我之所以會(huì)選擇這個(gè)主題是因?yàn)槲艺J(rèn)為，民主是讓公眾和政府之間合作的最好制度。本主題討論的是關(guān)于民主問題，什么是民主，什么不是民主。然后，談到了資本主義和民主主義。在第一章中，主要談?wù)摿嗣裰鞯母拍睿�，民主是什么，以及它的可行性，然后談到了不同形式的民主，以及它們的不同點(diǎn)。然后在第二章就談到了資本主義和民主;它們擁有不同的立場(chǎng)和主張。關(guān)于民主是否支持資本主義，還是顛覆資本主義；以及資本主義是促進(jìn)民主，還是顛覆民主。

首先，我們會(huì)談?wù)摰牡谝徽拢煞评?施密特和特里卡爾·林恩在1996年寫的對(duì)民主的定義。因?yàn)槊裰饕辉~的模糊性定義一直在政治中存在。它可以被定義一個(gè)組織系統(tǒng)的統(tǒng)治者和被統(tǒng)治者的獨(dú)特系統(tǒng)。在現(xiàn)代民主政治中，統(tǒng)治者有責(zé)任規(guī)范公民的行為。

I think the democracy is the best institution to make the alliance between public and the government that's why I have chosen this topic. This topic discusses to the point about the democracy that what democracy is and is not. Then it talks about the capitalism and democracy. In the first chapter, it talks about the concept of democracy that what democracy is and what is its feasibility and then it talks about the different forms of democracies and how they differ. Then in the second chapter it talks about the capitalism and democracy; it takes different stance and advocates them. It is about whether democracy supports capitalism or subverts it and whether capitalism fosters democracy or subverts it.

First, we would talk about the first chapter, written by Phillippe C. Schmitter & Terry Lynn Karl in 1996, which is about the definition of democracy. The word democracy because of its ambiguity that surrounds it has been circulating as a debased currency in the political marketplace. It can be defined as a unique system between the rulers and the ruled for an organizing system. In the modern political democracy, the rulers are held accountable by the citizens for their actions, acting through the competition and cooperation among other elected representatives indirectly. They have the norms and choices that are backed by the state and binding on the society. (Schumpeter, 1942).

According to the author in the reading, citizens are the most characteristic component of the democratic system. Classical democracy recognized as the direct participation to consensus for the decision making. However, the origin of democracy, elections only occur between the highly aggregative alternatives which are offered by the political parties and citizens were only allowed to choose between them with the fact that ample portion of the society can't participate freely. During the interval between the elections, citizens are supposed to differentiate among different candidates to choose the right person who respect their agenda and can present them in the parliament.

Some authors also argue that modern democracy is the majority rule. Whoever gets more than half majority wins the seat. The cooperation among representatives is the central feature of democracy. While the civil society offers an intermediate layer between the state and the citizen. It mitigates the conflicts and improves the life's quality.

In the reading, the author has defined some terms upon whichthe modern political democracy can make itself possible for the survival. Those are: Control over government decisions, free, fair and frequent elections, right of all adults to vote, right to run for elected offices, right to express themselves freely, right to seek out alternative sources of information, right to form organization or party, elected officials should be free to exercise their powers and polity should be acting independently.

Then the author gives some terms to make the democracy feasible to exist. The central component of the feasibility of democratic organization is by the consent of the people; the representatives should respect each other, the winner should respect loser and put forth his valid agenda. According to Dahl, it depends on the social cleavages and such subjective factors as mutual trust, the standard of fairness and the willingness to compromise. Not just any policy can be implemented but there are different conditions that should be met. The more effective states are created by the cooperation within civil society and competition among interest groups.

However the word democracy cannot be limited to some specific definitions. For example it cannot be reduced to election systems or equated with the notion of the role of the government. It is said that "unfortunately, all good things do not necessarily come together." (Grynspan, 2011). As we have read that perhaps Huntington said that it is not necessary that a democratic state is economically well established. Although they have more open societies and polities unlike autocracies but they are not more open economical.

Then the author Gabriel A. Almond gives four stances about capitalism and democracy. In the human society there are two main mechanisms for problem solving that are economy and the polity. They have distinct means but they essentially interact with each other and alter each other in the process.

