Sunday, May 24, 2020
Democracy and Bureaucrary Are Incompatible - Free Essay Example
Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1846 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2017/09/19 Category Politics Essay Type Argumentative essay Tags: Bureaucracy Essay Population Essay Did you like this example? DEMOCRACY AND BUREAUCRARY ARE INCOMPATIBLE, DISCUSS USING ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES. The relationship between democracy and bureaucracy has generated much debate amongst scholars. Democracy is defined as a political system which supplies regular constitutional opportunities for changing the governing officials and the social mechanism which permits the largest possible part of the population to influence major decisions by choosing among political contenders for political office. Abraham Lincoln as cited in Haralambos and Holborn (1995) defines democracy as the government of the people by the people and for the people. Bureaucracy is defined by Schaefer (2003) as a component of formal organisation in which rules and hierarchal ranking are used to achieve efficiency. The focus of this discussion is to reflect to a greater extent the incompatibility that exist between democracy and bureaucracy Democracy emanated from western countries as a movement that clamoured for equality, f reedom of speech and expression. It came into being mainly after Second World War where many peoples rights were stripped off. Democracy came to restore individual dignity and popular participation. Decision making under the banner of democracy would mean that all involved parties should have informed consent on issues that directly affected them. Bureaucracy is a brain child of Weber who asserts that it’s an organised way of running an organisation. An organisation contains structures which should be followed in their order of importance. This means that, in decision making, relevant authorities should make decisions and in the event that they feel incapacitated to do that, they approach a higher office. There is chain of command and top down approach in communication which represents a hierarchy of authority. Haralambos and Holborn(1995), People in this hierarchy are paid and are full time officials who form a chain of command. A bureaucracy is concerned with business of administration with controlling, managing and coordinating a complex series of tasks. Bureaucracy represents oligarchy, rationality and separation of ownership from control. Democracy and bureaucracy coexist in society but their compatibility is questionable, they seem to be two conflicting views which exist in one society. The conflict perspective theorists are of the view that bureaucracy and democracy are much incompatible. Bureaucracy is inevitably a representative of the interest of the minority which is a direct opposition of democracy, which focus on majority rule and freedom of all. Bureaucracy state apparatus can be viewed as a specific creation of capitalist society with the roles of manipulating and turning the majority into proletariats. Lenin, as cited by Haralambos and Holborn (1995), clearly puts that western parliaments where â€Å"mere talking shops†while the real work of government was conducted behind closed doors by the state governing bureaucra cy therefore the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another and hence cannot operate hand in glove with democracy. Hopes for truly democratic organisations in a communist society can be dismissed as mere illusions. According to Robert Michels 1876-1936 as cited in Haralambos and Holborn(1995), in his study of European socialist parties and trade unions, the organisations which had the aim to overthrow the capitalist state and create a socialist society based on democratic principles was not the resemblance of what actual happened. It was a mere