Matching Items (12)
- All Subjects: Democracy
- Creators: School of Politics and Global Studies
As the world watched the United States Capitol Building come under siege by thousands of insurrectionists on January 6th, 2021, it was clear that a nation once regarded by conservatives as a “City Upon a Hill” was now in the process of a radical reawakening and party transformation. The American far-right’s radical transformation of the Republican Party and the relentless false belief of “The Big Lie”, that the 2020 election was stolen and fraudulent, delegitimizes America’s political institutions while undermining the nation’s electoral process. This has created a modern rebirth of racism, hatred, and political violence that is seen in American politics and society. Because of this, the far-right has weaponized American institutions to push both racist, discriminatory ideas and laws throughout the country. This study aims to answer the question of "how is The Big Lie dismantling American democracy and reshaping GOP?".
If democracy is the best way to rule why then is it limited only to the political sphere? This question is central to economic democracy which is the theory that economic activities should be governed by democratic principles. In America, ESOPs are used for a variety of reasons, and I believe that they can be used for the development of democratic firms. My thesis looks at current ESOPs to see if they are democratic, and suggests how they can be used to develop democratic firms.
I argue that the most important value put in jeopardy by the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in post-Mubarak Egypt is not democracy but liberalism. Further, I find that that the lens of religion is insufficient to explain and understand the Brotherhood's illiberal tendencies. A review of the group's rhetoric, along with an examination of the literature on collectivism and individualism, reveals that the Brotherhood's collectivist worldview is at the heart of its opposition to liberalism, an inherently individualistic value. I conclude that viewing the Brotherhood as a movement motivated by a collective sense of morality would provide policymakers and academics with greater insight into the group's behavior and policy positions, facilitating deeper comprehension and greater predictability.
Democracy is regarded as the ultimate form of government, but most Americans do not realize the true origins of their democratic republic. Their yearn for freedom and liberty overshadows their lack of knowledge and potential to be more involved in the lawmaking process. A move toward a more democratic form of government would be the answer to most of their disdain for our current political climate. Thus, a deliberative democracy, where citizens are engaged and invested in issues would prove to be a solution for a better educated, more involved citizenry.
A Civil War, a Sectarian War and a Proxy War: Problems of Negotiated Settlement in the Syrian Civil War
This paper examines the Syrian Civil War using seven different civil war settlement theories in order to assess the likelihood of a negotiated settlement ending the conflict. The costs of war, balance of power, domestic political institutions, ethnic identity, divisibility of stakes, veto player, and credible commitment theories were used in a multi-perspective analysis of the Syrian Civil War and the possibility of a peace settlement. It was found that all of the theories except for costs of war and balance of power predict that a negotiated settlement is unlikely to resolve the conflict. Although the Syrian government and the Syrian National Coalition are currently engaged in diplomatic negotiations through the Geneva II conference, both sides are unwilling to compromise on the underlying grievances driving the conflict. This paper ultimately highlights some of the problems inhibiting a negotiated settlement in the Syrian Civil War. These obstacles include: rival ethno-religious identities of combatants, lack of democratic institutions in Syria, indivisibility of stakes in which combatants are fighting for, number of veto player combatant groups active in Syria, and the lack of a credible third party to monitor and enforce a peace settlement.
This paper examines the development of United States drone policy outside of traditional battle zones. It poses the question of why do states use drones as a projection of force? In particular, the paper examines the expansion of the drone program within a system of democratic checks and balances. It looks at the effect that political and legal influences have had on the expansion of the drone program and hypothesizes that the presence of these constraints should increase drone use outside of traditional battle zones. In order to investigate this hypothesis, the paper looks at data on drone strikes from Yemen and Somalia. The data partially supports the hypothesis as there has not been a clear linear increase in the number of drone strikes in each of these countries. Nevertheless, an examination of the surrounding literature regarding political and legal influences within these countries seems to favorably point to the increase of drone operations. Future research, however, needs to be cognizant of the limitations in gathering specific statistics on drone operations as these operations are covert. It's also important to understand how the covert nature of the drone operations impacts issues regarding political oversight and legality. Lastly, it's important to constantly examine the broader implications drone policy has for US policy.
