Capital Punishment

 

Capital punishment has been practiced in the world’s legal systems since the ancient world and even though it has of the most part been abolished in the country, it is still practiced in many countries all over the world. Capital punishment is considered to be among the worst punishments that an individual can be handed by the justice system. It is handed down to individuals that have committed such serious crimes as murder and treason.

A consequence is that it has long been considered a means through which to ensure that individuals in society are dissuaded from committing serious crimes. Furthermore, it is considered to be an act of justice because it allows for a level of retribution, where the families of those who lost a loved one end up receiving a level of closure following the sentencing of a perpetrator of murder to death. Therefore, capital punishment is considered as an essential means of making sure that there is the advancement of law and order as well as justice in society. It is a measure that can be used for the sake of ensuring the creation of an environment where individuals are discouraged from committing crimes that put public safety at risk and going against the established social norms. Capital punishment has only been abolished within the past few years, but during this time, there has been a considerable increase in the level of serious crimes in society.

Capital punishment should be reintroduced because it is a means through which to ensure that individuals who commit serious crimes are held accountable for their actions. This is an extremely important reason because this form of punishment will help in promoting a situation where individuals are discouraged from undertaking actions that might lead to serious consequences. In an age where terrorism has become a menace to society, it is essential to ensure that there is a punishment that is sufficient for those individuals who deem to attack innocent members of society. Under such circumstances, a return of the death penalty will go a long way towards making sure that terrorists are given the punishment that they deserve. Such individuals should not be allowed to remain within society because even in situations where they are given life sentences, they have the potential of radicalizing other prisoners that they meet in prison. In such a situation, the menace that is terrorism will not be easily destroyed, and will continue to increase to such an extent that it becomes impossible to bring perpetrators under control. However, with the return of capital punishment, it will be possible to get rid of dangerous elements of society once and for all, and this will not only bring about a level of justice for those who were victims, but will also allow for the considerable reduction of crime in society.

In conclusion, it is important that the utmost consideration is put in place in a situation where capital punishment is returned. This is especially considering that the original reason for the removal of capital punishment was that it was not only an inhumane form of punishment, but it also involved some innocent individuals being unjustly sentenced to death. However, capital punishment is still needed in the contemporary world to ensure that there is the development of means to combat the new criminal challenges of the contemporary world. Such crimes as terrorism cannot be effectively dealt with without the use of severe punishment, and only capital punishment can rid society of such elements once and for all.

Zimbabwe: its history and fight for independence

The land of Zimbabwe was settled by the British in 1890 and named Rhodesia after its founder, Cecil John Rhodes, who believed that the British had the right of imperial rule in Africa because they were the “first race in the world and therefore the more of the world they inhabited, the better it would be for the human race”. It is this ideology which served as the basis of the discriminatory colonial policies that were set up to serve the interests of the white minority which had settled most of the best land in the country, and excluded the African majority who had virtually no rights in their own land. These policies led to the demand for change by the Africans within the limitations of the colonial constitution and when this did not work, the African nationalists became more radical when they realised that violence and bloodshed were inevitable if there was to be any change in the country. It was the stress of this oppression that forced the people of Zimbabwe to take up arms as the only solution to their problems. The armed struggle was led by two political parties namely the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) which had splintered from ZAPU. These two nationalist organisations got a lot of support from external forces which contributed to the success of the liberation movement in Zimbabwe.

These external forces consisted mainly of neighbouring independent African states – known as the frontline states, other armed liberation movements in neighbouring countries, and the Communist bloc led by China and the Soviet Union. The Communist bloc through the Organisation of African Unity (O.A.U.) gave aid to the Zimbabwean liberation movements in the form of arms and money. Some also provided training for the liberation combatants within their territories such as the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Algeria, and Tanzania. These countries further provided instructors who trained the recruits in the camps who had come from Zimbabwe to join the struggle for majority rule. Furthermore, organisations such as the United Nations, the World Council of Churches and certain left-wing organisations in the west and in Scandinavia gave moral and financial support.

The Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) was the armed wing of ZAPU which was formed in the 1960s and had camps in Angola and in Lusaka, Zambia which were provided by the Zambian government to help in the liberation of their fellow Africans in Zimbabwe. ZIPRA’s crossing points to and from Zimbabwe were at Feira in Zambia opposite Mashonaland East. It was more influenced by the Soviet Union than by China as it adhered to Marxist-Leninist principles of mobilising the urban workers rather than the Maoist principles of mobilising the rural peasantry pursued by the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, the military wing of ZANU. ZIPRA was also in a formal alliance with Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the military wing of the African National Congress in South Africa. In the mid-1960s, these two allied organisations mounted a celebrated mission into Southern Rhodesia, although this mission was not militarily successful. This mission, known as the Wankie fiasco, saw several hundred ZIPRA and MK freedom fighters enter Rhodesia through the uninhabited areas of Wankie and these were either killed or captured by a joint Rhodesian-South African force. Other countries, such as North Korea, had its military officials train the Zimbabwean freedom fighters how to use explosives and arms at a camp near Pyongyang.

ZANLA, on the other hand, was formed in 1965 in Tanzania and was heavily influenced by the Maoist guerrilla tactics that had been used very successfully by FRELIMO in Mozambique, that is, by infiltrating combatants into Zimbabwe, politicising the peasantry, and participating in ‘hit-and-run’ ambush operations. Even before Mozambique’s independence from Portugal, FRELIMO had supported ZANLA by allowing it to use the territory it controlled in Tete district along the Rhodesian border as a base of operations against the Rhodesian government. Because of its close ties with Mozambique’s FRELIMO, ZANLA gained a lot of support after Mozambique’s independence when its government permitted ZANLA to open training and supply camps along the Mozambican-Zimbabwean border which greatly assisted in the recruitment and training of troops.

The OAU member states’ meetings and resolutions concerning the white minority regime in Rhodesia induced Britain to push the United Nations to invoke mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia in 1968. However, these sanctions had many failings which included: the long period of time which had elapsed since Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain in 1961 which had enabled the white regime to make adjustments and arrangements for the evasion of sanctions; the refusal of South Africa and Portugal to apply sanctions by continuing normal trade with Rhodesia and acting as go-betweens to market its goods and import on its behalf; and the general lack of political will on the part of most members of the United Nations to make sanctions work effectively. These sanctions against Rhodesia, although they did not work, helped to give a moral boost to the liberation movements in Zimbabwe, because despite the internal divisions within it, the OAU supported their fellow Africans in their struggle for freedom. Through its Liberation Committee, the OAU co-ordinated the material and financial support sent to the liberation movements in Zimbabwe from independent African states and from abroad. It also sought to reconcile the differences between ZANU and ZAPU, the main revolutionary groups in Zimbabwe so as to unify their forces against the common enemy. Both ZANU and ZAPU had gotten embroiled in the struggle within the Communist bloc between China and the Soviet Union about the latter’s leadership of the bloc. Each of these nationalist movements had adopted the communist doctrines of its main sponsor, such that ZAPU had adopted those of the Soviet Union while ZANU had adopted those of China. This resulted in the difficulty that kept these movements apart as well as various battles between their military wings.

