The study of the American democracy in today's world

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Russian Ministry of Education and Science

Scientific study

THE STUDY OF THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IN TODAY'S WORLD

Author: Nazarov Roman Vladimirovich

Scientific adviser: Pfeifer Marina Anatolievna

Slavgorod - 2009

Contents

Introductory part

1. The Concepts of Democracy

2. The Kinds of Democracy

2.1 Indirect democracy

2.2 Representative democracy

2.3 Parliamentary democracy

2.4 Liberal democracy

2.5 Direct democracy

3. The History of the Development of Democracy in America

3.1 The reasons of establishing democracy in America

3.2 A brief history of the USA

3.3 Choosing the kind of democracy

3.4 The US Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution

4. Foundations of Democracy. Benefits and Costs

4.1 Authority

4.2 Privacy

4.3 Responsibility

4.4 Justice

5. Americans in Today's World

5.1 National values of Americans

5.2 The USA in today's world

5.3 The US policy of double standards

Conclusion

The list of the used literature

Introductory part

В XX веке значительно возросла образовательная значимость изучения иностранных языков, их профессиональная функция на рынке труда в целом, что повлекло за собой усиление мотивации в их изучении. Существенно изменился также социокультурный контекст изучения иностранных языков во всех странах Европы, включая Россию. Факт вхождения России в Совет Европы определил необходимость согласования образовательных стандартов России с общими европейскими стандартами. Применительно к иностранному языку в материалах Совета Европы [8] рассматривается два вида компетенций в области иностранного языка: общие компетенции (General competences) и коммуникативная языковая компетенция (Communicative language competence). Понятие "коммуникативная компетенция" включает в себя целый ряд компонентов, среди которых особое место занимает социокультурная компетенция (sociocultural competence), т.е. - знание культурных особенностей носителя языка, их привычек, традиций, норм поведения и этикета и умение понимать и адекватно использовать их в процессе общения, оставаясь при этом носителем другой культуры; формирование социокультурной компетенции предполагает интеграцию личности в системе мировой и национальной культур.

В связи с этим язык выступает как средство познания картины мира, приобщения к ценностям, созданным другими народами. Одновременно язык - это ключ для открытия уникальности и своеобразия собственной народной самобытности и исторических достижений представителей других культур. Такой взгляд находит отклик и в Концепции модернизации российского образования, определяющей цели общего образования на период до 2010 года и подчеркивающей необходимость "ориентации образования не только на усвоение обучающимися определенной суммы знаний, но и на развитие его личности, его познавательных и созидательных способностей" [1].

Лингвострановедение и страноведение - одна из языковых дисциплин, занимающаяся комплексным изучением стран мира, а также их крупных частей (районов) и региональных группировок. Страноведение систематизирует и обобщает разнородные данные об их природе, населении, хозяйстве, культуре и социальной организации. [4]

Среди прочих сфер жизни страны изучаемого языка изучение политического строя представляется нам особенно важным и актуальным в настоящее время, в связи с процессами глобализации, расширения и качественного изменения характера международных связей. Данная работ посвящена изучению политического строя Соединенных Штатов Америки. США заявляют о себе как о стране развитой демократии.

Многие страны, которые никогда не являлись демократическими, называют себя таковыми. Это происходит из-за отсутствия единого чёткого определения демократии. Под словом "демократия" обычно подразумевают народовластие. Это слово, как и сам принцип, зародились в древней Греции. Там под демократией подразумевалось управление города "демосом", то есть общими собраниями всех полноправных жителей. Конечно, эта система была далека от идеала. К полноправным жителям в древних Афинах относилось не более 30 % населения; права голоса не имели женщины, переселенцы из других городов и рабы. Однако греческая демократия в какой-то степени соответствовала своему названию, в конце концов, она, хотя бы формально, основывалась на прямом принятии решений самими гражданами на их суверенном общем собрании. Совершенно иной смысл вкладывают в понятие демократии современные демократы в России и на Западе. В данной работе мы попытаемся рассмотреть, как изменилась демократия со времён её появления в Древней Греции, а также особенности устройства американской демократии.

