Autocratic and Democratic Leadership

There are numerous advantages and drawbacks of both autocratic and democratic federal authorities, not to mention, lots of apparent variations. Surprisingly, there are likewise some similarities in between these two distinct governing designs. Autocracy as outlined by the Merriam Webster on-line dictionary is, “A government in which somebody has countless energy.” Opposingly, democracy as outlined by Danzinger, teacher and former chair of the department of presidency on the University of California is “A governance by leaders whose authority is predicated on a limited mandate from a universal voters that selects amongst real choices and has some rights to political participation and opposition” (173 ).

Most leadership qualities can be categorized into these two groups extra separating them into 2 distinctive management designs. An autocratic chief tends to guide with an iron fist comparable to the design of a police state, whereas a democratic leader tends to take a somewhat softer technique governing with approval and compliance from individuals. Throughout this paper I will provide an evaluation of basic qualities of each autocratic and democratic authorities and leaders, in addition to a quick introduction of the favorable and unfavorable parts of both governing techniques.

Each governing design is made to work within its own surroundings, governing its people and doing what is best for its nation.

Autocracy requires an absence of separation of powers, so absolutely the ruler can’t beopposed by any other efficient source. For example, a checks and balances’ system would hinder an autocratic federal authorities as a end result of the leader would not have outright power.

Autocracies can take the kind of a totalitarian/dictoral federal authorities, where a country is under the rule of 1 individual. Often times, autocratic rulers work to better their nations only because it in turn offers wonderful benefits for the rulers themselves. “An autocratic federal government is one which takes full advantage of the online income the ruling clique extracts from the relaxation of the population; this extraction, in flip, is the excellence in between the tax revenues the routine gathers and the quantities it invests on public services, navy activities, and curiosity.” (Niskanan, 182).

Basically, out of the increase in output that results from the net income extracted from the inhabitants, the chief obtains extra resources for his or her personal functions than for the general public. Also, for the reason that public population is a supply of tax-income for the leader, the chief then has incentive to guard his or her individuals from warfare, terrorist attacks, etc. Hence, the monopolization of earnings tax can even have a positive have an result on on most of the people. The public can additionally be benefitted as a end result of they get hold of the revenue they have made that has not been taken in taxes.

A commonly used phrase individuals use when talking about autocratic governments is, “An absolute ruler fails absolutely,” but is this necessarily the case in an autocratic government? Unlimited power of a ruler could solely be thought of harmful if it falls into the incorrect arms. The time period autocracy has become synonymous with the title of dictator, however, not all dictatorships are necessarily a unfavorable form of government. For example, Hugo Chavez, leader of Venezuela has created the Bolivarian Revolution, “A shut duplicate of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal-a progressive revenue tax, public works, social security, low-cost electricity-makes him wildly well-liked with the poor. And most Venezuelans are poor” (Palast 42). On the other hand, many people argue that Chavez is in fact a nasty leader. A frequent view of the American government portrays Chavez as a threat to international oil prices and regional financial system. Just like there’s a great and dangerous aspect to autocratic leaders, there are heaps of pros and cons when carefully inspecting an autocratic authorities.

Many might argue that an autocratic style of government is corrupt and unjust. However, there are numerous constructive features of autocracy. Decisions are made quickly with out strenuous contemplation from different political powers. For example, if a dictator wished to cross a legislation making it illegal to wear blue denims in his or her nation he could move the law with out consent from anyone else. If a president wished to make the same regulation, it must be overseen and contemplated by numerous different events before passing. Not solely is an autocratic government fast to make decisions, it additionally defines a transparent backside line. Topics of controversy are not left as a lot as the interpretation of the basic public, and differing opinions usually are not expressed as a outcome of the common public inhabitants of an autocratic government is usually discouraged from expressing particular person opinions.

Unfortunately there are also many negative elements of autocracy. Mainly, it has the potential to disregard the wants of the majority. Ultimately, all decisions are left as much as the chief, creating a doubtlessly skewed consequence as far as the wants of the public go. The views and norms of a complete state may be held solely in the hands of one person and evidently could have fairly a adverse impact. Irrational choices can be made, with just about no hope of being stopped. If an autocratic leader happens to be having a nasty day and makes an irrational and harsh choice, it may have a negative influence on the entire nation.

One could wonder why the residents of an autocratic authorities would tolerate such a harsh and extreme chief, why not just overthrow him?The similar logic of collective motion that ensured that there are not any social contracts within the historical report whereby massive groups agreed to obtain the benefits of government also implies that the plenty shall not overthrow an autocrat just because they would be better off to do so. Historical evidence from no less than the primary pharos through Saddam Hussein indicates that resolute autocrats can survive even when they impose heinous amounts of struggling upon their peoples. When they are replaced, it’s for different causes (Mancur 23).

The opposite of autocracy might be regarded as democracy. Democracy is a broadly accepted form of authorities that works for the folks by allowing them to choose on their very own representation. Not solely are the individuals represented by a leader of their choice, however are additionally capable of give opinions as to the on goings of their country. “Democracy is a sign of the existence of a powerful civil society that is primarily based on various middleman teams, from women’s associations and labor unions to cooperatives and trade councils. Such groups function in all probability the best instruments for communicating social calls for to decision makers.” (Gangi 41).

Democracy is said to have originated in medieval Europe as a explanation for three details;First, late medieval Europe had quite a few political characteristics that distinguished it from other main world civilizations. These characteristics an important of which have been consultant assemblies constituted as a foundation for liberal democracy which offered Europe with a predisposition toward democratic political institutions. Second, the ‘military revolution’ of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries led to the strengthing of monarchal energy in international locations counting on home assets to finance fashionable armies. In these international locations, medieval constitutionalism was done away with and expansive autocracies had been built demolishing the predisposition. Third, in nations that avoided the army revolution, navy modernization didn’t destroy constitutional authorities, and a liberal political end result became more probably (Downing 3).

Much like autocracy requires an absence of separation of powers, democracy wants a separation of powers. A democratic government is divided into three branches. The executive branch consists of the presidential party which in turn consists of the president, the vice president, and all the cupboard members. This branch assists in finishing up the regulation. The president is allowed to move or veto a invoice despatched by the legislature. The legislative department or “Bicameral Congress” consists of the Senate (100 seats, one-third are renewed every two years; 2 members are elected from every state by well-liked vote to serve six-year terms) and the House of Representatives (435 seats; members are instantly elected by in style vote to serve two-year terms)” (

The legislative branch writes laws on a invoice to enable them to be sent to the senator, after which to the representatives, and then to the president. The judicial branch is in command of the courtroom techniques consisting of the “Supreme Court (nine justices; nominated by the president and confirmed with the recommendation and consent of the Senate; appointed to serve for life); United States Courts of Appeal; United States District Courts; State and County Courts” ( The judicial branch applies the legislation by hearing and making selections on various authorized instances. Just like some other government, democracy can differ from country to nation.

