Friday, August 28, 2009

International Law

INTERNATIONALlaw was generally formulated to maintain international order to protect the sovereignty of the states .The states were primarily the subjects of international law the principal bearers of rights and obligations according to Higgins (1994:40) international law only exist to states ....The existence of international law was primarily maintenance of Peace and and stability based on mutual respect for each state's territorial integrity and domestic jurisdiction:issues of distributive justice and the protection of basic human rights (liberty,freedom and the right of self pursuit and happiness)

The only question that can be asked is if the existence of international law is effective to manipulative and destructive leaders of states and the states themselves.Although
states are still at the heart of international law system individual groups and organizations are increasingly becoming recognized subjects of international Law.The development of of an expansive body of international human rights law supported by evolving mechanisms of enforcement,has given individuals as well as some collectives such as minority actors clear rights under international Law.

Monday, August 24, 2009

Impact of International systems on political and economic stability, living standards and social /cultural interaction between different societies.

The aspects of globalization has influenced different states of the world to be interlinked operating as one in terms of economy, politics and environmental stability .This essay is going to discuss international systems and it’s various components if they function effectively focusing on their impact on political and economic stability, living standards and social and cultural interaction between different societies.

International system has become very imperative in the world we live in as globalization is at its peak, globalization has led to the creation of international systems they operate within the globe. Globalization according to Baylis and Smith (8:2005) it is a process of increasing interconnectedness between societies such that the events of the world more and more have effects on peoples and societies far away. According to Spiegel, Taw, Wehing and Williams (7:2005) the “international systems” is a comforting expression which assumes that international relations can be described according to a single unifying logic which inspires the actions of well –identified action. The international system comprise of various actors that perform different functions they are certain procedures and behavioral tendencies that the actors must adhere to or follow because any action is of global concern.

According to Rourke (57:1993) an international system is comprised of various aspects, the Nation State which is a state with a territorially based political organization that claims and is generally accorded sovereignty, the supranational actors which are composed of individual countries as members, have organizational authority at least theoretically supercede the sovereignty of it’s individual members an example of the high international order. Examples of these supranational actors or intergovernmental actors they are the General Purpose Universal Organizations like the UN and Regional Organization like the AU and Alliances like the NATO and lastly the transnational actors MNCs (multinational companies) and non intergovernmental actors the NGOs. These actors play a vital role in influencing the political, economic, living standards and cultural interaction between societies.

Various actors of the International systems have shown to a greater extent that they have their benefits and disadvantages in their operations. The existence of these actors such as the supranational actors, composed of regional organizations which are also called General Purpose Universal organizations, the UN in particular which was founded in 1945 has adequately managed to function and address the concerns of citizens from all parts of the globe. This organization according to Baylis and Smith (406;2005) which is composed of various countries with a number of 192 countries in its membership thus like all the countries in the world, in the international system the United Nations has managed to function effectively in terms of international politics. This can be noted by the global peace that prevails. According to Baylis and Smith (406:2005) the objectives of the United Nations are to maintain international peace and stability develop friendly relations among nations, cooperate in solving international problems, promoting respect of human rights and harmonizing the actions of nations.

These objectives have been fully achieved maintenance international peace and stability universal goal has been achieved for example the war in Liberia, Somalia and DRC the United Nations has managed to send peacekeeping forces and humanitarian aid. According to Baylis and Smith (115:2005) international forces are used in defiance of sovereignty of a state in order to protect humanitarian standards. The United Nations specialized agencies UNICEF, WHO, ILO, FAO and WTO to mention just a few have managed to function effectively to being sanity through out the world.

The most objective that have been more effective politically is to influence the policy decision making in the different states they by solving the international problems the Millennium Development Goals which were fully adopted by the countries show how this international actor has been successful in combating the international problems. According to Baylis and Smith (118; 2005) the effectiveness of the United Nations can be fully recognized in solving problems such as rebuilding failed states, supporting democratization, promoting human development, addressing HIV/AIDS and poverty and disease have made UN an indispensable resource, this has been good in enforcing homogeneity of polices which allows regional and international integration in strategic goals formulation.

Nevertheless of the positive impact of the intergovernmental actors politically they have brought the weakness in terms of the state operations according to Rourke (67; 1993) individual states policy no longer counts as policy homogeneity is now being followed by all the countries of the world. The failure of the international actors to control the USA national interest when they invaded Iraq in 2003 show how ineffective these international actors are, powerful states like the USA and Britain still control the world countries which is the creation of a bipolar system according to Baylis and Smith (406; 2005) the failure to get UN security Council authorization for the war in Iraq in 2003 shows how the UN is ineffective in dealing with international matters that affect the global peace and stability. In addition Rourke (442; 1993) the states sovereignty is now eroded as domestic economic including employment, inflation and overall growth, is heavy dependent on foreign markets ,imports of resources ,currency exchange rates, and a variety of international economic factor. The rise of free trade promoted by the intergovernmental organization is both a cause and result of international economic interdependence. This has been caused by the UN objective of promoting free trade and relations. Whilst the global peace and stability is begin threaten by civil conflict, humanitarian emergencies, human rights violations, poverty and inequality and tribal wars like those which led to Rwanda genocide the United Nations seems to be nonexistence as they are no permanent solution to these problems yet.

Economically the supernatural actors have contributed a lot to the international systems the World Bank and the IMF (international monetary Fund) which is a specialized agency of the United Nations according to Wittkopf and Kegley (153; 2000) the IMF purpose is to stabilize international monetary exchange rates it does so by influencing currency values and permitting members experiencing financial crises to recover by drawing foreign exchange from the IMF. Third world countries usually face economic problems and they are still developing in terms of infrastructure and economic growth the natural factors of droughts, famine and diseases make they operations of the economies so difficult that financial assistance will be of vital importance to upgrade the standards of the people so IMF and the world Bank act as the lender of the last resort when on country is threatened by economic melt down.
These actors have managed to improve the standards of living and to increase global participation and interaction of different cultures of the world through implementation of better policies initiated by all states for instance the Millennium Developmental Goals. Free Trade within the world has led to economic boost of other nations like Singapore and China according to The world Book Encyclopedia (233:2004) the world Trade Organization (WTO) aims to encourage the free flow of raw materials components finishened, finished products and services between countries. This has resulted in democratic relations between States hence the interaction between states.

The other intergovernmental are regional organizational actors such as the SADC, AU, EU and OAS are very much influential in maintaining regional peace and cooperation politically they have managed to address the problems of security, trade and democratization. This can be noted by the pivotal role played by SADC in the DRC civil war and the mediation of the conflict of political parties in Zimbabwe they by trying to bring peace and stability in the region and the world as whole as bad practice of politics can affect economy of the world. They help to promote regional economic development and economic integration among member states.

The ineffectiveness of the intergovernmental organizations economically and to the living standards can be noticed by the influence of this organizations in policy decision making that affect the countries negatively in their operations according to Rourke (67; 1993) the distribution of assets of power has not yet been achieved as power assets are the components of the national power that help to determines the country’s strength. The neo imperialist dependency created by these international actors have negative impacts to the third world countries as they are likely to suffer economically as the powerful states like the US control the world economy the recession of the 2009 originated form the USA so the strength of an individual states has shown how the intergovernmental organization are ineffective as they also depend of these powerful nations in their operations.

The threat to the existence of the nation state is now invertible due to the existence of the intergovernmental organizations. The failure to address the issues of the poverty and famine in the third World, with strict laundering policies of the World Bank and the IMF and heavy interests changed on the loans has worsened the situation of developing countries which in long term accumulated huge debts to these intergovernmental financial institutions, poor nations have not yet benefited form the functions of the international governments but have been left worse off with droughts turning into famine.

