About Politics

Dalip Singh Wasan asked:


People of India must lower down number of politicalal parties

Sir,

We began in 1947 with two three political parties, but now the people are not in a position to count number of political parties in India. We should stop this growth because the people are facing difficulties when they are casting their votes because it becomes difficult for them to find out their own candidate for whom they had come to vote. We did something wrong when we were establishing this new India in fifties. We established different states and gave them Legislative Assemblis too. That was a wrong step. We should have established only one Parliament for the whole of India and that was enough to frame laws for the country. We have got one citizenship and our conditions are also the same. The Parliament is the representative of whole of India because each part of it is present in the Parliament. Had we established only one Parliament and had not these state level Legislative Assemblies, we could have avoided this growth of political parties especially regional and religious political parties. We could have laid down in the Constitution that only those parties shall participate in elections who could give atleast one candidate for each Constituency in India. We could have introduced ‘Shadow Cabinet system’ in India and had this system been introduced, the number of people in this political field could also have been on the lower side. Only competent people should have come forward because people would not have been electing incompetent people as ministers. Had avoided to do this mistake in the beginning, this country would have been one of the advancied countries during this span of six decades because it has got mountains, rivers, minerals, coals, irons, fertile lands, hardworking people, rains, different seasons and all those mimimums which are required for becoming an advanced country. The mistakes committed in fifties must be set right and we shall be becoming an advancied country within the next ten years.

(Dalip Singh wasan) advocate,

101-C-Vikas Colony, Patiala-Punjab-l47003

India.

Elizabeth

i_act_blonde15 asked:


How did politics play a role in the discovery of DNA structure?

Brandon

trueblue88 asked:


The answers for politics usually lack content on this website, with one really good answer for each question. I was just wondering, are my political questions, or the answers I have read to others, being answered by the preteens? I just read answers to “What is the average age on this website?” and many contended that they thought it was 12. I am 17, but I plan to be a public policy major so when I am curious about something politically I like people with slightly more education than a 9th grader to answer my questions. Maybe just tell me how old you are, or tell me what you think the average age is for the people that answer questions in Politics & Government.

Sue

Olivia Hunt asked:


The theories or concepts formulated by Samuel Huntington and Takashi Shiraishi would provide the framework for this study. The military is the coercive arm of the state for defense and internal security. Without the military, the state can hardly survive. Politics dictates that the military, as the instrument of the state, should be subordinate to the government. However, the arm sometimes commands the head, and this has been the case in Indonesia.

According to Huntington, the military that becomes the master of state is commonly called praetorian, and different from that which remains under civilian control. Praetorianism is characterized by the armed forces being politicized just as politics being militarized. “The officer corps is shot through with factionalism. Lawmakers and administrators fall into disarray. Politicians seek power not by rallying popular support but by cultivating party connections. The populace at length withdraws into a sudden apathy, an utter cynicism towards the political process.” The country turns into a praetorian state. Takashi’s point of reference is the concept of professionalism first formulated by Huntington. According to Huntington, modern military officers are supposed to be professional managers of force and violence.

Huntington’s thesis in formulating the concept of professionalism is that maximization of military professionalism neutralizes the military politically and thus minimizes the propensity of the military to intervene directly in politics. For Takashi, the military becomes praetorian because it is not professional. He argued that the fallacy in Huntington’s thesis lies in the formulation of the concept of military professionalism. Huntington assumes that (Expertise, Social responsibility and Corporateness) go together. Thus, the military that is irresponsible is by definition not professional even if the level of expertise achieved by the officers is sufficiently high. As a result, Huntington’s proposition that maximization of military professionalism minimizes the propensity of the military to intervene directly in politics turns out to be the normative proposition that the military should remain politically neutral and not intervene in politics in order to maintain its professionalism. But Takashi is not saying that the concept of professionalism itself is useless. In fact, three dimensions of military professionalism provide a clue to understanding politics in the military and military politics.

