Institute of International Languages Multimedia University (ILMU) PEN 0035 ENGLISH 3 Foundation in IT ACADEMIC ESSAY By MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH USMAN

UMAR ZAYYAD ISA SULAIMAN 1071119769 1071119862 1071119645

FOR Mdm. SELVARANI.

CONTENTS.

Page Contents x

Outline

Drafts

Academic Essay

I. II.

Liberal Democracy Illiberal Democracy Disadvantages of Democracy Advantages of Democracy Democratic Peace or War

1 3 4 5 6

III. IV. V.

References

Appendix

OUTLINE
TOPIC: DEMOCRACY NARROW TOPIC: THEORY OF DEMOCRACY
THESIS STATEMENT : Democracy, like all other forms of governments have defects but supporters of democracy are often reluctant to accept that it is less than perfect which in turn may hinder its reforms.

EFFECTIVE THEORY OF DEMOCRACY LIBERAL DEMOCRACY ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACY

DISADVANTAGES OF DEMOCRACY 1. PLUTOCRACY 2. POVERTY AND FAMINE 3. SHORT TERM FUCUS

THE ADVANTAGES OF DEMOCRACY 1. PUBLIC CHOICE THEORY 2. POLITICAL STABILITY 3. FREEDOM AND RIGHTS

DEMOCRATIC WAR OR DEMOCRATIC PEACE?

Draft

Liberal Democracy.
Liberal democracy-sometimes referred to as constitutional democracies are the dominant form of democracies in the 21st century. The term liberal in liberal democracy does not imply that the government of such a democracy must abide by the political ideology of liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that liberal democracies feature constitutional protections of individual rights from government power. The origin of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy traces its origin and its name to the European 18th century, also known as the age of enlightenment. The possibility of democracy had not been seriously considered by political theory since classical antiquity, and the widely held belief was that democracies would be inherently unstable and chaotic in their policies due to the changing whims of the people. It was further believed that democracy was contrary to human nature, as human beings were seen to be inherently evil, violent and in need of a strong leader to restrain their destructive impulses. Many European monarchs held that their power had been ordained from God, and that questioning their right to rule was tantamount to blasphemy (been disrespectful to God). These controversies were challenged at first and it was also argued that government existed to serve the people and not the other way round, and that the laws should apply to those who govern as well as the governed (rule of law). It was until late 18th century that America and French revolutions gave birth to the ideology of liberalism and enlightened philosophers into practice. Structure. According to history, some nations, regarded as liberal democracies have had a more limited rights, and mostly dont have secret ballots. Also, according to the principles of liberal democracy, the elections should be free and fair and the political process should be competitive, thats why today liberal democracies usually have universal suffrage grading all adult citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership.

Rights and freedoms. In practice, democracies do have specific limits on specific freedoms; these may include copyright laws and laws against defamation. There may be limits to anti-democratic speech on attempts to undermine the human rights and on the promotion or justification of terrorism. The common justification for these limits is that they are necessary to guarantee the existence of the freedoms themselves. Opinion is divided on how far democracy can extend to include the enemies of democracy in the democratic process. Some argue that this is not qualitatively different from autocracies that persecute opponents, but only qualitatively different while others emphasize that democracies are different. At least in theory, opponents of democracy are also allowed due process under the rule of law. In practice, democracies do have specific limits on specific freedoms. In democratic theory, the common justification for these limits is that they are necessary to guarantee the existence of democracy, or the existence of the freedoms themselves. According to this argument, allowing free speech for the opponents of free speech logically undermines free speech. In Europe, this has become a political issue with the rise of Islamist political argument, which often does explicitly reject such liberal freedoms. Opinion is divided on how far democracy can extend, to include the enemies of democracy in the democratic process. However, many governments considered to be democratic have restrictions upon expressions considered to be anti-democratic, such as Holocaust Denial and Hate Speech. Other rights considered fundamental in one country may be foreign to another nation. For instance, many Americans considered gun rights and freedom from the double jeopardy to be important rights, while other countries do not recognize them as fundamental rights. Preconditions. For centuries without a strong tradition of democratic majority rule, the introduction of free elections alone has rarely been sufficient to achieve a transition from dictatorship to democracy; a wider shift in political culture and gradual formation of the institutions of democratic government are needed. For example, in Latin America, countries that were able to sustain democracy only temporarily or in a limited fashion until wider changes established the conditions under which democracy could flourish.
Proportional versus majoritarian representation.

