Democracy Says

[jas24]

Greetings!

I am Jacynthe Zena Castillo, a Political Science student and I will be posting about my weekly reflections about politics and other aspects related to it. I hope my posts will enlighten you. Enjoy!

[jas24]

BLOG #9: Synthesis

To end the blog, I realized that the government and its people act like a building block in such a way that if a category or need is not met, the whole thing will collapse. This entails that the government and its people should be able to reciprocate and do their duties with regards to the situation of others. If the government is too controlling or is exhibiting any tyranny acts that may seem hostile to the citizens, it is inevitable that the citizens would fight back. These form of retaliation is supported by the fact that they have are empowered by their rights (E.g. Freedom of expression, equality, and dignity).  Consequently, if the citizens are acting out of hand or causing chaos within the society and against the government, the government will use its own powers and authority to suppress or eradicate them. At the end of the day, there is still a lingering question whether violence or the utilization of power and authority is needed in order to have peace within the country. Some may say that yes, violence or harsh actions are needed in order to attain peace and consensus, but it should only be there until the problem has been solved. While there are those who completely disagree, because they believe that there are other ways to have a systematic, sustainable and peaceful solution. These kinds of solutions are complex especially in a democratic country since the opinions of the citizens ideally contributes to the succeeding actions. To reiterate again, with regards to consensus, the majority usually wins but the problem is, is the majority always right? --- indeed, it is complicated . Thinking about politics and democracy is like asking more questions on top of the question, but at the end of the day, it is still important to hold onto our identities, what we believe in, and always be conscious of how it will affect others.

This does not entail that we should not be open to criticisms or rebuttals, but we trust that we have the intellectual capacity to decipher what is right from wrong, what is justifiable from not, and what is beneficial and futile.

[jas24]

BLOG #8: Society vs State + Society vs Society

(Society VS State)

When the society feels hostility, oppression, and discontent towards the state, there is a high possibility that they will not tolerate it. Hence, this is one of the main reasons as to why Civil unrest/war, rebellion, revolution and terrorism exist. To further explain these types of Political Violence, I will first explain Civil war and Civil unrest. From the word itself, ‘civil’ it is enacted by the citizens, specifically by a large armed group of people which often leads to many casualties. There is also a possibility for outside powers to intervene just like how the US funds Afghanistan. Civil unrest on the other hand is seen as the step before a civil war in a sense that there is intolerance towards the state which leads them to commence a riot or strikes.

(Society VS Society)

Not only are there conflicts between the governing authorities or the state, but also within the society itself. People are intellectual beings that are known for having their own set of opinions or beliefs. On the contrary, despite being an intellectual being, they also act on their instincts in such a way that they get aggressive or appalled when they encounter a certain group that contradicts their groups’ beliefs. This then forms into conflicts among groups. Other than that, society has a way to label people which leads to discrimination and alienation. This is seen through a variety of ethnic conflicts, religious/sectarian violence, gang violence, and homophobic violence. In ethnic and religious conflicts, it is usually due to, again, the contrasting beliefs. As for gang violence, people often see them as violent and barbaric. Hence, they are often discriminated against and blamed for most crimes. Next is the well-known homophobic violence wherein their own preferred sexuality is unacceptable to others. Violence such as saying self-destructing words and even to the extreme of killing those who are part of the LGBTQ+ community.

I realized that being in a society may ideally sound like an amazing phenomenon since you find your own groups and even learn things to improve the way we live our lives. However, in a cynical view, it can also be a threat to our own identity as well as our lives in such a way that we will encounter people who will be against what we believe in and show this in either a peaceful yet offending way or in total violence.

I also honestly think that the segregation in the society specifically, in terms of religion, causes chaos due to the lack of respect with regards to one's own beliefs and the lack of knowledge that there is a separation between the state and religion.

[jas24]