The coup against the Salazar regime in Portugal in 1974 and its subsequent decolonisation policy helped the liberation movement in Zimbabwe a great deal because the white minority government lost one of its most important outlets for its exports namely, the ports of Mozambique. This coup also shocked the white regime and its main ally, South Africa, into the realisation that the African liberation movements could, through long and sustained armed struggle, force a colonial power to decolonise. This led the government of South Africa to adopt a more conciliatory approach to its relations with the newly independent black African states as well as its commitment to a political solution to the crisis in Rhodesia. South Africa was in a key position to influence Rhodesia because its roads and railways were the lifeline of the Rhodesian economy and as such was the only government in the region that was capable of putting pressure on it. The moderation of the policies of its chief ally towards its enemies led the embattled Rhodesian government to start negotiations with the African nationalists in Zimbabwe and finally to the beginning of majority rule in the country.

Cuba: What everyone needs to know

The Cuban starter pack

It has, over the years, become necessary to paint a vivid picture of Cuba from the time when it was still a Spanish colony through to the twenty first century and the struggles which this country and people have had to undergo in order to reach where they are today. It is necessary to use the format of asking questions and coming up with suitable answers to these questions so that a clearer picture of the true history of Cuba, without the bias which it has had to endure from some American writers. The discussion of the early liberation struggles of the people of this country against colonialism, first against Spain, and later against the United States, after the latter was awarded Cuba after winning its war against Spain is also necessary. Cuba had to suffer from decades during which the country was ruled by American backed dictators who suppressed the country’s interests in favor of their sponsors, mainly the United States and companies from this country. It is essential that a clear picture of how Cuba had to suffer land alienation as almost two thirds of the country’s land was either in the hands of private owners from the United States or in that of American corporations.

The events leading to the revolution and the American response to it that led this country to move into the Soviet sphere of influence are a direct result of American policy. The reasons for the success of the revolution despite the fact that it was often challenged by its more powerful neighbor to the north is that the revolution has proven its resilience. In addition, it is pertinent that a criticism of the American policies on Cuba after the revolution and suggestions of what the former could have done differently to ensure that it remained influential within Cuba. The six decades of the revolution should also discussed and this is coupled with a discussion of the circumstances that have ensured its survival to the present and the reasons why it did not collapse as soon as the Soviet Union, which was its main backer, did. One of the most fascinating factors concerning the Cuban revolution is the smooth transition of power from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul, and how the latter has presided over the liberalization of the economy so that the country can not only remain competitive on the world scene, but also for the benefit of the Cuban people.

Cuba: the land of contrast

The revolution has played an immense part in the development of the the people of Cuba since not only their standards of living but also their society changed for the better after the revolution. The revolution has ensured that the Cuban people are aware of each other’s equality and because of this, then they have to treat each other well, like a part of a greater family. This positive attitude towards each other it has enabled all workers within the Cuban economy to concentrate more on service for the greater good of all Cubans, than to work for personal gain. One of the firmest principles which the revolution has instilled among the Cubans is that working for the people of Cuba is the most valuable thing because it is what will determine whether the revolution is eventually judged as being either a success or a failure. It is through the revolution that the Cubans became, for the first time, a united nation which was not divided by class or by interference from foreign countries such as the United States. It is only after the revolution that the Cubans came to identify their country as their own and this has created a strong nationalist feeling among them that is hard to match anywhere else in the world. The fact that the revolution has managed to survive for this long can be attributed in part to the strong sense of ownership that the Cubans have towards the revolution.

One of the legacies of the revolution is that of the achievement of literacy for all Cubans and because of this, Cuba is currently the only country in the world which has achieved a hundred percent literacy for all its citizens and all Cubans of any age have at least a basic education, a feat which even the United States, a long term rival of the revolution, has yet to achieve. The revolution has encouraged the equal opportunity among men and women throughout the economy and this has been because of the belief that these two genders have equal capabilities to function at work. There is hardly any task which is designated to one gender that cannot be undertaken by the other. Furthermore, it has ensured that there is a balance between the employment of men and women in the workplace, hence ensuring that gender balance has been achieved. Cuba is the only state in the world to achieve an almost perfect gender balance, and in addition to the total literacy rate, the Cuban revolution has not only achieved universal healthcare for all its people, but it has also been able to develop one of the best medical healthcare systems in the world, another feat that it has accomplished without the advantages other countries have and despite the American attempts to stifle the revolution through the imposition of the trade embargo. The resilience of the Cuban revolution has also been able to raise the image of its leader, Fidel Castro, who is looked upon as a larger than life personality and who has been a thorn in the side of the United States for over five decades.

The United States has, from the very beginning of the revolution, been the biggest enemy of Cuba and it has, time and time again, tried to overthrow the revolution and replace it with a corrupt capitalistic system like the one which existed before. According to the book, the United States is the biggest threat to the achievements of life which the new order after the revolution has brought for the Cuban people. There has always been a possibility that the United States may foment revolt against the revolution by promising a few Cubans a better life to the one which they currently have, an action which would more likely than not destroy the achievements that have been made by Cuba so far. The obsession with Cuba which has been displayed by successive American administrations shows just how potent the revolution has become and this has been the main reason for the imposition of the trade embargo over this country. The irrational fear of the Cuban revolution by the United States government and the policies which have been adopted against it have ensured that this island nation has not had the opportunity to develop its potential to the fullest. However, despite the hostility from the United States, the Cuban revolution was able to have a lot of influence on the world scene as seen in its involvement in the protection of the government of the newly independent African country of Angola from Apartheid sponsored rebels.

Cuba was able to send more than thirty thousand troops to aid the ailing African nationalist government and it is partially because of this action that part of the military power of the oppressive Apartheid South African regime was destroyed. Furthermore, the Cuban revolution attempted to aid other countries such as Congo and Bolivia in their bid to have their own revolutions, although the latter was not successful. The book comes to the conclusion that the United States has for a long time been unfair towards the revolution through its policies and expresses the desire for better relations with Cuba especially during the Obama administration.

Governance Networks

Within the last decades of the twentieth century, the concept of governance developed within political studies and the fields related to it. This concept is one that seeks to promote the idea that there is a wide variety of approaches that are required to make sure that there is an understanding of the world and the changing nature of the role of the state within the international system. Furthermore, there is the rise of the belief that governance can be used to promote the idea that the contemporary world is where individuals live in a world where there are a diversity of coexisting networks that are aimed at safeguarding the lives of individuals as well as society in general (Bush, Oosterveer, Bailey, & Mol, 2015). These networks have developed in such a way that ensures that there is the creation of a better understanding of the massive urbanization, globalization, and a diversity of other societal demands that have come about because of the considerable participation of the civil society in everyday life (Fung, 2015). This new knowledge is essential in bringing about an understanding of the way that the world is developing because it allows for the inclusion of the manner that new concepts such as the participation of the civic society has been able to establish a strong public voice in decision making. In this paper, there will be a discussion and analysis of the concept of the governance network and the manner through which it has been able to affect the world.

One of the most significant aspects of the governance network is that it has led to the argument that societies are increasingly becoming fragmented. This is mainly because of the belief that the new demands that are being made on governments has led them towards a shift from the more traditional bureaucratic order to one that is more responsive to the demands of society (Wiesel & Modell, 2014). Such interactive governments have the potential of leading towards the fragmentation of society because it involves a process where there is greater devolution of power in such a way that promotes the achievement of more efficiency when it comes to service delivery. Governance networks have also become critical when it comes to policymaking because the individuals involved in the latter tend to consult with the diverse stakeholders in society before any decisions are made (Bovaird, Stoker, Jones, Loeffler, & Pinilla Roncancio, 2016). The arbitrary decision making processes that was an essential aspect of the bureaucratic forms of government are increasingly being abandoned in favour of more open ones where there is need to seek to achieve the approval of stakeholders before policies are implemented (Denis, Ferlie, & Van Gestel, 2015; Greve, 2015). Furthermore, there has also been an increasing role of the private sector in those aspects of government that were previously the strict domain of the public sector (O'Toole, 2015). Thus, governance networks have become essential means through which to bring about a form of governmental devolution that seeks to enhance service delivery in the most efficient way possible while at the same time reducing the role of government in the process. It has also ensured that the role of government in society has essentially become blurred because the institutions involved in service delivery have their roles increasingly being taken by more specialized entities from the private sector.

