Tobacco Use a Deadly Choice for Millions Worldwide

An anti-smoking activist dressed as an executioner carries a giant cigarette in Budapest, Hungary, to promote World Anti-smoking Day.By Erika Gebel
Staff Writer

Tobacco Use a Deadly Choice for Millions Worldwide
U.S. philanthropists funding programs to help break the lethal habit

Washington -- Is money the solution to a burgeoning, and self-inflicted, world health problem?

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Microsoft Corporation co-founder Bill Gates are aiming to find out with their recently announced combined investment of $500 million to support programs and policies in developing countries to break a deadly habit: tobacco use.

Worldwide more than a billion people smoke, roughly one in four adults. Smoking also is a risk factor for six of the eight leading causes of death globally, including cancer and heart disease. Smoking tobacco kills more than any other single agent and is responsible for the deaths of up to half the people who indulge. In 2008, smoking will kill more than 5 million people, more than AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined.


Tobacco smoking affects not only the smoker, but also those in the vicinity of the smoker. Exposure to secondhand smoke, either at the home or in the workplace, increases the chance of heart disease by 25 percent to 30 percent and raises the risk of lung cancer by 20 percent to 30 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Secondhand smoke is especially hazardous for children, increasing their risks for respiratory illnesses and sudden infant death syndrome, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Although smoking rates have decreased in high-income parts of the world in recent years, smoking rates are climbing in low- and middle-income regions, which are home to 80 percent of the world’s smokers.

HEALTH CONSEQUENCES

In the United States, cigarette smoking accounts for approximately 438,000 deaths, or almost one in five deaths, each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It also costs the U.S. economy $193 billion annually in lost productivity and spending on health care.

Tobacco smoke is hazardous because it contains a number of unhealthy chemicals, including some 60 carcinogens (cancer-causing agents), tar, arsenic, carbon monoxide and nicotine. Nicotine is highly addictive, and therefore partly responsible for the frequency with which smokers feel compelled to light up. Without regular doses of nicotine, a smoker experiences unpleasant withdrawal symptoms that make quitting difficult.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), by the year 2030, tobacco deaths worldwide will reach 8 million a year -- totaling 1 billion deaths in the 21st century -- unless steps are taken to combat the problem. Declining smoking rates in high-income countries show effective strategies to combat tobacco use are at work. The challenge lies in applying those methods to the developing world.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

The CDC has partnered with the WHO to create the Global Tobacco Surveillance System, which includes a number of surveys to monitor tobacco use, including one that assesses young people. The information collected through the surveys can be used to target particular regions for smoking cessation programs.

The U.S. government helped negotiate the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), adopted May 21, 2003, by the WHO. The FCTC aims to address “the global problem of tobacco use and covers issues such as youth access to tobacco, tobacco advertising and marketing, price of tobacco products, environmental tobacco smoke, smuggling, surveillance and research,” according to the CDC.

Building on the FCTC, the WHO in 2008 created the MPOWER package, a proven control strategy for reducing tobacco usage. Even though the strategy has reduced smoking in the United States, only 5 percent of the rest of the world uses any of the components of MPOWER. The Gates and Bloomberg funds will help bring MPOWER to at-risk nations.


A poster listing some health consequences of smoking is part of an anti-smoking campaign by the New York State Department of Health.MPOWER has six components:

• Monitor tobacco use and prevention policies,

• Protect people from tobacco smoke,

• Offer people help to quit tobacco use,

• Warn about the dangers of tobacco,

• Enforce bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, and

• Raise taxes on tobacco.

Monitoring gives region-specific information on the extent of the epidemic and can suggest which anti-smoking policies would be the most effective in the region.

The second element includes enacting and enforcing smoking bans in public spaces to protect people from secondhand smoke. The success of this type of law is evident across the United States, as more and more cities and states are banning smoking from public places as well as private businesses, including restaurants and bars.

According to the WHO, only nine countries have services for people who wish to quit smoking. Such services are considered essential because smoking is addictive and people who wish to quit may need help. Quitting smoking can be facilitated by nicotine supplementation agents, such as nicotine patches or nicotine gum. In addition, pharmaceutical agents have been developed that deal directly with the brain’s addiction centers.

Placing warning labels on cigarette packages to detail the dangers of smoking might help increase awareness of smoke-related health hazards. In addition, removing descriptors aimed at making cigarettes seem more benign -- such as “light” or “low-tar” -- is also a goal of MPOWER. Research has shown that light or low-tar cigarettes are just as deadly as their full-flavored brethren.

Banning tobacco advertisement would make it more difficult for tobacco companies to promote cigarettes and gain new customers.

Finally, raising taxes on tobacco is the most effective way to curb usage, since increasing cost prevents smoking and encourages people to quit, according to the WHO.

More information about the MPOWER package is available on the WHO Web site.

For additional information on the Gates-Bloomberg cooperation against tobacco, see the press release on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Web site.
Article translated in:
Русский عربي Español 中文 فارسیMore Coverage
Global Health: Disease and Disability
Global Causes of Death Move from Infectious to Chronic Diseases
Photo Gallery: Chronic Diseases: Deadly, Preventable

Tell us what you think about this article.

Read More...

Collapse...

POLITICS, ECONOMICS, AND PLURALISM

POLITICS, ECONOMICS, AND PLURALISM
Participation
Citizens cannot be required to take part in the political process, and they are free to express their dissatisfaction by not participating. But without the lifeblood of citizen action, democracy will begin to weaken. Citizens of democratic societies have the opportunity to join a host of private organizations, associations, and volunteer groups. Many of these are concerned with issues of public policy, yet few are controlled or financed by the government. The right of individuals to associate freely and to organize themselves into different sorts of nongovernmental groups is fundamental to democracy. When people of common interests band together, their voices can be heard and their chances of influencing the political debate increased. As Alexis de Tocqueville, the great 19th-century French political observer, wrote, "There are no countries in which associations are more needed to prevent the despotism of faction or the arbitrary power of a prince than those which are democratically constituted."



The myriad groups to be found in democratic societies can be classified in several ways. Those that function primarily to pressure government with regard to particular issues are referred to as interest groups, or lobbies. Private interest groups, such as business associations, professional groups, or labor unions, usually have an economic stake in the policies they advocate, although they may also take public positions on issues far outside their area of specialization.

So-called public interest groups, like environmental and social welfare organizations, seek what they perceive to be a public, or collective, good. This does not make such public interest groups wiser or more virtuous than those with private interests. Rather, the degree of self-interest is often secondary in the positions they take on public issues.

Both types of interest groups are active in any democracy. Both pay close attention to public opinion, making every effort to widen their base of support as they seek simultaneously to educate the public and influence government policy.

Interest groups serve as a mediating force between the isolated individual and a government that is usually large and remote. It is through the interplay of these groups--and through the process of open debate, conflict, compromise, and consensus among them--that a democratic society makes decisions affecting the welfare of its members.

Voting
Voting in the election of public officials is the most visible and common form of participation in modern democracies and also the most fundamental. The ability to conduct free and fair elections is at the core of what it means to call a society democratic.

The motivations of voters are as numerous as the societies and interests that they represent. Voters obviously cast their ballots for candidates who will represent their interests, but other factors influence voter preference as well. Party affiliation is one: Individuals who identify strongly with a political party are much more likely to vote than those who identify themselves as independent or nonpartisan. Indeed, in systems of proportional representation, voters may only be able to vote for a political party, not for individual candidates.

Political scientists have identified numerous other factors that can influence voter preference and turnout at the polls. For example, nations with systems of proportional representation, where every vote counts toward representation in the legislature, tend to have higher voter turnouts than nations where a simple majority or plurality of the votes within a district determines the winner. Socioeconomic status, the relative ease of registering to vote, the strength of the party system, the media image of the candidate, the frequency of elections- -all affect how many and how often voters will cast ballots. In democratic elections, the struggle is often not to determine which candidate commands the greatest public support but who can most effectively motivate his or her supporters to convert their opinions into votes. The lingering danger of voter apathy is not that public offices will go unfilled but that office holders will be elected by smaller and smaller percentages of eligible voters.

Political Parties
Political parties recruit, nominate, and campaign to elect public officials; draw up policy programs for the government if they are in the majority; offer criticisms and alternative policies if they are in opposition; mobilize support for common policies among different interest groups; educate the public about public issues; and provide structure and rules for the society's political debate. In some political systems, ideology may be an important factor in recruiting and motivating party members; elsewhere, similar economic interests or social outlook may be more important than ideological commitment.

Party organizations and procedures vary enormously. On one end of the spectrum, in multiparty parliamentary systems in Europe, political parties can be tightly disciplined organizations run almost exclusively by full-time professionals. At the other extreme is the United States, where rival Republican and Democratic parties are decentralized organizations functioning largely in Congress and at the state level. This situation changes every four years when national Republican and Democratic party organizations, relying heavily on volunteers, coalesce to mount presidential election campaigns.