Some electoral systems, such as the various forms of proportional representation, attempt to ensure that all political groups (including minority groups that vote for minor parties), are represented "fairly" in the nation's legislative bodies, according to the proportion of total votes they cast; rather than the proportion of electorates in which they can achieve a regional majority (majoritarian representation). This proportional versus majoritarian dichotomy is not just a theoretical problem, as both forms of electoral system are common around the world, and each creates a very

different kind of government. One of the main points of contention is having someone who directly represents your little region in your country, versus having everyone's vote count the same, regardless of where in the country you happen to live. Some countries such as Germany and New Zealand attempt to have both regional representation, and proportional representation, in such a way that one doesn't encroach on the other. This system is commonly called Mixed Member Proportional.
Liberal democracies around the world.

Several organizations and political scientists maintain lists of free and unfree states, both in the present and going back a few centuries. Of these, the best known may be the Polity Data Set and that produced by Freedom House. There is general agreement that the states of the European Union, Japan, the United States, Canada, India, Mexico, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand are liberal democracies, with Canada having the largest land area and India currently having the largest population among the democracies in the world. Freedom House considers many of the officially democratic governments in Africa and the former Soviet Union to be undemocratic in practice, usually because the sitting government has a strong influence over election outcomes. Many of these countries are in a state of considerable flux. Officially non-democratic forms of government, such as single-party states and dictatorships are more common in East Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.

Illiberal Democracy.
An illiberal democracy is a governing system in which although fairly free elections take place, citizens are cut off from real power due to the lack of civil rights. This may be because a constitution-limiting government powers exists but its liberties are ignored, or to the simple absence of an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties. The term illiberal democracy was used by Fareed Zakaria in an often cited 1997 article in the journal Foreign Affairs. Illiberal democratic governments may believe they have a mandate to act in any way they see fit as long as they hold regular elections. Lack of liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly make opposition extremely difficult. This makes the rulers to centralize powers between branches of the central government and local government. The media is often controlled by the state and strongly support the regime. Non-governmental organizations may face tough regulations or simply be prohibited. The regime may use economic pressure, or violence against critics. One proposed method of determining whether a regime is an illiberal democracy is by determining whether it has regular, free, fair, and competitive elections to fill the principal positions of power in the country, but it does not qualify as Free in Freedom House's annual ratings of civil liberties and political rights. More recently, scholars such as Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way argued that the term "illiberal democracy" was inappropriate for some of these states, because the term implies that these regimes are democracies that have gone wrong. Levitsky and Way argued that some of these states, such as Serbia under Slobodan Milosevic, Zimbabwe, and post-Soviet Russia, were never truly democratic and not developing toward democracy, but were rather tending further towards authoritarian behavior, despite having elections (which were sometimes sharply contested). Thus, Levitsky and Way suggested a new term to remove the positive ideology of democracy from these states and distinguish them from developing democracies: competitive authoritarianism. Features and examples of illiberal democracies. A classic example of an illiberal democracy is the Republic of Singapore. Conversely, liberal autocracies are regimes with no elections and that is ruled autocratically but has at least some real liberties. Here, a good example is the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong. Both Hong Kong and Singapore are ethnic Chinese majority city-states and former British colonies. However, their political evolution has taken different paths, with Hong Kong residents enjoying the liberal freedoms of the United Kingdom, but, (as a colony), without the power to choose its leaders, Singapore is on the other hand suffering otherwise.

