This is an online assignment as we are missing too many lessons due to disruptions in the timetable. The objectives are:
(1) to increase your content knowledge on the topic of Human Rights
(2) to practice SRQ skills
You have two options to choose from.
Option A
Do an online search to find out more information about one specific area of Human Rights abuse in the world. The case study has to be a current and specific one. A good place to start from would be this link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/links.shtml
You will provide a useful summary (in a format of your choice) of the facts of the case study and briefly discuss what can be done to minimise, stop or prevent the abuse. Also consider the consequences of not doing anything about the situation.
Option B
Read the article on "How Democracy Dies" at http://www.newsweek.com/id/234891 and write a three-paragraph response using the format of the SRQ.
DEADLINE: 4 May (Tue) which incidentally is when the SRQ is due
A reminder of your FINAL chance to score some OP points for Term 2:
(1) post your comments to on the Term 1 Review blog post
(2) answer the questions on "Rights" and "Dignity" in the previous blog post
(3) respond to your classmate's Option A post
The window for awarding OP is closing really soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree to a large extent with the writer’s view that a global decline in political freedom is partly the fault of the middle class in each country. Firstly, the writer argues that the middle class in many countries are disappointed to capitalism, which is closely related to democracy, after the global economic crisis, and hence they do not support democracy in their countries any more. The author says, ‘The global economic crisis has also damaged democracy's appeal.’ This is true because one of the main components of capitalism is free market trade, and democracy also emphasizes on the importance of individual freedom. Also, it is usually those democratic countries, like the US and European countries, where capitalism dominates. Hence, a close relationship is present between capitalism and democracy. After the global economic crisis from 2008 to 2009, most democratic countries have suffered a lot from their wretched economy. One of the most important reasons for their suffering is that the free market brought by capitalism causes too much economic bubble and credit crunch. People keep on overdrawing their credit cards, and when they are not able to pay back to the bank, the whole country’s economy will collapse. That is why so many people are not satisfied with democracy. On the other hand, some non-democratic countries, like China, have recovered very quickly from this crisis. The failure of capitalism and success of China further firms many people’s belief that democracy is not the best way to rule a country, and hence they will not accept democracy in their countries.
ReplyDeleteThe writer also argues that ‘the middle class that once promoted political freedom is now also resorting to extralegal, undemocratic tactics—supposedly to save democracy itself.’ This is a valid argument because when people are not satisfied with the government, they will definitely try to express their dissatisfaction towards the government. Generally, the public should use methods like bolstering opposition parties or peaceful protests to criticize the government. However, as the leaders in most countries will use their power to suppress such kind of legal activities, the middle class had no way but violence to resolve the issue. In Thailand, the middle class tried to push Thaksin out of office but they failed. Hence they chose to paralyze the Bangkok airport to give pressure on Thaksin. Although they have reached their purpose – Thaksin is in exile at present, what they did is seriously against the spirit of democracy. Thus, the middle class usually topples democracy themselves though they are supposedly to save it.
However, I do not agree with the writer’s argument that ‘The middle class's push back against democracy, by way of coups and other antidemocratic means, has disenfranchised the poor, sparking still more protests.’ By saying so, the writer means that democracy has benefited the poor, but not the middle class. This is fallacious because in most countries, it is the poor which is neglected the most and has the most rights deprived. In China, most peasants still have to work very hard to earn a living while in big cities like Shanghai and Beijing, people’s living standard has already caught up with that in developed countries. Even the author himself says ‘In China, where it is the poor in rural areas who now take the lead in protests, the urban middle class appears comfortable with the ruling regime.’ Therefore, should there be any complaint about the government, it must come from the poor first, not the middle class. (Kaidi)
Essay
ReplyDeleteThe writer states that “This narrow interpretation of democracy not only distorted the true meaning of the word but also alienated the public in many countries, who became disgusted that these democrats seemed no more committed to the common good than their authoritarian predecessors.” He means that the democratic system in many countries was no different from the past authoritarian system they used to have. This is a correct interpretation as many democracies are not really living up to the ideal democratic situation that they promised they would carry out in the country. Instead of having strong opposition parties that campaign at elections every four years or so for voting, there is no real democracy. The case in Asia and Africa is that the ruling party does everything in its control to consolidate its position and help it retain control of the government. For example, in Singapore, the PAP, the ruling party has been reigning for the past 51 years thanks to its excellent consolidation of power in Singapore. It is undeniable that there is no real democracy in Singapore, even though in name Singapore is democratic. Thus, many countries have been tired of the new democratic system in their countries because they are no different from the authoritarian regime.