A democratic authorities could are out there in many different varieties similar to participatory democracy, representative democracy, electoral democracy, liberal democracy, and so forth, hence there are close to countless optimistic and unfavorable aspects. Singapore practices an electoral democracy where “All citizens periodically vote to have the ability to choose political leaders from amongst alternative contenders” (Danziger 173), that means that the federal government picks the candidates that the citizens can vote for. In 2006 the Freedom House described America as a liberal democracy which is a authorities where “Citizens take pleasure in not solely electoral democracy but in addition these extensive political rights and civil liberties regarding participation, private freedoms, and opposition” (173). However, I feel that America is better categorized as a consultant democracy the place “Citizens elect people to represent them within the political process and to allocate values on their behalf” (172). Because of all the totally different situations within the many kinds of democracies one may surprise what exactly defines democracy.

One of the key characteristics of American democracy is common suffrage. Universal suffrage consists of the best to vote no matter race, religion, gender, social standing, economic standing, and so on. Suffrage has been a continually developing side of democracy for hundreds of years. According to Wikipedia, African American suffrage started in 1866, and women’s suffrage began in 1920. A second democratic characteristic is equality of all folks. Within the US Constitution it’s implied that beneath a democratic government each particular person is entitled to equal safety beneath the regulation, freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and so on, along with varied other economic, social, cultural, civil, political, and group-oriented rights. Democracy bases itself on offering fair and equal alternatives for all people no matter their race, intercourse, faith, economic/social standing, etc. The idea of American democracy totally supporting equality introduced many immigrants right here, with promises of equal opportunity. Along with all of the rights and privileges residents of a democratic government have, there are additionally some adverse elements.

The larger democracies get, the tougher voting and vote tallying turns into. For example, through the Gore vs. Bush presidential elections the vote counts in Florida were misinterpreted, and many people thought the outcome of the election was skewed because of vote fraud. Also, democracy is hailed as one of the truthful governments, however catering to the wants of solely the majority truly excludes the minority. No matter how minuscule the minority may be, they’re still be exploited by the bulk. Lastly, the larger a democratic system becomes, the less peaceable and environment friendly it turns into. Mancur Olsen provides an excellent example of this negative side of democracy in his essay Autocracy, Democracy, and History.

If there are say 5 related folks, every of them will get about a fifth of the features from the creation of a peaceful [democratic] order. …The advantages of such an order are so large that one fifth of the positive aspects may eaisly exceed the entire sacrifice. Moreover, when there are only a few individuals in a bunch it goes to be clear that the welfare of every particular person is determined by whether one another particular person acts in a group-oriented or anti-social method. Thus every person by making clear that the cooperation by others will convey forth cooperation from him but that non-cooperation is not going to, can increase the chance that others will match his habits. This not solely increases the probability of peaceful [democratic] interaction but even makes it easily attainable that cooperation will attain a super or group optimum extent (Olsen 3).

Hence, democracies work better for relatively small teams. Mancur argues that a democracy is better than raw anarchy, but democracy continues to be removed from excellent. (2)In conclusion, both autocratic and democratic governments have many sturdy and weak factors. Some unfavorable features of autocracy such as income tax monopoly can have a optimistic have an result on on an entire country’s inhabitants, while some optimistic elements of democracy such as majority ruling can have adverse impacts such as excluding the minority.

The pros and cons of a authorities are what ultimately define that government’s fundamental construction. If a government has a disorganized electoral system, power may probably fall into the mistaken leaders palms. If a government has a very strict electoral policy, the folks could additionally be misrepresented as a end result of the truth that they do not have full freedom to decide on their chief. Each governmental style works for the betterment of their citizens whether it’s by strict rule, or lax rule. All in all, governments working towards the betterment of their residents, are really working in the course of the betterment of the human population as an entire.

Works Cited

“Autocracy.” Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. 2004. .

Danziger, James. Understanding the Political World: A Comparative
Introduction to Political Science. New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2007.

Downing, Brian. The Military Revolution and Political Change: Origins of Democracy andAutocracy in Early Modern Europe. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Gangi, Akbar. “The Struggle Against Sultanism.” Journal of Democracy 2005: sixteen.four. ProjectMuse Scholarly Journals Online. Wayne State University Library. Wayne State University Library, Detroit, MI. 16 Apr 2007.

Olsen, Mancur. “Autocracy, Democracy, and History.” Online working paper #22, 1991.

2 April 2007.

Niskanan, William. Autocratic, Democratic and Optimal Government: Fiscal Choices and Economic Outcomes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publications, 2004.

Palast, Greg. “Hugo Chavez.” The Progressive. July 2006. 10 April 2007.

“United States.” 2007. The World Fact Book. four April 2007.


Authoritarian and Democratic Regimes

Democratic and authoritarian are two very totally different and contradicting forms of political regimes. They differ in the greatest way a rustic or a state is managed. In trying to determine and discuss the differences between the 2 regimes, we should always think what implications do the 2 regimes have on the political system. How are they totally different in phrases of the institutions they inherent? How are rulers elected and which one supplies the more complete representation? How does the legislation making process differ, what implications do they have on the judiciary and civil rights? Is the distribution of power different within the two regimes? And finally which one is more affluent economically and in offering a steady political system.

I begin off by making an attempt to define the overall traits of the 2 regimes.

Authoritarian regime is a political rule forced upon its citizens without their consent. In other phrases, there is no conception of free and truthful elections and rulers rule in their own interest over the mass.

Rulers do not face the specter of ‘exit’ or ‘questioning’ and thus are not accountable to anybody. Organisations which may be critical of the regime and try to discuss potential alternatives are either banned or severely punished. Freedom of speech and the existence of unbiased media are inconceivable. Inflow of data is either manipulated or not allowed as it might develop a possible risk to the regime. Some examples of states with these characteristics are Iraq, North Korea, Egypt, and UAE.

Singe party states, dictatorships and military regimes are forms of authoritarian rule.

The first two of these are similar to one another. Single get together states allow just one political celebration to compete in elections and rule over the state and dictatorships come up when the chief of the only get together accumulates power and forces it upon the residents. The third form of non-democratic rule is called a ‘military regime’. In such a regime the ruler, mostly the commander in chief of the military accumulates army energy and takes over an elected government. In all three kinds of authoritarian rule described above, the rulers rule of their interest, with out the consent or approval of the individuals.