The latter collaborative arrangements have made it possible for governments to undertake their tasks in a manner that is more supervisory than active. Governance networks have ensured that there is an increase in the proliferation of governance arrangements either with the private sector or other governments with the aim of bringing about a more efficient achievement of goals (Page, Stone, Bryson, & Crosby, 2015). This is especially the case considering that there are some governance networks which have developed between a local government, other governments, as well as the private sector with the aim of seeking to achieve the best possible results when it comes to undertaking their functions. These new collaborations have essentially made it possible for governance networks to become more common in the contemporary world to such an extent that they have become the norm. It is currently normal for individuals to expect that network arrangements will bring them the services that they need without a complete reliance on their governments to provide the services (Vangen, Hayes, & Cornforth, 2015). Governments have ended up becoming facilitators and guarantors rather than the actual providers of services; meaning that there has developed a necessity that there is the establishment of newer networks to increase efficiency. It has also become possible for a new layer of governance to appear within local governments, with these layers playing a significant role when it comes to the development of strong initiatives aimed at enhancing efficiency while at the same time reducing the role of government (Kapucu, Hu, & Khosa, 2017). The various stakeholders in society have also come to have a say in the management of their own governments and how services are delivered. However, despite this being the case, it is essential to approach governance networks with caution because despite their being widespread, they have not been as widely adopted as expected.

Governance networks have brought about a greater understanding of the role that networks can play in enhancing the role of governments. This is because it involves an understanding of the manner through which the complexity of the multi-governmental landscape has become a necessity in the contemporary world (De Vries, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2016). It is necessary to consider that governance networks have essentially made it possible for there to be the creation of means through which to bring about the interaction between a diversity of actors in society in such a way that promotes the interests of all involved because there is devolution of functions (Borg, Toikka, & Primmer, 2015). Furthermore, it has become possible for these actors to come to terms with each other’s capabilities in such a way that helps to bring about the achievement of means through which to promote the diversification of functions towards the achievement of common goals. Thus, it can be argued that politicians and administrators have become the main actors when it comes to the promotion of societal interests and this has been in such a way that they have come to be seen as the guarantors of public services (Bryson, Crosby, & Bloomberg, 2014; Head & Alford, 2015). However, despite the achievement of this objective, it has become essential to consider that these individuals have gained considerable power over a diversity of functions. This is especially the case considering that these individuals might end up abusing their power to ensure that they serve the interests of their respective organizations or lobbies that sponsored them towards attaining their positions (Howlett & Ramesh, 2016). Therefore, there should be a process where there is the development of awareness concerning the relationships between the actors in various governance networks so that it can be possible to bring about the achievement of greater transparency in the processes that are undertaken.

The term governance network implies that there is a convergence when it comes to a diversity of issues concerning government and the manner through which it is operated. It is necessary to consider that this convergence is one that has taken place in order to meet the needs of society while at the same time promoting a situation where there is the achievement of common goals in as efficient a manner as possible (Lecy, Mergel, & Schmitz, 2014). While there has been considerable debate concerning what exactly governance networks mean, it is pertinent to consider that it is a reality in the contemporary world and has to be understood as such. A body of knowledge and concepts concerning governance networks has grown over the years and this has led to the establishment of means through which an understanding of the term can be understood. One of the most important factors concerning governance networks is that is involves a situation where service delivery and policy are developed and implemented through networks that involve actors that are essentially interdependent. The interdependency between the various actors can be considered to be an essential aspect of promoting the development of the networks that are involved in service delivery (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2015). It is also necessary to stress that it is the actors who make choices concerning the strategies that they have to use in order to find and make solutions to various problems. There are also instances where there is a complexity of interactions and negotiating partners that come about because of the interdependencies that occur between actors (Skelcher & Smith, 2015). Therefore, the different governance networks tend to be quite diverse in their make up because each of them is developed to satisfy a large number of unique needs (Van den Hurk & Verhoest, 2015). The variety of perceptions and strategies that they have to implement requires that there is the achievement of unique problem solving, service delivery and policy implementation initiatives at all times to ensure efficiency.

In conclusion, the governance network approach is one that stresses the need to consider the outcomes of the implementation of different policies and service delivery. A consideration of the outcomes ensures that there are initiatives aimed at promoting the development of the most pertinent policies possible while at the same time including the most qualified actors to undertake the diverse tasks involved in bringing about the achievement of results. The development of an understanding of needs is critical for the creation of institutionalization of the relationships that come about between the different actors. These create patterns that are necessary for the promotion of effective working relationships between actors that make it possible to bring about strong service delivery initiatives. The relationships involved are those that ensure that there is the establishment of social networks that are necessary for not only bringing about better service delivery, but also ensures that there is the establishment of a basis upon which the various actors can work together in other networks. Finally, the relationships between the various actors ensures that there is the emergence of rules that promote the regulation of the behaviour within networks; making it possible for actors to explore new content that might enhance their efficiency while at the same time helping in enhancing the quality of services being delivered.

References

Borg, R., Toikka, A., & Primmer, E. (2015). Social capital and governance: a social network analysis of forest biodiversity collaboration in Central Finland. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 90-97.

Bovaird, T., Stoker, G., Jones, T., Loeffler, E., & Pinilla Roncancio, M. (2016). Activating collective co-production of public services: influencing citizens to participate in complex governance mechanisms in the UK. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 47-68.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public administration review, 74(4), 445-456.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross‐sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public administration review, 75(5), 647-663.

Bush, S. R., Oosterveer, P., Bailey, M., & Mol, A. P. (2015). Sustainability governance of chains and networks: a review and future outlook. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 8-19.

De Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146-166.

Denis, J. L., Ferlie, E., & Van Gestel, N. (2015). Understanding hybridity in public organizations. Public Administration, 93(2), 273-289.

Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public administration review, 75(4), 513-522.

Greve, C. (2015). Ideas in public management reform for the 2010s. Digitalization, value creation and involvement. Public Organization Review, 15(1), 49-65.

Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739.

Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2016). Achilles' heels of governance: Critical capacity deficits and their role in governance failures. Regulation & Governance, 10(4), 301-313.

Kapucu, N., Hu, Q., & Khosa, S. (2017). The state of network research in public administration. Administration & Society, 49(8), 1087-1120.

Lecy, J. D., Mergel, I. A., & Schmitz, H. P. (2014). Networks in public administration: current scholarship in review. Public Management Review, 16(5), 643-665.

O'Toole, L. J. (2015). Networks and networking: The public administrative agendas. Public administration review, 75(3), 361-371.

Page, S. B., Stone, M. M., Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2015). Public Value Creation by Cross‐Sector Collaborations: A Framework and Challenges of Assessment. Public Administration, 93(3), 715-732.

Skelcher, C., & Smith, S. R. (2015). Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public Administration, 93(2), 433-448.

Van den Hurk, M., & Verhoest, K. (2015). The governance of public–private partnerships in sports infrastructure: Interfering complexities in Belgium. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 201-211.

