Analysing The Effects Of Voting Apathy In Democracy Politics Essay

Analysing The Effects Of Voting Apathy In Democracy Politics Essay What is apathy and does it threaten our democracy? During the course of this investigation, I argue that ones understanding of apathy is dependent entirely upon ones interpretation of the term democracy. Beginning with an explanation of the ways in which apathy is apparent within politics, I then attempt to address its causes, concluding that feelings of disconnection and disenchantment with political parties, along with social status and education, are the main determinants of political participation. After doing this, I examine elitist and participatory attitudes towards democracy, finding the concept of apathy within both schools of thought to be radically different. The phenomenon of apathy within politics is usually seen to be expressed through a lack of participation during elections, a failure to engage in discussion and failure to contribute to matters of local significance. It is often measured by examining electoral turnout. Since the middle of the twentieth century many established liberal democracies have experienced declining electoral participation. Indeed, during the 2001 general election, the UK experienced its lowest level of turnout since the introduction of universal suffrage  [1]  . This situation has also been experienced throughout much of the Western world. As Hay (2007) suggests, democratic systems of government clearly require some form of participation in order to appear legitimate, with turnout rates having now fallen low enough to give considerable cause for concern  [2]  . Figure 1 (p.11) represents the average turnout during European and American elections since 1945, whilst figure 2 (p.12) displays the maximum and minimum levels of turnout over a similar period. As the figures show, to experience turnout of below 50% in any election raises many questions about the health of a democracy and the legitimacy of electoral results. How can a government which claims to represent the people be seen as legitimate if more than half of those eligible to vote did not do so? Political apathy as represented through non-voting would seem to have created a crisis of legitimacy. However, to concentrate on electoral participation as the only measure of a healthy democracy is to ignore the many other measurements which characterise a democratic state, such as access to free elections, freedom of speech, or the independence of the judiciary. The way in which one views the significance of participation depends entirely upon which democratic theory is found more convincing, and is an issue which is addressed in greater detail later. So why have participation rates declined so dramatically over recent decades? The Power Inquiry, a 2006 study into political disengagement within the UK, found the most significant factors to be a sentiment amongst voters that their views are simply ignored by politicians and that their opinions are not taken sufficiently into account by the process of political decision-making  [3]  , along with the widely held belief that the main political parties are too similar in character and lacking firm beliefs. Further to this, it was discovered that a lack of understanding or knowledge of political debate and the workings of democracy also increased non-participation  [4]  . A growing distrust of politicians and of politics in general within Western populations has also fostered apathetic sentiment. Within Britain especially, this corrosive cynicism  [5]  has been fuelled by decades of sex and political scandals, corrupt practices and abuse of the parliamentary system. Indeed, the 2010 British Social Attitudes survey found severe distrust of politicians had risen from only 11% in 1987 to 40% today  [6]  . It is perhaps no coincidence that declining participation has occurred during a period where distrust of politicians has risen. Social status and education also play significant roles in determining political participation. Lower class identifiers have historically felt less inclined to participate, either electorally, through conversation with peers, or through membership of an organisation. The link is confirmed by Beeghley (1986), who provides data suggesting a positive correlation between income and participation  [7]  . However, Hillygus (2005) finds that it is education which plays the decisive role as a determinant of future political participation  [8]  . She suggests that in the majority of analyses, education remains the strongest determinant of participation even when measured against other socio-economic factors such as class, gender or race  [9]  . Figure 3 (p.13) demonstrates the relationship between verbal SAT scores (US) and expected future levels of political participation, whilst figure 4 (p.14) shows the pattern repeated, but concerning voting only. We have outlined some possible causes of apathy, finding that non-participation has increased dramatically over recent decades. But is this phenomenon harmful to democracy? As touched upon earlier, the answer to this question depends entirely upon how one understands the meaning of the term democracy. The elitist theory of democracy, centred on a faith in the merits of representative democracy, is rooted in the belief that an enlightened few should control public policy- elitist theorists believing that the masses are too uneducated or uninterested to exercise judgement. Indeed, Bachrach (1980) states