The Rise of Democracy: MEXICO, by Shea Nolan

Mexico first declared their independence from Spain in 1810, but didn’t gain their full independence till 1821. After the revolution general Agustín Cosme Damián de Iturbide y Arámburu was appointed President in 1881, but his term ended in 1822. Though Iturbide only ruled for a year this demonstrates the political struggles before and after independence.  

The 8^th president of Mexico López de Santa Anna was a general, and eleven times president; his total presidency spanned over 22 years. Between being a general and a president Santa Anna greatly influenced early Mexican politics and government for 40 years. Even though he has been seen as a brave soldier, hero of the army, and a cunning politician he has been recognized as the reason why Mexico had lost over half its territory.

Seizing power in a coup in 1876 José de la Cruz Porfirio Díaz Mori was a soldier and politician, who served seven terms as president. Díaz ruled Mexico with an iron fist until 1911, where it took nothing less than a revolution to dislodge him. During his term, known as the Porfiriato, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Though there was such a large gap in social classes Mexico had become recognized as a developed nation in the world, but this all came at a price, Díaz presided over one of the most crooked administrations in history. 

The Institutional Revolutionary Party (RPI)

The Institutional Revolutionary Party was founded in 1929 due to the forces that had triumphed in the revolutions, also to give deliver stability to Mexico that had been plagued with violence. Though Mexico is a multi-party system, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), National Action Party (PAN), and the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), the PRI has governed Mexico with almost complete dominance from the day of the Mexican Revolution.

Miguel de la Madrid of the PRI was elected president in 1982. He had won with 70% of the vote; this was a much lower percentage from the past. In other words this showed that candidates from the right and left were gaining ground. Though he had made a number of economic gains in his term, the PAN started to demand for additional electoral reforms as well.

Following the electoral reform in 1986 the Chamber of Deputies added another 100 seats, and 200 of the now 500 seats were devoted to smaller parties. Though there was much reform there was still much political fraud in a number of elections, mostly in the election of 1986. With every election (every 6 years) the PRI was losing its political dominance and smaller parties were beginning to rise.

A new horizon

Known as one of the most historic election in Mexico the 2000 elections was the change of a new leader and a new political party. PRI, after ruling Mexico for 71 years; Vicente Fox of the Alliance for Change was elected. Vicente Fox, winning the election with 42% of the vote over Franciso Labastida of the PRI with 36%, this was a dramatic loss for PRI. After his inauguration on December 1, 2000, Vicente Fox promised the people of Mexico that he would promote free market policies, and to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in Mexico. But the terrorist attacks on September 1^st 2001 in America affected Mexico’s economy. This event limited government funding that was going to fund Fox’s health and education programs. In the 2003 elections to renew the Chamber of Deputies, the PAN lost seats, giving less support to Fox and his programs. Fox not having the majority in congress he was unable to approve any major legislation along with a purposed tax reform and a proposed energy reform.

Approaching the July 2006 presidential election, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the leftist PRD was leading, against Felipe Calderon for the PAN, and Roberto Madrazo for the PRI. Felipe Calderon of the PAN was able to take the 2006 election; this allowed the PAN to serve another term ruling. All of the political events that have happen thus far in Mexico have allowed the political system to grow more into a democracy.

Why Democracy is The Most Effective, by Cal Reeves

            Many governments today are democratic for a number of reasons, the help keep things in the best interest of the people of the country, it helps elect leaders, and it gives every person the chance to be heard. Democracies have been around for thousands of years mainly, because they work. They have tended to outlast most dictatorships and communist states. Many democracies have lasted over hundreds of years. For instance ours has lasted about 220 years. Some of the older ones like Greece where started by a guy by the name of Cleisthenes, who is noted for starting the democratic footing in Greece around 500 BC and lasted for over two centuries.

Dictatorships and Communist states just cannot compete with democracies or capitalist states on most levels. The democracies tend to be more equipped in the means of a military and self defense, they are also more generally funded because they stronger capitalist economies.

The reason why is because democracies tend to be more closely related with capitalist economies rather than socialist economies, which history has shown outlast and function more smoothly that socialist economies. Capitalist economies focus on privately owned goods and services, which are produced for profit in a market economy, rather than the socialist standpoint where the means of production is more of a co-op for the state, and most of the income goes back to the government rather than the people in most cases. If a country can afford to have a capitalist economy, because they have a large number of recourses and exports, they would be crazy not to go with this system. Plus with a democratic government on top of that the people and the congress can vote on what happens with the money.