Vangen, S., Hayes, J. P., & Cornforth, C. (2015). Governing cross-sector, inter-organizational collaborations. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1237-1260.

Wiesel, F., & Modell, S. (2014). From new public management to new public governance? Hybridization and implications for public sector consumerism. Financial Accountability & Management, 30(2), 175-205.

Eddie Mabo

Eddie Mabo was an Australian man who played a crucial role in the recognition of the right of the indigenous people to own the land in the country. He was born in the Torres Strait Islands in 1936 and it was one of his fundamental beliefs that the land upon which he was born belonged to him and his people. An indigenous Australian, he displayed an astute knowledge of the fact that the land upon which he was born was rightfully indigenous, and that the laws that had been instituted by the colonial settlers and their government did the indigenous people a great injustice. For almost a decade, this man fought for the rights of his people by taking a case to court with the intention of having it overturn the terra nullius land system in Australia which alienated the indigenous people from their land. The sheer determination of this man, against all odds, ensured that he had one of the greatest wins in Australian history for an indigenous person, because the ruling made, overturning the terra nullius system, ensured that over three hundred years of injustice had almost come to an end. The overturning of this system further granted the indigenous people the confidence of identifying themselves with the land of their ancestors and ensured that their right to it was recognized beyond doubt. Eddie Mabo was a man who rose from humble origins as a gardener to becoming one of the national icons of Australia because of the fact that he was deeply involved in fighting for the rights of his people.

While he was born in the Torres Strait Islands, Mabo spent most of his life in Queensland, and was in fact not a well known figure in his home island until after he took his case on indigenous land rights to court. It was only after his death from cancer as well as the court victory over the land issue five months later that his fellow indigenous people on the island welcomed his as one of their own. His victory did not only affect the people of his home island but also all the indigenous people of Australia and this is the reason why Mabo has become one of the most respected men among them. The idea that an indigenous person could almost singlehandedly challenge the Australian status quo and gain a great victory from it was one of those instances which were unheard of in the history of this country. The indigenous people had long been suppressed by the colonial government, and later by the white settlers who dominated and continue to dominate almost every aspect of life in Australia. Mabo’s posthumous court victory ensured that the indigenous people were recognized as a legitimate part of the Australian population with the same rights as those who dominated the society. Furthermore, it may have played a role in the recognition of indigenous people as reasoning human beings who had, throughout the history of the colonization of Australia had been treated unfairly; the court case was therefore the first step in correcting the injustice done to them.

The overturning of the terra nullius policy can be said to be, in reality, a policy of inclusion whose purpose is to ensure that all the Australian people have an equal chance to compete in making their dreams and aspirations come true. Previously, indigenous groups were completely excluded from the majority of economic activities in Australia except for those which were considered to be labor intensive. Moreover these groups were rarely ever accepted in the mainstream Australian life, therefore, Mabo’s court victory can be said to have been a step towards the inclusion of the indigenous people into the center of Australian society. From the very beginning of the Mabo’s case in court, there has been opposition towards it with those against it stating that it is giving an unfair advantage to minority groups over other people in Australia. Those who are opposed to the overturning of the terra nullius system further state that this action went against the proper way of Australian life because of the belief that did not treat all people equally, and instead it gives unfair privileges to those people who would otherwise not have deserved them. These arguments are not very logical considering the injustices which were committed against the indigenous Australian groups in the past. The white population in Australia has been, for a long time, dominant, and Mabo’s court victory was a direct challenge to this status. This may help to explain why Mabo’s grave was vandalized and racist terms painted all over it. This vandalism forced the exhumation of his body and its reburial in his ancestral home in the Torres Strait; a place for whose people he had fought for and won the right to own the land upon which they had lived from time immemorial.

Mabo’s court victory has over the last two decades come to have a significant impact on the people of the islands where he was born. Among the most significant aspects of this has been the recognition that the indigenous people were greatly marginalized in matters concerning health when compared to the mainstream Australian population. This has led to the improvement of the healthcare facilities which are available for them, ensuring a higher life expectancy than in previous years. The declining child death rates has led to a decline in the birth rates, because parents are now more secure because they know that there are enough resources available today to ensure that their children survive. Another reason for this is the fact that the economic conditions prevalent in the indigenous Australian society today do not allow parents to have more than a few children at a time because they cannot afford to have more even if they wanted to. This results in not only fewer children, but it also means that there are fewer ties to the extended family and this in turn means that in subsequent generations, there will be fewer uncles, aunts and cousins, on whom to rely, than in previous generations.

The life expectation of native Australians between the years 1991 and 1996 was projected to be fifty six and sixty one years for men and women in that order. This was found to be considerably lower than that of the mainstream population which was estimated to be between 75 and 91 years for men and women respectively. Furthermore, it was found that the death rate among many indigenous people was at a much higher rate than those of the mainstream Australian population. In fact, the death rate was so high that that they exceeded the general Australian population in every age group that was analyzed. Most of the people from indigenous populations died before reaching the age of fifty, and this was attributed to the lack of the proper healthcare facilities that other Australians have access to. The indigenous population has been completely marginalized in all matters concerning health and this has contributed a great deal in the high mortality rates among them, just when they are at their prime. It has been found that one of the leading causes of death among this population are cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes, and these made up 75% of all the deaths that were reported within this population. The rates of hospitalization was much higher among the indigenous people than that of the general Australian public, with these being much higher in all the age groups that were assessed.

While Mabo’s court victory may have been the first step towards the improvement of the lives of the indigenous people, there is still a lot to be done to achieve this objective. Racism is still as prevalent as it was before the ruling, as seen when Mabo’s grave was vandalized just one day after his funeral with racist terms being painted all over his headstone. In addition, the health status of indigenous people, for whom Mabo fought, while it has improved somewhat, still has a long way to go before it can reach the status that the other Australians enjoy. Life expectancy is still low, with many indigenous people not living to be more than fifty years old, an occurrence which is a great tragedy in a country which prides itself in being one of the most developed in the world. The fact that an indigenous person had to go to court in order to get basic land rights for its people shows just how ironic Australian democracy is because it favors those people of Caucasian descent more than the natives of the land. This has created a situation where the latter are dominated completely and they have little say in their own destiny. It is to either bow to the status quo or risk the continued marginalization of their society. This is something which should not be accepted, not only by the indigenous people themselves, but also by the government because the latter should be at the forefront of protecting the rights of the indigenous people. The indigenous people should also fight for their own rights because not to do so would mean that their situation will not be recognized, hence a solution will not be attained. It such a thing was to happen, then the legacy of such indigenous men as Eddie Mabo would be forever tarnished.

Understanding the Global Community - Liberalism/Neoliberalism

Control Room (2004)

Control Room is a documentary whose main intention is to clear the name of the Al Jazeera reporting of the Iraq war, since in the United States, members of the Bush administration referred to this channel as the mouthpiece of terrorist organizations, most especially, Al Qaeda. This documentary seeks to show that this belief is not true and that it is merely propaganda to discredit its image. When one watches this documentary, one would not fault the way Al Jazeera covered the news during the Iraq war because it is revealed that the coverage was balanced and to the point. Al Jazeera showed the true picture of the war and not what the American government wished for its people to see; the realities of the war. In fact, if one carefully considers the information which this channel broadcast during this war, there would be a realization that the American public would not have supported such a war had they seen what it did not, only to the Arabs of Iraq, but also to the American men and women who went to fight in the war. Control Room is an eye opener towards some of the events which took place in Iraq and how these events were covered by the Al Jazeera network. It reveals that, despite the statements made against it by the Bush administration, none of the statements made were true and were, in fact, an attempt to cover up the truth about the war from the American public. This documentary is an attempt to show the news about the Iraq war, not from the perspective of the media of the west, but that of the region in which the war occurred.

