Political Science

The meeting held by the member states of the European Union in the capital city of Portugal, Lisbon resulted in the signing of a treaty.  There was a feeling among the delegates that European Union required to address its democratic deficit allowing decision making that was more flexible. However, it is interesting to note that the Lisbon treaty came into force in December 1, 2009, eight years after the time the idea was conceived. Between the period of signing and coming into force of the treaty, many ideas have been brought forward with some people arguing that the treaty is in a position to address the European democratic deficit while others have stated that it makes the democratic deficit of Europe even more worse. This research paper is aimed at showing the contribution that the Lisbon Treaty would make towards addressing the European Union democratic deficit.

Background Information
The Lisbon treaty which was initially referred to as the reform treaty was signed by the member states of the European Union on December 13 2007. It however became operational later in December 2009. The treaty of Lisbon alters the Treaty on European Union which had been signed in 1992 as well as the Treaty of Establishing the European Community that had been signed in 1957 in Rome Italy. Some of the major changes that were included in the treaty includes majority voting that is more qualified in the council of ministers, more  European parliament involvement in the process of legislature, creation of the post of European Council President (long term) and finally the removal of the pillar system.  It is the Lisbon treaty that made the Charter of fundamental rights (human rights charter) legally binding.

European Democratic Deficit
The democratic deficit can be described as the concept that has been used basically to raise the idea that the European Union and various bodies that compose it lack democracy and seem inaccessible to the ordinary citizen because their method of operating is so complex. Many are of the view that the community institutional set up has always been controlled by the Council of the European Union as well as the European commission, both of which have been accused of lacking democratic legitimacy (Europa 2010, par 1 -4). Whenever a stage reaches for the integration process of Europe, the democratic legitimacy as a question has always arisen. Treaties such as the Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam have all triggered the introduction of democratic legitimacy principle in the institutional system, which is done by increasing the parliament powers in connection to the control and appointment of the Commission. The Nice European Council met in December 2002 prompting a public debate on the European Union future whereby the citizens would be involved in decision making. A European convention was tasked with examining the different ways of making better the democratic legitimacy. There have been different opinions on how the perceived deficit can be remedied with some arguing that the deficit is more structural and thus it is not possible to resolve it without first altering the European Unions nature.
         
This term was for the first time used by David Marquand in the year 1979 while referring to the European Economic Community, which latter became the European Union. In the European Union context, this term has been used to refer to what many believe is inability by an ordinary citizen to access the Union or poor representation of a common citizen as well as minimal accountability of the institutions that constitute the European Union (Mallat 2009). The reason why the democratic deficit has been referred as structural is because it is intrinsic in the EU construction as a supranational union which is neither a federal state (true) nor an intergovernmental organization.  The constitutional court of Germany for example states that the European Unions processes of decision-making are to a great extent of an international body and based on equality of all states. In a union that is supranational, this is often a challenge in reconciling the equality principle among the different states as well as the equality principle among the citizens.

There exists heterogeneity in the literature that pertains to European Unions democratic deficit. The main question that exists is whether there is democratic deficit in the European Union. Possible solutions to the problem are different in scope and range. To define the term democratic deficit, it is important perhaps for one to consider the particular model of democracy that he or she considers to be the best for the European Union. If the European Union deviates from this ideal, democratic deficit will be considered more pronounced. In large polities, it is obvious that delegation will be more obvious contrary to small polities where direct citizen representation is inevitable. From individual states to international bodies, there arises the need for delegation. However if delegation is to be considered, it is important for the right of the small groups to be considered otherwise they would be lost in the population (Jensen 2009).

Some have claimed that an international organization such as the EU must be subjected to popular control in order to be seen as democratic. This calls for the institutions to be developed to a point that can guarantee chances for political influence, participation as well as control. In addition, the political elite ought to have willingness to participate in public debate with political competition being created (Jensen 2009). Moreover, the representatives (elected) must be able to control international bureaucracies effectively. All these factors make some feel that the European Union, just like many international organizations manifests democratic deficit.  The European Union not being a nation state or a federation may not offer decision making venues beyond nation states. The European Unions supranational nature raises questions about the relationship between democratic processes at member-state level and decision-making at supranational level.

Some of the factors that are cited as contributing to the rise of democratic deficit in the EU include the taking of powers to the EU from the member states, lack of strength of the EU parliament as well as lack of European wide elections. There is also the question of the distance between the EU and the citizens. Others have stated that there is need to utilize the pluralist democracy. This is because (as they claim) EU has parliamentary democratic deficit. This shows that the debate on the European democratic deficit comes in different understandings, depending on the ideal model that has been chosen.

Literature regarding the European Unions democratic deficit can be termed as multi-faceted in addition to being engaging, a fact that makes it sometimes confusing. Its debates in different literatures sometimes look disagreeable, with their routes determined by the perceptions of the scholars based on the contending sources of legitimacy. Such debates have created many responses with a feeling that there can never be progress once the different sets of positions and arguments have been stated, contested and restated.