The nation state actors have been eroded their sovereignty as the international systems have dominated in the operations of the world politically, economically and socially according to Rourke (57:1993) a nation state actor is a territorially based political organization that claims and is generally accorded sovereignty. The weaker states have been left out in decision making and policy implementation intergovernmental actors are fueling the recolonization of the weaker states.

The non governmental organizations on the other hand have effectively addressed the concerns of the citizens from all parts of the globe politically they have managed to fight for women rights, human rights ,environmental protection, disarmament. Non governmental organization according to Baylis and Smith (435;2005) it is any group of people relating to each other regularly in some formal manner and engaging in collective action, provided that the activities are non-commercial and non violent and are not on behalf of a government. NGOs such as the Red Cross and Amnesty International have influenced the various governments across the world to have policies that are beneficial to human existence the living standards of the people around the world have been improved by NGOs humanitarian aid to war torn countries such as Somalia and the economic devastated counties of the world such as Zimbabwe the NGOs have distributed food, shelter, medication and water to the victims of the world devastated areas. Above all the non governmental organizations have been a source of link to supernatural organization such as the UN for its specialized agencies to take action.

The existence of the nongovernmental organization has according to Wittkopf and Kegley (162;2004) the NGOs have shaken the sovereignty of states governments over their foreign policies ,this has been severe in fragile of falling states where the revolt of NGOs has led to the collapse of the state and even led to the devolution of the central government power. NGOs in many states have been involved in the internal affairs of the states they have influenced regime change in states were government refuse to follow their policies. In addition according to Wittkopf and Kegley (162:2004) NGOs are making the borders porous and vulnerable both to external pressures and challenges from within their boundaries led to erosion of the state sovereignty.

Transnational actors have led to the development of infrastructure in the states they operate in led to economic growth and creation of employment in third world countries hence the improvement standards of living better housing, roads and health. According to Wittkopf and Kegley (173:2004) multinational companies advocates for liberal free trade and are active contributors to the globalization of the world. Transnational companies such as Shell, BP and Anglo American have been major facilitators of economic growth is the countries they host their operations. Transnational actors have many attributes that benefit the state they host their operations mostly of these transnational actors are located in the third world countries according to Baylis and Smith (433:2005) companies have their own interests of expanding their production ,rising the market share and maximizing their operations this will be accorded to the governments economic growth and employment.

Transnational Banks and MNCs according to Wittkopf and Kegley (173:2004) redistributes wealth in the world economy ,contributing to economic development in some states and stagnation in other they mainly focus on the development of the rich states by spreading the negative rewards of globalization of inequality and inequitably wealth distribution.

The negative impact of the transnational actors have mainly been on culture and political grounds Held and McGrew (198:2000) the world states culture have been eroded and promotion of westernization, McDonaldization and Coca colonization have been a way of influencing culture homogenization through out the world this has led to states losing their identity and historical background. The issue of sovereignty has been crucial as the states are losing their control in decision making and policy implementation. According to Baylis and Smith (430; 2005) two of the most important attributes of sovereignty, control over currency and control over the currency and control over foreign trade have been diminished due to the presence of these transnational actors. The governments have to loss sovereignty over economic issues and development.

As many of the transnational companies are owned by the west and the US this have led to the powerful states extending their national interests in other states this can be shown by the control of oil reserves in the Middle East by the US government through their transnational companies. According to Baylis and Smith (431:2005) the US control of TNCs leads to extraterritoriality by which the governments attempts to exercise it’s legal authority in the territory of another state with the use of domestic law to control the global activities. These transnational companies can be involved in illicit trading of arms, drugs, stolen goods and exploitation of women they have operations that maybe illegal like the environmental degradation due to the lack of government policies on environmental protection in favor of economics growth objectives.

Despite that they have been a great concern in national politics and international politics on how the international systems operate, with the negative impact of their operations in individual sates and internationally. The international systems have functioned well to strengthen economies of the countries and increasing interaction between countries as well as political relations among states and improving the living standards of the people through out the world due to these international systems the globalization process possible.


Tendai Mazingaizo

Bibliography

Baylis J and Smith S 2005 The Globalization of world Politics 3rd edition Oxford University Press USA

Held D. and McGrew A. 2000 The Global transformation Reader Blackwell Publishers Inc USA


Rourke J T 1993 International Politics on the world stage 4th edition The Duskin Publishing Group Inc USA

Splegel S.LTaw J.M, Welting F.L and Williams K.P: (2004) :Reading the world of Politics A new Era: Thomson Learning Inc USA


The World Book Encyclopedia: 2004: World Book Inc USA

Wittkopf E.R and Kegley C.W Jr: 2004: World Politics trend and Transformation: Thomson Learning Inc USA

In you own opinion, do the International system and its various components function effectively, and does it adequately address the concerns of citize

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

What accounts for the differences in the wealth between rich and poor countries?

Kendall(2005, P 270) defines modernization theory as “a perspective that links global inequality to different levels of economic development and suggest that low-income economies can move to middle- and high-income economies by achieving self-sustained economic growth”. According to Rostow, all countries go through four stages, in which very little social change takes place, take-off stage, a period of economic growth accompanied by a growing belief in individualism, competition and achievement in the society, technological maturity, this is a period of improving technology, reinvesting in new industries, and embracing the belief, values and social institution of the high-income, developed nation; and the phase of high mass consumption, which is accompanied by a high standard of living. Kendall (2005, P 274) further defines dependency theory as “the belief that global poverty can at least partially be attributed to the fact the low-income countries have been exploited by the high-income countries”. In this essay I’m going to explain what accounts for the difference in wealth between rich and poor countries and I will be using the two theories that I have defined above to elaborate why I think there’s a difference between rich and poor countries.

“According to the modernization theory, the low-income, less developed nations can improve their standard of living only with a period of intensive economic growth and accompanying changes in people’s beliefs, values, and attitude toward work” (Kendall, 2005, P 270). One of the largest barriers to development in low-income nations was the traditional cultural values people held, in particular the beliefs that are fatalistic in sense that they believe that a situation that a situation cannot change and cannot be avoided, especially the bad ones. In cases like this people do not see any need to work in order to improve their lot in life, which result in their countries being poor because they’re afraid of change and new challenges while in contrast while in contrast the so called rich countries live in a modern way, they challenge their norms when they’re getting in their way of success particularly in business affairs. Unlike the traditional society achievement are associated with the basis of achieved skills and work in the modern society. According to the modernization theory the poor countries “can improve their standards of living only with a period of intensive economic growth and accompanying changes in people’s belief, values, and attitude toward work” (Kendall, 2005, P 270). In poor countries “material development has been swift, but social and cultural adjustment, which takes much longer, has lagged behind” (Popenoe, 1995, P 502). Poor countries which I would refer to as Third World countries religious orientation and attitudes toward work and even toward prosperity make these nation less responsive to industrialization which Kendall(2005, P 690) defines as “the process by which society are transformed from dependence on agriculture and hand-made products to an emphasis on manufacturing and related industries”. Another factor that makes Third World economic development distinctive is the serious problem of overpopulation in this part of the world. Many developing countries were already overpopulated when they first began to industrialize, and every step of economic growth has been matched by a jump in population. In other words, sharp increases in population have kept per capita income unchanged even though national productivity has risen. Unfortunately Third World countries often lack the political stability and popular support that they need in order to carry out their ambitious plans. Third World countries often lack the political stability and popular support that they need in order to carry out their ambitious plans, they also lack adequate numbers of highly skilled and motivated professionals and technicians, such as engineers, managers, doctors, without whom economic development is likely to succeed. And Third World’s nation states are still very young, for example, “most of Africa’s nation did not become independent until the 1960s, and many are still in the process of establishing their legitimacy, most lack cultural cohesion as well as economic stability, and a few development” (Popenoe, 1995, P 503). Whilst on the other hand rich countries have lots of skilled professionals that maintain the economic development.

