Origin and evolution of political parties in Kazakhstan.

Power and decision-making.

In an earlier article, we discussed the four major types of decision-making: authoritarian, authoritative, consultative and consensual, and noted that managers should have all four in their repertories.Each is applicable to a different kind of situation. Authoritarian for emergencies, authoritative for situations where increasing the skill and knowledge of workers is essential, consultative when the goal is to engage people in the process of work and consensual when the goal is spread the decision deeper into the organization.Trust is another essential ingredient to the optimal functioning of a company. Executives and managers must trust each other or communication breaks down. Workers throughout the organization must trust their leaders, especially their immediate manager, or they will not give their best performance on a daily basis. Customers must trust the company or they will not buy the organizations products and services.One definition of leadership is to understand and use power wisely. However, thinking about power is troubling because it is difficult to define just what power is in a positive fashion. Certainly, the use of power is obvious in a reduction in force, a pay freeze or the separation of an employee. But these examples only provide specific situations where the results are generally negative. Perhaps such easily recalled examples are the reason discussions of power are difficult.Weaving the concepts of power, decision-making and trust together, we can understand how executives and managers can exercise power wisely to build trust within the organization. The key to this understanding is an in-depth knowledge of decision-making and the experience to make good decisions about how to make decisions.

It is reasonable to define the management of people as having two major components: communication and decision-making. Decision-making is a specific example of communication. Nothing communicates more quickly or emotionally than a negative decision that affects a large number of people within an organization. Perhaps this is the reason that the causal relationship between decision-making and trust is not better examined and understood.Decision-making is the most visible example of the use of power in an organization and understanding decision-making can be an important way to understand how to use the power of a managerial or executive position to build or destroy trust.

Political manipulation.

The political manipulation is the major problem of research of sociopolitical sciences which is still insufficiently studied in the scientific literature. Naturally, in one article it is impossible to capture all aspects of a political manipulation, therefore I would like to consider only its concept and definition.

First of all it is necessary to tell that the greatest danger to citizens and democratic government devices represents mass media use (further - mass-media) for a political manipulation-hidden of management of political consciousness and behavior of people on purpose to force them to operate or stay idle contrary to own interests. Thus the manipulation is based on lie. And it is not «lie in rescue», and mercenary actions.

From all variety of the processing methods used for changing the political behavior of people, it is possible to allocate the receptions, allowing to manipulate behavior of people. The political manipulation is enough difficult socially-spiritual formation structured on many levels and the bases, and is functional, shown in the politician and its subjects, dynamically and inconsistently. In this connection it is necessary to notice that quite often there are situations when enough fast and effective influence on behavior of people is required to the political subject, but thus it is limited in the right to apply frank compulsion and violence, it doesn't have possibilities to affect on those who possesses powers to pass laws or other statutory acts, it doesn't have time to wait, when peoples belief and valuable preferences changes. In such situations the manipulation of peoples behavior becomes an everyday occurrence.

In politics manipulation is understood as a special kind of influence when the manipulator induces the person to actions which that didn't intend to carry out at present. Manipulation differs from power, imperious influence with absence of the direct instructions, the order what to do, and open compulsion following it or threat of application of sanctions [1]. In a course of manipulating influence the person doesn't feel external compulsion, it seems him that he makes decision, chooses the form of the behavior himself.

Origin and evolution of political parties in Kazakhstan.

Modern party system. A party system is a concept in comparative political science concerning the system of government by political parties in a democratic country. The idea is that political parties have basic similarities: they control the government, have a stable base of mass popular support, and create internal mechanisms for controlling funding, information and nominations.

The First Party System is a model of American politics used by political scientists and historians to periodize the political party system existing in the United States between roughly 1792 and 1824.^[1] It featured two national parties competing for control of the presidency, Congress, and the states: the Federalist Party, created largely by Alexander Hamilton, and the rival Republican Party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Federalists were dominant until 1800, while the Republicans were dominant after 1800.

7) Classification of political parties in Kazakhstan.

