| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "RUSSIAN DEMOCRACY": |
|
|
Russian Democracy, 2006.
A paper discussing Russia's transition from communism to democracy.
2,533 words (approx. 10.1 pages), 7 sources, APA, $ 76.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reports on the positives and negatives Russia has experienced while attempting to change into a democratic society, the corruption that is a part of the Russian political system, Russia's economy and policies towards civil rights and its relationship with the United States.
Table of Contents
A Brief Review of Why Russia Needed to Become Democratic
Switching from Communism to Democracy
Putin's Corruption
Putin's Reforms
Women's Movement
Human Rights
Russia's Economic Hard Times
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Meanwhile, Russia has had a good recent track record when it comes to economic growth, which is reflected in a 7.3% increase in Gross National Production (GNP) in 2003, Sleivyte explains (65). That rise in GNP is largely due, though, to the sale of oil internationally; indeed, energy accounted for "50% of Russia's total export earnings in 2003," and Putin's government also looked good economically because the price of oil was high. But overall, there are fewer freedoms in Russia than five years ago, partly because Putin has launched an "anti-terrorism" campaign - a "state of war" against international terrorists "bent on destroying Russia" - which, in reality, Sleivyte writes, "has no relation to the fight against terrorism," but rather a trade-off of "less freedom for more security.""
| |
|
Supporting Russian Democracy, 2007.
This paper examines the reality of Russia's transition from an autocratic communist state to liberal democracy.
2,206 words (approx. 8.8 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 68.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses how the end of the Cold War signified a new era in international politics, economics and diplomacy. The paper reveals, however, that Russian leaders have thwarted the installation of institutions and the promotion of values that typify a democratic society. The paper explains how the United States and the nations of Western Europe must play a key role in assisting the support of democratic institutions in Russia. The paper considers that direct investments may stimulate Russia's burgeoning economy, allow for the possibility of a consumer-driven push for democratic institutions and a create a new vehicle for the spread of ideas. The paper suggests that if Russia's President VladimirPutin continues to strangle the efforts of independent journalists, then small-scale efforts and slow, locally-led campaigns may be the primary means with which to alter the Russian political environment.
Outline:
Introduction
Direct Democratic Assistance Amid a Human Rights Crisis
Strangling the Press
Ideology
At a Fork in the Road
From the Paper
"When President Ronald Reagan uttered the sound byte, "Mr. Gorbachev, Tear down this wall!" most Americans probably expected that the new Russia would follow humbly in the footsteps of the United States in adapting not only a free market economy but also a liberal democratic system of government. Immediately before and after Gorbachev's dismantling of the Soviet Union, Russia "made dramatic progress toward a democratic order-that is, toward real elections, protections for civil liberties, and a rule of law," (Bjorkman)."
| |
|
Russian Democracy, 2002.
This paper discusses the changes that occured in Russia with the fall of the former Soviet Union in 1991.
3,335 words (approx. 13.3 pages), 15 sources, MLA, $ 95.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks examines whether or not the Russia that has come to exist since the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1991 has successfully established a capitalistic free market economy with democractic institutions. The author examines in great detail whether or Russia, which was a totalitarian society has become a democracy since Putin's rise to power. The paper discusses the different styles of governing since the 1917 revolution and argues that even with this new era, the czarist style has remained. The structure of the Federal Assembly, the nomination process and the election process are all detailed in the constitution, but according to this paper, the President still holds a disproportionate amount of control over the all elements of government. Using the press as an example, the paper refers to several experts who feel that Russia is now a controlled or managed democracy which allows its citizens enough freedom to feel that there have been changes and to give the outside world the impression that democracy is alive and well in Russia.
From the Paper
"Many Kremlin watchers, believing that old habits die hard, felt certain that if Yeltsin had not won that general election in a run-off, he would have reasserted his authority with force -- something he showed himself quite capable of when he dismissed parliament at gunpoint. On the other hand. no one is certain about what Putin would have done had he lost in 2000. However, Putin, the former KBG chief, like the spy that he was, left little to chance and came away with an easy victory in an election that international observers said was fair and without flaw. In fact, although he won handsomely, several Putin candidates were defeated. In the study of governments, there is much discussion about transition being an inevitable part of the formation of every government. From Plato to Aristotle to Machiavelli, each saw dictatorships as either necessary or inevitable in times of disarray. A strong hand is required to bring order so as to pave the way for a more populist government if not a fully democratic one. Of course democracy can have its own tyrannical side."
| |
|
Russian Presidential Power and Democracy, 2005.