The legitimacy of civilian political institutions leads to the external factors that condition the political roles of the military. These are the level of legitimacy that civilian political institutions enjoy and the level of mobilization of social forces in the political process. “If the level of civilian political institutions is high relative to the mobilization of social forces, the situation is civic in Huntington’s terminology, and the political order is legitimate and stable. Here, the military is less likely to intervene directly in politics unless outsiders infringe on its corporate affairs. But if the level of legitimacy of civilian political institutions is low while the level of mobilization of social forces is high, the political order is essentially unstable, and the situation is praetorian”. In this case the military is forced to decide for their client.

Alma

Jackson Kern asked:


Copyright (c) 2008 Jackson Kern

The subtle difference between pure social development and social-political sustainability is very central to the pursuit of sustainable development. Just as economic development accomplishes little if the achievements heralded are unsustainable, so too must social enrichment go hand in hand with a concerted effort to ensure its persistent viability.

Open, contested political arenas offer the only means to this endarenas that are contested by you. These three phenomena endanger the sustainability of our social-political processes; they beg our devoted attention.

1. The most insidious danger of all is that of prevalent political apathy. If the population at large cannot be convinced that its fate is sufficiently at stake to engage itself actively, then all hope surely is lost. The causes of apathy are many; clearly the simplest is inner-focused individuals who are more concerned with personal than societal enrichment, or who believe that the benefits derived from social engagement will not be commensurate with the time and resources invested. This phenomenon can be likened to game theory and political science notions of the “tragedy of the commons”. A related cause of political apathy is blind faith in social and political institutions. But we must remember Sartre’s espousal of the one who “is loyal to a political and social ensemble, and who never ceases to contest it”. There is no contradiction in believing that a nation’s social and political processes are the best ever conceived by mankind, and still rising every morning to challenge them. Indeed, this is the very essence of democracy.

2. The existence of social inertia is different from apathy. We human beings are creatures of habit. Even when informed and acknowledging of specific problems, we can be resistant to the specter of addressing them aggressively via political mechanisms if so doing entails a rupture with time-honored cultural tradition. In a 2006 poll, eighty-five percent of Americans indicated their belief that global warming is “probably happening”, while half asserted that the issue of global warming is “extremely important” to them. Yet the ubiquity of single-occupant vehicles on America’s highways remains undiminished.

3. When the general populace is involved and engaged, this can often pose problems of social-political inefficiency. This issue can be particularly acute in nations which are large in population and geography. An inability to reach consensus can sometimes lead to paralysis. Under an autocratic establishment, the government can execute changes to social-political institutions with an alacrity that is sometimes enviable. But this, of course, is not consultative; sustainability of the social-political dimension is only ensured in the long run if it is reflective of the collective will. A different sort of social-political inefficiency arises when there is no obstruction to consensus but when channels for initiating change (particularly in the judiciary) are constrained, convoluted or overloaded.

Political apathy and social inertia can only be combated in ongoing daily efforts to inform, arouse and provoke. Happily, social-political inefficiency can be addressed more methodically. Governments, businesses, non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations alter and influence the state of our social and natural environment every day. Actors which seek to bridge the gap between these entities and the general populace and to facilitate their interaction, aided by extraordinary new technologies of participation, have a grand role to play in the future of social-political sustainability.

An evocation of these challenges would not be complete without a consideration of the dynamic interactions the social-political domain engenders with other elements of sustainable development. Economics is the science of resource allocation, the study of the ways in which we satisfy human wants and needs. No human need is more fundamental than that of nourishment. In a revealing illustration of the interdependence of sustainable development’s three constituent parts, rising world food prices now pose a grave threat to social-political sustainability around the globe. One need only turn to recent social unrest and political instability in Haiti, Egypt and the Philippines to be assured of that. These rising prices stem from uncertainties regarding the sustainability of our agricultural processes. To be specific, some have very explicitly cited efforts in the West to subsidize and encourage biofuels production as a leading inflationary factor (though burgeoning middle classes in India and China seem surely to be responsible for other upward price pressures). And all this as the viability of biofuels falls under a penetrating scrutiny.

These challenges of social-political sustainability will remain inextricably bound to the future of sustainability as an enterprise.

