• There are likely to be references to more than one war
• Arguments for resolutions of various conflicts may be advanced
• What might be defined as a ‘just war’?
• World War Two, for example, or the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Iraq wars, civil wars
• Examples of where negotiations and/or treaties have prevented conflict
• Distinctions may be drawn between ‘wars’ and terrorism
• The so-called ‘war on terror’ may be mentioned
• One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter
• Allow for thoughtful interpretations of the term ‘war’
Category: Politics
Examine why some democratic countries find it difficult to hold ‘safe and fair’ elections.
Key words: ‘Examine’, ‘democratic’, ‘difficult’, ‘safe and fair’, elections’
• Change from dictatorship (Arab spring/Libya/Egypt)
• Instability (still supporters of the old regime)
• Elections are complex, involving a whole population (the problem of logistics)
• Open to bribery and corruption (the problem of independent monitoring)
• Violent intimidation prevents turnout
• It can appear a sham eg, present government manipulates the process to win re-election
• Tends to be difficult in developing countries –depends whether there is a tradition of democracy
• Cost and security of election booths
• Some response might choose to emphasise the fairness of the system via discussion of media involvement, smear campaigns etc.
Should sport be free from government intervention?
In today’s society, sports play a prominent role in the world. It is able to contribute to the international standing of a country, improve the welfare of the people and contribute to the economic growth of a country, to name a few benefits. With sports playing such an instrumental role, it will inevitably be tied together with government intervention. While some believe that government intervention is not necessary and would be detrimental to the spirit of the sport itself, others think that the government’s intervention is paramount in cultivating a sporting culture in a country and ensures that more people have access to sports. As a whole, sport should be supported by the government insofar as the provision of funding and facilities but not to the extent that sport is used for political means. Therefore, I believe that sport should not be free from the government.
Some people feel strongly against government intervention in sports as the corrupt nature of some governments would dilute and fragment the spirit of sports due to the methods employed by governments to gain prestige in the sporting arena. In many countries, sport is looked at as a measure of a country’s international standing and prominence on the world stage. As a result, governments would often want to ensure that the athletes are able to compete in international sporting competitions like the Olympics, so as to bring glory to the country. However, in some countries, the desire for success and triumph might cause governments to compromise on the spirit of sporting, which includes fair play and engages in underhanded methods to secure a victory for the country. This can include state-sponsored doping programmes, which undermine the sport and the health of the athletes. A prominent example would be during the 2014 Sochi Olympics, where Russian athletes were caught in a complex doping scandal whereby more than fifty athletes were found to have used performance-enhancing drugs in order to optimize their performance. What made it worse was that the Russian government had been the ones who had sponsored and funded these doping activities. All in all, the Russians were accused to have orchestrated doping programmes at the Olympics and other competitions that involved or benefitted a thousand athletes in thirty sports. This not only led to the athletes being stripped of their medals but also stripped of the opportunity to ever compete again as the International Olympic Committee had issued lifetime bans for some of the athletes. This would demonstrate how the involvement of governments in sports would increase the probability of negative outcomes as some corrupt governments would be willing to compromise on the integrity of sports in order to ensure glory on the world stage. Therefore, many objects to the government’s intervention in sport as they believe that it would only serve their own agendas at the expense of the athletes.
Moreover, some are also cynical about government intervention in sports being used to further their political agendas against other countries, which might cause sports to be intertwined and tangled in politics. It is not surprising that sports are being used as a form of political leverage. However, sports are supposed to bond and unite people regardless of nationalities together under a common passion. Critics believe that as seen from history, some governments are willing to use sports as a method for them to further their political agenda while completely disregarding the essence of the sport. An example would be during the Moscow Olympics in the 1980s, at the peak of the Cold War. In response to the Soviets’ decision to invade Afghanistan, the Pentagon decided to ban American athletes from competing at the games and boycotted the event completely. This was to the dismay and outrage of some athletes who had trained so hard for their event only to have the political motives of the American government ruin their chance of participating at the Olympics. Although this had happened decades ago, many fear that the past would repeat itself and governments would start to use sports in order to further their political feuds with other countries and deprive their athletes as a result. Due to the association of governments with politics, many believe that their intervention would only set the pretext for the politicization of sports, which would cause the unifying spirit of sports to be tarnished. As a result of this reason, many feel that in order to prevent sports from being tainted by the world political climate, it needs to be free from government intervention.
However, while the above factors might be true in some countries, governmental intervention in sports would be able to support the growth of athletes in terms of fiving those with talents an avenue to showcase their own abilities through the provision of economic means. In some instances, an aspiring athlete would not be able to reach his optimum level of performance without support being offered by governments. Some forms of support would include economic support, in order to provide one with the relevant resources to work at his sport and the provision of adequate infrastructure and training facilities. These forms of support would ensure that everyone in society with the talent and the skills would be able to be provided with equal opportunities to succeed and represent the nation, regardless of their socio-economic status. For instance, in Singapore, the government has established the Singapore Sports School (SSS), which is a niche school catered to students who have a keen passion and the ability in their sport. SSS is a six-year programme where these students would be able to be developed to their full capacity while also having time for their academic work. Through the establishment of such niche schools, the government is ensuring that the young talents are well supported by the country and that adequate provisions are given to them to ensure that their studies are not being compromised for sports and vice versa. Furthermore, the government has also included a wide range of scholarships for students in SSS to ensure that regardless of their economic status, their skills would still be able to be honed. This demonstrates how crucial the role of the government is in cultivating athletes in a nation as not everyone would have equal opportunities to develop their skills due to the different economic situations of each individual. The government would be able to alleviate certain limitations that hinder the development of one and provide him with the avenue to sharpen and showcase his talent nationally or internationally. Through the funding, developments and policies of the government, there would be more accessible for athletes to develop their passion and have the opportunity to succeed. For this reason, the extensive support towards the development of sports would justify the government’s interference in sports.