Before the signing of the Lisbon treaty, the term European Union democratic deficit was used to describe some factors within the Union. First, there was an argument that it was only the European Parliament members who were elected directly by the people. To make the situation even more complicated, the members of parliament were elected in countries that have different electoral laws. The second factor is that the twenty commissioners who have the obligation of overseeing the policies of the European Union were national appointees. This was despite the demands made by the EU parliament that the Commissions president (at least) should be elected directly. The third factor is that the EU parliament lacked authority to make eventual decisions. The council of ministers, who are representatives of governments of states composing EU were the holders of the real power. Criticism was based on the fact that power and decision making role was vested on institutions that were not elected directly by the people.
     
However, there are those who have argued that there is no basis in the claim that executive dominance in Europe is exaggerated as it is just a real picture of the situation (informal) at the national level. It has been stated that there is executive dominance at local level since only less than fifteen percent (on average) of the legislative initiatives that originate from the members of parliament become law if they are not supported by the executive. On the contrary, proposals that originate from the executives usually become law without any amendment. Furthermore, though the decisions are made at the European Union level, the implementation is primarily done by member nations. There are some who have argued that the European Union does not have a democratic deficit that is formal but rather an informal one because of a social deficit. Others have claimed that the reason that make people believe that there is deficit is because they do not want to vote and so generate the democratic deficit just by thinking that it exists,  a situation that cannot be solved easily by formal reform.

How the Lisbon treaty addresses the European Unions democratic deficit
Article two of the treaty of EU which was altered by the Lisbon treaty stresses that the EU is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. The principle of democracy that expands its reach horizontally (EU institutions) and vertically- towards member countries- is confirmed in the Unions various human rights codifications. This is seen as a great step towards reducing the democratic deficit in EU though some problems such as equality of the EU citizens still stands, with some people feeling that citizens of larger countries are being favoured in the representation.

Many people have contributed different ideas on whether the treaty of Lisbon would bring about increased democracy among the members states of the European Union or not. Jerzy Buzek, the president of European parliament was quoted in Spiegel Online stating that the treaty is A Change for the better Europe. He argues that the Lisbon treaty is a representation of era of enhanced democracy among the members of the European Union as it gives more powers to the European Union parliament. In addition the budgetary and the legislative powers of the parliament have been doubled. Buzek also stated that the parliament would now liaise with the national ministers in deciding significant areas of justice and other issues such as asylum and immigration that include the applicants reception and finally the international trade policy.

Jerzy also argues that Lisbon treaty would contribute to improved governance, which is a recipe of democracy. This he says would be as a result of the increase of the powers of the parliament which would make decisions jointly with the Council of Ministers in different fields such as European Unions single market as well as policy on transport, environment, development and employment. He states that the treaty of Lisbon will change the way Europe is governed which will enhance the influence of the national parliament and citizens on how the European Union operates. He adds that the citizens of Europe will have more say in decision making. The treaty has facilitated the creation of the citizens initiative that allows one million people, members of the European states, to petition the European commission directly, bringing any legislative proposals that they feel would make the European Union more competent. The direct participation is seen to increase engagement with the European institutions that are influential.

The European Union has about five hundred million people. Many are of the belief that the Lisbon treaty will bring about a system rich in democratic accountability. This is due to the fact that all legislations will have to undergo thorough scrutiny from the council of ministers and the national parliaments as well as the European Union parliament. All the members of these institutions are all peoples representatives who have been elected. Others have stated that such kind of scrutiny is equal to none and is not found in any other international structures. Such scrutiny is vital as it makes the European Union more accountable and transparent to European people.

In support of the implementation of the treaty of Lisbon, Volkery Carsten, a Business Week author claims that the Lisbon treaty will bring more efficiency and democracy. He states that despite the increase in scepticism, this treaty will see several sensible changes being introduced. One of the examples that the writer gives is the dropping of the condition of unanimity in several areas. He discusses the fact that by the year 2014, a measure will only pass if it has been approved by not less than fifty five percent of the member states, which will have in addition compose not less than sixty percent of the total population of the European Union.

Such reforms will make the European Union more efficient in addition to being more democratic. He argues that this will be so because the European parliaments will possess increased powers in decision making. In addition all the national parliaments of the member states will get information on the European Union earlier so that they can have enough time to express their reactions and if the need be show their reservations instead of just sitting back and receive the faint accompli. However, national vetoes will still be applicable in areas as social, tax and foreign policy.

The proponents of the treaty have it that the treaty has significant measures that will bring the operations of the European Union near the member states making them more accessible. In addition to the citizens initiatives, new proposals have been made where permanent structures should be established to involve the churches and the civil society in the dialogue. There is a provision that a legislative proposal can be reviewed if a third of the national parliaments agree to it. In addition, a legislative proposal may be withdrawn or amended if half of the national parliaments show their discontentment.  Moreover, a national parliament may appeal to the European Court of Justice if it is discontented with a legislative proposal.