Aaron

The Amsterdam Red-light District asked:


Whether you are just starting your first job or your 10th job,
you will find that office politics is consistent in all companies.
Office politics is something that is inherent in any company
you may work for. It’s part of the culture and you won’t be
able to avoid it. So just how do you survive office politics and
still get to make your talents shine? Simple, you need to
market your talents everyday, just as you did during the
interview that got you the job.
You basically need to focus on fitting in with the scheme of
things around the office. Be friendly and outgoing and offer
support to your co-workers and management when possible.
Refuse to engage in the sleazier side of office politics and
soon management and your peers will take notice of you.
You will win their support and respect.
Don’t be afraid to toot your own horn to management. Don’t
assume that they should know what you do all day. They
have their own agenda and may take notice of some things
that you do, but many things may go unnoticed. Your positive
attitude and activities will rally support and leave a lasting
impression to everyone.
It’s ok to offer to take on additional responsibilities, but
only do it if you have the time or someone else hasn’t
stepped up to the plate. Don’t bite off more than you
can chew, it will make matters worse and make you
look incompetent. The trick is to show that you are
worth more and soon you will not only fit in, but also
come to be relied on for more important assignments.
You will be a player in the game of office politics, no
longer an outsider looking in. An increase in
responsibilities usually means a raise as well.
Playing the game of office politics well can lead to many
rewards in your career. In addition to fitting in and getting
personal recognition when an opportunity presents itself,
you also need to accept constructive criticism just as well.
Never take it personally, rather look at it as a chance to
grow and learn from mistakes. If you come off as defensive
when you are being criticized, it will sabotage any chance
you have of becoming part of a group.
Know your limitations, toot your own horn, play by the rules,
make your talents shine and most of all, respect yourself
and those around you. Remember that you will not be able
to please all of the people all of the time. But pleasing those
that count, those in authority and those that you work closely
with is equal to winning half the battle. Be subtle, make the
transition as seamless as possible and make yourself useful.
Only then will you have a chance at winning the war. It is the
easiest way to survive office politics in any company.
Article written by Simone Emmons.

Bobby

Paul Johnson asked:


There, now it’s out there; the “C” word, Christmas. Somehow it’s become politically incorrect to wish others Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa or anything that suggests a belief system. Well, I’ve decided to forgo political correctness at the risk of being labeled “politically inept” this holiday season.

Be Different in December
I choose to celebrate in December because Christmas is in it. You may celebrate in December for a different reason. I not only respect but cherish that diversity among us. Yet that diversity is discounted and stripped away from us when the Politically Correct (P.C.) Police force all to be the same by restricting us to Happy Holidays and Seasons Greetings. Can we Americans afford any more loss of our identities? Can we afford to lose the meanings behind our traditions, actions and feelings?

The advent and proliferation of social media encourage us to “live in the open.” Tools like LinkedIn, Facebook and YouTube enable us to share what makes us human. In theory, our humanity should make us more desirable as a business associate. When you defy the P.C. Police and offer a greeting with more flavor than Seasons Greetings, we learn you are a person of character and courage as well as spirited and thoughtful. Much is shared in less than 2 seconds!

Speak Your Peace of Mind
We’re entitled to all speak our own “language” of the season. Consider that, as an example, if one of us speaks Spanish, another French and the third Italian, none of us can be accused of being wrong. Background, upbringing and, sometimes, life choices enable each of us to express ourselves in a preferred way. I prefer to offer Merry Christmas because it has meaning in its language that I understand best and represents the best expression I’ve got to give. The P.C. Police stand ready to chastise us for choosing the “wrong” form of expression. I’m giving others a gift of my heartfelt wishes; Merry Christmas enables me to present those wishes with the clearest and strongest meaning I know. By watering the message down to Happy Holidays, I feel like I’m cheating you, giving you less than the best I have to offer.

I can accept that not everyone will be happy with my gift of Merry Christmas. Some will take offense, but that’s because they choose to be offended. They’re so concerned with their own selfish perspective of the way things ought to be, they can’t see my gift for what it is. Let’s face it; some people are looking for reasons to be offended.