In contrast, a democratic system of government in concept sways into the path of representative rule. Leaders are immediately or not directly elected. Such a system allows free and aggressive elections without any restriction on the variety of political events, an absent feature in authoritarian rule. The capability of unbiased organisations to operate without any restrictions, the existence of curiosity teams and the accountability of the government is vested in such a political system. Some examples of such states are the US, UK, Australia and France.

In democratic states, all citizens have the proper to cast their vote and nobody is disadvantaged of this right regardless to their race, standing or background. Candidates are chosen for each state or county and these candidates collectively type the legislative i.e. Congress within the US and Parliament in the UK. Presidents or Prime Ministers are indirectly elected by the inhabitants and are topic to a 4-year time period, after which they have to struggle again to be elected. This means, individuals from all over the country can choose their own MP or Senator to characterize them in the legislative authority. If as an example candidates fail to fulfill those who have elected them, they won’t be elected in the subsequent election and free their in style status and place.

In a democratic nation the sovereignty lies with the people. Elections in authoritarianism are non-democratic. Rulers may come into energy by overthrowing a civilian authorities by the use of navy drive. Such was the case in Pakistan in October 1999. Single party states provide no realistic choice to the folks i.e. there is solely one candidate for each post. Suffrage may not be given to everyone, as some might not have the best to even solid their votes. Hence elections in such a state of affairs are more or less organised or pre-planned.

As talked about above, democratic regimes permit the existence of organisations that will or might not deliver out the mistakes of the federal government in energy. They might exist as curiosity teams, media teams, commerce unions or even environmental groups, all with various interests. The elected authorities has to try and fulfill all these pursuits to one of the best of its capability in order stay popular. This will inevitably result in fair play with authorities officers being answerable to the people. Corruption and mismanagement is much less more probably to be the case on this context.

“So, whereas democratic nations aren’t resistant to corruption, democratic establishments definitely make it more difficult for corruption to go unnoticed” (Sullivan, date unknown)

In authoritarian regimes these establishments aren’t out there, but when they do exist, the government controls them. Russia has lengthy had the custom of being a ‘one party state’ and the non-existence of more than one political get together fails to provide the checks and balances with otherwise would have been the case. In Britain, the existence of the left wing, right wing and the middle permits representations of wide selection, somewhat than one party implementing its personal ideology.

The distribution of energy is concentrated in authoritarian regimes; whether or not they’re single party states or dictatorships. Leaders of such states are also the chiefs of the armed forces, secretary general of the get together and head of states. This implies that they are not accountable to anybody and there can be no one to query their authority. The dictator controls legislative, govt and judicial powers (see below). Some good examples could presumably be in Germany when Hitler assumed these powers or Saddam Hussain who at present is the leader of the Ba’ath celebration in Iraq and controls these powers.

Civil rights are recognised in a unique way in the two regimes. A democratic state provides its topics with substantial authorized rights. If for example any part of the manager has violated the individual right of a citizen, he is entitled to struggle for his proper within the courtroom of legislation. He can strategy the media to assist him appeal to attention of the country and even the world if he has been considerably deprived of his rights or if he has experienced substantial loss because of the actions of the executive. In contrast, in a dictatorship similar to Iraq, the person can be deprived of his fundamental legal rights. The judiciary isn’t independent and access to media groups is restricted.

He often has no legal defence, there aren’t any public hearings and the choice against the person is ultimate, with no recourse to appeal. (, 2003) In single get together states those elated to greater offices which may be near the authoritarian ruler are very unlikely to turn into a sufferer of any legal litigation. In democratic countries this is not the case, courts might convict MP’s, senators or any individual regardless to their standing or place. In Australia “Andrew Theophanous, a former senior Labor parliamentarian of practically 20 years standing who once served as a cabinet secretary to Prime Minister Paul Keating, was this month sentenced to a complete of six years jail on 4 expenses of migration fraud” (Rees, 2002).

Due to the structure of the federal government, laws could be very much managed by the authoritarian authorities. In single get together states individuals are not given the opportunity to decide on between different events and therefore haven’t any option but to determine on the legislation handed by party. It is difficult to envisage laws being debated in or scrutinised when the same celebration appoints all members of the legislative council. Its even worse in dictatorships when the leaders controls legislation powers, and passes laws which are never debated by any opposition. In democratic states like the US, laws must be approved by a majority in the Congress. Many laws are heavily scrutinised and many do not even pass the process.

Democratic countries are usually economically liberal and achieve sooner financial growth as in comparability with authoritarian regimes. Just like a monopoly might occupy the bulk market share of a product, authoritarian states own most enterprises and are topic to the inefficiency, and low productiveness associated with some monopolies.

“This is the foundation cause of the various flaws of PRC state-owned enterprises, which are affected by poor effectivity, outdated management and too many idle employees”

(Kao, 1999)

The cause for the totally different pace in financial growth is because of the construction underneath which the economy operates. When all resources are owned by the state and the decisions are centrally deliberate, there’s little incentive given to employees to work tougher, or be more productive since the state plans and distributes the wages. This isn’t the case underneath democratic regimes. Enterprises are given the incentives that permit them to spend cash on human capital, which outcomes in greater productivity and economic development. Firms can actively try to make earnings, and in pursuit deliver greater efficiency and better productiveness the place as within the different case the objective is to provide items and providers which are shared equally. Equality, not efficiency is the overriding goal in authoritarian states.

The variations mentioned above between the two regimes would intuitively lead us to believe that the democratic possibility is the more broadly preferred technique of government. In truth for my part it ought to be the adopted strategy. Evidence has proven that it is the leading kind in most international locations today, and many nations previously under authoritarian rule have switched to the liberal type of government. Which one of the two is a better type in apply is a unique problem. Are the tools used in democracy as efficient as they’re described in theory? Are authoritarian states nonetheless the more undesirable possibility contemplating USSR was economically very profitable in the past? This no doubt throws a question that can be heavily debated!


1. – The US and Iraq: democracy and authoritarianism Iraq-USA, Analysis, 2/3/2003.

2. World Socialist Website – Rees, Margaret – Australian MP appeals against conviction for migration fraud 27.7.02.

3. Potter, David – Democratisation – Open University 1997.

4. Sullivan John, Director, Centre for International Private Enterprise, World Bank Corruption Takes a Toll on Everyone

5. Kao, Charng – China within the 21st Century- International Conference Nov 6-7 1999.

Andrew Jackson: Democratic President or Dictator?

According to his enemies, Andrew Jackson behaved extra like a dictator/king than a democratic president. Jackson and his followers turned the idea of the Democratic-Republican party, later generally known as the Democratic party. He believed in the spoils system, supported the common man, and equality for all folks regardless of their social class. Although he had such positive features, he had some negatives as nicely. Jackson removed Native Americans from their homeland by signing the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which created the “Trail of Tears,” vetoed the National Bank (B.