Many of today’s poor countries are the former colonies whose economic and political structures were once controlled by foreign powers. Although most colonialism has ended, “the nations of the poor countries find themselves locked up into yet another foreign-dominated system, the complex web of global economic and political interdependence”(Popenoe, 1995, P 503). The poor countries seem to have little if any opportunity for self –determination than they had when they were actually colonies. The rich countries are in effect preventing economic development from occurring in the poor countries, they have maintained indirect control over the economic and political life of their former colonial possessions. Little was done to help the poor countries become self-efficient. As a result these societies (of the poor nations) cane to depend on the export of a small number of raw materials and needed to import almost all manufactured goods. When colonial rule ended, very little changed for most Third World people (people in the poor countries).”In recent decades, the advanced capitalist nations have thus shifted their objective from the establishment of new colonies to the attempt to continue to exploit as many of the resources of their former colonies as possible” (Popenoe, 1995, P 503). They do this according to the viewpoint of dependency theory which I defined above in the introduction. Dependency theorists see the greed of the rich countries as a source of increasing impoverishments of the poorer nations and their people. The poor nations are trapped in a cycle of structural dependency on the richer nations due to their need for infuses of foreign capital and external markets for their raw materials, making it impossible for the poor nations to pursue their own economic and human development plans. Kendall(2005, P 274) further states that for this reason, dependency theorists believe that countries such as Brazil, Nigeria, India and Kenya cannot reach sustained economic growth patterns of more advanced capitalist economies. Development in the poor countries will be assisted by innovation transferred from rich countries.

In conclusion I will sum up by saying that dependency theory states that global poverty can at least partially be attributed to the fact that the low-income countries have been exploited by the high-income countries, whereas modernization theory focuses on how societies can reduce inequality through industrialization and economic development. “Dependency theory makes a positive contribution to our understanding of global poverty by noting that underdevelopment isn’t necessarily the cause of inequality between the poor countries and the richer countries, Instead it points out that exploitation not only for one country by another but of countries by transnational corporations may limit or retard economic growth and human development in some nations” (Kendall, 2005, P 274),


Reference:

Ø Kendall D (2005) Sociology in our times, USA, Thomson Wardsworth
Ø Popenoe D (1995) Sociology, USA, Prentice Hall


















What accounts for the differences in the wealth between rich and poor countries?

Kendall(2005, P 270) defines modernization theory as “a perspective that links global inequality to different levels of economic development and suggest that low-income economies can move to middle- and high-income economies by achieving self-sustained economic growth”. According to Rostow, all countries go through four stages, in which very little social change takes place, take-off stage, a period of economic growth accompanied by a growing belief in individualism, competition and achievement in the society, technological maturity, this is a period of improving technology, reinvesting in new industries, and embracing the belief, values and social institution of the high-income, developed nation; and the phase of high mass consumption, which is accompanied by a high standard of living. Kendall (2005, P 274) further defines dependency theory as “the belief that global poverty can at least partially be attributed to the fact the low-income countries have been exploited by the high-income countries”. In this essay I’m going to explain what accounts for the difference in wealth between rich and poor countries and I will be using the two theories that I have defined above to elaborate why I think there’s a difference between rich and poor countries.

“According to the modernization theory, the low-income, less developed nations can improve their standard of living only with a period of intensive economic growth and accompanying changes in people’s beliefs, values, and attitude toward work” (Kendall, 2005, P 270). One of the largest barriers to development in low-income nations was the traditional cultural values people held, in particular the beliefs that are fatalistic in sense that they believe that a situation that a situation cannot change and cannot be avoided, especially the bad ones. In cases like this people do not see any need to work in order to improve their lot in life, which result in their countries being poor because they’re afraid of change and new challenges while in contrast while in contrast the so called rich countries live in a modern way, they challenge their norms when they’re getting in their way of success particularly in business affairs. Unlike the traditional society achievement are associated with the basis of achieved skills and work in the modern society. According to the modernization theory the poor countries “can improve their standards of living only with a period of intensive economic growth and accompanying changes in people’s belief, values, and attitude toward work” (Kendall, 2005, P 270). In poor countries “material development has been swift, but social and cultural adjustment, which takes much longer, has lagged behind” (Popenoe, 1995, P 502). Poor countries which I would refer to as Third World countries religious orientation and attitudes toward work and even toward prosperity make these nation less responsive to industrialization which Kendall(2005, P 690) defines as “the process by which society are transformed from dependence on agriculture and hand-made products to an emphasis on manufacturing and related industries”. Another factor that makes Third World economic development distinctive is the serious problem of overpopulation in this part of the world. Many developing countries were already overpopulated when they first began to industrialize, and every step of economic growth has been matched by a jump in population. In other words, sharp increases in population have kept per capita income unchanged even though national productivity has risen. Unfortunately Third World countries often lack the political stability and popular support that they need in order to carry out their ambitious plans. Third World countries often lack the political stability and popular support that they need in order to carry out their ambitious plans, they also lack adequate numbers of highly skilled and motivated professionals and technicians, such as engineers, managers, doctors, without whom economic development is likely to succeed. And Third World’s nation states are still very young, for example, “most of Africa’s nation did not become independent until the 1960s, and many are still in the process of establishing their legitimacy, most lack cultural cohesion as well as economic stability, and a few development” (Popenoe, 1995, P 503). Whilst on the other hand rich countries have lots of skilled professionals that maintain the economic development.

Many of today’s poor countries are the former colonies whose economic and political structures were once controlled by foreign powers. Although most colonialism has ended, “the nations of the poor countries find themselves locked up into yet another foreign-dominated system, the complex web of global economic and political interdependence”(Popenoe, 1995, P 503). The poor countries seem to have little if any opportunity for self –determination than they had when they were actually colonies. The rich countries are in effect preventing economic development from occurring in the poor countries, they have maintained indirect control over the economic and political life of their former colonial possessions. Little was done to help the poor countries become self-efficient. As a result these societies (of the poor nations) cane to depend on the export of a small number of raw materials and needed to import almost all manufactured goods. When colonial rule ended, very little changed for most Third World people (people in the poor countries).”In recent decades, the advanced capitalist nations have thus shifted their objective from the establishment of new colonies to the attempt to continue to exploit as many of the resources of their former colonies as possible” (Popenoe, 1995, P 503). They do this according to the viewpoint of dependency theory which I defined above in the introduction. Dependency theorists see the greed of the rich countries as a source of increasing impoverishments of the poorer nations and their people. The poor nations are trapped in a cycle of structural dependency on the richer nations due to their need for infuses of foreign capital and external markets for their raw materials, making it impossible for the poor nations to pursue their own economic and human development plans. Kendall(2005, P 274) further states that for this reason, dependency theorists believe that countries such as Brazil, Nigeria, India and Kenya cannot reach sustained economic growth patterns of more advanced capitalist economies. Development in the poor countries will be assisted by innovation transferred from rich countries.

In conclusion I will sum up by saying that dependency theory states that global poverty can at least partially be attributed to the fact that the low-income countries have been exploited by the high-income countries, whereas modernization theory focuses on how societies can reduce inequality through industrialization and economic development. “Dependency theory makes a positive contribution to our understanding of global poverty by noting that underdevelopment isn’t necessarily the cause of inequality between the poor countries and the richer countries, Instead it points out that exploitation not only for one country by another but of countries by transnational corporations may limit or retard economic growth and human development in some nations” (Kendall, 2005, P 274),


Reference:

Ø Kendall D (2005) Sociology in our times, USA, Thomson Wardsworth
Ø Popenoe D (1995) Sociology, USA, Prentice Hall





























Monday, August 17, 2009

Do interest groups have positive or negative influence on the outcome of the US elections?