Political parties are as varied as the societies in which they function. The election campaigns they conduct are often elaborate, usually time-consuming, sometimes silly. But the function is deadly serious: to provide a peaceful and fair method by which the citizens of a democracy can select their leaders and have a meaningful role in determining their own destiny.

Protest
In a democratic society, citizens have a right to gather peacefully and protest the policies of their government or the actions of other groups with demonstrations, marches, petitions, boycotts, strikes, and other forms of direct citizen action.

Direct action is open to everyone in a democracy, but it traditionally has been used by oppressed, disadvantaged, or minority groups who feel excluded from other means of influencing government policies. Such protests have always been part of democratic society. Today, nonviolent protest, often designed to attract the attention of the news media, encompasses a wide array of issues, from environmental pollution to nuclear weapons, foreign policy issues, and racial and ethnic discrimination. One special form of direct action is the right of labor unions to conduct strikes against employers with whom they have disputes that have not been resolved at the bargaining table.

Protests are a testing ground for any democracy. The ideals of free expression and citizen participation are easy to defend when everyone remains polite and in agreement on basic issues. But protesters--and their targets- -do not agree on basic issues, and such disagreements may be passionate and angry. The challenge then is one of balance: to defend the right to freedom of speech and assembly, while maintaining public order and countering attempts at intimidation or violence. To suppress peaceful protest in the name of order is to invite repression; to permit uncontrolled violent protest is to invite anarchy.

There is no magic formula for achieving this balance. In the end, it depends on the commitment of the majority to maintaining the institutions of democracy and the precepts of individual rights. Democratic societies are capable of enduring the most bitter disagreement among its citizens-- except for disagreement about the legitimacy of democracy itself.

The News Media
To govern is to communicate. As modern societies grow in size and complexity, the arena for communication and public debate is increasingly dominated by the news media: radio and television, newspapers, magazines, books, even computerized data bases.

The news media in a democracy have a number of overlapping but distinctive functions. One is to inform and educate. To make intelligent decisions about public policy, people need accurate, timely, unbiased information. Because opinions diverge, they also need access to a wide range of viewpoints. This role is especially important during election campaigns, when few voters will have the opportunity to see, much less talk with, candidates in person. Instead, they must rely on newspapers and television to explain the issues and characterize the respective positions of candidates and their political parties.

A second function of the media is to serve as a watchdog over government and other powerful institutions in the society. By holding to a standard of independence and objectivity, however imperfectly, the news media can expose the truth behind the claims of governments and hold public officials accountable for their actions.

If they choose, the media can also take a more active role in public debate. Through editorials or investigative reporting, the media can campaign for specific policies or reforms that they feel should be enacted. They can also serve as a forum for organizations and individuals to express their opinions through letters to the editor and the printing of articles with divergent points of view.

Commentators point to another increasingly important role for the media: "setting the agenda." Since they can't report everything, the news media must choose which issues to report and which to ignore. In short, they decide what is news and what isn't. These decisions, in turn, influence the public's perception of what issues are most important. Unlike countries where the news media are government-controlled, however, in a democracy they cannot simply manipulate or disregard issues at will. Their competitors, after all, as well as the government itself, are free to call attention to their own list of important issues.

Few would argue that the news media always carry out these functions responsibly. Newspaper reporters and television correspondents may aspire to a standard of objectivity, but the news is inevitably filtered through the biases and sensibilities of individuals and the enterprises for which they work. They can be sensational, superficial, intrusive, inaccurate, and inflammatory. The solution is not to devise laws that set some arbitrary definition of responsibility or to license journalists, but to broaden the level of public discourse so that citizens can better sift though the chaff of misinformation and rhetoric to find the kernels of truth. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a distinguished justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, said in 1919: "The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market."

Democracy and Economics
Democracy implies no specific doctrine of economics. Democratic governments have embraced committed socialists and free marketeers alike. Indeed, a good deal of the debate in any modern democracy concerns the proper role of government in the economy. Nevertheless, it would be fair to say that the proponents of democracy generally regard economic freedom as a key element in any democratic society. This fact has not precluded economic issues from becoming the chief force dividing--and defining--the "left-right" political spectrum as we know it today.

Social democrats, for example, have stressed the need for equality and social welfare as the core of the government's economic policies. In the past, this has entailed government ownership of the major components of the nation's economy, such as telecommunications, transportation, and some heavy industry. They also call upon government to provide medical, unemployment, and other welfare benefits to those in need. By contrast, centrist and conservative political parties usually place much greater stress on the free-market economy, unimpeded by government control or intervention, as the most effective means of achieving economic growth, technological progress, and widespread prosperity.

Virtually all sides in the economic debate, however, share a greater common ground than they might concede in the heat of political argument. For example, both left and right accept the important role played by a free labor movement, independent of government. Workers in a free society have the opportunity to form or join unions to represent their interests in bargaining with employers on such issues as wages, health and retirement benefits, working conditions, and grievance procedures.

No contemporary democratic state has an economic system that is either completely state-owned or totally free of government regulation. All are mixtures of private enterprise and government oversight. All rely heavily on the workings of a free market, where prices are set not by the government but by the independent decisions of thousands of consumers and producers interacting each day.

Political parties on the left, while generally social democratic in orientation, recognize that the free market, acting in accordance with the principles of supply and demand, is the primary engine of economic growth and prosperity. Similarly, center-right parties, while generally opposed to government intervention or ownership of production, have accepted the government's responsibility for regulating certain aspects of the economy: providing unemployment, medical, and other benefits of the modern welfare state; and using tax policy to encourage economic development. As a result, modern democracies tend to have economies that, while diverse in the details, share fundamental features.

In recent years, the collapse of centrally planned economies in many parts of the world has reinforced the emphasis on the critical role of free markets. In economic as in political affairs, it seems, the indispensable element remains freedom. As Morris Abram, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and now chairman of UN Watch in Geneva, has said, "Freedom alone may not guarantee economic success. But repression most certainly guarantees economic failure." Even in those rare cases where authoritarian regimes have made significant economic strides, they have done so by granting the freedom in the economic realm that they deny their citizens politically. Moreover, their success generally has not strengthened the hand of the regime over the long term but has contributed, as in the case of Chile and Taiwan, to demands by the people for political freedom commensurate with their economic freedom.

Democracies will continue to debate economic issues as vigorously in the future as in the past. But increasingly, the debate is focusing not on the failed alternative of state-run command economies but on ensuring the benefits of the free market for all in an increasingly interdependent world.

Voices
Democracies make several assumptions about human nature. One is that, given the chance, people are generally capable of governing themselves in a manner that is fair and free. Another is that any society comprises a great diversity of interests and individuals who deserve to have their voices heard and their views respected. As a result, one thing is true of all healthy democracies: They are noisy.

Former U.S. president George Bush described the wide array of volunteer organizations in the United States as "a thousand points of light." The metaphor could also serve for the diversity, or pluralism, of democratic societies everywhere. The voices of democracy include those of the government, its political supporters, and the opposition, of course. But they are joined by the voices of labor unions, organized interest groups, community associations, the news media, scholars and critics, religious leaders and writers, small businesses and large corporations, churches and schools.

All of these groups are free to raise their voices and participate in the democratic political process, whether locally or nationally. In this way, democratic politics acts as a filter through which the vocal demands of a diverse populace pass on the way to becoming public policy. As another former U.S. president, Jimmy Carter, once said, "The experience of democracy is like the experience of life itself--always changing, infinite in its variety, sometimes turbulent and all the more valuable for having been tested by adversity."




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democracy itself guarantees nothing. It offers instead the opportunity to succeed as well as the risk of failure. In Thomas Jefferson's ringing but shrewd phrase, the promise of democracy is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Democracy is then both a promise and a challenge. It is a promise that free human beings, working together, can govern themselves in a manner that will serve their aspirations for personal freedom, economic opportunity, and social justice. It is a challenge because the success of the democratic enterprise rests upon the shoulders of its citizens and no one else.

Government of and by the people means that the citizens of a democratic society share in its benefits and in its burdens. By accepting the task of self-government, one generation seeks to preserve the hard-won legacy of individual freedom, human rights, and the rule of law for the next. In each society and each generation, the people must perform the work of democracy anew--taking the principles of the past and applying them to the practices of a new age and a changing society.

The late Josef Brodsky, Russian-born poet and Nobel Prize winner, once wrote, "A free man, when he fails, blames nobody." It is true as well for the citizens of democracy who, finally, must take responsibility for the fate of the society in which they themselves have chosen to live.

In the end, we get the government we deserve.

Read More...

Collapse...

DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT

DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT
Democracy and Power
For authoritarians and other critics, a common misapprehension is that democracies, lacking the power to oppress, also lack the authority to govern. This view is fundamentally wrong: Democracies require that their governments be limited, not that they be weak. Viewed over the long course of history, democracies do indeed appear fragile and few, even from the vantage point of a decade of democratic resurgence. Democracies have by no means been immune to the tides of history; they have collapsed from political failure, succumbed to internal division, or been destroyed by foreign invasion. But democracies have also demonstrated remarkable resiliency over time and have shown that, with the commitment and informed dedication of their citizens, they can overcome severe economic hardship, reconcile social and ethnic division, and, when necessary, prevail in time of war.