8)" “Party of power”. The party in power - the code name totality of political organizations and groups, members of which belong to political power in the country." "Party of power", wrote in 1992, Andrew Wilson and Valentine Jakushin - a political unit consisting of pragmatic ideology-oriented and the higher circles of the old range of representatives of the state apparatus, the media, the leaders of the traditional sectors of industry and agriculture. "

The main features of the "party of power":
• party representing the interests of the top echelon of the central (federal) government;
• The organization of the party or kvazipartiynogo type created by the consolidated political elite to participate in the elections;
• Party created by politicians, at the moment of creation in high-level positions;
• party aimed, primarily, at the preservation and reproduction of the power elite that created it;
• party providing efficient operation of the legislative system in the face of strong presidential power (for Russia).
Thus, from our point of view, the "party of power" - a party-type association, established consolidated political elite, for the preservation and reproduction of power through participation in the elections in order to exercise control over the legal system of the State.

Pressure groups. Business groups in politics. Corporation.

Pressure groups it is non-profit and usually voluntary organization whose members have a common cause for which they seek to influence political or corporate decision makers to achieve a declared objective. Whereas interest groups try to defend a cause (maintain the status quo), the pressure groups try to promote it

A corporation is a separate legal entity that has been incorporated through a legislative or registration process established through legislation. Incorporated entities have legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from their employees and shareholders,^[1] and may conduct business as either a profit-seeking business or not for profit business. Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration.

The general level of participation in a society is the extent to which the people as a whole are active in politics: the number of active people multiplied by the amount of their action, to put it arithmetically. But the question of what it is to take part in politics is massively complex and ultimately ambiguous. It raises the question of what constitutes politics. We would, for example, assume that activity within a political party or an organization which regarded itself as a pressure group should count as political participation. But what about activity in other sorts of organization, such as sports associations and traditional women's organizations? Although not overtly political, these organizations set the context of politics, give their active members administrative experience and are capable of overt political action if their interests or principles are threatened. There is an opposite problem about political losers: if people act, but ineffectively, perhaps because they are part of a permanent minority in a political system, can we say they have participated in the making of decisions? One implication of this doubt is that possessing power is a necessary condition or logical equivalent of true political participation. If one is merely consulted by a powerful person who wants one's views for information, or if one is mobilized or re-educated within the control of another, one has not participated in politics in any significant sense.

11)Sociological characteristics of political participation.

12)Forms of participation in Kazakhstan.

13)Voting behaviour. Explanatory power of American theories of voting behaviour in the study of Kazakhstan politics.

Voting behavior is a form of political behavior. Understanding voters' behavior can explain how and why decisions were made either by public decision-makers, which has been a central concern for political scientists,^[1] or by the electorate. To interpret voting behavior both political science and psychology expertise where necessary and therefore the field of political psychology emerged. Political psychology researchers study ways in which affective influence may help voters make more informed voting choices, with some proposing that affect may explain how the electorate makes informed political choices in spite of low overall levels of political attentiveness and sophistication.

Voting behavior types

The existing literature does not provide an explicit classification of voting behavior types. However, research following the Cypriot referendum of 2004, identified four distinct voting behaviors depending on the election type. Citizens use different decision criteria if they are called to exercise their right to vote in i) presidential, ii) legislative, iii) local elections or in a iv) referendum. Listing five positive or negative characteristics for the Prime Minister was challenging; especially for those with little or no interest in politics. The ones asked to list five positive characteristics were primed negatively towards the politicians because it was too hard to name five good traits. On the contrary, following the same logic, those who were to list five negative, came to like the politician better than before. This conclusion was reflected in the final survey stage when participants evaluated their attitude toward the Prime Minister. 13)Why in your opinion the political party “Ak Zhol” devoted in two different parties? Who were previous leaders of this party & where are they now?

14) Why in your opinion the political party “Ak Zhol” devoted in two different parties? Who were previous leaders of this party & where are they now?