An overview of the powers of the Russian presidency and their implications for democracy.
2,780 words (approx. 11.1 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper gives an overview of some of the powers at the disposal of the president and how they have created serious implications for the development and consolidation of democracy. It starts with a brief discussion about the Soviet Union's legacy and contribution to the Russian presidential system. It also looks at how the presidency arose in Russia and covers Yeltsin's presidential abuses and powers as well as Putin's.
From the Paper
"Powerful executives have traditionally been at the helm of Russian politics. The tsars were at the peak of a steep pyramid of power, only God superseding their authority. Willerton (39-40) contends that the custom of having a strong executive head-ing the country bled over into the Soviet period, with execu-tives like Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev occupying much of their time with the purpose of consolidating power within the party-state system. The General Secretary of the Communist Party was the country's senior-most executive, holding broad powers of supervision over other secretaries and subordinate bodies."
| |
|
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)."
| |
|
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. "
| |
|
Russian Democratic Crisis of the 20th Century, 1999.
This paper explores the idea of Russian democracy at the end of the 20th century. The writer discusses the history of democratic movement in Russia as well as the unique characteristics and problems modern Russia faced at the end of the century.
2,092 words (approx. 8.4 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper attempts to explain why the idea of democracy was new to the Russian people and the implications this had on its attempts at reform. The writer shows that at the end of the twentieth century, there were several reasons why Russia was approaching its second democratic crisis: Yeltsin's presidency, economic failure, military upheaval and organized crime.
From the Paper
"For the past seventy years Russia was the heart of the Soviet Union. The fall of the ?Evil Empire? in 1991 shocked the world. Many democratic nations were happy to see its enemy turning into a new democratic country based on capitalistic economy and Western ideologies. But not that many people asked if Democracy would work in Russia. In the long run, Russia had a democratic experience in 1917, for half a year and it failed (Daniels, 1972). Will the history repeat itself or will Russia eventually become democratic? It is still hard to tell. Our democratic experience from February to October 1917 and today?s situation are very similar. As in 1917, modern Russia experiences political, economic, and cultural crisis."
| |
|
Benjamin Barber's "Strong Democracy", 2005.
This paper discusses Benjamin Barber's views on "thin democracy" and "strong democracy" as expresses in his book "Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age".
1,050 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Benjamin Barber in his book "Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age" defines 'thin democracy" as a democracy in which leaders are elected but they are left to their own devices concerning the majority of issues; people have the powers, which democracy provides, but the demonstration of these powers is primarily manifested in the form of elections. The author points out that Barber is convincing in making his point that "thin democracy" has a tendency to strip citizens of their sense of purpose as manifested by the voter participation rate stagnating in the U.S. at about half of those eligible. The paper stress that Barber loves the thought of a "strong democracy" in which it is not the leaders who make a democracy great but rather an active, informed citizenry.
From the Paper
""Thin democracy" takes the stance that average citizens are not interested in political matters and are not capable or adequate enough to directly participate in the political process themselves, beyond electing officials. Benjamin Barber feels that the United States democracy is thin and poorly represents the entire population at large. Significant portions of citizens are unable to vote due to restrictions or simply choose to be complacent and abstain from voting. Citizens under the age of eighteen are restricted from voting, as are prisoners, and persons living within the borders who are not nationalized. Citizens who are active in a thin democracy mainly participate in it by electing persons and then monitoring their political decisions (if they choose to do so), allowing the elected (those seen by the majority to have the most expertise and capability to discern what best represents the will of the majority) to do the actual work."
| |
|
Quality of Democracy in Iraq, 2006.
A study on democracy in Iraq, looking at how much progress the country has made towards establishing democracy, the quality of its democracy and how well its institutions are functioning.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 5 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes three of the fourteen topics provided on the Democratic Audit web site and apply them to a study of democracy in Iran. Specifically, the paper assesses the country's progress towards democracy, the quality of its democracy, and the functioning of its institutions - all by using the following three topics as a "measuring stick". These topics are a) civil and political rights, b) economic and social rights, and c) the extent of participation in the political process by various Iranian citizens.
| |
|
"Democracy in America", 2002.
