How can we participate any type of struggle in democray
Answers
Like most words for powerful ideas, “democracy,” is a bit ambiguous, a bit blurry around the edges; the word itself is a contested item in our democracy and others. It would help if we have a preliminary definition. I like Lincoln’s. “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” But now we have to ask what that means. Here’s my take on it.
Government of the people means that all the people are subject to the laws; the rights don’t just apply to the rich or noble; the duties don’t just fall on the poor and hard-working. We all get traffic tickets; we all pay taxes.
Government by the people includes, I think, two important ideas. First it means that the governors, ---Presidents, Prime ministers, senators, governors, mayors, whatever-- are citizens of the very entities they rule; no distant kings, no colonial rulers. No Guams, no Puerto Ricos, no Flints.
Second, and probably the most central part of our conception of democracy, the government is chosen, in a fair and equal way, not only from among the governed citizens, but by the governed citizens. In a pure democracy, as in Ancient Athens was for a while, all the citizens are part of the governing assembly. Well, Ancient Athens wasn’t that pure, if you take account of the fact that only men were citizens. Women were excluded, and they also had slaves. At any rate, in a representative democracy, all the citizens have equal votes in choosing who governs.
It’s worth noting that the U.S. falls short. We do have colonies. So much for “by the people”. Delaware has two senators, a Vice-President, and less than a million people. California has two senators and thirty-five million people. So much for equal votes.
Still, we are closer to being a real democracy than Trump University was to being a real University, just to get in a gratuitous swipe at the Donald.
But now, what does “for the people” mean? “For” suggests purpose, what the whole thing is about; the government of the people and by the people is instituted for a purpose; it should benefit “the people”. But --- each person? Every person? Society as a whole?
It seems that you could have a government of the people and by the people, but for the purpose of exalting Jehovah, or Allah, or insuring that the flora and the fauna of the region flourish. So this idea, of for the people, seems like a further and important step. But what does it amount to?
At least in the case of the U.S., we’ve got the preamble of the constitution to go on, which I happen to still know by heart from third grade:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It really does say, “promote the general welfare”! Sounds like socialism. The Founding Father’s were already feeling the Bern, perhaps. The general welfare part even comes before securing the blessings of liberty....
Democracy evolves through a popular struggle. Any essential decisions can be taken by consensus and there may be no disagreements whatsoever. Democracy typically includes conflicts among certain power-driven groups and others who want to a "share in power".
Mass mobilisation is the solution to the political crisis. In certain cases, the dispute can be settled by using established mechanisms such as the parliament or the judiciary. Although if there is a serious disagreement, they are most much interested in the confrontation themselves.
The new political parties, the tensions and mobilisations, are established. However, by means of formal politics, informal popular engagement is made successful. This include political parties, lobbyists (pressure groups) & associations/movement groups.
Explanation:
Nepal struggled for establishing democracy while the struggle in Bolivia included the claims on the elected government. In Bolivia, it was a particular agenda that was at stake. In Nepal, the struggle was for the foundation of the politics of the nation. Bolivia and Nepal cases indicate that diverse groups, such as labour groups, human rights, unions, & community leaders, unite in protest
In a democracy, several kinds of organisations work behind any big struggle. These organisations play their role in two ways : (i) Direct Participation and (ii) Indirect Participation.
- Direct Participation: By directly engaging in active politics, the organisations are seeking to influence democratic decisions. This takes place by the establishment of parties, election contests and government formation. Not every person is directly involved. They are unable to engage in a particular political action because they do not have the desire or capacity to partake other than through voting.
- Indirect Participation: There are several indirect ways in which governments will respond to their demands. They could do that by the establishment of an organisation and activities that will further their interests. These are known as pressure groups & interest groups. At times, people often plan to work collectively without associations. Without political authority, they control foreign policy.
To know more
Analyse the role of popular struggles in the development of ...
https://brainly.in/question/2691300