Elections in Kazakhstan are held on a national level to elect a President and the the Parliament, which is divided into two bodies, the Majilis (Assembly) and the Senate. Local elections for maslikhats (local representative bodies) are held every five years. Elections are administered by the Central Election Commission of the Republic of Kazakhstan.Kazakhstan is a one party dominant state in the way that only supporters of the president can share power. Opposition political parties are allowed, but are widely considered to have no real chance of gaining power due to corruption, resulting in voting irregularities as seen in the 2004 elections.

Presidential electionsKazakhstan's president is elected by the people and serves for at most two five-year terms. Term limits were removed for the incumbent Nursultan Nazarbayev on 18 May 2007, when parliament also voted to reduce the term length from seven to five years.

Parliamentary elections The legislature, known as the Parliament ("Parlamenti"), has two chambers. The Assembly ("Mazhilis") has 77 seats, elected for a four year term, 67 in single seat constituencies and 10 by proportional representation The Senate has 47 members, 40 of whom are elected to six-year terms in double-seat constituencies by the local assemblies, half renewed every two years, and 7 presidential appointees. In addition, ex-presidents are ex-officio senators for life.

Fascist and communist totalitarian regimes. Fascism is a totalitarian movement wherein an omnipotent government asserts control over every nook and cranny of political, economic, social, and private life – generally in the name of “the public good.” In its original sense, the word “totalitarian” did not carry the negative connotations it has acquired over time. The Italian fascist Benito Mussolini first coined the term to describe a society where everyone belonged, where no one was abandoned socially or economically, and where the state would take ultimate responsibility for the well-being of all its people. “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State,” is how Mussolini phrased it. Because fascism sees no legitimate boundary to its ambitions, it is expansionist by nature. totalitarian communism is a badly run government system that can't provide for it's citizens and has one person in charge of the entire countries operations whether the citizens like it or not. and is completely irreversible unless the person in charge wants to go through the hassle of reversing it, which has never and will never happen. The totalitarian leader serves a term of however long he or she wants and can appoint the next person in charge without any election.

Post-totalitarian regimes. A totalitarian regime is a government that controls every aspect of the life of the people. People living under this type of regime generally also support it, sometimes almost cultishly, thanks to extensive propaganda missions that are designed to promote a positive view of the government. Citizens are also usually afraid to criticize the government, so they may be outspoken supporters to avoid closer scrutiny. Several characteristics can be seen in all totalitarian regimes. The first is strict government control of the media, with the media typically being used as a propaganda organ. Cultural, political, and artistic expression among the populace is also usually severely curtailed, as is access to outside news sources. People who criticize the government tend to disappear, and their family members may fall under close scrutiny.These governments also cultivate a sense of deep devotion to the state, with citizens being encouraged to regard it as being almost like a parent. People must file applications before changing residences, taking new jobs, or getting married. They may also be expected to serve the state in some capacity, ranging from the military to a labor camp, and the government has control over access to education, reproductive freedoms, healthcare, and a number of other aspects of life that many people consider personal.Many people feel that totalitarian regimes are a very poor form of government because they can be quite oppressive. They are also highly efficient, however, thanks to the extreme level of control, and this is one reason why such regimes are capable of mounting massive economic and military attacks on their neighbors.

25) Representation in politics. Party as a representative institution. In politics, representation describes how political power is given from a large group for a certain time period in the hands of a comparatively small group of its members. Representation usually refers to representative democracies, where elected officials (so-called representatives) nominally speak for their electors in the legislature. Generally, only citizens have representation in the government in the form of voting rights.The future keys to the roles of socialist representative institutions include the extent to which: (1) the party maintains close control over personnel selection for representative bodies; (2) institutional identity and interests may develop among members of representative institutions; (3) group interests coalesce and seek institutional expression; (4) the state apparatus continues to demonstrate tendencies toward contrived insulation from the party apparatus; and (5) failures of economic ministries necessitate legislative oversight. This essay also briefly characterizes the methodology of recent studies, and suggests how future research on socialist representative institutions might profitably be reoriented.

Political problems of an independent Kazakhstan in the context of global processes.Kazakhstan as a country which is geographically located in the center of the Eurasian continent has become the leader in the Central Asian region, and the active agent of globalization processes. The maintenance of national sovereignty is the actual problem in the context of globalization. Today the low level of civic identity and patriotism, the lack of a unified national idea may adversely affect the sovereignty of the state.