According to the report by the European parliament, the treaty of Lisbon would make the national and the European parliaments have a larger role when decisions are being made, and will increase the democratic profile of the European Union. The European parliament and the Council of ministers will in fact have equal footing in their capacities as lawmakers particularly in home affairs, justice and budgetary procedure. Any national parliament will have the right of objecting to proposals when it feels that a principle has not been respected. The parliament will be vested with powers to politically scrutinize especially through electing the Commissions president. Decisions that had previously been left to the Council must now get approval from the parliament.

The Europeans parliament will also have the right to choose the European Commission that includes its president and the European Union foreign minister (Leinen 2007, par. 3. The national parliaments will have the power to even make the commission change the draft legislation. When any initiative has gotten a million signatures from the EU members, the Commission will be obligated to consider putting that proposal on its agenda. This is a big step towards democracy as the European citizens will have more and direct influence on the politics of the European Union. In addition, majority voting that is qualified will be expanded to many policy areas doing away with the unanimous decision making.

In general, the Lisbon treaty that started being executed in 1st December 2009 has revised some important elements that had been associated with democratic deficit in Europe. They include the establishment of co-decision which has been adopted as the standard procedure of legislature. This has seen the increase of parliament powers to propose and shape legislation (Mulvey 2003). Next, the Lisbon treaty has placed a requirement that the council which is composed of the national governments to have their sessions publicly during their formal meetings. Thirdly, the national parliaments must each be given draft legislation by the commission earlier. In addition, the treaty of Lisbon revisits the so called Principle of subsidiary as essential to the European Union. It has also allowed for the creation of the citizens right of initiative that forces the Commission to fix a proposal for legislation in its agenda as long as it has been signed by one million citizens from the European Union member states.

This Lisbon treaty is significant to the addressing European Union democratic deficit as it has measures that can bring the EU workings nearer to the member nations as well as making them accessible. Proposals have been included that will see the churches as well as the civil society in dialogue. This is in addition to the Citizen initiative that allows one million citizens from at least fifteen members states to instigate a policy. The most important inclusion is the clause that increases the power of the national parliaments to debate on a proposal that is also being debated by the EU parliaments as well as the Council. This makes the European council to be more accountable to their parliaments and people at large.

Critics of the ability of the Lisbon Treaty to deal with the EU democracy deficit
Despite being of the view that the treaty is very significant in addressing the European Unions democratic deficit, others are of a different view. Anthony Coughlin who is the director of the national platform EU research and information centre based in Dublin has claimed that in fact the Lisbon treaty has made the European Unions democratic deficit far worse. He argues that the treaty establishes a European Union that will be separate (constitutionally) from its constituent states. According to him, this will lead to the twenty seven European Union members losing their sovereignty and thus end up being regional states in a federation. He argues that many European citizens have no knowledge of these changes because they have not been given a chance to debate and express their views through referendum (in exception of Irish citizens).

There are some who have claimed that the Lisbon treaty carries power politics rather than of co-determination. The evidence that has been given to support the allegation is that in twenty six European Union countries, the ordinary citizens do not vote on the treaty directly though a large numbers of people in those countries preferred a popular vote. This is seen as an abuse of democracy since it is only Ireland that conducted a national referendum. Others have indicated that the haste that has been applied in the enforcement of the treaty will in fact be a means to kill democracy. They argue that the enforcement of the treaty should take time allowing the people at the grassroots to air their views. The Lisbon treaty has also been accused of undermining democratic principles which include the separation of powers, direct democracy as well as the democratic relocation of rights (sovereign). It also has some issues that many of the people in member countries vividly reject.

Conclusion
The signing of the Lisbon treaty was a new dawn to the future of the European Union. For several years now, the term democratic deficit has been used to bring out the idea that the European Union lack or has minimal democracy with clear indications that it was not easy for the ordinary citizens to access it.  Many had felt that it was controlled by the Council and the Commission. However, with the signing of the Lisbon treaty there are high hopes that the democratic deficit of the EU will be addressed. This has been evident will several steps being taken to tackle the deficit. Such include the empowerment of parliaments as well as giving the ordinary citizens more say in the decision making process of the EU. Such changes will be important as they will be instrumental in reducing the democracy deficit in the European Union. The decision making process of the European Union will be brought closer to the people through their national parliaments, European Union parliament as well as well through citizen initiative. Such a step will be make the European Union become more citizen-friendly and it will become more embraced by the European citizens. However, for democracy to be enhanced, it may be important to have a system whereby the commission officials such as the president are elected directly just as it happens in the United States of America. To reach such a point however, it may mean that the EU has either been transformed into a state-nation or a federation, a step that may not be supported by many. Though there are some challenges, it is a fact that positive steps have been taken.

General Book Review

I. Introduction
In Platos political writings, he is primarily concerned with an analysis of the nature of the individual and the state. Plato perceived the state as an analogous appendage of the individual. He believed that the type of individual found in the state determined the class of state it would be. In a sense, the individual is the nominal reflection of the state. In The Republic, Plato argued

And therefore our politic Asclepius may be supposed to have exhibited the power of his art only to persons who, being generally of healthy constitution and habits of life, had a definite ailment  and bade them live as usual, herein consulting the interests of the State but bodies which disease had penetrated through and through he would not have attempted to cure by gradual processes of evacuation and infusion he did not want to lengthen out good-for-nothing lives, or to have weak fathers begetting weaker sons --if a man was not able to live in the ordinary way he had no business to cure him for such a cure would have been of no use either to himself, or to the State (The Republic).