that the elite is enlightened, thus its policy is bound to be the public interest  [10]  . Rather than concentrating upon participatory opportunities to assess the health of a democracy, elitists view access to elections and the responsiveness of those elected as the key measure of a democracy  [11]  . All that is required to validate an electoral result is at least some degree of participation (voting). A degree of apathy is to be welcomed, as it is assumed that those who do vote are those with enough knowledge to do so. Elitist theorists such as Schumpeter argue against the classical conception of mass participation, believing that [m]any decisions of fateful importance are of a nature that makes it impossible for the public to experiment with them  [12]  . Matters of national importance, then, are better resolved by elites. Direct participation is not necessary, or desirable, from the public. A central argument of the elitist school is the belief that some measure of apathy within a society actually helps strengthen democracy by stabilising the system of elitist rule. Bachrach (1980) provides a succinct critique of elitist thinking regarding apathy; the ordinary man still plays a role in the system since he has the freedom to vote, to bring pressure upon political elites, and to attempt himself to rise to an elite position. But by and large he does, and is expected to, remain relatively passive in fact the health of the system depends upon it. For if he becomes too activeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦political equilibrium is thrown out of balance  [13]  . Berelson, Lazarsfeld McPhee (1954) add to this by suggesting that low participation rates help established political parties (elites), by preventing the fragmentation of votes towards smaller parties, which would otherwise gain popularity as a result of greater participation. Additionally, low interest provides manoeuvring room for political shifts necessary for a complex society in a period of rapid change  [14]  . Underpinning this is the belief that all societies will inevitably come to be dominated by small minorities, even those which have experienced proletarian revolution (such as the post-revolutionary Soviet Union). As Michels would have it, society cannot exist without a dominant or political class  [15]  . Further to this, Dye Zeigler (2009) believe that a strong democracy does not depend upon mass participation, stating that the masses tend to hold antidemocratic beliefs. They contend that an increase in participation would undermine democracy  [16]  , claim ing it to be à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the irony of democracy that democratic ideals survive because the masses are generally apathetic and inactiveà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦all that is necessary is that they fail to commit themselves actively to antidemocratic movements  [17]  . Elitists, then, see apathy as essential as a means of shoring up their dominant position over the masses they certainly do not see it as a threat to our democracy. Contrary to the position of the elitists, participatory democrats champion the concept of direct democracy as opposed to the representative system present in liberal democracies today. They see existing institutional structures as being designed to discourage mass participation, wishing instead to foster a situation whereby citizens actively attend meetings, deliberate, discuss and à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦participate in the executive arm of government and the workplace. For participatory democrats, The process of taking part becomes integral to democracyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the decisive test of a democracy is its capacity to encourage its population to play an active role in its government  [18]  . This is clearly in stark contrast to the elitist understanding of democracy, which views any form of direct involvement by citizens, with the exception of voting, as unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Pateman (1970) believes that it is a lack of participatory institutions which prevents political engagement in a representative system. Citing empirical studies, she argues that political efficacy and an increased willingness to participate are best fostered through direct participation at a local or workplace level, arguing that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the experience of participation in some way leaves the individual better psychologically equipped to undertake further participation in the future  [19]  . Bowler Donovan (2002) confirm this link, by suggesting that American states which make use of direct citizen initiatives help to increase the efficacy of their populations  [20]  . Barber (1984) and Pitkin Shumer (1982) see the main component of a strong democracy as active participation by citizens rather than through a reliance on representatives  [21]  22. Barber argues that citizens should be free to make political decisions not necessarily at every level and in every instance  [23]  , but often enough and in areas where significant issues which may affect them are to be considered. He advocates the creation of institutions designed to facilitate a civic participation, with the aim of fostering discussion, deliberation and eventually the formation of legislation the process of which he refers to as common work. He goes on to suggest that under the present form of liberal democracy, voters