And from here, on the one hand, arises the problem of identity of a contemporary Kazakh under the conditions of the world globalization, on the other hand, multi-ethnic and ethnically diverse society.

In this case, one must bear in mind the really complex ethnonational composition of the Kazakh society, its linguistic, cultural, religious heterogeneity. It is important to remember that today we seem to overcome the hidden inner boundary of the “collective man” of a traditional society, in order to achieve socio-cultural characteristics of an “individual man” of a civil society, as the new, civil society, with its heterogeneous polyethnicity needs a new historical personality type.

Thus, the actualnessof the study is as follows: in recent years not only democratically-oriented ideologists, but the authorities have shown interest in the formation of civil society, its values ​​and norms. Social transformations in the 90s in Kazakhstan promote the study of problems related to social role and function of Kazakh citizens in the transforming society.

The parliamentary elections are the first to be held since a 2009 amendment to the constitutional law on elections, which guarantees seats to the second placed party, even if they do not reach the 7 percent threshold set for entrance into the Majilis.

In spite of positive developments in recent years, criminal justice policy in the region remains punitive. Large prison populations, attributed to the over-use of pre-trial detention and custodial sanctions, have created problems of overcrowding and poor conditions of pre-trial detention. The absence of separate juvenile justice systems, poor measures to support the reintegration of offenders back into the community and the detention of political prisoners remain persistent problems. Violence in prison, and self-mutilation by prisoners in particular, poses key challenges to prison authorities in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

The abolition of the death penalty is the subject of ongoing debate within the region. Turkmenistan abolished the death sentence in 1999, Kyrgyzstan in 2007 and Uzbekistan in 2008. Kazakhstan and Tajikistan introduced a moratorium on executions in 2003 and 2004 respectively.

The Soviet era has left a legacy of secrecy and paranoia that pervades the criminal justice system. Government officials and prison administrators are highly resistant to public monitoring and publishing information about prison systems. The lack of transparency and openness undermines public accountability and reform efforts.

PRI’s Central Asia programme is focused on reducing the prison population, improving prison management through the promotion of human rights standards, increasing the transparency of criminal justice systems, improving prisoners’ health and abolishing the death penalty.

Programme activities centre on building the capacity of local NGOs to contribute to penal reform efforts and supporting and promoting good practice. PRI also works directly with government departments and prison administrations to assist in legislating and implementing criminal justice reforms.

In Kazakhstan, PRI has helped develop a network of public monitoring boards to act as an oversight mechanism for places of detention. We have also supported legislative changes to enable public monitoring to take place. Following consultation by the Ministry of the Interior, PRI has pressed for access to police cells by monitoring boards.

PRI has undertaken research into alternatives to the death penalty, looking in particular at good practice and recommendations relating to life imprisonment and long-term custodial sentences. The research has also highlighted the legislative and operational changes required to support these reforms

For example, the degrees which existed in Kazakhstan before the reforms, as well as in other countries of the former Soviet Union, can not find the proper equivalents in the world educational community. Thus, a former 5-year diploma equals to a Master’s diploma in some countries as Sweden, but in other Scandinavian countries it equals only to a Bachelor’s diploma, and in some countries it is not accepted as one of higher education.Some of them equal this degree to a Master’s degree, some equal it to a PhD. This situation of the discrepancy in national and international degrees and titles very often puts the Kazakhstani scholars in an unequal position with other scholars and restricts their mobility and employment in an international area. There is a hope that the RK Bologna membership could fill this degrees’ and titles’ gap and equal the former degrees with the internationally recognized.

Anyway, the implementation of the principles of the Bologna Declaration allows:

§ to bring educational programs in conformity with the international requirements;

§ to ensure the consistent character of educational programs of different levels;

§ to adapt educational programs to the requirements of the labor market;

§ to adopt a competence based model for specialists’ training;

§ to enhance students’ mobility due to the unification of curricula and programs;

§ to ensure academic freedom of learners through a wider choice of educational programs.

