essay about government and society today

Society: The Government and Its Citizens Essay

Introduction, works cited.

The structure of governance has continued to change as society continues to adapt to varying social, political, and economic vagrancies. Today, we have political systems that are completely different from the ones that were prevalent a century ago. It is imperative to note that today’s forms of governments, power structures, and how individual freedoms are guaranteed still depend heavily on scholarly works of ancient political philosophers. This essay serves to compare and contrast the government’s extent of power in the modern and ancient society while drawing heavily on the works of some of the great philosophers.

At the earliest stages of civilization, as well as at the latest, in the absence of democracy, the state can be represented as undeveloped political formation. In that regard, the state can be said to be developing, in accordance with the requirements of the civilization. Accordingly, the question of power can be considered as central to the studies on the essence and the role of the state, since the ancient times and until these days. The representation of the predestination and the role of the government in the society were covered at first, in the religious and philosophic writings, and then gradually, the political conscious started to have an independent nature, although keeping the connection to the initial roots. One of the major thinkers of the ancient world and the student of Socrates –Plato, devoted many works to questions related to the just formed state in ancient Greece. In Plato’s The Republic , the division of power was a proposed method of eradicating and/or minimizing corruption. Plato believed that an ideal state is a state with a division of the competencies and authorities of state structure (Monoson 127).

The teachings of Plato on the necessity of dividing power found the most suitable and ideal form in the workings of Aristotle. Similar to Plato, the most important factor in the state processes is assigned to the division of tasks. Additionally, Aristotle outlined three forms of government, which are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy, and accordingly, he pointed out to that a certain form of government might meet the needs better than the other, where the example can be seen through the appropriateness of oligarchy or tyranny to fight the corruption better than democracy. Explaining such notion, Plato’s The Republic does a better job, where it does not “exhibit any interest in specifically democratic strategies or securing responsible rule” (Monoson 127).

The differences in Plato’s and Aristotle’s doctrines can be seen in that Plato emphasized the power to the elites, with the separation of institutions, such as the economic, private and political, being used to prevent abuse. Aristotle, n the other hand, emphasized an assembly composed of all citizens as the most powerful body, having the less power than the whole body of the Aristotelian citizens (Aristotle and Jowett).

The medieval epoch was characterized by the dominion of the religious thought, prioritizing the church over secular arm. In that regard, Aquinas, a Catholicism ideologist, used Aristotle’s elements in forming his teachings on the state. Aquinas acknowledged the possibility of power abuse, and thus as a believer in the supremacy of law, he also believed in the limitation of government power (Kretzmann and Stump 220). It should be noted that such views implied that the opposition to power abuse is different for tyrants and legitimate rulers, where the consequences of such opposition can be worse than the abuse itself.

The view of another ancient thinker – Augustine, was more concerned in God’s providence works in political history. His concept of the government and state was limited to remarks about how people are free to choose their rulers.

Thus, it can be generally stated that the view of political governance in Augustine’s works was in the observation of human relations, although there was no clear distinction between a political relationship and “the relationship of authority and subjection” (Stump and Kretzmann 238), e.g. the relationship between a master and a slave. In that regard, the reference to the government extent of power can be apparent through the perspective of God’s intention, where the sinfulness of humans is the reason of the existence of the political authority, an authority common to those in position of political power or masters and slaves (Stump and Kretzmann 240). The subjection to such authority, Augustine argues, is morally improving, due to the promotion of humility, particularly when the good are subjected to the bad.

In terms of modern views, perhaps no philosopher revisited the issue of contemporary politics and governance better than Thomas Hobbes. He wanted to address the issues of how individuals could reside together in harmony and peace while at the same time avoiding the fears and dangers of a civil conflict. To this extent, his fears are still witnessed in many governments around the world today. Due to greed for power, we have seen governments falling into the hands of civil strife and mutinies, especially in Africa. A case in point is the failed Somalia government, where different warring clans can never agree to live in peace as one want to have power and control over the other ( Moral and Political Philosophy , 2006).

To understand some of the modern governments’ extent of power, it is critical to analyze the Hobbes arguments: One of the alternatives that Hobbes offered for us to be able to live in harmony was by giving our full obedience to a Sovereign who is not accountable to us. The Sovereign could be an individual or clusters of individuals empowered to decide for us every political and social issue. Another alternative was to enter into a ‘state of nature.’ In this condition of universal insecurity, all individuals have a cause to live in constant fear of death. Human cooperation is not rewarded in this situation ( Moral and Political philosophy , 2006).