США, будучи высокоразвитой и одной из ведущих стран мира, является одной из ярких представителей демократических стран. Но многие политические события последних лет заставляют задуматься над правомерностью этого утверждения. Страна, где демократический строй был основан более 200 лет назад, открыто практикует политику двойных стандартов, силой навязывает свой политический строй другим странам, как они говорят, распространяют свободу, несут демократию. После событий, произошедших в Америке 11 сентября 2001 года, рядовые жители Америки, которые до этого даже и не задумывались о том, что о них думают другие страны, считая свою страну идеальной, вдруг стали смотреть на мир и своё место в нём. Политики, воспользовавшись моментом и объявив начало войны с мировым терроризмом, развязали войну в Ираке под предлогом поиска ядерного оружия. Такие события оказывают глобальное влияние на мир в целом, нарушая хрупкий баланс сил на мировой арене. Нельзя не признавать объективного существования взаимозависимости государств в современном мире, где огромную роль играет разница политических идеалов, менталитета, национальных ценностей, политического устройства стран. В данной работе делается попытка анализа понятия "демократия" в идеальном варианте и проявления американской демократии в современном мире.

Для того чтобы выстроить логику исследования в данной выпускной квалификационной работе, используется следующий методологический аппарат:

Объектная область: Лингвострановедение и страноведение Соединённых Штатов Америки.

Объект исследования: Политическое устройство Соединённых Штатов Америки.

Предмет исследования: Американская демократия в современном мире.

Проблема: Воплощает ли американская демократия в своем современном проявлении идеалы демократического государственного устройства, заложенные отцами-основателями в 1789 году?

Гипотеза: мы предполагаем, что данный политический строй обнаруживает несоответствия основных принципов демократического устройства и их современного проявления в США.

Цель: выявить несоответствия основных принципов демократического устройства и их современного воплощения в США.

Задачи:

1. Изучить различные концепции понятия "демократия".

2. Рассмотреть виды демократии.

3. Проследить историю развития демократии в Америке.

4. Изучить основы государственного демократического строя в США.

5. Исследовать современное положение США в мире.

6. Проанализировать отдельные события внутренней и внешней политики США с точки зрения их соответствия демократическим идеалам государственного устройства.

1. The Concepts of Democracy

Democracy presents a very interesting subject for the analysis as the phenomenon it denotes undergoes a lot of transformations in real world. To start any research one needs to be aware of the terms and definitions. But such a difficult, multilateral concept as democracy, apparently, hasn't, and can't have one simple definition and, besides, it can't have only one correct definition or presentation. Russian and foreign authors have written many books and articles on problems of democracy, have delivered thousands of various points of view and opinions in which they tried to explain what democracy is and what it cannot be, what connections it has with the state, laws and society. However the question "What is democracy?" is still rather disputable and not fully solved.

Western scholars tried to explain, what democracy is, and they consider, for example, that democracy is:

· Direct or indirect (through elective representatives) governance of the country by people; [22]

· The State, the country, the community, which has the democratic government; [22]

· Governing of the majority; [22]

· Perception and realization of the principle of equality of rights and freedom of citizens, as well as their opportunities. [23]

There is no single or even general conception of democracy, its notion, essence and contents. This absence of definition opens huge opportunities for its interpretation and allows giving the democratic name to the states, governing regimes and political systems that have never been democratic. To prove it, it's enough to tell that in the present epoch called the epoch of democracy, there has not been a state or regime, which would not call itself democratic, working on behalf of all citizens and in peoples' interests.

To prevent abusing the term "democracy" and to apply it more effectively it is rather important to develop at least a general notion of democracy. Democracy can be formed with its attributes that have been produced for centuries, confirmed by life. Among these attributes it is necessary to point out, first of all, the following:

1. Democracy is always associated with people, their will and interests. The understanding of such concepts as people, authority and democracy has a temporary, historical character. During the process of development of a society, the understandings of the concepts change. It's rather interesting to find out the original understanding of democracy and democrats. First of all, it is necessary to say that in early sources democrats were described as people who did not try to take part in state affairs after the cause of the people had won, but those people, who would wish to be endanger for the sake of you, when the state was in trouble. According to the same early sources each adherent of democracy should have the following qualities: Firstly, "he must to be well-born." Secondly, the true democrat must have the ancestors who "made something good for people of the country, or at least did not feel animosity towards people of the country." Thirdly, he must be "judicious and modest in his daily life". It is necessary to prevent impetuous wastefulness and bribes and not to operate contrary to people's interests. Fourthly, the democrat must be "a reasonable and skillful orator. Because it is good when the judiciousness of the orator helps him to choose best decisions, and his scholarship and eloquence convince his listeners". Fifthly, the true democrat must be "a person of a brave heart, to not leave the country or city during disasters and dangers.