Perhaps the beginning of a new Millennium is a singularly appropriate time to be writing about something as heady as “global political change”. Although, it is true, the largest nation on earth still seems committed to Marxist rhetoric and institutions, those are maintained and paid for by aggressive, homegrown capitalism. From the perspective of history, the last three decades, and particularly the 1990s, will be remarkable for the rapid, geographically extensive, and unexpectedly easy fall of authoritarian regimes on the Left and the Right. None of this was ever accurately predicted, nor really was it ever, I believe, seriously envisaged, by the institutions inside and outside the democratic world dedicated to the destruction of the other’s system, and which consumed vast, and generally unaccountable, amounts of public money.

Advantages of Democracy

Democracy can provide for changes in government without violence. In a democracy, power can be transferred from one party to another by means of elections. The jurisdiction of the citizens of a nation determines its ruling authority.

Moreover, any government is bound by an election term after which it has to compete against other parties to regain authority. This system prevents monopoly of the ruling authority. The ruling party has to make sure it works for its people for it cannot remain being the authority after completing its term unless re-elected by the people.

This brings in a feeling of obligation towards the citizens. The ruling authorities owe their success in the elections to the citizens of the nation. This results in a feeling of gratefulness towards the people. It can serve as their motivation to work for the people for it is the common masses that have complete power over choosing their government.

Another important advantage of democracy is that the people gain a sense of participation in the process of choosing their government. They get the opportunity to voice their opinions by means of electoral votes. This gives rise to a feeling of belongingness in the minds of the people towards their society.

Disadvantages of Democracy

In a democratic nation, it is the citizens who hold the right to elect their representatives and their governing authorities. According to a common observation, not all the citizens are fully aware of the political scenario in their country. The common masses may not be aware of the political issues in society. This may result in people making the wrong choices during election.

As the government is subject to change after every election term, the authorities may work with a short-term focus. As they have to face an election after the completion of each term, they may lose focus on working for the people and rather focus on winning elections.

Another disadvantage of democracy is that mobs can influence people. Citizens may vote in favor of a party under the influence of the majority. Compelled or influenced by the philosophies of those around, a person may not voice his/her true opinion.

Every form of government is bound to have some shortfalls. Different people have different views about the various political systems. The advantages and disadvantages of any political system have to be weighed carefully in order to arrive at any conclusion.

The positive and the negative of Democracy is that the voice of the people is law. But a better answer would be to say that A democracy is only good if the majority of the people want good things. But if the majority of the people want bad things(or a bad president) then democracy is a horrible idea.

Democracy by definition means the government by people. That means that all the people should be able to have their say in one way another in everything that affects their lives. Dictionaries usually say that this right can either be exercised directly (by every member of a community having the possibility to enter personally, without mediators, his position on a particular issue into the decision making process - modern technology is able to provide this possibility for increasingly larger and larger communities), or through representatives (members of legislative bodies). This second arrangement is then called Representative Democracy.

"Democracy" means rule by the people; people who live in a country are the ones who make the rules. Every go to a Town Meeting, where anyone who wants to speak up about a law or a decision can do so? Then everyone in the room gets one vote? Well, that's democracy.
"Communism" is an economic system. It means that everyone in the society owns all of the land, all of the goods, all of the items produced for trade and sale. There aren't any private companies making profits.

Pros and cons of democracy: Pro: you don't have one ruler or small group making all of the rules. Every person gets as much power as every other. Con: It can be really hard to get things done! You need people to agree with each other.

The state is the most powerful of all social institutions. It has become one of the important factors in our social life today. When we take birth in our family, the government takes notice of our birth and it registers it. State has framed regulations regarding health and sanitation in order to save us during childhood.

It has made arrangement for our education. Some portion of our income is paid in form of taxes to the state through the government. It is the state which controls the prices of different commodities. It protects us from our enemies. It provides us medical facilities.

In case we are unable to afford money for our burial it is the state which bury us. Thus, from the moment of our birth till our death we come in contact with the state directly or indirectly in every day life.