Additionally, governments should not wash their hands off sports completely as their intervention would enable for the inculcation of an active lifestyle amongst the people in society. Usually, the government has the responsibility to maximize the welfare of the people and ensure that their basic needs, like healthcare, are not neglected. One aspect of healthcare would be ensuring that its people lead an active lifestyle by exercising so as to keep fit and healthy. In order to encourage people to maintain a healthy lifestyle, governments would need to provide people with activities that would enable them to maintain their health. One prominent method to achieve this would be through sports. Bearing the aims of the government in mind, which is to ensure that high standards of health are maintained, the government has the ability to promote sports in the lives of its people in order to fulfil this goal. In China, which has one of the world’s highest obesity rates, the government has been active in ensuring that the people learn and have the habit of maintaining a healthy lifestyle through mandating compulsory morning physical training in school to ensure that students would have a uniformed workout routine and engage in sports. By instilling the importance of sports and activity in children from a young age, they would have the habit of engaging in sports to keep healthy as they grow up. This would reflect how important the government is in ensuring that the people have access to sports so as to improve the welfare of the people through leading healthier lives. This would mean that governments should continue to intervene in sports to ensure that the majority of the people in society understand the importance of these sports to their health and lifestyle. Therefore, governments should not wash their hands off sports because it is a fundamental tool that they can effectively utilise to improve societal welfare.
To add on, governments should also intervene in sports, as they are able to make alterations to policies in order to encourage the development of sports. In many countries, athletes are tied down by legislation that hinders their progress and development in their sport. Through the use of the government’s political power, they are in the position to allow for the development of athletes and any particular sport in a country. An example would be in Singapore, where after the 2016 Rio Olympics, the government, having been urged by Singaporeans, deferred the gold medallist Joseph Schooling’s time for conscription in order to give him ample time to focus on training for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Through concessions like these being made, athletes would be given opportunities to shine and train seeing as their rigour and momentum would not be hampered by the policies of governments. As such, this would also culminate in many other aspiring athletes to be encouraged to take up sports as they know that the government would wholly back them in their career. Therefore, the ability of the government to push for proper policies to support its athletes is a crucial reason why governments should intervene in sports.
In conclusion, the government should intervene in sports because they play an instrumental role in facilitating the growth of the sport economically, socially and politically. With that being said, their intervention for their own agendas should not and cannot be tolerated but should instead be discouraged to uphold the spirit of sports.
“It is better to be a woman than a man” To what extent is this true in today’s world?
There is a common perception that women are incapable, weak and powerless. However, this is invalid in First World liberal democracies as women are highly educated and independent. The quote suggests that men have been taken over by women in many aspects of life and females are in a better position in the modern world. There is an evident increase of advantages in being a woman today than before yet it does not hold true in every part of the World. Women in third world nations and countries governed by Islamic law are seen to be ill-treated and fit the characteristic of the common perception. It is certainly more favourable in being a man than a woman in such parts of the world.
Women in patriarchal societies do not have the power to defend themselves. The high incidence of honour killings, rapes and bride burning suggests that women do not have the voice in these societies. In Pakistan, honour killing cases occur 1000 times annually, of which the majority accounts for women. With these continuous events growing women are still seen as helpless in such situations and the failure to address this issue is due to bad governance. There are no policies in favour of women and they live in fear. Any dishonour brought to the family has no right to resolve the issue through killing as there is no law to support such actions. Yet these uneducated women who have no control of their lives are unable to fight for their rights and to stop such outrageous practices.
Men are also more favoured in Eastern countries as they are able to produce male progeny. In terms of food, health and education men are always receiving the best and parents are biased towards boys. In a country that does not practice gender equality, men will continue to dominate and women will be at a disadvantage. The tradition to carry on one’s ancestral line is pivotal to a family in Eastern countries as compared to the western cultures. The desire for a male child is so strong to the point where extreme measures such as sex-selective abortion are practised although it is against law. Giving birth to a female is often said to be a waste as girls can no longer contribute to the family after marrying off to their husband’s families as they have the responsibility of taking care of their in-laws. Thus, men still have the upper hand in Eastern countries.
Seen in another light being a woman in a Scandinavian country is more advantageous as there is egalitarianism. The ‘Equal Opportunity Act’ in the United Kingdom serves as a law to protect women from any discrimination they face. Women are accorded the free rein to discover their full potential and men are sometimes marginalised. Stores, goods and services are often designed to suit women’s taste. Female politicians are also given the chance to be elected as the President such as Hillary Clinton who is currently competing to become the next President of the United States. Even in societies, women are able to hold higher positions in the corporate world such as Marissa Mayer, the recently appointed CEO of Yahoo. These examples really show how it is better to be a woman than a man. However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is too absolute to assert that women are absolutely better than men.