2. Democracy, in real life, is the complex and multisided phenomenon materialized in various spheres of life and displayed in uncountable ways and means. It is by no means reduced to political sphere of life of the society or the state as it is sometimes treated in literature, but it is also referred to other spheres such as economic, social, cultural, scientific, and ideological. Democracy cannot be reduced only to one of the spheres of life of a society, as well as it cannot be considered only in one of its manifestations.

3. In reality there is no and can't be common democratic ideals for different strata of society possessing different and incompatible values and interests. Every social strata has its own ideals and understanding of two main components of democracy: "demos" - people and "cratos" - authority and, of humanism and justice in establishing and exercising the authority of "true" democracy.

4. And "it would be most awful, - said one of the ideologists of antique democracy, - in the democratic state not to have equal rights for everybody, not to have at least formal equality, to acknowledge the dominating role of people, " having a lot of property"". [9;124] For maintenance of unity of the society and the state with not only compulsory, but also incentive, ideological measures, there should be at least an illusion of equality of all social strata and classes, an illusion of their identical access to the riches created by whole society and to levers of governing the state.

In fact, the state of affairs is far from being so. A dominant role in early and modern societies, in all ever existing democracies has been played by only prosperous, rich strata of the population and classes that monopolized access to authority.

Now it's important to give a contemporary definition of democracy. According to the encyclopedic dictionary, democracy is "the form of the state, based on the recognition of people to be the source of authority, their right to participate in considering the state affairs, in a combination with the broad range of civil rights and liberties" [6]. Originally democracy, in its modern interpretation, having arisen in Greece, literally meant "people's authority" (from demos - people and kratos - authority). The same concept is put in the given term nowadays. At first let's decide what the word "people" means in this definition. This definition covers such social strata, groups, and classes, "which according to their objective position are capable of participating in the decision of problems of progressive development of a society". It is, mainly, "the working class - the creator of the history, the leading force of radical public transformations". At different times some social strata were not included in this definition, for example: slaves in time of slaveholding system, serfs in feudal period. Now the term "authority" should be considered in details. In dictionaries it is interpreted as follows: "the right and opportunity to rule, to be in charge of actions, behavior of somebody or the tool of maintenance of the certain order in a society, in a state, its organization and governance" [6]. The word "authority" or "power" as its synonym in ordinary life and in the scientific literature are used in different senses. Philosophers speak of power over the objective laws of a society, sociologists speak of social authority, economists - of economic authority, lawyers - of the state authority, political scientists - of political authority, scientists - of power over nature, psychologists - of power of a person over oneself, parents - of family authority, theologians - of authority from God.

In the definition of democracy the authority comes, mainly, only to the state phenomenon (the state, legislative, executive and judicial authority), also authority, as well as democracy is associated with the whole society, with all public, or to be more exact, publicly political authority.

The integral part of any democracy is the sovereignty of people. The sovereignty means, that it is people that manifests itself as a lawful source of authority. Democracy is based on recognition of people as a source of authority. The major principles of democracy are the power of the majority, the equality of citizens, the protection of their rights and liberties, the supremacy of law, the separation of powers, the electivity of the head of the state and representative bodies.

Democracy ensures complete freedom in decision what is good and what is bad for people. Therefore, if it is ignored and a political party or the government decides which economic structure, which political system, and, eventually, which mode of life is more appropriate for people, such a society cannot be democratic.

