dynamics seem to show that true democracy to succeed needs the support of big tech and big tech to continue to succeed freely needs the support of liberal democracy.
If acting in a coordinated way, big tech can have a huge impact on the political systems inside which they work, be it democratic spaces or non-democratic spaces, which raises the current question, true democracy and big tech, do they need each other now more than ever to succeed locally and globally?.
I think yes, what do you think?
Many people praising democracy and trying to implement it in their countries, whilst many of the people cursing it a lot and even say it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knee?
Dear RG members!!! what are the current good examples of ruling techniques over the country/state, which are more welcoming to local and international level of acceptance?
Do you think the drawbacks are due to democracy or some other compulsions?
How to improve or optimize the prevailing democracy?
Nepal’s constitution does not state clearly about political affiliation or membership as criteria for ineligibility for the position of the judge. Can they remain members of a political party? Or can a person who served as a parliamentarian be appointed in the position of judge? How can possible conflict of interest be avoided?
Although the 23 February decision of the Supreme Court on house dissolution set a precedent and firmly established the separation of powers between three branches of the state and established constitutional supremacy, the time taken by the Supreme Court to determine the bench and the prolonged hearings of the case raised serious doubts on judicial fairness. All eyes were on the Supreme Court regarding whether the Court would be able to protect constitutionalism and maintain its integrity - keeping itself away from the political influence.
Public perceive that the judges are and can be influenced politically. Nepal's judicial history has proved that the political influence is the most common threat. Historical evidence shows that during the royal regime, it was controlled by the King and the royal palace and after the establishment of democracy by the political forces – judges are appointed based on political affiliation and political bhagbanda (sharing) and family ties. The provisions of the Interim Constitution, 2007 and the current Constitution, 2015 governing the selection, appointment and removal of judges reflects absolute political control over the judicial branch. Many of them owed their preferment to their party connections and disincline to sever against them undermining judicial integrity and independence.
Dear colleagues, I need your help to reflect on the following questions. I'm engaging in research project concerned about experience of countries in the mechanisms of overcoming violence and divisions in their past politics. All countries have gone through some sort of violent past, how have they reconciled with their past and each other? In cases where they had not established commissions or gone through processes that were explicitly named 'reconciliation', how did they manage to come to state of peace, democracy and development? It is my pleasure also if you can suggest me literature related to this issue.
From my observations, there appear to be three principal avenues to engender critical thinking in education K-12: debate; mathematics, and science.
For some students, all three avenues are relatable and enjoyable. For others, only one or two avenues would work.
In any case, even one avenue can go a long way towards engendering critical thinking.
The ability and habit of thinking critically is an important remedy for the affliction of people accepting fake news and conspiracy theories. It can become the foundation for a well-functioning democracy.
I invite others to describe what has been done along these lines; or what they think should be done and how to install such educational paradigms.
Once extreme democratic outcomes like Trumpism come to exist they must behave autocratically as their model structure, including the political and legal loyalties structures that they needed to persist, are the opposite as those of the normal liberal democracy model inside which extreme democratic outcomes came to exist.
Then when time for re-elections comes for extreme democratic outcomes, there is the possibility of winning or losing if playing the normal liberal democracy way, but there is the need to win at all cost if playing the extreme liberal democracy way.
Which leads to the question, what is the sufficient condition for extreme democratic outcomes like Trumpism to win re-elections or persist in power at all cost? Can the absence of this condition sufficient condition explains why Trumpism failed to persist in 2020?
Any ideas? Please share your own ideas in order to exchange ideas.
Keep in mind; this is an academic question, not a political question as I am a scientist, not a politician.
Tenho interesse na temática deste projeto, sobretudo na abordagem das práticas do poder local em políticas públicas urbanas de segurança pública, fator imprescindível às sociedades democráticas.
A perspectiva de segurança adotada em meus estudos, rompe com a noção limitada e limitante de segurança como sinônimo de política penal e ação policial repressiva, dominante na sociedade e nos governos de um modo geral.
Na perspectiva que adotado, segurança envolve outros aspectos que vão além da proteção física e material e avança no campo da sustentabilidade ambiental urbana e do desenvolvimento humano.
Quem souber de sugestões de percursos teóricos e metodológicos que colaborem com essa lacuna de pesquisa, agradeço o compartilhamento comigo.
PPGPP - UECE