The United States of America has one of the most liberal democratic and oldest constitutions in the world formed on September 17 1787. Within the political divide in US there are influential factors that affect the outcome of elections such as interest groups. This essay will elucidate and explain why interest groups in United States of America have a positive and a negative impact on the outcome of elections.
According to Robertson (1985:159) interest groups are associations formed to promote a sectional interest in the political system thus trade unions, professional associations, employer’s organizations and motoring organizations. These interest groups have strong ties with the political environment in which they operate in they influence the political systems to suit their interests as their main objective is to fulfill the goals why they where created. Delury and Kaple (1999:1201) quotes Alexis de Tocqueville an American observer of political systems as he noted that in 1835 Americans tend to from associations that where for the purpose of pursuing and protecting there individual interests. The existence of the interests groups in America since 1835 has influence the outcome of the elections for instance of the election of the congress which is very vital for policy implementation, as well in the presidency, by endorsement of the candidates. According to Mclean (1996;244 ) he states that in the United States interests groups pay close attention to influencing congress, sometimes producing the so called iron triangles comprising interest groups ,congressional subcommittees and bureaucratic agencies.
The presence of interests groups has positively affected the election outcome according to Heywood (2002; 277) interest groups have managed to strengthen representation by articulating interests and advancing view that are ignored by political parties and by providing a means of influencing the government during election period. The interest groups have managed to educate the electorate on the dangers of electing a government that has bad policy implementation into power there presentation of sectional political interests has provided a platform for individual freedom and the right to exercise liberty . The electorate is likely to vote for a party or a candidate that is supported by various interests groups as they represent the people’s will. The various interest groups such as National Rifle Association (NRA) and American Association of Retired People (AARP) during election time manage to mobilize electoral majority to go and vote. During campaign periods in US various corporate groups, labour unions, ideological groups and professional groups managed to mobilize the electoral majority to vote, the purpose of electoral mobilization is to allow the voters to excises there right to vote and be part of the decision making process of the elected government which will lead to a more democratic government with better policies.
To gain the support of the Congress, interest groups campaign for individual members. The election finance laws in American politics show how important the interest groups are. Finance laws stipulate the amount an individual or companies can sponsor an election interest groups have no limit on their contributions they are registered under the US tax code which permits them to engage in political activity or raising money for political candidates without the regulations from the Federal election Commission. Election outcome is influenced in way that the political parties always get the support form interest groups to increase their support base which automatically leads to increased votes. Mostly importantly the interest groups according to Heywood (2002; 277) they broaden the scope of political participation and by providing an alternative to conventional party politics and by offering opportunities for grassroots activism, instead of politics begin confined to politicians only, the US interest groups allows the electorate participation as they can influence through institutional relationships that exist between the political parties or government bodies to make policies that suit their objectives. According to Magleby (1998; 1) the expanded role of interest groups marks the end from the one candidate centered campaigns so common in American politics.
Interests groups can now participate in politics by endorsing their candidates and campaign for them in they represent the interests of the political groups. The interest groups are important for the communicating vote information to the electorate through TV ads and various means of media through media, electorates can be able to vote wisely. According Magleby (1998; 9) interest groups electioneering the media added responsibility to inform the public of the full range of campaign activities, including those by non candidate campaign entities. During the 2009 presidential election various modes of media we used by the interest groups not to endorse there candidates and attacking candidates but to provide knowledge of the electorate no why it important to vote especially for their endorsed candidates. The most importantly they create a good environment for elections as they enforce the legislature to implement policies that govern elections.
Lastly according to Heywood (2000; 277) the interest groups promote debate and discussion thus creating a better uniform and a more educated electorate and improving quality of public policy. Candidate from various parties and candidates are forced to engage in debates on how they will improve the lives of the society and the states when elected into power this allows the electorate to determine which party or candidate to vote for due to this elections in US are very much unpredictable it depends on the candidate manifesto and his wisdom to get the votes. In contrary they are negative influences that the interest groups have on the outcome of elections in US. Heywood (2002:277) states that interests groups entrench political equality by strengthening the voice of the wealth and privileged those who have access to financial, education organizational or other resources. This can be explained by the Obama race to the presidency 2008 to 2009 and Bush’s 2000 bid for presidency, business and institutional groups supported and endorsed them as candidates for presidency, interest groups funded their campaigns, a candidate with most campaigning funds is likely to win.
Democracy is not achievable when the rich control the poor to vote for their individual interests those elected into power will definitely implement policies that suit those of the interest groups to compensate for the donations during the campaigning process. According to Wilson (2003;132) the decay of political parties in recent decades has been paralleled by the vast proliferation of organized interest groups or lobbies leading to a two party system that makes voters reluctant to waste votes on minor parties. The electorates are restricted to vote for the most major parties thus the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the US, with the most liberal democracy in the world America is slowly changing from a multi party state into a two party system State. During the campaign of Presidency 2008 to 2009 in the US the Democratic nominee Obama had the massive support of the interest groups the campaign contributions form these interest groups meant his opponents where facing an unfair campaign race for presidency as much of the wealthy interest groups were in the support of him. Interest groups enables to unfair campaign process in the election period. According to Magleby (2000;1)campaigning spending by the interest groups in the guise of issue "advocacy" has also grown dramatically in the recent elections cycles and has given the political parties a new argument to use when raising soft money.
Voters are no longer aware of who really want their votes the political parties or the interest groups. Due to interest group intervention in politics, political parties in the election period spend a lot of their time trying to respond public criticism this affects the campaigning hence would affect the electorate vote for the political parties if the electorate is brainwashed and induced with falsehoods against other party. The criticism by interest groups is for the defeat of candidates they oppose in which they convince members to vote for a specific candidate in an election. According to Mangleby (2000; 8) Parties in US use millions of dollars to respond to well financed attacks against their party candidates by interest groups. The fear of interest groups targeting candidates has also meant candidates have cooperated with their parties in the surge in soft money fund raising and spending. According to Heywood (2000:277) the interest groups are socially and politically divisive in that they are concerned with the particular not the general and advance minority interest against the majority.
With wealthy interest groups influencing the outcome of elections in the US this means democracy is compromised as the majority interest will not be represented by the outcome of the elections. ln addition interest groups according to Heywood (2000;277) tend to make the policy process closed and more secretive by exerting influence through negotiations and deals that are in no way subject to public scrutiny.
The electorate in the US can vote during elections for parties that have links with interest groups that represent the minority. Most of these factors lead to electorates unwilling to vote hence suppressed indirectly by interest groups. Interest groups in USA can be involved in demobilizing the electorates due to the propaganda they air on ads and radio with strong financial backbone the demobilizing affects the election results In conclusion the American elections remain the most democratic elections in the world as it allows different interest groups to participate in the election process. Democracy is achieved when the voice is given to individuals as well as different groups. Modern elections should be conducted when there is more intervention of the public and to allow the electorate to decide on who to vote for with the help of the interest groups.
Bibliography
D Robertson (1985).A Dictionary of Modern Politics. Europa Publications G.E Delury and D.A Kaple (1999) .
World Encyclopedia of Political Systems and Parties .Facts On File lnc Heywood A. (2002).
Politics. London.
Palgrave I Mclean (1996) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics .Oxford University Press. J
Q Wilson (2003) American Government .Houghton Mifflin Company

Is it possible to study politics objectively? Justify

Politics can be studied objectively if people can remove the mentalitythatpolitics involves corruption, injustice, oppression, violence,conflicts,and subjugation.lt is only in the good practice of politics that cancreatea different view of what it is at the current moment but it takes a lot to remove the bad views of what politics is, to the masses of people becausethey experience the bad side of politics every moment. Only with thein-depth study of what politics is that’s where the understanding is.Politics is in every human activity, for our every daily activities isnothing but politics itself .According to Heywood (2002: 21) hedefines:politics as the activity through which people make, preserve and amendthegeneral rules under which they live, As such, it is an essentially social activity, inextricably linked, on the other hand to the existence of diversity and conflict and on the other to a willingness to cooperate and act collectively. Politics is better seen as a search for conflict resolution than as it’s achievement, as not all conflicts are, or can be resolved. Therefore politics govern our way of conduct in the society and how to live together in peace which involves conflict resolutions.