duplication of the capitalist bureaucracy which is not very compatible with democracy. As supported by Jonson (1989) socialist states like the former Soviet Union, the state power was used to maintain wealth, power of government and military leaders at the expense of the wishes of the people, there was basic conflict between government and the people thereby compromising on democracy. Just like in the authoritarian capitalists government the state supports the interests of capitalists irregardless of having formal positions in government, all this suppress the will of the people. Therefore, bureaucracy is not compatible with democracy in such governments where the wishes of the people do not take paramount importance. It can be argued that organisation or bureaucracy is death knell of democracy and hence not compatible. Moreso, direct participation by large number of people in the running of an organisation is in practice impossible. Apart from the practical difficulties of assembling thousands of people, direct involvement in decision making will be more cumbersome and time consuming that nothing will get done. Since direct democracy is impractical, it can only be replaced by a form of some representative system, whereby delegates represent the mass and carry out its will. Hurd et al (1991) laments that these political elected leaders want to amass wealth at the exp ense of the people, just because of their positions. Leaders at the highest authority of the bureaucracy can appoint other leaders on basis of ethnic background, nepotism and favour hence the wishes of the people wont be respected because the leaders would be representing their own selfish needs. As a result, bureaucracy can not be compatible with democracy if the wishes of the majority are ignored. The only thing they will do is to come back with feedback and alerting the mass on their course of action in the future. For example the president went to represent Zimbabwe to the UN summit recently and told the Zimbabwe’s story without prior consultation with the people because of the hindrance caused by bureaucracy. The effective operation of the organisation requires a specialised division of labour that necessitates control and coordination from the top. The result is rigorously defined and hierarchical bureaucracy. Haralambos and Holborn (1995), postulate that the organis ation grows and administrative duties proliferate that it is no longer possible to take them at a glance. They become increasingly incomprehensible to those without special knowledge and training. Faced with this complexity, members of trade unions and political parties leave matters to their political leaders. Decisions are taken by the executive committees within the bureaucracy rather than by assemblies of the rank and the file. Thus, the very organisation which was created to represent its members, end up by largely excluding them from participation and decision making. Organisations therefore inevitably produce oligarchy which rule by a small group or elite, popularly known as the iron law of oligarchy. To sum up on oligarchy, Michels postulates that the oligarchic structure of the building suffocates basic democratic principle. Hence democracy and bureaucracy is not compatible because of these misgivings between the two. Communication in bureaucracy is basically top down commanding orders and giving institutions to employees or people without prior consultation. There is over dependence on the orders and direction for superiors while crushing the initiative of the subordinates. Macionis (1995) argues that individuality is suppressed as bureaucratic slavishly follow official procedures and regulations with advancement dependent on the judgement of higher authority. Subordinates bore and scrap to their superiors while adopting an arrogance stance to those beneath them in