Democracy and Indegenous rights

Democracy refers to variety of things and despite it`s difficult nature for the people to give meanings they know how to express their point of views but differently. Dalton et al presents a more sophisticated data, open-ended questionnaires and different barometers in comparison to Baviskar and Malone such as Asian, African and Latinobarometer. Baviskar and Malone present statistical data based on open and also closed-ended questions. Their data’s do not match on statistical grounds. Dalton et al criticizes that similar surveys could be conducted using simpler methods. Dalton et al expresses that in most Latin American countries the expression among the citizens about democracy is low compared to the data provided by Baviskar and Malone. Table I in Dalton et al shows the awareness about democracy and the models of democracy applied in those nations. These data’s and percentages between the Guatemala and Chile in the table do not match with statistical data provided by Baviskar and Malone. The liberal model of democracy was achieving predominantly more attention in the Latin American countries. We find more similarities than differences in the articles. Although Dalton et al do not agree with type of survey Baviskar and Malone used but they do agree on the approach how these data’s could help to examine other issues (culture, religion, rights) on the ground. They agreed on the role education could play to determine the views of the citizens and especially older and educated people who could perform a significant role to raise the issue of democracy. They also found lack of support for democracy and the views of the citizens were mixed when asked about the meaning of the democracy and what their feelings were about the issue. They linked the term as a western ideology and a democratic model which results liberty and social equality in the west rather than it applicability in Latin American regions. They agree that the liberal type of democracy was prevailing in some communist countries during 1990 and people had positive thoughts about it when they performed surveys in those specific countries. They regarded it an opportunity to provide them basic human, political and societal rights, independence and chance to healthy way of life. The Latinobarometer also shows support for liberal democratic model in the countries like Chile, Costa Rica and Mexico. Both articles provide the data how they people were able to define the term democracy and consider what democracy was about. But at the same time they were unaware of the democratic situations and the hereafter concerns on political institutions in their countries. In most countries they, as an explanation, considered democracy as a socioeconomic development and not freedom to individual liberty and self determination.

I have realized that Dalton et al have provided sufficient reasons and data about democracy and the views of the citizens and the arguments they (citizens) provided for the democratization of the political institutions. For example in their survey they did mention that most people gave emphasis on liberty and freedom. They also questioned the reliability of such open-ended questionnaires and surveys performed by their opponent writers. They suspected the credibility of those surveys and different methods used. They concluded that democracy could have been different meaning and different evaluations for poor in terms of economic progress and development. It could be concluded on the grounds of these arguments that in Latin American countries they will approve than any other form of regime if it produces desirable outcomes, rule of law and economic developments rather than freedom and liberty.

Part 2

The volume of this writing goes around the picture of non-western versus western philosophies and declares which approach better defines what human rights should be. Willem Talbott points towards the Universalist which regard community as a social unit and approaches how western philosophy puts values on the individuals. The cultural relativism is the idea that there exist no objective standards that could judge other human being. He criticizes the Singapore Prime minister of banning, threatening charging his opponent of accusing them lacking the `Asian values`, creating one party system and value the community above the citizens. In this way human rights are violated. Human rights cannot be understood by others unless they are not the product of that culture. The western imperialists regarded themselves as the pioneer of the human rights. The example of the Persian king and the Indian Ashoka reveals that such issues are not connected to a particular culture or a tradition. The west through Imperialism and colonialization misused their authority and forced people to acknowledge the superiority of their laws and believe their religion as a true one. They argue that imperialism is a moral relativism in the sense that ‘extreme moral relativism implies that it is inappropriate to apply human rights standards to cultures that do not already acknowledge human rights’. The traditional and customary laws of indigenous minorities were violated by the imperialists. The ‘wish–washy’ statement delivers the views of relativists, acknowledges their validity of the moral values. They can criticize the external norms of other societies. The governments who are against the liberal models of democracy present arguments that time is not mature or the so-called Asian values are used as an excuse to hinder the development or transfer of power. In such countries exists inequality because of limited power decentralization and personal relationship exists in the system where the monopoly on power could be used for the personal benefits. In such societies laws are only established to control citizens and violate the human rights, Salman quotes. The rule of law and democracy is simply a development and not basic human rights and freedom. In such system citizens position of the lower class is weak, lack pluralism and decentralization of power. The concept of pluralism and the western model of democracy have also its limitations on the freedom of the inhabitants. In such societies governments due to international pressures make excuses to limit citizenship freedom (ID control and CCTV surveillance). Modern democratic and pluralist societies stresses on minority and indigenous rights (Yrigoyen, Talcot and Salman). The dilemma is the constitutions of the 1990 in Latin American countries violated indigenous rights during colonialization and also by that government in power. Some progress was achieved during the military regime of Velso. The indigenous people were given the name of campesinos to preserve their cultural identify and diversity the laws were modified by Alan Garcia by limiting the rondas liberty. The military powers violated human rights by using their power and control and developed a corrupt society. For example rondas and some community members were forced to work under the military regimes and those who denied cooperation were charged of terrorism. Later on article 2.19 and the new panel code delivered positive results in establishing the rights of the indigenous and preserving their cultural plurality respect to their norms and practices. The government of Fujimori implemented harsh rules and limited their rights. In his time many rondas leaders were prosecuted. In my view the debate of universalism and relativism should be a non-issue. This debate divert the attention from important issues and there needs to be a sort of transformation in the current debate and laws of the national governments and institutions, be realistic.