I will examine the relation between techne and virtue as it appears in Plato‘s dialogues and suggest that in order to adequately confront our greatest political and social challenges our understanding must move beyond mere scientific and technical knowledge and our practices must move beyond the political art taught by Gorgias and Protagoras. It is my belief that the Platonic conception of virtue and the political art that aims toward that conception of virtue offer a paradigm that can help remedy today‘s arguably technocratic political condition. I begin this work by exploring the nature of techne as it was understood in ancient Greece, and arguing (contra Irwin) that Plato did not hold a technical conception of justice. Whereas each techne establishes an eidos (idea, form, blueprint) in advance, which can be clearly known and uniformly applied in each particular case, I argue that Plato‘s conception of justice leaves all substantive content to be filled out in each concrete situation, precluding the possibility of the anticipatory disposition that techne affords and demanding a certain degree of deliberation in each situation, with attention paid to the unique aspects of each particular set of circumstances. I argue that this conception of justice informs Plato's notion of a "political art" and suggest that this art requires constant attention to the unique attributes of each particular situation in which we find ourselves, and that the pre-interpretive prejudice of many modern ideologies and political-economic perspectives hinders our ability to see the particularity in each situation and thereby reduces our capacity for achieving justice in the historically-situated, concrete moment within which we always must act.
In this paper, I will be arguing for the adoption of compulsory voting legislation in the United States. More specifically, for the implementation of compulsory voting in all federal elections. I begin my paper by stating essential democratic principles and how they demand this kind of voting policy in a country that prides itself as a beacon of democracy. Secondly, I will discussing voter suppression in the United States, both in the past as well as currently. My goal with this section is to show how compulsory voting would reduce voter suppression and bring about a democratically legitimate elected government. Thirdly, I will discuss how countries across the globe have already implemented compulsory voting in their elections. Primarily, I will show how Australia and Brazil require voting in their elections, as they are the most similar in size and culture to the United States out of the nations that currently operate with it. Lastly, I will refute any arguments against compulsory voting and argue why it is imperative for the United States to implement it in their elections.
The overall purpose of this project was to examine a democratic transition and the factors that lead to a transition by looking at a specific country case. The Malaysian 2018 General Election saw the Barisan Nasional (BN) political party, which had been in power since the nation’s independence, lose to the opposition party, Pakatan Harapan (PH), in a shocking turn of events. When looking at this particular case, it was important to first establish what the most common factors are, that exist in democratic transitions. By applying these factors to the Malaysian case, it allowed for a deeper understanding of whether or not this democratic transition would take root quickly or instead take several years. Along with connecting these academically studied factors to Malaysia, it was also critical at examining the major events unique to the country that helped contribute to the BN’s loss. When examining this case in particular, what became evident was that the election results and overall transition had already been building up for several years.
The right to vote is widely considered as one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic society. Throughout the history of the United States, this pillar has gradually grown in strength as voting has become a far more inclusive and accessible exertion of political power and expression of political will. Currently in the United States, for the first time in decades, that pillar is slowly yet steadily eroding. There is a narrative, one that has been cultivated and carefully constructed for centuries, that the United States is a bastion of democracy. Although various groups have been oppressed and excluded from the voting franchise historically, the narrative promotes the idea that the right to vote is now fully enjoyed. But what does “the right” to vote really mean? Additionally, is the narrative that the United States is a true democracy with robust voter protections a reality, or is it a deceptive tactic meant to shroud the fact that voter power is undeniably waning?
This paper challenges that narrative, as well as argues that having “the right” to vote is hollow. The power of voters has always been diluted by the blanket exclusion of certain groups. Currently, however, the power of voters is being diluted by various forms of political, legal, and financial manipulation. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and big money all contribute to the distortion and destruction of democracy in the United States, preventing it from fully realizing the ideals that have, ostensibly, guided it since its inception. This paper will examine each of these forms in terms of their history, their implementation, and their effects and consequences on voter power, as well as their influence on democracy in the United States as a whole. Additionally, this paper analyzes the potential solutions to these pernicious forms of voter dilution, seeking to discover if democracy in the United States can avoid becoming unrecognizable from the narrative that has supported it for centuries.