do not participate in the governing of a country at all the act of voting simply serving as a method by which to select various elites. It is only once masses start deliberating, acting, sharing, and contributing, they cease to become masses and become citizens. Only then do they participate'  [24]  . It is evident that apathy is certainly not a desirable feature within the participatory democrat interpretation of democracy. Any amount of apathy within a polity would create a situation whereby those who did actively participate would find themselves becoming a form of elite- those unwilling to contribute simply pass their responsibility to another, trusting them to make the right decisions. Evidently, this is not much better than the representative status quo. Apathy, then, is a symptom of a weak democracy, as the role of participation is paramount to its success. But should participation be defined as active involvement by the public, as participatory democrats argue, or is the simple act of voting enough? If participation is taken as meaning direct citizen involvement, then apathy is certainly a threat to legitimacy. If democracy is government by the people, how can a result hope to be considered legitimate in a situation where less than fifty percent of a population express an opinion? If however the elitist approach is followed and participation is limited to voting only, then to a degree the public does indeed take part in the democratic process via the choosing of the elites which are to lead them. It is through the act of voting during elections that a government can claim legitimacy. As long as there is some degree of participation, this is all that matters. As such, apathy should not be seen as a threat to the legitimacy of a result. Clearly, the gulf between elitists and participatory democrats is vast. They hold diametrically oppose d ideas as to the consequence of apathy within a democratic society. As we have seen, the phenomenon of apathy within democracies is a highly contentious subject perhaps essentially contested  [25]  . We have found that apathy presents itself within democratic societies most significantly in the form of non-participation, noting that turnout rates have declined dramatically since their peak in the middle of the twentieth century. Weve looked at the causes of apathy, discovering that social status and education along with a cynicism and distrust of politicians and the sense of remoteness and disconnection from the legislative process also strongly contribute to apathetic sentiment within a population. In regards to whether or not apathy threatens democracy, it is possible to conclude both ways by differentiating between both representative and participatory democracy. Representative democracy is strengthened by the existence of apathy and relies upon it to maintain political stability. Conversely, direct or participatory democracy is threatened by apathy, as it requires widespread interaction from the public. Because elitist theorists are describing the present state of liberal democracies, it is hard to conclude that apathy can be seen as a threat to the legitimacy of government a party still wins, regardless of turnout. It is only once democracy is viewed in terms of public participation that the issue of apathy becomes a threat, undermining the very meaning of the word. In short, apathy threatens the concept of direct democracy, but it doesnt threaten the existing system of representative democracy, it merely strengthens it. The answer to this question depends solely upon whic h theory of democracy one finds more convincing.

Proud to Be an Indian Essay

India, a country with a culture having more than ten thousand years has enriched the global scientific, educational, economic and cultural scenario significantly. That is the reason why mark Twain has stated â€Å"India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend and the great grandmother of tradition.† Being born in such a great country, you have millions of reasons to feel proud as an Indian. Some of them are : 1 .Indian culture is the best in the world The very word culture started from the country India. When the people of today’s developed nations were wandering like nomadic, Indians built Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, the first ever planned city of the world. India is the home to four major religions of the world. The first epic of the world was written in India. Sanskrit, according to a major group of linguistics is considered as the mother of all European languages. Forbes magazine has rated Sanskrit as the most suitable language for software applications. 2. First university of the world was established in Takshila(in Modern Bihar) in the year 700BC. More than 60 subjects were taught here to near about 10,500 students who came from different parts of the world. 3. We have never invaded any country in the entire history of 5000 years. Rather, Buddha and Gandhi taught the world the power of non-violence and truth. Recently, American president Barak Obama has openly admitted that Gandhi is an ideal for him. 4. Till 1896, India was the only known source of diamond in the world. Tremendous wealth of India attracted several invaders and traders. Till the invasion of British East India Company, India was the richest country of the world. 