BLOG #7: State vs State + State vs Society In this blog, I will focus on 2 types of Political Violence: State versus State and State versus the Society. (State VS State) Under State versus State are Coup d’etat and War. Coup d’etat is the type of Political Violence that solely aims to seize or overthrow the current government for a variety of reasons, most of which is due to the ineffectiveness and continuous oppression towards either a certain group or the entire population. It is important to remember that the military is actually a key player which makes a Coup d’etat, a powerful kind of Political Violence. There is a downside to a Coup, one of which is the failure to overthrow the current government which results in a waste of manpower and resources. Moreover, even if the Coup was successful, there is a high probability that either the military will rule or the removed leader will be replaced by another dictator. An example of a Coup is the successful 1973 Coup d’etat in Afghanistan that was led by Mohammed Daoud Khan to overthrow Zahir Shah’s monarchy. War on the other hand is a well-known Political Violence that has greatly impacted our history. War by definition is basically a destructive armed-conflict between states. This type of Political Violence is recognized and bound by law, that is why war crimes exist. War happens due to a variety of reasons just like other kinds of Political Violence. This could be because of the psychological desire for destruction or the determination to achieve one’s own ideals. Moreover, Other states join wars in order to protect their territory from the ongoing war. Now, there is one question that lingers on my mind and I also think that others’ thought about it too. Is war necessary? For me, the answer is undetermined because generally, violence or war should not happen due to the numerous casualties and resources that are wasted. On the other hand, other states have to join in order to show their nationality and their signed support to those states that are already part of the ongoing war. (State VS Society) Under State and Society are Political Repression and Genocide. Political Repression, by the word itself ‘repression, is the type of violence wherein the State utilizes force in order to suppress the citizens from anything that could be against the own ideals of the state itself. Political Repression can be linked to Politicism or political discrimination. This is exhibited through the suppression of policies just like the well-known extrajudicial killing in the Philippines, wherein both the innocent people and the media were silenced and stopped from speaking out the truth. The worst part is, the state has the ability to control its authorities such as the military to implement such violent repressions which causes more political conflicts such as Civil War. To reiterate, these type of repression stems from the intolerance and disagreement of beliefs which in turn, cause a wide - range conflicts, Genocide came from the Greek word ‘genos’, which means tribe and the Latin suffix ‘-cide’, which means to kill. This basically entails that there is an aim or intent to destroy a certain population. Other than that, Genocide is deliberately and systematically organized that is also supported by the military or powerful elites. Genocide is a heinous crime because it does not only violate human morals but human life as well. There are those who were not directly destroyed by the government but instead, they were almost left off to be dead (e.g. restricting the access to basic necessities which leads to starvation). Genocide are often seen as an act of ‘cleansing’ and from this point of view, it can be seen as something so cynical since some groups are easily discriminated against and their lives are not worthy--- this is for me, the psychological explanation of Genocide.

[jas24]

BLOG #6: Social Movements

Social Movements, according to Diani and Tilly, is a “network of informal interaction” wherein they all come together and share collective ideals and struggles. Furthermore, the psychology behind this revolves around the empowerment not only of the group but the individual who senses a feeling of belonging within the group. It is important to note that a Social Movement does not happen right away, there has to be a process and conditions to align with. Paul Van Seters and Paul James introduced 4 conditions of ‘coming together’ and these are: Formation of collective identity, Development of shared normative orientation, Shared concern of the status quo, Occurrence of moments of practical action that are at least subjectives connected across time addressing this concern for change. All of these conditions entail that there should be a shared identity, goals, values, deprivation, and an event that triggered them to ‘come together’.

In building a Social Movement, I realized that connections, organization and resources are the most important factors. In my own opinion, in a country like the Philippines, connections play a big role towards success. Hence, having certain connections such as being friends or having a politician as a family member could give the movement a bigger platform and resources that they may need. Other than that, a Social Movement cannot be properly implemented or mobilized if there is no organization within. That is why, a variety of roles are given to the members and even to the volunteers.

The problem in Social Movements is the reason as to why it was created -- deprivation or oppression. There is still a gray area since people experience deprivation all the time and some of these are unpredictably solved within a month or so; If deprivation is experienced most of the time, does it mean that a Social Movement should be created?. Another problem is the idea of ‘collective ideals and struggles’. What if their movement is actually not beneficial at all or what if it clashes with the ideals and goals of other Social Movements. Again, there is still a gray area but that does not mean that Social Movements are useless and are not worth creating because for the past decades, many of our freedoms and rights today have been shaped because of these movements.

[jas24]

BLOG #5: Radical Democracy

In Radical Democracy, it emphasizes the importance of being open; one must be able to give and accept rational criticisms. Radical democracy critiques deliberative democracy in a sense that deliberative democracy restricts the people since the majority would usually win the consensus. Moreover, Radical Democracy entails that there are actually those who are not aware and they don’t have the access to join political processes.

Radical democracy and the internet

The internet provides a great opportunity for everyone to have access to be informed and a platform to voice out their opinions. On the contrary, there are those that cannot accept and give rational criticisms. Hence, instead of a fruitful and rational discussion, it just turns into the opposite --- irrational discussions.

[jas24]

BLOG #4: Deliberative Democracy

What is deliberative democracy?

Deliberative democracy basically entails the exercise of freedom of speech through an exchange of arguments in which those arguments were carefully formed. Other than that, deliberative democracy focuses more on the process than the outcome

Main assumption

The main assumption in deliberative democracy is that people are rational and there’s reason instead of self-interest. The problem however is that it is an ‘ideal’ which is, in simple terms, hard to attain because not everyone is rational. This can be because they’re arguments are baseless conjectures and often driven by emotions. Another reason revolves around privileges. This means that there are those that are not privileged enough to attain education or information in which they could form a ‘rational’ argument.

For thoughts:

The majority may think that a certain political decision is for the ‘common good’, but some decisions by the majority may not exactly be for the ‘common good’; the minorities may think differently.

