Democracy, like many things in life, is an idealistic system. Defined as “a government by the people” by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, democratic rule cannot be achieved without active participation by voters, an increasingly rare phenomenon in the industrialized world (“democracy”; Gray 1092). Without citizens actively undertaking their civic duty, democracy cannot run the way it was intended to.
There are many reasons constituents may choose not to vote, and perhaps, the issue is not in the voters as much as the system itself. Abraham Lincoln once claimed, “To give victory to the right, not bloody bullets, but peaceful ballots only, are necessary” (Lincoln). But what if there is no “right” candidate? For example, many would argue the 2016 …show more content…
From separation of Church and State to theocracies, rulers have embraced both extremes of integrating and divorcing religion from politics. The Christian worldview appreciates and employs the value of integrating absolute truth in the creation of a governmental system. This idea of an absolute moral standard is what allows us to differentiate between good and evil, since relative morality wouldn’t allow a government to condemn any action, as it would be “right” in each perpetrator’s eyes. Therefore, even an inherently secular government must adhere to certain undeniable moral standards and undertake the responsibility to legislate certain values that are irrefutable, such as prohibiting murder or criminalizing …show more content…
The prime minister is chosen by the majority in the lower house and approved by a two-thirds majority in the upper house in order to avoid total party dominance. He or she, in turn, chooses the cabinet members. The upper house elects the president with a two thirds majority, and while the president is mainly a ceremonial role, he or she plays a crucial role in the inner workings of the government. Firstly, the president acts as a tiebreaker in the upper house, only voting when needed. Secondly, in a time of crisis, which can be declared by a two-thirds majority in the upper house, the cabinet has a two-week period to take action and get that action approved by a simple majority in both the upper and lower houses. If the cabinet fails, he president gains power and can use executive orders to deal with the situation quickly and effectively. The president is given a two-week period, after which the lower house votes on whether or not the crisis has ended. If it has not, power goes back to the cabinet and the system cycles through again. Since the president was elected by the upper house, an establishment from which all have equal footing, idealistically this woman or man should be a moderate, level-headed person who has experience in politics and can deal with extreme situations wisely and effectively. Even with this safeguard, it can be assumed that most members of government would not want extreme
There are many reasons constituents may choose not to vote, and perhaps, the issue is not in the voters as much as the system itself. Abraham Lincoln once claimed, “To give victory to the right, not bloody bullets, but peaceful ballots only, are necessary” (Lincoln). But what if there is no “right” candidate? For example, many would argue the 2016 …show more content…
From separation of Church and State to theocracies, rulers have embraced both extremes of integrating and divorcing religion from politics. The Christian worldview appreciates and employs the value of integrating absolute truth in the creation of a governmental system. This idea of an absolute moral standard is what allows us to differentiate between good and evil, since relative morality wouldn’t allow a government to condemn any action, as it would be “right” in each perpetrator’s eyes. Therefore, even an inherently secular government must adhere to certain undeniable moral standards and undertake the responsibility to legislate certain values that are irrefutable, such as prohibiting murder or criminalizing …show more content…
The prime minister is chosen by the majority in the lower house and approved by a two-thirds majority in the upper house in order to avoid total party dominance. He or she, in turn, chooses the cabinet members. The upper house elects the president with a two thirds majority, and while the president is mainly a ceremonial role, he or she plays a crucial role in the inner workings of the government. Firstly, the president acts as a tiebreaker in the upper house, only voting when needed. Secondly, in a time of crisis, which can be declared by a two-thirds majority in the upper house, the cabinet has a two-week period to take action and get that action approved by a simple majority in both the upper and lower houses. If the cabinet fails, he president gains power and can use executive orders to deal with the situation quickly and effectively. The president is given a two-week period, after which the lower house votes on whether or not the crisis has ended. If it has not, power goes back to the cabinet and the system cycles through again. Since the president was elected by the upper house, an establishment from which all have equal footing, idealistically this woman or man should be a moderate, level-headed person who has experience in politics and can deal with extreme situations wisely and effectively. Even with this safeguard, it can be assumed that most members of government would not want extreme