Though Hobbes political philosophy has been challenged due to the perception of viewing individuals as purely self-interested, it goes a long way in helping us compare governments’ extent of power between the modern and ancient times, and also in evaluating the exercises of citizens’ freedom. Hobbes suggested that we give our full obedience to an unaccountable Sovereign . Such a structure was used widely in ancient times but it is no longer popular among the masses today. It was widely used in majority of the African governments before the 1990’s and in most cases brought forth dictatorial governments due to excesses of power. The governments’ extent of power was ‘unlimited’ as they could not be held accountable for whatever they did. This political philosophy brought about strong presidencies witnessed in Kenya, Zaire, Nigeria, and Libya in the 90’s (Kavka, 1986).

Hobbes political thought could not in any way facilitate citizens’ freedom. While using this system, those in power can never be held accountable for their actions. Most ancient governments operated on these principles. The old American and British governments revolved around this political thought of governance, whereby the executive wielded a lot of power, vehemently protected by the laws entrenched in the constitution. In old Britain for example, the law was synonymous with the King, who was perceived to be above the law. “Political obedience” is still present in contemporary world. For instance, the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez uses it widely to amass for himself great power over his people, thus denying them personal freedom. Also, in Africa, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya is the kingpin of Hobbes political ideologies. But democracy, whereby supreme power is completely held by the masses under a non-partisan electoral system is increasingly taking root.

Citizens in countries prescribing to Hobbes political orientations like Cuba and Venezuela do not fully enjoy their liberties and freedoms. This is because the leadership of such countries controls every single aspect of the citizens’ life, from social structure, culture, philosophy, and religion. For instance in Libya, the government interferes with the religious convictions of its citizens by blocking them from converting into Christianity.

In his Second Treatise of Government , John Locke gives an analogy to make us understand the issues of power, laws, public good, and governance. He mentions that God did not give Adam the absolute authority over his world and his children. It follows that the heirs of Adam could not claim that authority and thus no one can definitely claim the right to have authority over the world today. By giving this analogy, Locke aimed at denying Sir Robert Filmer’s assertion of Divine Right of Sovereignty ( Locke’s Second Treatise of Government , 2008). Some old forms of governments have already used the concept of ‘authority right’: notably the British Monarch, to apportion power to some few individuals who thought they had the divine right to rule their subjects. The traditional African political systems, including the Buganda kingdom heavily used this assertion to establish kingdoms around which citizens could be ruled.

In Locke’s view, political power must always be backed by the community for the public good and must include the right to develop laws for the regulation and protection of property (Locke, 1999). To this extent, the modern American government and many other governments around the world can be said to be practicing Locke’s political view as they have passed comprehensive legislation to protect private property. In order to define political power, Locke develops the State of Nature’s Theory : A state of equality, whereby all the individuals are free to do as they please and no one has power over the other. At the same time, he also cautions that there exist some natural laws in the state of nature, in which some “Universal standards and principles” ought to be executed by every individual ( Locke’s Second Treatise , 2008). Many political systems and forms of governments, modern or ancient have proved John Locke’s assertion of the state of nature not fully correct. This is because men is self-interested by nature, has greed for power and would want to control other men when given the slightest opportunity. Man has never been free to do as he wishes basically because he is bound by those mentioned “Universal principles”, commonly referred by Locke as natural laws. Man is also bound by the social systems, more so religions, philosophy, and culture (i.e. community standards), to act according to their demands.

According to Locke, people are governed and rendered all equal by the natural laws. Though such a political theory could have guaranteed contemporary society’s a lot of liberties and freedoms, it is not always the case as these natural laws are not applied equally to those in authority. In Africa for example, it is very difficult for a president’s son or daughter to be charged in a court of law for corruption even when the law should apply equally to all. To this extent, some individuals wield more power and authority than others, thus canceling out Locke’s assertion that every person holds the executive power of natural law ( Locke’s Second Treatise of Government , 2008). It is on this premise that most abuses of law are carried out in modern political institutions by those in power. The contrast to the works of Aquinas, to which views Locke’s opinions were similar, can be seen through the opposition to tyranny, where Locke’s opinion views the latter as acceptable. Nevertheless, both men agree that the abuse might occur. Accordingly, his views can taken in the context of Augustine’s work, where the opposition to the government should be viewed as an improving process. The differences in the opinions of Locke and Aquinas, and at the same time Aristotle, can be seen through the emphasis on the natural law, where it can be stated that Aquinas’ view on morals implied their universal agreement , while Locke emphasized the development of people views, and accordingly the changes in the opinions on morals.

