| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "LIBERAL DEMOCRACY MULTICULTURALISM": |
|
|
Liberal Democracy and Multiculturalism, 2003.
The relationship between Liberal Democracy and multiculturalism in Canada.
1,942 words (approx. 7.8 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay argues that among the inherent tensions between liberal democracy and multiculturalism, the most problematic is the conflict between equality of political rights, which is fundamental to liberal democracy, and the notion of collective rights, which is fundamental to multiculturalism. Nonetheless, this tension can be overcome and it is argued that multiculturalism in fact supports some elements of liberal democracy such as political participation. In order to clarify this argument, the writer begins with defining multiculturalism, liberal democracy and basic principles of liberal democracy.
From the Paper
"A policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework commends itself to the Government as the most suitable means of assuring the cultural freedom of Canadians??A vigorous policy of multiculturalism will help form??the base of a society which is based on fair play for all.?? (Pierre Trudeau, 1971 qtd in Multiculturalism and the Government of Canada 1) It has been thirty years since Prime Minister Trudeau announced this multiculturalism policy. During these twenty years, not only Canada, but also other nations that have adopted the policy of multiculturalism have experienced both challenges to and support of multiculturalism from diverse groups. Social issues emerging from multiculturalism have become more and more complex. In nations like Canada, Switzerland, Belgium and Spain, liberal democracy coexists with multiculturalism and questions arise concerning these two principles: how does multiculturalism fit into liberal democratic society? Does the principle of multiculturalism support liberal democracy or undermine it? More specifically, what aspects of multiculturalism affect liberal democracy and how? This essay will argue that among the inherent tensions between liberal democracy and multiculturalism, the most problematic is the conflict between equality of political rights, which is fundamental to liberal democracy, and the notion of collective rights, which is fundamental to multiculturalism. Nonetheless, this tension can be overcome and it will be argued that multiculturalism in fact supports some elements of liberal democracy such as political participation. In order to clarify this argument, I will begin with defining multiculturalism, liberal democracy and basic principles of liberal democracy."
| |
|
A Change in Liberal Democracy, 2008.
A discussion of the shift in the ideology of liberal democracy.
2,142 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 67.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how the existence of the Cold War had many effects on liberal democratic states and also affected to a degree the way in which democracy was, and continues to be, understood in these states. The paper explains that this includes the United States, which in some ways has come to see democracy as a given that more and more people have been willing to give up aspects of a democratic state in the face of a threat, as has been seen in the acquiescence of the people to a variety of intrusions on their democratic rights since 9-11. The paper also discusses how the success of democracy in the Cold War should have solidified that political ideology as to be preferred, but its very success seems to have opened it to new threats from within. In conclusion, the paper shows that more and more, liberal democracies are defining themselves in terms of collective security over individual preference, and this signals a profound shift in thought that only makes the future more uncertain.
From the Paper
"Schlesinger says that America in the past has stood as an example of a federal, multi-ethnic society that worked, but he seems to believe that this is no longer the case. The U.S. has worked because it has been able to offer answers to the question of what reasons are there for different ethnic groups to see themselves as part of the same nation. Schlesinger now sees an eruption of ethnicity in America, which may have many good consequences, but which he also believes has many bad consequences."
| |
|
Liberal Democracy and Democratization, 2005.
Examines the difference between liberal democracy and democratization.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 2 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper, it is shown that the elements of liberal democracy are not truly present in Iraqi, as the United States is controlling elections and policy made by the Iraqi government. The paper argues that democratizing Iraq will not yield positive results, as the American presence only increases terrorism and the need for the Iraqi people to demand sovereignty of their country. Though an aspect of American imperialism, there is little success in this format of foreign policy in American plans for the Middle East.