In conclusion, different countries have different cultures and law. There is still a large proportion of women suffering due to gender inequality. For women to be in power in future, more measures have to be put in place. If voices of women are not heard, there will be more social unrest in the future as more women right activists seek justice for these women. Hence in today’s world women are yet to be better than men.
Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?
Censorship is not a new process in the world. It has been around for centuries. Back in 398 BC, Plato was a leading advocate of censorship. The birth of new media and social media has brought the topic of censorship to greater heights. However, according to the United Nations, human rights include freedom of speech and expression. Thus, any form of censorship is deemed to be a flagrant infringement of human rights and cannot be tolerated. However, to say that censorship can never be justified is not a prudent statement because it comes with benefits as well as costs. Thus, I disagree to a large extent that censorship can never be justified.
Primarily, censorship is mostly used to protect a nation’s security. This is one of the reasons why censorship is still being practised. A nation’s progress cannot be totally transparent to the citizens, let alone reporting it to the whole world. This is for the fear that some information that carries sensitive material will hurt and jeopardize economic security or internal security and benefit potential aggressors. The censored material includes the state’s build-up of weapons and the government’s plan with regards to defence. Hence, in times of war, censorship is stricter than before because the state not only wants to prevent the enemy from getting information on military value, it also wants to sustain the morale of its people. Given that censorship is a way to protect people and countries well-being, censorship is justified.
While it is true that the public should make an informed choice where religion, race issues are concerned so as to make the right choice, in a society with people of varying viewpoints and backgrounds, it is highly myopic to assume that everyone is entirely sensible to make the right choices, uniformly. Racially insensitive material can create misgivings, misunderstandings and misinformation among the various ratio and religious group resulting in civil unrest and disorder. Firms of publications that slander or lampoon a particular race or religion should be censored. The Charlie Hebdo attack on 7 January 2015 in France has taken away at least 12 lives. The fatal incident occurred due to racist cover page of the magazine on the Muslim community. As the media portrayed the minority group in the negative light, it is extremely necessary to censor certain religious sensitive material to maintain the stability of a certain belief.
However, while it is true that censorship can largely be justified, one cannot dispute the fact that censorship violates humanity’s natural autonomy as it denies an individual an unbiased choice in formulating his or her beliefs. By not giving mass media the liberty and responsibility to function freely in order to provide free access to information and ideas to the public, the people are not well informed on current affairs and will not be mentally prepared for any major disturbances in the country. North Korea, the most censored country in the world (according to the Committee to Protect Journalists) has no independent journalists and all radio and television receivers sold in the country are locked to government-specified frequencies. For many North Korean the lies that the government presents as truths are considered the truth because people have no alternative source of information to compare allegations of facts. The conservative mindset of governments has led to censorship often being abused by repressive regimes which effectively decides what the population processes by restricting information, leading to a society that is ignorant, thus, censorship is not justified.
Nevertheless, while audiences are more discerning and not likely to be corrupted by access to certain questionable materials, it is only moral to censor materials to prevent those from the unsuitable age group – children and teenagers from viewing it. The prevalence of such materials may erode the moral fabric of society as such material affects the basic moral values of people. For instance, pornography perverts the young, impressionable minds, encourages promiscuity and undermines the general morality of the public. As such the movies are often rated and regulated with movie classification parental guidance to NC 16, M18 and R21, to protect viewers from using dangerous material unsuitable for their age. Thus, censorship is justified as it is necessary to bar the young from being exposed to harmful materials.
In conclusion, censorship is justified in many cases. As William Westmorland said, “Without censorship, things can get confused in the public mind”. Since we citizens have entrusted our lives and countries to the government we voted for, we have also relinquished some of our freedom and the government has a duty to ensure the citizens’ well-being is not compromised at the expense of censorship.
Should the police have unlimited powers when dealing with crime?
In the new movie “Public Enemies”, Johnny Depp plays John Dillinger, the 1930s bank robber and killer who gets hunted down and shot by the newly formed FBI. This seemingly suggests that the government department that was established to maintain order as well as to enforce the law is given a very large amount of authority in the process of law enforcement. However, this is true only to a certain extent because, in reality, the police force does not have such a large amount of power to wield as they wish, and for good reason. Although some argue that the police do not have sufficient authority and that the police force should be given more liberty when faced with powerful criminals like the criminal syndicates, it is inevitable that if given too much of a free rein, the individual members in the police force might be tempted to abuse this power, or even become licensed assassins as they might become as irrational and brutal as convicts in their attempt to resolve a crime.
Indeed, the law enforcers ought to have a greater authority whilst upholding the law, especially in the face of powerful criminals like the crime syndicates. In places like Russia, Japan, Italy, Mexico and China, where the Russian Mafiya, the Japanese Yakuza, the Italian Mafia, Mexican Drug Cartels and the Chinese Triads are considered the five most powerful criminal syndicates according to the Foreign Policy online 2008, it is essential for the police force to have the necessary authority to apprehend them and bring these criminals to justice. This is especially so when these criminal organizations have the ability to reach out to gangsters worldwide. This can be seen in the example whereby wherever there is a Chinatown in the world, the Triad’s tentacles would have reached there to tap into ties – giving them an unprecedented huge network of opportunities to expand their criminal network. With such a huge reach over the many petty criminals worldwide, there is a massive potential for large-scale global crimes to take place. Therefore to prevent this, it is crucial that the police force should be able to match up to, or even hold greater powers that these huge criminal syndicates have so as to able to keep these syndicates in check or to eradicate them entirely.