The first scenes of this documentary seem to reinforce the belief that it is a network whose sole purpose is the spread of anti-American propaganda. The people who are seen working behind the scenes are all dressed in traditional Arab headgear, and when the American president issues an ultimatum to the Iraqi president, it is seen that those observing in the room jeer at the former. While, for many, this would reinforce the stereotype that has come to plague the Al Jazeera network, the truth is that the scene was inserted in the documentary to show that this network is not as different from those in the west as many would think. The documentary reveals that the statements by President Bush and his secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, that Al Jazeera was the mouthpiece of Osama bin Laden and that it was the centre of anti-American propaganda in the United States are completely unfounded. In fact, it is revealed that the exact opposite is the truth; that Al Jazeera is a network which is dedicated to presenting balanced news about the Middle East to the entire world. It is not mired down by state or political interests but in the interest of providing quality news. This documentary takes the audience behind the scenes, and reveals the people who are behind the collection of the news that is presented at Al Jazeera. While this network is much disliked and thought of in a negative light by some people, it has one of the largest viewer bases in the world, competing with such channels as BBC and CNN. During the Iraq war, this network was among the one with the most presence in the country, and it lost several journalists who were caught in American bombing while doing their jobs on the ground. In an attempt to achieve objectivity in its coverage of the war, it showed images of American servicemen and Iraqis who had been killed in the war, as well as the destruction which accompanied the deaths. Such images were rarely if at all, shown by the media of the West which reveals that Al Jazeera was more objective than they were. Such situations came to be seen as this network working against the interests of America, something which the documentary reveals to be untrue.

The documentary is shot at the Al Jazeera headquarters in Doha, Qatar, and it is here that the image of this network as a producer of anti-American propaganda is burnished. Instead, what is revealed is an image of people who work hard just like in other networks to bring the news from the field and present it to the public. What is shown is that it is not a network of propaganda as some have put it, but one which functions regularly. In fact, the documentary shows that the biases against the network do not stem from the network’s actions, but from the various administrations in the west, particularly the United States. The documentary does not just reveal information from one side, but it works towards showing what people from the other side think. Among those who are interviewed is Josh Rushing who is a media liaison for the American military and has a strong belief in the correctness of America’s mission in Iraq. There is also one Hassan Ibrahim, a journalist who works for the BBC and whose only mission in his work is to find out the truth. Both of these people reveal their true feelings concerning America’s mission in Iraq and the role of the media in its coverage. The stance taken by these men on various matters can be a surprise to many who watch the documentary as they show just how difficult it is to achieve objectivity in the coverage of any news story. There is also the revelation from some of those interviewed that they have a strong commitment to democracy and that they, in fact, immensely admire the constitution of the United States. This would surprise many in the wet because of the fact that most of the countries of the Middle East, in which Al Jazeera is based, are autocracies or absolute monarchies. This crumbles the common western stereotype that Al Jazeera is for the sole purpose of inflaming the Middle Eastern public against the American government and people. Instead, the image of a news network that is dedicated to the objective presentation of news to the world is revealed. The documentary serves as a redeemer for the tarnished image of Al Jazeera and presents it as a network deserving of merit for the work that it does.

The Hunger Games (2012)

The Hunger Games is a film directed by Gary Ross and is based on the novel of the same name by Suzanne Collins, and it should be on the top ten list for movies of the year for any reader of Critical Thinker magazine because it deals with many themes, such as hunger and poverty, which are pertinent in modern society. The success of The Hunger Games and the wave of interest it has generated has inspired the development of two sequels. Before its official release, this film generated a lot of interest among the prospective audience because of the difference in concept to the other films that had recently come from Hollywood. It can be said that the concept, upon which the film is based, is highly unique and extraordinarily few films have been created using the same concept. This film employs a vibrating abruptness that is hardly ever found in the work of Hollywood directors, and this can be said to bring the film closer to the realities of life. It has some cold bloodedness that is hard to find in many contemporary films, and this makes it one of a kind. When the film was released, it did not disappoint those who had expected it to have the qualities that were unique and fun, and at the same time made the film a serious picture to watch. It looks at the relationship between an authoritarian state and its citizens in a new perspective that many would consider impossible. This film is, therefore, worthy of the adoration that many of its fans have had, and continue to have, for it.

The motion picture gives the viewer a glance into the life of Katniss Everdeen, who lives in the post-apocalyptic state of Panem. In this state, because of a past rebellion, its twelve districts have to provide two tributes, a boy and a girl aged between 12 and 18 annually to fight to the death in an arena, with the sole survivor being declared the winner. Katniss takes the place of her younger sister in the games and because of her skill in archery is able to survive some of the worst attacks by her fellow competitors. In addition, she has a love interest in the form of Peeta, who before they get into the arena declares his love for her in an interview. The plot revolves around the relationships that Katniss develops throughout the film, from the one where she seems to love Peeta to her friendship with Rue, a girl from a different district who saves her life. Katniss looks upon Rue as a little sister and form a partnership with her, but this does not last for long as Rue is killed by a member of another district. It is from this point that we seen a change in the character of Katniss as she becomes more assertive and dares to challenge the authority of the government of Panem through various actions. It is through these actions that Katniss is able to force the hand of the government, to change the rules of the game so that individuals can work as teams. It is as a result of this that Katniss and Peeta emerge as winners, and the film ends with the president of Panem pondering on how best to deal with the emergence of defiance in the games.

There is a sense, around the main characters of the film, of being disconnected and alienated by the government and this helps to increase the excitement that one feels when watching it. This feeling keeps one wondering what is going to happen next, ensuring that one fully concentrates on the film, so the later scenes are not missed out. The characters are, unknowingly, brought together at the beginning of the film, each not having a hint of how interconnected their lives truly are. The participants in the games have to deal with not getting too close to the people around them for fear that they might find it harder to kill them when the time comes, since there must only be one winner. This situation keeps them alien in their new environment as they are not able to form the bonds of friendship, with the people around them, as would happen had they been in a normal situation. This film dares its audience to decide who the hero or the villain is because even those individuals who form partnerships, such as Peeta and Katniss, do not know exactly what the other is about. Despite the fact that they work together hand in hand to keep them alive, there seems to be no hint, especially from Katniss, that she does not have any feelings for Peeta until almost at the end of the film. From the beginning, these two characters are accepted as they are with no questions being asked, their behavior being taken for granted.

What makes this film special is not its plot, but the way the various actors starring in it portray the characters. Katniss is shown to be a woman who would have made a different choice in life had the responsibility of saving her younger sister by participating in the hunger games had not been thrust upon her. She is seen as a tortured woman whose life has been chosen for her, and there is no way for her to get out of this purgatory except as the winner. The lives of some of those involved in the games, such as Peeta, Rue, and Katniss are seen as a form of torture for them, and it is this shared torture that makes them come together to ensure their survival. Their motivation is to do the best they can in order to survive in situations which the fates have thrust upon them. Both Peeta and Katniss, through their acting up their love for each other do extremely well in the situations within which they are placed. Both of them go through the fights, killing all their rivals until they eventually become the joint winners of the hunger games. Therefore, neither of these characters can be described as being either good or evil, and instead, they can be said to be working for their own survival.