In his Social Contract , Jean-Jacques Rousseau purports that man is born “free”, yet he is everywhere bound in chains. The natural birthright of man to physical freedom continues to be suppressed by the chains of civil society. This, according to Rousseau is mainly because the political structures around the world contribute nothing to safeguard and enforce the individual liberty and equality promised to individuals upon their entrance into society ( The Social Contract , 2008). When this is put in the context of current events around the world, nothing could be further from the truth. Individual liberties and freedoms continue to decrease as governments tightens their loops of authority and power around unsuspecting citizens. We can see an example in the Iraq war and the extent of its citizens’ freedom under the American intervention: it can be argued that although the purpose of the US can be to contribute to ‘safeguard the liberties and equalities of the Iraqis’, instead it has continued to take away their freedom.

According to Rousseau, legitimate political power and authority must be assented to by all the masses. This is usually done by entering into a “Social Contract” that forms the basis of mutual preservation. Perhaps we can see that Rousseau’s political thoughts have necessitated the creation of sovereign nations around the world. The majority of the governments today are established when a collective assemblage of individuals who, by their individual consent, enter into a civil society and establishes what Rousseau called a Sovereign . Individuals may hold different perceptions and needs depending on their individual circumstances. But the ‘General Will’ of all the people are better expressed by the Sovereign , and should encompass all the collective needs of all individuals to provide for the common good of all ( The Social Contract , 2008).

Accordingly, the creation of the laws of the state must be informed by the general will. The laws of every nation must be developed impartially and must be used to express and facilitate the ‘General Will’ of the nation’s citizens. For laws to be impartial, they must uphold the individual freedoms and the rights of equality among citizens. This is not always the case in modern political systems, whereby some laws are passed with impartial interests while others curtail the freedoms and rights of individuals instead of guaranteeing them ( The Social Contract , 2008). A good example is the American anti-terrorism laws, which to some extent, continue to curtail the freedoms and liberties of innocent Muslims.

This political theory forms the basis of most governments’ structures that we have around and also explains the origins of power. The individuals and institutions running the government must be entitled with some basic powers to ensure that citizens follow the law. According to Rousseau, monarchies, aristocracies, and democracies are various forms of governments that could be formed out of this relationship depending on the characteristics and size of the state. Monarchies have been formed mostly in ancient times while many modern day governments prefer to form their governments around democratic principles. Monarchies were preferred in ancient time because of their strength and their agility in times of crisis ( The Social Contract , 2008). The Buganda Kingdom in Uganda is a surviving example of a monarch. Most ancient states also preferred aristocratic governments or basically the rule by the few. Presently, Libya’s colonel Muammar Gaddafi and Cuba’s Fidel Castro and his brother offers some perfect examples of aristocracies. As Rousseau prophesied, the Social Contract is often abused by governments in their blatant exercise of the powers that have been conferred to them by the general will of the people. This is characteristic of most African governments, whereby those elected to serve in the respective governments go further to use the powers given to them by the electorate to steal and punish the citizens.

John Stuart Mill, in his works On Liberty , proposed that society had mechanisms that enabled it to progress from the lower to higher phases, culminating in the emergence of a representative democratic system. This form of government brought about the development and growth of liberty. Society must set its limits through which it can exercise its power over individuals. This according to Mill is the civil liberty. Whereas ‘Liberty’ in the past meant protection from tyrannical rule, its meaning have gradually changed along with the roles of rulers, who now want to be perceived as servants of the citizens rather than their masters. Though such a change of attitude is good on the part of our rulers, Mill cautions that it can bring forth a tyranny of the majority against the minority. This happened in Kenya recently during the hotly contested presidential election of 2007. The masses ganged together and rose against their leaders when public opinions about the election necessitated a rebellion. The Kenyan society became a tyrant when it sought to inflict its values and wills on others. ( On Liberty , 1863).

Mill theorizes three types of liberties. First is the liberty of opinion and thought. Second is the liberty of pursuits and tastes. Third is the liberty to join hands with other like- minded citizens for a common goal that does not hurt anyone ( On liberty , 1863). All this types of liberties goes hand in hand with the various forms of governments already established. An aristocratic government like the one in Libya cannot purport to offer liberty number three – freedom of association. Some divergent political views cannot be expressed in countries such as Iran, Libya, and Venezuela without the censure from state machineries. This, according to Mill is illegitimate as it is morally wrong. Governments must always strive to facilitate the freedom of opinion.