A study of freedom and democracy using Tocqueville's "Democracy in America".
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay explores the interrelation of the concepts of equality, freedom and democracy in history as portrayed in Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America".
| |
|
Socrates' Criticisms of Democracy, 2008.
A discussion of the writer's views of democracy and of Socrates' problems with democracy and the democratic man as seen in Plato's, "Republic."
2,037 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses Socrates' view of democracy and the democratic man as related in Book 8 of Plato's "Republic." In particular, the paper attempts to ascertain what specific problems Socrates has with democracy and democratic man. The paper then relates Socrates' criticisms - both those that the writer agrees with and those that he does not - to the state of affairs within the United States.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Criticisms of Democracy and Democratic Man
Freedom in Democracy
Equality in Democracy
Freedom and Equality in Democratic Man
Afterthought: The Democratic Ruler(s)
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Although it is clear that Socrates holds an uncomplimentary view of democracy, to say the least, it is equally clear to me that, conversely, in today's world democracy is largely respected and admired; countries strive to be "democratic" because of the positive connotations attached to the concept. What I have difficulty understanding is not the fact that countries today manipulate the definition of democracy to fit their own agenda, but rather why the concept, democracy, was chosen as the emulative term. Why isn't "socialism" seen as the "good" form of government? After all, in our country we are lacking a lot of the basic qualities that are supposedly essential to democracy. Yet at the same time the U.S. is arguably the most powerful, most economically well-off country in the world. There are many more questions like these that need to be explored, and I hope that throughout the course of this essay, through an examination of Plato's thought in the Republic, I have shed some light on some of the possible answers."
| |
|
Democracy and the Libertarian Ideal of Self-Ownership, 2002.
This is an argument for the libertarian conception of self-ownership as the foundation for democracy, as opposed to other values such as republican non-domination and deliberative democracy, with treatment of empirical work on the phenomenon of voter igno
4,060 words (approx. 16.2 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 109.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the notion of western democracy, and how by its very definition, impinges on our everyday lives. The author defines democracy, and looks at what democracy was intended to be, and how, as government expanded, and its influence expanded that democracy has had the opposite affect, and is not limiting our freedoms. The author also suggest ways in which we can regain the benefits that democracy was designed to provide.
From the Paper
"Indeed, if we did otherwise, we would be treating people not as full members of the community among equals, but as sheep unto a shepherd, or a child unto a parent. While such relationships are certainly appropriate between the incompetent and the competent, they can hardly be countenanced for the competent, who are entitled to their own private sphere in which they can determine the meaning of their experiences and define their own ends. After all, since people are different, and even individuals change through time, no one can better know his own conception of the good and his unique set of ends better than the individual himself. The state, far removed from the individual, is in no position to make that determination, and therefore, must be neutral to conceptions of the good. The state's disallowing one to choose for himself the sort of life he leads is, in fact, a principal criterion by which we can judge its goodness."
| |
|
Mill, de Toqueville and Schmitt: Problems of Democracy, 2008.
A comparison of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", and Carl Schmitt's "The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy".
1,000 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the problems of democracy as cited in three major works on the subject: John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", and Carl Schmitt's "The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy". The paper elaborates upon the views of Mill and de Tocqueville, who both believed that the tyranny of the majority was particularly worrisome in democracies, compared to other political systems. The paper also outlines the major features of Carl Schmitt's critiques of parliamentary democracy, in which he contrasts between how parliamentary government is designed to function and how it actually functions. The paper further discusses Schmitt's argument that democratic institutions function through corrupt political deal-making and that rational political debate and election results have little impact on government decision-making. The paper concludes that Mill and de Tocqueville realized that the solutions for these problems actually lay within the democratic system.
From the Paper
"Schmitt was also critical of parliamentary systems because he believed that the nature of democracy itself is based upon meaningless abstractions such as equality and liberty. To him, these high-sounding concepts were little more than a sham, for most people care very little about equal rights and liberty and most political leaders care even less. Leaders deliver grand speeches in parliaments and legislatures about democracy, but behind the scenes, they act in their own self-interest. And in society, the average citizen is just as hypocritical, for they resent any action by the government or other citizens that is detrimental to their self-interest, while paying lip service to democracy and equal rights for all."
|
|
|
