Political Science

In this article, Mark Brown posed that democratic governance is the key towards sustaining peace in war-torn societies. He posed further that without democratic governance, sustainable development will not be possible regardless of the amount of development assistance received by these societies.
Democratic governance as cited in the article is often associated with accountable and transparent institutions, system of justice that provides for peaceful settlement of disputes, rule of law that protects the rights of all and genuine participation in political decision making, whatever form such participation may take. If a society does not provide for these leading to the absence of capacity to resolve internal conflict, then sustainable peace would not be attained despite the assistance from other countries. In view of this, the United Nations Development Program or UNDP concentrated its efforts to the promotion of democratic governance as it most effective in preventing violent conflict and promoting emotional and social well-being.

It is observed that although the article has provided good examples of programs of the UNDP to promote democratic governance in countries such as Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. Still, these efforts are that of an outsider. It might be good to answer the question of how the people within the afflicted society themselves can work at establishing democracy considering that they are living in a collapsed society. How do they go about in establishing it

Human Security  Protecting and Empowering the People
Sadako Ogata  John Cels

In this article, it was posed that among all security concerns in a State, human security must be the first to be ensured. This means protecting the vital freedoms or the fundamental and inalienable rights of people and empowering individuals or communities to make informed choices and acting on their own behalf central to the priorities of the state. However, it was also posed that human security does not replace state security, human rights and development. On the contrary, it must complement it. This is the human security approach which the Commission on Human Rights has embraced is now actively promoting.

The authors of the article wrote that strategies in protecting human security require collaborative efforts in its development and implementation. In line with this, it was cited that the Commission on Human Rights proposed the development of a human security agenda by mainstreaming human security in the work of global, regional and national security-related organizations. For this, the Commission formulated ten policy recommendations after an analysis of the six broad areas of conflict and poverty. These recommendations are protecting peoples rights and freedoms is a serious challenge in violent conflicts, especially when combined with extreme economic and social deprivations people must be protected from proliferation of weapons people on the move must be protected the responsibility to protect people in conflict should be complemented by a responsibility to rebuild in post-conflict situations markets and trade are basic to economic growth and have led to unprecedented wealth for some a comprehensive approach to ensure livelihoods and work-based security is essential poverty-related health threats, in addition to the HIVAIDS pandemic, are among the most critical and pervasive human securities many of the poorest countries and people are excluded from technological and knowledge-based advances basic education and literacy are important not only to improve productivity and job skills but also to empower people and forming compassionate attitudes and ethical outlooks from a global perspective is central to empowering communities and overcoming divisive messages.

The recommendations of the Commission are very responsive to the human security agenda. I am in agreement with this agenda as I am of the opinion that a State must look into the security of the very backbone of its society which of course refers to the individual members of the State. Simply put, secured and empowered members of the society make up a strong State, thus, achieving state security will be an easy feat.

Why do so few Americans vote
Data obtained from researches indicates that when it comes to elections, very few of the qualified citizens of the United States actually cast their votes. This is surprising bearing in mind that universal adult suffrage and equal political participation is one of the key principles of democracy. Surveys have been carried out to obtain the reason behind this trend and the reason behind the reluctance of those eligible to vote but are still not registered.

In the last elections, the expectation was that there was going to be a higher tan usual voter turnout, but the participation numbers where not satisfactory. This has been the trend for a long period of time. In 1972, the movie The Candidate thematically attempted to explain this. In it, the downside of American politics was highlighted. The emphasis on the role of money on a candidates success as well as his image rather than the vision and insight puts into office individuals who do not have clear policies to implement.

More than a third of infrequent voters claim they fail to vote or register as voters because they are too busy. During the last general election, only a meager 40 percent of the eligible citizens actually voted. The final derivative is that most Americans have become hopelessly pessimistic and exhibit a chronic dissatisfaction with the government of the day, or maybe there is a deficiency of sufficiently suitable candidates.

This lack of participation in the political process should be discouraged. Voting is the core value of a democratic system. If people fail to vote, they are missing out on the privilege of determining their political representatives. Consequently, those wielding power are not the genuine representatives of the people, and therefore the policy stands they take will not reflect the opinion of the masses (Cheers.org, 2009). To avoid the scenario of citizens endlessly complaining about government decisions, people should take charge, go to the polls and express their preference of candidates. In this way, government will be fully representative.

With the extensive scope that is inherent of its very nature, ethics, in my own perception, may be best compared to the grandeur that one may witness on a clear night sky where endless numbers of stars seemed to be able to blanket the entire vastness of the earths horizon, displaying a character that is truly inspiring as it is perplexing.  Inspiring, by presenting endless probabilities of what truly lies beyond what we see and perplexing, in realizing that these are in reality, beyond the grasp of human influence.

Such as with the magnificence of the night sky, ethics presents a certain reaction that is interwoven to human spirituality.  Somehow, it evokes an awakening that concerns morality and values the very foundations of our measure between right and wrong, just and unjust, and heaven and hell.  Perhaps it is because in viewing this wonder, man is made aware of the limits of his perceived greatness, and is faced with a solitary avenue of accepting a reality that his cause is indeed inferior to that of the greater design of the universe that he belongs to.

