Elsie Gyang Engr
297B
Professor Lusignan Final
Paper
“The Decline of Democracy”
For Americans, the word “democracy”
itself is strong enough to conjure up notions of a nation unhindered by an
oppressive government where citizens are able to engage in the freedom of
speech, press, and religious choice and practice. So powerful are American
pro-Democratic sentiments that it is a common thought that any other country
that does not prescribe to a liberal democracy is somehow inferior. Yet as time
marches on, the feelings of superiority by American citizens become more and
more unfounded. For, right before our eyes, the very notion of democracy, that
Americans become braggarts about, is disappearing. While the U.S. government
boasts of the freedoms it affords its citizens, it corrupts such an image
through repeated non-democratic actions. While citizens cherish the affordances
of a liberal democracy, many do not make the effort to support such a system;
taking it for granted that no matter what, a democracy is a self perpetuating
entity. In this paper I will argue that the liberal democracy that supposedly
defines American government is a declining entity due to overt acts against the
principles of democracy by the United States government and also due to the
decline of civic engagement by United States citizens. The fact is, no system
of government can be perpetuated if the government and its citizens do not work
to keep their ideals alive and in practice.
Since the inception of a democratic
government in the United States’ early history, many have held that a liberal
democracy should be the standard to which all other governments should attempt
to emulate (CNN.com, 1). As the world’s leading super power, the United States
sets an example for the rest of the world; supposedly with a liberal democracy
allowing freedom of political, religious, and personal choices, and also,
freedom from being subjected to an oppressive government. I argue that the idea
of democracy that the founding fathers of the United States attempted to live
up to and perpetuate is slowly being corrupted
To be a good leader though, one must set a good example; something
the United States is gradually failing to do. At home and internationally the
United States government has acted in ways contrary to the ideals set forth in
its own constitutional documentation. In a proper democracy the government is
responsible for protecting human rights for all citizens, making impartial
rulings, and guaranteeing its citizens the right to select law makers freely
where the people voting are informed about the issues. There have been a
multitude of instances where the United States government has failed to live up
to such standards on a national and international front.
Firstly, the protection of human
rights is a concept that the forefathers of this country felt to be an
important aspect of a proper democracy. In the constitution it is written that
all humans hold certain inalienable rights to be protected by their governing
power. Within the United States there have been many occasions where the
government has acted on the contrary. For instance, after the Japanese attacked
Pearl Harbor during World War II in 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt
issued an order to incarcerate people of Japanese ancestry living in the United
States. President Roosevelt’s orders led to 120,000 individuals of Japanese
decent to be placed in internment camps built around the United States (The
Children of the Camps Project, 1 from here on called CIC). Most of those who
were taken to such camps were United States citizens and legal residents who
had their right to be protected by their government immediately stripped away
from them (CIC, 1). Although the U.S. condemned Hitler for the mistreatment of
Jewish German citizens, the internment of those with Japanese heritage in many
ways mirrored the same injustices Jewish citizens had to face in Germany.
While it may be easy to dismiss
inappropriate U.S. actions as the artifact of ignorance from the past, there
have been more recent actions that illustrate the undemocratic nature of the
U.S. government. For example, after the
terrorist attacks of September 11th in 2001, the U.S. government took action to
suddenly revoke the rights of many American citizens. Without warning many
Americans with Middle Eastern
backgrounds were arrested and jailed without due cause. Though they were not
put in internment camps, like the Japanese of WW II, they were nonetheless
stripped of the rights they were promised when they took their oaths to become
United States citizens.
It is important to note that through
history, the United States has acted undemocratically after terrorist acts have
been taken upon the country. After the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the
bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, both President Kennedy and
President Bush issued ordnances that allowed military force to supercede
constitutional rights guaranteed to certain citizens. These actions beg the
question of the efficacy of democracy in a period of intense terrorist actions.
Is it the case that the only way to protect our democracy during terrorist
attacks to revoke basic citizens rights? For not only are citizens that share
heritage to those who perpetrate terrorist crimes subject to a loss of rights,
but so too are citizens as a whole.