This contradictory state of affairs was inherited by the People's Republic of China when it resumed control of the territory in 1997. In contrast, Singapore acquired full independence, first from Britain and then from Malaysia in the 1960s. At that time, it was structured as a relatively liberal democracy, albeit with some internal security laws that allowed for detention without trial. Over time, as Singapore's Peoples Action Party government consolidated power in the 1960s and 1970s, it enacted a number of laws and policies that curtailed constitutional freedoms (such as the right to assemble or form associations), and extended its influence over the media, unions, NGOs and academia. Consequently, although technically free and fair multi-party elections are regularly conducted, the political realities in Singapore (including fear and self-censorship) make participation in opposition politics extremely difficult, leaving the dominant ruling party as the only credible option at the polls.

The Disadvantages of Democracy.

PLUTOCRACY The cost of political campaigning in representative democracies may mean that the system favours the rich, who are only a very small minority of the voters. It may encourage candidates to make deals with wealthy supporters, offering favourable legislation if the candidate is elected. However, American economist Steven Levitt said in his book Freakonomics that campaign spending is no guarantee of electoral success. He compared electoral success of the same pair of candidates running against one another repeatedly for the same job (as often happens in US Congressional elections), where spending levels varied. Private ownership of the media may lead to change of the electoral process, since the media are themselves it is necessary for the success of the element of that process. Some critics argue that criticism of capitalism tends to be suppressed by such companies, to protect their own self-interests. Proponents respond that constitutionally protected freedom of speech makes it possible for both for-profit and non-profit organizations to debate capitalism. They argue that media coverage in democracies simply reflects public preferences, and not censorship ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUSCONFLICTS Democracy, necessarily assumes a sense of shared values in the demos (otherwise political legitimacy will fail). In other words, it assumes that the demos are in fact a unit. For historical reasons, many states lack the cultural and ethnic unity of the ideal nation-state. There may be sharp ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural divisions. In fact, some groups may be actively hostile to each other. A democracy, which by definition allows mass participation in decision-making, by definition, also allows the use of the political process against the 'enemy'. That is especially visible during democratisation, if a previous non-democratic government suppressed internal rivalry. However, it is also visible in established democracies, in the form of anti-immigrant populism. POVERTY AND FAMINE. There is statistical evidence for the presence of poverty in democracies, primarily from census data, tax data, household income surveys and specific research on poverty. In addition, there is statistical evidence that the democratic states have failed to relieve massive and acute poverty in non-democratic states, despite their generally higher GDP per capita. Poverty and democracy is an emotional and highly politicised issue. SHORT TERM FOCUS.

This is one of the major of the major disadvantages of democracy. That has led to a common criticism of their short-term focus. In four or five years the government will face a new election, and it must think of how it will win that election. That would encourage a preference for policies that will bring short term benefits to the electorate or to self-interested politicians before the next election, rather than unpopular policy with longer term benefits. This criticism assumes that it is possible to make term long predictions for a society, something Karl Popper has criticized as historicism. EFFECTIVE RESPONSE IN WARTIME. One criticism is that this could be a disadvantage for a state in wartime, when a fast and unified response is necessary. The legislature usually must pass a declaration of war before war can be commenced, although sometimes the executive has that power (subject to informing the legislature). If there is a strong instituted, a democracy would allow protest against it. However, not everyone sees this as a disadvantage. The 'pacifist democracy' thesis, which is part of Democratic Peace Theory, sees it as an advantage of democracy, that these factors might prevent a war. In practice, all types of states have gone to war, and historic monarchies also had procedures for declaring war. Historically, most democratic states succeeded in maintaining their security.

The Advantages of Democracy

PUBLIC CHOICE THEORY. Public choice theory is a branch of economics that studies the decision-making behaviour of voters, politicians and government officials from the perspective of economic theory. One studied problem is that each voter has little influence and may therefore have a rational ignorance regarding political issues. This may allow special interest groups to gain subsidies and regulations beneficial to them but harmful to society. POLITICAL STABILITY. One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence. Political stability may be considered as excessive when the group in power remains the same for an extended period of time. IMMIGRANTS AND THE PEOPLE.