Another great reason to be democratic is because everyone can be heard. People in these systems can have the freedom to vote for legislative, and executive power. So we the people pick who we want to represent us, and they can keep there best interests in the interests of the people. Also if we do not like an elected official then we can just remove them from their seat and a vice president or whoever is next in line can take there place. This also helps because we can also influence what laws we have abide by. If we want to pass a law we can vote on it, we can lobby during legislation, we can march on Washington to get the attention of our government officials to get them to vote a choose certain bills and laws. We can choose where we want our funding and money to be generated and focused on. We can decide if we want to invest in agriculture, education, defense, or certain industries. If certain industries in our country are not doing, our congress can decide if it’s right financially to bail this industry out.

Another reason why Democracies rain supreme is because it allows the government to not get that involved in the peoples day to day lives. Some say the government that governs the best is the one that governs the least. I believe there is a lot of truth to this because history has shown that governments that have many regulations tend to have more innocent deaths, protest, and rebellion. Then at which point the government is more likely to collapse. The way Dictatorships operate is, they have to put fear into the people to get the to obey the government and higher command, otherwise who wants to listen to everything one leader tells you to do? A majority of people I would say do not. The ways they put this fear into people is by large rallies, and killing innocent people, has history has showed. If there is a hell, I can picture Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin at the very bottom because of all of the innocent people they killed. I am sure they are still fighting with each other to. That’s beyond the point, but they are not the only ones. I believe that dictatorships are outdated and do not work because usually the wrong person somehow get elected to power and then the whole system will eventually fall.

I believe the perfect world would be one large democracy where there is no fighting and everyone as a say in exactly what happens. This will probably never happen in my lifetime but it is a very nice thought.

           

Works Cited

Picture is from www.samaracanda.com

Importance of Timing, by Stacia Berg

            Timing. It can be perfect, or completely wrong. It can create the ideal moment, or it can ruin entire plans.  This counts for pretty much anything: storms, relationships, even the development of a democracy.

            It seems like a simple fact that the outcomes of pretty much any event have something to do with timing.  If Lee Harvey Oswald had shot his gun just a few seconds later, President Kennedy may not have died.  If the allied powers had ended their appeasement policy toward Germany sooner, maybe the war would not have ended so soon.  There is a lot of what ifs involved when speaking of timing, but what about when talking about developing democracy?

            Barrington Moore believes that in order to create a democracy from another form of government, there needs to be certain precursors.  First, the old, feudalistic order needs to be done away with.  This will help the next step immensely: industrialization.  Industrialization is important in establishing the potential for democracy, because it provides grounds for free markets and for people to develop a political and economical foothold in the government.  But what would happen if industrialization happened without destroying the feudal society?  Could the two coexist and still progress to a democracy?  I think it would be much more difficult to industrialize when most people were working in the country, under lords, with little to no power to change their situation.  It would make the people unable to migrate to the cities (a trend of industrialization) and work in factories and large-scale jobs. 

            There are three parts of transforming to a democracy.  First, there’s social transformation, which is much of what I was just talking about.  The society usually shifts from a feudal, agricultural society to an urban, industrialized one.  Next comes the political transformation.  In this case, the government is turned in the direction of democracy, whether by a coup, an elected change of party, or a change within the current regime.  The third part is cultural transformation: developing a national identity, desire for participation in the new government, and working for the success of a new democracy.

            Let’s think for a moment of what would happen if the cultural and social transformations were flip-flopped.  Would it be beneficial to develop support and nationalism before changing the governmental style?  I think that it would increase the new governments chances of maintaining its power.  However, the national identity could also be developed against democracy, making it impossible to maintain it.  I think there are many ways at looking at situations like this, and it would probably work differently in each case.

            In thinking about timing, it is important to remember that not every group of people will act the same way in every situation.  Just because one country has followed the order designed by Moore and had it succeed doesn’t mean it will work the same way for a different country.  It will depend heavily on how receptive the people are to the changes that are being implemented.  The assumption that timing is everything cannot possibly encompass every country’s individual situation.  However, I think it is safe to say that paying attention to the timing of any event and what leads up to it can help us to better understand the situation.