From the Paper
"This governmental study will analyze the difference between liberal democracies and those imposed democratized American institutions that now reside in Iraq. By divulging the process of government, which is now present in Iraq, one can reveal how the United States holds a greater power of influence in recently ousting past President Saddam Hussein. By understanding the economic and militaristic dominance of America over Iraq, the form of government of both of these countries present their differences in power and issues of sovereignty in development. In this manner, one can understand how democracies cannot be imposed, and that democratization is unsuccessful in the current Iraqi government. The new government of Iraq, since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003, has been a burgeoning republic, which has been being developed through American intervention."
| |
|
"The Life & Times of Liberal Democracy" ( C B Macpherson ), 1997.
Reviews work on theories, models & evolution of liberal democracy.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 1 source, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy by C. B. Macpherson is a brief but thorough discussion of the theoretical constructs associated with four models of liberal democracy. Macpherson used three successive models to explain his theories. The use of models as the framework within which he described and discussed liberal democracy is an effective methodology for this type of analysis. Using this method, the text can be organized chronologically as well as contextually. Theoretical models allow the use of a broader range of variables, such as historical events, societal developments, and human actions. Models also can explain the underlying reality of prevailing or past correlations between events and how history is influenced by people and events. Models allow theorists to project the probability of future changes. "
| |
|
Television and Liberal Democracy, 2001.
A look at the ramifications of TV on democracy.
1,796 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 2 sources, $ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at television. The author argues that television may pose a threat to democracy, by undermining the seriousness of political discourse. Television may serve as an internal contradiction in liberal democracy, and thus threaten Francis Fukuyama?s vision of liberal democracy as the end of history.
From the Paper
"It is important to note that culture may drive television, rather than television driving culture. If this is true, then blaming the possible death of culture on televisions is akin to blaming the car for driving into a curb rather than the driver. It is also possible that culture and television feed off each other, with neither providing the driving force. In undermining the seriousness of political discourse in the USA, television may constitute a threat to the future of liberal democracy. Given this, television may also be a threat to the end of History as defined by Fukuyama."
| |
|
Religion, Liberalism and Democracy, 2005.
Addresses questions on religion, law, liberalism, and democracy in the United States.
3,164 words (approx. 12.7 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 111.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper attempts to answer certain questions about America concerning religion, law, liberalism, and democracy and looks at how they intersect in society.
From the Paper
"Kathleen M Sullivan undertook an exploration of religion and its intersection with a liberal democracy and commented that the unstated corollary of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U S Constitution is the affirmative creation of a secular civil order. The creation of such a civil order has, in Sullivan's view, the effect of prohibiting government from coercing, endorsing or even perhaps acknowledging the religious beliefs held by its citizenry. Sullivan states that just as the affirmative right to practice..."
| |
|
Liberalism, Critical Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2005.
A discussion regarding liberalism as a culture.
3,150 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 6 sources, $ 124.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the call for liberalism is becoming more common in today, and an increasingly global culture. Those people who embrace multiculturalism and other aspects of a liberal culture often find this concept difficult to align with the more restrictive concept of exclusionary citizenship. The paper contends that the clear foundation provided by the boundaries of citizenship. In Part One, this paper defends the current nation-state-based citizenship model that is currently in use. Part Two the paper discusses the principles of liberalism in connection with cultural relativism and the demands of non-liberal cultures.
| |
|
Liberalism and Neo-liberalism, 2005.
This paper discusses theories of liberalism and neo-liberalism in international politics.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 4 sources, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this essay, the writer examines theories of liberalism and neo-liberalism in international politics. The writer discusses neo-liberalism as based in liberal democracy. The writer identifies limits of both theories. Further, the writer discusses major problems and limitations with each theory.
From the Paper
"According to sociologists, market-based economic policies have been institutionalized as a nearly global policy paradigm embodying first liberalism and later neo-liberalism. The purpose of this report is to discuss the theories of liberalism and neo-liberalism in studying international politics and to identify the limitations of these approaches. All such theories in the context of international relations are designed to solve the problems and puzzles of state behavior by offering a causal account of a particular outcome or pattern of behavior in ... "
| |
|
Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism, and International Politics, 2005.