Many democratic constitutions explicitly state (or imply) that power belongs to, or derives from, the people. One example is Article 20 of the German Constitution: Alle Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus said All state power derives from the people. The German example illustrates a recurrent problem with this ideal, because in German, as in English, the word people have a double meaning. It can refer to the population as an inclusive unit, or it can refer to an ethnic group -which by definition excludes non-members. If 'the people' are the German people, should immigrants be allowed to vote? The issue remains controversial in Germany, and in other countries where naturalisation of immigrants and their children is a disputed issue. In some member states, they are allowed to vote in local and regional elections. However, the idea of foreigners voting in national elections is unacceptable to many nationalist parties in the EU, and politically contentious. Democracy is the only form of government which specifically excludes immigrants from political decision-making. CORRUPTION Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the happening of corruption. Democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption

BUREAUCRACY A persistent libertarian and monarchist critique of democracy is the claim that it encourages the elected representatives to change the law without the need of something and in particular to make the new laws work perfectly. This is seen as influence in several ways. New laws constrict the scope of what were previously private liberties. Changing laws make it impossible for a willing non-specialist to remain law-abiding. A legal system where any ordinary citizen can expect to be breaking some law in ignorance most of the time is an invitation for law enforcement to unsuitable power. This continual complication of the law is also seen by some as contrary to the simple and eternal natural law - bringing the whole legal system not being respected. FREEDOM AND RIGHT The freedoms and rights of the citizens in liberal democracies are usually seen as beneficial. Democracies are more often associated with a higher average self-reported happiness in a nation and have the potential to put in place better education, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, access to drinking water, and better health care than dictatorships.

Democratic War or Democratic Peace?

Democratic peace theory: The democratic peace theory is often an evidence of the advantages of democracy, and its superiority to other forms of government. Among others, Margaret Thatcher and George W. Bush have quoted it in support of military action (in the Falklands War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq). As that apparently paradoxical use indicates democratic peace theory is not so much a peace theory as a war theory. In its original form it is a political science theory, which statistically analysed pairs (dyads) of warring states, and concluded that democracies specifically, liberal democracies rarely go to war with one another. Democracies do go to war, and if not with other democracies, then logically with nondemocracies. The subsequent development of dyadic democratic peace theory has also concerned itself with cases of democracies at war, and democracy initiated wars. However, from the start, the dyadic research findings were too used to suggest that democracies are objectively better than non-democracies. That cannot be inferred from a finding that democracies do not go to war with each other external policy does not legitimise internal regime. Democratic peace theory was used to imply western cultural superiority, and to justify democratisation, even by force. As a result, it acquired connotations of a prowestern, pro-American, pro-democracy theory, and became associated with historicist ideas about the inevitable global victory of western democracy. Some researchers developed what are now called monadist versions of the theory, with more emphasis on political philosophy, and they do emphasise the internally peaceful nature of democracies. More general theories developed from the monadic version, including the theory of democide, claim less systematic violence of all kinds, including civil war, within democracies. Dyadic-oriented research continues to show that democracy fight non-democracies. This is even evident in wellpublicised studies by R. J. Rommel, a libertarian democratic peace theory theorist noted for his hostility to autocracy. He said where war was defined as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle. 155 wars (44%) were fought by a democracy - defined as voting rights for at least 2/3 of all adult males - against a non-democracy. The study found no wars at all between democracies, and the rest were between non-democracies. As a theoretical explanation for this observed pattern, some dyadic theorists posit the existence of 'militant democracy', as a specific ideological orientation of states. Harold Muller and Jonas Wolff describe in a 2004 paper "two ideal type orientations of democracies in order to account for

the vast variation in their behaviour towards non-democracies". One is the 'militant orientation' which "adopts the policy of violent regime change to bring liberation, law and rights to suppressed fellow human being".

ACADAMIC ESSAY.

Liberal Democracy.
Liberal democracy-sometimes referred to as constitutional democracies are the dominant form of democracies in the 21st century. The term liberal in liberal democracy does not imply that the government of such a democracy must abide by the political ideology of liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that liberal democracies feature constitutional protections of individual rights from government power. The origin of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy traces its origin and its name to the European 18th century, also known as the age of enlightenment. The possibility of democracy had not been seriously considered by political theory since classical antiquity, and the widely held belief was that democracies would be inherently unstable and chaotic in their policies due to the changing whims of the people. It was further believed that democracy was contrary to human nature, as human beings were seen to be inherently evil, violent and in need of a strong leader to restrain their destructive impulses. Many European monarchs held that their power had been ordained from God, and that questioning their right to rule was tantamount to blasphemy (been disrespectful to God).