Under democracy, the government is totality of senior heads chosen by the people, who for the best performance of state affairs employ staff of officials. Thus, people not only choose, but also pay for their governing body. Thus, democracy means freedom not only in a choice of a regime, but also in defining the size of the taxes taken from citizens. Through taxes citizens pay for services of the management personnel, therefore only they have the right to define whether the staff copes with the task or not. It means that if in a country common people do not influence the goals of their taxes, if they cannot reduce the state machinery, in this case it is impossible to speak of democracy.

Therefore, we have come to the conclusion, that in this paper, democracy will be considered not as an ideal of the development of world's humanity, but only as a control system, a technology of authority and all questions connected with it will be discussed only from this point of view.

2. The Kinds of Democracy

It must be pointed out that the term "democracy" is so broad in its meaning that there is a need to distinguish between different kinds of democracy, such as:

1. Indirect democracy,

2. Representative democracy,

3. Parliamentary democracy,

4. Liberal democracy,

5. Constitutional democracy,

6. Direct democracy,

7. Socialist democracy,

8. Anarchist democracy,

9. Sortition,

10. Interactive democracy.

The further lines of our graduation paper are devoted to pointing out basic characteristics of different kinds of democracy. [23]

2.1 Indirect democracy

Indirect democracy is a broad term describing a means of governance by the people through elected representatives. The most common system found in today's democratic states is the representative democracy. The people elect government officials who then make decisions on their behalf. Essentially, a representative democracy is a form of indirect democracy in which representatives are democratically selected, and usually difficult to recall. One form of indirect democracy is parliamentary democracy, where the government is appointed by parliamentary representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' by decree dictatorship. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.

2.2 Representative democracy

There are two general forms of representative democracy. A Plurality voting system and a Proportional representation. The first usually results in a two party system like the one in USA, while the other gives room for a multi party system like the one in most western European nations. Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. It is more properly called a democratic republic. The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes. Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district, or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so. The representatives from more than what it used to be when it was a independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives. In many representative democracies (Canada, Australia, UK, etc.), representatives are most commonly chosen in elections by a plurality of those who are both eligible to cast votes and actually do so. A plurality means that a winning candidate has to win more votes than any other candidate in the race, but does not necessarily require a majority of the votes cast. While existing representative democracies hold such elections to choose representatives, in theory other methods, such as sortition (more closely aligned with direct democracy), could be used instead. Also, representatives sometimes hold the power to select other representatives, presidents, or other officers of government.

A representative democracy that emphasizes individual liberties is called a liberal democracy. That does not mean that representative democracy is an illiberal democracy. There is no necessity that individual liberties are respected in a representative democracy.

Today, in liberal democracies, representatives are usually elected in free, secret-ballot, multi-party elections. The power of representatives in a liberal democracy is usually curtailed by a constitution or other measures to balance representative power such as:

· An independent judiciary, which may have the power to declare legislative acts unconstitutional (e.g. Supreme Court).

· It may also provide for some deliberative democracy (e.g. Royal Commissions) or direct democracy measures (e.g., initiative, referendum, recall elections). However, these are not always binding and usually require some legislative action - legal power usually remains firmly with representatives.

· In some cases, a bicameral legislature may have an "upper house" that is not directly elected, such as the Canadian Senate, which was in turn modeled on the British House of Lords.

2.3 Parliamentary democracy

Parliamentary democracy is the one where government is appointed by parliamentary representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' by decree dictatorship. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.

Parliamentary systems are characterized by no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to a different set of checks and balances compared to those found in presidential systems. Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state, with the head of government being the prime minister or premier, and the head of state often being a figurehead, often either a president (elected either popularly or by the parliament) or by a hereditary monarch (often in a constitutional monarchy). The term parliamentary system does not mean that a country is ruled by different parties in coalition with each other. Such multi-party arrangements are usually the product of an electoral system known as proportional representation. Many parliamentary countries have governments composed of one party. However, parliamentary systems in continental Europe do use proportional representation, and tend to produce election results in which no single party has a majority of seats. Proportional representation in a non-parliamentary system does not have this result. Parliamentarianism may also be for governance in local governments. An example is the city of Oslo, which has an executive council as a part of the parliamentary system. The council-manager system of municipal government used in some U.S. cities bears many similarities to a parliamentary system.