Indeed, the law enforcers ought to have a greater authority whilst upholding the law, especially in the face of powerful criminals like the crime syndicates. In places like Russia, Japan, Italy, Mexico and China, where the Russian Mafiya, the Japanese Yakuza, the Italian Mafia, Mexican Drug Cartels and the Chinese Triads are considered the five most powerful criminal syndicates according to the Foreign Policy online 2008, it is essential for the police force to have the necessary authority to apprehend them and bring these criminals to justice. This is especially so when these criminal organizations have the ability to reach out to gangsters worldwide. This can be seen in the example whereby wherever there is a Chinatown in the world, the Triad’s tentacles would have reached there to tap into ties – giving them an unprecedented huge network of opportunities to expand their criminal network. With such a huge reach over the many petty criminals worldwide, there is a massive potential for large-scale global crimes to take place. Therefore to prevent this, it is crucial that the police force should be able to match up to, or even hold greater powers that these huge criminal syndicates have so as to able to keep these syndicates in check or to eradicate them entirely.
Some also argue that the police ought to be given more liberty when pursuing petty lawbreakers as they believe that the police do not have enough power to uphold the law. Police power is highly circumscribed by law and departmental policies and they have very little power or control over the situations they are in or the people they encounter. They also cannot use force the vast majority of the time, and when they do, they are subjected to an enormous amount of scrutiny. In the Gallup Poll, an institution that is seen to have too little power is the local police “in your community” (31%). In addition, the poll results show that the oft-cited fear of the power of the police-type units of the federal state, state, and local governments is not as widespread as might be supposed. In fact, at the state and local levels, the prevailing sentiment is clearly that police forces either have the right amount of power or should have even more.
However, the above claim should be refuted since if given too much of a free rein, some members of the police force might be tempted to abuse it to help the criminals get away scot-free in order to reap some rewards. In fact, there have been many cases of police officers abusing their power and accepting bribes from criminals. One case in point is where a number of Colombian police officers were arrested for accepting bribes and returning seized drug to a trafficking group. Furthermore, in Tel Aviv, the second-largest city in Israel, details emerged in April this year of an elaborate criminal scheme to turn police officers into informants on behalf of lawbreakers. The officers were accused of accepting cash bribes to tip off a “serious criminal” who runs brothels and passing on intelligence in ways which are reminiscent of double agents depicted in the Hollywood film The Departed. In a situation where the police were given the right to apprehend law-breakers in order to prevent crime, they abused this right for their own personal gain. In a separate incident, Chicago Police have been accused of using pepper spray without provocation on black people celebrating Obama’s victory on election night and also of kicking in doors and running into people’s houses. They never explained what was going on and simply left when they were done with whatever they were doing. This suggests that the policemen involved in this unfortunate and seemingly racist incident simply rode on the fact that they were in the uniform and took advantage of the authority that the uniform gives them in order to carry out unexplained acts of harassment on the target citizens. Since power can be so easily made use of, it is then unwise to entrust unlimited powers to the police.
In addition, the police might become licensed assassins if they are given too much power as they might become as irrational and brutal as convicts in their attempt to resolve a crime. In the UK TV program “Worst Police Shootouts”, viewers were shocked rigid by the gratuitous legalised murder fest that ensued. Five or six cases were shown, each of which ended in the ‘perpetrator’ being shot, usually to death. In one video, a middle-aged lady ran out of her house on a suburban street, obviously in some kind of distress, waving a short kitchen knife. The two attending cops panicked and shot her when she ran towards one of them, panicked and shot her, thinking that she was about to attack them. All the other cases featured followed much the same pattern. Should these cases be considered as ‘legalised murders’ then? Maybe, if the killings were entirely accidental, but if the police use their given authority to behave as they wish while patrolling or chasing criminals, then many more innocent people will be injured or killed in their reckless line of duty. Therefore, since many police force members have already harmed so many people with the current level of authority that they have, it is definitely imprudent assign even greater powers for the police to wield.
To conclude, as Karl Wilhelm Von Humboldt once said, “If it were possible to make an accurate calculation of the evils which police regulations occasion, and of those which they prevent, the number of the former would, in all cases, exceed that of the latter.” It thus can be said that with the current level of power that the police possess, it is already being abused or used in the wrong way. Therefore, the notion that the police should be given more power should not be encouraged as it may result in disastrous results.
Democracy is not the most effective form of government. Do you agree?
This is a student researched paper.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”[1] These fine words by Winston Churchill came in parliament as he attempted to defend democracy while acknowledging its shortcomings. Democracy is the most popular form of government because it is representative, it protects people against oppression and it guarantees the basic rights that people must have. But democracy also has many inadequacies. It is inefficient by design, leading to wasteful practices. Despite the demerits, democracy is the form of government that most countries in the world have chosen to install, in many cases after hard struggles.