5. Number system is the greatest contribution of India to science in general and mathematics in particular. Indian Mathematician Aryabhatta invented zero. Bhaskaracharya, in fifth century, calculated the time taken by earth to rotate around sun exactly. Budhayana calculated the value of pi. Algebra, trigonometry and calculus had their origin India during sixth century. 6. Ayurveda, the earliest school of medicine has its origin in India. Surgery was done for the first time India by Sushruta 2600 years back. 7. India taught the art of navigation to the world on River Sind 6000 years back. Proof to it is the derivation of the very word navigation from NAVGATIH (a Sanskrit word). 8. Just like Indian culture and lifestyle of India , Indian Food has also been influenced by various civilizations and Regional Cultures. Traditional Indian food is not only famous worldwide for its spicy and lip-smacking taste, but also popular for its importance in the direction of maintaining a healthy life style. Indian food is both delicious and good for health. It matches to the requirements and taste of both vegetarians and non-vegetarians. Indians like hot, fresh and nutritious food in their daily diet. However, each part of India has its own unique cuisine and way of preparing recipes. In North India, Roti is proffered over rice. Use of cheese, curd, milk and vegetables in preparing different dishes is primarily marked in North-India. Tandoori is one of the most important dishes of North India which has a pan -Indian acceptance. Use of oil in preparing tandoori is minimal and only selected Indian spices are added while preparing any tandoori recipe. In south India, use of tamarind and pepper while preparing recipes is common. Here, people prefer to eat rice over Roti. Use of coconut oil in preparing dishes is marked in several south Indian states. Dosa is one of the most popular South Indian foods that have a pan-Indian appeal. In eastern part of India, people are generally fond of rice and fish. This is due to the availability of fish in abundance. Fish recipes of several types are vital aspects of East Indian food. In the western-part of India, spicy food is the first preference of people. Here also you can mark dominance of cheese while preparing dishes. Both rice and roti are popular in western India. 9. Family is the longest surviving institution of India irrespective of the ages, transformations, religious and political views compared to any other country and it shows how rich is our Indian culture. 10. I am proud to be Indian because of our country’s achievements in space and missile technology. India has launched a number of satellites in space for helping us in weather forecast, communications, medical research, and education. The missiles such as Agni, Prithvi strengthened our nation’s security and ensured a place in the elite group of the world’s powerful countries. Moreover, our scientists have lifted India’s pride by placing our Tri-colour on the moon and are now looking for landing in the planet Mars. 11. India is a country where people respect elders live in peace and harmony. India is the only country where there are people of different languages, religions and race, but all of them live together in harmony. There are 22 official languages a nd over 1600 dialects spoken. Nearly 650 different recognised tribes reside across the country. 12. India is the largest democracy in the world. It has a civilisation that is more than 5000 years old and boasts of multiple cultural origins. There is an emerging global, scientific and technological superpower. 13. It is a land of holy rivers like Ganga, Yamuna, Brahmaputra, Cauvery,Mahanadi etc and beautiful mountains spread densely in north and eastern india and dense forests scattered all over india . We find many seas in the South of India. There is natural beauty in our country. 14. My country with its rich heritage and tradition I say is the most beautiful nation. We are also recognised for being the world’s second largest in population. But unity in diversity is the main reason for my pride in being an Indian. We have different languages, different cultures, food, clothes, and traditions and yet we stand united. Non violence, democracy, intelligence based on our high standards of education, our natural wealth, harmony, festivals, family, system, caring for the aged, service and sacrifice are some of the things that I am proud of our land. 15. Among the finest institutions this country has produced are the Indian Armed Forces. It is the world’s third largest standing army comprising over 1.1 million men in uniform. 16. I am proud also of the education provided by the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian Institutes of Managements (IIMs) which can boast of standards equal to the best in the world at far less cost. Products of these institutions now head global organizations and play a major role in organizations like NASA. Indians are familiar as doctors and scientists in many developed countries. 17. We Indians are the wealthiest among all ethnic groups in America , even faring better than the whites and the natives. There are 3.22 millions of Indians in USA (1.5% of population). YET, 38% of doctors in USA are Indians. 12% scientists in USA are Indians. 36% of NASA scientists are Indians. 34% of Microsoft employees are Indians. 28% of IBM employees are Indians. 17% of INTEL scientists are Indians. 13% of XEROX employees are! Indians. 18. Chess and Hockey was invented in India. I have got tons of reasons to love my country, but the most important thing is I love my country and I need no reason for it. Jai Hind! I am proud to be an Indian !

