We have been blessed to grow up in a democracy that, at least on paper, ensures equal rights for all. We believe in this form of government so much that we want to share it with the world and believe it will benefit men and women everywhere. However, Chua claims that implementing a democracy will not immediately solve a country's problems.
Read one of the following articles or choose another article from the NY Times--Discuss it and incorporate ideas or claims from Chua.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/middleeast/31egypt.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/elections/index.html
Read one of the following articles or choose another article from the NY Times--Discuss it and incorporate ideas or claims from Chua.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/middleeast/31egypt.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/elections/index.html
25 comments:
Well this article is very clearly speaking about the government situation in Egypt and how their elections for president are coming up soon. From the looks of it the military powers that are in control right now are concerned that if they issue voting ballots it would be too soon for the people to know what party is really going to help them out. They feel that the Muslim Brotherhood will take control of Egypt if they have elections this November and these military powers would prefer for this group not to be in power due to their terrorist ideals. They feel that democracy is would be better and their ideals have been taken from that of the American constitution and so on. They feel that democracy might solve or help their current problems, but this comes back to Amy Chua’s ideal that free market and democracy may not solve all our problems. There should be more done to solve or reform their government in order to create that system of democracy they want. For example they say that their next president is limited to two eight year periods by the power invested in their constitution yet if the president is really not doing a good job it may not be a good idea to let him run the country that long and make matters worse. The U.S. limits the president to run the country for two four year periods which I feel is more efficient than that of Egypt’s longer terms. Therefore I feel that democracy may not help them in this instance as agreeing with that of Amy Chua’s idea of democracy. Their new system seems like it will be much more efficient than that of Mubarak’s of course because he made the decisions as a dictator but it is important for them to pick a president or someone to step in and run the nation because if not the people will start to feel a sense of fatigue or irritation that things aren’t concrete or established yet. Overall there new form of government seems to resemble that of the United States in a sense of democracy and their government structure which in end turns out being globalization.
Response to Richard Cervantes,
Do you know who The Muslim Brotherhood is? The Muslim Brotherhood is also known as Muslim Brethren; in other words, Society of Muslim Brothers. The Muslim Brotherhood is the world’s oldest and largest Islamic organization that even America and the world have never heard of. “The Brotherhood’s goal has been to promote the implementation of Shari’ah (Islamic law derived from the Quran and the Sunnah)” (“The Muslim Brother”). Their famous motto is “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Because of their strong belief and their violent past combined with the power of media, Egypt is afraid that the well-organized group will become the new dictator so they turn to Democracy. However, Amy Chua states “that the global spread of…democracy is a principle aggravating cause of group hatred…throughout the non-Western world.” I think she is right because democracy is not the right solution for every country. Individual countries practice their cultures in different ways so they way that they have ruled their countries for centuries cannot be change overnight. It is easy to say that democracy is the answer but how can a country changes its government just because they people said so. For instance, if the world attack China tomorrow and demand China to change their government system from communism to democracy, do you think every Chinese citizen would be happy or confused and scared? I believe that changing a government system is complicated especially when a country makes a huge transition from dictatorship to democracy. Democracy is the ideal government and if they can get there then that’s great but obliviously it will not be easy and especially choosing the right leader instead of another demagogue.
By:Mary Mayout
In the article “Elections in Egypt by the Fall, leaders Say” clearly states that Egypt is looking forward to a new president since the previous president named Hosni Mubarak stepped down. However, is this a good thing for Egypt to look forward to a new president? Additionally with the new president a new parliament will be established that will launch a new constitution that will have to be approved by the Egyptians. Amy Chua a professor from Yale University would have to disagree with the uprising of a new democracy. In her article she states, “I believe, rather, that the global spread of markets and democracy is a principal aggravating cause of a group hatred and ethnic violence thought the non-western world.” Its true what Amy states because parliament is establishing a new constitution that will be referendum from the people and the majority might disagree because of their beliefs or views. And even then if the majority is right their will still be radical people that will disagree with the new constitution and will want reform. For example the Muslim Brotherhood stated in the article will have a big influence in the results of the new constitution. That’s why the liberals want more time for the election so the people can be unbiased. Even though there is a new president and parliament the beliefs of these political leaders will affect the constitution like stated in the article; that Islam is the state religion and bans the formation of religious parties. These countries that are looking for democracy need constitutional constraints, tailored to local realities, as Amy believes. Personally Egypt needs to first establish a form of bill of rights like the United States has. Then no ones rights will be diminished and there will be no protests to the government of corruption. However, there really is no other great form of government that will keep a country united like the United States. On the other hand not every country has the beliefs and views as the United States. Overall not every country is ready for democracy because democracy can lead to violence and anger based on the beliefs of the people and their views.