It is the very aspects of democracy cited most frequently by its critics that give it resiliency. The processes of debate, dissent, and compromise that some point to as weaknesses are, in fact, democracy's underlying strength. Certainly, no one has ever accused democracies of being particularly efficient in their deliberations: Democratic decision-making in a large, complex society can be a messy, grueling, and time-consuming process. But in the end, a government resting upon the consent of the governed can speak and act with a confidence and authority lacking in a regime whose power is perched uneasily on the narrow ledge of military force or an unelected party apparatus.

Checks and Balances
One of the most important contributions to democratic practice has been the development of a system of checks and balances to ensure that political power is dispersed and decentralized. It is a system founded on the deeply held belief that government is best when its potential for abuse is curbed and when it is held as close to the people as possible.

As a general term, checks and balances has two meanings: federalism and separation of powers.

Federalism is the division of government between the national, state or provincial, and local levels. The United States, for example, is a federal republic with states that have their own legal standing and authority independent of the federal government. Unlike the political subdivisions in nations such as Britain and France, which have a unitary political structure, American states cannot be abolished or changed by the federal government. Although power at the national level in the United States has grown significantly in relation to state authority in the 20th century, states still possess significant responsibilities in such fields as education, health, transportation, and law enforcement. In centralized, or "unitary," systems, these functions are administered by the national government. For their part, the individual states in the United States have generally followed the federalist model by delegating many functions, such as the operation of schools and police departments, to local communities. The divisions of power and authority in a federal system are never neat and tidy--federal, state, and local agencies can all have overlapping and even conflicting agendas in such areas as education, for example--but federalism does maximize opportunities for the citizen involvement so vital to the functioning of democratic society.

In its second sense, checks and balances refer to the separation of powers that the framers of the American Constitution in 1789 so painstakingly established to ensure that political power would not be concentrated within a single branch of the national government. James Madison, perhaps the central figure in the drafting of the Constitution and later fourth president of the United States, wrote: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Separation of powers is in some ways a misleading term, because the system devised by Madison and the other framers of the Constitution is more one of shared rather than separate powers. Legislative authority, for example, belongs to the Congress, but laws passed by Congress can be vetoed by the president. The Congress, in turn, must assemble a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to override a presidential veto. The president nominates ambassadors and members of the cabinet, and negotiates international treaties--but all are subject to approval by the Senate. So is the selection of federal judges. As another example, the Constitution specifies that only the Congress has the power to declare war, although the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces--a source of tension between the two branches that was apparent during the protracted Vietnam War of the 1960s and early 1970s and in the brief Gulf conflict of 1990- 91. Because of the need for congressional approval to enact a political program, political scientist Richard Neustadt has described presidential power in the United States as "not the power to command, but the power to persuade."

Not all the checks and balances within the federal government are specified in the Constitution. Some have developed with practice and precedent. Perhaps the most important is the doctrine of judicial review, established in an 1803 court case, which gives the U.S. Supreme Court the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

The separation of powers in the American system is often inefficient, but it provides an important safeguard against the potential abuse of power by government--an issue that every democracy must confront.

Prime Ministers and Presidents
Among a democracy's most important decisions is the method of electing its leaders and representatives. In general, there are two choices. In a parliamentary system, the majority party in the legislature, or a coalition of parties, forms a government headed by a prime minister. This system of parliamentary government, which first evolved in Great Britain, is today practiced in most of Europe, the Caribbean, Canada, India, and many countries in Africa and Asia (often former British colonies). The other major method is direct election of a president independently of the legislature. This presidential system is practiced today in much of Latin America, the Philippines, France, Poland, and the United States.

The chief difference between parliamentary and presidential systems is the relationship between the legislature and the executive. In a parliamentary system, they are essentially one and the same, since the prime minister and members of the cabinet are drawn from the parliament. Typically, the government's term of office will run for a specified period--four or five years, for example--unless the prime minister loses a majority in parliament. In that case the government falls and new elections are held. Alternatively, another party leader is offered a chance to form a government by the head of state, either a president or constitutional monarch, whose role is chiefly symbolic.

The separation of powers characteristic of the American-style presidential system is lacking, since parliament is the preeminent governing institution. Instead, parliamentary systems must rely much more heavily on the internal political dynamics of the parliament itself to provide checks and balances on the power of the government. These usually take the form of a single organized opposition party that "shadows" the government, or of competition among multiple opposition parties.

In a presidential system, both the head of government and the head of state are fused in the office of the president. The president is elected for a specified period directly by the people, as are the members of the congress. As one element of the separation of powers, members of the president's cabinet are usually not members of congress. Presidents normally can be removed from office before finishing their terms only for serious crimes or malfeasance in office. A legislative majority for the president's party can ease passage of his political program, but unlike prime ministers, presidents do not depend on such majorities to remain in office.

Representatives
Another important decision of any democracy is how to organize elections. The fundamental choices are again two: plurality elections or proportional representation. Plurality elections, sometimes referred to as "winner-take-all," simply mean that the candidate with the most votes in a given district wins--whether a plurality (less than 50 percent but more than any rival) or a majority (more than 50 percent). Presidents are elected in a similar fashion, but on a nationwide basis. Some systems provide for runoff elections between the top two candidates if no one receives an outright majority in the first round. Plurality systems tend to encourage two broadly based political parties that dominate the political scene.

By contrast, voters in a system of proportional representation, such as that employed in much of Europe, usually cast ballots for political parties, not for individual candidates. Party representation in the national legislature is determined by the percentage, or proportion, of votes received by each party in the election. In a parliamentary system, the leader of the majority party becomes the prime minister and selects the cabinet from the parliament. If no party has received a majority, the parties engage in intensive negotiations to form a ruling coalition of parties. Proportional representation tends to encourage multiple parties that, even though each commands the loyalty of only a relatively small percentage of voters, often find themselves negotiating for a place in a coalition government.

Parliaments and Presidents
A principal claim for parliamentary systems, which today make up the majority of democracies, is their responsiveness and flexibility. Parliamentary governments, especially if elected through proportional representation, tend toward multiparty systems where even relatively small political groupings are represented in the legislature. As a result, distinct minorities can still participate in the political process at the highest levels of government. This diversity encourages dialogue and compromise as parties struggle to form a ruling coalition. Should the coalition collapse or the party lose its mandate, the prime minister resigns and a new government forms or new elections take place--all without a crisis threatening the democratic system itself.

The major drawback to parliaments is the dark side of flexibility and power sharing: instability. Multiparty coalitions may be fragile and collapse at the first sign of political crisis, resulting in governments that are in office for relatively short periods of time. The government may also find itself at the mercy of small extremist parties that, by threatening to withdraw from the ruling coalition and forcing the government to resign, can make special policy demands upon the government. Moreover, prime ministers are only party leaders and lack the authority that comes from being directly elected by the people.

Another concern is the lack of formal institutional checks on parliamentary supremacy. A political party with a large enough majority in parliament, for example, could enact a far-reaching, even anti-democratic political program without any effective limits to its actions, raising the prospect of a tyranny of the majority.

For presidential systems, on the other hand, the principal claims are direct accountability, continuity, and strength. Presidents, elected for fixed periods by the people, can claim the authority deriving from direct election, whatever the standing of their political party in the Congress. By creating separate but theoretically equal branches of government, a presidential system seeks to establish strong executive and legislative institutions, each able to claim its electoral mandate from the people and each capable of checking and balancing the other. Those who fear the potential for executive tyranny will tend to emphasize the role of the Congress; those concerned with the potential abuse of a transient majority in the legislature will assert the authority of the president.

The weakness of separately elected presidents and legislatures is potential stalemate. Presidents may not possess the votes to enact their program, but by employing their veto power, they can prevent the congress from substituting its own legislative program.

Presidents, by virtue of their direct election, may appear more powerful than prime ministers. But they must contend with legislatures that, whether or not controlled by the opposition, possess an election base independent of the president's. Party discipline, therefore, is considerably weaker than in a parliamentary system. The president cannot, for example, dismiss or discipline rebellious party members as a prime minister usually can. A prime minister with a firm parliamentary majority is assured of passage of the government's legislative program; a president dealing with a congress jealous of its own prerogatives must often engage in protracted negotiations to ensure a bill's passage.

Which system best meets the requirements of a constitutional democracy: parliamentary or presidential? The answer is the subject of continuing debate among political scientists and politicians, in part because each system has unique strengths and weaknesses. It should be noted, however, that both are compatible with constitutional democracy, although neither guarantees it.

Read More...

Collapse...

THE CULTURE OF DEMOCRACY

THE CULTURE OF DEMOCRACY
A Civic Culture
Democracy is more than the sum of its institutions. A healthy democracy depends in large part on the development of a democratic civic culture. Culture in this sense, points out Diane Ravitch, does not refer to art, literature, or music, but to "the behaviors, practices, and norms that define the ability of a people to govern themselves.

