Chapter 1 Applied Activity: The Purposes Of This Assignment

Chapter 1 Applied Activitythe Purposes Of This Assignment Are To Demon

The purpose of this assignment is to analyze and compare the political systems of three countries—namely, the United States, a "free" country with a higher total score, and a "not free" country with a moderate score—using data from the Freedom House "Freedom in the World 2024" report. The core objective is to understand how different political systems affect the protection of political rights and civil liberties, aligning this understanding with the theoretical framework provided in Chapter 1 of Barbour & Wright. Students will examine specific scores across categories such as electoral process, political pluralism, government functioning, freedom of expression, rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy. Through this comparison, students will illustrate the key distinctions between democratic and authoritarian states and relate these differences to the textbook concepts of political systems and citizenship.

Paper For Above instruction

Political systems fundamentally shape the lives of their citizens by determining the scope and protection of their political rights and civil liberties. Democratic systems, characterized by participatory governance, political pluralism, rule of law, and respect for individual freedoms, empower citizens to influence government decisions through voting, free expression, and association. Conversely, authoritarian regimes concentrate power within a limited ruling elite or single leader, often suppress political pluralism, control the electoral process, and curtail fundamental rights, leading to limited citizen participation and diminished personal freedoms. According to Chapter 1 of Barbour & Wright, the role of the people in democratic systems involves active participation, accountability, and respect for individual citizenship rights. In contrast, authoritarian systems restrict political participation, often rendering citizens passive subjects rather than active participants, and employ repression, censorship, and manipulation to sustain control. These ideological and structural differences form the basis for the contrasting experiences of citizens living under such systems, influencing their personal autonomy and opportunities for political engagement.

Utilizing data from the Freedom House "Freedom in the World 2024" report further clarifies these theoretical distinctions. The United States, while classified as "free," displays certain weaknesses, particularly in areas like the electoral process and political pluralism. Its total score, reflecting the overall health of its political rights and civil liberties, indicates room for improvement. For example, the US scores moderately low in categories such as electoral integrity (category A) and the functioning of government (category C), revealing issues like political polarization, gerrymandering, and unequal access to voting. These challenges illustrate the gap between democratic ideals and practical performance, demonstrating how complex and fragile democratic protections can be when facing internal political conflicts and institutional deficiencies.

Comparatively, the "free" country with a higher total score—such as Canada—exemplifies a more robust democratic framework. Analyzing specific sub-scores like political participation (category B) and freedom of expression (category D) reveals that Canada enjoys stronger protections in these areas than the US. For example, Canada's high score in the electoral process reflects broad electoral participation, transparent processes, and more equitable political competition, aligning with Chapter 1's description of a healthy democracy where citizens exercise meaningful political rights. Similarly, in the area of personal autonomy and individual rights, Canada's score indicates a greater respect for civil liberties and freedom of belief, which are essential for an active and informed citizenry. These differences suggest that the Canadian political system is better able to uphold democratic principles, partly due to stronger institutional safeguards, inclusive political culture, and less polarization, as highlighted in the textbook’s discussion of institutional capacity and citizen participation.

In stark contrast, the "not free" country selected—such as North Korea—scores significantly lower and exemplifies the characteristics of authoritarian rule. Its scores on categories like electoral process (A) and rule of law (F) are minimal, indicating that elections are either nonexistent or entirely manipulated, and that the legal system operates chiefly to serve the ruling regime rather than uphold justice. The report indicates severe restrictions on freedoms of expression and association, with citizens often subject to state surveillance, repression, and censorship. These conditions fit the textbook’s description of authoritarian regimes—where power is concentrated, opposition is suppressed, and personal rights are severely curtailed. Citizens in such countries face limited autonomy, lack meaningful opportunities to participate politically, and are often subjected to state coercion. Such living conditions starkly contrast with the political stability and civil liberties found in democratic countries, underlining the importance of political rights for individual well-being and societal stability.

In conclusion, the comparison between the three countries reveals clear thematic differences rooted in their political system types. The United States exhibits characteristics of a liberal democracy with foundational rights, but with notable weaknesses that reflect ongoing political challenges. The "free" country with a higher score, exemplified by Canada, demonstrates a more effective and comprehensive safeguarding of democratic principles, exemplifying the textbook’s ideal of participatory, rights-respecting governance. Conversely, the "not free" nation illustrates the repression and systemic control typical of authoritarian regimes, with citizens experiencing significant restrictions on freedoms, personal autonomy, and political participation. These distinctions underscore the importance of institutional strength, respect for civil liberties, and active citizen engagement in maintaining healthy democracies, as emphasized in both the textbook and the Freedom House reports.

References

• Barbour, R., & Wright, J. (2020). American Politics and the State. Cengage Learning.
• Freedom House. (2024). Freedom in the World 2024. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world
• Freedom House. (2024). Country Reports: United States. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-states
• Freedom House. (2024). Country Reports: Canada. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/country/canada
• Freedom House. (2024). Country Reports: North Korea. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/country/north-korea
• Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its Critics. Yale University Press.
• Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Emerging Patterns and Theories. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). What Are the Political Bases of Support for Democracy? World Politics, 53(1), 1-22.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper & Brothers.