These controversies were challenged at first and it was also argued that government existed to serve the people and not the other way round, and that the laws should apply to those who govern as well as the governed (rule of law). It was until late 18th century that America and French revolutions gave birth to the ideology of liberalism and enlightened philosophers into practice. Preconditions. For centuries without a strong tradition of democratic majority rule, the introduction of free elections alone has rarely been sufficient to achieve a transition from dictatorship to democracy; a wider shift in political culture and gradual formation of the institutions of democratic government are needed. For example, in Latin America, countries that were able to sustain democracy only temporarily or in a limited fashion until wider changes established the conditions under which democracy could flourish.
Liberal democracies around the world.

Several organizations and political scientists maintain lists of free and unfree states, both in the present and going back a few centuries. Of these, the best known may be the Polity Data Set and that produced by Freedom House. There is general agreement that the states of the European Union, Japan, the United States, Canada, India, Mexico, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand are liberal democracies, with Canada having the largest land area and India currently having the largest population among the democracies in the world. Freedom House considers many of the officially democratic governments in Africa and the former Soviet Union to be undemocratic in practice, usually because the sitting government has a strong influence over election outcomes. Many of these countries are in a state of considerable flux. Officially non-democratic forms of government, such as single-party states and dictatorships are more common in East Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.

Illiberal Democracy.
An illiberal democracy is a governing system in which although fairly free elections take place, citizens are cut off from real power due to the lack of civil rights. This may be because a constitution-limiting government powers exists but its liberties are ignored, or to the simple absence of an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties. The term illiberal democracy was used by Fareed Zakaria in an often cited 1997 article in the journal Foreign Affairs. More recently, scholars such as Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way argued that the term "illiberal democracy" was inappropriate for some of these states, because the term implies that these regimes are democracies that have gone wrong. Levitsky and Way argued that some of these states, such as Serbia under Slobodan Milosevic, Zimbabwe, and post-Soviet Russia, were never truly democratic and not developing toward democracy, but were rather tending further towards authoritarian behavior, despite having elections (which were sometimes sharply contested). Thus, Levitsky and Way suggested a new term to remove the positive ideology of democracy from these states and distinguish them from developing democracies: competitive authoritarianism. Features and examples of illiberal democracies. A classic example of an illiberal democracy is the Republic of Singapore. Conversely, liberal autocracies are regimes with no elections and that is ruled autocratically but has at least some real liberties. Here, a good example is the Special Administrative Region of Hong

Kong. Both Hong Kong and Singapore are ethnic Chinese majority city-states and former British colonies. However, their political evolution has taken different paths, with Hong Kong residents enjoying the liberal freedoms of the United Kingdom, but, (as a colony), without the power to choose its leaders, Singapore is on the other hand suffering otherwise. This contradictory state of affairs was inherited by the People's Republic of China when it resumed control of the territory in 1997. In contrast, Singapore acquired full independence, first from Britain and then from Malaysia in the 1960s. At that time, it was structured as a relatively liberal democracy, albeit with some internal security laws that allowed for detention without trial. Over time, as Singapore's Peoples Action Party government consolidated power in the 1960s and 1970s, it enacted a number of laws and policies that curtailed constitutional freedoms (such as the right to assemble or form associations), and extended its influence over the media, unions, NGOs and academia. Consequently, although technically free and fair multi-party elections are regularly conducted, the political realities in Singapore (including fear and self-censorship) make participation in opposition politics extremely difficult, leaving the dominant ruling party as the only credible option at the polls.

The Disadvantages of Democracy.