Because the state is determined by individuals, then individuals are classified based on their contributions to the state. The commoners provide manpower to the state. The army protects the state from external threats. The Guardians are bestowed with the power of governance  a class of intellectual aristocrats. To prevent conflict between the classes, the Guardians must possess the highest virtues of the state. The Guardians are required to live in poverty  all possessions are deemed communal. They must have families in common. Children will be raised in common  so as not to sow envy among the classes. They are also required to study philosophy and law  the requisites of good leadership.

Now, this structure of the state is directed to the Form of the Good. In essence, this is the cause of knowledge and truth  the source of the right to think as a being, as a rational individual it is in essence, higher than the individual. The Good is not something which can be readily perceived. It is an external form which is identical to objectivity, but not an object itself. As Plato said

The Good therefore may be said to be the source not only of the intelligibility of the objects of knowledge, but also of their existence and reality yet it is not itself identical with reality, but is beyond reality, and superior to it in dignity and power (The Republic, 508-509).

Because the Good is beyond reality, or as in the case of Aquinas, far from the rubric of human imagination (Summa Theologica), it is the source of all virtues. If the state, in one way or another, attains this form, such state becomes a mirror image of the ideal state. Citizens become bearers of virtue.

In his latter works, primarily the Laws, Plato modified some of his earlier assumptions of the state. Plato allowed some form of private property. The ancient ruler-philosopher stands as the primary focus of attention. Having attained the status of a wise ruler, the state itself becomes a just entity. There is also a pretence of piety and ritualism in the state  written law is absent, so as vice and idealistic happiness. The state is indeed the repository of God-given virtues. As Plato argued

Then there is some hope that your citizens may be virtuous had you been on the sea, and well provided with harbors, and an importing rather than a producing country, some mighty savior would have been needed, and lawgivers more than mortal, if you were ever to have a chance of preserving your state from degeneracy and discordance of manners. But there is comfort in the eighty stadia although the sea is too near, especially if, as you say, the harbors are so good. Still we may be content (Book IV, The Laws).

Plato, however, recognized the existence of efficient forms of government. His ideal state is, in his mind, the best form of political association. As such, the laws which govern the state tend to be variable. In The Laws, Plato commented

You are aware-are you not-that there are of said to be as many forms of laws as there are of governments, and of the latter we have already mentioned all those which are commonly recognized. Now you must regard this as a matter of first-rate importance. For what is to be the standard of just and unjust, is once more the point at issue. Men say that the law ought not to regard either military virtue, or virtue in general, but only the interests and power and preservation of the established form of government this is thought by them to be the best way of expressing the natural definition of justice (Book IV, The Laws).

In the Statesman, Plato presented his ideal ruler  the political entity which provides direction and guidance to the state. This work is the culmination of his political philosophy because it defines the nature of the state from the perspective of erratic rationalism.

II. Summary (Statesman)
The first part of the book deals with the nature of classes. According to Plato, beings can be classified into sub and sub-sub classes. Suppose beings are classified based on corporeality, then two classes emerge  the incorporeal and the corporeal. Corporeal beings can be subdivided into two groups  the animate and the inanimate. Again, animate beings can be classified into two groups  the rational and the irrational. This successive division of classes corresponds to a unique distinction between the general class and the high class (this is not synonymous with the upper class).

At this point, the Stranger introduces the investigation of the sophist with the model of an angler. In general, the angler represents the method of dichotomous division  the division of a kind into sub-classes. An angler has a humble profession which nature recognizes. The animal engages in a single discernable activity  that is, fishing with a special hook. Now, the Stranger arrives at a definition of the angler by locating his activity in a wide class of art or technique. The Stranger then assumes that art is divided into two types productive and acquisitive art. This method yields a special kind of definition for the Sophist. To the Stranger, the sophist is a hired hunter of rich young men  acquisitive men who vie for money, pride, and inordinate hunger of power. A metaphor can be established while the angler hunts creatures that inhabit the water, the sophist hunts (or corrupts) creatures that live on dry land. As
Plato argued
That the dialectical method is no respecter of persons, and does not set the great above the small, but always arrives in her own way at the truest result. And now, I will not wait for you to ask the, but will of my own accord take you by the shorter road to the definition of a king (Statesman 201).

With this method, the Stranger (the character in the treatise) and Socrates arrive at a discernable distinction between the real statesmen and the sophists.

The Stranger introduces a vague definition of a statesman. According to him, the statesman is an individual of science  a person higher than the sophist in virtues but lower than a philosopher. He than argues that it is the type of soul which conceive the ail kinds of knowledge between the sophist and the statesman. The sophist possesses a corrupt form of knowledge  knowledge which is erratic, unreliable, and self-directed. The statesman possesses a genuine, heavenly inspired knowledge  knowledge which recognizes the efficacy of man.