Democracy is effective because it is representative of people. Each constituency, depending on the size of its population, can elect a fixed number of representatives to the assembly. The UK, for example, has 650 constituencies.[2] Each constituency is represented fairly, regardless of wealth and status. However, an elected representative does not always represent every community within the constituency. By design, the representative is more likely to belong to a majority group. Moreover, large nations can only practice direct democracy at regional levels. Switzerland is the largest nation in terms of population that still practices pure democracy. With 8.3 million citizens as of 2016 estimates, Switzerland is ranked 99th in terms of population by the UN. On the national level where the majority of legislative activity takes place, nations with larger populations practice a very indirect form of democracy that tends to resemble a republic.[3] USA, India, Finland and Mexico are some examples.(a) Sometimes a conventional government may not have majority support, such as in case of coalitions.[4] Italy, France, Germany and several other nations have had coalition governments in the past. Coalition and representative governments also represent people, which is the reason for their preference over non-democratic regimes.
Democracies succeed despite imperfections because they create the impression, true or false, of being protective of the people. This is not true of other forms of government such as monarchic, aristocratic or totalitarian regimes. Democracy protects human rights and encourages civil liberty. Democracy is participative and gives voice to each citizen. Democratic nations with universal adult suffrage offer more freedom of speech than other types of regimes. A notable historic example is India and all the other colonies of the British Empire. Post independence, these nations allow a range of civil liberties that the British Raj did not.(d) There is also more accountability for decisions, since a democratic government is liable to be replaced during elections if their policies are unpopular. One political party may not necessarily be better than another. However, the purpose of democracy is that people must have the power of choice. With the reasoning for government decisions made public by the media, democracies tend to be more transparent. Certain historic examples prove that all the positive effects of democracy can be achieved within a non-democratic system. Hong Kong under British administration is one good example.[5] Pre 1997 Hong Kong, Even though it was not a democratic setup, was lauded for low taxes, low corruption, full freedom of speech, rule of law and a free market economy.(b) However, instances of autocratic regimes that abuse human rights and restrict civil liberties also abound. Democracies are effective and desirable because they enjoy the support of people by protecting the rights of citizens and by being accountable.
Naysayers opine that democratic regimes suffer from much inherent inefficiency. Election campaigns are expensive and wasteful. In 2016 one of the US Presidential candidates spent billions of dollars on campaign advertising.[6] Influencing voters with paid advertisements should be considered opposed to the ideals of democracy, because it allows only the wealthy and influential to participate in politics.(c) Excessive campaign spending also goes to show that reelection depends more on good advertising than good deeds while in office. Some countries allow political candidates to campaign for months and even years.[7] Voters need to put-up with mass media saturated with political messages. To avoid media overuse and due to consideration for voters, Campaigns in countries such as Canada and Mexico last no more than 90 days.(a) Post election, new governments often have markedly different views on various issues, from the previous ones. This leads to changes in policy, creating an environment of instability. One example is the Affordable Care Act, better known as ‘Obamacare’.[8] 75 years in the making, the act was signed into law by president Obama in 2010 and already faces an uncertain future after the 2016 election. In democracy, accountability resets with every election cycle. Moreover, due to multiple levels of decision-making it takes longer to implement bigger projects, creating delays, more waste and inefficiency.(a) By comparison military juntas can be very efficient. Libya under Gaddafi, a military dictatorship, was the most prosperous African nation of the time. Citizens had access to free electricity, education and healthcare. Gaddafi’s Libya implemented the world’s largest irrigation project of the time.[9] Some forms of monarchies also work efficiently. The Saudi King exercises complete political authority. In addition to being among the top quartile of countries ranked by HDI, Saudi has implemented several engineering mega projects.(d) Due to the structure of democracy, inefficiency is one of the system’s innate attributes.
Democratic regimes are effective because people are willing to support them. Democratic governments protect civil rights and provide the various freedoms that people need. At the same time democracy is rife with inadequacies and inefficiencies. Compared to autocratic systems, democracies take longer to make and implement decisions. Election campaigns can be unreasonably long and wasteful. The interests of democratically elected representatives do not align with long term national interests as well as those of autocrats or dictators, who are destined to rule for life. In an 1881 letter, Lord Action stated, “The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.”[10] It implies that governance is a job beyond any person’s capacity. Democracy remains more acceptable than any other form of government by virtue of being the lesser evil.
[1] Richard M. Langworth. (2016). “Democracy is the worst form of Government…” – Richard M. Langworth. [online] Available at: https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].
[2] UK Parliament. (2016). Parliamentary constituencies.
Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/constituencies/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].
[3] Volokh, E. (2016). Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?. [online] Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].
[4] Mason, R. (2016). Coalition governments: what are they and how are they formed?. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/coalition-governments-what-are-they-and-how-are-they-formed [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].
[5] http://www.washingtontimes.com, T. (2016). Liberty vs. democracy. [online] The Washington Times. Available at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/feb/4/20060204-103048-1254r/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].
[6] NPR.org. (2016). 2016 Campaigns Will Spend $4.4 Billion On TV Ads, But Why?. [online] Available at: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/19/432759311/2016-campaign-tv-ad-spending [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].
[7] NPR.org. (2016). Canada Reminds Us That American Elections Are Much Longer. [online] Available at: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/21/450238156/canadas-11-week-campaign-reminds-us-that-american-elections-are-much-longer [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].
[8] Affordablehealthca.com. (2016). A short history of the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare drama. [online] Available at: http://affordablehealthca.com/history-affordable-care-act/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2016].
[9] http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-ten-things-about-gaddafi-they-dont-want-you-to-know/5414289
[10] Acton, L., 1877. The history of freedom in antiquity. Selected Writings of Lord Acton, 1, pp.5-28.
