'Modern democracy is beyond social differences' Explain?
please answer fast it's urgent
please answer in paragraphs
and according to class 10 political science book
Answers
Answer:
Major forms of power sharing in modern democracy are:
Power sharing among different Organs of the Government: In democracy, power is shared among Legislature, Executive and Juduciary.This is known as distribution of power. No organ of the governemnt can e P xcercise unlimited power as each ower sharing among different Organs of the Government organ checks the others.
Governments at different levels: In federal form of government, power is shared between the central and state governments. In India there is another lower level of government -local self government.This is called vertical division of government.
Social Groups: Power may also be shared among different social groups such as religious and linguistic groups. In India, there are constitutional and legal arrangements whereby socially weaker sections and women are represented in the legislatures and administration.
Division of power between political parties, pressure groups and movements: Political parties are the organisations which aim to control power by contesting elections. In a democracy, citizens have the freedom to choose among the various contenders for power. When no party gets a majority, two or more parties come together to form a governemnt. In a democracy, pressure and interest groups also have an indirect share in the governemnt's power.
Democratic socialism overlap
The terms democratic socialism and social democracy have considerable and significant overlaps on practical policy positions, although they are often distinguished from each other. In a way, democratic socialism is also defined as what social democracy was and advocated until the 1970s, when the rise of neoliberalism caused many social democratic parties to adopt the Third Way ideology and accept capitalism, or redefine socialism in such a way that maintains the capitalist structure intact. Like traditional social democracy, tendencies of democratic socialism follow a gradual, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism rather than a revolutionary one. Policies commonly supported by democratic socialists and social democrats include some degree of regulation over the economy, social insurance schemes, public pension programs and a gradual expansion of public ownership over major industries.[27] Partly because of this overlap, some political commentators use the terms interchangeably, especially in the United States.[28][29] The difference between the two is that social democrats support social democratic positions as practical reforms within and to capitalism and as an end in itself whereas democratic socialists ultimately want to go beyond social democratic reform and capitalism and advocate systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism.[30][31][32] During the late 20th century, those labels were embraced, contested and rejected due to the emergence of developments within the European left such as Eurocommunism, the fall of Marxist–Leninist governments, the Third Way and the rise of anti-austerity movements in the late 2000s and early 2010s Great Recession. This last development contributed to the rise of politicians who represent the more traditional social democracy such as Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom and Bernie Sanders in the United States[33] as they assumed the label democratic socialist to describe their rejection of Third Way politicians within the Labour and Democratic parties and a return to more traditional social democracy.
MODERN democracies are confronted with a fundamental problem which may be defined as follows : How to curtail the freedom of the individual in economic enterprise sufficiently to effect that measure of equality of possessions and of opportunity without which democracy is no more than an empty form, and at the same time to preserve that measure of freedom of the individual in intellectual and political life without which it cannot exist? The problem may be otherwise stated: Can the flagrant inequality of possessions and of opportunity now existing in democratic societies be corrected by the democratic method? If it cannot be corrected by the democratic method, the resulting discontent and confusion will be certain, sooner or later, to issue in some form of revolutionary or military dictatorship. This then is the dilemma which confronts democratic societies: to solve their economic problems by the democratic method or to cease to be democratic societies.
I
It is obvious that the problem is intrinsically an economic one. At the present moment it takes the spectacular form of unemployment. For ten years, in virtually every democratic society, from ten to twenty per cent of the working population, for the most part willing but unable to find work, have been kept alive by public or private charity or by jobs created for that purpose by the government. Unemployment is no new thing, but never before in modern democratic societies has it reached the proportions of a major social catastrophe.
The catastrophe cannot be explained as an act of God, cannot be attributed to destructive natural forces beyond human control. The people are famished, but there is no famine. On the contrary, there is wealth in abundance, or should be. Given our natural resources, our man power, and our technical equipment, there could be produced, in this country at least, sufficient wealth to provide all the people with the necessities of life and many of the desired comforts and luxuries. Yet in spite of widespread and insistent human need, the technical equipment is used only in part, the man power is not fully employed. In a land of potential plenty, millions are destitute. Obviously the situation is one which arises not from a lack of potential wealth, but from some defect in the method of producing and distributing wealth. That the defect is a serious one is sufficiently indicated by a simple ironic fact: in a world in which millions are destitute, it is thought necessary, and under the prevailing system of production and distribution apparently is so, to limit the production of the necessities of life in order to keep people from starving.
The prevailing system for the production and distribution of wealth is variously denoted by the phrases capitalist system, competitive system, price system, system of free economic enterprise, system of laissez faire. The theoretical justification of it derives from the liberal-democratic ideology —the assumption that social welfare can best be achieved by reducing governmental interference with the freedom of the individual to a minimum. The assumption was never better formulated than in John Stuart Mill’s famous essay, “On Liberty.” Governmental interference in the activities of the individual, he maintained, was never justified except when manifestly necessary to prevent the activities of some individuals from injuring others.