the hierarchy. Bureaucracy therefore, is sworn enemy of individual liberty and all bold initiative in matter of internal policy. It is petty, narrow, rigid and illiberal hence reflects the direct opposite of democracy and thereby it’s not compatible. There is a tendency to displace organisational goals by the leadership in bureaucracy. The leadership is established at the top of the bureaucratic pyramid and its primary concern is the maintenance of its own power. Leaders wish to retain the privilege and status which their positions bring, a concern which take priority over the started goals of the organisations. Schaefer (1995) adds that the organisation will become increasingly conservative as leaders refrain from taking any action that might endanger their position thereby compromising democracy in the process. Leaders learn skills like the art of controlling meetings, of applying and interpreting rules, of proposing motions at opportune moments, their control over the publications of the party for instance enables them to put across their own view point. Moreso in bureaucracy, leaders have considerable say in the appointment of officials in the organisation and can therefore select those who support their policies thus leaders see their own interests and the maintenance of the organisation as indistinguishable. Organisation was essential to democracy, however as a matter of technical and practical necessity organisations adopt a bureaucrat ic structure and it produced oligarchy control which brings to an end or death of democracy. However to a very lesser extent compatibility between democracy and bureaucracy do exist. Haralambos and Holborn (1993) assert that democracy is inconceivable without organisations. In a modern complex society the only way individuals can effectively communicate their wishes and press their nterests is by joining together and forming an organisation. This is particularly true of the relatively powerless working class masses for whom combination and cooperation is necessary and in Zimbabwe we have the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) which is rooted on democratic foundations is now a full blown democratic bureaucratic political party. The inevitability on the compatibility of democracy and bureaucracy can be explained on psychological perspective on the natural need of the masses to be led. Macionis (1989) argues that democracy is a system in which power is exercised by the people as w hole, of which it does not mean that every member of society participates directly in decisions that directly affect them. This would only be possible in a very small political entity, hence representative democratic systems places governance in the hands of elected leaders. This is accompanying of veneration of activities where the masses clamoured to have a leader. In the light of democracy this will be viewed as the wish of the majority to be lead and hence can be respected. At the end of the day the leader will put in place a structure that resembles bureaucracy but all is done in the name of democracy. Therefore it can be argued that there is no bureaucracy without democracy and no democracy and bureaucracy without democracy. In other instances like in modern democracies people show their wishes through casting their vote in a free and fair electoral environment and if everyone including the observers view it as free and fair it becomes democratic because the wishes of the p eople will have been respected. The people would have given legal authority to the person and the voted government to rule over them hence it will be democratic, in this case democracy and burecracy becomes very compatible. Conclusively democracy and bureaucracy seem to be enemies which coexist in one society or in one organisation. In most case the two different aspects are not compatible as discussed but in other instances their coexistence is accepted as democratic and the only way forward in modern governments which involve managing larger populations which cannot be brought together at once and who have very diverse social economic views. If the majority agree then it’s viewed as democracy. The various interpretations of democracy lead to this debate on this compatibility. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Haralambos, M and Holborn, M (1995), Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. 4th edition. Harper Collins Publishers. London. 2. Hurd g et al (1991) Human Societies. An introduction to Sociology, Routledge and Kegan Paul . New York. 3. Jonson A, G (1981) Human Arrangements. An introduction to Sociology, Harcourt Braces Jovanovich. New York. 4. Macionis, J. J (1989) Sociology, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 5. Schaefer, R. T (2003) Sociology, McGraw Hill, New York. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Democracy and Bureaucrary Are Incompatible" essay for you Create order
Thursday, May 14, 2020
Mothers Day Haha no Hi
May 10th is Mothers Day (Haha no hi). Although Happy ~ can be translated as ~ omedetou, there is no Japanese equivalent of Happy Mothers Day. Sending a Mothers Day card is not too common in Japan, but giving flowers (especially carnations) is a popular thing to do. I am very close with my mom. She is very open-minded and has been very supportive of whatever I have done. Since hugging parents (except by children) is not a common practice in Japan, I sometime wonder if words are enough to show love. Besides, I feel a little embarrassed to express my feelings in front of her, but I always appreciate her open-mindedness. Japanese Translation æ ¯ 㠮æâ€" ¥ ä ºâ€Ã¦Å"ˆå æâ€" ¥Ã£ ¯Ã¦ ¯ 㠮æâ€" ¥Ã£ §Ã£ ™ã€‚è‹ ±Ã¨ ªÅ¾Ã£ ®Happy ~㠯〠㠊゠㠧㠨㠆㠨è ¨ ³Ã£ •ã‚Å'る㠓㠨ã‚‚ã ‚り㠾ã ™ã Å'〠æâ€" ¥Ã¦Å" ¬Ã¨ ªÅ¾Ã£ §Happy Mothers Day㠫å€ ¤Ã£ ™ã‚‹è ¨â‚¬Ã¨â€˜â€°Ã£ ¯Ã£ ‚り㠾㠛ん。æâ€" ¥Ã¦Å" ¬Ã£ §Ã£ ¯Ã¦ ¯ 㠮æâ€" ¥Ã£ «Ã£â€š «Ã£Æ' ¼Ã£Æ'‰ã‚’è ´Ë†Ã£â€šâ€¹Ã£ “㠨㠯ã ‚ã ¾Ã£â€šÅ è ¡Å'ã‚ ã‚Å'㠾㠛んã Å'〠花ç‰ ¹Ã£ «Ã£â€š «Ã£Æ' ¼Ã£Æ' ãÆ' ¼Ã£â€š ·Ã£Æ' §Ã£Æ' ³Ã£ Å'æ ¯ 㠮æâ€" ¥Ã£ ®Ã¨Å ±Ã£ ¨Ã£ •ã‚Å'㠦ã „㠾ã ™ã‚’è ´Ë†Ã£â€šâ€¹Ã£ “㠨㠯ä ¸â‚¬Ã¨Ë† ¬Ã§Å¡â€žÃ£ §Ã£ ™ã€‚ç § 㠯æ ¯ 㠨㠨㠦ã‚‚ä » ²Ã£ Å'㠄㠄㠧ã ™ã€‚æ ¯ 㠯㠩ん㠪ã “㠨㠫ã‚‚å è ¦â€¹Ã£ Å'㠪ã ã€ ç § ã Å'ã ™ã‚⠀¹Ã£ “㠨㠫㠯ã „㠤㠧ã‚‚ç †è § £Ã£â€šâ€™Ã§ ¤ ºÃ£ â€"㠦ã ã‚Å'㠾ã â€"ã Ÿã€‚è ¦ ªÃ£â€šâ€™Ã¦Å ±Ã£ ã â€"゠る㠓㠨㠯å ä ¾â€ºÃ¤ » ¥Ã¥ ¤â€"æâ€" ¥Ã¦Å" ¬Ã£ «Ã£ ¯Ã£ ªÃ£ „ç ¿â€™Ã¦â€¦ £Ã£ ªÃ£ ®Ã£ §Ã£â‚¬ è ¨â‚¬Ã¨â€˜â€°Ã£ 㠑㠧å 分㠫æ„›æÆ'…㠯ä ¼ ゠る㠮㠋㠪㠨æ€ 㠆㠓㠨ã‚‚ã ‚り㠾㠙。ã 㠮ã †ã ˆç § 㠯é ¢Ã£ ¨Ã¥ ‘㠋㠣㠦æ„Ÿè ¬ 㠮æ °â€"æÅ' 㠡ã‚’è ¡ ¨Ã£ ™ã “㠨㠫〠å °â€˜Ã£ â€"ç… §Ã£â€šÅ'ã 㠕㠕も感㠘る㠮㠧ã ™ã Å'ã€ æ ¯ 㠮å ¯â€ºÃ¥ ¤ §Ã£ •ã€ ç †è § £Ã¥Å ›ã‚’㠨㠦ã‚‚ã ‚ã‚Šã Å'ã Ÿã æ€ ã £Ã£ ¦Ã£ „㠾ã ™ã€‚ã Šæ ¯ 㠕ん〠㠄㠤ã‚‚ã ‚ã‚Šã Å'㠨㠆。 Romaji Translation Go-gatsu tooka wa haha no hi desu. Eigo no Happy~ wa, ~omedetou to yakusareru koto mo arimasu ga, nihongo de Happy Mothers Day ni ataisuru kotoba wa arimasen. Nihon dewa haha no hi ni kaado o okuru koto wa amari okonawaremasen ga, hana (toku ni kaaneeshon ga haha no hi no hana to sareteimasu) o okuru koto wa ippanteki desu. Watashi wa haha to totemo naka ga ii desu. Haha wa donna koto nimo henken ga naku, watashi ga suru koto niwa itsudemo rikai o shimeshite kuremashita. Oya o dakishimeru koto wa (kodomo igai) nihon niwa nai shuukan nanode, kotoba dake de juubun ni aijou wa tsutawaru no kana to omou koto mo arimasu. Sonoue watashi wa men to mukatte kansha no kimochi o arawasu koto ni, sukoshi terekusasa mo kanjiru no desu ga, haha no kandaisa, rikairyoku o totemo arigataku omotte imasu. Okaasan, itsumo arigatou! Note: The translation is not always literal. Beginners Phrases I am very close with my mom. Watashi wa haha to totemo naka ga ii desu.ã‚ ã Ÿã â€"ã ¯ 㠯㠯ã ¨ 㠨㠦ã‚‚ 㠪ã ‹ã Å' ã „ã „ 㠧ã ™ã€‚ç § 㠯æ ¯ 㠨㠨㠦ã‚‚ä » ²Ã£ Å'㠄㠄㠧㠙。
Wednesday, May 6, 2020
Miranda is the Only Woman in William Shakespeare’s Play,...