Not long ago, dissenting political voices could not be tolerated in many African and Latin American countries. In Kenya for example, political activists with divergent views were exposed to inhuman torture by government agencies. But according to Mill, dissent is crucial to preserving truth and it allows the masses to articulate and hold some unpopular voices ( On Liberty , 1863). To achieve social and personal progress, individual liberty must always be expressed. It is good that in many modern states, governments are realizing the importance of Mill’s works on liberty and are allowing their citizens to have more of it, especially when it comes to expressing divergent political views. This has brought forth opposition parties, which has helped control the excesses of power by the government.

Mill had of the idea that society only exists to curtail or reduce excesses of behaviors and attitudes that could be detrimental to others. He totally rejects the concepts of the social contract. In the pursuit of our own freedom and happiness, we must, and are obliged to behave in a definite manner so that we defend society and its members form harm. It is thus the responsibility of the society in which we live in to curtail and punish actions and behaviors that can harm others. This is particularly true even in modern societies whereby unbecoming behaviors are punished by society through the laid down procedures.

Robert A. Dahl came up with the term Polyarchy to describe some form of government whereby power is vested in three or more people. According to him, for collective decisions to be binding, each person in a political community must be entitled to equal consideration when it comes to his or her interests ( Polyarchy , 2008). This form of political thinking is prevalent in the world today, whereby all the voices of the citizens are listened to without fear or favor. In fact, the political perception of Dahl is the brainchild of political settlements that have been witnessed in Zimbabwe and Kenya recently where presidential elections failed to produce clear winners.

In his book, A preface to democratic theory , Dahl reveals some conditions which are necessary in ensuring majority rule. He comes up with voting mechanisms and rationalities and how they can be used to propagate democratic principles. Though not necessary used in ancient times, the voting system is used by nearly all democratic governments in the world to decide who will be delegated with the power and authority to lead others. To some extent, voting is used in some undemocratic systems also like is the case in Iran. The individual with the highest amount of votes gets to be delegated the power to lead.

Policies on government’s decisions is constitutionally held by elected officials who are routinely chosen and removed through conducting frequent free and fare elections. This is a fundamental exercise in any democratic institution for government power to be seen as legitimate by the masses (Dahl, 2006). But in a number of instances, especially in African governments, coercion and vote rigging are prevalent. The resulting governments lack the will of the people to govern. A case in point is the government of Robert Mugambe of Zimbabwe.

Other characteristics of a ‘Polyarchy’ include the right held by adults to run for public offices and the right to vote when elections are held. These are basic principles held by many modern governments in the world today. Polyarchy stresses freedom of expression, whereby individuals are allowed to criticize any government wrongdoings without fear of any reprisals by those in power (Dahl, 1991). This is a new concept in most African governments but it is increasingly taking root. Previously, you could not scold an African president and expect to go scot-free. But this has now changed as most of the African presidents are now open to positive criticism. In western countries, this has been the norm rather than the exception.

Information should not be monopolized by government agencies and any individual have an inherent right to form or belong to independent associations, including political parties. This forms the basis of any democratic institution. Polyarchy guarantees’ individual rights, freedoms, and liberties to the extent by which no other form of governance can guarantee (Dahl, 1991). Today, it is practiced in majority of the countries in the world, including the U.S., Britain, Italy, and Spain. It has taken shape in many African and Asian countries with the exception of just a few ones like Zimbabwe and Libya.

In conclusion, this paper synthesized how the government’s extent of power and the citizens’ freedom continue to be informed by the works of previous political philosophers. Comparisons between modern forms of governments and ancient ones in relation to the practice of power and guaranteeing the freedom of citizens have been also covered. The obedience to the sovereign brings about abuses of power basically because of the fact that those in power can never be held accountable for their actions. ‘Full obedience’ has also curtailed the rights and freedoms of citizens, both in ancient and in modern governments. This paper has shown how political power must be backed by the community for the public good and how laws must exist to guard against the excesses of power. However, when abused, such laws continue to bind man in chains therefore effectively curtailing his freedom. It is also worthy mentioning that any political power must be assented to by all the masses for it to be seen as legitimate. Often, this is not the case in many governments around the world. Society must always set the limits through which it can exercise its power over individuals. This would guarantee their basic freedoms and liberties. This paper has also tackled the majority rule, and its justifications for power and individual freedoms in modern society.

Aristotle, and Benjamin Jowett. Politics. Ed . Davis, H. W. C. 2008.