-Fidencio Romero
In the New York Times article “Iraq Elections,” voters recently elected a new Parliament and Prime minister. This type of an election is known as a democracy because the people are the government, they are the ones voting and making the decisions. Although they thought the results of the election would help the country’s political turmoil, it actually ended up making it worse. This type of an election is known as a democracy because the people are the government, they are the ones voting and making the decisions. This example helps support Amy Chua’s claim that democracy’s can actually harm the people rather then help in certain situations. This article talks about the importance of majority. For example the Kurds who “were needed to create a majority.” Although I am still slightly confused on the main claims of Chua’s minority and majority issues, I think she disagrees with this type of government. The majority, just like the examples of ethnic majorities in many countries in her article called “A World On Edge”, often harm rather then help. In those cases, majority rule is not always the best way to go when it becomes detrimental to people other then themselves, the minority.
My personal opinion in this instance of elections in Iraq is a good thing. If I am right about the government they previously had, actually having voters be able to go to the voting stand without being threatened or harmed is already a major step. People in that country are given more freedom by being able to vote, vote for what they want. By creating a majority means the people with have a bigger say then they did before.
Jake Schlichting says-
The article regarding Iraq and their increased tensions following the elections of march 2010 is very concerning because it shows that democracy in that country is failing to bring peace to the country. They voted to decide on a new prime minister and parliament. The vote between candidates Nuri Kamal al Malakli and Ayad Allawi was a close 89 to 91, too close to determine a majority winner. This close of a decision can be attributed to the fact that Iraq is made up of two religious groups the Shiites and the Sunnis. Malakli has been trying to organize an arrangement of the Kurds to gain votes bringing him within distance of a majority vote to win the parliament and prime minister election. The problem with an election of this sort is that each candidate represents religious factions of both the Sunni and the Shiite. Malakli is running for office on behalf of the Shiites and Allawi on behalf of the Sunnis. The country currently has a divide of 60 to 40, Shiite/Sunni. American officials are currently attempting to promote the Sunni cause who originally held the most power in the government prior to U.S. intervention in 2005. Amy Chua is correct in her claim that democracy will not solve problems. The Shiites and the Sunnis are too opposed of each other to coexist in a democracy because they are only interested in their own needs. Iraq has an unstable government under a democracy which will eventually lead to rebellion and violence.
In the Iraq elections, there seems to be a bitter dispute between two sides, the Shiites and the Sunnis. This democratic election between the two sides created more opposition and tension in Iraq. Chua believes democracy is a factor in this response. There is a problem in this election because the Sunnis are underrepresented and a minority in the election process creating tension between the majority of Shiites. They tried to create a legislation process to allow more representatives for the Sunnis but "the preparations instead highlighted the continuing conflicts between the country's parties and ethnic groups, raising tensions before the official campaigning even began". Their efforts to create more democracy between the two groups ended up in more tension and actually pushed back the election process. Chua believes that the spread of democracy actually increases ethnic hatred and violence. She claims that "the global spread...of democracy is a principal aggravating cause of group hatred and ethnic violence throughout the non-Western worlds"(Chua 68). The problems with democracy is evident as "election Day on March 7 was marked by violence that left at least 38 dead...The vote counting process proved to be more chaotic than expected, with accusations of fraud by leading parties, divisions among highly politicized electoral officials and chaos in disclosing the results." Considering the Shiites make up 60% of the population they are clearly a majority which creates bitterness and tension between the minority, Sunnis, especially during an election process. Chua asserts that these democracies create tension between a "frustrated 'indigenous' majority, easily aroused by opportunistic, vote seeking politicians, against a resented, wealthy ethnic minority"(Chua 66). The problems between the two parties in this democracy was also evident in the recount. The region of Baghdad accounts for more than 1/5 of the 12 million Iraqis and this change could severely upend Maliki's chances. Then the election court disqualified nine winning candidates for Mr. Allawi and threw out losing candidates that were also on Mr. Allwai's side. It seems as this election went on way longer because of the conflicts between the two groups and the differences in power, one being a minority the other a majority.