In William Shakespeare’s The Tempest, there has been much debate on whether Miranda, the only female in the play, is a fully formed character or merely an object being used by the men of the play. William Shakespeare wrote in a time where men were considered the dominant sex and women were only used for reproduction and maternal purposes. In the Tempest men like Prospero and Antonio are shown in a position of power and strength, while Miranda is associated with frailty and innocence. This allows the men to use Miranda for their own selfish purposes. However Miranda is unaware of this and acts independently and doesn’t always abide to what the men of the play force her to do. Miranda’s actions throughout the Tempest portray her as a fully formed character but as she is the only other female character in the play, the men view her as an object which can be used to suit their needs. Miranda’s actions are her own in the Tempest as we see in Act 1 Scene ii - th e first time we are introduced to Miranda - where Miranda begs her father, Prospero not to harm any of the survivors from the Tempest. She talks with sympathy in her voice: â€Å"O, I have suffer’d/ with those that I saw suffer! A brave vessel/ who had, no doubt, some noble creature in her/ dash’d all to pieces†(1, 2, 5 – 6). Miranda is brave enough to stand up to her father knowing that he has the power to harm the sailors. She shows empathy and care not only for the sailors who she has never met before but for the ship
Tuesday, May 5, 2020
The Importance of Chapter Six in The Turn of the S Essay Example For Students
The Importance of Chapter Six in The Turn of the S Essay crew Turn ScrewThe Importance of Chapter Six in The Turn of the Screw Chapter Six is an important section of The Turn of the Screw, as it involves many of the themes of the story, as well as reflecting its general narrative structure. James novel is phenomenally complex; it has an incredible ambiguity to it, which allows for some very outlandish and far-fetched ideas to be formulated. A theme can almost be drawn from almost every other sentence, if one so desires. It is deciding which issues have a little more to them than there may seem at first and which are what they appear, nothing more, which is difficult. As with many books of its ilk, over-analysing is a serious essay writing hazard. To take things one aspect at a time, and to begin with the narrative structure. Whilst not exactly a ?key issue of the story, the narrative structure can often inYuence how those issues are revealed and detailed to readers, so still holds some relevance to the essay title. Chapter Six overall structure is very similar to that of the story as a whole. It begins quietly, after the climax at the end of the previous chapter (as with the main part of The Turn of the Screw after the prologue, which creates a great deal of anticipation) and begins to increase in tension slowly throughout, with a slight lull in the middle, where the narrative becomes very reYective and introspective, with the Governess writing her thoughts seemingly as they enter her head, creating a somewhat rambling, dense prose. Finally, when readers are least expecting it, the plot suddenly leaps into view once again, creating an exciting znale (Then I again shifted my eyes I faced what I had to face. ) which leaves many plot threads open to interpretation (as with the znal words of the znal chapter, ?and his little heart, dispossessed, had stopped.) Chapter Six is something of a microcosm of the rest of the story, at least in terms of the narrative structure. More important, however, is how the key issues of the story are represented in this chapter. These issues come in two distinct categories. The zrst involve the various themes of the story, involving the characters, the plot and reality itself. The second type consists of the various techniques James uses in the Governess language to depict her character and set the tone for the book. Taking the latter zrst; the Governess language is very distinctive. It is very verbose and detailed, examining events and people very closely, using as many words as possible to describe even the simplest of things. For example, towards the end of Chapter Six she is trying to think of rational alternatives for the presence of Miss Jessel on the opposite side of the lake. When she fails, she writes Nothing was more natural than that these things should be the other things they absolutely were not. This style of writing is extremely difficult to understand in places, making the book heavy reading in places, and creating a somewhat monotonous and depressing atmosphere at times. This may be due to James own writing style, or a deliberate attempt to dezne the Governess own writing traits; it is difficult to tell. Either way, it creates a very dark feel for the story. As for the themes, there are probably almost an inznite number of interpretations that could be theorised from the text. Readers have to determine how much they are willing to accept. There are some themes which are not explored in this particular chapter; nevertheless, there are still a surprising number of them squeezed into a mere seven pages. .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982 , .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982 .postImageUrl , .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982 , .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982:hover , .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982:visited , .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982:active { border:0!important; } .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982:active , .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982 .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .uee00144bc119d67183063cec21a8c982:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Cultural Diversity Essay One recurring theme is evident in the conversation between Mrs. Grose and the Governess. The two characters have a tendency to complete each others sentences, to speak almost as if they are of one mind. Two incidences here are particularly noticeable: ?It does strike me that my pupils have never mentioned -! She looked at me hard as I musingly pulled up. ?His having been here and the time they
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)