[jas24]

BLOG #3: Participatory Democracy

Why is participation important?

Political participation is important for the legitimacy of certain political decisions. The opinions and the process of deliberation paves the way for issues to be further discussed and from the information gathered, either a consensus or an ideal solution will be made. Furthermore, participation is a key element of good governance. This also encourages the citizens to hone their capability to research and channel their rights to vote and to be heard (freedom of speech).

Feasibility of political participation/Desirability

The feasibility of political participation is, according to my own opinion, dependent on how the government and the society will first solve the underlying issues that constricts the concept of ‘participation’. Some of the limitations are the abuse of powers of the demagogues by restricting certain issues from being debated on. Another issue that needs to be tackled to ensure the feasibility of participation is the lack of accessibility for information and an opportunity to vote. This can be evidently seen amidst the pandemic because everyone had to adapt to the online setting. Hence, elections will be conducted online and it is a general knowledge that not everyone has the privilege to attain technological devices/

Now, the question for desirability. The desirability of political participation is both a yes and no. Yes in a sense that ideally, people are rational and capable of deciding and sharing factual and rational information. On the other hand, no in a sense that there are those who are educated and equipped with substantial information in order to decide rationally. However, they still end up being irrational and powered by emotions.

Participation v.s. Liberal democracy

According to Benjamin Barber, the problem with participation and liberal democracy is that it may create an outcome wherein an individual may opt not to participate at all since he/she has the freedom to choose. Moreover, in my own opinion, too much freedom is harmful because there are those that may abuse their liberties.

[jas24]

BLOG #2

Pluralist Concepts of Power

There are those who were given the power to rule over the people only for them to abuse it. This issue is not new to certain countries, especially in third world countries. There are those that have the actual power to control or  manipulate someone into doing something for them (e.g. blackmail) and there are those that harness their potential power by transforming their available resources and utilizing it to control  others (e.g. the value of money). Hence, it should not come as a surprise that many known politicians, especially in the Philippines, bribe their way into their position or to get away from punishments. However, in the pluralists view, even the powerful are restricted in such a way that in some aspects, they can overpower others while in another aspect, they have weaker influence.

Elite Pluralism

As I have stated earlier, there are those that overpowers the powerful and in this case, one of the best examples of this are the elites. Despite being labeled as ‘elites’ because of their power or money, they still compete with each other as some elites are above other elites. They have the ability to mobilize and influence decisions in accordance with their own preferences (e.g. They have the power to stop or restrict certain issues during a debate). Hence, a competition among the elites.

Catallaxy

Serves as a marketplace where it ideally serves as a way for individuals to give and receive information that will be beneficial for their participation in politics. It is also a way for politicians to interact with others.

[jas24]

BLOG #1

What is democracy?

The basic answer to that question is that democracy is where everyone in the country can and has the right to take part in the government. The citizens have the right to vote for their representatives that will lead the country. However, despite the general answer about it, democracy is a system that is hard to define and it is known to be problematic. A system that is ideal yet flawed.

Citizen Participation?

As I have stated earlier, the citizens have the right to take part in the government. This is clearly exhibited through elections. In my own opinion, I agree with Schumpeter and Putnam that active participation of the citizens are needed and their contribution does not stop at voting. However, the concept of ‘majority wins’ complicates the ideal participation of the citizens.

Is the majority always right?

Just like the title of my blog, majority says (got it from Simon says) is the type of system or concept that is uncertain whether its rational or not and it is quite flawed. I learned in class that the majority is not always right -- ‘irrational majority’, and there are times wherein the minorities are actually more logical or to quote, they are the ‘thinking minorities”.

Moreover, I still do quite disagree with Schumpeter on some points wherein, according to him, democracy is basically about centering our focus on the representatives in the government and not merely the participation of the citizens.  He believes that once they have been elected, we could just demote/remove them from their position or praise them if they do well in leading the country. It is problematic in such a way that it is uncertain and risky.

Major flaws of democracy

For now, I will tackle two out of the many flaws of democracy and these are the common endless debates and the breeding of demagoguery. Debates during elections are quite controversial due to the individuality of everyone. Every single person has their own opinions and stands towards politics or simple debates. Debates are not entirely bad for it gives way for others to also learn or gain knowledge, however, too much of it can be harmful. In politics it can cause paralysis in the government wherein there are issues that were left unsolved due to endless debates.

Moving on, demagogues in my own understanding are leaders who are irrational and seek to gain approval by targeting people’s emotions and desires. These are the type of leaders or elites that were given the platform and the freedom to speech only to abuse it and address certain issues with irrationality. Two examples of these are Donald Trump and Duterte, wherein both leaders were given high positions and platforms to speak only to again, abuse it. Donald Trump is known for his racist and sexual remarks while Duterte is known for his tyranny especially towards the issue of war on drugs.