Where You Keep the Secret

secret. something that can not be known by everyone, except the people who create the secret. secrets can be for the good and in the same time it can have a negative effect that long in one's life. based on the articles, the secret can be done by anyone who wishes to not let certain people know. example of the often secret didembunyikadalam this article also clearly tell whether the examples of the most popular places for some individuals who want to conceal something and what is the impact on individuals keeping it secret. etween the place of choice to hide something is in the books, any part of the house, letters from old flames are one of the usual items That people hide and do not miss keep secret computer use, by storing all files in the folder suites locked. in addition, the effect if concealing something will have an impact on a relationship. this is because the secret kept will not keep long, because sooner or later be discovered. important for every hubngan for secrecy are n ot mutually each other. f there is any weakness in the pair, it should be shared. according to Frank Warren, he stated that there is an edge if the spouse is concealing something it could create saspen elements while giving hope and be romantic partners. I agree with the ideas presented in the article. this is because each argument written about secrets definition, what is secret and concealed the impact if a relationship. in life is a lot to be withheld from a person unknown. it turns out to be good to ourselves or to someone who may be confidential or otherwise. es, I also strongly agree that sometimes the secret to be the cause of why a relationship falling apart. secret will lead to goodness if we know what our true intentions concealing something. I actually keep things in novels. for example money or old pictures. for my options proposed by the author shows that it is very creative. my suggestion, not all secrets can be kept at a place other than keep it in the heart. it's saf er than dismantled by certain parties.

Difference Between Chesapeake and New England Colonies...

The colonies in the New World appeared completely different and the prospect of any unity between them seemed impossible. The colonies in New England and the Chesapeake exemplify the many differences in the culture and lifestyles of the settlers, created mainly because of the fact that their founding fathers had held separate intentions when they came to the New World. The New England and Chesapeake colonies were both settled by immigrants from England. Though this was an area thriving with small towns that they had generally liked, they decided to escape England due to religious persecution. Hundreds of families, men, women, and their children, came in search of a New World where they could practice their beliefs freely. They founded†¦show more content†¦Their lives were based more on their material items than on God or family. The Englanders who saw the opportunity to take advantage of the popularity of a brand new crop they had discovered settled the Chesapeake area. Thes e, â€Å"gold diggers,† were mainly men of wealthy families wanting to come to the New World for gold in which they traded for a large profit, for themselves. These colonists were not fleeing England seeking religious or social freedom, but clearly only to add more wealth to their names. Tobacco soon became the primary crop seen growing on almost every one of these wealthy mens plantations, which created tremendous amounts of money. And with these large amounts of money, cam large amounts of land, and with large amounts of land came slaves to run their farms and slavery became a common, yet feared, way of life for many Africans. These two regions of the New England colonies and the Chesapeake colonies did in truth share the common fact that their settlers were all of English origin. But when they first set sail, even before they reached the New World, they began to separate into two distinctly different societies. Both sides each were looking for something different, while one side might be looking for just trade and wealth while the other side sought religious tolerance. Both sides rarely talked to each other about the same things due to the fact on how they were different from the beginning, because of thisShow MoreRelatedDifferences Between New England And Chesapeake Colonies1276 Words   |  6 Pagesfindings of new created much curiosity in Europe to explore and conquer new lands in order to expand their empire. In the early 1600’s a surge of motivation to explore and settle new colonies came over England. The Result of this was the New England and Chesapeake colonies, who were both settled by im migrants from England. Many people decided they needed to escape England due to religious persecution and poverty. Hundreds of families, men, women, and their children, came in search of a New World whereRead MoreDifferences between the Chesapeake Bay and New England Colonies1875 Words   |  8 PagesDifferences between the Chesapeake Bay and New England ColoniesThere are many key differences that distinguish the