U.S), and was pro-slavery. Although a common man himself, Jackson turned successful as president.

This was considered one of his biggest motives to support the widespread man, rather than the wealthy, whom he believed shouldn’t have all the power. One of the reasons Jackson eliminated Native Americans was as a result of he didn’t consider them as American residents. How democratic was Andrew Jackson? Before we reply this, let’s find out what democracy truly means.

By definition, democracy is a type of government made up of the equality and voice of the people. To Jackson, democracy meant the all branches & businesses of presidency should hear to and follow the wishes of the folks. So was Andrew Jackson democratic, undemocratic, or both? Perhaps he was democratic in some ways and undemocratic in others.

Andrew Jackson was a supporter in Indian elimination. However, he also had a delicate spot; he adopted a Creek Indian boy named Lyncoya. Jackson didn’t contemplate Indians as American folks; this somewhat made it simpler to take away Native Americans from their homeland.

Not only this, however he made it voluntary to depart, but when they were within limits of the states, they have to be topic to their legal guidelines. (Document 8). Jackson also removed Indians from the land of their fathers/people. He didn’t even contemplate that they may not be acquainted with the outside land or may not speak the identical language. (Document 9).

Generally, Indians had been removed from Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida, and were sent to the Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). Andrew Jackson was undemocratic for taking Native Americans out of their life-long lands and residential, to be sent to an unfamiliar territory. Adopting a Creek Indian boy who was the last of his household, and making him on of his (Jackson’s) household, doesn’t make Jackson democratic. It simply shows that he has a heart. (Documents 10&11).

Jackson believed the National Bank was unconstitutional, despite the actual fact that it was what the individuals wanted. So does that make him undemocratic? In an image of Andrew Jackson, there is an eagle on one side and throne on the other. This symbolizes democracy and dictatorship at the same time. Also, the image reveals Jackson stepping on laws/bills/institutions that he didn’t care about or approve of. (Document 3). If Jackson favored the south, it will make him sectionalist and undemocratic since it’s owned primarily by the rich. People voted for the bill and bank recharter, so vetoing it would go towards the people’s alternative, thus overriding the will of the folks.

Jackson disliked the Bank of US as a end result of he believed that the rich should have all the power. (Document 4).Not only this, however the bank veto would cause disunity, and begin a category war (upper v. lower). Also that Daniel Webster doesn’t want another financial panic like that of 1819, and that the financial institution veto goes against the voice of Congress, which is made up of the individuals. Andrew Jackson was undemocratic because he overrode the desire of the people, became sectionalist by favoring the south, and probably started a class warfare. He was democratic as a result of he believed that the wealthy shouldn’t have all the power, and that each one folks must be equal in power it does not matter what social class. (Document 5)

Jackson additionally believed in the common man, and that all males are equal in both energy and sophistication. This is considered one of his great options that bought him a lot of support. Before Jackson was elected, presidential electors had been elected primarily by the legislature. After his election and re-election, electors have been chosen significantly by the people. In the span of 20 years, 42 states elected by the individuals, and 27 states elected by the legislature. (Document 1). The election of Jackson was thought-about a “revolution,” because of its peaceful transfer of energy. This revolution was completely different from another, as a end result of it was achieved by ballots rather than bullets. Jacksonians cried, “Shall the individuals rule?” and the answer was, “The folks shall rule!” Andrew Jackson was so notable that people have come 500 miles to see him and suppose that the nation is rescued from some dreadful danger.

It is alleged Jackson’s victory accelerated the transfer of national power from the country-house to the farmhouse, from the East to the West, and from the snobs to the mobs. If Jackson was a hero of the gentleman farmer, he was absolutely a hero of the dirt farmer. Jackson was democratic because he granted all males equal rights, and believed that the widespread man is just pretty a lot as good as the wealthy. This is how he received all his assist, most of which came from the widespread man. We must additionally think about that he was a typical man who turned profitable as president. He disagreed with the wealthy, who tried to empower the frequent man/farmers, and was a large supporter of wester farmers, low tariffs, and pet banks, quite than a national financial institution. (Document 2).

Jackson also inspired the spoils system, which gave jobs in public workplace to the supporters of the profitable political party. Was this democratic of him? As stated in Jackson’s letter to Congress, the duties of public workplace are so simple that any clever man could easily qualify, and that office jobs are created solely for the advantage of the folks. Jackson may also provide a regulation that limits appointments to 4 years. Not solely this, but Jackson believed that no man has any more proper to authorities jobs than another, which justifies that each one males are created equal. (Document 6).

Document 7 explains how Secretary of State Martin Van Buren warned Jackson concerning the appointment of the collector of the Port of New York, which Jackson meant to nominate Samuel Swartwout to take that position. Van Buren alerted Jackson the Swartwout had “criminal tendencies,” however Jackson refused to pay attention. When Swartwout was appointed to office on April 25, 1829, he rapidly fled with $1,222,705.09, which was a monumental theft. Andrew Jackson was democratic as a end result of he felt that every one clever men should have the right and equality to have an office job, since office jobs are created to learn the individuals. He believed that each one males are created equal, which is what democracy is all about. Jackson was undemocratic because by supporting the spoils system, he appointed a corrupt man (Swartwout), who stole over 1,000,000 dollars and fled.

In essence, “How democratic was Andrew Jackson?” To be sincere, Jackson was quite a democratic president. He believed in the frequent man, that energy must be equal between all men, and even adopted a Creek Indian boy, whom he accepted as one of the family and cared for dearly. Not only this, but he additionally handled the common man the same as the wealthy and that they need to have equal privileges and opportunities. However, Jackson was also undemocratic in some ways.

He eliminated Native Americans from their life-long properties, the lands of their fathers/ancestors, overrode the will of the individuals by vetoing the National Bank thus favoring the south. Even after being warned by Van Buren, Jackson still appointed corrupt Samuel Swartwout to workplace, which resulted in a monumental theft of over 1,000,000 dollars. Does this make him a bad president? Absolutely not! He’s only human, and everyone makes mistakes. After all these corrupt decisions, President Andrew Jackson continues to be one of the most honorable presidents within the history of the United States. That is why I believe Andrew Jackson was democratic yet undemocratic.

How democratic is the UK

It can be argued that Britain is both democratic and undemocratic; this can be shown via a range of issues relating to British politics and the society in which we live. The generally accepted definition of a democracy is a form of government in which the major decisions of government and the direction of policy behind these decisions – rests directly or indirectly on the freely given consent of the freely given consent of the freely majority of the adults government.

There are two forms of democracy but the UK is run through an indirect or representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy, which relies on referendums and would be difficult in a large, modern society. Furthermore, the UK is a parliamentary democracy, the government and representatives are intermingled meaning that the UK does not have separation of powers, meaning that the executive, legislative and judicial courts all work together unlike the American Presidential system which could create a lack in communication. In this essay, I propose to argue both for and against and eventually come to a conclusion whether the UK is democratic or not and give a comparison between the UK and the US in terms of democracy.

