Underdeveloped Country Into A Democratic Nation example essay topic

Progress over tradition: the clash of present and past vying for a significant place in the future. In this battle underdeveloped countries must wage a war to maintain an identity and a sense of self-reliance. At what cost will third world countries alter their state? The questions of modernization and globalization are necessary if not inevitable, but how can a nation riddled with external propaganda call itself anything other than a colony? International decorum forbids such terms as occupation and colonization but this is the language that best describes the corporate takeovers of the cultures of poor countries. Indeed these measures are necessary to a people that are handicapped because of their lack of advanced technology however, is giving them our tools allowing them to evolve, or merely mutate into a smaller version of what we (the haves) want them to be.

Our constant efforts to satisfy the nature of greed and the exploitations of resources claiming democratization and betterment may contain mutual benefits, yet take into consideration the spoils with the rest of the consequences. Countries will lose their individualism. This is where ideologies such as Jihad and come into play as Barber states, 'Jihad has been a metaphor for anti-Western anituniversalist struggle... ' (207, Barber) Jihad, in this sense, is not the defined by the holy war used to describe the tribal conflicts in such areas as the Middle East, but the holy war definition personified by Islamic fundamentalists does give root to propositions for why certain "uncivilized" countries should hesitate to be programmed by the warped values of a capitalist-driven democracy.

The civilized and uncivilized characterizations of developed and underdeveloped countries were categorized by President Bush, among others. Bush has this idea that the world is divided into these two groupings. Unlike Bush's split world, Barber adheres to the one world with a terrible crisis doctrine. Barber states that there is a constant struggle of, among other factors, globalism versus tribalism. He argues that the world via democracy will be able to overcome the problems of Jihad and McWorld. 'McWorld is merely the natural culmination of a modernization process-some would call it Westernization-that has gone on since the Renaissance birth of modern science and its accompanying paradigm of knowledge construed as power.

' (156, Barber) Barber's passage reflects how atypical countries and nations have come to power and continue to remain powerful. Modern nations today like the United States were the first to exploit the ideas of capitalism in terms of the economy and ideas similar to that (all related to a monopolistic approach to economy) and apply that to stride above and beyond other markets. Barber's comparisons are essentially about new and old world politics. With lulled tones he suggests the downfall of poor empires collapsing under the American dream rooting itself in the politics of other nations.

Barber's concepts of the 'one world, terrible crisis' is a valid argument in his path to "updating old software". But his idea of bringing democracy to a nation that is underdeveloped cannot be wholly accepted by third world countries because they will lose their historical persona. Just because there is a competitive atmosphere between first world countries to "keep up" with each other, does not mean that tribes in Africa must adapt and westernize. It is not our decision to change a society because it has worked for us. His democracy will contain the demise of a dynasty and furthermore create a smaller version of more of the same... do we really want this? By 'this,' I am referring to a country that has unemployment rates up, gun-related homicide rates higher than any other country, and poor health and welfare standards.

In addition, the United States media is run by essentially five major players that have controlled all forms of media since news was accessible by televisions, radios, and computers. Is this mode of thinking really an improvement? Maybe so, but it will only create new problems-not replace old ones. The media mongers of the United States are therefore a good basis for explaining and comparing what the US is trying to do to other smaller countries all over the world. Early on bigger corporations conquered the market by buying out smaller companies with the technology required to be successful.

The US in the same manner cornered a major stake in the economic and political spheres by rapidly advancing in technology, stepping over everyone to get there, and feeding the American Dream to those who would be swallowed up by the poisonous manifestation of greed as a motivation to live and work. Barber's suggestion of 'intermedia' made it so people in power have their hands in everyone's pockets, and directly related is the way the United States try to abuse their relationships with smaller, underdeveloped countries. How does Barber expect an underdeveloped nation to comply with the goals of another nation? Conquer and capitalize. Consume.

Waste. Build something better and forget the past. The priorities of Americans and the markets we have influenced represent a doctrine of economics and society that these developing societies do not necessarily need. Yes, I agree that these countries do need help, but why are these countries asked to meet our standards of what is considered 'developed' after such a long lapse of leaving them out of the loop of progress.

Of course they are turning to Jihad, because that is all that their social sphere allows them to construct. The ideas represented in Jihad are the fundamentalist views that turn them away from our society and culture. We are two magnets forcing like poles against each other. The result is obvious: terrorist attacks, threats, and the refusal to accept democracy despite Barber's ideas of what benefits countries could reap. Mitigating Barber's crisis theory is that the converging forces in McWorld will create a more prosperous society in 'uncivilized' nations. "everyone a subject, no one a ruler... ".

(150, Barber) Is there no ruler? Corporations are run by the financial tycoons and economically-elite class in the US. People are still motivated by greed to advance these countries. Barber says that without Mcworld technologies and McWorld's markets, some countries will not survive.

It is a shame that the traditions of a culture that have been around for thousands of years will be destroyed as quickly as McWorld has risen. Governments are continually bullied by the ideologies and quick-paced ebbs and tides of the market. They fall to a flood of economical-Darwinism and capitalistic pressures that promote free trade. But it is Barber who views these happenings and still insists that democracy be put in place in underdeveloped, uncivilized countries.

This is the one world, one terrible crisis doctrine revisited. The case is made because nations like the US are all bringing its civilization to other places. The United States may have the least objectionable way of running political and economical spheres in a country, but does that make the system the most desirable, or desirable at all to some places who wish to have no part in the capitalistic gluttony eating away small businesses from miles away - the value of the dollar, and the value of a man's worth decided at the drip of a Mont Blanc pen held by a hungry shark on Wall Street. The crisis is being systematically installed by the governments and advocates promoting democracy, and a culture that can progress. The United States' idea of transforming an underdeveloped country into a democratic nation is the idea that our society transposed will make life better for others. Mr. Barber, the United States is the world, and democracy is the terrible crisis.

Underdeveloped countries are too far apart from modernization to claim that democracy will solve their problems. They are at a different place in time and progress. I subscribe to the doctrine of a split world with one terrible crisis.