Part 3

The historical backgrounds and the issue of modern citizenship in different countries have been illustrated very briefly in the articles. One emphasized on the issues of individualism, civic responsibility, social trust and the egalitarianism in the United states and the other on the historical relationship in different context and in different countries. There are similarities like the issue of individualism and being as a community but they do contrast in the sense that both writers approach the sensitivity of the issue in different ways. One has supported the arguments analytically using religion as base and the other on the history of different countries using the politics and their citizen’s role in that particular subject.

One of the similarities that I want to mention is that both stressed on the importance of the community. These communities can foster values that boom the ideas of the nationalism and the self-respect of the specific cultural identities. For example after a long political turmoil and ethnic cleansing in South Africa the government recognized to verify the value of all the languages spoken in the country. It is a positive step towards the democratization and the foundation of the modern citizenship in the country. However ideas were mixed because of the long political suppression in the country which had divided people’s attitude towards their history and the self respect for the recognition of each other in pre-modern citizenship contexts. Some of them were happy and proud of their history and some mark the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck as the beginning of an evil era. But they celebrate the anniversary every year to bridge the unity in the country. This attitude declares that history and the political situations play a significant role by excluding some citizens on ethnic grounds. This contrast is best observed in countries like Germany where Jews were excluded and their human rights were snatched during second world war. The modernization and industrialization has brought developmental progress and at the same time it also has increased the problems of individualism. Cultural factors, education, medieval merchants, curriculum in higher educational played vital roles in those matters. Citizens in the pre-modern period demanded political, civil and basic human rights. Countries with military powers, like Germany, had pushed all norms aside to establish authoritarian ideologies. As for as the role of social factors and church is concerned they were in position to control and judge the behavior of the powers if their actions were against God`s rule.

The position took by kalberg is more convincing because has emphasized on social factors and industrialization for establishing the modern citizenship. But according to him these four basic have no causal relationship with the modernization and the industrialization. Those factors pre existed even before modernization and industrialization. There is not a single force that can establish such foundations by the use of power. For the modern citizenship it is important that those values must be respected. It could be concluded that these factors can also have adverse effects. If we take the example of individualism it can lead to one`s selfishness and the exclusion of others in the society. In such a manner that one gets more desires fulfilled which ultimately could leads to lack of consideration for others. The link they see is that all aspects of culture should be taken seriously. There is not a hypothetical reason that one group is better than other. The laws for the individual and the group must be same and that countries must respect the wellbeing of all their citizens politically and morally to establish modern citizenship values and democratic institutions.

Part 4

The views and attitudes of Africans about democracy are briefly explained in the articles. The aspects are both qualitatively and quantitatively well organized. But they proceed differently in their research to demonstrate views of Africans. They agree about the development and positive views on democracy in Africa. But one is more optimistic than other in their approach. They argue that democratic institutions and political elites are engaging in the ‘politics of belly’. The multiparty system has not delivered satisfying results. Chabal and Daloz are pessimistic about comparative political analysts approach in the field to study the democratic developments in different countries. Analysts must evaluate data’s and contrast surveys among different regions to examine citizen’s attitudes on the topic. In this regard Diamond contrasted Latinobarometer, Asian barometer, Africanbarometer and views of western and eastern European countries. And found most Africans reject any form of military or one party system. They agree that multiparty system did bring changes of freedom, free and fair elections but not any revolutionary modifications what so ever in African lives. The clientelism and vote for favor in African political system has shattered democratic values and political institutions. Chabal and Dalaz do not agree on the persuasiveness of such a model of political and multiparty representation which is not valued in the western democratic institutions. The Afrobarometer in this regard reveals citizens views on their political system. For example 62% to 75% support democracy but in Nigeria during years the percentage has been dropped from 58% to 45% but in South Africa this percentage is high. This has to do with factors like corruption and the mismanagement of the political environment. They agree that elites are corrupt and there is to a large extent corruption in the states where there is little economic advancement. But in their (Chabal and Daloz) view the corruption is not a problem. They convey the message that we actually have to examine how corruption generates and how it affects the political system. For example in Nigeria stealing government belongings is culturally legitimate and acceptable but at the same time illegal. In Dalton`s view culture has to do with the values but Chabal and Daloz consider it peoples` orientations in giving meanings to their actions, societal and political distinctiveness and to arrange opportunity to clarify those views in the political system. The functions of institutions are alike whether they are in west or Africa but it should be tested how the system is working. Is it accordance to the standards in allowing actors to participate in the process?