Meaning or Definition of State:

The term state may means condition of health or economic condition. The term is sometimes loosely used by people to mean estates of India, or “the United States of America”. Sometimes mean ‘nation’ or ‘society’ or ‘government’ or ‘country’.

Bluntschil says that, “the state is a combination or association men in the form of Government and governed, on a. definite territory, united together into a moral organised masculine tonality, more shortly person of definite territory.” Prof. Laski defines state as “a territorial society divided into Government and subjects claiming with its allotted physical area of supremacy over all other institutions.

J.W.Garner gives a very comprehensive definition of the state, holds the view that the state as a concept of political science public law, is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent, nearly so, of external control and possessing an organised government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.” It is considered to be the best definition of the state.

It can be summed up as “the state is a collection of human beings occupying a definite territory under an organised government d is subject to no outside control.”

The above mentioned definitions of a state reveal four characteristics or elements. They are- (a) population, (b) territory, (c) rganisation or government and (d) sovereignty. A state cannot be formed at all in the absence to any one of these characteristics.

(1) Population

The most basic characteristic of the state is population. As a human organisation the state cannot be formed without some people. A desert in which human beings do not live cannot be regarded as a state. However, there is no limit prescribed as to the size of population.

For an ideal state it should be 5,000 and, Aristotle thinks that it should be 10,000 minimum and 100,000 maximum. In modern times, the maximum and minimum size of population has not been prescribed. It means that there is no hard and fast rule about the size of the population of the state.

In fact, population varies from few thousands as in case of Monacol, Guatemala and Leech Tenstein to the millions as in China and India. Although the modern tendency is in favour of large population of state, it is unwise to have a very large population when its resources are scarce.

(2) Territory

The second characteristic of the state is territory or a fixed geographical area, on the earth. In the absence of a fixed territory a state cannot be constituted. As for example, the nomadic tribes like Gipsies and others cannot form a state of their own owing to the absence of a fixed territory, to reside in.

Similarly, the Jews did not from a state till, they definitely settled down in Israel in 1948. Like population, there is no limit set for the territory of a state. It may vary from a few square miles as in the case of Monacol and few million square miles as in the Soviet Union and the United States.

In the modern world today, small states as well as big states exist. From the administrative point of view small states are always better than big states but from the point of view of defense, they are not good all.

(3) Government

The state must possess an organized Government. It is the machinery through which the state must exercise its supreme power. It constitutes the brain of the state. A state cannot be thought of without some sort of Government.

The state performs its various functions through the Government. J.W. Garner says, Government is the agency or machinery through which common policies are determined and by which common affairs are regulated and common interests are promoted.”

(4) Sovereignty

The fourth and the most important element, or characteristic of the state is sovereignty. Sovereignty means supreme power or ultimate authority against which there can be no appeal. Externally, the state claims final and absolute authority. It is independent of any foreign control.

By design in the creation of countries consideration is given to the notion of decentralization of authority to territorial subunits. This decentralization may apply to the realms of political or judicial authority or division of powers or any combination. Thus, it is possible to distinguish among diverse degrees ofdecentralization of such power. From the maximum centralization of authorities and power in national bodies, up to the absolute decentralization of them to subnational entities allowing them to create and enforce legal norms within that jurisdiction.

In other words, the spatial applicability of the law is not one. Therefore, depending on the territory, there are several creators and enforcers of the legal rules. Within a country, there are national, local, provincial, departmental, regional, autonomic, and eventually, county bodies with a specific and exclusive competencies which vary from state to state. These competencies might be classified along normative, administrative or jurisdictional lines, valid in the whole territory for certain topics (when national) or just in part of the territory for other topics.

Since the federal state coexists with national, local, state or province, and even county authorities, it represents one of the most defined grades of decentralization of juridical-political power. This coexistence implies that all of the territorial units are elected by the community, autonomous from each other, and entitled to absolutely function within their own jurisdiction. It is about two different delegated branches ofgovernment with equal level, on one hand the federal level and, on the other, the local states level. In thefirst one, there are whole-territory valid rules issued and applied by federal bodies and made for all thepeople living there. On the other hand, there are local norms created by local bodies always taking into account the federal constitution, which are valid only in some part of the national territory and with a narrow scope of validity.