2.4 Liberal democracy

Liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities. Liberal or Constitutional democracies are the dominant form of democracies in the 21st century. During the Cold War, liberal democracies were contrasted with the Communist People's Republic or "Popular Democracies", which claimed an alternative conception of democracy. Today, constitutional democracies are mostly contrasted with direct democracy. Liberal democracies may take various constitutional forms: they may be republics, as the United States or France, or constitutional monarchy, as the United Kingdom or Spain. It may have a presidential system (the United States), a parliamentary system (Westminster system, the UK and Commonwealth countries), or a hybrid, semi-presidential system (France). The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that liberal democracies feature constitutional protections of individual rights from government power, which were first proposed during the Age of Enlightenment by philosophers who formulated theories of social contract. At present, there are numerous countries ruled by non-liberal political parties - for example parties that uphold conservatism, Christian democracy, social democracy, or some forms of socialism - which are considered to have liberal democracy as their form of government. Liberal democracies today usually have universal suffrage, granting all adult citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership. Historically, however, some countries regarded as liberal democracies have had a more limited franchise, and some do not have secret ballots. There may also be qualifications such as voters being required to register before being allowed to vote. The decisions made through elections are made not by all of the citizens, but rather by those who choose to participate by voting. According to the principles of liberal democracy, the elections should be free and fair, and the political process should be competitive. Political pluralism is usually defined as the presence of multiple and distinct political parties. The liberal democratic constitution defines the democratic character of the state. The purpose of a constitution is often seen as a limit on the authority of the government. The Anglo-American political tradition emphasizes the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. In practice, democracies do have specific limits on specific freedoms. There are various legal limitations such as copyright and laws against defamation. There may be limits on anti-democratic speech, on attempts to undermine human rights, and on the promotion or justification of terrorism. The common justification for these limits is that they are necessary to guarantee the existence of democracy, or the existence of the freedoms themselves. For example, allowing free speech for those advocating mass murder undermines the right to life and security. Opinion is divided on how far democracy can extend to include the enemies of democracy in the democratic process. If relatively small numbers of people are excluded from such freedoms for these reasons, a country may still be seen as a liberal democracy. Some argue that this is not qualitatively different from autocracies that persecutes opponents, but only quantitatively different, since only a small number of people are affected and the restrictions are less severe. Others emphasize that democracies are different. At least in theory, opponents of democracy are also allowed due process under the rule of law. In principle, democracies allow criticism and change of the leaders and the political and economic system itself; it is only attempts to do so violently and the promotion of such violence that is prohibited.

2.5 Direct democracy

Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue i.e. procedure of voting. Most direct democracies to date have been weak forms, relatively small communities, usually city-states. In Switzerland, five million voters decide on national referendums and initiatives two to four times a year; direct democratic instruments are also well established at the cantonal and communal level. Vermont towns have been known for their yearly town meetings, held every March to decide on local issues. No direct democracy is in existence outside the framework of a different overarching form of government.

Direct democracy, classically termed "pure democracy", comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect and dismiss officials and conduct trials. Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, usually on the basis of election. However, it is possible to combine the two into representative direct democracy. Deliberative democracy incorporates elements of both direct democracy and representative democracy. Many countries that are representative democracies allow for three forms of political action that provide limited direct democracy: initiative, referendum and recall. Referendums can include the ability to hold a binding referendum on whether a given law should be scrapped. This effectively grants the populace a veto on government legislation. Recalls gives the people the right to remove from office elected officials before the end of their term.

3. The History of the Development of Democracy in America

3.1 The reasons of establishing democracy in America

The first settlers, who came to America, wanted a political system that offered stability but limited the power of individuals, so they set up a democratic system. Life in the colonies also helped strengthen democratic ideas. They had to work together to build shelter, provide food, clear the land for farms and in general to make their new home land livable for them. This need for cooperation and sharing, combined with a belief in individualism, strengthened the idea that in the New World people were equal; that no one should have special rights and privileges.

3.2 A brief history of the USA

To understand the reasons of establishing a democratic political system in the USA it is necessary to have an insight into the history of the USA.