There is no such thing as a ‘perfect’ democracy but certain aspects are needed to make a democracy. A democracy needs a political system for choosing and replacing the government through frequent, free and fair elections in which people choose their leaders and to hold their leaders accountable for their policies and their conduct in office. Elections have to occur at regular intervals, as prescribed by law.

Those in power cannot extend their terms in office without asking for the consent of the people again in an election. For elections to be free and fair, they have to be administered by a neutral, fair, and professional body that treats all political parties and candidates equally. All parties and candidates must have the right to campaign freely, to present their proposals to the voters both directly and through the mass media. A democracy also needs the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life. To vote wisely, each citizen should listen to the views of the different parties and candidates, and then make his or her own decision on whom to support. Furthermore there should be protection of human rights of all citizens and a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens. Does the UK fulfill these four key elements? Yes, the UK does. Therefore we can say the UK governmental system.

Democracy by definition means the government by the people. That means that all the people should be able to have their say in one way or another in everything that affects their lives. As said previously, the UK is run through a representative democracy but there are problems with a representative democracy. Representative democracy would be fine if the representatives would really make all their decisions only after consulting their constituencies. In the least, after having a clear idea about the views of their constituents on a particular issue, and trying to accommodate these views as best as possible. However, a vast majority of countries that call themselves Representative Democracies are not true democracies according to the above definition.

Most of them are actually just Elected Dictatorships. People can vote usually only once every four or five years. They do not vote on any issues. They just elect their so called representatives who then until the next elections have no obligations by law and little incentives to base their decisions on individual issues on the wishes on their electorate. They hardly ever bother to consult them on their stands on various issues. Therefore, legislative bodies composed of such “representatives” can effectively act in a very dictatorial manner between the elections. So to meet the definition of democracy, a direct democracy must be in place, like in Switzerland.

The UK is divided up into constituencies. Within these constituencies, are MPs for each political party. The first past the post system means that the MP with most votes (first past the post) will win power for their party in that constituency. In the UK voting system, we do not vote who is our next Prime Minister. Our vote goes towards the MPs for our constituency. In this sense, the idea of UK as a representative democracy is flawed as we as people are not voting for one single figure but for an MP. The reason for voting for that party may be influenced by the leader of that party but you are not voting specifically for that person.

An element of Britain’s governmental system is that there is no written constitution. This means that, theoretically, the government is free to pass any legislation as long as they have the majority in parliament which could be easily achieved if the party has a large majority of seats. This means there is no safeguard for laws that can be altered or new ones that could be created. This is very undemocratic as the government therefore has too much power.

The government is also in possession of other powers such as the royal prerogative that allows the prime minister to go to war without consent from parliament. An example of where this was used was the Iraq war in 2005, which was heavily resented by a large majority of the public. Even though this aspect of Britain’s governmental system is undemocratic, parliament generally prevents government from taking to much power.

Democratic Leadership

Clarify what is indicated by autonomous leadership. Examine the effectiveness of using an autonomous management design on the success of Harrods. Usage E-library resources to find another example that had also achieved success utilizing a democratic management design.

Autonomous management style is an open as well as collegial design where ideas in between the leaders and also the juniors flow easily as the discussions are kept in an open way and where all participants opinions are respected. It’s frequently participative as well as involves workers in the decision making procedure. It entails the redistribution of power as well as authority between workers and also managers to offer employee participation in decision-making. The complying with functions define democratic management:

– Circulation of responsibility: A supervisor that leads democratically will distribute duty among his group to help with involvement in decision-making. – Equipping team members: Leaders must equip their participants to make sure that the participants can achieve their duties. Empowerment consists of supplying training and education required for delegated task conclusion. – Aiding group decision-making process: A major role of a democratic leader is to make sure democratic deliberation in making team decisions. This indicates that a leader needs to act as a facilitator and also moderator in between team members and make sure that a psychologically healthy and balanced and also considerate atmosphere is preserved. Benefits of Democratic leadership:

– Democratic leadership techniques normally will do a far better job producing work contentment because it cultivates a sense of participation, control as well as autonomy. – Greater staff member involvement in decision-making may also cause greater innovation as well as creative solutions to problems that will certainly much better serve an organization.

Disadvantages of Autonomous management:
– It might not be as efficient as a much more standard central and tyrannical form of instructions. – It might be much more expensive to the company in time and also sources. – Liability might sometimes provide an issue.

Utilizing democratic management at Harrods has the adhering to benefits: – Staff members really felt that they are more crucial to doing the task as they have been provided extra duties and also techniques to share their viewpoints. – The stress has been minimized from mangers as they entrusted extra responsibilities to staff members as well as were overlooked with even more calculated choices to be made. – Efficiency at Harrods have actually boosted due to the fact that the staff members felt that they are more crucial and also have extra self-esteem. – The operations of divisions came to be much more well-versed as the department heads and also workers have a level of freedom to make decisions. The only drawback was that leading management has shed some of its powers over the employees, yet the total benefits goes beyond the price which acts for Harrods monitoring. Another example of Democratic leadership firm is Apple as it offers its employees the liberty to make decisions and to be imaginative in the workplace.

Democratic Trends

It is inevitable for things to change. The trends in American change daily. There are various factors that influence change. There are many political and economic events and trends that effect the human services field. One of the events that have affected the U.S. is the recession. The recession has caused a trickle down affect. There has also issue with financial budgets. The deficits are attached to various resources that help countless communities throughout the U.S. A few of the demographic trends that have cause change are the aging and healthcare act. There are both good and bad changes that happens in life, and the human service field adapts to that change. We have seem dramatic changes in our government. The political events that effect human services have an outcome that may not be what’s best for the people that are effect. This change in politics have affected millions of Americans that depend on the government system. Minority groups that are recipients of programs that are funded by the government are the ones that are most affected when the government faces distress.