PLUTOCRACY The cost of political campaigning in representative democracies may mean that the system favours the rich, who are only a very small minority of the voters. It may encourage candidates to make deals with wealthy supporters, offering favourable legislation if the candidate is elected. However, American economist Steven Levitt said in his book Freakonomics that campaign spending is no guarantee of electoral success. He compared electoral success of the same pair of candidates running against one another repeatedly for the same job (as often happens in US Congressional elections), where spending levels varied. POVERTY AND FAMINE. There is statistical evidence for the presence of poverty in democracies, primarily from census data, tax data, household income surveys and specific research on poverty. In addition, there is statistical evidence that the democratic states have failed to relieve massive and acute poverty in non-democratic states, despite their generally higher GDP per capita. Poverty and democracy is an emotional and highly politicised issue. SHORT TERM FOCUS.

This is one of the major of the major disadvantages of democracy. That has led to a common criticism of their short-term focus. In four or five years the government will face a new election, and it must think of how it will win that election. That would encourage a preference for policies that will bring short term benefits to the electorate or to self-interested politicians before the next election, rather than unpopular policy with longer term benefits. This criticism assumes that it is possible to make term long predictions for a society, something Karl Popper has criticized as historicism.

The Advantages of Democracy

PUBLIC CHOICE THEORY. Public choice theory is a branch of economics that studies the decision-making behaviour of voters, politicians and government officials from the perspective of economic theory. One studied problem is that each voter has little influence and may therefore have a rational ignorance regarding political issues. This may allow special interest groups to gain subsidies and regulations beneficial to them but harmful to society. POLITICAL STABILITY. One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence. Political stability may be considered as excessive when the group in power remains the same for an extended period of time. FREEDOM AND RIGHT

The freedoms and rights of the citizens in liberal democracies are usually seen as beneficial. Democracies are more often associated with a higher average self-reported happiness in a nation and have the potential to put in place better education, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, access to drinking water, and better health care than dictatorships.

Democratic War or Democratic Peace?

Democratic peace theory: The democratic peace theory is often an evidence of the advantages of democracy, and its superiority to other forms of government. Among others, Margaret Thatcher and George W. Bush have quoted it in support of military action (in the Falklands War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq). As that apparently paradoxical use indicates democratic peace theory is not so much a peace theory as a war theory. In its original form it is a political science theory, which statistically analysed pairs (dyads) of warring states, and concluded that democracies specifically, liberal democracies rarely go to war with one another. Democracies do go to war, and if not with other democracies, then logically with nondemocracies. The subsequent development of dyadic democratic peace theory has also concerned itself with cases of democracies at war, and democracy initiated wars. However, from the start, the dyadic research findings were too used to suggest that democracies are objectively better than non-democracies. That cannot be inferred from a finding that democracies do not go to war with each other external policy does not legitimise internal regime. Democratic peace theory was used to imply western cultural superiority, and

to justify democratisation, even by force. As a result, it acquired connotations of a prowestern, pro-American, pro-democracy theory, and became associated with historicist ideas about the inevitable global victory of western democracy. Some researchers developed what are now called monadist versions of the theory, with more emphasis on political philosophy, and they do emphasise the internally peaceful nature of democracies. More general theories developed from the monadic version, including the theory of democide, claim less systematic violence of all kinds, including civil war, within democracies. Dyadic-oriented research continues to show that democracy fight non-democracies. This is even evident in wellpublicised studies by R. J. Rommel, a libertarian democratic peace theory theorist noted for his hostility to autocracy. He said where war was defined as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle. 155 wars (44%) were fought by a democracy - defined as voting rights for at least 2/3 of all adult males - against a non-democracy. The study found no wars at all between democracies, and the rest were between non-democracies. As a theoretical explanation for this observed pattern, some dyadic theorists posit the existence of 'militant democracy', as a specific ideological orientation of states. Harold Muller and Jonas Wolff describe in a 2004 paper "two ideal type orientations of democracies in order to account for the vast variation in their behaviour towards non-democracies". One is the 'militant orientation' which "adopts the policy of violent regime change to bring liberation, law and rights to suppressed fellow human being".

References
New oxford dictionary-new edition New York times (politics) www.google.com/democracy www.wikipedia.com Encarta encyclopedia www.bbcnews.com www.cnnworldnews.com