First we will take the stance that capitalism supports democracy. Hirsh-man implies a positive relationship between them but then the negative one. Joseph Schumpeter perceives the history and tells that modern democracy rose along with capitalism and in causal connection with it, modern democracy is a product of the capitalist process. According to Robert A. Dahl, modern democratic institutions have existed only in countries with pre-dominant privately owned and market oriented economies (capitalist society).

The second stance is capitalism subverts democracy. John Stuart Mills suggests that we encounter a view of existing system of private property as unjust and of the free market as destructively competitive-aesthetically and morally repugnant. Marx argued that as long as capitalism and private property existed there could be no genuine democracy, that under capitalism was bourgeoisie democracy. According to Lindblom the large private corporation fits oddly into democractic theory and vision. Indeed it does not fit.

The third stance is that democracy subverts capitalism. For smith good capitalism was competitive capitalism and good government provided just those goods and services which the market needed to flourish, could not itself provide, or would not provide. Friedman pointed more than a dozen activities of contemporary democratic government which might better be performed through the private sector, or not at all.

The fourth stance is that democracy fosters capitalism. In the book entitled The Development of Welfare state in Western Europe and America lays out the relationship between the development and spread of capitalist industry, democratization in the sense of an expanding suffrage and the emergence of trade unions and left-wing political parties, and the gradual introduction of the institutions and the practices of the welfare state. Without the welfare adaptation it is doubtful that capitalism would have survived.

Now I would like to discuss my own point of view. It is found that there is no specific definition for the democracy. Every citizen defines it as its own culture. It is the main cause of the non-uniform democratic system in the world. The second most conflicting fact about democracy is the consensus by the election system. The representative is given votes and the person who gets the most votes wins. Even by the 51% of population can make candidates win. But in this case what about the other 49% of the population. This is contrary to the fact of democracy.

In the other case, the person who is nominated by a party is not a suitable person to represent the public. Nobody knows that the person is working for his own agenda or public's opinion. Moreover, beaurucrates make decision not the elected representatives. The respect for rule of law is a necessary condition for the democracy but in some countries it does not exist.

There is also a possibility that the free and fair elections are not conducted and it is the fact that unfair election can't bring democracy. Moreover, for the feasibility of the democracy to sustain in a system it is necessary that all winning and losing candidates respect and cooperate with each other. According to Dahl, its subjective factor is mutual trust, standard of fairness and willingness to compromise. I would also like to be with the author when he says that democracy can have more open society and polity than any other institution can have but it can't be more economical. But the democracy does not have open market.

I would like put forth an example that in Ireland, one party had been elected for more than one time but in recent elections they made a mistake and lost because of consensus made and this is the real soul of democracy. Along with it, it is the fact that when representatives change, the policies also change but the uncertainty is an aspect of democracy so its perfectly fine if rules are changed within boundaries.

Then from the second chapter, I accept only one argument of the author when the author says that capitalism subverts democracy. I would like to support the Marx's argument. According to him, as long as capitalism and private property existed there could be no genuine democracy, that democracy under capitalism was bourgeoisie democracy which is to say no democracy at all. The capitalist democracy actually exploits the working classes. There is only one way to get the emancipation of the working class and the attainment of true democracy which is to eliminate capitalism and private property.

Stuart Mills also takes this stance and believe this private authority system as unjust and the free market as destructive. Actually he wanted a less competitive society. I think the democracy which is one of the products of capitalism is to die out with it. According to Robert A. Dahl, capitalism was historically necessary condition for democracy but it is impaired with by the inequality in resources among the citizens. Moreover, as we have already discussed that Lindblom, who says that capitalism fits oddly in democracy indeed does not fit.

While in the other stances, I think that capitalism always promote private property and ownership while democracy does not so both of the stances, capitalism supports democracy and democracy supports capitalism. In the same way, I think that democracy subverts capitalism. In this way, I disregard all the stances and go with Marx's stance. India had democracy but for the several years it had no open market but had democracy. So a country can have one of the system likewise UAE has capitalism but not democracy. So capitalism and democracy can never travel for the same destination.