HYPERGLOBALIST PERSPECTIVE

The authors describe the hyperglobalist perspective as an approach which sees globalization as a new epoch in human history. This new epoch is characterized by the declining relevance and authority of nation-states, brought about largely through the economic logic of a global market. Economies are becoming “denationalized.”

Held and his colleagues point out, however, that even within this perspective, different authors assess the value of these changes in very different ways. While hyperglobalist scholars may agree on the general factors behind globalization and the likely outcome of this process, they disagree sharply over whether these forces are good or bad. The authors distinguish between neo-liberal versus neo-Marxist orientations, and describe their different assessments of the outcomes of globalization.

In terms of the “winners” and “losers” of the new global order, both orientations agree that the lines and cleavages of economic benefit are changing. One the one hand, neo-liberals view this as largely a good thing. They say that nearly all countries have a comparative advantage in one way or another within the global economy. There will be groups who will be worse off, but on the whole, the benefits are greater than in the past.

With increasing economic globalization, transnational governance organizations will become increasingly important. The result is that national governments will lose influence and be forced to operate increasingly according to rules they do not create.

This may be a bad thing, according to some scholars, as the democratic social models implemented and protected by nation-states will become increasingly insupportable. Other scholars counter, however, that the diffusion of a “consumerist ideology” is the first step in breaking down traditional modes of identification. The spread liberal democracy will extend the global reach of more universal principles of economic and political organization. A truly global civilization will become possible.

SKEPTICAL PERSPECTIVE

Held and his colleagues say that the skeptical perspective on globalization views current international processes as more by fragmented and regionalized than globalized. In fact, according to skeptical authors, the “golden age” of globalization occurred at the end of the 19th century. Current processes show, at best, a regionalization.

The authors say that skeptics also disagree whether old cleavages are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The third world is not being drawn into a global economy that destroys old lives of benefit and exploitation. Quite the contrary, the third world, say skeptical authors, is becoming increasingly marginalized.

In contrast to perspectives that emphasize the growth of global capitalism, scholars in the skeptical perspective view global capitalism as a myth. The growth of multinational corporations does not mean that nation-states are no longer relevant for governing the flows of economic benefits. Held and his colleagues say that skeptical authors point to the fact that foreign investment flows into the control of a few advanced economies. Multinational corporations are still tied primarily to their home states or regions, and these ties produce benefits for these states or regions.

Authors with a skeptical perspective reject the notions of the development of a global culture or a global governance structure. What is really going on, they argue, is that global governance structures and culture exist as a disguised version of neo-liberal economic strategies that benefit the West.

So, even though transformationalist authors describe many of the same general changes involved in globalization, their approach is considerably less certain about the historical trajectories of these changes and less limiting of the factors driving globalization.

For instance, hyperglobalist authors believe that the power of national governments is waning. Skeptic authors argue that the power of national governments is growing. Transformationalist authors, however, view the nature of national governments as changing (being reconstituted and restructured) but a description of this change as merely growing or waning is oversimplified.

Hyperglobalist authors describe the erosion of old patterns of stratification. Skeptical authors argue that the global South is becoming increasingly marginalized. Transformationalist authors understand that a new world order “architecture” is developing, though the exact nature of the emerging patterns of stratification are not yet clear.

In general, argue Held and his colleagues, the authors of the transformationalist perspective have a much less determinate understanding of the processes of globalization than authors from the other perspectives. For transformationalist authors, the range of factors influencing processes of globalization is much greater, and the outcomes are much less certain.

AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

The hyperglobalist and skeptical perspectives suffer from two underlying problems:

International relations (IR), is a branch of political science; is a study of foreign affairs and global issues among states within the international system, including the roles of states, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations (MNCs). It is both an academic and public policy field, and can be either positive or normative as it both seeks to analyze as well as formulate the foreign policy of particular states.

Apart from political science, IR draws upon such diverse fields as economics, history, law, philosophy, geography, sociology, anthropology, psychology and cultural studies. It involves a diverse range of issues, from globalization and its impacts on societies and state sovereignty to ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic development, terrorism, organized crime, human security and human rights.