This is indeed a bold film which deals with the lives of individuals whose lives are going in a way which they did not expect. It focuses on Katniss’ desire to break away from the chains that are holding her and her society back, and this is despite the fact that if she manages to do so, then it might lead to her destruction. One can also say that the film is a tragedy because characters such as Rue end up dying and these results in a lot of grief for Katniss, with whom she had developed a close friendship. It can, therefore, be said that this film manages to capture the different aspects of human life. It shows the audience the futility of some of the actions that people take in their lives, teaching that one does not always get what they want. It is a film of revelation, as the characters get to assess their lives in different situations and come to find what it is they desire in their lives. The plot, as well as the skills displayed by the actors, has made the film one of the best to be made in recent years. The movie also has emotional twist, as seen where Katniss seems to be confused about her feelings for Peeta, and when the latter realizes that Katniss has been faking her affection for him throughout the games, he is terribly disappointed. Their seeming love affair is played out throughout the film and this receives high ratings from the audience, who are in full support of the couple.

African Americans and Japanese Americans During WWII and its Aftermath

African Americans and Japanese Americans had a long history of discrimination in the country and this became worse during and after the Second World War when many of them came to be segregated along racial lines. The history of discrimination against these two communities tended to be extreme because they were treated as lesser human beings who had no rights. Therefore, despite having been in America for several generations already, these groups came to face many challenges especially during the war and post-war period.

When the African Americans who had been to the war returned home, they came with new ideas acquired from their experiences in the warzone in Europe. While they were in Europe, they had been treated on an equal basis by the white people of that continent and this made them realise their rights as human beings. Those from the south had a new mindset which would eventually lead them to ensuring that their rights as human beings were respected and that the Jim Crow South did not remain as it had been previously.

The fact that African Americans came to realise their rights and demanded them did not go down well within the white dominated society. This period came to see heavy attacks on the African Americans by the white establishment, especially in the south where many were attacked in broad daylight in full view of the police who did nothing to protect these people (Hobson, 356). It was the escalation of these attacks as well as the discrimination in other sectors of the social and economic life of the United States that there developed the Civil Rights Movement whose main purpose was to fight for the rights of the African Americans.

After the Pearl Harbour attacks in the United States, where the Imperial Japanese navy attacked the United States on its own soil, it was the Japanese Americans who came to face the brunt of the public anger that developed. The Japanese Americans were innocent of any involvement in these attacks yet they were increasingly viewed with suspicion by the mainstream American society. This situation became worse once the United States entered the war on the side of the Allies, since the Japanese Americans were made to leave their homes and moved into detention camps because of the suspicion that there were Japanese spies among them (Staub 1238).

The fact that they were detained by their own government despite having lived in the United States for generations and having broken all ties with Japan was a sign that they had not been fully accepted into American society. Those who were detained in these camps, when eventually set free, were much traumatised because they failed to see the reason why they had been detained in the first place. Just because they looked different form the rest of the American people and that their ancestors originally came from a country which had attacked the United States was not a valid reason for their discrimination and this they came to realise as a violation of their fundamental rights as Americans.

LGBT Rights in Russia

The Russian government has been involved in the abuse of the rights of the gay community within it, and this has been done through the introduction of laws which have led to the outright discrimination of this community. The absolute power of the state of the state has ensured that it has been able to develop anti-gay laws which are completely discriminatory towards the gay people in Russia. This has created a situation where many people of homosexual inclination within the country have been forced to hide their orientation for fear that they might become victims of the anti-gay propaganda that has become prevalent. However, while the government has and continues to be a foremost perpetrator of the discrimination against gay people in the country, there has also developed an increasing threat from many of the ultra-nationalist groups that have come into existence. The members of these groups have been known to attack, murder and display other forms of violence against gay people in the belief that the latter are going against the cultural values of Russia by being open about their sexual orientation. The fact that some cultural values can be discriminatory towards some members of the society does not seem to occur to them, with a majority holding the belief that gay people in Russia have to be exterminated. Moreover, the government has been a passive supporter of the actions of ultra-nationalist gangs through not taking any of the cases concerning the victimization of gay people seriously. The fact that the government is able to stand by and do nothing to contain abuses against its citizens, despite their being gay, is evidence that these gangs are conducting their activities with its approval.

The Russian state is one of the biggest perpetrators of abuses against the gay people living in the country and this discrimination seems to be done with the intention of ensuring that they are completely suppressed. The fact that the state is the main sponsor of laws which prevent gay people from being open about their orientation and from having the same rights as other Russians has become a source of widespread concern for the gay community in Russia. The government has worked towards portraying homosexuality as being foreign to Russian cultural values and that it is propaganda from the decadent West which seeks to undermine the Russian state and people. While these claims by government officials can be considered to be preposterous, the fact remains that many Russians have come to be influenced by them and recent years have seen many individuals being openly discriminatory towards gay people. Gay people in Russia have come to be labeled as foreign agents whose aim is to bring chaos to Russia through the spread of gay propaganda that corrupts Russian people, especially the children. The fact that many gay people are not even politically active and whose only wish is to be accepted in the society is hardly ever taken into account and this has created a lot of problems for gay people in Russia. One would say that it has become very dangerous to be gay in Russia since the laws which have been passed by the Russian parliament against them as well as the actions of ultra-nationalist groups have made being gay taboo in the society.

Russia is a signatory of several human rights documents such as Universal declaration of Human Rights as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, but while this may be the case, the Russian state has not necessarily been bound by these international laws in its treatment of the gay community. Instead, despite being bound by these laws which prohibit any form of violation of the rights of individuals within Russia, the government has gone ahead and passed laws which are in contravention with international laws. Russia has completely disregarded the above-mentioned human rights laws, both binding and non-binding in its bid to ensure that the gay community is completely suppressed within the state. The importance of international laws when dealing with gay rights in Russia has been ignored as the government has continued to determinedly move ahead with its agenda, which is the total removal of the gay people and voice from the society. The fact that in June 2013, the Russian parliament passed a law banning any form of propaganda aimed at minors and promoting nontraditional sexual preferences is one of the steps that the government has taken against gay people. That this law is in contravention of the basic human rights of all the gay people in Russia has not been put into consideration and the fact has remained that it is being ruthlessly enforced. Many Russians of gay orientation have over the past few years found themselves in trouble for the most minor of offences and this has been because of the over-zealousness of government officials and law enforcement agencies in their bid to enforce the anti-gay propaganda law. Because of the vague wording in the law, government officials have made broad interpretations concerning it and the arrests and prosecutions that have been taking place have ensured that the voice of the gay community within Russia has been stifled. The ability of the state to disregard international laws that protect the rights of its people has created a situation where it has now become possible for the Russian government to continue conducting its repression of the gay community in its territory without any serious consequences from the international community.

In the case of LGBT rights in Russia, international law seems not to be able to protect them because of the government’s unwillingness to protect these rights. The Russian government has been a consistent opponent of the gay people in the country being able to enjoy equal rights to those of their fellow Russians and while this stance has been condemned by the international community, it has largely been ignored. The massive popularity that the Russian government currently enjoys has ensured that the bulk of the population has remained staunchly behind the law, with some individuals going as far as to take matters into their own hands by directly attacking gay people. The result has been that members of the gay community in Russia have continued to be under siege since their future within the country has increasingly become uncertain. It is currently in the hands of the Russian government to determine and assure the future rights of the gay community in Russia and this can only be done through the repealing of all laws which criminalize homosexuality.