Dahl, R.A. A Preface to Democratic Theory . The University of Chicago Press, 2006. (ISBN9780226134338)

Dahl, R.A. Democracy and its Critics . Yale University, 1991. (ISBN 9780300049381)

Mill, John S. On liberty . Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1863. (ISBN 32044012135117)

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract . Penguin Books, 2006. (ISBN 0143037498)

Kavka, G.S. Hobbesian Moral and Political theory . Princeton University Press, 1986.

Kretzmann, Norman, and Eleonore Stump. The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas. Cambridge ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Print.

Kretzmann, Norman, and Eleonore Stump. The Cambridge companion to Augustine. Cambridge ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.

Locke, John. The second treatise of Civil Government . Constitution Society, 1999. Web.

Monoson, Susan Sara. Plato’s Democratic Entanglements : Athenian Politics and the Practice of Philosophy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000. Print.

“Moral and Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .2006.

“Polyarchy” Wikipedia . 2008.

Stump, Eleonore, and Norman Kretzmann. The Cambridge Companion to Augustine. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, November 8). Society: The Government and Its Citizens. https://ivypanda.com/essays/society-the-government-and-its-citizens/

"Society: The Government and Its Citizens." IvyPanda , 8 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/society-the-government-and-its-citizens/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Society: The Government and Its Citizens'. 8 November.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Society: The Government and Its Citizens." November 8, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/society-the-government-and-its-citizens/.

1. IvyPanda . "Society: The Government and Its Citizens." November 8, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/society-the-government-and-its-citizens/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Society: The Government and Its Citizens." November 8, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/society-the-government-and-its-citizens/.

• Rousseau’s and Locke’s Views on Property
• Locke and Hobbes’ Views on State of Nature
• Hobbes and Locke on the Issue of Equality
• Hobbes's, Rousseau's, Locke's, Mills's Philosophy
• Social Contract in Plato’s, Hobbes’, Locke’s Works
• Private Property as Seen by Locke and Rousseau
• "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes
• Locke and Rousseau's Arguments in Defense of Liberty
• The Human Nature: Locke’s and Hobbes’s Views
• Hobbes’ Contribution to Establishment of Civil Peace
• Plato's and Socrates' Philosophical Views
• Philosophy: The Three Provisos on Property
• Ambiguity in Diplomatic Discourse: Pros and Cons
• Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha and Swaraj Concepts
• Enlightenment Period and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Introductory essay

Written by the educators who created Cyber-Influence and Power, a brief look at the key facts, tough questions and big ideas in their field. Begin this TED Study with a fascinating read that gives context and clarity to the material.

Each and every one of us has a vital part to play in building the kind of world in which government and technology serve the world’s people and not the other way around. Rebecca MacKinnon

Over the past 20 years, information and communication technologies (ICTs) have transformed the globe, facilitating the international economic, political, and cultural connections and exchanges that are at the heart of contemporary globalization processes. The term ICT is broad in scope, encompassing both the technological infrastructure and products that facilitate the collection, storage, manipulation, and distribution of information in a variety of formats.

While there are many definitions of globalization, most would agree that the term refers to a variety of complex social processes that facilitate worldwide economic, cultural, and political connections and exchanges. The kinds of global connections ICTs give rise to mark a dramatic departure from the face-to-face, time and place dependent interactions that characterized communication throughout most of human history. ICTs have extended human interaction and increased our interconnectedness, making it possible for geographically dispersed people not only to share information at an ever-faster rate but also to organize and to take action in response to events occurring in places far from where they are physically situated.

While these complex webs of connections can facilitate positive collective action, they can also put us at risk. As TED speaker Ian Goldin observes, the complexity of our global connections creates a built-in fragility: What happens in one part of the world can very quickly affect everyone, everywhere.

The proliferation of ICTs and the new webs of social connections they engender have had profound political implications for governments, citizens, and non-state actors alike. Each of the TEDTalks featured in this course explore some of these implications, highlighting the connections and tensions between technology and politics. Some speakers focus primarily on how anti-authoritarian protesters use technology to convene and organize supporters, while others expose how authoritarian governments use technology to manipulate and control individuals and groups. When viewed together as a unit, the contrasting voices reveal that technology is a contested site through which political power is both exercised and resisted.

Technology as liberator

The liberating potential of technology is a powerful theme taken up by several TED speakers in Cyber-Influence and Power . Journalist and Global Voices co-founder Rebecca MacKinnon, for example, begins her talk by playing the famous Orwell-inspired Apple advertisement from 1984. Apple created the ad to introduce Macintosh computers, but MacKinnon describes Apple's underlying narrative as follows: "technology created by innovative companies will set us all free." While MacKinnon examines this narrative with a critical eye, other TED speakers focus on the ways that ICTs can and do function positively as tools of social change, enabling citizens to challenge oppressive governments.

