Democracy is a system of government in which citizens have the power to elect their government's representatives. Decisions on who is considered a member of the people and how power is shared or delegated by the people have evolved over time and at various rates in different countries, but they have gradually expanded to include more and more people in all countries.
The concept of democracy has changed significantly over time, and the two most common forms of democracy today are direct and representative. In a direct democracy, citizens debate and vote on legislation directly. In a representative democracy, such as parliamentary or presidential democracy, citizens elect representatives to deliberate and vote on legislation.
According to Larry Diamond, an American political scientist, democracy consists of four main elements: a political mechanism for selecting and replacing the government through free and fair elections; active citizen engagement in politics and public life; defense of all citizens' human rights; and the rule of law, in which rules and procedures apply fairly to all citizens.
Many people support democracy because they believe it improves people's character. Many have observed, as Mill and Rousseau did, that democracy encourages people to speak up for themselves rather than other forms of government because collective decisions taken under democracy are more based on the will of the people than those made under monarchy or aristocracy.
Furthermore, since it matters whether people think carefully and rationally or not, democracy appears to allow people to think carefully and rationally more than other forms of law. Finally, others contend that democracy appears to improve citizens' moral qualities.
In this essay, the instrumental arguments against democracy are as follows, Plato argues that democracy is inferior to different types of monarchy, aristocracy, and even oligarchy because democracy erodes the skills required for properly governed societies. He claims that in a democracy, those who are skilled at winning elections and nothing else can inevitably take control of democratic politics. For Hobbes, democracy is inferior to monarchy because it promotes destabilizing dissension among subjects. Individual people and even lawmakers, in his opinion, are unlikely to feel responsible for the quality of legislation because no one individual has a direct impact on decision-making outcomes. According to Hobbes, democracy has negative consequences for subjects and politicians, as well as the consistency of public decision-making outcomes.
There are also claims that, in addition to the instrumental principles mentioned above, certain types of decision-making are morally desirable regardless of the consequences. In the context of justice and whether or not it can be achieved, i believe justice can be achieved because the words 'justice' and 'fairness' are often interchanged. Justice, in its broadest sense, is conduct that complies with the requirements of some statute. Others conclude that justice consists of universally applicable laws that arise from some kind of consensus. Justice is fairness in a narrower context. For problems of social justice, the ideals of justice and fairness may be thought of as 'fair play' laws. These standards, whether they are based on universal rules or ones that are more context-specific, govern how different forms of justice are carried out. For example, distributive justice principles decide what constitutes a 'fair share' of a particular good, while retributive or restorative justice principles form our reaction to behavior that violates a society's 'fair play' laws. Social justice necessitates both the fairness of the laws and the compliance of those who follow them.
In addition, each of the justice and fairness concepts can be implemented in a number of situations. The concept of desert, for example, can be applied not only to the distribution of resources, but also to the distribution of costs and punishments. Organizations and communities that successfully apply justice ideals, on the other hand, tend to be more stable, and their members feel happy and safe.
Justice, in its broadest sense, is conduct that complies with the requirements of some statute. Others conclude that justice consists of universally applicable laws that arise from some kind of consensus. Justice is fairness in a narrower context. It is behavior that is considerate of others' legitimate interests, property, and protection. For problems of social justice, the ideals of justice and fairness may be thought of as 'fair play' laws. These standards, whether they are based on universal rules or ones that are more context-specific, govern how different forms of justice are carried out. Principles of distributive justice, for example, determine what constitutes a 'fair share' of a particular good, whereas principles of retributive or restorative justice shape our response to behavior that violates a society's 'fair play' rules.Moreover, Social justice necessitates both fair rules and people who follow them. Each of the justice and fairness concepts can be implemented in a number of situations. The concept of desert, for example, can be applied not only to the distribution of resources, but also to the distribution of costs and punishments. Organizations and communities that successfully apply justice ideals, on the other hand, tend to be more stable, and their members feel happy and safe.
Currently, Western democracies face a number of complex, sometimes interconnected challenges that affect citizenship education, teaching and learning, among which i would like to highlight the following. Increasing (youth) unemployment and social inequality are common in many countries, as well as declining levels of political faith, diminished trust in political elites and institutions, and lower citizen satisfaction with government efficiency. Citizenship has traditionally been thought of as a legitimate political status. Citizenship, on the other hand, has recently taken on a much broader definition, referring not just to the political realm but also to daily social and cultural life. However, in recent years, there have been increasing critiques of both educational systems and the sense of citizenship education's 'active citizens' support for democracy. A good example of that would be The Patriot Act which was passed in 2001 to strengthen law enforcement's ability to identify and prevent terrorism in the United States. The USA PATRIOT Act was passed in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and it took effect less than two months later.
Therefore I conclude my essay by providing the evidence and background for critical consideration and rational evaluation of the USA PATRIOT Act's desirability. The official name of the act is USA-PATRIOT, which stands for 'Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Needed to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.' By January 30, 2003, the USA PATRIOT Act authorized the development of an entirely new electronic monitoring and tracking system capable of monitoring and tracking any foreign studentscholar entering the United States for programs admitting international studentsscholars. Lookups of records it broadens the government's right to examine third-party data on an individual's activities. Secret inquiries are conducted. Searches for information. 'Trap and trace' searches are a type of search. By August 1st 2003, a complete accounting of all existing students in the United States was to be completed.The US government set a deadline of January 30, 2003 for the complete implementation of SEVIS in the USA PATRIOT Act, without consulting universities or other agencies.