It is comprehensible, then, to view ethics as similar to the splendor displayed on a starry night.  Several reasons, in my own perception, leads to this realization firstly, the very principle encompassing right and wrong is in its entirety, a vast expanse of morality as dictated by history in relation to tradition, religious beliefs, societal norms, and cultures.  Just like a nights horizon filled with countless stars, its expanse would certainly seem immeasurable, as numerous factors dependent on the individuals personalsocietal background would serve as a contributing factor to his own perception of ethics.  As such, just as there are countless stars, so too are there endless contributors to the bounds of ethics, as set by the society.  

Likewise, a comparison may be made on the basis of what is evident to the naked eye.  In this respect, the visible stars represent what are evidently or outwardly good or bad, and the innumerable stars that are hidden make for the ethical grounds that are vague and require a much deeper insight to measure its precise morality.  Under this category are themes pertaining to euthanasia, abortion, stem cell technology, businesscorporate ethics, religious wars, politics, the legal practice, and others of the same mold, where societies seem to be possessing of conflicting ideologies in pursuit of a justifiable conclusion.  Similarly, in relation to the eternity that the heavens innately suggest, these topics exhibiting a vague characteristic of morality and ethics have been in existence since the dawn of mankind and his civilizations, and despite of the many instigations of finally finding a desirable conclusion, have outlived the very people who once had pondered on this verity.

Conclusion
The metaphor of comparing the qualities of the grandeur of a starry night sky to those of ethics is, in my perception, perfectly suited.  This primarily may be based on the reality that morality, just like the physicality of the heavens, encompasses every action and decision that mankind is constantly confronted with in his everyday living, consciously or otherwise.  It has always been the basis of mankinds behavior, irrespective of his age, race, religion, and culture.  Perhaps unintentionally, this has always been the reason for our fascination with the starry night sky, as may be evidenced in our works of art throughout the ages that through this we are able to connect with our very own morality, by witnessing firsthand a glimpse of the vastness of the entirety of the universe, and the humbling insignificance of our own.            

In the mid nineteenth century when the second global conflict took place, it emerged that there was a dire need to have an international media house with the ability of reporting internationally all major international events. CNN emerged as the leading player in international communications and relations and thus played a major role and created a lot of influence. However, despite the great coverage of CNN, it later became apparent that there was a dark side of CNN, and is currently under intense scrutiny by several professionals and scholars.

The positive side of CNN
The second global conflict was the first phenomena to create a true global worldwide system. It became apparent that events taking place in one part of the globe had an impact on the rest of the world. As a result, there was a dire need for the establishment of an international media house that could report on events taking place across the world at any given time. In the early 1980s, there were great innovations in the world of communication technologies, which made CNN to be produced by the Ted Tuner vision, thus making the media house to be the first international news network. CNN was therefore in a position to broadcast international news round the whole world and around the clock through a combination of cable and satellites television outlets. During the gulf conflict, CNN played a crucial role which made it to emerge as an international actor in global relations. CNN therefore inspired other media houses to go global and thus increase diversity of international news (Gilboa, 2005).
CNNs diversification and growth including CNN international creation have had a great effect on several facets of international communications and global relations, such as economics, technology, public opinion, law, culture, diplomacy and politics as well as human rights, terrorism, warfare, refugees, environmental degradation and health. During its first years bringing out these issues, little attention was forthcoming from both the professional and academic communities. However, the manner in which CNN covered the Gulf conflict which was its first major international assignment promoted greater investigations. In fact, the great work that was carried out by CNN marked a major turning point in communications history and in particular that of CNN, which resulted to an equivalent change across the networks scholarship.

The appearance of an influential new player in international and communication relations demands sufficient empirical and theoretical work in order to assess objectively its influence and place. Several scholars have carried out numerous studies on CNN within several general frameworks. Despite the varying conclusions drawn by various scholars, it is always evident that this international media house has a lot of influence on the world stage. Ever since the period of the gulf war, CNN has covered several other conflicts and most notably the new international security threat resulting from terrorism.

CNNs other side
The factor of CNN and the effects it has on international intervention in major armed conflicts has increasingly become under intense academic scrutiny. The fundamental conception is as follows emotion and concentrated based media mode of coverage of selected conflict that is packaged in a manner that is oversimplified that is, format of morality play, of the right versus the wrong, stirs up a response that is emotional from viewers located in distant nations, compelling that nations government to have some interest and probably intervene in the conflict giving its support to the side of conflict favored by CNN.

As pointed out by several scholars and professionals, the focus of CNN while covering international conflicts has greatly obscured its media effectiveness in covering these conflicts. This has originated from the CNNs failure to cover several global conflicts objectively and instead introduce a lot of subjectivity in its reporting. By permitting CNNs coverage to play a great role in altering or forming government policy regarding international conflicts, it therefore follows that without the media coverage there will be no such policy. CNN has also been perceived by several parties to be biased in its reporting. It has been accused of being pro American and European and it is in fact seen to be their tool of exerting influence on the world.

Conclusion
There is no doubt that during its first years of operation, CNN did a lot of commendable coverage especially on covering its first major international conflict, the gulf war. CNN increased awareness on such issues as economics, technology, law, culture, politics, public opinion and diplomacy around the world and thus created a lot of positive impacts. However, it later emerged that there was another side of this international media house. It was blamed of biased reporting since it is perceived to be against the Arab world and pro American and Europe.

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.