The Stranger then presents a straightforward definition of the Sophist
Suppose now, O most courageous of dialecticians, that some wise and understanding creature, such as a crane is reputed to be, were, in imitation of you, to make a similar division, and set up cranes against all other animals to their own special glorification, at the same time jumbling together all the others, including man, under the appellation of brutes,-here would be the sort of error which we must try to avoid (Statesman 204).

There is, however, a problem with this definition. It is impossible to make a moral dichotomy with regard to knowledge creation. Knowledge is pure and absolute. It is time immemorial  God have decreed that knowledge is the Ideal Form of the Forms. It is, in essence, the subject and object of existence. There is no such thing as two knowledge. As God is absolute, so is knowledge. As the Stranger puts it

Hence we must not say that the world is either self-moved always, or all made to go round by God in two opposite courses or that two Gods, having opposite purposes, make it move round  the world is guided at one time by an external power which is divine and receives fresh life and immortality from the renewing hand of the Creator, and again, when let go, moves spontaneously, being set free at such a time as to have, during infinite cycles of years, a reverse movement this is due to its perfect balance, to its vast size, and to the fact that it turns on the smallest pivot (Statesman 206).

Now, knowledge is a part which was the science of rule or command, on the analogy of selling-for-self (Statesman 206). Sophists take knowledge as part of their essence  hence, they assume that knowledge can be manipulated or controlled. Statesmen, on the other hand, view knowledge as an inanimate entity - distinct and separate from the body. To the statesman, knowledge is a measure of personal dedication to the good of the state, the individual, and nature.

The nature of knowledge, however, is complicated. Knowledge came from God. From God, the instructor, the world received all that is good. Man became a benefactor of the good. Ideal forms entered the mind of men  those who recognized its good vowed to make themselves the conveyor of truth, while those who recognize its immediate utility vowed to contain it.

The Stranger concludes that knowledge is inherently good. The manner by which knowledge is utilized can be deemed either good or bad. The Sophists use knowledge to their own advantage (a corrupt form of knowledge) while statesmen utilize knowledge to the advantage of other men and the state.

Having distinguished the sophist from the statesman, both Socrates and the Stranger discuss the nature of statecraft. Like weaving, statecraft is an art which cares for human cities. In weaving, the weaver is expected to be both moderate and cautious  to meet the requirements of his clients. In statecraft, the statesman must be an expert of measurement  they measure the more and the less not only in relation to each other but also in relation to the production of the measure. The statesman directs the experts. He is an expected to be an expert in timing to determine when the general should go to war. He must determine the good that rhetoric will serve. He must decide whether a particular goal is best achieved through force or persuasion. The statesman must be just and merciful to show the citizens the subject of justice.

III. General Critique
A thorough reading of the text will reveal important facts. First, the Statesman is an extension of The Republic. Plato repeatedly argued that a just society is a society where the highest Good is directed. This is the base assumption of his work. As the philosopher strive to arrive at the highest Good, the statesman struggle to implement the ideal form of justice. The Good is assumed to be inanimate  beyond the rubric of human comprehension. It is also flawless and natural. It rests not on the minds of individuals but on the divine being  in which man is the recipient.

Second, Plato apparently modified some of his original ideas in The Republic. In the Statesman Plato allowed some form of private ownership. In The Republic, property is communal. The philosopher-king is the object of discussion in The Republic  being the source of good in the state. In this work, Plato assumes that the statesman is a necessary appendage of the state in the promulgation of justice.

IV. Conclusion
In the Statesman, Plato defined the essence of knowledge  its source, cause, and application. He also pondered on the various classifications which animate beings are situated. A formal result of this differentiation is the statesman-sophist divide. This divide is located in the rubric of statecraft.

It is true that policy matters are not covered as much as they ought to. Most media, be they newspapers, television, radio or the internet, mainly focus on the issues of the day rather than policy issues. However, there are a few times when policy issues are covered in all types of communication media. Unfortunately, such incidences are few and so far apart that they make little or no impact at all. To make matters worse, important policies are only covered by the media when politics is involved. Take for instance the amount of coverage that was offered to the Healthcare Policy during the 2008 election year (ABC News).

During the last few weeks leading to the elections, there was a lot that was being passed on from the mainstream media to the people. Such issues as unemployment, the economic downturn, American involvement in the Middle East wars took center stage most of the time (Time Magazine). However, the issue of health was very outstanding during that time and has remained one of the few policies that are still making headlines in the media today.

During the week running from 11 January 2010 to 18th of the same month, the major policy issue on both ABC and the Time Magazine was Healthcare. Perhaps the reason why the issue is receiving so much coverage is because President Obama had better healthcare as part of his pre-election pledges back in 2008, not to mention that the issue of healthcare or the lack of it has dogged the country for a long time now. People are hungry for a better healthcare program and any mention of the policy will definitely get their attention. The media knows this and that is why they have to mention it almost every day.