"A totalitarian political system," she writes, "encourages a culture of passivity and apathy. The regime seeks to mold an obedient and docile citizenry. By contrast, the civic culture of a democratic society is shaped by the freely chosen activities of individuals and groups. Citizens in a free society pursue their interests, exercise their rights, and take responsibility for their own lives. They make their own decisions about where they will work, what kind of work they will do, where they will live, whether to join a political party, what to read, and so on. These are personal decisions, not political decisions."

Literature, art, drama, and film--the artistic expression of a society's culture--also exist independently of government. A democratic society may support or otherwise encourage artists and writers, but it does not set artistic standards, pass judgment on the worth of artistic endeavors, or censor artistic expression. Artists are not employees or servants of the state. The primary contribution of a democracy to art is freedom--to create, to experiment, to explore the world of the human mind and spirit.



Democracy and Education
Education is a vital component of any society, but especially of a democracy. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never shall be."

In contrast to authoritarian societies that seek to inculcate an attitude of passive acceptance, the object of democratic education is to produce citizens who are independent, questioning, and analytical in their outlook, yet deeply familiar with the precepts and practices of democracy. Vanderbilt professor Chester E. Finn, Jr., said in his address to educators in Nicaragua: "People may be born with an appetite for personal freedom, but they are not born with knowledge about the social and political arrangements that make freedom possible over time for themselves and their children....Such things must be acquired. They must be learned."

From this perspective, it is not enough to say that the task of education in a democracy is simply to avoid the indoctrination of authoritarian regimes and provide instruction that is neutral concerning political values. That is impossible: All education transmits values, intended or not. Students can indeed be taught the principles of democracy in a spirit of open inquiry that is itself an important democratic value. At the same time, students are encouraged to challenge conventional thinking with reasoned arguments and careful research. There may be vigorous debate, but democracy's textbooks should not simply ignore events or facts that are unpleasant or controversial.

"Education plays a singular role in free societies," Finn states. "While the education systems of other regimes are tools of those regimes, in a democracy the regime is the servant of the people, people whose capacity to create, sustain, and improve that regime depends in large measure on the quality and effectiveness of the educational arrangements through which they pass. In a democracy, it can fairly be said, education enables freedom itself to flourish over time."

Conflict, Compromise, and Consensus
Human beings possess a variety of sometimes contradictory desires. People want safety yet relish adventure; they aspire to individual freedom yet demand social equality.

Democracy is no different, and it is important to recognize that many of these tensions, even paradoxes, are present in every democratic society. According to Larry Diamond, coeditor of the Journal of Democracy and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a central paradox exists between conflict and consensus. Democracy is in many ways nothing more than a set of rules for managing conflict. At the same time, this conflict must be managed within certain limits and result in compromises, consensus, or other agreements that all sides accept as legitimate. An overemphasis on one side of the equation can threaten the entire undertaking. If groups perceive democracy as nothing more than a forum in which they can press their demands, the society can shatter from within. If the government exerts excessive pressure to achieve consensus, stifling the voices of the people, the society can be crushed from above.

The answer is that there is no single or easy answer. Democracy is not a machine that runs by itself once the proper principles and procedures are inserted. A democratic society needs the commitment of citizens who accept the inevitability of conflict as well as the necessity for tolerance.

It is important to recognize that many conflicts in a democratic society are not between clear-cut "right" and "wrong" but between differing interpretations of democratic rights and social priorities. In the United States, there are many such debates. Is it proper, for example, to allocate a certain percentage of jobs to minority groups that have traditionally suffered from discrimination? Does the state have the right to expropriate someone's home for a badly needed road? Whose rights prevail when the society seeks to prohibit logging in the name of wilderness preservation, but at the cost of job losses and economic devastation to small communities dependent upon the lumber industry? Are the rights of citizens violated, or are those of the community protected, if the police stop people at random to curtail drug trafficking?

These are not easy questions, and the broad precepts of democracy only provide guidelines for addressing and analyzing these issues. Indeed, the answers may change over time. It is for this reason that the culture of democracy is so important to develop. Individuals and groups must be willing, at a minimum, to tolerate each other's differences, recognizing that the other side has valid rights and a legitimate point of view. The various sides to a dispute, whether in a local neighborhood or national parliament, can then meet in a spirit of compromise and seek a specific solution that builds on the general principle of majority rule and minority rights. In some instances, a formal vote may be necessary, but often groups can reach an informal consensus or accommodation through debate and compromise. These processes have the added benefit of building the trust necessary to resolve future problems.

"Coalition-building," Diane Ravitch observes, "is the essence of democratic action. It teaches interest groups to negotiate with others, to compromise and to work within the constitutional system. By working to establish coalition, groups with differences learn how to argue peaceably, how to pursue their goals in a democratic manner, and ultimately how to live in a world of diversity."

Democracy is not a set of revealed, unchanging truths but the mechanism by which, through the clash and compromise of ideas, individuals and institutions, the people can, however imperfectly, reach for truth. Democracy is pragmatic. Ideas and solutions to problems are not tested against a rigid ideology but tried in the real world where they can be argued over and changed, accepted or discarded.

Self-government cannot protect against mistakes, end ethnic strife, or guarantee economic prosperity. It does, however, allow for the debate and examination that can identify mistakes, permit groups to meet and resolve differences, and offer opportunities for innovation and investment that are the engines of economic growth.

Read More...

Collapse...

ELECTIONS

ELECTIONS
The Benchmark of Elections
Elections are the central institution of democratic representative governments. Why? Because, in a democracy, the authority of the government derives solely from the consent of the governed. The principal mechanism for translating that consent into governmental authority is the holding of free and fair elections.

All modern democracies hold elections, but not all elections are democratic. Right-wing dictatorships, Marxist regimes, and single-party governments also stage elections to give their rule the aura of legitimacy. In such elections, there may be only one candidate or a list of candidates, with no alternative choices. Such elections may offer several candidates for each office, but ensure through intimidation or rigging that only the government-approved candidate is chosen. Other elections may offer genuine choices--but only within the incumbent party. These are not democratic elections.



What Are Democratic Elections?
Jeane Kirkpatrick, scholar and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has offered this definition: "Democratic elections are not merely symbolic....They are competitive, periodic, inclusive, definitive elections in which the chief decision-makers in a government are selected by citizens who enjoy broad freedom to criticize government, to publish their criticism and to present alternatives."

What do Kirkpatrick's criteria mean? Democratic elections are competitive. Opposition parties and candidates must enjoy the freedom of speech, assembly, and movement necessary to voice their criticisms of the government openly and to bring alternative policies and candidates to the voters. Simply permitting the opposition access to the ballot is not enough. Elections in which the opposition is barred from the airwaves, has its rallies harassed or its newspapers censored, are not democratic. The party in power may enjoy the advantages of incumbency, but the rules and conduct of the election contest must be fair.

Democratic elections are periodic. Democracies do not elect dictators or presidents-for-life. Elected officials are accountable to the people, and they must return to the voters at prescribed intervals to seek their mandate to continue in office. This means that officials in a democracy must accept the risk of being voted out of office. The one exception is judges who, to insulate them against popular pressure and help ensure their impartiality, may be appointed for life and removed only for serious improprieties.

Democratic elections are inclusive. The definition of citizen and voter must be large enough to include a large proportion of the adult population. A government chosen by a small, exclusive group is not a democracy--no matter how democratic its internal workings may appear. One of the great dramas of democracy throughout history has been the struggle of excluded groups--whether racial, ethnic, or religious minorities, or women--to win full citizenship, and with it the right to vote and hold office. In the United States, for example, only white male property holders enjoyed the right to elect and be elected when the Constitution was signed in 1787. The property qualification disappeared by the early 19th century, and women won the right to vote in 1920. Black Americans, however, did not enjoy full voting rights in the southern United States until the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And finally, in 1971, younger citizens were given the right to vote when the United States lowered the voting age from 21 to 18.

Democratic elections are definitive. They determine the leadership of the government. Subject to the laws and constitution of the country, popularly elected representatives hold the reins of power. They are not simply figureheads or symbolic leaders.

Finally, democratic elections are not limited to selecting candidates. Voters can also be asked to decide policy issues directly through referendums and initiatives that are placed on the ballot. In the United States, for example, state legislatures can decide to "refer," or place, an issue directly before the voters. In the case of an initiative, citizens themselves can gather a prescribed number of signatures (usually a percentage of the number of registered voters in that state) and require that an issue be placed on the next ballot--even over the objections of the state legislature or governor. In a state such as California, voters confront dozens of legislative initiatives each time they vote--on issues ranging from environmental pollution to automobile insurance costs.