‘Being a politician today is more difficult than ever.’ What is your view?
In democratic societies, a politician is the appointed representative of citizens through the electoral process. Politicians hold an important and pivotal role in the society by voicing out citizens’ thoughts and demands to the country, hence their jobs are often regarded as herculean tasks. However, it is argued that being a politician is no longer a challenging task since they can easily garner support from the citizens through the introduction of populist policies. Nevertheless, it is an erroneous assumption that all will be enticed by such policies – instead, more citizens are well-informed and educated, making politician’s jobs more difficult in terms of meeting the higher demands of citizens. Furthermore, in the modern-day context where the world is hyperconnected, politicians need to deal with economic vulnerabilities, diplomatic relationships and the rising threat of terrorism so as to justify their political legitimacy. Therefore, being a politician today is more difficult than ever.
Some posit that being a politician may not be a very challenging task compared to the past, due to the emergence of populism in recent years. Populist policies refer to the set of ‘popular’ policies, which sound attractive yet may not be the ‘right’ set of policies for the country, such as simply reducing the personal income tax without a reduction in government expenditure. Still, it can be seen that more of the populist leaders are supported by the citizens, enabling them to garner support easily from the masses and secure their position as people’s representatives. A notable example could be the new president of the United States, Donald Trump, who pledged to build a wall between the borders of Mexico and the United States. His promises are unrealistic, yet people who were discontented with Mexicans working in the United States and losing their jobs supported him during the presidential elections. Hence, regardless of the implementation of the populist policies, the rise of populism makes it easier for politicians to gain mass support and secure their political position, thus making it seem as if being a politician today is no longer very difficult.
However, such argument does not hold water and it is rather myopic to assume that all citizens are enticed by such populist policies – more citizens are educated and well-informed as the society progresses, which makes politicians’ jobs more demanding. As the general standard of living improves, thanks to the rising affluence, more citizens are discerning and are able to weigh the pros and cons of the policies politicians pledge. Hence, more citizens are able to make the right choices for the nation, as well as to have more demanding stance towards politicians. For example, in Singapore’s General Elections in 2011, the ruling party – the People’s Action Party – has received its lowest approval ratings of 66.6%, a 6.5% drop from the last election. Such huge drop in ratings represented how the educated Singaporeans felt unhappy with the party – the People’s Action Party was accused of having a sense of elitism and not catering to the needs of the ordinary citizens. This, after all, has affected the party’s political legitimacy, and the party had to regain the support by providing more humble measures, such as Singapore Conversations which enables Singapore citizens to be engaged in the policy-making process. Thus, being a politician today is a difficult task, and it is rather challenging than ever before due to the higher education level of the citizens.
In addition, it is more challenging to be a politician as they need to deal with the economic vulnerabilities associated with globalisation. The hyperconnected nature of the modern world resulted in greater possibilities of facing economic crises, such as the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 or the Eurozone Debt Crisis in 2009. Therefore, here is a greater need for politicians to address such economic issues and ensure the country is prepared for such situations so that they can still garner support from the citizens, unlike in the past where the countries had fewer possibilities of facing economic crises. For instance, Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe is implementing ‘Abenomics’ so as to tackle Japan’s deflation issue which persisted for the last two decades. If he is unable to solve this economic issue, it is likely that he is going to step down from his position, just as the past prime ministers, who stepped down due to their incompetencies. Thus, in this world of volatile economic situations where every country’s economy is interdependent of one another, politicians are indeed facing challenges in dealing with the economic crises.
Furthermore, politicians nowadays need to balance international and domestic affairs, which makes their jobs more difficult than ever. In this globalised world, it is important to maintain good relationships with other countries, but it is also absurd to solely focus on international relations as this may result in discontentment of the locals. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, was able to maintain relatively high approval ratings until she decided to adopt an open-door policy towards the migrants and accept the Syrian refugees. Even though her actions were lauded internationally, the locals were upset that they need to bear the high cost and societal problems associated with the influx of refugees. Another example would be the Japanese prime minister visiting Yasukuni Shrine, where the war criminals of the World War II are placed at. Even if his acts can please the Japanese citizens for honouring their war heroes, it provokes anti-Japanese sentiments in other countries such as South Korea and China. Thus, it is more difficult for politicians to either prioritise good international standing or support from their own citizens in this interconnected world.
Lastly, the rise of terrorism across the world makes it challenging for politicians as they need to protect citizens from greater terrorism threats. The rise of Islamic fundamentalists has resulted in rampant terrorist attacks taking place, which makes it difficult for the government to ensure the safety of its citizens. For instance, the latest terrorist attack at Ariana Grande’s concert in Manchester, United Kingdom shows that every civilian is prone to terrorist attack and that no place in the world is entirely safe from such threats. There is the greater task assigned to the government as this issue is difficult to tackle – simply preventing Islamic extremists or the supporters of the Islamic State from entering the country does not help when there is home-grown terrorism, where the people are self-radicalised and commit lone-wolf attacks, such as the Westminster attack by Khalid Masood. Such forms of terrorist attacks are almost impossible to detect. Thus, since the government has the duty to protect its own citizens from threats but it is becoming increasingly more difficult to do so in today’s globalised world, politicians face a more difficult task as ever before.