inhabitants of the New England colonies from those of the Chesapeake Bay colonies. These dissimilarities include but are not limited to the differences between the social structure, family life, forms of government, religion, and the lives of indentured servants and children in the two colonies. The social structure and family life of the two colonies varied greatly. The inhabitantsRead MoreEvaluate the Differences Between the New England Colonies and the Chesapeake Colonies.730 Words   |  3 PagesSeptember, 2010 DBQ #1 Although both the New England Colonies (Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire), and the Chesapeake Colonies (Virginia and Maryland) were both settled by people of English origin, by 1700 they were both very distinct for a multitude of reasons; Three of which being, their economics, African Slave population, and their life expectancies. The New England colonies vs. the Chesapeake colonies had many differences in there economical make-up, as far as theirRead MoreSocial, Economic and Political Differences Between the New England and Chesapeake Colonies709 Words   |  3 Pagesnations quickly colonized the New World years after Columbus’ so called discovery. England in particular sent out a number of groups to the east coast of the New World to two regions. These areas were the New England and the Chesapeake regions. Later in the late 1700s, these two regions would go though many conflicts to come together as one nation. Yet, way before that would occur; these two areas developed into two distinct societies. These differences affected the colonies socially, economically, andRead MoreSocial, Economic, and Political Differences between the Southern Chesapeake Colonies and the New England Colonies952 Words   |  4 Pagesthere started a migration to the new world by people of English origin. This migration first started in the south known as the Chesapeake region. Further along, as social, political, and economic events occur, this migration expands north to what would eventually be known as New England. Before the 1700’s, the two regions evolved into two distinct societies because of their differences as to making money and religious views. The Chesapeake region and New England differed socially in many waysRead MoreChesapeake Colonies vs. New England Colonies933 Words   |  4 Pagescentury, two colonies emerged from England in the New World. The two colonies were called the Chesapeake and New England colonies. Even though the two areas were formed and governed by the English, the colonies had similarities as well as differences. Differences in geography, religion, politics, economic, and nationalities, were responsible for molding the colonies. These differences came from one major factor: the very reason the English settlers came to the New World. †¨The Chesapeake colonies were primarilyRead MoreThe New England And Chesapeake Colonies1471 Words   |  6 Pageswas the formation of the thirteen colonies along the North American east coast. These colonies are generally divided into New England, Middle and South or the Chesapeake regions. Most of these colonies were settled by the British, yet they developed diff erently as the years went by. Some developed into more egalitarian colonies and some not. The greatest differences could be seen in the New England and Chesapeake regions. Even though the New England and Chesapeake regions were settled originally byRead MoreCompare And Contrast The Chesapeake And New England Colonies1071 Words   |  5 Pagesthe New World, the English also started to establish colonies and settle in the New World. To encourage the colonization of the New World, England offered charters to Joint-Stock Companies and individuals to set up colonies in the New World. Although the Chesapeake and New England settlers both migrated from England, the two regions of the New World developed into distinctly different societies due to different economic reasons, types of people, and political organization. Both of the colonies hadRead MoreThe New World1640 Words   |  7 PagesAfter settlement of â€Å"The New World† by the English in the early 17th century, there was a surge of Englishmen hoping to strike rich, escape the religious government of England, or start a new life with their family. Specific reasons for leaving England had its respective colonies to travel to. For this reason, the northern New England colonies and the southern colonies like Virginia and Maryland in the Chesapeake bay area started to establish ways of life that began to develop very different lifestylesRead MoreChesapeake Bay and New England Dbq Essay673 Words   |  3 PagesThe immigrants that settled the colonies of Chesapeake Bay and New England came to the New World for two different reasons. These differences were noticeable in social structure, economic outlook, and religious background. As the colonies were organized the differences were becoming more and more obvious and affected the way the communities prospered. These differences are evident from both written documents from the colonists and the historical knowledge of this particular period in time. Although