Democratic Ethics and the Loyal Opposition
Democracies thrive on openness and accountability, with one very important exception: the act of voting itself. To cast a free ballot and minimize the opportunity for intimidation, voters in a democracy must be permitted to cast their ballots in secret. At the same time, the protection of the ballot box and tallying of vote totals must be conducted as openly as possible, so that citizens are confident that the results are accurate and that the government does, indeed, rest upon their "consent."

One of the most difficult concepts for some to accept, especially in nations where the transition of power has historically taken place at the point of a gun, is that of the "loyal opposition." This idea is a vital one, however. It means, in essence, that all sides in a democracy share a common commitment to its basic values. Political competitors don't necessarily have to like each other, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge that each has a legitimate and important role to play. Moreover, the ground rules of the society must encourage tolerance and civility in public debate.

When the election is over, the losers accept the judgment of the voters. If the incumbent party loses, it turns over power peacefully. No matter who wins, both sides agree to cooperate in solving the common problems of the society. The losers, now in the political opposition, know that they will not lose their lives or go to jail. On the contrary, the opposition, whether it consists of one party or many, can continue to participate in public life with the knowledge that its role is essential in any democracy worthy of the name. They are loyal not to the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself.

As the next election comes around, opposition parties will again have the opportunity to compete for power. In addition, a pluralistic society, one in which the reach of government is limited, tends to offer election losers alternatives for public service outside government. Those defeated at the polls may choose to continue as a formal opposition party, but they may also decide to participate in the wider political process and debate through writing, teaching, or joining one of many private organizations concerned with public policy issues. Democratic elections, after all, are not a fight for survival but a competition to serve.

Read More...

Collapse...

THE RULE OF LAW

THE RULE OF LAW
Equality and the Law
The right to equality before the law, or equal protection of the law as it is often phrased, is fundamental to any just and democratic society. Whether rich or poor, ethnic majority or religious minority, political ally of the state or opponent--all are entitled to equal protection before the law.

The democratic state cannot guarantee that life will treat everyone equally, and it has no responsibility to do so. However, writes constitutional law expert John P. Frank, "Under no circumstances should the state impose additional inequalities; it should be required to deal evenly and equally with all of its people."



No one is above the law, which is, after all, the creation of the people, not something imposed upon them. The citizens of a democracy submit to the law because they recognize that, however indirectly, they are submitting to themselves as makers of the law. When laws are established by the people who then have to obey them, both law and democracy are served.

Due Process
In every society throughout history, Frank points out, those who administer the criminal justice system hold power with the potential for abuse and tyranny. In the name of the state, individuals have been imprisoned, had their property seized, and been tortured, exiled and executed without legal justification--and often without any formal charges ever being brought. No democratic society can tolerate such abuses.

Every state must have the power to maintain order and punish criminal acts, but the rules and procedures by which the state enforces its laws must be public and explicit, not secret, arbitrary, or subject to political manipulation by the state.

What are the essential requirements of due process of law in a democracy?


No one's home can be broken into and searched by the police without a court order showing that there is good cause for such a search. The midnight knock of the secret police has no place in a democracy.

No person shall be held under arrest without explicit, written charges that specify the alleged violation. Not only are persons entitled to know the exact nature of the charge against them, they also must be released immediately, under the doctrine known as habeas corpus, if the court finds that the charge is without justification or the arrest is invalid.

Persons charged with crimes should not be held for protracted periods in prison. They are entitled to a speedy and public trial, and to confront and question their accusers.

The authorities are required to grant bail, or conditional release, to the accused pending trial if there is little likelihood that the suspect will flee or commit other crimes. "Cruel and unusual" punishment, as determined by the traditions and laws of the society, is prohibited.

Persons cannot be compelled to be witnesses against themselves. This prohibition against involuntary self- incrimination must be absolute. As a corollary, the police may not use torture or physical or psychological abuse against suspects under any circumstances. A legal system that bans forced confessions immediately reduces the incentives of the police to use torture, threats, or other forms of abuse to obtain information, since the court will not allow such information to be placed into evidence at the time of trial.

Persons shall not be subject to double jeopardy; that is, they cannot be charged with the same crime twice. Any person tried by a court and found not guilty can never be charged with that same crime again.

Because of their potential for abuse by the authorities, so-called ex post facto laws are also proscribed. These are laws made after the fact so that someone can be charged with a crime even though the act was not illegal at the time it occurred.

Defendants may possess additional protections against coercive acts by the state. In the United States, for example, the accused have a right to a lawyer who represents them in all stages of a criminal proceeding, even if they cannot pay for such legal representation themselves. The police must also inform suspects of their rights at the time of their arrest, including the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent (to avoid self- incrimination).

A common tactic of tyranny is to charge opponents of the government with treason. For this reason, the crime of treason must be carefully limited in definition so that it cannot be used as a weapon to stifle criticism of the government.
None of these restrictions means that the state lacks the necessary power to enforce the law and punish offenders. On the contrary, the criminal justice system in a democratic society will be effective to the degree that its administration is judged by the population to be fair and protective of individual rights, as well as of the public interest.

Judges may be either appointed or elected to office, and hold office for specified terms or for life. However they are chosen, it is vital that they be independent of the nation's political authority to ensure their impartiality. Judges cannot be removed for trivial or merely political reasons, but only for serious crimes or misdeeds--and then only through a formal procedure, such as impeachment (the bringing of charges) and trial in the legislature.

Constitutions
The rock upon which a democratic government rests is its constitution--the formal statement of its fundamental obligations, limitations, procedures, and institutions. The constitution of the country is the supreme law of the land, and all citizens, prime ministers to peasants alike, are subject to its provisions. At a minimum, the constitution, which is usually codified in a single written document, establishes the authority of the national government, provides guarantees for fundamental human rights, and sets forth the government's basic operating procedures.

Despite their enduring, monumental qualities, constitutions must be capable of change and adaptation if they are to be more than admirable fossils. The world's oldest written constitution, that of the United States, consists of seven brief articles and 27 amendments. This written document, however, is only the foundation for a vast structure of judicial decisions, statutes, presidential actions, and traditional practices that has been erected over the past 200 years--and kept the U.S. Constitution alive and relevant.

This pattern of constitutional evolution takes place in every democracy. In general, there are two schools of thought about the process of amending, or changing, a nation's constitution. One is to adopt a difficult procedure, requiring many steps and large majorities. As a result, the constitution is changed infrequently, and then only for compelling reasons that receive substantial public support. This is the model of the United States, whose Constitution is a brief statement of the general principles, powers, and limits of government, together with a more specific listing of duties, procedures, and, in the Bill of Rights, the fundamental rights of individual citizens.

A much simpler method of amendment, which many nations use, is to provide that any amendment may be adopted by approval of the legislature and passed by the voters at the next election. Constitutions able to be changed in this fashion can be quite lengthy, with specific provisions that differ little from the general body of legislation.

No constitution like America's, written in the 18th century, could have survived unchanged into the late 20th century. Similarly, no constitution in force today will survive into the next century without the capacity for change--while still holding fast to principles of individual rights, due process, and government through the consent of the governed.

Read More...

Collapse...

RIGHTS-DEMOCRACY

RIGHTS
Inalienable Rights


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

In these memorable words of the American Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson set forth a fundamental principle upon which democratic government is founded. Governments in a democracy do not grant the fundamental freedoms enumerated by Jefferson; governments are created to protect those freedoms that every individual possesses by virtue of his or her existence.


In their formulation by the Enlightenment philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries, inalienable rights are God-given natural rights. These rights are not destroyed when civil society is created, and neither society nor government can remove or "alienate" them.

Inalienable rights include freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of assembly, and the right to equal protection before the law. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the rights that citizens enjoy in a democracy--democratic societies also assert such civil rights as the right to a fair trial--but it does constitute the core rights that any democratic government must uphold. Since they exist independently of government, these rights cannot be legislated away, nor are they subject to the momentary whim of an electoral majority. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for example, does not give freedom of religion or of the press to the people; it prohibits the Congress from passing any law interfering with freedom of speech, religion, and peaceful assembly. A historian, Leonard Levy, has said, "Individuals may be free when their government is not."

The detailed formulation of laws and procedures concerning these basic human rights will necessarily vary from society to society, but every democracy is charged with the task of building the constitutional, legal, and social structures that will ensure their protection.

Speech
Freedom of speech and expression is the lifeblood of any democracy. To debate and vote, to assemble and protest, to worship, to ensure justice for all--these all rely upon the unrestricted flow of speech and information. Canadian Patrick Wilson, creator of the television series The Struggle for Democracy, observes: "Democracy is communication: people talking to one another about their common problems and forging a common destiny. Before people can govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves."

Citizens of a democracy live with the conviction that through the open exchange of ideas and opinions, truth will eventually win out over falsehood, the values of others will be better understood, areas of compromise more clearly defined, and the path of progress opened. The greater the volume of such exchanges, the better. American essayist E.B. White put it this way: "The press in our free country is reliable and useful not because of its good character but because of its great diversity. As long as there are many owners, each pursuing his own brand of truth, we the people have the opportunity to arrive at the truth and dwell in the light....There is safety in numbers."