Although the evening news on ABC News normally mentions how the government is handling the healthcare issue, Time magazine deals with it in an in depth manner. You can get more healthcare information from the 11th -18th of January 2010 issue of Time magazine than you can get from watching ABC evening news during the same time period.

Economy and the war in Iraq are other policies that the two media talked about during this period. While ABC had more news to offer, it was not as deep as it was in the Time Magazine. In BC News, the war in Iraq was given more coverage than the economy. Times magazine focused on both issues equally. Time also seems to have more time to cover other policies which are normally ignored in radio and television, such as family issues.

The role of the media as information suppliers is vital and the stakeholders should realize this when deciding whether or not to offer coverage to a certain policy issue. People do not need to know only about what disaster is happening in a certain part of the world they are also interested to know about what is happening to things that concern then directly, such as health and the economy. The media should not only disseminate information to do with policy matters, they should also do it in depth.

While it can be said that News Magazines offer more in depth information on policies than electronic media, there is a lot that needs to be done in order to achieve the level of policy coverage that will be said to be satisfactory. It is not everyone in America who understands exactly what is going on in the healthcare department. All they really know is what healthcare legislation was passed and by whom, and which one was rejected. When legislation is passed requiring more troops in Afghanistan, the media should help people understand why it was passed and what it means for their security and the security of their nation (Moussa, 1991).

If the policies being talked about in the media are supposed to help the ordinary people, then there should be mechanisms in place which should ensure that everyone understands each and every one of the policies that are making news in the mainstream media.

The two policies that would be discussed and analyzed are from the online references from the US Department of Health Website. Identifying one policys dimension would assist any reader for clearer comprehension on the presented documents. The two policies that are used for examples are the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Informing Those Tested About HIV Serostatus and Federal Policy (Common Rule) for the Protection of Human Subjects. This paper will try to find if classifying policies into varying dimensions would truly help on executing policy analysis.

The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Informing Those Tested About HIV Serostatus policy falls under the procedural, regulatory, and collective categories. It is considered procedural as it not only discusses the mandatory action required once the test results were released but also a step-by-step process to be followed by the IRB (Institutional Review Boards) representatives. Its policy also discussed the exemptions to be made when the HIV positive individual is proven mentally incapable or unstable. It is under the regulatory dimension as again, since medical result information and counseling is deemed necessary, to compel these patients to be in their best behavior (stop having unprotected sexual intercourse etc). Finally, it is considered as a collective policy as adhering strictly to this would lessen the probability of HIV getting infected from the innocent bystanders.

The Federal Policy (Common Rule) for the Protection of Human Subjects, however, is classified differently from the former. While the HIV policy is under the procedural category, the Human Subjects policy is in substantive category. The reason for doing so is that the policy talked about the rights of the different kinds of human subjects. These are also a distributive and a private goods type seeing that this police would only benefit for this said sector. The only aspect that the two policies seem to share is that both are under the material policy category. Both policies provide tangible resources for their targeted sectors. The AIDS policy gives accurate counseling for the HIV-positive individuals while the latter ensure that the human subjects individuals would be given protection and confidentiality.

After careful evaluation, it is safe to assure that another researcher for these mentioned policies will arrive with the same conclusion. Classification of policy dimension, if done with scrutiny, would greatly help in the political analysis. Evaluating these two policies is one good exercise especially for the aspiring researchers for policy analysis.  

The cases of Sacco and Vanzetti and Turkmen vs. Ashcroft (hereafter Turkmen) are one of the most politically controversial in American history, either in notoriety or in illustrating some of the loopholes of the American legal system. Sacco and Vanzetti predates Turkmen by almost a century, yet, there are stark similarities on both cases that are present despite differences in the historical and political circumstances surrounding them. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were both Italian immigrants tried and convicted for the robbery and murder of two people in South Braintree, Massachusetts in 1920. Turkmen is a class lawsuit filed on behalf of eight named plaintiffs who were illegal aliens, all Muslim, and of Arab and South Asian descent, rounded up and subjected to racial profiling and prolonged detention by the FBI and INS  for immigration violations following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Until present, Sacco and Vanzetti remains highly debated in terms of the culpability of the accused as well as whether or not the trial was conducted in a manner that conformed to due process requirements. On the other hand, Turkmen forced America to confront important issues such as human rights and due process violations involving persons suspected of engaging in terroristic activities.

Plaintiff mistreatment
The abusive conditions surrounding the confinement of the plaintiffs in Turkmen was the second fundamental issue raised in their petition, which all things considered, were alleged to have  violated the Constitution (Turkmen v. Ashcroft, 2006, p. 4). In the petition, the plaintiffs enumerated several cases of mistreatment and abuse at the time of their confinement physical and verbal abuse, sleep deprivation, strip searches, being confined in tiny cells, denial of medical attention and exercise, and denial of hygiene items. Moreover, plaintiffs were deliberately scorned or deprived of the chance to perform their religious practices and personal items such as personal identification and cash which were confiscated from their or their house upon their arrest were never returned to them.  These forms of abuse and mistreatment, they allege, were made on account of their professed Islamic beliefs, race, and ethnicity.  In Sacco and Vanzetti, the aforementioned forms of mistreatment were not as pronounced, although both plaintiffs were subjected to prejudice and discrimination based on their citizenship status and political leanings -  as Italians and anarchists.

