Russia: Illiberal Democracy

1)
Neil J. Mitchell, of the University of New Mexico, defines and illiberal democracy by comparing it to what makes a democracy. According to Mitchell, "Democracy is a bundle of institutional and behavioral components, including regular competitive elections, full enfranchisement, free speech, an accessible and critical media, and freedom of association. Proponents of the concept of illiberal democracy strip basic liberties from the bundle. Democracy is conceived more minimally as the occurrence of competitive elections." Fareed Zakaria further expands on this idea, mentioning how democracy has been able to spread around different parts of the world, but liberty has not.
According to worldiq.com, an illiberal democracy is "a country in which the leaders and lawmakers are elected by the people, but individual freedoms such as those protected in the United States Bill of Rights or the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen do not exist."

Russia is considered an illiberal democracy because of it's structure. The President of Russia is decided on whoever receives a majority of the votes. In this sense, Russia is acting as a democracy as far as choosing a leader goes. However, Russia is considered by many extremely corrupt thus limiting individual freedom and rights. While democratic elections take place, citizens are generally misinformed or not informed at all about their countries issues, and are left in the dark. This creates a system where, while leaders are chosen democratically, the citizens tend to have very little actual power in society.

http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/courses/teachers_corner/32074.html
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Illiberal_democracy

2)News Article:
http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20674&Itemid=132

News in the UK: Court Closings

The Justice Minister, Jonathan Djanogly, revealed to the public that the government will be shutting down 93 magistrates’ courts and 49 county courts in the United Kingdom in an effort to reduce the government’s deficit. According to the BBC article, “15m Euros per year in running costs, plus an extra 22m Euros in maintaining the buildings” will be saved should the selected courts close. While having less courts will prove to be an inconvenience to citizens, 85% of people (down from 90%) would still be able to reach a court within an hour by taking public transportation, according to Djanogly. The Labour Party, however, disagrees with the closing of the courts. Shadow justice minister Andrew Slaughter claims that courts are as important as police stations and town halls, and that it is not right to inconvenience citizens for a “crude, cost-cutting exercise.” Slaughter’s claim comes from the fact that county courts deal with issues such as divorces, business cases, accident claims, and small claims; all of which are fairly common among the average population. While the Labour Party is against reducing the deficit in such manners, Djanogly stands by the decision, arguing that with changes to the court system, a “better, more efficient and more modern” system will emerge.

Considering that only 5% less citizens wouldn’t be able to reach a court within an hour using public transportation, I think that cutting the deficit by closing some courts is a necessary measure to take. The United Kingdom is clearly having issues with their spending, and the citizens are not happy with the cuts, as shown by the student protests. While cutting public services is something that people wouldn’t want, it is necessary if the UK economy is to be saved. The UK doesn’t have an infinite amount of money, and the out-of-control spending is going to have to be cut somewhere, which, in this case, includes some courts that aren’t used as much. While it is good politically for the Labour Party to be against these spending cuts, economically it is bad for the UK. If the Labour Party is going to take a stance against closing some courts, then they’re going to need to propose a better plan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11993436

Snow in Scotland and Online Orders

The past eleven months, the Unites States has experienced warmer than average temperatures. In some countries, such as Scotland and parts of England, that doesn’t seem to be the case. The United Kingdom as of lately has been receiving much more snowfall then they are used to this time of year and because many aren’t used to the large amounts of snow, preparations seem as if they have not gone too well. According to the video on BBC, Scotland, a part of the UK that is located more north, is having issues with online orders. With Christmas only about one week away, the Scottish could face a dilemma if their online orders cannot be shipped to their homes by the holiday. Not only are online businesses feeling the negative effects of the snow, but local businesses are as well. The local businesses only want to sell what they can promise they’ll be able to deliver, so with the snow, sales are falling short as delivery trucks may not be able to travel on the icy roads. Parts of northern England are also experiencing the same consequences of the snow, and I would assume that if the snowfall continues, more of the UK could become affected.

Video

News in the UK- Lib Dems and Tuition Fees

The United Kingdom and Great Britain are finally, along with many other countries, seeing the consequences of their over-the-top government spending to pay for entitlement programs. In Britain, there have been many student protests because the government can no longer pay for college education to the extent that they have been. Of course, it makes sense that raising fees would cause anger and unease among the student population because they feel as if they are entitled to a relatively cheap education. According to the video, many student protests are turning their anger towards the Liberal Democrat party, specifically because they ran on the promise not to raise the fees. The Liberal Democrats, however, should not have promised something that they knew could not continue on forever. Many are now expected to vote in favor of raising the fees because in reality, the only way to effectively reduce the United Kingdom’s budget is to look towards the entitlement programs; something that the UK has an abundance of.