As the United States government
becomes more paranoid of attack, the greater the government feels the need to
impinge on citizen’s rights. For example, in 1994, for the purposes of national
surveillance, Congress passed a bill forcing telephone companies to redesign
their equipment to make the act of surveillance of civilians an easier task to
accomplish (Global Internet Liberty Campaign, USA). As more and more of these
anti-privacy laws build up it is easy to imagine a United States government
gradually becoming more involved in the citizen’s life until ultimately, every
citizen will be subject to having their supposed inalienable rights revoked or
under question whenever the government sees fit.
The U.S. government’s inability to
guarantee basic human rights at times extends beyond its boarders to problems
in foreign policy and human rights violations. United States foreign policy of
the 1950’s and 1960’s was a ludicrous one. While on one hand the U.S.
government condemned countries whose governments were not protecting the human
rights of its citizens, the United States government also provided a helping
hand in allowing the oppression and mistreatment of many citizens of foreign
countries. For instance, in 1957, with help and support from the United States,
the regime of Francis Duvalier was able to take over Haiti (The Acts of
Democracies; from here on called TAD). During the Duvalier regime, more than
60,000 died; many through death squads led by the Haitian government (TAD).
While Haiti spiraled downward to become one of the poorest countries in the
world and the Duvalier regime ruled under brutal authoritarian rule, the United
States government did little to help protect the human rights of Haitian
citizens or even sanction the Haitian government for not doing so itself.
Furthermore, in 1964, a military coup in Brazil lead by General Humberto de
Alencar Castello Branco was supported by the United States government (TAD).
After the coup came a period of great turmoil and tyranny in Brazil. After his
instillation General Branco deprived Brazilian citizens of their right to
peacefully assemble and to form any sort of labor or trade unions (TAD). He
also put sanctions on the freedom of speech for all citizens, especially speech
that were inflammatory of his ruling (TAD). Moreover, during a period akin to
U.S. McCarthyism, thousands of Brazilian citizens who were accused of being
communists were jailed and tortured. As many as 70,000 Brazilians died under
the rule of General Branco (TAD). Again, the incidents in Brazil were
overlooked by United States officials despite the blatant attack on the human
rights of Brazilian citizens.
Besides human rights protections,
another principle inherent to the practice of democracy is the involvement of
citizens in the decision making of national policies. Unlike many other
government types, what makes a democracy unique is the two way dialogue that is
supposed to occur between elected officials and the citizens that put them in
power. In this way the citizens have the agency to affect change in policies
with which they do not agree. Yet again, when one examines the actions taken by
the U.S. government, both domestically and internationally, it is clear that
the central importance of a dialogue between government and citizen is becoming
less of a factor in making policy decisions.
While there has been a history of
events where the U.S. government has acted against the will of a majority of
citizens, recent betrayal of citizens’ wishes highlights the continuing decline
in the practice of principle democratic ideals. For example, during the current
Bush administration, the No Child Left Behind Act received widespread support
from parents and teachers alike. While running for presidency President Bush
campaigned heavily for the act. Once in office, though, his plans changed. The
No Child Left Behind Act along with many other educational programs have been
vastly under funded. For the 2004 fiscal budget, the No Child Left Behind Act
is under funded by $5 billion (Schemo, 1). Additionally, 45 programs including
education to rural residents and dropout prevention have been struck from the
budget plan, leaving millions of American youth deprived of better education in
many areas (Schemo, 1). For many Americans, such a move by the Bush
administration is a let down in terms of expectations of representation within
a democracy.
Another instance in which the Bush
Administration has ignored the voices of its citizens is in the case of the
Yucca Mountains Project. In another bait and switch move, during his campaign,
President Bush promised the citizens of Nevada that he would reject any bill
that would allow the dumping of nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountains. Since the
beginning of the proposal of the Yucca Mountains Project, Nevadans have been
unanimous in their disapproval of the Project and state legislatures have
animatedly fought its passing (News from Reality, 1). Yet now in office,
President Bush, along with chief energy councilman, Spencer Abraham are in
support of dumping nuclear waste materials in the Yucca Mountains. Such actions
that directly oppose the will of the citizens is very unhealthy for the state
of democracy. If a citizen’s voice can achieve no efficacy in promoting their
wishes, is it then fair to call the U.S. government a true democracy? As time
marches on and as citizens’ voices lose their value, it seems as if the U.S.
moves a little further away from a true democracy with each new disappointment.
