Introduction From the late 20th century, the beginning of democratization movement in Indonesia is undoubtedly one of the most important political events. From year 1998 resignation of Suharto then Habibie took over, to Wahid took office in year 1999 elections, to a power struggle in year 2001, Megawati wins, and then in July 2004 presidential election, political transformation is constantly changing. Indonesia 's democratization road is accompanied by street violence, riots, coup rumors and more. During the social turmoil so that hundreds of thousands of homeless and millions of people fall below the poverty line, thousands of people paid their lives in protests. However, after Indonesia has experienced decades of Suharto 's authoritarian rule, in just six years, it has basically completed the democratic political transition. I will write about political become the biggest issues of economic, political opposition in Indonesia, the Indonesian army and Habibie took over four aspects as …show more content…
Indonesia 's problem is especially prominent. Suharto, his family and friends have monopoly and control many sectors of the economy in Indonesia, for example, banking, real estate, automotive, the civil aviation, petroleum, infrastructure, and large projects of bidding were having corruption. Economic monopoly is doomed inefficiencies of related industries; corruption eroded the foundation of Indonesia 's economy, but also led to the rich and poor differentiation, and social injustice. Potential economic crisis and social crisis is looming. Suharto thought that a democratic government cannot effectively deal with the financial turmoil. But he did not understand this is one of the most basic functions of democracy is the ability to deal with the crisis in an orderly regime change. The financial crisis brings out the government crisis, but not a political and social
Then he mentioned that people distrusted the government and worried about the energy crisis. Also, he acknowledged that there were some mistakes in the government, and there was a fundamental threat to American democracy. However, more and more people lost their confidence in the development of the country, President Carter regarded it as “the crisis of confidence”. He considered that it was not happening overnight, but happened for a long time with shocks and tragedy. Therefore, he encouraged people to have faith in each other and have faith in the nation to get through the difficulties.
Kamarck (2016) tackles directly the question as to how Presidents can utilize the massive bureaucracy they are tasks to lead. Unfortunately, in her view, the answer seems to be not very well. Kamarck contends that one recurring type of Presidential failure, “crash and burn spectaculars” can be attributed to Presidents’ inability to effectively manage the vast resources of the executive branch. Pointing to failures by Presidents Carter, Bush Jr., and Obama, Kamarck identifies three common reasons for these Presidential failures: failure of information to get to the President in order to prompt effective decision making, failure of Presidents to see early warning signs of disasters, and failure to understand the capacity of the government
This was a failure of a government because it was very weak and had a lot of problems. Some of the problems were having no set military, not being able to fight foreign attacks, no set leader, not being able to tax
The restart of a central government demonstrates that the majority of people resented government ideas, and that these needed to be taken over by one that’s unbiased and listens to the demands of the
In Leadership in Turbulent Times, Theodore Roosevelt had to do some crisis management during his presidency for the coal strike. Theodore uses more of a tactical approach during the wake of the Industrial Revolution. While other presidents would not tell the people the truth, Theodore took it upon himself and told the people how it was and not what they needed to hear. Roosevelt wholeheartedly thought “to do whatever the needs of the people demand…” (Goodwin 248).
Regarding constitutional powers, the authors asserted that executive power capability actually fluctuate with the above-mentioned crisis cycle. That argue that in parallel to the public supporting strong presidential leadership during foreign policy crises, the office of the President is also afforded greater constitutional powers during those times. Cronin, Genovese, and Bose argue that on domestic issues in normal circumstances, presidential power is too limited because of the separation of powers between the three branches of government, but in “crisis or war, presidents often seize or are delegated significant, even imperial powers… the checks and balances of the separation of powers recede, and the president has at least the chance to wield greater power.” In these situations, the authors argue the President has too much power, leading to the presidency’s ‘Goldilocks
The unpopularity of the government’s actions, social unrest marked by movements and protests, and the poor management of the economic side of the
In society, the vast majority of people are encompassed by the growing economic issues of the modern age. Yet–concerned primarily with themselves–people expect authority to handle any and all crises; however, blame them (namely politicians) when the results are not in their favor. Surprising, when the present meets the past, the differences are not as striking as one may expect. For instance, in 1981 when Ronald Reagan had become the president of the nation, the nation had been in shambles due to the aftermath of the Vietnam War (economic troubles and social unrest unravelling). Understanding the ignorance of the public in regards to acting on problematic issues, he addresses the need for change starting with the people themselves–a lesson
So, that way the government will fall into the hands of the few rich people, which ones were in command seemed like many. The rich thought of themselves above the rest of the people poor and middle classed which made them think and act as if they were entitled to more respect. They believed they were above all and could receive whatever they wanted. The representatives should have a good scene of what's going on, They should understand that their situation and their troubles.
The needs of the country were better met when all are controlled the
This issue sheds light on the political system and culture of the
Big powerful special interest groups have interfered with politicians’ decision to do what’s right; it appears that the political system has become corrupted and money plays a big role in their decision and money is very influential in getting the legislators to pass bills. One would believe that our politicians are making the battles between the political parties personally; it appear that if the parties don’t agree with another, they resort to drastic measures such as shutting down the government causing more hardship on
Australia is a Democracy Never before have there been so many democracies in the world or so many competitive elections conducted at national, subnational and region levels. Democracy is now prescribed as inseparable from good governance and an antidote to corruption. The key aspects of what makes Australia a democracy being the electoral role, Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), referendumsm, the rule of law The separate colonies of Australia gained self-government during the nineteenth century and less than half a century later Australia became the first nation to vote itself into existence through popular referendum. How does Australia’s democracy in today’s modern age stack up on those early days of a fledgling democracy.
In the United States, people always talk about freedom and equality. Especially they want elections could be more democratic. In American Democracy in Peril, Hudson’s main argument regarding chapter five “Election Without the People’s Voice,” is if elections want to be democratic, they must meet three essential criteria, which are to provide equal representation of all citizens, to be mechanisms for deliberation about public policy issues, and to control what government does. Unfortunately, those points that Hudson mentions are what American elections do not have. American elections do not provide equal representation to everyone in the country.
Many people believe that the election plays the most important role in democracy. Because a free and fair election holds the government responsible and forces it to behave on voter's interest. However, some scholars find evidence that election itself is not enough to hold politicians responsible if the institutions are not shaping incentives in a correct way. In other words, the role of the election on democracy, whether it helps to serve the interest of the public or specific groups, depends on other political institutions. I