In conclusion, being a politician is indeed a herculean task as he needs to deal with more demands from his own citizens as well as those from other countries, signifying the importance of good leadership. However, citizens also hold an important role in choosing the right leaders who can combat such domestic and international issues. Therefore, people need to exercise their voting rights more wisely for the sake of the country’s brighter future – the practising of just responsibilities will ensure their rights to be protected.
How important is charisma?
This is a researched essay.
The importance of charisma as a quality for today’s leaders is indicated by the fact that the definitions of charisma and leadership overlap. Charis ma automatically comes with a leadership position. However, charisma is not the most important trait of a leader. Charismatic individuals in leadership positions can bring discredit upon themselves if they lack more important qualities. If all other leadership qualities are given, charisma can be an advantage.
Etymologically charisma comes from a Greek word that translates to grace. The dictionary employs several words to define grace. These include elegance, politeness of manner and goodwill. Charis ma is defined as a compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.[1] Leadership is defined as the ability to channel the actions of a group of people. This can be done through formal authority, logic, or through interpersonal qualities as embodied in charisma. By this interpretation, it can be considered a subset of leadership. However, it is not an inseparable part since leadership can be accomplished by other means. Vladimir Putin is a leader with whom both poise and authority can be associated. In 2014, Putin did not achieve the reintegration of Crimea with Russia through his charms. His actions in Ukraine proved that authority alone can be sufficient for effective leadership. Therefore, while charisma can be a part of leadership, it is not necessary.
Charisma is attributed to all great leaders by default. A prime example is Gandhi. He was a simple and soft-spoken man who wore merely a loincloth around his waist. Gandhi is remembered today as a charismatic leader merely because he was honored as a leader. Stalin did not invade Poland with any compelling attractiveness of character. Hitler did not create the holocaust using personal charm. Unlike Churchill and Mandela, Stalin and Hitler were effective simply by the skilful use of their power. Yet, they are considered charismatic leaders. It is difficult to find examples of great leaders that did not possess any aura because followers automatically attribute it to a person of leadership. This shows that the significance of a charming personality can sometimes be more sentimental than practical.
Charis ma is the not the most important quality of a leader. It is possible to fail as a leader, while possessing charisma, for want of other characteristics. Integrity and vision are far more vital. Dick Fuld, the persuasive and charismatic CEO of Lehman Brothers led one of the largest financial services companies in the world to bankruptcy.[2],[3] On the other hand Microsoft is an excellent example of how charisma can help speed-up the success of a strongly authoritarian leader such as Bill Gates. The two contrasting examples show that charisma may be likened to efficiency. It can help a good leader become great or get a poor leader to ruin faster. Clearly, charisma is not the all-important component of being a leader.
Charisma can help all kinds of leaders. Every leadership position requires persuading, influencing and eliciting obedience. Charisma can help a leader achieve these ends through enthusiasm, goodwill and positive emotions, rather than relying purely on logic.[4] Charisma is ethos and pathos. Charismatic leaders are eloquent communicators and skilled orators. They engage with their audience not only with arguments but also with emotions, values and passion. Charisma persuades followers to buy into a leader’s vision. The workplace has evolved with technological development and globalization. Employees have greater choice and access. Employers need to be more flexible and transparent. Diversity is a fact. Employees need to share the leadership vision in order to have a sense of fulfillment. In today’s world personal magnetism is more important for industry leaders than ever. All other qualities being equal, a charismatic leader can be more effective than one who lacks this quality.
Charis ma can help a leader succeed, but is not a substitute for leadership qualities. Leadership is influence. Charisma is one way to achieve influence, but certainly not the only way. People who are not in leadership positions can also have charis ma; even children can. There are ample examples of leaders who had charisma and failed due to other shortcomings. There are also examples where leaders succeeded without charis ma. To influence people, bold speeches are unnecessary. Followers can be inspired by a leader’s credibility, moral conviction, strength of character and focus on goals. These are valued qualities of leaders such as Richard Branson and Elon Musk. Charis ma is not essential for leaders and it certainly cannot stand on its own. However, charisma is great to have.
[1] Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2016). charis ma – definition of charisma in English | Oxford Dictionaries. [online] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/charisma [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].
[2] Huffington Post India. (2016). Dick Fuld, Disgraced Former CEO Of Lehman Brothers, Makes Public Comeback. [online] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/dick-fuld-lehman_n_7462196 [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].
[3] Telegraph.co.uk. (2016). The collapse of Lehman Brothers.
Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/6173145/The-collapse-of-Lehman-Brothers.html [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].
[4] Antonakis, J. (2016). Using the power of charis ma for better leadership. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/learning-charisma-sustainability-leaders [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].
International cooperation is necessary in this globalised world. Do you agree?
With recent events such as Brexit and the rising resentment against free trade in the United States as shown by the fierce opposition against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement, we see that there is a rising trend of nationalism that is against the idea of international cooperation. While they might justify such a choice as an excuse to stay competitive, I disagree with the notion that international cooperation has no place in this competitive world, because such cooperation is still crucial in providing humanitarian aid, allows countries to tackle global issues, and lastly, is arguably necessary for a country to advance certain domestic interests in this competitive world.