Politics has been defined in many different ways. Heywood elaborates thatAristotle declared that ‘man is by nature a political animal” by thishemeant men can only from a just society and good community through apolitical community”(2002:8).South Africa have the judiciary system that was formed through political influence, though voting into power members ofthe parliament that are able to makes laws for the country, this provesthat politics is essential to the existence of a just society and good life where people practice full freedom of expression and the right to vote.Politics encourages people participation in decision making this is being practiced in South Africa, where people are going to polls in April2009 to vote for the President of their choice in the parties contesting.Heywoodquotes Rousseau as he argued that “only through the direct andcontinuousparticipation of all citizens in political life can the state be boundtothe common good or what he called the “general will” (2002:46) Politics involve the people in decision making although the people voted intopowerfocus on their personal needs and selfish ambitions that do not involve the people who voted for them.

According to Heywood politics can be defined as” compromise and consensus,this mean politics plays a pivotal role in decision making and resolving conflict that exist in a state thus conciliation and negotiation ratherthan force” (2002:7). Politics enables decision making in South Africamostof the decisions about national building are made in the parliament bypoliticians for example the national budget that was presented by his honorable finance minister Trevor Emmanuel. National interests are presented before the politicians for them to make decisions on behalfofthe people they represent although politicians tend to misrepresent thepeople’s interests in parliament. In South Africa politicians tend topreach what they will never do; they only want the people’s vote duringelection time, this bad practice of politics results in negativethoughtabout the politicians themselves.

Politics involves the fair allocation of resources within a state that does not result in conflict, it enables the central decision making to bemadeby one board thus the parliament, this results in quick decision making in times of need. According to Heywood politics enables a political solution that implies peaceful debate and arbitration as opposed to what isoftencalled a “military solution” (2002:7).The important role by the SouthAfrican government and the former president Thabo Mbeki to be the mediator between the conflicting parties of Zimbabwe ZANU PF and the MDC showstheimportance of politics in decision making as they were able to come up with solutions to resolve the crisis. Heywood quotes Crick as he portrayed politics “the solution of the problem of order which chooses conciliation rather than violence and coercion (2000:30).
Heywood also defines “politics as power, that it takes place at everylevelof the societies”(2002:10).Through politics South Africans have managed to achieve their hopes and aspirations this can be dated back in 1994 when South Africa was freed from the Apartheid system and be able to practice their right to vote. According to Heywood “politics is essence, power;the ability to achieve a desired outcome, through what ever means”(2002:10).Politics can make people and states achieve their goals but not necessarily in a good way, they are other brutal political causes.

However Heywood attacks politics as “associated with activities of politicians which are often seen as power seeking hypocrites who conceal personal needs and ambition behind the rhetoric of public services”(2002:7)ln South Africa we have a lot of politicians who focusabout their personal needs instead of the people who elected them into parliament some are involved in corruption activities that are at theexpense of the people.lt all because of politics why the people suffer,the apartheid system that existed prior 1994 was established by politicians whowere cunning ,cruel and manipulative. Heywood quotes Machiavelli “thestrictly realistic amount of politics drew attention to the use bypolitical leaders of cunning, cruelty and manipulation” (2002:7).

According to Heywood “defines politics as “dirty word” that conjures upimages of trouble, disruption and even violence on the other hand deceit,manipulation and lies on the other” (2002:4) South African politicians have some of the characteristics mentioned by Heywood as the deceive thewill ofthe people who elected them into power by not fulfilling the promises they made during the election time. According to Heywood (2002:7) he states that
The negative view of politics reflects the essentially liberal perception that as individuals is self interested, political power is corrupting because it encourages those in power to exploit their positions for personal advantage and at the expense of others.
Although politics is defined as power Heywood states that” the advocates ofpolitics as power are feminists and Marxists to the extent that women are not recognized in the world of politics” (2002:10).ln South Africa alothas been done to introduce women in the world of politics but a lot needs to be done because a lot of man are feminists they still have the traditional thinking that women can not rule or lead. According to Marxhereferred to “political power as merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another” (1967:57).ln South Africa we still have politicians who oppress the lower class people by not representing them fully inparliament thus stealing away their voice.

In conclusion the many ideologies makes it difficult to study politics objectively as we can only understand it through the concepts, models and theories in which some of them are biased. The study of politics isvitalin the world we live in as it makes us understand the causes of war,resources allocation, practice of power, and governance. According to Heywood “politics must be practiced within a frame work that checks and constraints than ensure that government power is not abused. SouthAfricaneeds to have an independent commission that deals with political misconduct by the politicians. It is imperative to study politics withapositive mind putting into consideration the benefits of having a good political system that leads to a democratic state with liberty,freedom,the right to vote and justice.

References

Bernard C (2000) In defiance of Politics .New York: Harmondsworth(place ofpublication)
Heywood A. (2002). Politics. London (place of publisher) Palgrave(publisher)

Jacques J (1913). The social Contract London (place of publication)ColeG.D.H (publisher)

Machiavelli M (1961). The Prince. Harmondsworth (place of publication).Penguin (publisher)

Marx k (1967). The Communist Manifesto. Harmondsworth (place ofPublication).Penguin (publisher)
Mills C.W. (1956). The power of the elite .New York (place ofpublication).Oxford University press (publisher)

Friday, August 14, 2009

political systems

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

MARTIAN LUTHER KING let his spirit be among our leadership



The person whom I respect who fought for what he believed is a person whom we celebrate every year, on the third Monday in January. He was an American Clergyman and Nobel Prize Winner, one of the principal leaders of the American Civil Rights Movement and a prominent advocate of non-violent protest. That is right, it is Martin Luther King Jr. The reason I admire this man so much is for everything he has done for the black race, in the way of racism. It amazes me to see how one person challenged the segregation and racial discrimination in the 1950’ and 60’s and helped convince White Americans to support the cause of the Civil Rights in the United States. Why cannot we have leaders as these in our beloved nation of Zimbabwe who can we talk about of all the people that have led us since 1980, they forgot what we fought for and putting their personnel interests before the nation most of them never even hold the gun those who suffered were the boys and girls who had no education who were taught only to fight.
For one man to become a symbol of protest in the struggle for racial justice. After his passing to show how racism really is still out there and needs to be desegregated. I admire how he used nonviolent protests to get his view points across about racial issues. Martin Luther King Jr’s public speaking abilities gave him the strength and courage to fight non-violently for what he believed. I feel that he was a great person who was changing the society for the better of all human beings. Although he went through some rough roads, like his house being bombed. Martin Luther King Jr. did not give up. Who went on about what he believed and continued his marches, demonstrations, and boycotts.
To me Martin Luther King Jr., if not assassinated in the Spring of 1968 (4 April). He probably would have made the United States even in Africa a better place than it is now on racial issues. I look to him as a wonderful person who never gave up in what he believed, and died for doing so. I find it unbelievable that the King came to represent black courage, and achievement, high moral leadership, and the ability of Americans to address and overcome racial divisions. Even though he criticized the United States foreign policy and poverty, he soared above all and became a historical figure among the country. Martin Luther King Jr. is one who I will admire always. He was a great and remarkable individual who fought for the rights of Black. I applaud him for fighting and dying for what he believed in. And most of all, I respect all that he has changed for the United States with his marches, demonstrations, and boycotts. America lost a great person, but has gained a lot for his fight against racism.
In Zimbabwe they is now what l call black men apartheid government where the political leaders have resorted in suppressing their own people. Why do we lose direction when they are a lot of people who fought for us to be free? why do we have to suffer under own leadership not white but black?Centuries of slavery we endured and freedom l was given has now been taken away by the son of the same mother black as l'm..........lets us be free l need to walk in the streets of Harare not in fear... let my mind be heard whether correct or wrong...... let me open my mouth and shout that l'm free.... , let me fell proud when the name of my leader when called upon...., let me have my dignity that l have lot whilst in this refuge.
Martin Luther speech CONVERTED it will be my speech one day ......we are the future generation the future leaders we shall stand our right of freedom thus was given to us by those who sufficed their lives for us we shall reject leaders that oppress the people ....