In the New York Times article, "Iraq Elections", they explain how in the process of implementing a new democratic government they run into problems, and are resisted by the groups in Iraq. Amy Chua discovered this in her article "The World on Edge", and she demonstrates how placing democracy into a nation might be the best to place "hope" for a better future, but it only creates problems in the present. In this situation democracy in trying to be place into the Iraq government and are trying to do this through elections. She continues to explain that when other democratic nations that love free markets try to push for democracy, problems will exist. As the U.S. and Obama push for these elections as they were willing to go to war, they are producing more problems with the ethnic groups in Iraq. One of the ways the nation will resist according to Amy Chua is through violence. When the elections are taking place in Iraq, the increase of political turmoil is seen and the minority and ethnic group violence also increases. Although America is just trying to help Iraq for a better government for the future, they are just creating more problems. Some of the possible reasons maybe that other nations take great interest of placing a democratic government in Iraq is to establish a well connection with their markets or even have a free market in it because its abundance in oil, or maybe its just truly to help them.
The article “Elections in Egypt by the Fall Leaders Say” by Amr Emam states the problems that the country of Egypt faces due to the fact that there are going to be elections this upcoming November. The issues that are being addressed are the fact that the election gives the people the opportunity to vote for the person who they may want to run their country. This idea of democracy and giving the people a chance to voice their opinion as to whom they want to run for office, directly correlates with the ideals that Amy Chua has. Although these two ideas mesh together well, they do not work because of the situation in which Egypt is in. Since the most recent person in control of the government was recently overthrown, in February, coming to a concrete conclusion as to who the people of Egypt want in office may not be properly determined in such a short amount of time. Another issue that a lot of people see with such a rush to elect a new person into office as president is the fact that there is a group called the Muslim Brotherhood, who in previous time’s has had a direct domination when running for office. The issue that is being faced with this is that many don’t want the Egyptians to be brainwashed by the extremist views that this group may have. Some of the positive things that the interim government has set into place are for example the fact that any president that comes into power can only run for a maximum of two eight year terms. There are limitations that are being put into place; although there are benefits that are coming from a new surging government there still needs to be more emphasis into bringing a government that will allow the people to voice their opinion. There also needs to be a better informed public in order to bring the best possible president into power, someone who will put their country’s concerns first. This is the only way that a democracy will work in these struggling countries.
-Sergio Camacho
"Elections in Egypt by the Fall Leaders Say” by Amr Emam discusses the problems Egypt faces as they prepare themselves for the upcoming election on November. The election will be held in order for citizens to decide on their new president because this past February their recent president was overthrown. In this article Emam feels that the Egyptians may be short on time and during this short time could lead to rash and unsure decisions. The people of Egypt feel like a democracy would be of best interest to this country however this relates back to Amy Chua's idea that a free market democracy doesn't always necessarily work. Sure, this new president could come in and begin to run the country in more of a democracy but if people disagree and want to rebel they most likely will. However, most people feel as if a new president would bring stability and safety to their country but they fail to realize that along with a new president comes a new constitution. The new constitution is said to have many similar laws as the old one, when Honsi was president, along with eight new amendments. The people feel that during this short time and with all these changes it could lead to groups like the Muslim brotherhood to take advantage of the situation. Although these changes could essentially strengthen Egypt's government there will continue to be people who disagree with the new president's decisions. If Egypt can organize themselves and ultimately follow these new president's rules they can be in more of a democracy and soon enough change their country for the better as a whole.