In contrast to authoritarian states, democratic governments do not control, dictate, or judge the content of written and verbal speech. Democracy depends upon a literate, knowledgeable citizenry whose access to the broadest possible range of information enables them to participate as fully as possible in the public life of their society. Ignorance breeds apathy. Democracy thrives upon the energy of citizens who are sustained by the unimpeded flow of ideas, data, opinions, and speculation.

But what should the government do in cases where the news media or other organizations abuse freedom of speech with information that, in the opinion of the majority, is false, repugnant, irresponsible, or simply in bad taste? The answer, by and large, is nothing. It is simply not the business of government to judge such matters. In general, the cure for free speech is more free speech. It may seem a paradox, but in the name of free speech, a democracy must sometimes defend the rights of individuals and groups who themselves advocate such non- democratic policies as repressing free speech. Citizens in a democratic society defend this right out of the conviction that, in the end, open debate will lead to greater truth and wiser public actions than if speech and dissent are stifled.

Furthermore, the advocate of free speech argues, the suppression of speech that I find offensive today is potentially a threat to my exercise of free speech tomorrow--which perhaps you or someone else might find offensive. One of the classic defenses of this view is that of English philosopher John Stuart Mill, who argued in his 1859 essay "On Liberty" that all people are harmed when speech is repressed. "If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth," Mill wrote, "if wrong, they lose...the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error."

The corollary to freedom of speech is the right of the people to assemble and peacefully demand that the government hear their grievances. Without this right to gather and be heard, freedom of speech would be devalued. For this reason, freedom of speech is considered closely linked to, if not inseparable from, the right to gather, protest, and demand change. Democratic governments can legitimately regulate the time and place of political rallies and marches to maintain the peace, but they cannot use that authority to suppress protest or to prevent dissident groups from making their voices heard.

Freedom and Faith
Freedom of religion, or more broadly freedom of conscience, means that no person should be required to profess any religion or other belief against his or her desires. Additionally, no one should be punished or penalized in any way because he or she chooses one religion over another or, indeed, opts for no religion at all. The democratic state recognizes that a person's religious faith is a profoundly personal matter.

In a related sense, freedom of religion means that no one can be compelled by government to recognize an official church or faith. Children cannot be compelled to go to a particular religious school, and no one can be required to attend religious services, to pray, or to participate in religious activities against his or her will. By reason of long history or tradition, many democratic nations have officially established churches or religions that receive state support. This fact, however, does not relieve the government of the responsibility for protecting the freedom of individuals whose beliefs differ from that of the officially sanctioned religion.

Citizenship: Rights and Responsibilities
Democracies rest upon the principle that government exists to serve the people; the people do not exist to serve the government. In other words, the people are citizens of the democratic state, not its subjects. While the state protects the rights of its citizens, in return, the citizens give the state their loyalty. Under an authoritarian system, on the other hand, the state, as an entity separate from the society, demands loyalty and service from its people without any reciprocal obligation to secure their consent for its actions.

When citizens in a democracy vote, for example, they are exercising their right and responsibility to determine who shall rule in their name. In an authoritarian state, by contrast, the act of voting serves only to legitimize selections already made by the regime. Voting in such a society involves neither rights nor responsibilities exercised by citizens--only a coerced show of public support for the government.

Similarly, citizens in a democracy enjoy the right to join organizations of their choosing that are independent of government and to participate freely in the public life of their society. At the same time, citizens must accept the responsibility that such participation entails: educating themselves about the issues, demonstrating tolerance in dealing with those holding opposing views, and compromising when necessary to reach agreement.

In an authoritarian state, however, private voluntary groups are few or nonexistent. They do not serve as vehicles for individuals to debate issues or run their own affairs, but only as another arm of the state that holds its subjects in positions of obedience.

Military service provides a different but equally contrasting example of rights and responsibilities in democratic and non-democratic societies. Two different nations may both require a period of peacetime military service by their young men. In the authoritarian state, this obligation is imposed unilaterally. In the democratic state, such a period of military service is a duty that the citizens of the society have undertaken through laws passed by a government they themselves have elected. In each society, peacetime military service may be unwelcome for individuals. But the citizen-soldier in a democracy serves with the knowledge that he is discharging an obligation that his society has freely undertaken. The members of a democratic society, moreover, have it within their power to act collectively and change this obligation: to eliminate mandatory military service and create an all-volunteer army, as the United States and other countries have done; change the period of military service, as happened in Germany; or, as in the case of Switzerland, maintain reserve military service for men as an essential part of citizenship.

Citizenship in these examples entails a broad definition of rights and responsibilities, since they are opposite sides of the same coin. An individual's exercise of his rights is also his responsibility to protect and enhance those rights--for himself and for others. Even citizens of well-established democracies often misunderstand this equation, and too often take advantage of rights while ignoring responsibilities. As political scientist Benjamin Barber notes, "Democracy is often understood as the rule of the majority, and rights are understood more and more as the private possessions of individuals and thus as necessarily antagonistic to majoritarian democracy. But this is to misunderstand both rights and democracy."

It is certainly true that individuals exercise basic, or inalienable, rights--such as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion--which thereby constitute limits on any democratically based government. In this sense, individual rights are a bulwark against abuses of power by the government or a momentary political majority.

But in another sense, rights, like individuals, do not function in isolation. Rights are not the private possession of individuals but exist only insofar as they are recognized by other citizens of the society. The electorate, as the American philosopher Sidney Hook expressed it, is "the ultimate custodian of its own freedom." From this perspective, democratic government, which is elected by and accountable to its citizens, is not the antagonist of individual rights, but their protector. It is to enhance their rights that citizens in a democracy undertake their civic obligations and responsibilities.

Broadly speaking, these responsibilities entail participating in the democratic process to ensure its functioning. At a minimum, citizens should educate themselves about the critical issues confronting their society--if only to vote intelligently for candidates running for high office. Other obligations, such as serving juries in civil or criminal trials, may be required by law, but most are voluntary.

The essence of democratic action is the active, freely chosen participation of its citizens in the public life of their community and nation. Without this broad, sustaining participation, democracy will begin to wither and become the preserve of a small, select number of groups and organizations. But with the active engagement of individuals across the spectrum of society, democracies can weather the inevitable economic and political storms that sweep over every society, without sacrificing the freedoms and rights that they are sworn to uphold.

Active involvement in public life is often narrowly defined as the struggle for political office. But citizen participation in a democratic society is much broader than just taking part in election contests. At the neighborhood or municipal level, citizens may serve on school committees or form community groups, as well as run for local office. At the state, provincial, or national level, citizens can add their voices and pens to the continuing debate over public issues, or they can join political parties, labor unions, or other voluntary organizations. Whatever the level of their contribution, a healthy democracy depends upon the continuing, informed participation of the broad range of its citizens.

Democracy, Diane Ravitch writes, "is a process, a way of living and working together. It is evolutionary, not static. It requires cooperation, compromise, and tolerance among all citizens. Making it work is hard, not easy. Freedom means responsibility, not freedom from responsibility."

Democracy embodies ideals of freedom and self-expression, but it is also clear-eyed about human nature. It does not demand that citizens be universally virtuous, only that they will be responsible. As American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr said: "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary."

Human Rights and Political Goals
As a principle, the protection of basic human rights is accepted widely: It is embodied in written constitutions throughout the world as well as in the Charter of the United Nations and in such international agreements as the Helsinki Final Act (the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe--CSCE).

Distinguishing among different categories of rights is another matter. In recent times, there has been a tendency, especially among international organizations, to expand the list of basic human rights. To fundamental freedoms of speech and equal treatment before the law, these groups have added rights to employment, to education, to one's own culture or nationality, and to adequate standards of living.

These are all worthwhile undertakings, but when such entitlements proliferate as rights, they tend to devalue the meaning of basic civic and human rights. Furthermore, they blur the distinction between rights that all individuals possess and goals toward which individuals, organizations, and governments may reasonably be expected to strive.

Governments protect inalienable rights, such as freedom of speech, through restraint, by limiting their own actions. Funding education, providing health care, or guaranteeing employment demand the opposite: the active involvement of government in promoting certain policies and programs. Adequate health care and educational opportunities should be the birthright of every child. The sad fact is that they are not, and the ability of societies to achieve such goals will vary widely from country to country. By transforming every human aspiration into a right, however, governments run the risk of increasing cynicism and inviting a disregard of all human rights.



BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS
Freedom of speech, expression, and the press.

Freedom of religion.

Freedom of assembly and association.

Right to equal protection of the law.

Right to due process and fair trial.

Read More...

Collapse...

INTRODUCTION-DEMOCRACY

INTRODUCTION
We live in a time when the call for freedom and democracy echoes across the globe. Eastern Europe has cast off the totalitarian governments of almost half a century, and the republics of the former Soviet Union are struggling to replace the Communist regime of almost 75 years with a new democratic order, something they could never before experience. But the drama surrounding the extraordinary political changes in Europe obscures the remarkable degree to which the promise of democracy has mobilized peoples throughout the world. North and South America are now virtually a hemisphere of democracy; Africa is experiencing an unprecedented era of democratic reform; and new, dynamic democracies have taken root in Asia.