An overview of the relationship between liberal and neo-liberal theories and international politics.
861 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
According to sociologists, since the 1970s, market-based economic policies have been institutionalized as a nearly global policy paradigm embodying first, liberalism, and later, neo-liberalism. The purpose of this report is to discuss the theories of liberalism and neo-liberalism in studying international politics and to identify the limitations of these approaches.
From the Paper
"In neoliberalism, which developed in the final decades of the twentieth century, a set of economic principles became part of the accepted framework for thinking about and acting upon both the economy and the relations of states to one another. Neoliberalism assumed that a positive outcome both economically and politically would be generated through a wave of reforms ? privatizations, dismantling of social welfare programs, the retreat of the state from economic regulation, tax cuts, and the opening of national boundaries."
| |
|
A Comparison of Modern Democracy and Classical Athenian Democracy, 2002.
Compares modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens.
914 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Discusses the major differences between Athenian democracy and modern democracy. Differences include voting and citizenship rights, gender and background bias in the Athenian social and economic system, the type of representation that each society offered and the 'participation factor' in Athens.
From the Paper
"There are several significant differences between modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens. Even though the classical Athenian democracy was a major step forward in political thought, at its height there were still many areas in which it was decidedly unlike any democracy existing today. These differences fall into three major categories: differences in who could vote, in the type of representation, and in the overall participation factor.
One major and clearly recognizable difference is that in the Athenian democracy there was only a certain selected element of the population that was allowed to vote. This difference in voting behavior stems from the fact that the Athenian social and economic system was supportive of the suppression of groups of people according to gender and background in ways that are not acceptable in today?s western cultures.
For example, women were not given full rights of citizenship. They were also socially and economically kept in a subservient role to men. Women?s function was seen as primarily that of propagation and managing a household. Women were not allowed access to the marketplace of ideas that was so important to the Athenians.
These conditions set up an interactive cycle between the social and political institutions; since women were regarded as inferior and not deserving of full citizenship, they were not allowed to vote. However, without the ability to vote, it was very unlikely that any of these restrictions would be modified or lifted. The role of women in Greek society was too firmly entrenched to be easily changed."
| |
|
A Comparison of Modern Democracy and Classical Athenian Democracy, 2002.
This paper looks at several significant differences between modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens.
864 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer shows that even though the classical Athenian democracy was a major step forward in political thought, at its height there were still many areas in which it was decidedly unlike any democracy existing today. The paper divides these differences into three major categories: differences in who could vote, in the type of representation, and in the overall participation factor.
From the Paper
"One major and clearly recognizable difference is that in the Athenian democracy there was only a certain selected element of the population that was allowed to vote. This difference in voting behavior stems from the fact that the Athenian social and economic system was supportive of the suppression of groups of people according to gender and background in ways that are not acceptable in today?s western cultures."
| |
|
"Democracy?s Discontent" vs. "Democracy in America", 2003.
A comparison of Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and Michael J. Sandel's "Democracy?s Discontent".
3,845 words (approx. 15.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 105.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" and Michael J. Sandel in "Democracy?s Discontent" both address issues of democracy, freedom, the role of government, and the good citizen. It looks at how their viewpoints differ because they write at different times of history. De Tocqueville writes at a time when democracy is a novel ideal. Aristocracy has been the main form of government, and this, therefore, plays a major role in his writing. Sandel, on the other hand, deals with contemporary issues such as the global community and the implications of new technology and diminishing boundaries among people.
From the Paper
"De Tocqueville stresses the importance of civil equality in the achievement of true democracy. This equality implies the lack of divisions and barriers between social classes. This is the equality that he sees in American culture as opposed to European culture that still subscribes to the aristocratic means of government. The democratic ideal implies more freedom than would be possible with an aristocratic government: ?Let us suppose that all the people take a part in the government, and that each one of them has an equal right to take a part in it. As no one is different from his fellows, none can exercise a tyrannical power; men will be perfectly free because they are all entirely equal??(De Tocqueville, Book II, Chapter I)."
| |
|
?Liberated Parents, Liberated Children?, 2004.