The future of human services is always at the edge when crisis arise. The way politicians run their itinerary is by making decisions to what seems convenient for them at the time. Politics is about taking care of one thing at a time and what does not seem important are often left undone. The future of human services faces crisis daily. Budgets are always slash to fix other areas of need. Human services providers are the ones that are in charge of being the voice of the less fortunate pleading to the government to change laws in favor of those in need. If the government does not budget the finances available there is a risk of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy will terminates food stamps, medical, section 8, and many other programs that assist families in need. The future of human services is in limbo it will take for our government to prioritize and put families first. Political Trends that Effect Human Services

There are various political event that effect the human services field. One particular event that stands out was the U.S. government shut down due to the recession. The shutdown of government agencies which fund the countless resources and organizations was detrimental to the citizens. There was a boost in varying agencies for those seeking assistance. Some of the organization only assist one specific need. But the consumers requires various aid for needs that may or may not overlap. Some of those needs are general public assistance, unemployment, food stamps, and homelessness. According to “Human Services in a time of Crisis” studies have shown that food stamp caseloads have a strong correlation to the unemployment rate. It also states a poor economy with high unemployment typically spurs an increase in demand for public assistance (HSTC p. 4). Food stamps are usually the first part of government assistance sought after. Food Stamps are the first part of security for families in the program for which most applicants are eligible. Government Cuts and Its Consequences

The significant cuts made to human services program operating budgets do not promise well for the vulnerable families who are seeking assistance or for their communities. There were various cuts made by government officials to help Americans, but some will cause more damage. The budget cuts to unemployment for instance, means millions of Americans could be left without their sole source of income while they look for work according to U.S.A. Today. About 3.6 million Americans would have become eligible for the program in 2014, in addition to those facing an immediate end to the assistance. The millions that have to survive without unemployment will seek aid through human services agencies throughout the United States. Although homelessness have decreased slightly, there is still an extraordinary need for homes for those experiencing homelessness. According to The State of Homelessness in America (2013), “The national rate of homelessness was 20 homeless people per 10,000 people in the general population and the rate for veterans was 29 homeless veterans per 10,000 veterans in the general population” (para. 1).

Society Facing Economic and Demographic Insecurities

As changes are growing, so is the instability of clients that are coping with depression, anxiety, mental disabilities, and the elderly population. As the country continues in an era of economic insecurity, Americans living close or lower than the poverty line are more at risk. Nonetheless, the assistance they need to acquire jobs, housing, healthcare, or provide for their children is less likely as agencies face impending financial problems of their own. The economic decline began at the end of 2007 subsequently resulting in increased lay-offs, unemployment and underemployment, foreclosures, retirement income and savings loss, and a drop in the value of real estates, placing a larger demand for services on federal, state, and local human service systems. These service delivery systems faced shortages and budget complications of their own.

Human service professionals must learn to efficiently and effectively negotiate and bridge this economic gap while meeting their agency’s potentials and needs, respecting their clients and assisting them towards betterment. Economic trend also relating to the production, development, and management of material wealth. Trends will involve jobs, housing, children, and health care. Economic impacts the human services department dealing with the wellbeing of children in many ways, mainly because of all the budget cuts. For example, school is one of the many trends. Teachers are around there students at least 30 hours they’re considered the third parent, good teachers help to mentor their children to become more productive and motivates them to become lifelong learners. Teachers have the training and incite to notice incidence of child sexually, mental and physical abuse. It is the teacher’s responsibility to warn human service of the danger that the child might encounter.

The use of managed care by human service is defined as a set of tools to manage resources and the delivery of human services in the areas of health and mental health care (Woodside, 2011). The impact of managed care organization does not only position a risk to human service values and practice, but also generate an ethical dilemma. Managed care allows the human service profession to develop its professional field increasing from advocating and aftercare for the indigent, severe and chronic mentally ill to providing private non-medical psychotherapy. One challenge of the human service profession is how to sustain improvements within a profession that is characterized by an overlying of roles and functions, and the challenge to meeting the demands of managed care organizations as well as the preservation of values and ethical practices which make the profession distinctive.

The human service profession would need to develop tools to maintaining stability between the needs of clients and the demands of the managed care organizations. Aging in American, which is another demographic trend has taken a toll on society in dealing with housing, confronting death, dying and depression. As the number of elderly people increase, the more help from human services will be required in dealing with their health and living situations. Most elderly men and women will not be financial stable and unable to provide for themselves. The demographic trends targets a diverse population that is in need of strategies and intervention plans to be able to succeed daily. The more communities grow there will be fewer opportunities for the majority of the people to get jobs to support their families. People rely on human services for a boost dealing with unemployment, food, or even help finding better jobs. Human service professionals can also provide assistance to those who are coping with trauma from terrorism, disasters, and other traumatic events.

Accounts of trauma and violence are characteristically entwined with histories of substance abuse and/or mental health disorders. A few examples are the 9/11 bombing which killed a lot of people and also left many hurt emotional and physical. The effects that terrorism has on people could either be long term (installs fear) or short term (traumatization). Hurricane Katrina, which left everybody in destruction and homelessness. A traumatic event could even include a serious car crash. Societal changes can only begin when an extensive network of service providers integrate their knowledge, resources, and services to the economic and demographic trends within their communities.


Demographic trends reveal developments and changes in human population (Melva Wilson, 2014). As America is aging we are able to see the changes in human services. Technology has taken over and providers are able to service clients in a more effective and quicker way than a decade ago. As the population grows, the problems in America are also growing. The delivery of services through human services have change and more changes will be implemented in the future. Human services does not only focus on delivering services to the less fortunate, they also have to assure that funds are available to service clients. There will always be changes that will benefit society and changes that will make their life more complicated.


County Welfare Directors Association of California. (2009). Retrieved from
Grovum, J., (2013). Stateline Unemployment Benefits.
Retrieved from
National Alliance to End Homelessness (2013).
Retrieved from
National Association of Social Workers.
Retrieved from
National Organization for Human Services.
Retrieved from
Stein, S., (2013). Government Shutdown’s Impact Detailed in Report. Retrieved from Woodside, M. & McClam, T. (2011). An Introduction to human services. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole

The Democratic Party Primary in Virginia: Tantamount to Election No Longer

The first settlers of European descent were loyal subjects to the English King George II they settled in Virginia with the sole purpose of creating trade goods and then sending them back to England. Over time, the colonists resented the obligation that had been imposed on them by the crown and began to feel the need for independence. Virginia among the original 13 colonies and is mostly considered the birthplace of four presidents of the United States. Virginia joined the union in June 1788 and by 1992, Virginia controlled 15.4% of the electoral votes cast in the U.S. Virginians have always sided with the democrats as far back as the post civil war reconstruction era. The Republican Party is one of the two major political parties in Virginia. Although founded in 1854 with strong opposition for slavery, the party did not gain ground until after the civil war of 1861- 1865.

After the civil war, Virginia was in a great political turmoil having lost 48 counties. This led the democrats to swoop in and regain the state’s legislature, where they used a new constitution and statute, which had provisions such as the poll tax, literacy requirements and residency requirements. Their sole aim was to disfranchise the African Americans as well as poor whites, which lasted until the mid 1960s.