Watching the video helped me to realize that the politicians in the UK and those in the United States have much in common, and will do anything as long as they gain votes. Economically, and abundance of entitlement programs does not make sense; there is just no way to pay for it all forever. That said, as seen in the UK and the US, entitlement programs work wonderfully in politics, because who wouldn’t vote for someone who would entitle you to more money and less responsibility? This video displays a perfect example of the consequences of entitlement programs, specifically in the United Kingdom in the case of protests carried out by students who feel as if their rights and entitlements are being stolen from them.

Video

Natural Gas Lobby and Gasland

The documentary Gasland, by James Fox, helps raise awareness on the issue of drilling for natural gas. Fox accomplishes this goal through his documentary by traveling to the people affected by the drilling, recording their newly acquired everyday troubles. This, however, is not the only way that Fox makes his documentary effective. Fox constantly emphasizes the fact that there are many reasons as to how the natural gas industry is able to continue drilling, even though it is evident that they are physically harming civilians near the rigs. The government, in an attempt to help the people for whom they work, passed certain regulations that would restrict corporations from harming the people. The natural gas (as well as oil) lobbies, however, have been able to influence the legislations, which would have otherwise damaged them.

In particular, the natural gas lobbyists have been very successful in influencing the politicians who draft up and vote on legislations. In February of 2009, natural gas companies responded to the growing public discomfort of their business practices by forming the American Natural Gas Alliance to “push broadly for more use of gas in power generation, transportation, and other fields.” By combining a vast amount of natural gas companies, their lobbying was able to become more united, and thus more effective. The lobbyists aim to emphasize the beneficial factors of drilling for natural gas, while giving very little attention to the main issues that the people have against them. A few of the mentioned benefits include the claims that “gas burns more cleanly than coal, is produced domestically, and relies on existing technology…” These claims not only work towards improving the image of natural gas, but also add a great amount of rhetoric that can be used politically. For example, with the ever-rising issue of energy dependence, it would be hard for a politician to argue against the claim that natural gas is domestically produced; whether or not the pros outweigh the cons, the natural gas industry does have a point, as the drilling would reduce foreign dependence.

Overall, the lobbying of the natural gas industry has been effective in their methods of influencing politics. It helps their cause that benefits of natural gas do exists, and since loopholes and exceptions that work in favor of natural gas drilling are already in place, the lobbyists do not need to concentrate on passing new legislation. Rather, I would think that they needed to work towards keeping the laws already existing in place. By uniting under the American Natural Gas Alliance, lobbyists have made it difficult for politicians to fix loopholes or change the laws already in place, even if it is what many people want.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123552499920765485.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Gasland: 5 Questions

"Gasland" is a documentary by Josh Fox that explores the affects of natural gas drilling on Americans living near the rigs. Throughout the documentary Fox interviews many people, from the citizens effected to important figures in the EPA. Because he will be visiting our school, five questions I would ask him would be:
1. What was the main inspiration for creating a documentary on the subject?
2. How much has the natural gas drilling affected your life and house specifically?
3. Even though the documentary is finished, are you still working to expose the drilling?
4. Is your main purpose of the film to completely halt all natural gas drilling, or to have more regulations to make it safe for the people who live near them?
5. I'm assuming that your film has generated a considerable amount of money. Do you have any plans to invest it in making a sequel or advancing your cause?

News in Europe - Russia Co-operates with NATO

Recently, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, met in order to discuss the rising issue of possible ballistic missile attacks. The members of the organization have agreed on a treaty that would set up a defense system across Europe and North America, where most of the members are located. This treaty would help relations between major nations while protecting themselves from possible dangerous missile attacks from unstable countries. Russia, being the largest country in Europe, is critical to the success of the defense plan, and because its relations with the United States is not very strong, it was very possible the Russia would prove to be a difficult problem for the treaty. To the relief of the members of NATO, Russia, on November 20th, has agreed to “co-operate on NATO’s programme to defend against ballistic missile attacks.”

This agreement could possibly ease relations with Russia, a very advanced country militarily, and according to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, “A period of very difficult, tense relations has been overcome.” Russia controls much of the land and airspace in Europe and with its co-operation it would be able to detect and shoot down incoming missiles that wouldn’t have been able to be shot down had Russia not complied. Not only has Russia agreed to help with the missile defense system, but also to “allow more supplies to travel through Russia… to support NATO’s mission in Afghanistan,” displaying an even more possible future with Russia as an ally rather than as a hostile nation.

While the treaty has been agreed upon among NATO members, it still is faced with the challenge of passing the United States Senate, or else the United States would not take part. A passage of the treaty would call for the United States and Russia to both reduce their nuclear arsenals and allow the countries to inspect each other’s nuclear facilities. I would think that this could prove difficult for the Senate to pass because of the fact that current relations with Russia aren’t very good. According to Medvedev, “Our (Russia’s) participation has to be a full-fledged exchange of information, or we won’t take part at all,” which could end up supplying Russia with valuable information. That aside, I think that this treaty looks like it could be successful if managed appropriately and could also greatly improve relations with not only Russia, but also other important European nations.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11803931