It will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

29 score years ago, a great ZIMBABWEAN , in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, made an oath into office as the President of the country.The great momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of ZIMBABWEANS slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But 29 years later, the son of the soil still is not free. 29 years later, the life of the son of the soil is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. 29 years later, the SON OF THE SOIL lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. 29 years later, the SON OF THE SOIL is still languished in the corners of ZIMBABWE society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution , they were signing a promissory note to which every ZIMBABWEAN was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that ZIMBABWE has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, ZIMBABWE has given the people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind ZIMBABWE of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of injustice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the SON OF THE SOIL's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. 2009 is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the SON OF THE SOIL needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in ZIMBABWE until the SON OF THE SOIL is granted his citizenship rights by it's leaders. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the ZIMBABWEAN community must not lead us to a distrust of our fellow men for many of our leaders, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the SON OF THE SOIL is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the ZIMBABWEAN basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For our cruel leaders Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a SON OF THE SOIL in HARARE cannot vote and a SON OF THE SOIL in BULAWAYO believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."¹

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality,the CIO and the political parties militia. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to BULAWAYO, go back to GWERU, go back to KAROI, go back to RWANDA, go back to MASVINGO, go back to the slums and ghettos of our cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the ZIMBABWEAN dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the hills of MUTOKO , the sons of former slaves and the sons of former leaders will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of HARARE, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by their political opinions or the parties they belong too but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in MHONDORO, with its vicious attacks, with its MP having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in MHONDORO little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little MP's child boys and MP's girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."2

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if ZIMBABWE is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New INYANGA

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of VUMBA

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of HARARE


Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of MATOPOS

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from the dust roads of WEDZA

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of MUTARE

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of CHIMANIMANI

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!






Tendai Mazingaizo

ZIMBABWE LAW in shumbles

Law and Society The function of law in a society is more or less universal. It acts as a deterrent to control the evil and treacherous behavior of humans, to maintain discipline and imposes restrictions on some freedom. We live in a chaotic and uncertain world. Without an orderly environment based on and backed by law, the normal activities of life would be lacerated with chaos.
Law is a social norm, the infraction of which is sanctioned in treat or in fact by the application of physical force or by a party possessing the socially recognized privilege or so acting. It provides a society with order and predictability, resolving disputes, protecting individuals and property, providing for the general welfare and protecting individual liberties. Law and the predictability it provides cannot guarantee us a totally safe world, but it can create a climate in which people believe it is worthwhile to produce, venture fort, and to live for the morrow.
It prevents the state of nature, which would be total anarchy had there been no laws. Societies today are more complex and interacting. Maintaining good order and discipline have far reaching implications on a society’s prosperity. Laws are in acted daily through out different societies for the protection and security of individuals, property, businesses and states. It permits an orderly, peaceful process for dispute resolution and provides us with the programs to establish and enable corporately, what would be impossible, or at least prohibitive, to do as individuals. Laws should be designed to protect the individual personal and civil rights against those forces, which would curtail or restrict them. Some examples of this are freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to a fair trail and the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.
In the Zimbabwe the respect for the law is paramount and disobedience to the law is not punished because the leaders disobey the law of the land which is the Constitution then it means they is no rule of law in Zimbabwe. The Constitution, acts of Legislative bodies, orders of Rulings of Political Executives, Judicial Decisions and Decisions of Quasi-Legislative and Quasi-Judicial Bodies enact laws in the Zimbabwe. Many societies have law and rules to prevent lawlessness and anarchy the constitution should govern the way of conduct of the government branches but that seems to lacking at the present situation where the current leadership are above the law several amendment have been made to the current constitution made to comply with the leadership human oppression for instance in the bid to silence the people the government sign for AIPA and POSSA this was the turning of the constitution into a political weapon. With out the rule of law most societies would succumb to disorder like want my beloved country has turn into with oppression,corruption,violence,human abuse and anarchy restoration of Law in Zimbabwe will take 20years more even with the establishment of the new constitution if leadership does not respect the supreme Law of the land the people will follow their footstep.
We shall not blame the land reform for the current situation of having the highest inflation in the world but l shall focus on the rule of LAW that have be violated to turn the state into a Banana republic.
The people of Zimbabwe need to understand that even with the new constitution in place without enforcement of an independent body which of cause can not be the current Judiciary the new constitution proposal will be a waste of money and resources .The coming constitution will be violated and thus for certain they is no doubt about that, what is needed is a clear wave of operation murambastvina in the Judiciary for the restoration of the rule of law in the country.In the current moment we have the Judiciary that is influenced by the politicians they is no separation of powers, all the three branches of government do what the executive say.
Discipline within the leadership is lacking, politicians must know that if they violate the constitution they must get punished no matter who you are, even the president must face legal trial.Zimbabwe is not for certain individuals who want to satisfy they own egos this must be known it is for the gallant sons of the soil..........let freedom prevail as well with the rule of law.
Tendai Mazingaizo
Anarchy is seen as one end of the spectrum whose other end is marked by the presence of a legitimate and competent government. International politics is described as being spotted with pieces of government and bound with elements of community. Traditionally, international-political systems are thought of as being more or less anarchic. Anarchy is taken to mean not just the absence of government but also the presence of disorder and chaos. Although far from peaceful, international politics falls short of unrelieved chaos, and while not formally organized, it is not entirely without institutions and orderly procedures.


Although it is misleading to label modern international politics as anarchic, the absence of a universal international law prohibits well-regulated behavior. But, international regulation is not completely absent from world politics. With the end of the Cold War, the ground seems ready for an acceleration of this century’s trend in increasing international regulation of more issues once typically seen as part of state domestic jurisdiction. But as international law embraces new actors and a growing range of forms, topics, and technologies, and as it moves further away from strictly foreign concerns to traditionally domestic areas, its proponents must increasingly confront new obstacles head-on. Traditionally, most rules of international law could be found in one of two places: treaties or customary law (uncodified, but equally binding rules based on long-standing behavior).


But as new domains from the environment to the Internet come to be seen as appropriate for international regulation, states are sometimes reluctant to embrace any sort of binding rule. Today all but the most doctrinaire of scholars see a role for so-called soft law-precepts emanating from international bodies that conform in some sense to expectations of required behavior but that are not binding on states (the World Bank’s Guidelines on the Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment, for example). Soft law principles also represent a starting point for new hard law, which attaches a penalty to noncompliance. Whether in the case of hard or soft law, new participants are making increased demands for representation in international bodies, conferences, and other legal groupings and processes.