The first Europeans to reach North America were Icelandic Vikings, led by Leif Ericson, about the year 1000. The traces of their visit have been found in the Canadian province of Newfoundland, but the Vikings failed to establish a permanent settlement and soon lost contact with the new continent.

Five centuries later, the demand for Asian spices, textiles, and dyes spurred European navigators to dream of shorter routes between East and West. Acting on behalf of the Spanish crown, in 1492 the Italian navigator Christopher Columbus sailed west from Europe and landed on one of the Bahamas Islands in the Caribbean Sea. Within 40 years, Spanish adventurers had carved out a huge empire in Central and South America.

The first successful English colony was founded in the 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. A few years later, English Puritans came to America to escape religious persecution for their opposition to the Church of England. In 1620, the Puritans founded Plymouth Colony in what later became Massachusetts. Plymouth was the second permanent British settlement in North America and the first in New England.

In New England the Puritans hoped to build a "city upon a hill" - an ideal community. They believed that government should enforce God's morality. In spite of their own quest for religious freedom, the Puritans practiced a form of intolerant moralism. In 1636 an English clergyman named Roger Williams left Massachusetts and founded the colony of Rhode Island, based on the principles of religious freedom and separation of church and state, two ideals that were later adopted by framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Soon afterwards England and its colonies were in conflict. The mother country imposed new taxes, in part to defray the cost of fighting the Seven Years' War, and expected Americans to lodge British soldiers in their homes. The colonists resented the taxes and resisted the quartering of soldiers. Insisting that they could be taxed only by their own colonial assemblies, the colonists rallied behind the slogan "no taxation without representation".

All the taxes, except one on tea, were removed, but in 1773 a group of patriots responded by staging the Boston Tea Party. Disguised as Indians, they boarded British merchant ships and dumped 342 crates of tea into Boston harbour. This provoked a crackdown by the British Parliament, including the closing of Boston harbour to shipping. Colonial leaders convened the First Continental Congress in 1774 to discuss the colonies' opposition to British rule. War broke out on April 19, 1775, when British soldiers confronted colonial rebels in Lexington, Massachusetts. On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted a Declaration of Independence.

The beginning of the Revolutionary War went badly for the Americans. With few provisions and little training, American troops generally fought well, but were outnumbered and overpowered by the British. The turning point in the war came in 1777 when American soldiers defeated the British Army at Saratoga, New York. Following the Americans' victory at Saratoga, France and America signed treaties of alliance, and France provided the Americans with troops and warships.

The last major battle of the American Revolution took place at Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781. A combined force of American and French troops surrounded the British and forced their surrender. Fighting continued in some areas for two more years, and the war officially ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, by which England recognized American independence.

3.3 Choosing the kind of democracy

The colonists set up a democratic system, but in the chosen of the appropriate kind of democracy were many contradictions.

Historian Jack Weatherford argues that Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and others, got their ideas on democracy not from any Greek or Roman influence, but from the Iroquois and other indigenous peoples of the American continent, who practiced the type of democracy found in the United States Constitution, through self-governing territories that were part of a larger whole. [18] This democracy was founded between the years 1000-1450, and lasted several hundred years. He also states that American democracy was continually changed and improved by the influence of Native Americans throughout North America. For example, the right of women to vote started on the American frontier, and moved eastward. In other words, Americans learned democracy from the indigenous peoples of the North America.

Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers (Founding Fathers) of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Generally speaking the Founding fathers or framers are the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence or otherwise participated in the American Revolution as leaders of the Patriots. If to appeal to the biography of the framers we can see, that there were 74 delegates to the United States Constitutional Convention from 12 states (Rhode Island did not send delegates) they represented a cross-section of 18th century American leadership. Almost all of them were well-educated men of means who were leaders in their communities. Many were also prominent in national affairs. Virtually every one had taken part in the American Revolution; at least 29 had served in the Continental Army, most of them in positions of command.

They (the framers) saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says, "A pure (direct) democracy can admit no cure for the mischief's of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." [25]John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "Pure (direct) democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state - it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said that "a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government". [22]Experience has proved that no position is more false than this.

