Reflections on Democracy and Civil Society
About 200 years ago, a French youth scholar wrote a book called ‘Democracy in America. The man, named Tocqueville, said ‘it creates opinions, engenders sentiments, suggests the ordinary practices of life, and modifies whatever it does not produce.’ Thereby, by pursuing its tendency, comprehending its bias, arguing its characteristics and significance, we gained either dreads or hope, during thousands of years. To some extent, the debate is still lasting.
The official dictionary defined it as a ‘system’, where people of a state or polity are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly. In this sense, it is a decision-making …show more content…
Consider Robert Dahl’s famous work, How Democratic Is the American Constitution? (2001). Dahl argued that in terms of the constitution and democratic spirit, the American institution and citizens are not as democratic as we thought, and more importantly, democracy is not equal to equality. From the indirect election of presidents to the Representation in the Senate and the judicial power, if we insist the denotation of democracy, none of them confirm to equality. However, we can’t deny what we claimed as ‘democracy framework’ did facilitate American society running continuously. Thus, the key point presented by Dahl, which can convey my argument more clearly, the democracy is to realize balance of top power in a country, regardless of the presentation of freedom and equality. In addition, interestingly, most of the fathers of America are precisely ‘Tocqevillists’, who hold a doubted attitude towards democracy, as well as the ideologists from democratic society, like Hayek and …show more content…
In other word, democratization can not work without compromise. Looking through American society today, we can see democracy as well as meritocracy. Granted, according to Jürgen Habermas, effective communication is the prior purpose of the modern society. Therefore, it’s a battle between rights and rights. On the one hand, the majority can fight for their basic living by judicial system, on the other hand, the ‘elites’ can gain their vested interest. For instance, let’s see the strike of platelayers in 2006. The consequence was the maintenance of workers’ low contribution to the pension, however, simultaneously, they should pay more for the medical insurance. Accordingly, the essence of ‘Democracy Supreme’ is to offer a platform for all parties to have a positive
About 200 years ago, a French youth scholar wrote a book called ‘Democracy in America. The man, named Tocqueville, said ‘it creates opinions, engenders sentiments, suggests the ordinary practices of life, and modifies whatever it does not produce.’ Thereby, by pursuing its tendency, comprehending its bias, arguing its characteristics and significance, we gained either dreads or hope, during thousands of years. To some extent, the debate is still lasting.
The official dictionary defined it as a ‘system’, where people of a state or polity are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly. In this sense, it is a decision-making …show more content…
Consider Robert Dahl’s famous work, How Democratic Is the American Constitution? (2001). Dahl argued that in terms of the constitution and democratic spirit, the American institution and citizens are not as democratic as we thought, and more importantly, democracy is not equal to equality. From the indirect election of presidents to the Representation in the Senate and the judicial power, if we insist the denotation of democracy, none of them confirm to equality. However, we can’t deny what we claimed as ‘democracy framework’ did facilitate American society running continuously. Thus, the key point presented by Dahl, which can convey my argument more clearly, the democracy is to realize balance of top power in a country, regardless of the presentation of freedom and equality. In addition, interestingly, most of the fathers of America are precisely ‘Tocqevillists’, who hold a doubted attitude towards democracy, as well as the ideologists from democratic society, like Hayek and …show more content…
In other word, democratization can not work without compromise. Looking through American society today, we can see democracy as well as meritocracy. Granted, according to Jürgen Habermas, effective communication is the prior purpose of the modern society. Therefore, it’s a battle between rights and rights. On the one hand, the majority can fight for their basic living by judicial system, on the other hand, the ‘elites’ can gain their vested interest. For instance, let’s see the strike of platelayers in 2006. The consequence was the maintenance of workers’ low contribution to the pension, however, simultaneously, they should pay more for the medical insurance. Accordingly, the essence of ‘Democracy Supreme’ is to offer a platform for all parties to have a positive