The democrats retained a one-party state which went on unchallenged in most state and federal offices all through to the mid 20th century. It was through the Byrd organization that African Americans gained the much-needed support for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and consequently the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These acts provided oversight and enforcement, which maintained that all citizens of age have the ability to vote. The Republican Party competed on rare occasions with the Byrd organization, but this changed after the civil war when a republican held office for sixteen years. However, full-scale competition began in 1952 when Dwight D. Eisenhower, the war hero ran for the presidency on a republican ticket. This brought forth an era of competition and rigorous change in Virginia.

The economic state of Virginia requires that middle class workers, families and small businesses have a certain economic stability in order to have valuable outcomes (Virginia Center). The democrats, as well as the president, have worked tirelessly to create jobs, reduce the federal deficit, promote economic growth, which are all in line with the economic recovery. In recent times, the Virginian economy has been a major issue both as a state and as a member of the United States of America. Dissatisfaction with the economy is very high with voters worried about the state of their economy within the next year. However, Virginia has had a long history of governance by both the republicans and the democrats and within that time, the state has evolved into the new Virginia.

The republican rule, on the other hand, had lasted for a long time before Eisenhower upset the balance (Ferebee, 38). The victory by Eisenhower brought forward competition within a large democrat dominated Virginia. For example, Theodore Roosevelt “Ted” Dalton rose to the ranks as a formidable party builder and energetic campaigner. As a republican, he was conservative on national issues while at the same time being ambitious on state matters. His reforms were meant to increase political participation and at the same time modernizing the state government. Following the success of Eisenhower, Theodore’s candidacy was perceived to be a sure win until he placed doubt after his announcement of favoring the bond-financed road construction. This announcement was seen to favor Byrd’s anti-debt orthodoxy, which was seen to favor the democrat’s way of doing things.

The history of Virginian politics has largely been rigid when it comes to voting and political leadership. From time to time, the boat has been rocked by a few daring men but the leadership has remained the same for a long time. For instance, the state of West Virginia has had a largely democratic leadership for a very long time with Robert C. Byrd leading the people from congress and the senate. He remained in politics as a member of the House for 57 years, which made him the longest serving member of congress as recorded in the history of the United States. On the other hand, he served as a United States Senator from 1959-2010, which also made him the longest serving senator. In addition, he served as a democratic senate leader for West Virginia from 1977-1989.

West Virginia has remained a republican Democratic state for long, holding on to their policies and belief (Buchanan, 287). For example, in the 1988 Republican landslide, West Virginia was the only southern State to give votes to Michael Dukakis. According to the Republican Party policies in Virginia, voters are not necessarily required to register by party for one to vote in the primaries. The cold war, which ended in the 1950s, was commonly known as dangerous times but during the Eisenhower regime Americans found solace. They were less worried about the depression of war like they did in 1930s ( Instead Americans were busy enjoying the booming economy under the republican president. More freedom allowed the citizens to own private property such as cars, televisions and transistor radios. However, the Eisenhower years were characterized by tough economic choices such as maintaining a prosperous economy or government spending on infrastructure. Moreover, the issue of protecting the Americans citizens’ freedom and at the same time enforcing the rule of law pushed the president to making tough decisions on issues of the nation and the civil rights.

Eisenhower, as a president opposed the Fair Deal that had been implemented by President Harry Truman’s regime during the cold war. On the other hand, he did not share the extremists Republican Conservatives views that involved the elimination of both a Fair Deal and the new Deal programs and in turn rolling back the government regulations of the economy. Instead, he ushered in a new republican policy, which favored individual freedoms, as well as freedom in the market economy. The republican party sort to provide benefits for the American citizens for instance, legislation was signed which expanded social security created the department of health, increased minimum wage, and created a department of education and welfare. However, during the last years of his presidency, the president had a few run-ins with the democrats in the Senate and the House. The democrats proposed programs that were expensive and would take out more money from the citizen’s pockets, which the Republican Party greatly opposed. However, domestic spending continued to rise from 31% in 1953 to 49% in 1961.

The Democratic party of Virginia organization is headed by a state party plan which gives an open and fair selection process. Though the party has members and elected officials all over the state, it gets the highest votes from Tidewater area, Metropolitan Richmond and Suburban Washington, D.C (Brisbin, 25). The Democratic Party is known to have dominated Virginia politics. Among the 39 governors directly elected by the voters 34 are democrats and five have been Republicans. However, in the 1990s the party made profits. The policies helped in restoring economic security and delivered jobs as well as protected home ownership. It protected homeowners by providing full and accurate loan disclosure to homebuyers. Still, it supported higher standards of accountability for the mortgage industry to protect consumers from abusive lending practices.

In addition, it protected workers by helping them form bargaining units and believing in the principles (William, 624). Small businesses and entrepreneurship were also supported by allowing small businesses to bid on contracts. It is the policy of the democratic part to help all Virginians to achieve the American dream regardless of race, religion or political affiliation. Quality and affordable health care is assured by supporting policies that cater for affordable health care for all the citizens. The Virginian economy can only be progressive if the citizens are well taken care of. The poor and uninsured are helped by starting programs that help children, pregnant women and other disabled persons.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pivotal to the concept of discrimination. It outlawed discrimination based on color, religion, race, sex or nationality. It brought to an end unequal use of voter registration that was a requirement and racial discrimination in schools, workplaces and in the offices that served public interest. In Virginia, the case was no different and it has remained so to date. John F. Kennedy signed the new law in 1963, which gave all Americans the right to be served in any facility that opened to the public in Virginia there is no single outright law that protects people from discrimination based on their sexual orientation, identity or expression in both the public and private sectors. An individual could be fired because of their sexual orientation whether real or perceived. They can also get fired based on their gender or expression. This ultimately means that anyone can lose their job if his or her employer thinks that the individual is either gay or lesbian or because he thinks that the employee is neither masculine enough nor feminine enough either in dressing or demeanor.

In conclusion, the state of Virginia has enjoyed both republican and Democratic leadership. This has brought forth different ideologies ad different types of leaders who have worked for ensuring that Virginians have a healthy economy since the post cold war era. Although Virginia has been a Democratic Party dominated state the presence of the Republican Party, and the competition it presents ensures that only the best policies are passed for the citizens. Since, President Eisenhower’s tenure and his review of the New Deal to the much more recent gender discrimination, Virginia still has some skeletons in the closet that needs to be unveiled. However, the economy of Virginia top notch even at the face of such policies.


Brisbin, Richard A.. West Virginia politics and government. 2nd ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008.

Buchanan, William. “The Democratic Party Primary in Virginia: Tantamount to Election No Longer. By Larry Sabato. (Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1977. Pp. viii, 169. $9.95.).” The Journal of Politics 41, no. 01 (1979): 287.

Virginia Center”Virginia.(INSIDE POLITICS: ACROSS STATE LINES)(driving while intoxicated )(Brief article).” Campaigns & Elections, October 1, 2007.