A review of the book, "Liberated Parents, Liberated Children: Your Guide to a Happier Family", by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish.
1,108 words (approx. 4.4 pages), 0 sources, $ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the book, "Liberated Parents, Liberated Children: Your Guide to a Happier Family", by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish, which discusses their experiences attending a series of parent workshops given by child psychologist, Dr. Ginott. It looks at how its approach to parenting appears to be very simplistic in nature: do not control your children, but rather respect them for their individuality and uniqueness. It discusses how punishment is not an effective tool for establishing a trusting relationship, nor is a power trip, or being too protective or defensive. It shows how an adversarial relationship with a child will normally escalate or deteriorate as he/she gets older and becomes more defensive and less intimidated.
From the Paper
"Similarly, a child?s autonomy need not threaten a parent. Dr. Ginott saids, ?We help most by not helping.? How many parents are afraid of what will happen if their children fail? If their school project is not perfect or if their hair is sticking up or they wear clothes that are wrinkled? The problem is that the parents? self-esteem is so wrapped up in their children?s success or failure that it is taken as a personal affront. If the son a daughter does not make the team or get invited to a party, it is as if the parent did not make the grade. The child who is better prepared for the future is the one who has to remember to return his/her books to the library, finish a homework assignment or even makes the same mistake over again."
| |
|
?Liberated Parents, Liberated Children?, 2004.
A review of the parenting book, "Liberated Parents, Liberated Children: Your Guide to a Happier Family", by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish.
1,460 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how authors Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish wrote their counter-cultural book, "Liberated Parents, Liberated Children: Your Guide to a Happier Family", regarding tips and tactics for parents to use as they raised children before the term ?counter-cultural? had become politically correct. It looks at how, in 1974, when the majority of children were being raised under the questionable, permissive advice of Dr. Spock, these authors focused on another aspect of child rearing. It looks at how they were significantly influenced by child psychologist Haim Ginott ,who believed that it was the emotional well-being of the child that would guide his actions.
From the Paper
"This differentiation between giving of ourselves to our children, and giving ourselves over to our children is the delicate line which Mazlish and Faber walk throughout their book as they discuss skills for parents to learn to build emotionally balanced and self-secure children. The approach which encourages parents to remain in their authority role in the child?s life, as well as equips the parent to connect with the child?s feeling is the element of this book which sets it apart from other works. Dr. Spock taught parents to reason with their children rather than correct them. By doing so, the well intentioned doctor instructed parents to abdicate an important role in their children?s development, which is the role of authority to which the child is accountable."
| |
|
Democracy and the U.S. Constitution: A Discussion of the Successes and Failures of the Founding Fathers in making an Obtainable Democracy, 2000.
After discussing the successes and failures of the founding fathers, the author of the paper concludes that they mostly did a good job, but disputes that America now has a pure democracy.
1,360 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" A perfect democracy would be a democracy where everyone- the poor, the rich, the weak, the strong- get to have a say in what the government does. Wherein the supreme power ultimately rests with the people. However, this is not reality. Instead, representative democracy can be defined in two ways: the responsible model and the popular model. In the popular model, ordinary people have a great deal of freedom and ability to participate actively in government. In this type, elections express the popular will and determine policies. Examples of this model include the House of Representatives, the Virginia Plan, and citizen initiatives. In the responsible model, citizens play a more passive role. Government officials have a great deal of freedom to act on the behalf of the country as a whole. Elections here, grant popular consent and determine leaders. Examples of this model are the Senate, the New Jersey Plan, and the Supreme Court. Although the people of the United States live in a democracy that has both popular and responsible elements, democracy here has always been more denoted by the popular model. "
|
|
|