(I’m responding to the Iraqi Election article as if this was part of Chua’s claim.) Amy Chua claims that quick spread of democratic government and free-market capitalism, lead by the United States to impoverished countries have worsened the conditions because, and it has created a large market-dominating class. More specifically she claims that ethnicity plays large role in the combination’s “combustibility.” However, Chua’s argument is flawed because there are more examples of combination that have succeeded than there are failures. Almost all modern countries in South America have stabilized societies because of democracy and capitalism. Specifically Argentina, Chile, and Brazil, although I’m not certain that there is one class that dominates the Market. Throughout Asia, there remains to be many problems because capitalism is established, but democracy is absent. This creates opportunities for the rich to become richer and the poor to stay poor because the poor are not able to voice their thoughts or vote.
The New York Times article about the Iraqi elections explains that getting the opposing parties to cooperate has been extremely problematic. Because this attempt at democracy hasn’t succeeded does not prove that the system is bad. In fact, the main reason that democratic elections in Iraq have been troublesome is that the politic are controlled by religious animosity. Democracy doesn’t work in the Middle East because the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds want to kill each other over religious purposes.
Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” The message of this quote emphasizes that Democracy isn’t all that bad once you consider the other options. In direct response to Amy Chua, what would you have the Philippines do to fix the minority-dominating markets or the election issues in Iraq? I don’t see feudalism making a comeback…
As Andrew Kuper said, “There is no royal road to poverty relief;” there must be cooperation from all conglomerates.
From the article, we can see that the election is based on majority rule which almost all democracy countries use. Democracy, generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. In other words, all people equal; everyone has the right to vote and to be voted. Majority rule is a decision rule that selects alternatives which have a majority, that is, more than half the votes. It is the binary decision rule used most often in influential decision-making bodies, including the legislatures of democratic nations. By definition, majority rule is a way which follows the democracy, but actually, it is not. In many situations, it is not working. For example, when the majority is just 51%, it is still considered majority. In this circumstance, is the 51% people show the idea and opinion of all people? Of course not. Amy Chua, states in the article “A World on the Edge”, “For better or worse, the best hope for global free-market democracy lies with market-dominant minorities themselves. This is adamantly not to blame these groups for the ethno nationalist eruptions against them. But it is to suggest that they may be in the best position to address today’s most pressing challenges”. The world market is determined by developed countries. For example, “In 1998 Chinese Indonesians, only three percent of the population controlled roughly 70 percent of Indonesia’s private economy, including all of the country’s largest conglomerates.” Minority Chinese are determining the majority Indonesians, where majority role does not fit. It is the same situation of the Egypt election right now. It is obvious that the Muslim Brotherhood will take control of the whole country, the minority is taking control of the majority people in the nowadays.
Amy Chua's argument is about democracy and it not being able to solve all of the issues going on. The article connects with Chua's argument because with the Egyption elections coming up, it is believe that if the adopt a similar democracy as America has, that overall the country would prosper. But a new president might not be the best idea for Egypt just yet. Even if Egypt decides to adopt the American type of democracy, there will always be a group of people going against the government thinking that everything they do is simply wrong. I believe Egypt should first try and form some other sort of establishment and also wait a while in order for everyone to be educated of what exactly they will vote on. Even in the United States, where practically everyone has access to the internet, television, radio, etc, arent fully educated on what exactly will be on the next ballot.
The article about Iraq elections makes me think about the things that take for granted, like being able to have peace and to vote. The election that they are referencing in this article is the elections of March 2010 where they voted to determine who would be the new prime minister and parliament. The elections are basically between two sides that are the Shiites and the Sunnis. The voting results came out to being super close, 89 to 91 so they couldn’t decide a majority. Malakli, one of the runners, was able to gain votes bringing him within distance of a majority vote to win the parliament and prime minister election. I don’t think this is right because of the fact that Malakli’s religious background is of the Shiites’ so he represents them. The reason why I don’t agree with this is because of the fact that people are voting based on religious background and not because they agree with the ideas of the person that is running. In the article, “A World on Edge” Amy Chua claims that in some situations democracy will harm its citizens rather than help them. The Shiites and the Sunnis are too busy fighting and hating one another that they will not be able to agree on something. If they continue fighting and hating each other than they will just suffer they way they are now and not really get anywhere. They are only concerned with what the people in their own religion need and want. Iraq government should try improving their country by setting an example that regardless of religion they are still working together. If they show their citizens that they can work together regardless of their religious background, than the citizens would do the same. If Iraq do not make changes soon than they will just end up being in a war with one another with many deaths.