CONSTUTITION, by CHANCE NKUNDIMANA

              Today the image of the earth is not the same as when it was created. Violence, earthquakes, and tsunamis destroyed people’s lives; many of them fled their country due to these circumstances.  But the main reason people flee countries is war. If we’re to question some of these people who fled their country, each person will say “war makes us flee our country” they have passion to stay in their country, but dictatorship, communism, Nazism, socialism etc… won’t let them practice their freedom. Some of their family members might be kidnaped and tortured to death because they practice their freedom. Hitler said “national socialism will use its own revolution for establishing a new world order.” Germany during Hitler’s regime didn’t establish freedom because one man has the power of ruling others. If they had a constitution that gives them the rights to practice their freedom, this structure will give them the right to establish their 
freedom. “The Constitution is certainly the most influential legal document in existence today.”

what people are seeking for

Overthrowing one man rule 

Each developed country or Western power has its own written constitution that gives rights to their citizens. The only reason they are powerful countries is because they have freedom, and it prevents government from tumbling on their rights. Other countries admire the United States constitution because of how it defends people moralities. Even though there are some changes made to the amendments; it still shields the civilian rights. 

Political systems bring confusion that can affect globalization and it will have an impact on developing countries in a bad way or good way. Look at Syria today: innocent civilians are been killed, their homes are being destroyed; they are fleeing to Turkey so they can be protected under the Turkish government. Look at Iraq today; it seems the foundation of the constitution is ruling now, instead of one man ruling. The whole population is in unity. Laws must have the root that holds them together to able to function. It is not easy to start writing a constitution while other countries have their own constitution written more than two hundred years. It won’t be simple. America has  its own constitution after gaining independence from England, they did not wait for 50 years to write one; they knew a new nation must born with its own constitution. Other countries cited the United States Supreme Court’s case, not only to compare their cases but to see how the Americans judged their citizens. For example, Canada adapted the bill of rights and they interpreted it as “a living tree.” 

The revolution of a country's constitution must face the new demands that will lead them to obtain sovereignty. In America, they accepted and faced the new challenges against Britain. Political rebellion is like a pattern that holds two ropes together; if one rope is missing the other rope won’t be able to function. That means fighting for the liberty of all, the mind sets need to be united to able to defeat dictatorship or communism government. Uprising can cause a lot of mess and blood shed; sometimes a regime can be against its own people. This ensued on Libya government.

One man rule

Reflections on 2012 US Presidential Elections, by Jameson Goetz

On November 6^th, Barack Obama was reelected to his second four-year term as President of the United States. President Obama defeated former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney with a final count of 332 to 206 Electoral College votes. Obama also defeated Romney 50% to 48% in the popular vote. As a supporter of President Obama, I was definitely pleased with his reelection. Still, considering what has happened in the past four years, I am certainly surprised. By nearly all standards, President Obama defied political odds by winning reelection to a second term.

This post from Barack Obama quickly became the most “re-tweeted” post in Twitter’s history.

Here are some interesting facts related to President Obama’s reelection:

·      President Obama’s margin of victory was significantly lower than in 2008 (53% to 46%). No president has ever been re-elected by a smaller margin than the previous election.

·      Obama’s popular vote majority was the lowest of any re-elected incumbent in the last century.

·      President Obama’s public approval ratings have averaged below 50%. No other incumbent candidate has ever won a presidential election with such low public approval.

·      Throughout most of President Obama’s first term, fewer than 40% of Americans believed that the country was “moving in the right direction”. The day after the election, only 43% of Americans believed the country was moving in the right direction.

·      Polls indicated that prospective voters favored Mitt Romney “as an economic manager” over President Obama by a margin of roughly 9%.

·      On Election Day, the unemployment rate in the United States had risen to roughly 7.9%, which is far higher than any time in the 25 years before Obama’s Inauguration in January 2009.

These statistics are pretty puzzling, as well as somewhat alarming. Do Americans currently have any confidence in President Obama? They seem to lack confidence in President Obama, yet they reelected him by a fairly convincing margin. Why did a majority of Americans vote for President Obama? Many people, myself included, point to changing demographics. The Sunday before the election, the Pew Research Center released its final prediction on the outcome of the election: President Obama would win, beating Republican Party candidate Mitt Romney, 50 percent to 47 percent. The Pew Research Center described what it called a “demographic transformation”:

·      Women favored Obama over Romney 53 % to 40%

·      Romney’s support among voters age 65 and older dwindled to just 9 percentage points.