These comments guide us how to approach culturally and find out how power in terms of legitimacy and accountability works in the African political system. The power struggle in Nigeria, the informal relations by their political leaders to increase their wealth shows culturally how the institutions are performing their political responsibility. So in this matter the multiparty and the democratic style of the western countries has totally failed in countries in African region and especially in countries like Nigeria. The main argument is that culture matters and it is important in cultural context how to deduce the power sharing which is exercised in the Africa continent

I am very much convinced by the arguments of Chabal and Daloz. Although it is based on theoretical and anthropological grounds but it gives a good overview of the cultural. These cultural considerations guide us to the dialogue on the aspects of social, cultural and religious lives of the people. This makes us to admit the complicated nature associated to the politics. Second and most important argument is the people`s personal assemblage to the politics and not in the democratic institutionalization of the system.

Part 5

The chapter starts by providing fascinating menu of three essential arguments in favor of globalization and at the same time some negative impacts that it has on the relations between the citizens and the nation state providing egalitarianism and social rights to their inhabitants. The chapter discusses the role of the network society in technological advances which impacts the advancement of globalization and also lives of the citizens. The role of the economy in this regard is important because it can influence the lives of some and can decrease the efficiency for others because of its flexibility in the labor sector. The globalization has one negative impact on the citizens because it has increased the evaporation of the middle class. In unfolding the way how the population is going to be a two class system. In this regard they are forced to have more work burden in order to survive in this globalized and capitalistic society. The governments deregulation and open economy system tried to decrease that gap to boom the sector in economic terms. The regulations in this sense are positive if the market dynamism is enhanced and negative if this is niggling and inflexible. These regulations adversely created feelings of exclusion among those citizens who experienced that benefits of modernization are not equally shared and redistributed. This leads to the formation of the right wings political ideologies in the society and the alliance of the deserted citizens. The alliance of these wings has strengthened their territorial identity and their relation to some group. The way they dress and the way they convey messages show their membership to that particular group. This philosophy has damaged the state reputation and standard to proclaim the leader and be custodian for the citizens. The chapter mentions three important sectors of which the last one is very significant. The emergence of the anti immigrants groups, anti neo-liberalism and the growing wave of ethno-nationalism in the western world. They are gaining support for power and this brings to the present voice of ‘Globalism is in retreat before tribalism’. Where these thoughts are in surging there are positive terms linked to globalization and the role it could play in the society. I very much agree with the authors on their ‘transcultural utopia’ optimism the so-called multiculturalism in the modern societies. In such societies people are able to gain knowledge from others with the same ideologies in creating new ways of democratic civilizations and ‘cosmopolitan citizenship’ values. Exploring new resources and sharing the same ideas in developing the democratic institutions.

One thing that I want to mention here is the Dependency Theory. According to this theory the developed countries are engaging in the development processes in the less developed or developing countries to achieve economic progress. The multinational organizations are violating labor rights, responsible for the environmental demolition of less developed and developing countries and promoting corruption within the local governments in order to expand financial profits and maximizing their interests. I think that more emphasis could be given on the role of the multinational organizations, fighting corruption, poor quality of life and preserving the basic human and labor rights which are violated by big these big corporations

A the end to sum up the discussion we can say that although the globalization could have negative impacts in some regions of the world due to political instability and unfavorable environments but it has also benefitted most countries to achieve economic growth, better business opportunities, better distribution of the assets and ways to create better flow of the education for their citizens and in general to the poor sector of the society (Asian tigers and Asian new Industrial Countries).

