This can slow down the political process immensely, and as the government has a mandate to put through such legislation, pressure groups become undemocratic and start to undermine the democratic process. One last reason why pressure groups undermine democracy is the fact that they themselves may be undemocratic, and the leaders of these groups may not truly represent the views of their leaders. This undermines the whole point of pressure groups groups and thus can be seen as the 'politics of self-interest' and can present the public with overbiased and false information. Overall however, pressure groups are more likely to help the democratic process rather than hinder it, as they advance and improve political participation, and as participation is a vital part of democracy, pressure groups are an important part of the UK's democracy. While pressure groups may have unbalanced influence due to varying methods and funds, they are generally good at being a channel of representation between the people and the government, keeping the government in touch with the people.
Aside from well constructed speeches and hunger strikes, the refusal to obey certain laws and the passive resistance, that is, resisting to incoming violence usually from the government, are other ways to morally protest without any physical violence. Ghandi’s march on the sea and Martin Luther King Jr.’s march on Washington are the ultimate effective peaceful demonstrations (Keating). The opposing way to support some strong cause can be through violent protesting. Violent protesting involves commiting acts which may harm people or cause damage to property. In most cases violence is used in hope of getting attention and media publicity.
Even though it might seems as a small problem, comparing to all other troubles that the nation has experienced, nonetheless it must be addressed in a timely matter because any delay in making the decision will make the issue even more severe. It might cause people’s choice of government to become much skewed. If some area has a majority of supporters for a certain party and the conditions for them to vote are beneficial, the community will be able to include all their votes, and comparing to a place that has supporters of the opposite party but has no opportunity to vote. The candidate for the election will lose that majority of votes and people will be faced with the government that only minority wanted to see in
I want to start off with discussing some pro arguments about the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine is reasonable because airwaves are a public good and belong to the people through their government. If there were a free for all, allowing anyone to broadcast on any frequency they choose, then signals would interfere with each other and prevent police, emergency and military communications from operating effectively. Radio and television frequencies are therefore not owned by broadcasting companies but only licensed to them by the state (2). Given that many more people would like
War in the Middle East “Fostering freedom will help end war because people who participate in their own government are less likely to go to war” (Gerdes 190). As long as man is on the Earth there will be some sort of conflict. People have different views, and that has been that way forever. Terrorism exists today because some people have their beliefs and do not want them to be changed. Helping these countries obtain freedom with a democratic government will give them a voice and reduce terrorism.
December, 7, 10 Political Science 201: Politics & Power Instructor: Bill Hughes Final Some people think that being free to do as we please and not having to answer or pay any dues to “the MAN” would be the good life and that everything would be so nice and dandy. These people are wrong. We need to have some sort of government to be in charge, because without any authority there would be no order in society and our country as we know it would fall apart and turn to shit. Although we can’t have totally liberty the government still has to give us a just form of freedom because without that we would be slaves to the government and have no purpose in life but to serve the head of the regime. In order to run a society for the people we would have to give everyone the right and opportunity to make what they want of themselves unless of
This proves that CSOs are capable of bringing changes on different levels that help protect the vulnerable from threats and develop their rights. Pressure from domestic audience On a smaller scale, the pressure from domestic population plays a deciding factor on securitising threats as well. Governments, needing to maintain legitimacy with its people, would have to address threats faced by its people. If there are issues that threatens the human security of the people, it is likely that protests and riots will be started. If the matters continue to be disregarded, the government would then face threats on their own accountability to the people and their right to rule.
Democracy respects the human rights of the individuals, better than any other form of government. Without going into confusing arguments, let's stop and think for a moment. If you are a leader of a democratic nation and you are abusing your power or using your power in the wrong way to restrict or violate somebody else's rights, what will happen? There are two possible outcomes. You can be blamed or voted out of your position, both of which ensure the removal of the leader from abusing society.
Citizens should be encouraged to embrace their citizenship, and not merely as a duty, but as a meaningful opportunity to participate in their own government for the sake of common good and in building the culture of life. In addition, it is an exercise of significant individual power. Now, most Americans will tell you that our politicians have all the power, but I disagree. Although it is true that our politicians do make the laws, here in the United States of America, the people have the authority. If an individual does not vote, then that individual cannot argue or comment on the outcome of what our politicians do.
The political state of a nation which determines the liberality of the media also contributes Putting these reasons aside, the media also have times in which it does not act in public’s interest. This is due to factors such as the vested interests of various media owners as well as the lack of regulation of the media by authorities due to its self-regulating nature could result in the media to not act in the public interest. Therefore, even though in reality, the media do not always act in the interest of the public, the media do try to act in the public’s interest most of the time due to the high expectations from the public. Due to the public’s high expectations of the media, the media do act in the interest of the public all the time in terms of the accessibility to a variety of information. This is because the pervasive nature of the media thus leads to an immense power to deliver information that has the potential to influence people’s lives, which includes their thinking and beliefs.