Despite the framers' intentions in the beginning of the republic, ballot measures and their corresponding referendums have been widely used at the state and sub-state level. There is much state and federal case law, from the early 1900s to the 1990s, that protects the people's right to each of these direct democracy governance components. The first United States Supreme Court ruling in favor of the citizen lawmaking was in Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon-in 1912. President Theodore Roosevelt, in his "Charter of Democracy" speech to the 1912 Ohio constitutional convention, stated "I believe in the Initiative and Referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative." So as a result there are now a total of 24 U.S. states with constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, direct democracy governance components.

Even in states where direct democracy components are scant or nonexistent at the state level, there often exist local options for deciding specific issues, such as whether a county should be "wet" or "dry" in terms of whether alcohol sales are allowed.

3.4 The US Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution

The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, announcing that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were no longer a part of the British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration is a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The birthday of the United States of America - Independence Day. It is celebrated on July 4. After approving the wording on July 4, Congress issued the Declaration of Independence in several forms.

The American representative (indirect) democratic system in the form of a constitutional republic was established in March 1789 in the Constitution of the United States. In this system, rights and powers are divided between the individual states and the central or federal government. The federal government has three branches: the executive, the legislature, the judiciary. The power of each branch is carefully balanced by the power of each of the others. But before the constitution was the Articles of Confederation, it is the agreement made by the original 13 states in 1777 establishing a confederacy to be known as the United States of America; replaced by the Constitution of 1788, it is failed as a governing document for the United States because the states did not cooperate as expected. When it came time to pay wages to the national army or the war debt to France, some states refused to contribute. To cure this weakness, the congress asked each state to send a delegate to a convention. The so-called Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in May of 1787, with George Washington presiding.

The delegates struck a balance between those who wanted a strong central government and those who did not. The Constitution set up a system in which some powers were given to the national, or federal, government, while others were reserved for the states. The Constitution divided the national government into three parts, or branches: the legislative (the Congress, which consists of a House of Representatives and a Senate), the executive (headed by the president), and the judicial (the federal courts). This division called "separation of powers," gives each branch certain duties and substantial independence from the others. It also gives each branch some authority over the others through a system of "checks and balances."

The Constitution written in Philadelphia in 1787 could not go into effect until it was ratified by a majority of citizens in at least 9 of the then 13 U.S. states. During this ratification process, misgivings arose. Many citizens felt uneasy because the document failed to explicitly guarantee the rights of individuals. The desired language was added in 10 amendments to the Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights guarantees Americans freedom of speech, of religion, and of the press. They have the right to assemble in public places, to protest government actions, and to demand change. There is a right to own firearms. Because of the Bill of Rights, neither police officers nor soldiers can stop and search a person without good reason. Nor can they search a person's home without permission from a court to do so. The Bill of Rights guarantees a speedy trial to anyone accused of a crime. The trial must be by jury if requested, and the accused person must be allowed representation by a lawyer and to call witnesses to speak for him or her. Cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden. With the addition of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution was signed by all 13 states and went into effect in 1789.

Since then 27 other amendments have been added to the Constitution. The most important and, sure, worth mentioning are the Thirteenth and Fourteenth, which outlaw slavery and guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws, and the Nineteenth, which gives women the right to vote.

The Constitution can be amended in either of two ways. Congress can propose an amendment, provided that two-thirds of the members of both the House and the Senate vote in favour of it. Or the legislatures of two-thirds of the states can call a convention to propose amendments. (This second method has never been used.) In either case a proposed amendment does not go into effect until ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Abraham Lincoln, the 16^th president of the USA emphasized the main principle of a democratic government. In his most famous speech, the Gettysburg Address of 1863, he spoke of his commitment to unity of the United States and his belief in democracy and freedom. His idea of government was one "of the people, by the people, for the people".

4. Foundations of Democracy. Benefits and Costs

This part of the graduation paper is devoted to the four ideas, which are basic to American constitutional form of the government: authority, privacy, responsibility, and justice. These are not only ideas that need to be grasped in order to understand the foundations of the US government, but they are crucial to evaluating the important differences between a constitutional democracy and a society that is not free. These points are worth saying because Americans, as they say, must bear costs or burdens in order to preserve their freedom and the values on which their nation was founded. And there are many situations in which hard choices need to be made between competing values and interests. And for them to help to bear these costs and to make hard choices these four ideas were created. These four ideas are their understanding of the system of the government; it's their point of view on the world.

