Contemporary Public Policy Issues, Essay Example

Introduction

Upon gaining independence, a country dreams of ruling itself, having its own identity and sovereignty where supreme power vested in the people. Democracy becomes the key factor, and everyone in the country speaks highly and with confidently. There exist promoted basic human rights, freedoms of speech, religion, assembly association, and maintained order within the country. In other words, one feels at home, within the safety o f the defined political borders and boundaries that provide an independent justice system. The country itself and the people in it have the right to decide on the political governing system it desires. Now, suppose foreigners, (US government for this matter), come in with personal, and self-interests, with an aim of imposing their own desires in the governance and ruling of the country, then rebelling and chaos arise. This paper discusses the pros and corns for the issue that “it is morally wrong to force democracy in other countries”. A detailed review of the topic then done to discuss the emotional and rational response towards the topic.

Arguments promoting the issue – it is morally wrong to force democracy in other countries

The best thing that can happen to a government is to have democracy. People in the country have the power to choose their leaders, to vote for their constitution, and speak for themselves. The US government appears to promote democratic reforms, especially in developing countries. It claims that democracy reduces terrorism and promotes political stability and economic prosperity globally. This is true, but entirely depends on the circumstances under which democratic reforms and transition programs employed. However, reports show that the US take advantage of their supreme and super power to play policemen, and force its own view of democracy on other countries for their selfish interests. They do not consider the consent of the residents of the particular country. These self-driven interests of the US have caused political, religion and social unrest around the world.

The US government has employed its democratization movements all over the world to enforced foreign policies into other countries. They have gone further into challenging the laws and forces that govern the country of interest as they command such countries to change into what they want. In the name of enforcing democracy, the US undermine the policies govern the country while criticizing them. The US government has selfish aims of taking over the control of the extensive area of social and political change. In actual sense, these two areas- the social and the political system- form a country. Controlling them would simply mean controlling the whole country.

When too much credit given to a person, groups of persons, organization, and in this case the US government, best performances only seen within the initial probation period. This is exactly what the US government does. It works perfectly in the initial years, and robes the trust of the country. After the country at hand places its entire trust on the US government, that is where the rule of dictatorship, blackmail and inherent imperialistic employ. They do things unaccountably, rule, and employ harsh policies towards the people in the nation. They actually “colonize” the country indirectly, and deny people the right of independence, which probably gained through shaded blood. The ignorant, cowardly, careless, or rather dummy individuals will just sit back and pray for miracles to happen. Only the elite people of such societies can read in between the lines and identify the problem.

Bleaching the rules of democracy in a country is morally offensive. People have lost their lives, and even more are reportedly willing to risk their lives for the freedom of their country. This includes the elite people, who can reason out and determine what is good for their country. Elite people denied a chance to express their feelings or rather employ their integrity into the success of their country. The US government that is the most developed nation (the fact given credit), comes in, and would like to enforce their rules. They forget that out of a group of dummy characters, there exists at least one elite person who can save the entire dummies. This person only needs a chance, freedom of expression, and the time, which is an essential requirement to show out his/ her skills in development. The US government comes, in the name of promoting democracy, yet it does not necessarily promote democracy, but imposes inheritably imperialist. It covers and “silences” any existing democratic movements so that it takes over the power to limit any change imposed by mass democratization movements.

The US government has gone to the extent of giving authoritarianism to some developing countries. Apart from controlling the political changes in the country, it goes an extra mile and determines the groups getting into power, while marginalizing others. This may not be direct, but the US governments funds the campaigns of the groups they intend to empower to lead. They incorporate them into their programs and offer them expertise advisory to win the governmental position. It thus remains obvious that such groups would win- a great violation of the rules of democracy and drainage into forced democracy.

When we talk about democracy, it means following rules and regulations made by the people themselves, and for the people. It does not entertain what the neighbor or outsider has do say. In fact, if anything the foreigner, who is the US government in this case, should watch and wait for service. The US government ought to learn to be the Roman who does what the Romans do when he / she goes to Rome. If at all there is anything needing change, only a suggestion risen, where the concerned people have a choice to adapt or reject the suggestion. Citizens of a given country ought to have political rights. They ought to participate freely without the intrusion of an outsider. They need subjected to privatization, civil liberty, and personal autonomy with absolutely no interference from the outside states.