In a 2011 CNN interview, Egyptian protest leader, Google executive, and TED speaker Wael Ghonim claimed "if you want to free a society, just give them internet access. The young crowds are going to all go out and see and hear the unbiased media, see the truth about other nations and their own nation, and they are going to be able to communicate and collaborate together." (i). In this framework, the opportunities for global information sharing, borderless communication, and collaboration that ICTs make possible encourage the spread of democracy. As Ghonim argues, when citizens go online, they are likely to discover that their particular government's perspective is only one among many. Activists like Ghonim maintain that exposure to this online free exchange of ideas will make people less likely to accept government propaganda and more likely to challenge oppressive regimes.

A case in point is the controversy that erupted around Khaled Said, a young Egyptian man who died after being arrested by Egyptian police. The police claimed that Said suffocated when he attempted to swallow a bag of hashish; witnesses, however, reported that he was beaten to death by the police. Stories about the beating and photos of Said's disfigured body circulated widely in online communities, and Ghonim's Facebook group, titled "We are all Khaled Said," is widely credited with bringing attention to Said's death and fomenting the discontent that ultimately erupted in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, or what Ghonim refers to as "revolution 2.0."

Ghonim's Facebook group also illustrates how ICTs enable citizens to produce and broadcast information themselves. Many people already take for granted the ability to capture images and video via handheld devices and then upload that footage to platforms like YouTube. As TED speaker Clay Shirky points out, our ability to produce and widely distribute information constitutes a revolutionary change in media production and consumption patterns. The production of media has typically been very expensive and thus out of reach for most individuals; the average person was therefore primarily a consumer of media, reading books, listening to the radio, watching TV, going to movies, etc. Very few could independently publish their own books or create and distribute their own radio programs, television shows, or movies. ICTs have disrupted this configuration, putting media production in the hands of individual amateurs on a budget — or what Shirky refers to as members of "the former audience" — alongside the professionals backed by multi-billion dollar corporations. This "democratization of media" allows individuals to create massive amounts of information in a variety of formats and to distribute it almost instantly to a potentially global audience.

Shirky is especially interested in the Internet as "the first medium in history that has native support for groups and conversations at the same time." This shift has important political implications. For example, in 2008 many Obama followers used Obama's own social networking site to express their unhappiness when the presidential candidate changed his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The outcry of his supporters did not force Obama to revert to his original position, but it did help him realize that he needed to address his supporters directly, acknowledging their disagreement on the issue and explaining his position. Shirky observes that this scenario was also notable because the Obama organization realized that "their role was to convene their supporters but not to control their supporters." This tension between the use of technology in the service of the democratic impulse to convene citizens vs. the authoritarian impulse to control them runs throughout many of the TEDTalks in Cyber-Influence and Power.

A number of TED speakers explicitly examine the ways that ICTs give individual citizens the ability to document governmental abuses they witness and to upload this information to the Internet for a global audience. Thus, ICTs can empower citizens by giving them tools that can help keep their governments accountable. The former head of Al Jazeera and TED speaker Wadah Khanfar provides some very clear examples of the political power of technology in the hands of citizens. He describes how the revolution in Tunisia was delivered to the world via cell phones, cameras, and social media outlets, with the mainstream media relying on "citizen reporters" for details.

Former British prime minister Gordon Brown's TEDTalk also highlights some of the ways citizens have used ICTs to keep their governments accountable. For example, Brown recounts how citizens in Zimbabwe used the cameras on their phones at polling places in order to discourage the Mugabe regime from engaging in electoral fraud. Similarly, Clay Shirky begins his TEDTalk with a discussion of how cameras on phones were used to combat voter suppression in the 2008 presidential election in the U.S. ICTs allowed citizens to be protectors of the democratic process, casting their individual votes but also, as Shirky observes, helping to "ensure the sanctity of the vote overall."

Technology as oppressor

While smart phones and social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook have arguably facilitated the overthrow of dictatorships in places like Tunisia and Egypt, lending credence to Gordon Brown's vision of technology as an engine of liberalism and pluralism, not everyone shares this view. As TED speaker and former religious extremist Maajid Nawaz points out, there is nothing inherently liberating about ICTs, given that they frequently are deployed to great effect by extremist organizations seeking social changes that are often inconsistent with democracy and human rights. Where once individual extremists might have felt isolated and alone, disconnected from like-minded people and thus unable to act in concert with others to pursue their agendas, ICTs allow them to connect with other extremists and to form communities around their ideas, narratives, and symbols.