Due process issues
Several due process issues have been noted in both cases, especially as they related to people who are illegal immigrants and under suspicion for embracing radical ideologies that are considered a threat to national security (anarchism and terrorism). Due process is a term that embodies the concept of legal fairness and is considered a fundamental tenet in American jurisprudence such that No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (Center for Constitutional Rights, 2009). In Goldberg vs. Kelly (cited in Turkmen vs. Ashcroft, 2009), the Supreme Court ruled that procedural due process mandates that an individual facing deprivation of life, liberty, or property is entitled to 1) adequate notice 2) hearing and 3) a neutral judge. In Sacco and Vanzetti, the question of whether or not a fair trial has been given the plaintiffs remains highly contentious until now. Retrospective opinions of legal experts and observers opine that a retrial should have been granted given the pervasive prejudice on the part of judge presiding over the trial (Montgomery, 1960). Judge Webster Thayer possessed a blatant bias against the plaintiffs and made his sentiments public, allegedly calling the accused Bolsheviki and warning that he would get them proper (Temkin, 2009, p. 65). Moreover, allegations of a frame-up by law enforcement, perjuring or coerced witnesses, and the highly politicized climate that stirred passions because of the unpopular political beliefs of the accused are said to have convicted Sacco and Vanzetti, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as required for criminal proceedings. In Turkmen, plaintiffs emphasized that the government had violated their  rights under the equal protection clause because of the use of racial and religious profiling. They alleged that they have been singled out and rounded up because of their religion, country of origin, and race. Due process violations were also alleged such as depriving them of counsel and by detaining them for prolonged periods without charges and maintaining their incarceration even after their immigration cases have been deliberated upon and during which removal or voluntary departure could have been in effect. Although the Supreme Court later ruled to uphold claims on alleged physical abuse and mistreatment of the plaintiffs, it found that the US government had the right to detain immigrants based on race, religion, or national origin, and it can lawfully detain them  so long as an eventual removal is deemed reasonably foreseeable (Turkmen vs. Ashcroft, 2009). Moreover, illegal immigrants do not enjoy the same rights as U.S. citizens and cannot expect reciprocal privileges under the law. For instance, the right to counsel, is provided the illegal alien, but at his own expense, not at the governments (Turkmen vs. Ashcroft, 2006).

Similarities and differences
Undoubtedly, both Sacco and Vanzetti and the Turkmen cases were both highly politicized ones. Both cases arose out of a time in history when American capitalism was heavily challenged and threatened by competing ideologies, anarchism in the first, and Islamic fundamentalism on the latter.  Critics of the verdict on Sacco and Vanzetti claim that the real intention of the government of incarcerating the two Italian immigrants were to put a stop to the spread of anarchist philosophy in defense of capitalism. During this period, the communist ideology began to gain steam in Europe and the Red Scare was prevalent in the US (Temkin, 2009).  In Turkmen, the 911 tragedy aroused the passions of the American people to an extent that racial bigotry and discrimination ran high against Muslims or Arabs who were immediately presumed to be terrorists. Prejudice and force used against minorities and immigrants were common in both cases, but the physical and verbal abuses, however, were graver in Turkmen, as documented and substantiated by the OIG. To a certain extent, such display of force was tolerated by the American people because of the tremendous loss of life in 911, but at the price of the civil rights of innocent individuals who happened to have an Islamic sounding name and who come from Islamic countries.

In the book Little Pink Houses by Jeff Benedict one reads the story of Susette Kelo. Kelo, a single nurse had purchased a home in New London CT, in an area that was being looked at by the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) as the site for a new Pfizer Chemicals plant. Many of the homes in the area had already been taken over by the law of Eminent Domain that gives the right for state or federal governments to claim that land of private citizens if they play to use the land for a state or federal project. According to Benedict (2009), the NLDC received permission to go ahead with the project from state governor John Rowland who did so in order to avoid having to deal with city and local governments himself in order to develop the area. The city government allowed the project to continue because they felt it was in the best interests of the city, and in fact NLDC was led by a former member of the New London City council, Clare Guidiani. Pfizer became involved because they were looking for a new place to establish a chemical plant.

Kelo chose to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court. She felt that in this particular case the state did not have a right to eminent domain. However in this case the courts decided that Kelo was not in the right and she eventually did lose her house. But, the Supreme Court Justices did emphasize that often Eminent Domain issues such as this particular case were often unfair to home and business owners because they did not share in the gain that the city, or the factory and businesses being built on their lands did. Often they did not receive fair market value for homes and lost out financially while the companies and towns that had taken over their property made millions.