Katarina Panciu
The article called “Iraq Elections” is the complete and prime example of Amy Chua’s claims that democracy isn’t the only factor to solve any country’s problems. The election that was held in Iraq on March 7, 2010 was recorded to be the most competitive election in their nation’s history. The willingness to compete for power rather than put forth change for the greater good of it’s people creates an ongoing war amongst the Iraqis, and even for every individual all over the world, who have corrupt political systems. When the article explains that it took weeks on end to go about a compromise, such agreements were only finalized due to power driven deadlines. Chua explains that the global spread of markets and democracy are fueled by the tensions and aggravation of those who are unrepresented, which in the article “Iraq Elections” says Iraq called for the creation of a committee overseeing national security which was pushed by Obama himself, to ensure the involvement of Sunnis, Iraq’s former rulers. Chua also says that such things create “ethnic envy and hatred among often chronically poor majorities” which is what the Sunnis are now categorized as. Elections in this case built more rising problems between Iraq’s party and ethnic groups before the official campaigning even started, because events such as these exacerbate apprehension between different groups of people rather than relieve them for example when Chua says “especially when government leaders are themselves ethnic partisans.” Bitter conflicts such as the one seen from the removal of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki who represented the Sunnis and Shiites from candidacy, which was overturned by an appeals court which in return paved way for more issues concerning the underrepresented population in Iraq. The dispute amongst the Shiite parties in regards to who should be prime minister and the factor of fairness and democracy was put into play during the running of Mr. Allawim and Mr. Maliki’s ethnic groups because even though there were obvious statistics showing the number in votes, decisions were primarily made off of “agreements.” Vague compromises are created, but everyone knows such things will always have implied powers behind them, which I would compare, to our U.S. Bill of Rights.
A presidential election held in Cairo, Egypt and the implementation of an interim constitution for the country displays the democratic nature of Egypt's government, an aspect of globalization that, Amy Chua warns "is a principal aggravating cause of a group hatred and ethnic violence through the non-western world." In this case however, Egypt seems to be doing just fine, with the overthrow of their previous leader Hosni Mubarak and the establishment of a state religion with the banning of parties based on religious grounds seem to display the voter's conscious avoidance of conflict. Displaying that democracy, while it may not work in some places, can certainly work in others. Although, the declaration of Islam as the state religion can cause future conflict between the Islamic majority and the minorities. As Amy Chua states, "because markets and democracy benefit different ethnic groups in such societies, the persuit of free-market democracy produces highly unstable and combustible conditions." There may, in fact be trouble down the road in this aspect of their new governance.
In the article "Elections in Egypt by the fall, Leaders Say" it is talking about how Egypt's military rulers have the power, but by issuing ballots now it could possibly be too soon to clearly develop the right party to choose. They feel that this could lead to a negative result by having the wrong party in control. An example they gave was the Muslim Brotherhood, which they claimed is a well-organized group but the liberals don't believe that they are a good party to support. People don't want this process to be rushed because it could prove to be a major stepping stone for the government to positively affect their country. The majority of people belive that an elction of a new president would help to contibute in a more positve way than a group such as the "Muslim Brotherhood". The new constitution that is being announced makes the Egyptian government look much more solid and give people more rights. This new government idea that they are coming up with somewhat resembles that of the U.S. and could definately take a turn for the better in Egypt.