Ian Goldin shares this concern, warning listeners about what he calls the "two Achilles heels of globalization": growing inequality and the fragility that is inherent in a complex integrated system. He points out that those who do not experience the benefits of globalization, who feel like they've been left out in one way or another, can potentially become incredibly dangerous. In a world where what happens in one place very quickly affects everyone else — and where technologies are getting ever smaller and more powerful — a single angry individual with access to technological resources has the potential to do more damage than ever before. The question becomes then, how do we manage the systemic risk inherent in today's technology-infused globalized world? According to Goldin, our current governance structures are "fossilized" and ill-equipped to deal with these issues.

Other critics of the notion that ICTs are inherently liberating point out that ICTs have been leveraged effectively by oppressive governments to solidify their own power and to manipulate, spy upon, and censor their citizens. Journalist and TED speaker Evgeny Morozov expresses scepticism about what he calls "iPod liberalism," or the belief that technology will necessarily lead to the fall of dictatorships and the emergence of democratic governments. Morozov uses the term "spinternet" to describe authoritarian governments' use of the Internet to provide their own "spin" on issues and events. Russia, China, and Iran, he argues, have all trained and paid bloggers to promote their ideological agendas in the online environment and/or or to attack people writing posts the government doesn't like in an effort to discredit them as spies or criminals who should not be trusted.

Morozov also points out that social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are tools not only of revolutionaries but also of authoritarian governments who use them to gather open-source intelligence. "In the past," Morozov maintains, "it would take you weeks, if not months, to identify how Iranian activists connect to each other. Now you know how they connect to each other by looking at their Facebook page. KGB...used to torture in order to get this data." Instead of focusing primarily on bringing Internet access and devices to the people in countries ruled by authoritarian regimes, Morozov argues that we need to abandon our cyber-utopian assumptions and do more to actually empower intellectuals, dissidents, NGOs and other members of society, making sure that the "spinternet" does not prevent their voices from being heard.

The ICT Empowered Individual vs. The Nation State

In her TEDTalk "Let's Take Back the Internet," Rebecca MacKinnon argues that "the only legitimate purpose of government is to serve citizens, and…the only legitimate purpose of technology is to improve our lives, not to manipulate or enslave us." It is clearly not a given, however, that governments, organizations, and individuals will use technology benevolently. Part of the responsibility of citizenship in the globalized information age then is to work to ensure that both governments and technologies "serve the world's peoples." However, there is considerable disagreement about what that might look like.

WikiLeaks spokesperson and TED speaker Julian Assange, for example, argues that government secrecy is inconsistent with democratic values and is ultimately about deceiving and manipulating rather than serving the world's people. Others maintain that governments need to be able to keep secrets about some topics in order to protect their citizens or to act effectively in response to crises, oppressive regimes, terrorist organizations, etc. While some view Assange's use of technology as a way to hold governments accountable and to increase transparency, others see this use of technology as a criminal act with the potential to both undermine stable democracies and put innocent lives in danger.

ICTs and global citizenship

While there are no easy answers to the global political questions raised by the proliferation of ICTs, there are relatively new approaches to the questions that look promising, including the emergence of individuals who see themselves as global citizens — people who participate in a global civil society that transcends national boundaries. Technology facilitates global citizens' ability to learn about global issues, to connect with others who care about similar issues, and to organize and act meaningfully in response. However, global citizens are also aware that technology in and of itself is no panacea, and that it can be used to manipulate and oppress.

Global citizens fight against oppressive uses of technology, often with technology. Technology helps them not only to participate in global conversations that affect us all but also to amplify the voices of those who have been marginalized or altogether missing from such conversations. Moreover, global citizens are those who are willing to grapple with large and complex issues that are truly global in scope and who attempt to chart a course forward that benefits all people, regardless of their locations around the globe.

Gordon Brown implicitly alludes to the importance of global citizenship when he states that we need a global ethic of fairness and responsibility to inform global problem-solving. Human rights, disease, development, security, terrorism, climate change, and poverty are among the issues that cannot be addressed successfully by any one nation alone. Individual actors (nation states, NGOs, etc.) can help, but a collective of actors, both state and non-state, is required. Brown suggests that we must combine the power of a global ethic with the power to communicate and organize globally in order for us to address effectively the world's most pressing issues.