Ferebee, Steve. “Virginia Woolf and the Nature of Communion, and: Virginia Woolf and the Politics of Style, and: The Invisible Presence: Virginia Woolf and the Mother-Daughter Relationship, and: Virginia Woolf and the Real World (review).” MFS Modern Fiction Studies 33, no. 2 (1987): 354-357.

William Pickett Beatty). “Eisenhower: Soldier-Statesman of the American Century, and: General Eisenhower: Ideology and Discourse (review).” The Journal of Military History 67, no. 2 (2003): 623-625.

“Politics1 – Online Guide to Virginia Elections, Candidates & Politics.” Politics1 – Online Guide to Virginia Elections, Candidates & Politics. (accessed April 21, 2014).

Source document

Democratic and Republican main constituencies and the current trends

           The two great political parties are one of the major political systems that were not envisaged by the founding for fathers. The two features that were constituted encompassed constitutional frameworks that encouraged the two party developments. The Electoral College, which was at least modified by the twelve amendments along with the single member district which, while not mandated constitutionally has been the rule rather than exception as from back 1970s. This tended to channel the politician into two major parties, each being incentivized to get majority backing and every party seeking to discipline factions as a coherent whole. The Republican and the Democratic parties are the oldest and also the third oldest political parties in the globe to date. The British conservative party, if dated from the Disraeli’s rebellion against Sir Peel Robert of the Corn Law in 1846 takes the second position of the oldest parties. (Alan, 2010).

            The Democratic Party can be dated since 1832, when the backers of incumbent president Jackson Andrew did organize a democratic national convention so as to nominate their hero for presidency along with his political manager Martin van Buren for the position of vice president. Since then, the democrats have met every four years period in unbroken string of 45 convections.

           The Republican political party was formed in the year 1854, either in Michigan, Ripon, Jackson or Wisconsin in opposition to what was termed as Kansas Nebraska act. The Republicans have met since 1856 every four years in national conventions.

The Democrats and the Republicans constituencies

            These two political parties, since the ancient times have existed through the loyalty of constituencies. Without the aid of these constituencies, nothing at all can happen to boost them. These constituencies are the ones who vote and donate money to run these political parties. For instance, the democratic political party enjoys the following constituencies: the unionized labor, the ethnic minorities, the most women, the urban power blocks and the educated urbanites. These constituencies are the ones that contribute funds for this Democratic Party and give the votes to the flag bearers to ensure the perpetuity of the party. On the other hand, the Republican political party enjoys the following constituencies: the big businesses in the country, the massive corporations, almost all the defense related businesses, the small businesses, the health related businesses, the Christians, the National rifle association and the fundamentalists. It is very important to note that these groups are much generalized. Of course, not every woman or American- African guy will vote for the Democratic political party and not each and every business person will vote Republican. But these parties have allied themselves with the majority of the participants in these constituencies. In some of the instances, the political parties have been chosen by the constituencies instead of the other way round but the party policy and rhetoric speaks directly to these constituencies (Alan, 2010). Even if not always the fact, the parties wants to create the impression that they care about the interests of these groups.

In Group and Out Group

             The main strength of the Republican Party is that their core constituencies are seen as undeniably and hence uniquely Americans or the natives. The main constituencies of the Republican Party is the people who are seen by other people or themselves or to put it in other words as the in group. In the 19th century, this in group mainly consisted of the Northern white Protestants. Today, this group mainly consist of the white married Christians and the most prosperous business people. The vital strength of the Republican Party constituencies is the composition of it of the uniquely and perhaps the undeniably American. The main weakness that this party has faced all through is that their core constituency has never been enough by itself to make the majority of the population of the Americans. America is seen by the outside world as being uniquely diverse country, but the fact is the US has been a diverse state always, ethnically, regionally, radically and religiously. This regional diversity is the one that made Henry Adams to begin his American history in the Madison and Jefferson administration through a description of three main regional cultures that he segregated as: the South, Middle States and the New England. More diverse religiously, that the founders prohibited the nationally established churches. And also vowed not to interfere with any established churches in any state. More racially diverse that the 20 percent of the counted Americans in the first census of 1790 were the black slaves who are now the black Americans (Passelsand, 2002).

           On the other hand, the main constituency of the Democratic political party has always been the people who are seen by the outsiders and also by themselves as some people other than the ordinary Americans or in other words the outside groups. During the 19th century, these out groups constituted the White southern along with the urban Catholic of the immigrants’ origin and also the minor groups such as Mormons. Currently, these out groups includes, the highly educated seculars, the black Americans, and the single women and also the meager group of people that consist of Gays and lesbian (even though this is the only group that voted less democratic in 2008 than 2004)

Current trends in the Republican and Democratic parties

           The major politics in America is changing rapidly and a very powerful demographic concatenation force is transforming the American electorates and also reshaping the main political parties. As the demographic transformation continues, the reshaping will always continue. The democratic political party will become more deepened to the constituencies that supported Barrack Obama in the his 2008 historic victory, and the republican party will be forced to dig hard into the center to compete for more constituencies.

             These trends are majorly being forced by the current activities that are taking place in the world, mainly the political aspect and the racial part of the concerned groups. For instance, the Iraq war that took place recently. This shifted the support of many Asian-American people to the Democratic Party. There is a widespread abandonment of the Republican Party by the Asian-Americans.

             According to the released data by the institute of politics at the Harvard university which was gathered from an online survey of 2525 18-24 year old, 47 percent of these youth currently identify themselves as democrats, 15% as republican and 39% as independent. This makes them more affiliated to the Democratic Party than any other ethnic group except the Africans. A Korean- American Betsy Kim, 44, sees a clear shift of the Asian American youth towards the Democratic Party. Kim says that the Asian –American of her age and younger lean to the Democratic Party due to the benefits that the party is doing to the communities of color (BEN, 2007).

           This is the pattern that is being repeated from constituency to the other and most of the states are moving towards the democratic direction. In the state of Pennsylvania, the white working class decreased by 25 points between the period 1`988 to 2008 while the white college students increased 16 points and also the minority by 8 points. In the Nevada city, the white who are the working class decreased by 24 points over this period and the minority voter up by 19 points with whiten college graduate by 4 points. These series of trends will continue and by 2040 the United States will be majority-Minority nation. So the Republican Party should seek more backing and restructure its politics so as to keep up with the ongoing trends.


Alan Berubeand others, (2010). State of metropolitan America. Washington: Brookinggs Institution. P. 50-63

Ben Adler 12/20/07Asian-American youth trend Democratic. PrintPasselsand Cohen, (2002). Us populations projections 2005-2050.

Lopez and Minushkin. (2008). National latinos survey. Hispanic voter Attitudes

Source document