ترجمۀ سیاسی – متن ۵
یکشنبه، ۱۵ فروردین ۹۵
That representative democracy does not really reflect popular opinion is clear to all who are willing to look at facts rather than engage in philosophical speculation or recite empty slogans. The principal arguments which may be offered to substantiate this view are that (1) voter turnout in democracies is low; (2) the masses of people are poorly informed on issues, and allow experts to rule; and (3) people are easily manipulated to believe what the ruling classes want them to believe.
Voter Turnout: One of the facts of voting behaviour is that there is always a significant proportion of the voting population which does not vote. This is true for the United States, France, Britain, as well as other countries. In the United States, for example, only 55.3 percent of the voting-age population actually voted in the 2004 presidential election. On some referenda, as few as 10 percent of the electorate cast ballots. To be sure, some people do not vote because they are ill or occupied, but many people choose not to vote. Why? Voting behaviour studies show that the people who do not vote are disproportionately composed of the economically poor and relatively uneducated. Many of these people do not vote, because they feel that voting does not mean anything, and they consider themselves powerless to deal with an intensive political system. Clearly the representatives do not reflect popular will. If anything, they reflect the will of the more affluent members of the society.
ترجمۀ سیاسی – متن ۳
یکشنبه، ۹ اسفند ۹۴
لینک دانلود فونت فارسی یونیکد «یاس»
Majority Rule
Democracy is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as:
“Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them either directly or through their elected agents”.
What is left out of the dictionary definition of democracy is what constitutes “the people.” In practice, democracy is governed by its most popularly understood principle: majority rule. Namely, the side with the most votes wins, whether it is an election, a legislative bill, or a contract proposal to a union. The majority vote decides. Thus, when it is said that “the people have spoken” or the “people’s will should be respected,” the people are generally expressed through its majority.
Democracy Requires Minority Rights
Yet majority rule cannot be the only expression of “supreme power” in a democracy. If so, the majority would easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority. For example, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people’s right to change the majority through elections. The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections — speech, assembly, association, petition — since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship.
ترجمۀ سیاسی – متن ۱
(یکشنبه، ۲۵ بهمن ۹۴)
انواع خط فاصله (Em dash, En dash, Hyphen)
Democracy as an international issue goes far beyond its direct connection to international peace. Where domestic peace has broken down, the international community must be able to assist in its restoration. In this work, democratic governance and the realization of human rights are essential. The United Nations (UN) not only can offer essential help in repairing democratic breakdowns in domestic peace but also must explore democratic principles at the global level.
Democratic Peace
Many associate connections between democracy and international peace with Immanuel Kant, whose essay of 1795, “Perpetual Peace,” argued that “republics” — which meant essentially what today we call liberal or pluralistic democracies — were less likely than other forms of state to go to war with one another. Broadly speaking, the last 200 years have proved him right. During that time there have been many horrible wars, which technology has made ever more destructive. Liberal democracies played a big part in those wars. But almost always they fought as allies. Dynastic states have fought each other throughout history — as have religious states, totalitarian states, and military dictatorships. But liberal democracies have generally found other ways to settle their disputes.
Democratic rulers cannot mobilize their countries for war without convincing most citizens that war is both just and necessary. This means convincing them that vital national interests or principles are involved and that there is no peaceful way to achieve the same objective.
By Annan, Kofi