As with foreign policy and human
rights, the U.S. government has acted undemocratically in terms of ignoring the
voices and wishes of foreign citizens. In the 1950’s for example, the United
States used the Marshall Islands located in the Pacific Ocean for hydrogen bomb
testing without consulting the native islanders (TAD). After extensive use of
the Islands, residents were forced to relocate due to testing and radiation exposures
(TAD). This was a major inconvenience for families, one that was imposed on
them without any chance to oppose U.S. actions. While the Pacific Islanders
were never given a chance to protest against the use of their land for bomb
testing, the people of Vieques, Puerto Rico have for years now animatedly
opposed the use of their island for bomb testing. Between May and October of
2000, as many as 480 people have been arrested for protesting against using
Vieques as a testing site (Revolutionary Worker, 2). After the imperialist
seizure of Puerto Rico, the United States has imposed its will on the people of
Puerto Rico as its colony. The voices of protest have been loud indeed; with
prominent leaders such as Rev. Al Sharpton among those who have been arrested.
In circumstances like these, it becomes apparent that at times, U.S. government
actions are fueled by self-interest of elected officials as opposed to the
interest and needs of citizens who are affected by such actions.
Finally in terms of deleterious
government actions, as a democracy, the U.S. government is supposed to ascribe
to the notion that citizens should be informed individuals that may freely
elect officials that will support their issues. While deviation from this
principle causes problems within the United States as well as in foreign
countries, the root of the problem for each area is different. For in the
United States, the problem lays in the actual dissemination of information
while abroad, the United States has actually attempted to sabotage the
democracies in other countries for various reasons.
In the United States, when a citizen votes, it is hoped that such a
person is well informed about the different issues represented on the ballot
and can base their decision both on unbiased information presented and their
own viewpoints. It turns out though that this is probably not the case for many
voters. Many voters remain uneducated or mis-educated about policies and issues
due to the state of our “free” press today. As the constitution stipulates,
every citizen is guaranteed the right to free press. Yet such freedom seems to
be lacking in today’s American democracy. Current popular American Press
consists of local evening news channels, major news broadcasters such as CNN,
and local newspapers. Due to the current technology boom, much of the news is
also currently available on the internet; usually posted by the same major news
broadcasters and area newspapers. The problem with such press is that much of
the news is presented in a bias manner. Some newspapers and broadcasters are
viewed as liberal so they skew the news towards certain view points while
conservative newspapers and broadcasters present information in a nonobjective
light as well. So, depending on what area one lives or what type of cable
service one receives, what is supposed to be objective news, will be presented
with a spin depending on the interest of the networks rather than in the
interest of presenting unbiased information.
Furthermore as an organization’s
view points change through time, there is also a change in what they want
Americans to believe. For instance, currently during the time of terrorist
threats towards the United States, the news broadcaster CNN, has changed the
types of political articles that it prints. While it CNN has been known to
defend U.S. policies in the past, recent articles have questioned whether
democracy is even a feasible government type during an age of terrorism
(CNN.com, 1). Such changes in positions can have a profound effect on the
political viewpoints of CNN’s readers. In a sense, the mass media has become
more of a tool in shaping American’s thoughts of the world as it sees fit
rather than being a vessel for which objective news is presented in order for
citizens to form their own opinions. Instead of an informed electorate in the
United States, citizens are more likely to be hindered by the biases of their
chosen news source.
The corruption of the ideals of
democracy in United States foreign policy is an important issue to address; for
if the United States does not practice what it preaches, the positive messages
of a democracy, namely freedom from oppression and the installation of human
rights, will not be communicated as effectively to foreign countries that would
greatly benefit from such a change in political practices. If it were pro-democratic sentiments that
motivated United States action to install democracies in countries around the
world, actions taken to install democracies might have been more successful in
persuading countries to adopt a new system of government. Instead, through the
years the United State government‘s attempts to install democratic governments
has been tainted by economic interests.