The article “Iraq Elections” in the New York Times explains the various difficulties that have resulted from the attempt to set up a new democracy. The biggest issue for Iraq seems to be the ever-present conflicts between the Shiites and the Sunnis which continues to escalate. Amy Chua’s article “A World on Edge” attributes this conflict between the two groups to the democratic government. The Iraqi government set new guidelines for the new election process in an attempt to be more democratic. The government’s granting of more rights to the underrepresented Sunni, worsening the discords between the Sunni minority and the Shiite majority. Chua asserts that the problems that have already arisen will give way to even more hatred and possibly violence. In the whole voting process, it is difficult to give both the Sunnis and the Shiites equal footing due to the fact that the Shiites make up about 60% of the population. Equality in this case is difficult to obtain because the Shiite majority ceases to peacefully accept any new rights that are granted to the minority. Because of this, the democracy is actually harming Iraq more than benefitting it. The United States cannot expect a democracy to be the panacea for every single country’s problems. Chua’s claim that democracy causes violence in non-Western nations certainly applies to a country in which there is already so much turmoil between the distinct ethnic groups. I think that the push for democracy does not work for certain countries like Iraq. The violence that has taken place because of the attempt at equal elections is only further evidence that a democracy only escalates the conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites.
Within the New York Times article titled “Iraqi Elections”, the differences between the Shiite and Sunni religious groups with regards to Iraq’s political environment are detailed. The article discusses the “most competitive election in the nation’s long history of colonial rule, dictatorship and war” by focusing on the tensions and political turmoil between former Sunni interim leader Ayad Allawi and Shiite Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Essentially, the country of Iraq has been working towards creating a reformed government by creating a coalition to construct a new political arena within Iraq. However, unequal distribution among Shiite and Sunni representation in the Parliament has “added to rather than reduced the country’s political turmoil and ended up reinforcing rather than easing the country’s sectarian tensions”. According to statistics provided within the article, Shiites make up 60 percent of Iraq’s population. In an attempt to give proper representation for Sunni’s in the government, the Obama administration pushed for a “newly created committee overseeing national security” which would “ensure the participation of Sunnis”. However, preparations for elections within Iraq lead to “continuing conflicts between the country’s parties and ethnic groups, raising tensions before the official campaigning even began”. Essentially, the political situation within Iraq revolving around allowing democracy to prevail through proper representation and democratic elections accurately demonstrates the claim formulated by Amy Chua in her article titled “A World on the Edge”. Chua claims, “the spread of markets and democracy is a principal aggravating cause of group hatred and ethnic violence throughout the non-Western world”. Although the implementation of democracy within Iraq empowers individuals, its sudden introduction has many severe and negative implications. For example, the article states that “[e]lection day on March 7 was marked by violence that left at least 38 dead”. Furthermore, democracy does not ensure equal representation for all members of the population, specifically the Sunni religious group, as they are an underrepresented group. Essentially, democracy would call for a “majority rules” ideal, which would create greater tension among political and religious groups. Thereby, I believe rapid introduction of democracy within Iraq can cause more harm, opposition, and separation among the Sunni and Shiite’s.
In the article “Iraq Elections” in the New York Times, detailed explanations surround the issue of the upcoming elections in Egypt. Egypt is attempting to fix their broken government and set up a new democracy after the overthrow and forced stepped step down of their old president Hosni Mubarak. Egypt seems to be on the right path of setting up a democracy for their country however concern arises as they see that well-organized groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood or National Democratic Party (which was overthrown already) might get an advantage with an early vote. Both groups have already ruled unopposed. In her article “A World on Edge” Amy Chua explains that democracy is a bad thing and will cause ethnic hatred and eventually do more harm than good. It seems to me that the elections held in Iraq are a fit example of Amy Chua’s article. In an attempt to instill democracy and be more globalized Iraq has created tension between two of their groups—the underrepresented Sunni, and the Shiite majority. The Iraq elections aided the political turmoil in the country rather than reducing it, which appears that Iraq’s attempt to democratize is doing more harm than good, similar to Chua’s claims. The Shiites had hoped that this new democracy would bring them more representation, but it produced the opposite effect and every new law coming to pass that blocks old wrong doings, such as disqualifying 500 candidates linked to Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party, causes even more problems than it solves. By blocking even these candidates, which clearly represents some form of corruption, assuming they are under the same values from their former leader, people of Iraq saw this as an attempt to block competition. Even this small endeavor, caused conflict between the ethnic groups and eventually was overturned. In an effort to instill a new government, the country of Iraq had caused itself to be in more political hardships than ever before. The Shiites and the Sunni are more in conflict with each other and now hatred has formed between the two ethnic groups as a result of Iraq being more globalized. There is a conflict within the minority and majority groups of Iraq, a problem that Chua for saw, because of democracy. All in all, Chua’s claims that democracy does more harm than good is strengthened by the Elections in Iraq, however adding my own personal opinion, I believe that a step towards democracy is a good thing. Though there are many hardships right now, something needed to be done to relieve Iraq from its old corrupt ways, though this may start new ones, I am hopeful that democracy will prove better in the long run.