Furthermore, the writer also states that “The global economic crisis has also damaged democracy's appeal.” He explains that since democracy believes in a free market for the country, or capitalism in short, thus they are linked and interchangeably used. Hence given the global economic crisis in 2008, many countries in both Asia and Africa have thus lost faith in the democratic system because they are vastly affected by the global meltdown due to them putting in their savings in American interests. Furthermore, while the US which many see as representing democracy has not fared as well as its communist neighbour across the Pacific, China, which is communist by the way. Hence they feel that democratic system may not be the best for their country because the democratic nations have not been able to smoothly sail through the crisis, whereas countries that are undemocratic like China have done better. For instance, the US stock market has always been “the place” for countries to put their cash in to earn interests. However, they lost faith after the global recession in the US, and many linked this event with democracy, thus they saw it as a failed political ideology that must be removed from their countries immediately. Moreover they argue that it was the Great Depression, again due to the Wall Street in America crashing that led to World War II.
However, the writer has not made a valid point in stating that “The history of other young democracies reveals just how fragile this success can be.” He means that young democracies tend to fail and shed light that democracy is not the ideal political ideology for countries. Such a statement is gravely untrue and a sweeping statement. Young democracies do not reveal that democracy is fragile and unsuccessful because many young democracies in the world are actually working. For example, Taiwan is prospering even though China is putting it in a bad light. Its economic growth is tremendous, allowing it to create competition for the bigger guns in Asia, like Japan and South Korea, and needless to say, China. Hence, not all young democracies are failing. Instead, like Taiwan, South Africa and Indonesia too are growing, and these countries have just turned democratic too. Hence, not all young democracies show that democracy is fragile.
By Fangxu
ReplyDeleteI agree with the writer that democracy dies because of the difficulty to establish democracy, the need for autocrats to prevent terrorism, and the link to the spread of capitalism.
The writer states that there is a need for autocrats to prevent terrorism. I agree with the writer that democracy is dying because an autocratic society is definitely more effective in preventing terrorism. Hence, such limitations of democracy in preventing terrorism are preventing it from succeeding. Detaining terror suspects indefinitely is much more effective in preventing terrorism, but such acts cannot be practised in a democratic society. On the contrary, if an authoritarian state can ensure that there is no terrorism within the country, people would naturally give up their rights for a safer and more secure place because safety is more important than pursuing self-interest. Hence, autocracy has is advantages to democracy, which is why democracy cannot always succeed.
Next, I agree with the writer that democracy is dying because of the link to capitalism during the economic crisis. It is impossible for a democratic society not to be capitalist as democracy is based on the idea of freedom and equality. On the other hand, communism cannot be part of democracy because of the equal wages for unequal work, which is not a form of equality. Thus, during the economic downturn, which included the Lehman brothers declaring bankruptcy and taking away the money of its investors, many opposed to capitalism because such an incident can only occur in a capitalist economy. This led to the decrease in appeal of democracy as capitalism comes along with it.
Lastly, the writer states that the leaders in the young democracies saw democracy as just semiregular votes and used all tools of power to dominate their countries. I disagree with the writer that the young democracies have a misinterpretation of democracy. For a young democracy, it is not easy for the ruling party to govern a country with a totally new system when they are so used to the one used in the past. If a country were to change from autocratic rule to democratic rule in one night's time, there are simply too many changes that comes along with it for the government to handle them at once. For example, simply giving people the freedom of speech in a country would likely result in many criticisms of the government that stir up anti-government feelings among the people. It also takes time for the government to handle such a situation, especially in restoring the confidence of the people in the government as it need years to show whether a new implementation is effective or not. Thus, if all the rights such as right to education, healthcare, that comes along with democracy were to be given to the people at once, there is no way by which the government can handle it. Hence, intimidation is often used to solve these problems instead, which is more autocratic than democratic.
In conclusion, democracy is dying because of its limitations, such as the ineffectiveness in preventing terrorism and the difficulty to change from an autocratic government to a democratic government. It is natural for democracy to die as it does not necessarily work and we are feeling that this "death" is turning for the worse siply because of the over-emphasis on the advantages of democracy.