·      Nationally, nonwhite voters made up 28% of all voters, up from 26% in 2008. Obama won 80% of these voters, the same as four years ago.

·      In Ohio, African Americans were 15% of the electorate, up from 11% in 2008. In Florida, Hispanics were 17% of the electorate, an increase from 14% in 2008.

·      Nationally, Romney won the white vote, 59% to 39%.

·      Nationally, Obama received “overwhelming” support from African Americans and Latinos.

·      Obama lost the independent vote, 50% to 45%. However, Democrats made up 38% of all voters while Republicans made up just 32%.

·      40% of white Christians voted for Obama.

·      20 % of voters claimed no religious affiliation while roughly one-third of Americans age 18-22 called themselves atheists, agnostics, or “nothing at all”. 70% of this voting bloc voted for Obama.

·      Pointing the future diminishing influence of voters age 65 or older, The Pew Research Center’s indicated that future elections will continue to be increasingly decided by women, young people, and minorities.

Voters in Washington and Colorado legalized the recreational use of marijuana. In Massachusetts, voters legalized the use of marijuana for medical reasons

I consider myself to have liberal views on social issues. However, I describe my views on economic issues as more moderate, not liberal. I believe the political views of my generation as a whole could also be described this way. In the 2012 Presidential Election voters ages 18 to 29 made up 19% percent of voters. 60% of this voting bloc voted for President Obama, while 36% voted for Mitt Romney. The Huffington Post addressed this generation gap in an article titled “Youth Vote Gap Suggests Republicans Risk Losing An ‘Entire Generation’ to Democrats”.

The increasing popularity of Libertarianism, an ideology that generally embraces socially liberal and economically conservative views, has grown increasingly popular with younger voters. This year’s Libertarian Party for President, Gary Johnson enthusiastically expressed his support for equal rights for LGBTQ persons and an end to the prohibition on marijuana.

Voters in Washington, Maine, and Maryland voted in favor of the right to marry for same-sex couples. Voters in Minnesota rejected a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

 I also believe that a significant amount of all voters, not just those from my generation, were alienated by Mitt Romney’s conservative views on a variety of social issues. In general, Americans have begun to view with skepticism the strict laws regulating marijuana. Americans views on civil rights for LGBTQ persons have dramatically changed. Most research indicates that nowadays a majority of Americans reject the idea of withholding basic civil rights (marriage, employment protections, the right to openly serve in the military) from LGBTQ persons. Americans also tend to view favorable granting more rights to undocumented workers, an overwhelming majority of whom are Latino.

This widespread rejection of social conservatism, partly a result of changing demographics in the U.S., may help explain why President Obama was reelected even though Americans favored Mitt Romney “as an economic manager” by a margin of roughly 9%.

I certainly do not see those Americans who embrace social conservatism giving up their fight anytime soon. I am curious to see how this political divide will play out in the future. Is it inevitable that we will grow even more divided politically?

According to recent projections, the amount of money spent on campaign advertising during the 2012 Election increased dramatically to roughly 6 billion dollars. The dramatic increase results directly for Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In the decision, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political spending by corporations and unions. Political junkies expected that an increase in spending on campaign advertising would result from the Supreme Court’s decision. Many also predicted that the increased spending would significantly alter election results; however, those predictions proved to be wrong.

            Major Outcomes of the 2012 Election:

·      The Republican Party still holds a majority in the House of Representatives.

·      The Democratic Party still holds a majority in the Senate.

·      The Democratic Party’s candidate won reelection to a second four-year term as president.

So what changed? Not a whole lot besides a decrease in productive political discourse due to the substantial increase in spending on campaign advertisements. If anything, I think the 2012 Election (specifically the outcome of Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission decision) demonstrates a genuine need for dramatic campaign finance reform. The rise of the so-called Super PACs frustrated many Americans, regardless of political affiliation or ideology. I am hopeful, though somewhat skeptical, that we will soon see bipartisan action to appropriately address the issue. The Huffington Post recently published an article pertaining to the movement towards campaign finance reform. If we as Americans could ever come together, I would have to believe that it would be to address this outrageous spending on campaign advertisements.

“Youth Vote Gap Suggests Republicans Risk Losing An ‘Entire Generation’ to Democrats”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/youth-vote-gap-republican_n_2100155.html

“Campaign Finance Reformers Get Back To Work After Record Election Spending”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/campaign-finance-reform_n_2122811.html