This worldwide phenomenon belies the skeptics who have contended that modern liberal democracy is a uniquely Western artifact that can never be successfully replicated in non-Western cultures. In a world where democracy is practiced in nations as different as Japan, Italy, and Venezuela, the institutions of democracy can legitimately claim to address universal human aspirations for freedom and self-government.

Yet freedom's apparent surge during the last decade by no means ensures its ultimate success. Chester E. Finn, Jr., professor of education and public policy at Vanderbilt University and director of the Educational Excellence Network, said in remarks before a group of educators and government officials in Managua, Nicaragua: "That people naturally prefer freedom to oppression can indeed be taken for granted. But that is not the same as saying that democratic political systems can be expected to create and maintain themselves over time. On the contrary. The idea of democracy is durable, but its practice is precarious."

Democratic values may be resurgent today, but viewed over the long course of human history, from the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century to the rise of one-party regimes in the mid-20th century, most democracies have been few and short-lived. This fact is cause for neither pessimism nor despair; instead, it serves as a challenge. While the desire for freedom may be innate, the practice of democracy must be learned. Whether the hinge of history will continue to open the doors of freedom and opportunity depends on the dedication and collective wisdom of the people themselves--not upon any of history's iron laws and certainly not on the imagined benevolence of self- appointed leaders.

Contrary to some perceptions, a healthy democratic society is not simply an arena in which individuals pursue their own personal goals. Democracies flourish when they are tended by citizens willing to use their hard-won freedom to participate in the life of their society--adding their voices to the public debate, electing representatives who are held accountable for their actions, and accepting the need for tolerance and compromise in public life. The citizens of a democracy enjoy the right of individual freedom, but they also share the responsibility of joining with others to shape a future that will continue to embrace the fundamental values of freedom and self-government.

Read More...

Collapse...

DEFINING DEMOCRACY

DEFINING DEMOCRACY
Government of the People
Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov's last speeches in 1989.

In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."



Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any society must possess to be properly called democratic.

Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people--in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world's first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy.

Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy. Even in the northeastern United States, where the New England town meeting is a hallowed tradition, most communities have grown too large for all the residents to gather in a single location and vote directly on issues that affect their lives.

Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens.

How such officials are elected can vary enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can be chosen from districts that each elect a single representative. Alternatively, under a system of proportional representation, each political party is represented in the legislature according to its percentage of the total vote nationwide. Provincial and local elections can mirror these national models, or choose their representatives more informally through group consensus instead of elections. Whatever the method used, public officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of the people and remain accountable to the people for their actions.

Majority Rule and Minority Rights
All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.

Diane Ravitch, scholar, author, and a former assistant U.S. secretary of education, wrote in a paper for an educational seminar in Poland: "When a representative democracy operates in accordance with a constitution that limits the powers of the government and guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, this form of government is a constitutional democracy. In such a society, the majority rules, and the rights of minorities are protected by law and through the institutionalization of law."

These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.

Democratic Society
Democracy is more than a set of constitutional rules and procedures that determine how a government functions. In a democracy, government is only one element coexisting in a social fabric of many and varied institutions, political parties, organizations, and associations. This diversity is called pluralism, and it assumes that the many organized groups and institutions in a democratic society do not depend upon government for their existence, legitimacy, or authority.

Thousands of private organizations operate in a democratic society, some local, some national. Many of them serve a mediating role between individuals and the complex social and governmental institutions of which they are a part, filling roles not given to the government and offering individuals opportunities to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens of a democracy.

These groups represent the interests of their members in a variety of ways--by supporting candidates for public office, debating issues, and trying to influence policy decisions. Through such groups, individuals have an avenue for meaningful participation both in government and in their own communities. The examples are many and varied: charitable organizations and churches, environmental and neighborhood groups, business associations and labor unions.

In an authoritarian society, virtually all such organizations would be controlled, licensed, watched, or otherwise accountable to the government. In a democracy, the powers of the government are, by law, clearly defined and sharply limited. As a result, private organizations are free of government control; on the contrary, many of them lobby the government and seek to hold it accountable for its actions. Other groups, concerned with the arts, the practice of religious faith, scholarly research, or other interests, may choose to have little or no contact with the government at all.

In this busy private realm of democratic society, citizens can explore the possibilities of freedom and the responsibilities of self-government--unpressured by the potentially heavy hand of the state.


THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY
Sovereignty of the people.

Government based upon consent of the governed.

Majority rule.

Minority rights.

Guarantee of basic human rights.

Free and fair elections.

Equality before the law.

Due process of law.

Constitutional limits on government.

Social, economic, and political pluralism.

Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.

Read More...

Collapse...

Thanks, from Burma to the Philippines - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

Thanks, from Burma to the Philippines



Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:41:00 09/08/2008


MANILA, Philippines - On behalf of the people of Burma, I would like to express our sincerest thanks for the continuing political support given by the Filipino people to our struggle for democracy.

I would like to thank the Philippine government, especially the House of Representatives and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, for once again expressing strong support for our fight for democracy and peace in Burma.

To our colleagues in the Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID), Free Burma Coalition-Philippines (FBC-Phils) and the Philippine media, thank you very much.
Someone once said, “The warmest memories are the earliest ones.” The Philippine trip was an “earliest one” for me. I had a great time because of the warm welcome given to me by this country and its people. I will never forget the Philippines, and my memories of this country will serve as lessons that I and my colleagues in the democracy movement for Burma can use to further strengthen our cause.

If some day Burma will become a free and democratic country, I won’t forget that the Philippines made a big difference. Again, I would like to thank the Filipinos for giving me an opportunity to inform them about the situation of our people in Burma.

—KHUN MYINT TUN,
MP-elect of Thanton Constituency;
joint secretary,
Members of Parliament Union (Burma), via e-mail

Read More...

Collapse...

7,september,2008-peacefulburma posts

Read More...

Collapse...

The Scot who gave hope and help to thousands,たくさんに希望および助けを与えたScot

Handing out supplies to cyclone victims from one of Paul Strachan's relief boats Picture: Complimentary
ポールStrachanの救助のボートの1隻からのサイクロンの犠牲者への供給を配ること

The Scot who gave hope and help to thousands
たくさんに希望および助けを与えたScot

AFTER an hour of frantic paddling alongside the devastated cyclone-hit banks of the Irrawaddy Delta, Win Naing was beginning to lose hope.
打撃を受けたのの横で半狂乱に漕ぐことの1時間がIrrawaddyのデルタの銀行にサイクロン当った後、WinNaingは希望を失い始めていた。

His heavily pregnant daughter was struggling in the small canoe and desperately needed medical attention. Facing another eight hours' journey before they reached a hospital, and with his energy failing, he feared his daughter and her unborn child would die.
彼の重く妊娠した娘は小さいカヌーおよび必死に必要とされた治療で戦っていた。 もう8 hours'の直面; それらが病院に達した前に彼のエネルギー失敗の旅行、彼は彼の娘および彼女の胎児死ぬことを恐れ。

But as he rounded a bend in the river, Win Naing saw a big boat in the distance. It belonged to Paul Strachan, a Scots businessman who had donated it to aid organisations after Burma's Cyclone Nargis. Thanks to his generosity, the family had fresh hope of survival.
しかし彼が川のくねりを円形にしたので、勝利Naingは間隔の大きいボートを見た。 それはポールStrachanのビルマのサイクロンNargisの後で援助の組織にそれを寄付したScotsビジネスマンに属した。 彼の寛大さのおかげでに、家族存続の新しい希望があった。

Khin Mar Oo, who was nine months pregnant, had clung to her father in terror when the cyclone devastated their village on 3 May. They survived the storm, but the health centre near their village was destroyed, leaving the terrified mother-to-be with a lengthy canoe ride to reach the nearest hospital, in Laputta.
9か月妊娠していたKhinMarOoは恐怖の彼女の父にサイクロンが5月3日に村を荒廃させる前にしがみついた。 彼らは嵐を存続させたが、Laputtaの最も近い病院に、達するために長いカヌーの乗車をこわがらせた妊婦に残す彼らの村の近くの医療センターは破壊された。

Thanks to Mr Strachan, who had turned two of his four boats into floating hospitals, Khin Mar Oo had her baby girl in safety on board the 180ft vessel.
のおかげで浮遊病院に180ftの容器の上で安全で彼の4隻のボートの2つを回した氏Strachanの、Khin 3月Oo彼女の女の赤ちゃんがあった。


As Win Naing cradled his baby granddaughter in his arms, he said a silent prayer, thanking Mr Strachan's gift for saving his daughter and granddaughter.
WinNaingが彼の腕の彼の赤ん坊の孫娘をあやしたので、彼は彼の娘および孫娘を救うために氏のギフトに感謝するStrachan無声祈りを言った。