Such tainted goals have led the United States government to attempt to
actually sabotage, rather than facilitate democracies throughout the world.
For example, in the late 1950’s the
United States government made plans to invade Iraq after General Abdul Kareem
Kessem overthrew the western backed monarchy in Iraq in order to establish a
new republic that took a neutral stance in the Cold War (TAD). U.S.
justification for invading Iraq at the time was that Iraq was in s state of
dangerous turmoil that had to be allayed immediately. It was later found though
that the United States and other Western countries, such as the UK, took a
collective interest in access to oil in Kuwait (TAD). At the time Kuwait was
still not completely independent and was under heavy influence from the Iraqi
government (TAD). An Iraqi government that was independent of Western control
could jeopardize Western availability to oil. Such motivations have very little
to do with the actual well being of Iraqi citizens under a different political
party, and everything to do with economic greed of Western countries.
Iraq is just one of the many
countries the United States has attempted to control in some covert way.
Particularly in South America, the United States government has had a long
history of supporting military takeovers, even if the previous political system
was democratic, as long as it economically benefited the United States and
other Western nations. In 1969 the Brazilian military selected the upcoming
president without elections (TAD). The United States did nothing to sanction
such behavior because the new regime would allow them access to cheaper raw
materials (TAD). In more blatant destruction of a country’s democratic system,
in 1973, a military coup that displaced the democratic government of Chile was
facilitated by the United States (TAD).
After further investigation of the Chilean coup, it was found that the
United States government had a pivotal role in its success. Years before the
actual coup was executed, the U.S. CIA had started a propaganda campaign
against the democratic leader, President Allende. Many inflammatory articles
were placed in the press around the world to discredit his authority (TAD).
Furthermore, the U.S. was able to sabotage his authority by removing
desperately needed funds originally allocated to Chile by the World Bank.
(TAD). The United States provided help in ending 150 years of democracy in
another country for its own gain. Such an act is most certainly deplorable,
especially in light of the fact that the U.S. is supposed to promote and ensure
the safety of democracy around the world.
While historic and current U.S.
actions have indeed been unacceptable, it is important to also examine the
American citizen’s role in the decline of democracy in the United States. The
role of the citizen in a democracy is an important one. In such a political
system it is the citizen who has the responsibility of making their voice heard
and to affect change when needed. Declining in civic engagement of American
citizens should cause some alarm then. For if such apathy towards involvement
in the system of government continues, it is quite feasible that although,
ostensibly the United States might be labeled as having a democratic
government, in reality the political system will be more of an oligarchy or
aristocracy where only a few voices will rule the greater society.
According to the Center for
Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), there is a
definite crisis facing civic engagement of citizens today (Andolina et al, 7).
The statistical data collected by CIRCLE paints a very grim picture of the
United States citizen. While 80% of American’s polled said they were registered
to vote, only about 51% say that they “always” voted (Andolina et al, 7). As
the political activities demanded more of an individual, the less the
individual was likely to participate. For instance only 16% of Americans said
that they regularly volunteer for electoral parties and only 13% said they
contributed money to the political group or candidate that they supported
(Andolina et al, 7).
When voting activities are examined
through generations, the cause of alarm is heightened. The CIRCLE report breaks
the U.S. population into four different generational categories. The Matures
are those born before 1946, and is comprised of about 49 million people. The
Baby Boomers are those born between 1946 and 1964 and make up the largest
population within the United States. Generation Xers are considered to be those
born between 1964 and 1976, made up of 44 million individuals. The youngest
cohort is the DotNets, comprised of 40 million Americans born after 1976
between the ages of 15 and 25 (Andolina et al, 9). While the Matures, the
oldest of the generations are reported as having 89% of their cohort registered
to vote, there is a decline in the percentage of those registered to vote
through generations. After statistics were adjusted to only include the
proportion of the DotNet cohort who were old enough to vote, the percentage was
still the lowest in terms of voters registered, at 60% (Andolina, 10). A
significant generational difference was also found in the amount of time and
effort given to contributing to political campaigns. While 22% of Matures and
Baby Boomers report volunteering for a political group. Only 6% of DotNeters
report the same (Andolina et al, 10).