The Need for the Legalization of Marijuana

The validation of the substance known as marijuana is one of the most divisive issues in the public stage today. Marijuana has, for a long time, been banned in many countries but those who advocate for it have recently gained ground. Some countries are decriminalizing the possession of this drug, with the aim of gaining control its movement. Opponents of this action state that marijuana is s harmful drug which comes to adversely affect the health of those who use it.

It is a fact that the public support for the legalization of marijuana has more than doubled since the 1970s, and this has created a strong case. The rise in public support can be attributed to the belief that the substance has become too common for it to be controlled. It has been found that a sizable number of Americans, some 38%, have at one time or another in their lives tried the drug and this may have contributed to its acceptance by many Americans. This shows that the American public, in general, is ready to accept the legalization of marijuana because it has become a basic part of their way of life.

The legalization of marijuana is an extremely desirable thing because of the fact that its consumption has not been found to have the lasting effects. While other drugs such as cocaine have adverse effect on the individuals who use them, marijuana’s effects are relatively mild. The legalization of this substance would ensure that the stigma associated with the use (medicinal or otherwise) and distribution of marijuana is done away with. In addition, the public acceptance of marijuana and its legalization will ensure that there is freedom of use for the substance, hence guaranteeing a basic human right of all adult Americans.

A benefit for the legalisation of marijuana would be the enabling of the elimination of the criminal market for the same substances. It is a fact that the production and use of some of marijuana creates an environment where organised crime becomes the norm as they fight to control the market for marijuana. The legalization of this substance would ensure that organised crime is forced out of its trade because they would be starved of their constant income. In addition, the legalization would enable the government to regulate and control the market for marijuana, ensuring that there are laws against selling the substance to minors.

In conclusion, as has been seen above, the fact remains that the legalization of marijuana is more beneficial than detrimental for the American society. The American society has become more accepting of the substance and the public support for its legalization may lead to its eventual acceptance. Marijuana is not the harmful drug to the extent that it has always been thought because quite a significant number of the American population has used it. The acceptance of the substance will also ensure the decriminalization of the trade in it since the cartels involved will no longer have the influence to control it. Therefore, the legalization of marijuana is a desirable development in the United States, since it will enable the sustaining of the right of Americans to make their own choices.

The Role of Art in Making Political Statements

Art has, for a lengthy time, been used to make political statements among the Rapanui. The art of the Rapanui, in particular the statues of Moai, are the last part of the ancient history of these people and because of this, they still have a special impact on then Rapanui. When the Spanish colonized the Easter Islands, they discovered the importance of these statues to the Rapanui and in order to make a political statement, these giant statues were toppled from their pedestals, to show that the Spanish were dominant on the islands. While this may have been the case, these statues have come to be recognized as a unique part of the Rapanui heritage and attempts have been made by the Chilean government, which governs the islands, to restore them. The Rapanui have made these statues their rallying point when agitating for political independence from Chile, which they consider to be an oppressive colonizer.

A similar political statement was made in the past by the English in a bid to establish their dominance over the Scottish people. The English, after defeating the Scots in battle, took the important Stone of Scone, which was an essential part of the Scottish coronation ritual, from Scotland to England. This was used as a symbol of English dominance of the Scots, but in this instance it does not seem to have worked since Scotland came to regain its independence later. In essence, art and objects of power have been used throughout history either as rallying points for political causes, or as means to dominate people who hold them in high regard.

Factors that Determine Regime Stability

Introduction

Political stability is a concept that is often discussed as an extremely valued condition because it brings about a situation where there is good political development. Instability, on the other hand, is considered to come about because of a lack of political development on the part of the state involved. This project presents a case study of the determinants of regime stability with specific reference to the Middle Eastern countries of Egypt and Iran, on one hand, and Mexico on the other.

Hypothesis

Most definitions of regime stability tend to be based on the prominence of regularity which has a positive effect on the system of government involved, and fail to consider that stability depends on the unique circumstances facing each regime.

Definition of key concepts

Regime – a government, especially one that is considered authoritarian.

Stability – the state of being stable, in this case political or concerning government.

The justification for dependent variable: positive representations of regime stability

A considerable number of studies present regime stability as the having a positive effect on the system of government involved. It is a means through which governments are assessed by internal actors and brings about a situation where there is the advancement of policies towards such regimes by external actors.

The justification for independent variable

Regime stability is dependent on the prevailing political conditions at home. Some regimes might seem to be highly stable yet prove to be quite vulnerable in the long run. Moreover, those that are seen as being highly volatile end up proving more durable.

Other significant variables

Lack of democratic space: despite the relative stability of a regime, there are instances where the population might end up revolting because they do not participate in politics.

Slow move towards change: the world is rapidly changing and this process has also come into politics. Lack of political reforms could lead to regime instability.

Influence from external actors: there might develop a situation where external actors seek to influence internal events, leading to considerable instability.

Review of Studies on the Topic

The belief in political stability is one that has for the most part promoted the policies of most countries towards others. This is because stability tends to be given more prominence than any other aspect of politics because it enables the achievement of goals that would otherwise be extremely difficult to bring about. Therefore, there is a constant need by countries, especially those that are international players, to ensure that they bring about the maintenance of regime stability in order to serve their own interests (Game III, 2011). Under such circumstances, predicting abrupt political change is often an extremely difficult task because it is often influenced by the way that political analysts conceptualize regime stability. Countries such as the United States and those that make up the EU have pursued varying policies in the Middle East with the aim of promoting a situation where their interests are based on the stability of the non-democratic regimes in the region. A consequence has been that whenever political changes have taken place, they have happened in such a way that has caught them by surprise. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that there is the advancement of greater efforts aimed at bringing about a greater understanding of the stability of regimes in the Middle East and other parts of the world in order to help in the development of more effective policies. There seems to have been a failure in the foreign policies of both the United States and the EU when it comes to understanding the determinants of regime stability in the Middle East and this has been an extremely costly mistake as seen with the events of the Arab Spring and their aftermath.

Apart from the Middle East, another area of concern for the United States for decades has been Latin America (Holden & Zolov, 2000). The political instability in Latin America has been represented through the Roosevelt Corollary and the revolutionary movements that pervaded the Central American nations for decades (Ricard, 2006). A sense of urgency to ensure an understanding of the factors that lead to the development of stable political systems, especially when considering the extralegal means through which power has been seized in the history of some South American countries, has been a hallmark of American policy in the region (Hart, 1977). Despite these events, a study of the political development of Mexico can be considered an essential one when it comes to regime stability. This is because despite revolutions taking place in the country, unlike other Latin American countries, Mexico has been able to ensure that it enjoys a relatively stable political environment for more than half a century (De Janvry, Gonzalez-Navarro, & Sadoulet, 2014). Despite considerable pressure having been placed on its political system due to rapid economic growth as well as other challenges, Mexico has been able to ensure that it continues to remain stable. Under such circumstances, Mexico can be considered a country that has remained fairly stable despite facing similar challenges to its Latin American counterparts, which have not fared as well.

Presentation and Justification of Cases

Claude Ake promotes the idea that political stability is essentially the regularity in which there is the flow of political exchanges within a society (Ake, 1975, p. 273). This is especially the case considering that political stability can only come about because of the decision of members of a society to put restrictions on themselves in such a way that they conform to the limits that have been imposed on them through the expectations brought about by political roles. Moreover, there is need to ensure that there is no confusion between political stability and the lack of political change. Ernest Duff and John Mccamant define a stable political system as one that can essentially withstand change, but also within the political structure that has been developed in society (Duff & McCamant, 1968, p. 1125). Leon Hurwitz identifies five approaches to the study of political stability and concludes that the most effective is to study political stability as a multifaceted social attribute. This view sees political stability as systemic stability and is a synthesis or integration of the other approaches (Hurwitz, 1973, p. 449).