Rashele Rodriguez
Although it is great that Egypt is making a change and switching up their government. It seems that the military is still controlling everything and the only thing the people get to vote on is the President and that’s not the entire government. I also think that they aren't educating the people enough about government and like another student said the people do not know much about the parties and it is a concern they will not know the best choice for their future. They must be educated about the parties and who the ideal choice for them to move forward would be. In addition, they said that they threw out the old constitution with the old President that stepped down but that it was very similar. In order to get a good new start that works they must either start by adapting ours because clearly it has been working for years, and then go on to amend it to a better fit for them, or they must sit down before the elections to construct a new one. I think this because I believe it is more important to have a well working constitution before a new President.
I also feel that Amy Chua would agree with me on that because she believes in democracy however, the places that are trying it out aren't taking on the whole idea that has been useful for us and that is why she believes that its not always the answer, because democracy by itself is no good. However, what we have made of it is what works, and that is what other countries need to see.
Rashele Rodriguez
Although it is great that Egypt is making a change and switching up their government. It seems that the military is still controlling everything and the only thing the people get to vote on is the President and that’s not the entire government. I also think that they aren't educating the people enough about government and like another student said the people do not know much about the parties and it is a concern they will not know the best choice for their future. They must be educated about the parties and who the ideal choice for them to move forward would be. In addition, they said that they threw out the old constitution with the old President that stepped down but that it was very similar. In order to get a good new start that works they must either start by adapting ours because clearly it has been working for years, and then go on to amend it to a better fit for them, or they must sit down before the elections to construct a new one. I think this because I believe it is more important to have a well working constitution before a new President.
I also feel that Amy Chua would agree with me on that because she believes in democracy however, the places that are trying it out aren't taking on the whole idea that has been useful for us and that is why she believes that its not always the answer, because democracy by itself is no good. However, what we have made of it is what works, and that is what other countries need to see.
What is a democracy? In the United States a democracy is a type of government in which all eligible voters have the opportunity to choose who governs them in hopes that they will be fairly represented. In other nations a democracy can be much worse, in nations with a past of dictatorship or strong government control they sometimes implement the voting styles of democracy but things don't always turn out as the people envision. The Kurds who became elected felt that they needed to become a majority and this is one of the reasons Amy Chua believes a democracy is not for all nations. With the Kurds and Mr. Maliki returning to power again it didnt actually help but it hurt. The Sunni's whom were neglected in past years would now again have to deal with the under representation once again. Once a party becomes a majority it now has the say so on what goes on and this can lead to the nation turning into whatever it wants. As Amy Chua states democracy may work in some places but to try to implement it throughout the world will never work and is just simply a bad idea because it can have a negative affect such as that in Iraq. In some nations were the government is not as corrupt and wont just kill for control as of that of the United States then the government is more efficient and in this case a democracy is not a bad idea at all but when the government doesn't want to change things and make things better for its citizens like that of Iraq democracy is a terrible thing because the elected officials only want power so they can control things the way they want that will benefit only those who are of their following and not the entire nation. With an election in the United States not every individual believes in all the candidates nor votes for only of the candidates. But once a president is chosen the president doesnt only tend to the needs and wants of those who beleived in him before he was elected but he does what is right for the entire nation which will benefit the majority of the nation.
