First of all, we must know what democracy is? It is a form of government which is elected by the eligible voters. In this system of election, every eligible voter has an equal right of say. Each vote carries an equal importance. This is a system that allows people to choose their own representative freely and fairly. It is a system that is widely accepted around the world and is running successfully. This system allows people to select the government. Nations and countries seek this political system because it is beleived to be the best system.
Now, we come to the question if democracy causes corruption or is democracy the root of corruption? My answer is that it is not true. As we have said, democracy is good but the people who govern this system have to be well reputed and honest to deliver the fruits of democracy to the people. If the people themselves are corrupt and dishonest then no matter the political system they use they will make it corrupt.
The other important thing is that the law enforcement agencies should also be well equipped. There should be a strong law and justice system. If the law is not enforced properly, then corruption will not end. Another important factor is the moral grounds and ethics in a society. In countries that have strong judicial and moral system, there are very few cases of corruption because the elected people feel themselves questionable by the public and the judicial system.
Corruption and democracy are notorious in third world countries where the judicial system is not very strong. Also, the media is not free and accessible. The representatives do not think of themselves as answerable to the general public and the courts. So this is where mostly corruption take place. When it comes to corruption, you can see that the African countries and Asian countries are highly ranked, because these countries do not have strong institutions that can check and question the elected members. The reason for this is that these countries also are governed under marshal laws for many years; where the institutes were not allowed to flourish.
Take the example of Pakistan, it is the 7th country in inuclear power, a country which is full of talent and excellence. This country also has 4 Marshal Laws in its 66 year history and these marshal laws took 35 years in total. The result of these marshal laws was that the institutes were not allowed to be strong. The country is ranked at the 35th position among the most corrupt countries. There are charges of corruption on current Prime Minister, President and the last Prime Minister as well as on the opposition party leaders. So this can tell you the story if the institutes are strong then these people will not be able to reach the highest office in the country.
At last, the election of 2012 is complete. President Barack Obama has been elected to a second term in office, and the two branches of Congress have each received some new members. In this election, the flaws of our democratic process were especially apparent. This post briefly tells how the American political system works, as well as how it doesn’t work.
In 1775, the colonists of North America rebelled against their British overseers. The end result was an independent country called the United States of America. Originally comprised of 13 colonies, represented by the stripes on our flag, the country today includes 50 states, represented by the stars. Immediately after independence, a constitution called The Articles of Confederation was instituted. This established the country as a Confederacy, where power rested mostly with the individual states, rather than a centralized power. After about 10 years, the absence of a strong central power was problematic, and so a second constitution, which we call “The Constitution,” was ratified. This strengthened the central government, and empowered the presidential position, which George Washington first held for two consecutive 4 year terms.
In our current government, there are three branches at the national level, including the Congress, which proposes laws, the President, who ratifies or vetoes the proposed laws, and the Supreme Court, which handles disputes over the implementation of laws. This three branch system is based on the idea of “checks and balances,” meaning that each branch limits the powers of another, making dictatorship impossible. In addition, each of the 50 states has its own government, led by a governor who ratifies laws proposed by a legislature. National laws apply everywhere, but state laws change in each state.
The biggest difference between American politics and other democratic systems is that we don’t have a parliament where several parties are represented. We have a two-party system, where political leaders either belong to the Democratic Party or to the Republican Party. We have lots of other political parties too, but 95% of American politicians belong to the big two parties. The Republican and Democratic Parties have undergone many changes throughout history. Today, Republicans are the conservative party and Democrats are the liberal party, generally. Democrats favor social policies that help the poor, in exchange for higher taxes rendered on the population. Republicans want a smaller government that does not perform these functions, in exchange for lower taxes. The Republican Party is more overtly religious than the Democratic Party. This is opposite of the Middle East and other places, where the conservative religious parties are more inclined toward social policies.
Our elections have always been scandalous and have involved foul play. Propaganda is as American as apple pie. Just ask our second and third presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The election between them was filled with slander and lies. In the modern era, though, the influence of money is especially powerful. Our Supreme Court recently ruled in a case (referred to as “Citizens United”) that companies and corporations are, like people, entitled to Free Speech. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to limit the amount of money corporations can give to political candidates for elections.
What essentially happens is that political campaigns become so expensive, including the billions of dollars overall that are spent on TV commercials, that the majority of a politician’s time is not spent on government duties, but on raising money for his or her upcoming election campaign. The intentions that political leaders have for bettering their state or the country are hindered by other promises and obligations made to the people giving them money for the election. Do you think Climate Change legislation will ever be a priority of oil company executives, who donate billions of dollars each election cycle? Also, if one reads the Affordable Care Act (aptly called ObamaCare) closely, there is a provision that fully excludes pharmaceutical companies from compliance on certain measures. I wonder, who asked for that?
On this issue, there is one misconception held in parts of the Muslim World that must be addressed: The Israel Lobby. There is an idea that supporters of Israel in the United States donate overwhelming amounts of money to political campaigns, and this is one of the reasons behind the inextricable U.S.-Israel relationship. In fact, that’s largely true. HOWEVER, the majority of Israel’s supporters in the U.S. are not Jewish. They’re Christians, and they’re Republicans.
Support for Israel is a strong tenet of the Republican Party. That’s why Israel’s security is mentioned in every Republican debate, while Obama, who is a Democrat, has never even visited the country. In the U.S., around 80% of Jewish voters support Democratic candidates who don’t overtly support Israel.
The trouble with American politics, is that the overwhelming amounts of money involved sometimes blur the lines between paranoia and rationality. Is U.S. military policy tied into the manufacturing of arms and the extraction of natural resources. Of course. Is this the only cause? Probably not. But when government policies are obviously beholden to the wishes of some campaign money donor, it is reasonable to question its merits, and whether its intentions are for the good of the country, or the money donor.