Stability is considered to be desirable for a vast number of reasons and these are based on the need to ensure that there is the provision of an advantage to external players when it comes to the predictability of government actions. The predictability of government actions can be considered to be essential in helping in the development of policy because it determines the direction that a government or regime is likely to take at certain times (Rodrik & Zeckhauser, 1988). Under such circumstances, it becomes possible to make sure that there is the advancement of a situation where external players are able to adjust their policies accordingly in order to bring about the achievement of the most advantage to themselves in their dealings with the regime. This is especially considering that dealing with a failing state can be an extremely daunting initiative, because it is often difficult to identify a counterpart that can be interacted with effectively in order to ensure that there is the establishment of strong policy initiatives. It is normal for countries to make use of a diversity of initiatives aimed at ensuring that their counterparts are able to accept their point of view and become influenced towards achieving desirable outcomes. However, in the case of an unstable regime, it becomes troublesome because the latter does not have full control over the state (Aisen & Veiga, 2013). Therefore, it becomes necessary for government to ensure that there are efforts to get as accurate an understanding of regimes and the possible risks surrounding them before undertaking to bring about a threat to their stability. The ramifications of an unstable regime can be catastrophic not only to the said state, but also to the region within which it is situated. There is need to promote the creation of a scenario where there are limited foreign interventions that might end up risking the stability of states, because regimes, especially authoritarian ones, can end up proving to be highly unstable whenever challenges by massive popular discontent.

The concept of regime stability is one that has a diversity of definitions and this creates a situation where they end up becoming quite controversial (Hurwitz, 1973). A broad definition of this concept is that it involves a situation where there is the absence of any sort of domestic civil conflict or widespread violence that might end up marring the functions of the state. Instead, the regime can be considered to be one that has essentially rid itself of instability in such a way that there are no systematic attacks on persons and their assets within the boundaries of the state. Furthermore, there is the advancement of a situation where there is need for the regime to ensure that there is the creation of an environment where it is in full control of the situation and it can enforce its will on its people. However, this definition might prove to be problematic, because there are instances where despite the political situation of a country looking stable at the moment, the entire system of governance can end up collapsing quite quickly. This means that despite there being no systematic attacks on individuals or property, the regime could actually be quite fragile; only awaiting an incident to trigger unrest and show its fragility for what it really is. An example of this situation is President Jimmy Carter in 1977 praising pre-revolutionary Iran as being one of the most stable countries in a region that was extremely troubled (Carter, 1977). At the time he made this statement, little did he know that the entire regime would end up unraveling within two years and that there would be a revolution in Iran that would overthrow the Shah. Thus, regime stability cannot be effectively defined based on the above definition because the signs of stability tend to end up actually being only a veneer that hides the decay that is actually being experienced within the political system.

Another interpretation of regime stability is one that essentially equates regime longevity with stability (Harymawan & Nowland, 2016). This is an extremely challenging definition because it involves the definition of a country that experiences constant changes in government as unstable. There is a failure to consider that there are some countries in the world that have experienced constant changes in government yet have for the most part maintained the same policies as their predecessors. Such states might even have very stable administrative systems that are not adversely affected whenever there is regime change. A country such as Italy, which had over sixty changes in government over a similar number of years, was able to maintain a fairly stable policy throughout this period without undergoing any form of instability that would have made the nation extremely vulnerable (Curini, 2011). Under such circumstances, this definition becomes redundant because there is a lack of consideration for those states that remain stable even when there is regime change. Another example is that of Belgium, which had to undergo over a year without a cabinet and would have ended up being ranked even lower that Egypt when it came to regime instability (Hooghe, 2012). However, these circumstances proved wrong because Belgium was able to ride out the storm through the ability of its institutions to not only weather the political storm, but also keep administrative activities going throughout the period. This can be compared to the uninterrupted thirty year old rule of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, which despite its longevity ended up falling within days of public protests in the country (Shehata, 2011).

Moreover, another approach to regime stability is based on the concept of lack of structural change (Maoz & Russett, 1993). This is an approach that seeks to promote the idea that a stable regime is one that essentially has the absence of internally or externally induced change in its basic configuration; resulting in a situation where it remains stable at all times. While this approach can be considered pertinent when it comes to the discussion of regime stability, it is also quite problematic because it promotes the idea of structural change, which is often quite difficult to define. Furthermore, there are instances where deep changes take place in regimes that despite the changes end up remaining quite strong to such an extent that there is a level of continuity in their economic, social, and constitutional formations (Eckstein, 1988). Therefore, the stability of regimes can be considered to be based on the unique situation of each state because there are instances where change can happen in a positive manner to such an extent that it leads to the advancement of stability rather than a failure of the regime. Furthermore, there are instances where it becomes possible for the progression of strong regimes through the development of locally induced changes that gradually bring about positive shifts in the power structure that enhance rather than break regime stability.

Speculative Conclusion

The review of literature above has shown that there is a diversity of definitions of the determinants of regime stability. This is because each regime has to be considered based on its own unique situation rather than being generalized. A study of the regimes has shown that those that seem to be the most stable could turn out to be extremely vulnerable and vice versa. It is therefore essential to make sure that the stability of each regime is studied based on its own unique development and the manner through which it has been able to develop towards the promotion of its institutions and their durability.

References

Aisen, A., & Veiga, F. J. (2013). How does political instability affect economic growth? European Journal of Political Economy, 29, 151-167.

Ake, C. (1975). A definition of political stability. Comparative politics, 7(2), 271-283.

Carter, J. (1977). Tehran, Iran Toasts of the President and the Shah at a State Dinner. The American Presidency Project, 31.

Curini, L. (2011). Government survival the Italian way: The core and the advantages of policy immobilism during the First Republic. European Journal of Political Research, 50(1), 110-142.

De Janvry, A., Gonzalez-Navarro, M., & Sadoulet, E. (2014). Are land reforms granting complete property rights politically risky? Electoral outcomes of Mexico's certification program. Journal of Development Economics, 110, 216-225.

Duff, E. A., & McCamant, J. F. (1968). Measuring social and political requirements for system stability in Latin America. American Political Science Review, 62(4), 1125-1143.

Eckstein, H. (1988). A culturalist theory of political change. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 789-804.

Game III, F. G. (2011). Why Middle East Studies Missed the Arab Spring. Foreign Affairs, 90(4), 81-90.

Hart, J. A. (1977). Cognitive maps of three Latin American policy makers. World Politics, 30(1), 115-140.

Harymawan, I., & Nowland, J. (2016). Political connections and earnings quality: How do connected firms respond to changes in political stability and government effectiveness? International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 24(4), 339-356.

Holden, R. H., & Zolov, E. (2000). Latin America and the United States. A Documentary.

Hooghe, M. (2012). The political crisis in Belgium (2007–2011): a federal system without federal loyalty. Representation, 48(1), 131-138.

Hurwitz, L. (1973). Contemporary approaches to political stability. Comparative politics, 5(3), 449-463.

Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. (1993). Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 624-638.

Ricard, S. (2006). The Roosevelt Corollary. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36(1), 17-26.

Rodrik, D., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). The dilemma of government responsiveness. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 7(4), 601-620.

Shehata, D. (2011). The fall of the Pharaoh: how Hosni Mubarak's reign came to an end. Foreign Affairs, 26-32.