Each party had a vested interest however eminent domain still won out in the end because as the law is written as long as the homeowners are offered some return on the value of their home, they really dont have a case. This book raised many critical questions about the rights of the individual citizen versus the public interest. Which one is greater Another issue raised by Benedict (2009) is the overall fairness or unfairness of Eminent Domain laws. These are answers without any easy questions. For instance the New London government had to balance the rights of its individual citizens with the rights of everyone in the city. Pfizer would have brought hundreds of jobs into an area that had been economically devastated by the loss of a major military base and several manufacturers in the 1980s and 1990s.

Kelo is a sympathetic plaintiff though. Her story of how hard she fought to earn the money to buy her first home independent of her ex-husband, of the obstacles she faced in life is touching. She makes her case admirably, and her story makes it clear that one cannot judge the worth of a home based on money alone. People have invested things such as hopes and dreams and memories in a home that cannot be granted a monetary value. Kelos story makes it clear that when all of these aspects of home ownership come into play that Eminent Domain is unfair and cruel.

Benedicts (2009) book does not go into great detail in terms of the legalities of the case. It focuses on Kelos story rather than on the legal issues surrounding the case. While Benedict (2009) does not go into depth in terms of the legal issues surrounding the case, he does discuss it in enough detail the average reader can understand what is truly occurring in the case.

Overall I liked this book. It was easy to read and Benedict (2009) gives just enough detail to give an idea of the case to the typical reader while still offering detailed enough descriptions that it is useful for officials in Public Administration. This book did have some deficiencies in that analysis of issues such as eminent domain is mainly very superficial and lack critical details of the case. This book would be very appropriate however when addressing the rights of individuals vs. the rights of the group with Public Administration officials and employees.

This book is more targeted at the secular reader than it is professionals in the fields of Law and Public Administration. However it gives professionals insights into how Eminent Domain can affect people, and how the average person on the street thinks about issues such as the right of towns and states to take over their private property and use it for profit that they will see none of.  This book is also effective in that it provides a general survey from a lay persons perspective on eminent domain.

The main issue with this book is the lack of depth to its arguments however for the most part can be attributed to the target audience for the book. It was more of an enjoyable read for me than an informative read, although, I did learn how eminent domain affects homeowners. This has at least increased my understanding of eminent domain from the perspective of those outside the legal and public administration fields. It can be concluded that in general this book was very good. It portrayed the characters in a realistic manner, and was fairly well written.

It is lack of patriotism in the citizens of any nation to stand and see the enactment and implementation of oppressive laws (Armengol-Carrere, 2008). The sons of liberty have remained one of the many patriotic groups in the history of the American nation. Made mainly of middle class Americans, shopkeepers, and artisans, the group evidently helped in the ineffectiveness of the then proposed Stamp Act of 1765 (Kreamer, 2010). This was simply based on the reason that the proposed law sort to impose stamp taxes on printed materials. Many have claimed that the sons of liberty were terrorists due to the fact that most of their protests and demonstrations were often violent and highly destructive. It is however to be noted that such incidences have been claimed to have been a direct result of the increased involvement of the masses in the protest and demonstrations. The author of this essay gives an argument in support of the thesis that the sons of liberty not terrorists but true patriots of the American nation.

The realization of justice and fairness in the human community has been over history a controversial involvement many a times calling for protests and demonstrations (Armengol-Carrere, 2008). The stamp act was made to fund for the upkeep of the British troops which were in the American land. It is to be realized that the presence of the troops signified the continued colonization of the Americans. Still clear from the intent of the legislation is the fact that none was to better the lives of the colonies despite the fact that they were the main target for contributing the taxes. This was mainly because most middle class Americans were shopkeepers and artisans thus major users of paper. It was thus because of involvement in protest against the imposing of the act that the sons of liberty should be regarded as patriots as they defended their right to paying taxes by consent (Kreamer, 2010).

The struggles by the sons of liberty led to the ultimate beginning of the American Revolution. This has been closely attributed to the fact that the sons of liberty instilled sense of rebellion on the unfair rule of the British people (Armengol-Carrere, 2008). It also clearly showed that the Americans can sufficiently defend their human rights and thus realized justice in the society. It is worth stating that the American Revolution led to the Americans realization of independence thus leading to a fair and just society free from dictatorial and unjust governance. Therefore, the sons of liberty through their protests led to the ultimate realization of justice through independence in the American nation (Kreamer, 2010).

Many have claimed that the sons of liberty led to much destructions property and life. It is however clear from existing historical information that such destructions were mainly a result of the increased involvement of the masses (Kreamer, 2010). This evidently means that most of the violent and destructive activities carried out were not necessarily by command of the groups representatives. It is also to be noted here that the effective realization of justice from a colonial power has rarely been through negotiation. It is indeed due to these acts of violence and destruction that the stamp act never realized much effectiveness on implementation thus leading to justice and fairness of treatment for the Americans (kreamer, 2010).

In conclusion, it is evidently clear that the many protests and demonstrations by the sons of liberty set the basis for the beginning of the American Revolution. It is thus true to logically claim that the sons of liberty are greatly responsible for the ultimate realization of independence of the American nation. They should thus be honored as true patriots of the American nation.