Individuals and groups today are able to exert influence that is disproportionate to their numbers and the size of their arsenals through their use of "soft power" techniques, as TED speakers Joseph Nye and Shashi Tharoor observe. This is consistent with Maajid Nawaz's discussion of the power of symbols and narratives. Small groups can develop powerful narratives that help shape the views and actions of people around the world. While governments are far more accustomed to exerting power through military force, they might achieve their interests more effectively by implementing soft power strategies designed to convince others that they want the same things. According to Nye, replacing a "zero-sum" approach (you must lose in order for me to win) with a "positive-sum" one (we can both win) creates opportunities for collaboration, which is necessary if we are to begin to deal with problems that are global in scope.

Let's get started

Collectively, the TEDTalks in this course explore how ICTs are used by and against governments, citizens, activists, revolutionaries, extremists, and other political actors in efforts both to preserve and disrupt the status quo. They highlight the ways that ICTs have opened up new forms of communication and activism as well as how the much-hailed revolutionary power of ICTs can and has been co-opted by oppressive regimes to reassert their control.

By listening to the contrasting voices of this diverse group of TED speakers, which includes activists, journalists, professors, politicians, and a former member of an extremist organization, we can begin to develop a more nuanced understanding of the ways that technology can be used both to facilitate and contest a wide variety of political movements. Global citizens who champion democracy would do well to explore these intersections among politics and technology, as understanding these connections is a necessary first step toward MacKinnon's laudable goal of building a world in which "government and technology serve the world's people and not the other way around."

Let's begin our exploration of the intersections among politics and technology in today's globalized world with a TEDTalk from Ian Goldin, the first Director of the 21st Century School, Oxford University's think tank/research center. Goldin's talk will set the stage for us, exploring the integrated, complex, and technology rich global landscape upon which the political struggles for power examined by other TED speakers play out.

Navigating our global future

i. "Welcome to Revolution 2.0, Ghonim Says," CNN, February 9, 2011. http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/02/09/wael.ghonim.interview.cnn .

Relevant talks

Gordon Brown

Wiring a web for global good.

Clay Shirky

How social media can make history.

Wael Ghonim

Inside the egyptian revolution.

Wadah Khanfar

A historic moment in the arab world.

Evgeny Morozov

How the net aids dictatorships.

Maajid Nawaz

A global culture to fight extremism.

Rebecca MacKinnon

Let's take back the internet.

Julian Assange

Why the world needs wikileaks.

Global power shifts

Shashi Tharoor

Why nations should pursue soft power.

Home / Essay Samples / Government / American Government / The Role of Government in Society: Why is It Important

The Role of Government in Society: Why is It Important

• Category: Government , Science
• Topic: American Government , Global Governance , Political Culture

Pages: 3 (1450 words)

• Downloads: -->

Role of Government 

Function of government .

• The main function of government is to protect basic human rights, including the right to life, liberty, and property rights. The idea of natural rights is due to the fact that everyone deserves these rights. These are the rights that a God gave humans beings when they were born. It is assumed that people are born with these rights and should not be stripped of them without their consent.
• Government has a duty to fight poverty and improve the quality of life of its citizens. To achieve this, the government must create an environment that is good for prosperity and economic growth.
• All modern governments accept the responsibility of protecting the political and social rights of their citizens.
• Government can participate directly in the economy for promoting various economic activities.
• The function of government is to form a more perfect Union.
• Government is form to establish justice in the society.
• Government can provide health services, education and welfare services to the peoples of the societies.
• Government can promote the common well-being in the state or the country.
• Government provides security to the peoples live within a country or a state.
• The government provides public services because the public is happier if they are taken care of and they also need support.
• It gives national security because the defense of a country must be structured to ensure the safety and health of its population
• Government can sets the laws, rules and regulations in the country because we need rules to determine how well a nation works so people know how to act. To enforce the 'rule of law', the government must operate a system of laws and courts.
• Managing foreign affairs is one of the most important functions that the government performs.
• One of the most important functions of government is to protect civil liberties.

Significance of Government 

Branches of government .

• Executive branch
• Legislative branch
• Judiciary branch

Executive Branch

Legislative branch, judiciary branch, levels of government .

• Federal government
• State and territory government
• Local government

Federal Government

State and territory government, local government, system of government.

• Unitary system
• Federal system
• Confederate system

Unitary System

Federal system, confederate system.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Natural Selection Essays

Genetic Engineering Essays

Evolution Essays

Stars Essays

Cell Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->