How are democracy, socialism, and communism different?
Democracy and Socialism are no different , because democracy is an essential feature of Socialism , only Socialism and Communism is different.Socialism included democracy and is integrated , because if you have learn about Socialism , you’ll know that Democracy will always be promoted in Socialism , because Socialism is about the social ownership of the means of production over private one , It’s also about an establishment of a system of direct or semi-direct democracy in order for the peoples themselves to regulate the state to ensure that there will be no corruption.But the differences of Communism and Socialism is a little bit tricky , before Lenin became leader of the USSR , Socialism and Communism is considered one , but after Lenin introduce his Socialism in one country , Socialism and Communism became two different stage of an egalitarian Society , Communism is also about the Social ownership of the means of production and direct democracy , but in Communism , there are no state , Communism is a moneyless , stateless , and classless society , so It’s suffice to say that different to Socialism , Communism is anarchic in nature.That will pretty much summed up the differences , It may seem vague to you but I’m sure that It’s not.
What are the conditions that a democracy must fulfill to achieve the ability to handle social differences, divisions and conflicts?
Democracy is the rule of the people. But not all the people can rule. So we have come up with representative democracy. Everyone votes to select a few who would rule. Now if people were homogenous this would not have posed much of a problem. But people are divided into classes, religions and castes. So a faction that has majority will acquire power and will oppress the rest. This is majoritarianism. This is the basic problem of a representative democracy.How can we overcome this? (1) Assure every individual basic rights through a constitution and take it outside the scope of a parliamentary majority to alter. So even if a majority that is opposed to say a particular minority religion comes to power, freedom of religion will still prevail. (2) Create checks and balances among the various institutions of the state so that no one institution will monopolise political power to the detriment of the rest. So executive, judiciary, parliament and bureaucracy should check each other. (3) In India, the constitution gives assured representation to weaker sections in jobs and legislatures so that their interests are not neglected. (4) Policies of multiculturalism is another method of managing differences within a society.It may be noted that classical scholars of democracy, like JS Mill believed that a representative democracy could work only in a homogenous society. The experience of India shows that with the appropriate institutional safeguards, democracy can work even in a diverse society also.
How and when did Sweden become a democracy?
I am researching for an essay but have come across many points in history that signal a democracy looming. What was the defining moment? When and how did Sweden transition a democracy?
Doesn't democracy overlook minority views?
Democracy is system of government characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges afforded to citizens or legal residents of a particular "state". One of the key elements, according to Political Scientist Larry Diamond is "protection of the human rights of all citizens."Democracy varies in each "state" or government by application and rights given and upheld. The United States has no formal language defined in its constitution, hence teaching multiple languages in school is more a practical matter than a legal issue.As for protection of animals, they simply are not considered sentient citizens with a right to vote, religious beliefs are not the issue. Hindus, for instance, regard all animals as sacred but they still consume products like milk and cheese. They do tend to abstain from beef, however, out of respect for the cow. The premise of your question about Hindus abstaining from eating animals is incorrect. (ref: Why do Hindus worship the cow?)Democracy (in government) is simply dominated by a majority in many cases but this does infer that minority views are discarded or overlooked. Taken to an extreme, every individual (with unique DNA) has his/her own interests. Should this mean that everyone has their own agendas heard and implemented? Chaos and anarchy would result, making the "state" crumble.Democracy is the best form of government that allows minority views to be heard and taken into account. We may not all agree on those views, but at least we are free to express them.
Why is democracy the best way to fight for recognition and also to accommodate diversity?
It is not. Democracy is not a good form of government. The Founders called it "the tyranny of the majority" or mob rule. It is why they formed our government as a republic (based on rule of law). In a democracy, the majority can trample the rights of the minority. Equal rights is the way we have equality.Equal treatment under the law happens in a republic, not in a democracy.When the Constitution was ratified, a woman asked Ben Franklin as he left the meeting place, "Dr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?" He replied "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."A good metaphor to understand the difference is as follows: a lynch mob is about to hang a supposed horse thief without a trial. That is a democracy. When the sheriff (rule of law), stops them saying they have to have a trial, that is a republic.Another quote often attributed to Franklin is "A democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."The myth that we are trying to make the world safe for democracy is one of the grandest lies of the twentieth century. It is a lie told to the people of the world so that the flaws in democracy can be used to consolidate tyrannical power in the New World Order.We should be fighting to make the world safe FROM democracy.