Argument against the issue – it is morally wrong to force democracy in other countries

From the contemporary view, the US appears to be doing wrong. However, there always exists some positivity in their practices. The US government has enhanced globalization in counties that initially lied underground. It has incorporated such countries with NGO’s which fight towards the well-being of the country in terms of poverty eradication and rural development. It has enabled such countries to rise economically while creating job opportunities, especially for the jobless young generation.

Surprisingly there exist those countries that are extremely poor, yet they possess all the resources that could make them rich. The US government comes in and explores such resources for the benefit of such countries. In as much as residents argue that the US government takes a larger share of the revenues due to their invention and exploration, the residents benefit from the created job opportunities. The government also benefits from the tax levies paid to carry out the processes in the extraction. In the end, if proper agreements made, the country remains in possession of the already explored resource. Now, if one comes to think about it, what advantage would a country have on a resource that exists, yet not explored? Even if it takes forever, the country can never be in a position to explore it for lack of expertise, equipment, and technology. The best option is to allow expertise to explore, regardless of the 50/50 sharing of revenues generated.

Conclusion

It is very selfish for the US government to take advantage of the developing nations, who dream to be like the US someday. That fact of having a dream does not empower the US to take advantage and step on the heads of their leadership. The poverty, lack of knowhow, or lack of necessary equipments to explore the available resources does not guarantee the US government to rule. In fact, ways ought to develop to create a healthy relationship that enhances mutual benefit to both parties- the expertise and the ground owners. Concerning emotional feeling, enforcing democracy is other countries not right for the US government. If the issue internalized, however, it realizes that the US government aims at promoting democracy, which is very encouraging, but due to the unsatisfied human nature, it practices forced democracy. This actually appears as blackmail for the country to accept its ruling in exchange for their esteemed services.

Memorandum for the President

From:

Subject: Contemporary Public Policy Issu – Promoting Democracy

Action forcing event

The US government is one of the strongest in the world. The entire world believed in it and its policies to promote democracy in their countries. This did not come contemporary as history shows that the US government has supported promotion of democracy in other countries. The Bush administration, for example, promoted Minimum Challenge Account (MCA), and implemented bilateral and multilateral programs that promoted democracy. It even set $1.5 billion for promotion of democracy. The US government efforts to promote democracy acknowledged, respected, and admired globally.

The problem arises where the trust nations had on the US government depress on a daily process. Countries have claimed that the US government has taken advantage of its superior power to force democracy into their country. There is unrest around the world due to the habit of the United States habit of intruding into the democracy of other countries. These countries want left alone, as they feel offended by the fact that the US government is going too far. The elite lot in such countries has reportedly died, and some still willing to risk their lives in the opposition. Now, this mean we are going too far. It only shows how much we have bleached our agreement that we made to help the countries that had initially entrusted us. It simply calls for immediate action, as there is the bleaching of the meaning of the name “enhancing democracy”.

Background analysis

The desire for democracy called in after World War I. The US government felt the damages and desired to start the fight of making the world a safer place in terms of democracy. Presidents as

Reagan, Clinton, and George Bush, saw democracy promotion efforts as important in the world. The Bush administration identified democracy promotion as an important feature in fighting terrorism, and promoting peace globally in his January 20, 2005-second inauguration address.

At the same time, January 2005, Dr Condoleezza Rice listed the approaches of promoting democracy in a diplomatic manner. The first thing is building an international system, and then strengthening the community to fight threats to attaining common security and finally, the spread of freedom. Dr. Rice’s diplomatic approach restated in October 2006 and officially briefed in the reforms of the secretary foreign assistant.