As I was reading the article on the Iraq elections I remembered many things that Chua talked about in her article. It seems right to help developing countries create a democracy that gives equality for all and that is ran by the people. Unfortunately if the majority has been abused and oppressed by the minority in this countries thing can go very bad. It seems unfair to think about the idea that the minority can rule the majority of the people because we have always been taught that democracy is the best system in the world because the people have the control. Having control over people that have harmed you all your life and made your ancestors life miserable things do not follow so easy. The article address that the United States had to step in to make the minority count at this time they are the Sunni. The Sunni have ruled for many years and now that we got involved and started to create a democracy things were not easy for them. The majority did not want to give them any say because they have been oppressed for years by the old regime. This illustrates what Chua claims in her article democracy is not always that answer and that we should look at history to see if it really is helpful for the United States to force democracy in developing countries. I think that things have not been so problematic with the government in Iraq because the troops are still there helping to protect the people and also helping the government stay on its feet. I think that the troop are coming home soon so we have to see if there is going to be a backlash like Chua was talking about in her article. I also wonder if the government is going to be as powerful as the terrorists groups in that area to keep them in check. It is not going to be easy at all things are always rough at the beginning of new government. At lest for us we bet the British so they went home but for the citizens of Iraq they still have to deal with the people that oppressed them for years.
Jazmin Rodriguez
As I was reading the article on the Iraq elections I remembered many things that Chua talked about in her article. It seems right to help developing countries create a democracy that gives equality for all and that is ran by the people. Unfortunately if the majority has been abused and oppressed by the minority in this countries thing can go very bad. It seems unfair to think about the idea that the minority can rule the majority of the people because we have always been taught that democracy is the best system in the world because the people have the control. Having control over people that have harmed you all your life and made your ancestors life miserable things do not follow so easy. The article address that the United States had to step in to make the minority count at this time they are the Sunni. The Sunni have ruled for many years and now that we got involved and started to create a democracy things were not easy for them. The majority did not want to give them any say because they have been oppressed for years by the old regime. This illustrates what Chua claims in her article democracy is not always that answer and that we should look at history to see if it really is helpful for the United States to force democracy in developing countries. I think that things have not been so problematic with the government in Iraq because the troops are still there helping to protect the people and also helping the government stay on its feet. I think that the troop are coming home soon so we have to see if there is going to be a backlash like Chua was talking about in her article. I also wonder if the government is going to be as powerful as the terrorists groups in that area to keep them in check. It is not going to be easy at all things are always rough at the beginning of new government. At lest for us we bet the British so they went home but for the citizens of Iraq they still have to deal with the people that oppressed them for years.
The overthrow in Egypt, and a call for democracy was what the majority group wanted. Egypt is a fairly stable country, which is also not economically dependent on a racial minority group. I believe the call for democracy by the country of Egypt, and the belief of Chua does not exactly connect in this situation. Chua’s belief is that countries that are basically dominated by a wealthy minority groups will bring racist thoughts upon that group by the majority. She believes that the majority group will call for radical actions against this majority group, because of the feeling of suppression that the majority group feels due to the economic gap between races. The situation in Egypt shows that they want economic reform, and forced the President Hosni Mubarak to step down. They made changes in their government by voting on new amendments which voters approved and also limiting the presidential terms to two eight year terms. The overthrow of Mr. Mubarak was not due to his racial dominance of the country as Chua states will cause chaos within the country. Chua believes that it is the combination of a racially dominant minority and a racially suppressed majority that causes racial tension and radical beliefs when democracy is implemented. I believe Egypt is doing a good job in voting for their amendments and making a change in their government, which is best for the majority of the population. It is what the majority of Egypt wants, and is not based on blaming a racially dominant minority for the problems the country has had in the past. The economic reform that is taking place in Egypt is how Chua believes democracy will actually work in a country. The only suppressive aspect of the new constitution is the declaration of Islam and the state religion and the ban of forming parties based on religious grounds. This does not allow people to base political parties based on religion, but their aren’t political parties in the United States that are based on religion either.
Post a Comment