In terms of affecting change as
informed citizens, Americans demonstrate an alarming amount of apathy. From the
CIRCLE report, it is evident that as a group, Americans are not very informed
about the political activities of its government. Only 45% of those polled
reported that they even followed politics and government activities most of the
time (Andolina et al, 14). Furthermore, once again, the generational
differences are noticeable. While 60% of Matures acknowledge that they follow
politics and government most of the time, only 24% of the DotNet generation do
so. In terms of general political knowledge, many Americans are at a loss. When
asked which of the political parties between the Democrats and Republicans is
more conservative, only 49% of the public could correctly identify Republicans
as the more conservative, with the youngest generation being the least informed
(Andolina et al, 14).
Exposure to media related to
political news also changes across generations. Whereas 85 percent of Matures
report watching the news regularly, less than half (38%) of the DotNet cohort
make the effort to stay informed through their local news media. The same
decline holds true when the use of other forms of media such as newspapers and
radios are examined.
The most startling statistic of all
comes in what the role of citizenship means to different generations. When
asked if there were any special obligations to citizenship or if “’simply being
a good person is enough to make someone a good citizen,’” a generation gap
emerged once again. While 60 percent of Baby Boomers acknowledged that to be a
good citizen meant to have deeper obligations, only 38 percent of DotNets felt
the same way (Andolina et al, 39).
The quoted statistics suggest a
multitude of predictions for the future, many of which are negative. Most
importantly if United States citizens continue to be apathetic towards its own
government, it is quite possible that the idea of democracy will be corrupted
in the United States. Although it is not proposed that the government will
overtly move from a democracy to a different form of government, there will be
subtle changes that will cause corruption of the democratic ideal. For, a
democracy is supposed to be a government type in which all citizens’ voices are
heard and issues represented. If on the other hand, U.S. citizens decline to
have their voices heard, only a few, instead of a majority, will be able to
affect change in policy. Such an unrepresentative state of existence flies in
the face of what a true democracy is supposed to uphold.
Another possibility that stems from
citizens’ apathy is that the United States government itself can chose to take
further liberties away from its citizens with little opposition. When citizen’s
do not hold their government responsible for the actions it takes, it becomes
the case that such a government system may overstep its boundaries. Especially
in terms of foreign policies, the United States government has taken actions
that have led to deleterious consequences from foreign citizens, yet have met
little opposition to such actions by United States citizens. Much of the lack
of government censuring by U.S. citizens also comes from the way in which generations have viewed their
government as a whole. As CIRCLE reports, the youngest generation, the DotNets,
are more trusting of their government, allowing the government to take on more
public responsibilities (38). Many felt that the government does a better job
than many people usually attribute (38). Also, many believed that in terms of
government involvement and private sector operations, it was more efficient if
the government handled issues that face smaller businesses or individuals (38).
This statistic is alarming in that a democratic government also affords the
ability to operate under a virtually free capitalist economy. What the youngest
generation is essentially saying is that government control of various sectors
of society, for which it had no control of before due to the principles of a
democracy, are acceptable.
The fact is, under a democracy, it
is not acceptable for the United States government to impose control over
citizen’s inalienable rights, or those of foreign citizens as well. The
question then becomes, what can the United States due collectively, as a
governing body and as a society, to stop the decline of democracy. Though
change will not come immediately, if the U.S. government and its citizens make
a concerted effort to re-install the original ideas of democracy inherited by
the country’s forefathers, it is still possible to practice and promote a true
democracy.
Firstly, the United States
government must change foreign and domestic policies that speak against
democracy. Many of the U.S. actions have been done covertly without information
made available to all the parties involved. In this sense, it would be best for
the U.S. government to make information free to all who seek it. Such actions
would have two-fold results. For one, it would make the U.S. government more
accountable for its actions, therefore being less likely to take action that it
will be censured for. Secondly, it would allow citizens to be informed of the
issues at hand and maybe become more invested in the actions of their
government.