They include both recognized and unrecognized substate entities (Hong Kong and Tibet, for example); nongovernmental organizations; and corporations. Scholars accept that these other actors have independent views that do not fit neatly into traditional theories of how law is made and enforced. Most states comply with much, even most, international law. But without a mechanism to bring transgressors into line, international law is law in name only. The traditional toolbox to secure compliance with the law of nations consist of negotiations, mediation, countermeasures, or, in rare cases, recourse to supranational judicial bodies such as the International Court of Justice. For many years, these tools have been supplemented by the work of international institutions, whose reports and resolutions often help mobilize shame against violators. But today, states, NGO’s, and private entities have striven for sanctions.


And the UN’s ad hoc criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda show that it is at least possible to devise institutions to punish individuals for human rights atrocities. Nonetheless, the success of these enforcement mechanisms depends on the willingness of states to support them. When global institutions do not work, regional bodies may offer more influence over member conduct in economics, human rights, and other areas. In addition, domestic courts increasingly provide an additional venue to enforce international law. Even with a defined international law and a “world government” to enforce it, cooperation in general, in international politics, is troubled. Research on international regimes moved from attempts to describe the phenomena of interdependence and international regimes to closer analysis of the conditions under which countries cooperate.


How does cooperation occur among sovereign states and how do international institutions affect it? Indeed, why should international institutions exist at all in a world dominated by sovereign states? This question seemed unanswerable if institutions were seen as opposed to or above, the state but not if they were viewed as devices to help states accomplish their objectives. The new school of thought argued that, rather than imposing themselves on states, international institutions should respond to the demand by states for cooperative ways to fulfill their own purposes. By reducing uncertainty and the costs of making and enforcing agreements, international institutions help states achieve collective gains. This new institutionalism was not without its critics, who focused their attacks on two perceived shortcomings. The counterargument focused on the absence of a world government or effective international legal system to which victims of injustice can appeal.


Second, theorists of cooperation had recognized that cooperation is not harmonious: it emerges out of discord and takes place through tough bargaining. Nevertheless, they claimed that the potential joint gains from such cooperation explained the dramatic increases in the number and scope of cooperative multilateral institutions. Critics pointed out, however, that bargaining problems themselves could produce obstacles to achieving joint gains. Cooperation requires recognition of opportunities for the advancement of mutual interest, as well as policy coordination once these opportunities have been identified. Transaction and information costs are high. The complexity of international politics militates against identification and realization of common interest. Avoiding nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis called for cooperation by the Soviet Union and the United States. The transaction and information costs in the crisis, though substantial, did not preclude cooperation.


By contrast, the problem of identifying significant actors, defining interests, and negotiating agreements that embodied mutual interests in the case of 1914 was far more difficult. There was no common procedure to handle the situation or resolve it in an efficient manner. In international politics, the likelihood of autonomous defection and of recognition and control problems increases. Cooperative behavior rests on calculations of expected utility - merging discount rates, payoff structures, and anticipated behavior of other players. Nations dwell in perpetual lawlessness, for no central authority with a defined law limits on the pursuit of sovereign interests. This common condition gives rise to diverse outcomes. War and concert, arms races and arms control, trade wars and tariff truces, financial panics and rescues, competitive devaluation and monetary stabilization mark relations among states. At times, the absences of centralized international authority preclude attainment of common goals. Because, as states, they cannot cede ultimate control over their conduct to a world government, they cannot guarantee that they will adhere to their commitments. The possibility of a breach of promise can impede cooperation even when cooperation would leave all well off. Yet, at other times, states do realize common goals though cooperation under lawlessness. Despite the absence of any ultimate international law, governments often bind themselves to mutually advantageous courses of action. And, though no international sovereign stands ready to enforce the terms of agreement, modern states can and do realize common interests through tacit cooperation, formal bilateral and multilateral negotiation, and the creation if international regimes.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Democrarcy

Democracy Complete and true democracy is almost impossible to achieve, and has been the primary goal of many nations, beginning from ancient civilizations of Greece and Roman Empire, all the way to the government of the United States today. There are a few essential characteristics which must be present in a political system for it to be even considered democratic. One essential characteristic of a legitimate democracy is that it allows people to freely make choices without government intervention. Another necessary characteristic which legitimates government is that every vote must count equally: one vote for every person. For this equality to occur, all people must be subject to the same laws, have equal civil rights, and be allowed to freely express their ideas.


Minority rights are also crucial in a legitimate democracy. No matter how unpopular their views, all people should enjoy the freedoms of speech, press and assembly. Public policy should be made publicly, not secretly, and regularly scheduled elections should be held. All of these elements and government processes are a regular part of the American government these characteristics are lacking in developing countries in Africa democracy is just a mere world the exist without pratice Zimbabwe as my mother country lacks all theses characterics with political leaders probably not understanding what is democray.Yet, even with all the above elements present in the governmental operations of our country, numerous aspects of the governmental process undermine its legitimacy, and bring to question if Zimbabwean government is really a true democracy. Considering the achievement of complete democracy is most likely impossible, the political system of even in American government is democratic, but its democratic legitimacy is clearly limited in many respects. One of the first notable aspects of the United States government which brings the democratic legitimacy into question is the ever-occurring bias between classes of people that participate in the electoral voting.


Class is determined by income and education, and differing levels of these two factors can help explain why class bias occurs. For example, because educated people tend to understand politics more, they are more likely to vote. In fact, political studies done at Princeton in 1995 clearly showed that 76 percent of all voters had college degrees.The same studies have been done in the next three years and showed the percentage steadily holding at 76 percent, except in 1997, when it dropped down by two percent (Avirett 11). This four to one ration of college educated voters versus non-college educated voters shows a clear inequality and bias in the American voting system. This also brings about the aspect of income. People with high income and education have more resources, while poor people do not, and instead, tend to have low political efficacy. This efficacy has been interpreted as feelings of low self-worth in the world of politics. “Vast majority of the lower class simply feels they do not have enough power or influence to make a change, thus choosing to exclude themselves from the electoral process” (Fox 13). Turnout, therefore, is low and since the early 1960s, has been declining overall (Fox 17). Although in theory the American system calls for one vote per person, the low rate of turnout results in the upper and middle classes ultimately choosing candidates for the entire nation. This concludes that because voting is class-biased, it may not be classified as a completely legitimate process.The winner-take-all system in elections may also be criticized for being undemocratic because the proportion of people agreeing with a particular candidate on a certain issue may not be adequately represented under this system. For example, “a candidate who gets forty percent of the vote, as long as he gets more votes than any other candidate, can be elected—even though sixty percent of the voters voted against him(Lind, 314).


Such was the case with president Carter and the opposing Republican candidate Ford in the 1972 presidential election. Carter won the presidency by only one percent in the people’s pole, as well as just barely managing to get by in the electoral college with 297 votes over Ford’s 241 (Lind 321). This meant that almost fifty percent of the voting population did not agree with Carter’s views, yet had to endure them for at least next four years.Even though democracy is based on the principle of the majority rule, such close elections make the majority not that major at all, and seriously put a question mark on the democratic legitimacy of the United States government. Another element of the United State government that brings controversy to the democratic process and its legitimacy are the political parties. “Political parties in America are weak due to the anti-party, anti-organization, and anti-politics cultural prejudices of the Classical Liberals” (Avirett 23). Because there is no national discipline in the United States that forces citizens into identifying with a political party, partisan identification tends to be an informal psychological commitment to a party. This informality allows people to be apathetic if they wish, and willingly giving up their input into the political process.