The 2007 poll that the US cannot impose forces democracy to other countries had 83% yes-vote. These sentiments further handed by the Arabs who felt that they did not want the US assistance in democracy promotion on their countries. This was a testimony by the president of the Arab American Institute, Dr. James J. Zogby in 2007. Now, this is not the only complain towards the approach of the US government in their approach to promote democracy. The approach is a global issue has calls presidential candidate and lawmakers to address their views on the debate concerning democracy promotion. The dilemma is when we determine a need for democracy promotion, where needed, and how should it employ.

Policy options

The first thing in addressing a problem is defining every bit of the issue. The action-causing event here is a contemporary public issue- democracy promotion. Democracy as a word, divides itself into two, “demos” meaning people, and “craits” meaning ruling. It means a political system that employs effective participation of the people, by the people and for the people. The people defend the constitution that guides them, and they have an option to vote against the constitution if at all it does not serve to advantage the common person. The constitution ought to respect the human rights, promote political equality for the majority and the minority group of persons. When the US government enters into a country in the name of promoting democracy, it ought to enhance, enforce, encourage, and promote the above listed, nothing more, nothing less.

A slight editorial of the definition of democracy promotion is the problem at hand. There is lack of coordination of activities of the US government into other countries. The US programs established in other countries have ended up funding private projects, which end up bringing biasness in the political system. Funding of projects is okay, and shows a complete responsibility, generosity, and support needed by a party. It recommended, and funders desire ululations for that. Now, the issue arises, whom are you funding? Of what advantage is the funded project, does it advantage the community at large; or rather, it advantages a minority? What are the consequences of the success of the project? How would the government of the particular country take it? Could the project in one way or another violate democracy of the country? Most funders have ended up into deceptive traps to fund projects that promote self-interest, and in the end, violate democracy rules. It recommended that funders know exactly what they fund.

The worst thing that could happen is where the US government believes it is helping a country in promoting democracy, yet the outcome is opposite. Instead of calming down wars, war arises, instead of promoting peace, conflicts arise, and instead of a country developing, it deteriorates even more. Take for example the forced democracy in Iraq, citizens did not corporate with the forced democracy, or rather promotion for democracy by the US government. They protested against the forced democracy and instead of peace, war arose. Iraq is bombed, brutalized, and broken down by the Bush lawless regime. The trust the country once bestowed on the superior US government gradually disappears and replaces with hatred and distrust. People in the country, who form the major stakeholders, only view the US government as betrayers who only take advantage of their superiority to dictate, undermine, and blackmail the poor countries. They US government viewed as “legal thieves” rather than innovators and inventors.

The US government ought to protect its identity. Democracy promotion, an activity it started long ago should advantage the direct beneficiaries. Critics arising upon the power bestowed while carrying out its duties means dissatisfaction. It means incurrence of unnecessary expenditures. Intruding into some other government’s affairs is not right. The US has reportedly imposed democracy reforms in countries instead of promoting democracy. In fact, democracy should initiated by local citizens, then, if need be, democracy promotion enhanced by outsiders.

Recommendation

It could only be fair if the US government took responsibility for its actions. The services regarding promoting democracy are very crucial, but the question is, to what extend? As much as help is essential, certain boundaries need not crossing. The following recommendations need consideration.

• The US should know that it has no right to enforce democracy on any country. Every country has democratic right to self-governance. It should only promote democracy, if it has to.
• The control bestowed upon government decisions concerning a policy vested in public officials who are citizens of the country and not foreigners.
• Elected officials of a government chosen in a fairly conducted election, where coercion is completely declined and the US government promoting democracy have no right to intrude
• All adults (age varies from one country to another) have the right to vote and in no way should the body promoting democracy have a say in this.
• All adults have equal rights and opportunities to vie for any offices in government, and the US government should not fund the campaigns of a particular candidate for favor
• The superior US government should know that citizens have a right to express themselves without danger of severe punishment or consequences
• The US government should know that citizens of any country have the right of independence. They can form associations, organizations, and even independent political parties, just as they wish
• The elected officials given a chance to exercise their power, without subjection to questioning especially from outsiders (the US government for this case)
• The US government should know that democracy is good, if made by the citizens of a country. Anything forced on people is wrong. If a country does not want democracy, then let it be