The family were so grateful, the 8lb baby was named Pandawlin, after Pandaw, the name of Mr Strachan's boat, and Merlin, the UK-based medical agency whose staff delivered her.
家族は氏のボートのStrachan Pandaw、名前、およびマーリンのスタッフが彼女を分娩したイギリス基盤の医学代理店の名にちなんで従って感謝した、8lb赤ん坊名付けられたPandawlinと、あった。

Pandawlin was the first of five babies born on the boat, and Khin Mar Oo was one of more than 9,000 people who was treated on board Mr Strachan's floating hospitals.
Pandawlinはボートで耐えられた5人の赤ん坊の第一号でありKhin 3月Ooは氏の上でStrachan'扱われた9,000人以上の1つだった; sの浮遊病院。

In the course of the following months, thousands of people either made their own way to the ships, or were taken on board after smaller vessels acting as water ambulances were sent to bring people to be treated, while also distributing aid.
次の月の間に、また分配の援助間人々を扱われるために連れて来るように水救急車が送られたと同時にたくさんの人々は船に彼らの自身の方法を作るか、または機能するより小さい容器の後で船上に取られた。

When the cyclone struck Burma, Mr Strachan, an Edinburgh-based businessman immediately contacted Merlin as well as the Save the Children charity. He gave them Pandaw II and Pandaw IV, two luxury vessels from his company, Pandaw River Cruises, which are usually used for tourist cruises in south-east Asia – they are replicas of Clyde-built steamers.
サイクロンがビルマのStrachanの保存と同様、エジンバラ基づかせていたビジネスマンすぐに連絡されたマーリン氏を子供の慈善打った時。 彼はそれらにPandaw IIおよびPandaw IVの彼の会社からの2つの贅沢な容器、通常南東のアジアでツーリストの巡航のために使用されるPandawの川の巡航を与えた、-クライド造られた汽船のレプリカである。

The charities kitted out the ships with medical equipment as well as food, water-storage containers and tarpaulin sheets – used to provide shelter from the monsoon rains. The vessels were sent down the Irrawaddy Delta in an attempt to provide medical attention for as many people as possible.
慈善はモンスーン雨からの避難所を提供するのに使用された食糧、水貯蔵の容器および防水シートシートと同様、医療機器が付いている船を- kitted。 容器はIrrawaddyのデルタの下でできるだけ多くの人々に治療を提供するために送られた。

Apart from the tens of thousands of Burmese who died, thousands suffered broken limbs and deep cuts from flying debris caused by the cyclone.
死んだ数万人のビルマ人から離れて、たくさんはサイクロンによって引き起こされた飛び散る破片に壊れた肢および深い切口に苦しんだ。

On the Mr Strachan's ships, the wounded lay on mattresses as 27 Burmese staff tended the injured and the many others suffering from diarrhoea, pneumonia and respiratory infections.
氏でStrachanは傷つけられる27人のビルマ人のスタッフによってががちだったおよび下痢、肺炎および呼吸の伝染に苦しむ多くの他出荷するように、マットレスのけが人の位置。

On Pandaw II, Save the Children staff offered counselling to traumatised children, many of whom had lost their parents.
衝撃を与えられた子供に勧めることを提供された子供のスタッフを除けばPandaw IIで、そのほとんどは彼らの親を失った。

Sarah Roeder, Merlin's regional programmes officer for south-east Asia, said the injuries were different from those in other natural disasters. She said: "I couldn't believe the vast emptiness where the cyclone had struck. We saw lots of people with burns on their bodies from 120mph winds and rain. It would tear and burn the skin; some people were in incredible pain."
傷害が他の自然災害のそれらと異なっていたことをSarahRoeder、南東のアジアのためのマーリンの地方プログラム役人は、言った。 彼女は言った: " 私はサイクロンが打った広大な空虚を信じることができなかった。 私達は120mph風および雨からの彼らのボディの焼跡を持つの多くに会った。 それは皮を引き裂き、燃やす; 何人かの人々信じられないいpain."にあった;

Much of the sickness was related to the lack of clean water, and there was mass dehydration and hunger. The Pandaws were able to purify large amounts of water, which helped with treating patients, providing basic facilities and sterilising medical equipment.
病気の多くはクリーンウォーターの欠乏と関連し、多くの脱水および空腹があった。 Pandawsは患者を扱い、基本施設を提供し、そして医療機器を殺菌することと助けた多量の水を浄化できた。

Mr Strachan, 45, received praise from many of those involved in taking aid to Burma.
Strachan、45のビルマに援助を持って行くことにかかわるそれらの多数からの受け取られた賞賛氏。

Miss Roeder, 28, who spent two months working in the Irrawaddy Delta, said: "It would be impossible to quantify Paul's contribution. Without him, we would not have been able to provide the same level of service as we did. We wouldn't have reached so many people so quickly. He was fundamental in providing aid for literally thousands of people in the delta."
Miss Roeder、28,Irrawaddyのデルタではたらく2か月を過ごしたとは言った: " Paul'の量を示すことは不可能である; sの貢献。 彼なしで、私達は私達がのと同レベルのサービスを提供できなかろう。 私達はそう多くの人々にそうすぐに達しなかろう。 彼は文字通り提供することで基本的たくさんのdelta."の人々に援助をだった;

Ben Dempsey, Save the Children's media manager, was in Burma after the cyclone struck. He said: "It was extremely generous of Paul to provide his boats, and it allowed the response to be that much more effective.
サイクロンが打った後ベンDempseyは、子供媒体マネージャーを除けばビルマに、いた。 彼は言った: " それはポールの非常に寛大彼のボートを提供するためにであり応答がはるかに有効ことであるようにした。

"The delta is a difficult place to get around at the best of times, but having Paul's boat was fantastic, as we could move quickly and reach people who would have otherwise been stranded. There is no doubt that Paul's efforts saved lives."
" デルタは時のベストで得るべき困難な場所であるがポールのボートを持っていることは私達がすぐに動き、他では座礁しよう人々に達することができるので、素晴らしかった。 ポールの努力がlives."を救ったこと疑いがない;

Dr Ye Hein Naing, Merlin's chief medic on Pandaw IV, said: "This boat was a real life-saver. Having a boat this size gave us the ability to do whatever was needed to save lives."
YeHeinNaing、Pandaw IVのマーリンの主な医者先生は、言った: " このボートは実質のライフセーバーだった。 ボートを持っていてこのサイズは私達に必要だったlives."を救うためにものは何でもする機能を与えた;

Mr Strachan said: "Our team was in the right place at the right time. When you have been hit by a cyclone, there is no time to say thank you."
Strachan氏は言った: " 私達のチームは正しい時に右の場所にいた。 サイクロンによって当られたら、言う時間が感謝するない。

He is optimistic the cyclone could be a turning point for Burma. He said: "I think things will change, not just in the delta but over a longer period. What people will remember from the disaster is that we couldn't get aid in to Burma, and then the story just stopped.
彼はサイクロンがビルマのための分岐点であることができることを楽観的である。 彼は言った: " 私は事がデルタで長期に、ちょうど変わることを考える。 どんな人々が災害から覚えているか私達がビルマに援助を得ることができなかったそれから物語はちょうど停止したことであり。

The story that was never told was we did get in, and it did all work out. People got in and aid got in and great things did happen."
決してだった私達入った言われなかった物語、およびそれはすべてを解決するした。 人々は入り、援助は入り、大きい事はhappen."をした;\

The businessman also raised £428,000, including £100,000 from an anonymous Scottish investor who has pledged a further £50,000 in the future.
ビジネスマンはまたそれ以上の£50,000を将来誓約した匿名のスコットランド投資家からの£100,000を含む£428,000を、上げた。

And as Pandaw II and Pandaw IV return to normal duties, a 128ft-long barge has been purchased and transformed in to a permanent floating hospital to replace the two temporary floating clinics.
そして正常な義務へのPandaw IIおよびPandaw IVのリターンとして2つの一時的な浮遊医院を取り替えるために、128ft長いはしけは永久的な浮遊病院に購入され、変形した。

There is enough funding in place for at least two years of sailing around a regular schedule of remote river communities in Burma, delivering vital medical services. But Pandaw and Merlin are aiming even higher.
少なくとも2年間の重大な医療サービスを提供するビルマの遠隔川のコミュニティの規則的なスケジュールのまわりの航海間十分な資金がある。 しかしPandawおよびマーリンはより高く向けている。

Mr Strachan said: "We're looking at a five-year plan. Pandaw would run the marine side of things and Merlin would provide the medical side. It looks very positive. There is life after death and things are working here."
Strachan氏は言った: " 私達は五ヶ年計画を見ている。 Pandawは事の海洋の側面を動かし、マーリンは医学の側面を提供する。 それは非常に肯定的に見る。 死および事がここに働いた生命が後ある。

The full article contains 1045 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
完全な記事は1045ワードを含み、スコットランド人新聞で出る。

Read More...

Collapse...