For the past fifty years, the Democratic party has been associated with the lower class people and minorities, while the Republicans have been supported mainly by upper class whites (Avirett 28). Still, there is absolutely no substantial stance that each party takes to show its allegiance to their “assigned” classes.In fact, Republican presidents like Ronald Regan and George Bush were credited with major accomplishments in cutting the tax for the lower income families and boosting the health reforms (Avirett 37). This contradicts the idea that Republicans only benefit the interests of the upper class citizens, and clearly shows the apathy of people giving up their input into the political process due to their partisan identification to a certain party. Though this apathy is the result of a greater freedom in America than in other countries, it ultimately decreases citizens’ incentive to express their opinions about issues, therefore making democracy less legitimate. Private interests are probably the strongest indicators of illegitimate democracy in the United State government.


Private interests distort public policy making because, when making decisions, politicians must take account of campaign contributors. An interest may be defined as any involvement in anything that affects the economic, social, or emotional well-being of a person (Cerent 9). When interests become organized into groups, then politicians may become biased due to their influences.Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporations, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups—can pool their money and give up to ten thousand dollars per election to each House and Senate candidate (Lind 157). Consequently, those people who do not become organized into interest groups are likely to be underrepresented financially. This leads to further inequality and, therefore, greater illegitimacy in the democratic system. The most noted recent example of a politician being influenced by private interests is none other than president Bill Clinton. Just three months after winning his second term over Senator Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential elections, Clinton was under the investigation under suspicion of acquiring campaign money by renting historical presidential rooms to wealthy businessmen (Avirett 18). Although he was acquitted of the charges, the scandal showed that private interest is a serious issue, and a clear problem in the political system of the United States. Regan’s administration was known for raising its campaign money from weapon-oriented factories, which made about 32 percent of his total campaign collection in the early 1980s (Avirett 15). George Bush’s campaign money came mainly from the Northern industrial cities, while Carter accepted majority of his money from the farmers in the South, promising them better trade relations with the troubled Asian markets in the 1970s (Avirett 22).


All these are just a few examples of politicians taking every advantage possible to gain more money for their campaigns, undermining the legitimacy of the American government.The method in which we elect the President, on the other hand, is fairly legitimate. The electoral college consists of representatives who we elect, who then elect the President. Because this fills the requirement of regularly scheduled elections, it is a legitimate process. The President is extremely powerful in foreign policy making; so powerful that scholars now speak of the Imperial Presidency, implying that the President runs foreign policy as an emperor. The President is the chief diplomat, negotiator of treaties, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. There has been a steady growth of the President’s power since World War II. This abundance of foreign Presidential power may cause one to believe that our democratic system is not legitimate. However, Presidential power in domestic affairs is limited. Therefore, though the President is very powerful in certain areas, the term Imperial Presidency is not applicable in all areas. This was particularly evident in the last decade, with President Bush and Clinton exercising the “Imperial Presidency” as far as international affairs were concerned, yet being limited when it came to domestic issues and approval from the House and the Senate.Although Bush had strong control over military measures taken against Sadam Hussein’s attack on Kuwait, he was still in “check” by congress as far as the oil market was concerned, particularly the domestic oil production in the United States (Cerent 44).


Clinton also had the power, along with the leaders of NATO, to declare and execute war against raging Serbia. Still, he was bound by Senate regarding the expenses put into the Balkan conflict, and had to rely on the congress to approve further monetary transactions (Cerent 46). These recent examples of division of international and domestic powers clearly show that “Imperial Presidency” is not applicable in all areas and is moving towards the right direction, thus legitimizing democracy in the United States as far as the presidential powers are concerned. The election process of Congress is also very much legitimate because Senators and Representatives are elected directly by the people. Power in Congress is usually determined by the seniority system. In the majority party, which is the party which controls Congress, the person who has served the longest has the most power. The problem with the seniority system is that power is not based on elections or on who is most qualified to be in a position of authority. “Congress is also paradoxical because, while it is good at serving particular individual interests, it is bad at serving the general interest due to its fragmented structure of committees and sub-committees” (Fox 56).


The manner in which Supreme Court Justices are elected is not democratic because they are appointed by the President for lifelong terms, rather than in regularly scheduled elections. There is a non-political myth that the only thing that Judges do is apply rules neutrally. In actuality, they interpret laws and the Constitution using their power of judicial review, the power explicitly given to them in Marbury v. Madison (Lind, 175). Though it has been termed the imperial judiciary by some, the courts are still the weakest branch of government because they depend upon the compliance of the other branches for enforcement of the laws. The best example of judicial weakness can be found in the act of impeaching the President. Although Richard Nixon never came under a full trial by the Supreme Court, he was ordered to give out a statement regarding the Watergate scandal in front of the Supreme Court Justices. Although the Justices placed a legal hold on all his presidential actions, the hold was not enforced until the congress reviewed the Courts decision (Lind 112). Even in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton first had to testify in front of a Grand Jury put together by congress, and then the Supreme Court Justices.In fact, Clinton was never tried in the Supreme Court, because the congress ruled not to try him for impeachment in the first place. This brings Judicial power to questions, as well as the legitimacy of the government. The fact that our government is a bureaucracy in certain respects also brings about many controversial aspects which question its legitimacy. The bureaucracy is not democratic for many reasons. The key features of a bureaucracy are that they are large, specialized, run by official and fixed rules, relatively free from outside control, run on a hierarchy, and must keep written records of everything they do. “Bureaucracies focus on rules, but their members are unhappy when the rules are exposed to the public” (Lind 171). Bureaucracies violate the requirement of a legitimate democracy that public policy must be made publicly, not secretly.


To be hired in a bureaucracy, a person is required to take a civil service exam. Also, people working in bureaucracies may be fired under extreme circumstances. This usually leads to the Peter Principle; that people who are competent at their jobs are promoted until they are in jobs in which they are no longer competent (Lind 175). Policy making, on the other hand, should be considered democratic for the most part. The public tends to get its way about sixty percent of the time, as it was proven in the Princeton studies in 1995 (Avirett 13). The studies were based on a simple principle of what people demanded from the government in the nationwide polls, and what they got in the near future. In the end, sixty percent of all issues were addressed and successfully solved by the government (Avirett 13). Because one of the key legitimating factors of a government is a connection between what it does and what the public wants, policy making can be considered sixty percent legitimate. Such a percentage puts the American political system and its democratic legitimacy into perspective of being legitimate for the most part, but not completely.Even though the individual workings of the American government may not all be particularly democratic, they do form a political system that prevails in its democratic ways at the end.


Considering that achieving true democracy is almost impossible, the United States government is coming close and is striving to get closer as the years go by. It is true that the people who run for and win public office are not necessarily the most intelligent, best informed, wealthiest, or most successful business or professional people. At all levels of the political system,…it is the most politically ambitious people who are willing to sacrifice time, family and private life, and energy and effort for the power and celebrity that comes with public office (Dye 58-59). But in the end, it is the choice of people that decides whether these ambitious individuals are worthy of their vote and their representation.


The United States government as it says it practices democracy there are still elements of individual presentation but altought it might not be a perfect example of democracy, but it certainly has the main democratic principles that allow for a political system to strive for as true of a democracy as possible. This expalins why it is difficult for African countries to practise democracy they literally dont understand it..................


Tendai Mazingaizo


Bibliography


Avirett, James B. Republican Rule is Soon to Come. September 1998. Education Corner. *http://metalab.unc.edu/politics/avirett/avirett/html*


Cerent, Brian. The Political System. April 1996. Online Politics. *http://harward/find/concise.asp?z=1@pg.htm/*


Dye, Thomas R. Who’s Running America?


The Clinton Years. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Pretence Hall, 1995.


Fox, James. Essence of Democracy. December 1996.


Young Democrats. *http://www.knight.org/advent/athen/14039a.htm*


Lind, Michael. The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution. New York: The Free Press, 1995.