POLITICS AND ETHICS

Profesor: Mujki Asim

Student: Hasovi Leila, 5-MoiD/15
HOMEWORK Vll: Democracy and the dynamics of globalization
1. When you consider the world we live in today, do you see the
splintering of humankind along narrow tribal boundaries, or the world
turning into a global technological theme park, or are both of these
trends occuring simultaneously as Benjamin Barber proposes? Or do you
see a completly different set of forces at play? Can you identify
evidence of any of these developments in your region or country?
I believe that in my country, which is not yet so developed limits associated with
that tribal, but if we look at developed countries, it is the leading force in the
world economy and resources, we can notice that this is a global technological
park.Tako I can freely say that today, looking at the world stage we have one
incorporating state of the world, in which everyone wants to establish a better
relationship, of personal interest to trade, economics, politics, armament,
protection and so on. However, in poorer countries like mine, we still have the
delay in development, both psychological and physical, because we keep to
themselves and do not cooperate enough with the adjacent first and then further
states. I think we should develop better neighborly relations, and then move to a
better cooperation with drgim countries. Finally we need to realize that we should
live for today and tomorrow, not yesterday. I do not think we should forget the
past completely, but we should not live in the past. Also, I think that's a huge
mistake for our country allow religion to interfere in all aspects of life, both in
politics and in education, but this is the first step towards regression rather than
progress.
2. According to Barber, Jihad and McWorld are not opposing forces, as
they might appear to be, but interdependent forces making war on a
common enemy: the sovereign state and democratic institutions. How?
Do you agree? Why or why not? If you agree, what can be done to make
democracy work?
Jihad and McWorld are not opposing forces, because they are completely two
different systems. On one side we have a sovereign state and democratic
institutions. In my opinion these are two different systems. Jihad is the Islamic
understanding of the fight in Allah's way, that extremists recently used for the
realization of their own, the Islamic state. On the other side we have a democracy
as the best political system of the 21st century. Jihad destroys everything that
democracy provides. Destroys freedoms, and all the rights that they receive at
birth. The extremists believe that all living only for one purpose, ie. Only the
jihad, and only it should be handed over. They live by the ideals that harm
humanity. Democracy offers freedom to all citizens, allowing them to freely
decide what is best for them as long as they do not violate laws, or do not
endanger other people's freedom. A war between the jihadist-led country and
democratic countries comes the moment, in my opinion, when one compromising
the other. Most often it happens when the Islamic state, ie. Jihadists executed

terrorist attacks with a view to its enlargement and their ideology of conquest of
the entire world. However, there is also the fact that democracy is opposed jihad,
and trying to defend the world from extremist and fights back sending support
the wars, attacks on the jihadist, and the increasing participation in the
eradication of jihad around the world. I think that these are completely two
different systems, but they can not both be in the world without conflict simply
because their ideology. Extremists will spread, democratic states to defend
themselves, but not least, will come to that that attack is the best defense.
3. Miguel Darcy de Oliveira and Rajesh Tandon make a case for an
emerging global citizenry. From your perspective, what evidence, if any,
do you see of this development?
In my opinion, global citizenship is super designed, for unity in diversity. I support
the global movement, primarily due to the affirmation of intercultural learning
and the concept of global citizens, especially in schools, universities and other
organizations for young people. Every problem in the world, every global conflict
whether it takes place hundreds of thousands of miles away, or right next door, is
a global one. Itll take a global effort with global citizens to stop them. We have a
duty to protect each other as humans. It is time that we worked on improving the
present, before many more people have to suffer. Since Haiti was hit by a
devastating earthquake, help had been flown in from every corner of the globe.
As the UN building crumbled bringing many UN workers down with it, it seemed
like nations from all over felt compelled to take over its duty and turn it into
something much bigger: a global action. This is what being a Global Citizen is all
about. This is why its important to be a Global Citizen. We are all citizens of this
earth, and all share three common goals: liberty, equality and the pursuit of
happiness. These goals can bring together people from all over the world, which
is why its important to be a Global Citizen because borders are meaningless.
People dont need to actually travel outside their own country to be Global
Citizens; they can do it simply by having a human conscience, and learn about
the world from a global perspective as opposed to a single one. Through this,
global peace can be reached because if everyone thrives and helps each other in
their life journey for these three common goals then half of the world would not
be inflicted by greed, war, conflict and poverty. In the pursuit of improving the
world, being a Global Citizen and being the change we want to see in the world
will make more of an impact than anything else. We, as citizens of the world will
create a global consciousness for what is right, and what is wrong. And in terms
of what is right, human rights will always prevail. Humanity first, before anything
else. This is the priority for people around the world, and this is the goal and
importance of being a Global Citizen.
4. Erazim Kohak says the world has three new problems aggravated by
the growth in international contact.What are they, and do any of them
have practicular resonance for you? What does Kohak propse as
solutions? Do you think he is on track? Do you have alternative?
By Erazim Kohak three new problem are: Poisoned air, gridlocked cities, and
damaged ozone. To me these are global problems that concern every citizen of

this planet. In our morality, everyone has to fight for the preservation of our
planet because we have no other. This is a problem that is global, and as such
only globally and can solve. Only when every citizen becomes aware of the
situation in which we ourselves have brought, and we do it all together to act
then we will find a solution for these problems. By opinion of Erzaim Kohak
spolution is: Democracy in the 21st century faces no task more pressing than to
generate a nobler, more sustainable vision of the aim of life and society. Yes, it
faces also the task of generating a cultural concensus which would make
noncorevice conflict resolution possible. It has urgently to devise means of
massive redistribution of resources, globally and within individual societies, to
prevent cataclysmic conflict between the opulent and the impoverished. Yet most
fundamentally, it needs to generate a vision of being human which would make a
sustainable human presence on this earth possible: i think he has right. Every
citizen of this world must participate in saving the world. We are one, regardless
of whether we are on the southern or northern hemisphere, because if we destroy
this little planet that was left none of us will have where you live. So each of us
should be given to the preservation of nature as much as possible, and to do
what is in his power to make it less destroyed, and prevent a global problem, and
global destruction.
5. Are supernational structures having a positive or negative impact on
human rights and democratic practices within your country? Describe.
Do you belive that international rules and practices will help us to move
closer to the ideal of liberty and justice for all? If so, how can we
foster their development?
Suprational structure in my opinion have a positive and negative impact on
human rights. It is positive that we offer many more features, type of education,
we can choose as we deal with what we do, where we live, and we can run a very
able and private business. The negative is actually what they lately, due to the
spread of terrorism, endangering privacy, because we know that the majority of
citizens were intercepted. I think that will give us the international rules and
practices to help you get closer to the ideal of "liberty and justice for all" because
there are rules and laws that equate all men, and many humanitarian
organizations will not pull out from the bottom of the poor countries, and they
shall have at least basic living conditions (food, water, electricity). Today's
situation is not so enviable, because we can compare eg. The situation in Africa
(Burundi) and the US (New Hampshire), while one of the poorest countries in the
world and people are dying of hunger, the other is a country with a poverty rate
7.1%. Only when a little more tying these percentages, at least to poor countries
brought into the country in which people can function normally we talk about
justice for all. How will our international rules help with that? First of all need to
wake up sviejt people that at a distance of several thousand kilometers people
die from head until they throw money on nonsense. Only when we all realize that
this world is one community, and we are doing together to operate the rules will
be able to be applied at all. For this reason, I also think that global population
right to prevent a bad situation in the world.