Firstly, in times of disasters, international cooperation is still needed in order to provide temporary relief to those in need. In the event of an unfortunate natural disaster, chances are it is going to cause great damage to that area, and such damages often cost the countries millions, if not billions of dollars. For developing or less developed countries, they simply do not have that much money in order to repair their infrastructure, so it is the duty of the international community to come in and provide the necessary humanitarian aid. Even if the world is highly competitive, as human beings, there is still a moral imperative for us, the international community, to step in and provide them with the most basic of needs so that they would not be deprived of their most basic human rights that many regards as inalienable. This is why when the earthquake struck Haiti in 2010, countries all over the world stepped in to provide aid for that country thorough various means, even though the world at that time was just as competitive as it is today. With that, it is hard to justify why, even in this competitive world, should there be any reasons to denounce international cooperation in terms of giving aid.
That being said, nationalists would still argue that a country should prioritise their national interests first before anything else including international cooperation, especially since the world today is so competitive. They argue that in a world with such cut-throat competition, they have to think about how to benefit the country first and foremost, and to them, international cooperation would do more harm than good. Similarly, the concept of realpolitik would also mean to them that countries should do everything in the name of self-interest in such a way that they would get to benefit the most. Because of these two ideas, nationalists have often forgone international cooperation in order to further advance their own interests. That is why the USA refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol which could have been a crucial step in slowing down global warming. The Bush administration refused to ratify it because they did not want to lose out economically with countries that do not have to cut down on carbon emissions such as China. Their national interest in having an economic edge over countries like China had made them decide against ratifying that treaty. With national interests at stake and the competitive world we live in today, these nationalists would argue that international cooperation has no place in the world today. However, what these nationalists failed to realise is that international cooperation is still essential even if a country only did something in the name of protecting and advancing their own national interests.
For one, there are certain global issues that can only be solved with international cooperation, which means that in order to get it done, countries have to put aside their competition and work together in order to solve it. That would then benefit the cooperating countries themselves. When there is a pressing global issue such as global warming, the outbreak of infectious diseases or the rise of terrorism as we know it today, countries have to work together in order to solve that problem to protect their national interests. With the sheer scale of these problems, it just simply is not possible for any individual country, no matter how small or how big and mighty it is. To solve these issues, international cooperation is the one and only way, even if it means that certain aspects of a country’s national interests might be compromised. For example, countries around the world knew that the depletion of the ozone layer is bad not just for the world, but also their own country in particular because the radiation entering the Earth as a result of the depletion of the ozone layer can negatively affect the health of its people. Because of that, they are willing to come together in order to stop this with the Montreal Protocol. Almost all countries then went on to ratify the treaty, and as such, chlorofluorocarbon (the chemicals that deplete the ozone layer) in the atmosphere has fallen by over 90% since then, and the ozone layer is starting to ‘repair’ itself. This is just one of the many examples that show how international cooperation is still relevant in advancing national interests even in this competitive globalised world. Countries vying for global power like the USA, the (then) British Empire and the Soviets came together to fight off Nazi Germany because the very existence of their countries was at stake. Many countries all over the world today cooperate together despite the intense competition to ward off ISIS because their terrorist attacks can be extremely harmful to the countries themselves. The list goes on. Thus, because of how big certain problems are, international cooperation is still a necessity even in this competitive world, even if a country is guided by the principles of realpolitik.
Moreover, those nationalists also failed to realise that international cooperation might be the only way for them to advance their national interests that do not require international effort as well. Domestically, a country has several objectives they want to achieve, including security, social stability, and a healthy economy. Internationally, they would also want to improve their standing amongst other countries, especially in this competitive world where every country is vying for some form of influence, and in some cases, countries have to work together in order to fulfil these goals, and this means that even if a country is guided by realpolitik, it is only natural for them to work with other countries because doing them would benefit themselves too. The world is not a zero-sum game. When one party stands to benefit, the others do not have to suffer. There is a point for countries to cooperate. Doing so can bring about mutual benefits. When these nationalists argue that international cooperation has no place anymore, they are only saying so because they have a myopic view on global affairs and they assume that everything is a zero-sum game when it, in fact, is not. For instance, many countries including Singapore have signed free trade agreements with each other because they know that doing so is mutually beneficial. The economies in Western Europe grew significantly when they removed trade barriers between each other and started to trade freely between themselves. Today, those countries are amongst the richest in the world, and their free trade benefitted every country in that region. It does not stop there. These European countries do not trade freely with anyone and everyone, they just do so between themselves. This shows that they know that they could not fully cooperate internationally because it hurts their economic interests, but they still cooperated with themselves to ‘maximise’ their national interests. Many countries across the world have also contributed to the fight against Ebola so that it would be effectively contained within Africa itself and that it would not spread and cause a pandemic within their own countries. Countries like Russia and Iran are cooperating and supporting the Assad regime in Syria not because they are doing the government forces a favour on purely ‘humanitarian grounds’, but because they want to exert their influence on the global stage and force others in the national community to acknowledge them. These examples prove that in this competitive world, international cooperation does indeed have a place, and on top of that, is essential if they want to fulfil their national interests.
Hence, in conclusion, even though there are some reasons to believe why international cooperation have no place in this competitive world, the fact that some problems cannot be solved alone and the fact that cooperation is essential to improve one’s own standing suggests otherwise. Moreover, when it comes to relieving a disaster, it is our duty as part of the international community to help a country struck by a disaster. As such, even though the world today is highly competitive and when countries across the world do things in their self-interest in order to stay competitive, international cooperation still has a place for various moral and pragmatic reasons.