The United States policy of
dismantling governments that do not agree with Western politics must also come
to an end. In taking such actions, the U.S. government not only blatantly acts
undemocratically, but it also fosters sentiments of hate towards the United
States by foreign countries and citizens. A world where democracy is the ruling
power can not come to be if the United States continues to aggravate hopes of
democratic installations in foreign governments for its own gain. Instead, the
United States government, as part of the United Nations, should continually
foster democratic actions taken by foreign countries, whether or not they vie
with U.S. economic interests. For if the United States is to be a true
democracy, it cannot let economically imperialist sentiments taint its actions.
United States citizens as a whole
also need to become more involved in government politics. The CIRCLE report
paints a grim picture of United States citizens from generation to generation,
with the youngest generation, the DotNets, showing an alarming decrease in
interest in government affairs. For this reason, campaigns to increase citizen
involvement in political issues should mostly target the youngest generation.
America’s youth needs to be motivated to want to get involved in its country’s
political issues. One suggestion would be to make civic engagement a more
integral part of the educational system of the United States. For example,
making volunteering or political activism a part of U.S. government classes for
high school students would be a place to start. Statistics from the CIRCLE
report show that students that were involved in volunteerism or political
activities during their high school careers were more civically involved later
in life (31). Another idea would be to have mandatory civic participation by
high school graduates; a system akin to the Singaporean governments requirement
of army service for men for at least two years after they have completed high
school. In the United States, though, mandatory civic duty would not have to
center around military service. Instead citizens would be able to chose from a
wide range of sectors that serviced their community and required them to get
involved in government activities. Besides youth, CIRCLE highlights another
group of citizens that show less and less participation in United States
politics. Among these more less civically engaged citizens are minorities and
women. Programs that aim at getting citizens involved in political affairs
should also make special efforts to target these specific groups.
While it may be a little naive to
promote democracy as the only proper government type, it is the case that
countries like the United States that employ democratic practices have seen the
greatest amount of societal advances. In this sense, the international
promotion of democracy is not inherently bad in that it would help change the
state of more oppressive government types to ones allowing freedoms to its
citizens. While such promotions of liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a
noble one, the U.S. government and its citizens must fight to keep such ideals
healthy and alive both at home and internationally. The fact of the matter is
that as much as democracy is valued by many, it is not a self-perpetuating
idea. Governments and citizens alike must work together to ensure that the idea
of democracy does not become a passing fad through the test of time.
Andolina, M.,
Jenkins, K., Keeter, S., and Cliff Zukin. (2002). The Civic and Political Health of the Nation: A Generational
Portrait. New Brunswik, NJ : The Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press.
The Children of the
Camps Project. (1999). Children of the Camps: Internment History. Retrieved March 9, 2003 from http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/index.html
CNN.com. (2003).
U.N. Warns Democracy Under Threat. CNN.com. Retrieved February 22, 2003. http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/07/24/un.democracy/index. html
Global Internet
Liberty Campaign. (2003). Privacy and Human Rights: An International
Survey of Privacy Laws and Practices. Retrieved March 11, 2003 from http://www.gilc.org/privacy/survey/surveylz.html#USA
Katsiavriades,
K. and Talaat Qureshi. (2002). The
Acts of the Democracies. Retrieved March
2, 2003 from http://www.krysstal.com/democracy.html
National
Organization for Women. (2003). The Truth about George W. Bush -Domestic Policy. Retrieved March 9, 2003 from http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/domestic/
News from Reality.
(2001). Raping The Mountainside: Filling the Yucca Mountains with
Nuclear Waste. Retrieved March 11, 2003 from http://www.hereinreality.com/yucca.html
Revolutionary
Worker. (2001). The Bush Plan for Vieques: Bomb Now Pull Out Later. Revolutionary Worker Online.
Retrieved March 10, 2003 from http://rwor.org/a/v23/1100-99/1109/vieques.htm
Schemo, Diana Jean.
(2003). The Presidents Budget Proposal: Education. New York Times Online. Retrieved March 10, 2003
from
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60E17F6355C0C768CDDAB08 94DB404482