4.1 Authority

"We hold these Truths to be self evident…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…" [16; 2]This quotation from the Declaration of Independence contains one of Americans' most basic ideas about government: we, the people, give our government the authority to rule us. We give the government the right, under certain conditions and limitations, to control our lives, liberty, and property. We, as citizens, retain the ultimate right to control how our government uses the authority we have delegated to it. We exert this control by exercising our right to vote, by participating in the political process, and by having the government adheres to the limitations the Constitution imposes. The Founding Fathers intended a system of checks and balances which ideally limits concentration of power in any one of the three branches. First of all let's answer the question - what is authority? The issues of authority confront people every day - at home, at school, in jobs, and in government. In government, authority is often used interchangeably with the term "power". However, their meanings differ: power is the ability to control or direct something or someone. Sometimes people have the right to use power; sometimes they do not. For example: when a thief robs a person at gunpoint, he has the power to do so, but he does not have the right. When the Supreme Court says a law is unconstitutional, it has both the power and the right to do so. And authority is power combined with the right to use that power. The right to use power usually comes from laws, customs, or principles of morality. For example the police officers have the authority to arrest a person because the law gives them that right. Congress has the authority to pass a law because the Constitution gives it that right. The next important point is the sources of authority. But first of all let's decide where we can find the authority. The first place is rules and laws. They control people's behavior. In this sense, they have authority. For example, when a pupil obeys a law requiring him to attend school, he is recognizing the authority of that law. The next place where we can find the authority is customs. They are ways of behavior that people have engaged in for a long time. When customs control people's behavior, they may be said to have authority. For example, when people follow the practice of "first come, first served," you are recognizing the authority of well-established custom. Another place where we can find the authority is roles or professions. Certain roles carry with them the right to control people, no matter who fills these roles. For example, anyone filling the role of a police officer has the authority to require people to obey traffic laws. Next - is different institutions. Groups of people working together in certain institutions also have the authority to control or influence others. For example, Congress as an institution, and not its individual members, has the authority to pass laws that people must obey. And one more place where we can find the authority is principles of morality. Fundamental ideas about right and wrong that come from religion, ethics, and individual conscience often govern people's behavior. For example, the Bible has authority for many people.

Authority has a number of important purposes:

· Authority can be used to protect important rights and freedoms. For example, the constitution protects people's freedoms of expression and belief.

· Authority can be used to ensure that resources and burdens will be distributed fairly. For example, American government sees that all children have an equal opportunity to receive a public education.

· Authority can be used to manage conflict peacefully and fairly. For example, American judicial system has the authority to provide a fair trial for a person accused of a crime.

When making decisions about issues of authority, it is important to identify the possible benefits (advantages) and costs (disadvantages) involved. Benefits might include the following:

· Security. The use of authority may make people feel more secure by providing a predictable order and by protecting the rights of individuals and groups. For example, laws against murder, assault, drunk driving, and other offenses are uses of authority that provide security.

· Fairness. People can use authority to promote the fair distribution of recourses and the fair management of conflicts. For example, laws protect people's rights to a hearing in court. democracy america history strategy

· Freedom. Laws such as the Bill of Rights may protect the individual's right to freedom of religion and expression.

· Efficiency. The clear assignment of responsibilities to various authorities may promote greater efficiency in making and carrying out decisions. For example, a principal might assign administrative tasks to several teachers to ensure the smooth operation of the school.

· Quality of life. Laws and the people who enforce them may protect and improve the quality of life. For example, laws may forbid the dumping of poisonous substances near water supplies.

· Accountability. When Americans place people in positions of authority, they can hold them accountable for fulfilling the responsibilities of their jobs. For example, voters can hold the president accountable for performing the duties of his or her office as listed in the Constitution.

· Provision of essential services. We can provide some services we need by passing laws and appointing people to positions of authority to perform these services. For example, laws may allow hiring teachers, police officers, welfare workers, and health and safety inspectors.

Costs might include the following:

· Misuse of power. People filling positions of authority might misuse their positions and the power allocated to them.

...