Part 6

The authority of the state and the international organizations has faced considerable challenges in the eyes of post-modernists due to globalization, culture and diversification in multicultural societies. The approach to the discussion on the multiculturalism and the diversity is related to the cultural existence and the way of doing things by the indigenous or minorities. Several publications have given meaning to the term culture. The point here is to draw a line what culture means to different people and how it is interpreted in different regions. It is the way of respecting and understanding of the right of all the groups who have the right of living their own way of live and doing their own way of justice, preserving their values and norms without the states intervention. It is in the intellectual terms a collective right of every individual. For example freedom of speech, press, social and political rights (Salman, Eriksen). But the obligations to preserve the indigenous dignity and respect of customary laws are not rewarded and there are restrictions and interruption of the government and international organizations on their affairs. The international organizations in general lack the ability to promote democracy because they are busy in promoting the socio and political motives around the globe (Salman). The politicization has twisted the citizen’s attention from essential issues and problems in the society (Eriksen). The international agreements for the tolerance, minority rights, race and respect for cultural values is not fulfilled by the organizations. It has weakened the relationships among the groups. We observe in most European countries that this phenomenon has lost its values with the uprising of the nationalism movements and parties accumulating power using such issues of multiculturalism and human rights. According to Levi-Strauss tolerance has propagated the issue of equality but also increased gap among citizens. There are groups in western societies who systematically promote disharmony in the society and use the freedom of expression and religion to attack the minority groups in order to achieve their political benefits. They have abandoned the basic principles of tolerance and understanding to maintain and apply their own values and norms on minority groups. This way of dealing with the issue has unfortunately excluded them and their basic human rights have been violated (Eriksen). On one hand the constitution respects values and norms of indigenous way of dealing with issues but the truth is something else. For example in Latin America (Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia) the institutionalization of the political system means progress and not freedom. All these countries have expressed their obligations to preserve indigenous rights of doing their own way of justice but there are constitutional limitations. The indigenous people are not free in doing their own way of justice (Assies, Salman). The Colombian constitution has limited their rights to execute their practices within their territories (art. 246). The restrictions on the use of Kymlicka within the indigenous communities are a good example. At the same time the case of Gionzáles Wasnora reflects our attention which reveals court`s incapability to take position displaying for the universalism of the human rights or the categorical relativism in cultural perspectives (Assies). The international community and organizations is not fulfilling their obligations to condemn the majority nationalism (Assies). It is obvious that organizations are supporting the minority rights but they are not solving the problems. For example the issue of equality and cultural rights in the western societies for and among the immigrants is noteworthy. The equality, freedom of religion, tolerance and hostility in the new liberal and globalised modern societies has been coupled with the tensions resulted due to cultural contacts. In free and democratic societies these issues are influenced by the media. The media can play an important role to strengthen the issues of equality and the mutual respect (Eriksen).

The evaluation of the articles convinced me because of their feasibility on the ground. The major concepts presented in the articles are tolerance, respect for political and cultural rights. The critical views and the conclusions they draw are adequate. Although the international laws and the state laws claim for the individual freedom and equality but they do not meet those criteria’s. The issue of individual freedom and privacy (Salman) is not respected and guaranteed in the current time (e.g. checking ID cards, CCTV surveillance). The reason here is the governments concern and responsibility to fight the global terrorism and maintain security. This has limited the privacy and political rights of the citizens. At the same time religious rights and the customary laws are limited in some Latin American countries (Assies). Evaluation of these facts leads that we are faced with dilemmas of delivering the message of the equality, justice, respect, tolerance, freedom and the lack of democratic institutions which stands for the preservation of basic human and cultural rights. The authors used the emotional work specifically and properly to draw attention to the problems discussed above. The main subjects discussed were tolerance and international and universal human rights. Accordingly we can conclude that there should be a balance among all the individuals and minorities should be given the opportunities to maintain their cultural distinctiveness and to exercise their own way of life, doing their own way of justice and dealing with their problems. Development and progress could only be achieved if we give attention to the local conditions and improve the local resources for healthier living conditions. I would end this discussion with the argument of Levi-Strauss’s that ‘cultures cannot be ranked they are diverse but equivalent’.

Inventory Arguments: (Not part of the paper)

Radical Diversification and radical multiculturalism

In the last decades the diversification in the modern societies has challenged the hegemonic powers of the governments. This has undermined the states power to handle certain issues of racial, political and social related problems. Due to diversification and globalization the government has gained some reasonable achievements in different fields. Different factors have challenged the autonomy of the government these are globalization, communication, politics and the culture. It is also true at the same time it has limited the government’s position in some areas but it has also given much power in other areas. Though the scope of this subject is very broad but we will concentrate only on the role of some organizations and in general the role of the different nation state dealing with multiculturalism and in specific the human rights. The role of the globalization is important because it does not only establish interconnectedness of economic relations but also connect organizations around the world on political and social grounds. Globalization in this sense can have good and bad effects. It could be good if it delivers positive outcomes and strengthen human rights laws and the effect would be worse if it violates the human and political freedom of the citizens.