Give Your Gift Any Way
You must be willing to get into trouble now and then if you’re ever going to be comfortable using your preferred greeting at every opportunity. When you occasionally find someone who takes exception, is offended and won’t accept your gift, don’t blame yourself for their problem. I refuse to walk on eggshells because someone might want to pick a fight over my choice of words. Saying Merry Christmas doesn’t mean I’m pushing religion; I don’t expect anyone will convert to Christianity because I offered them a Merry Christmas!

I encourage you to join The League of the Politically Inept and give your greeting gifts at every opportunity during December. I’m convinced most people appreciate it, and your encouragement emboldens them to do the same. When December is over the politically inept will have had a lot more fun than the politically correct. Don’t forget the reason you celebrate this season, and continue to be generous with your gift of your favorite greeting.

Copyright 2007 Paul Johnson

Shannon

Garry Gamber asked:


Will Rogers was an amazing person and one of the wisest men of any generation. His accomplishments include being a champion lasso thrower, a performer on the Broadway stage, the star of 71 movies, a radio broadcaster, an author of six books, and a syndicated newspaper columnist. Will Rogers traveled around the world three times and befriended presidents, senators, prime ministers, and kings.

Will Rogers was famous for his simple, insightful humor and his ability to connect honestly with everyone he met. His comments about politics in general and the politics of his generation are among his most memorable. The following are some of the best Will Rogers political quotes.

There’s no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.

Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate; now what’s going to happen to us with both a Senate and a House?

I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.

I don’t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.

The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that’s out always looks the best.

The income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf has.

On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does.

The man with the best job in the country is the Vice President. All he has to do is get up every morning and say, “How’s the President?”

An economist’s guess is liable to be as good as anybody else’s.

Alexander Hamilton started the U.S. Treasury with nothing — and that was the closest our country has ever been to being even.

If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?

Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.

Politics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated.

Diplomacy is the art of saying “Nice doggie” until you can find a rock.

A fool and his money are soon elected.

About all I can say for the United States Senate is that it opens with a prayer and closes with an investigation.

Our Constitution protects aliens, drunks, and U.S. Senators.

Anything important is never left to the vote of the people. We only get to vote on some man; we never get to vote on what he is to do.

Politics is applesauce.

Diplomats are just as essential to starting a war as soldiers are for finishing it… You take diplomacy out of war, and the thing would fall flat in a week.

I bet after seeing us, George Washington would sue us for calling him “father.”

There ought to be one day—just one—when there is open season on senators.

The country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.

If I studied all my life, I couldn’t think up half the number of funny things passed in one session of Congress.

If you ever injected truth into politics you’d have no politics.

Things in our country run in spite of government, not by aid of it.

We don’t seem to be able to check crime, so why not legalize it and then tax it out of business?

Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke.

Liberty doesn’t work as well in practice as it does in speeches.

Ohio claims they are due a president as they haven’t had one since Taft. Look at the United States; they have not had one since Lincoln.

The 1928 Republican Convention opened with a prayer. If the Lord can see His way clear to bless the Republican Party the way it’s been carrying on, then the rest of us ought to get it without even asking.

There is no more independence in politics than there is in jail.

All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that’s an alibi for my ignorance.

Will Rogers was asked about the nature of his humorous remarks about politicians. “I have often said in answer to inquiries as to how I got away with kidding some of our public men, that it was because I liked all of them personally, and that if there was no malice in your heart there could be none in your gags, and I have always said I never met a man I didn’t like.”

Lance

mars.twin asked:


For a history project, I’m supposed to write about 19th century England politics and how imperialism affected it. But I can’t find much information about the subject. Does anyone know of some websites that have information? Thank you.

Michael

Amira C asked:


I would like to know…
Are you a young person that is interested in politics and current affairs?
If so what issues are you most concerned about or interested in?
What viewpoints do you have? Would you classify yourself as a Conservative, a Liberal or somewhere in between?

If you are a young person that is not interested why not?

And for older people…
How important do you think it is for young people to be involved?

Gail