As you can see the IR field is extensive, not easy to cover each and every thing contained in the field. Our attention shall be directed into the world development agendas which shall include globalization and its impacts to the society, to millennium development goals, human security, gender equality, environmental conservations, human rights, etc.

International relations theory attempts to provide a conceptual model upon which international relations can be analyzed. Each theory is reductive and essentialists to different degrees, relying on different set assumptions respectively. Theories are paradigms or models of interpretation in the context of International Relations; as Ole Holsti describes them, international relations theories act as a pair of colored sunglasses, allowing the wearer to see only the salient events relevant to the theory... An adherent of realism may completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa.

The number and character of the assumptions made by an international relations theory also determine the usefulness. Realism, a parsimonious and very essentialist theory is useful in accounting for historical actions (for instance why did X invade Y) but limited in both explaining systemic change (such as the end of cold war) and predicting future events. Liberalism, which examines a very wide number of conditions, is less useful in making predictions, but can be very insightful in analyzing past events. Traditional theories may have little to say about the behavior of former colonies, but post-colonial theory may have greater insight into that specific area, where it fails in other situations.

International relation theories can be divided into “positivist/rationalist” theories which focus on a principally state-level analysis, and “post-positivist/reflectivist” ones which incorporate expanded meanings of security, ranging from class, to gender, to post-colonial security. Many often conflicting ways of thinking exist in IR theory including Constructivism, Institutionalism, Marxism, Neo-Gramscianism, and others. However, two positivist schools of thought are most prevalent: Realism and Liberalism; though increasingly, constructivism is becoming main stream and positivist theories are popular particularly outside USA

Security Council members - China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States (permanent members); Azerbaijan,Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan, Togo (elected for 2012–2013); Argentina, Australia, Republic of Korea, Luxembourg, Rwanda(elected for 2013–2014)

First, it would be arrogant to see Gadamer’s philosophy as holding the solution to all the world’s problems. But his critique of modernity points to some of the underlying assumptions that have led to these problems, and his emphasis on dialogue and human solidarity points to a way beyond the destructive attitudes of modernity. There are some specific remarks to each of the twelve problems.

Pollution - of the air, the water, the soil. For Gadamer all of these problems are the consequence of the compartmentalized thinking of the modern era, along with the assumption that the earth is ours to exploit as we please without regard to for the future, for our children, for the earth itself. We must reassume our historical responsibility for our children’s future by protecting their heritage. The reckless anarchy of the exploitation of the earth must be replaced by responsible dialogue among the exploiters, and among the governments of the earth. At present, we have a gathering of the Big 7 or 8 on how to manage the world to their own advantage. Such a dialogue, however, brings up questions of justice and fairness in the allocation of the resources of the earth. A new protocol must be worked out whereby the universal declaration of human rights is more than a pious wish-list that is lost in the scramble of big corporations to exploit the resources of the earth. Here, Gadamer’s insight into the structure of dialogue can help address these problems.

Natural resources running out, or being degraded. The oil, the water, the old growth forests, are all limited resources. They must be conserved for the most important future uses. Oil is necessary for the operation of all sorts of machinery, yet it is not being conserved but recklessly pumped out of the earth and sold to the highest bidder. Drinkable water, too, is increasing rare; indeed, it is sold in stores for the same price of colas. But underground water is needed for crops, and the underwater reserves are running out. Here, national and international management are required. The ozone layer becoming depleted, whole species dying, while we argue over whether this is really a problem. The key word in later Gadamer is solidarity, the solidarities that hold humankind together in many nations. Again, all peoples have an interest in the wise management of the earth’s resources and again we must make international laws that restrain the anarchy of 400 sovereign nations each subject to the unbridled abuse by large corporations. They must unite to say NO to reckless, anarchic exploitation of resources about to run out.

Population growth outstripping resources worldwide. Here, two different problems come together: population growth and the finitude of resources. Gadamer’s philosophical reflections cannot slow the growth of population or increase our resources. What they do, however, is issue a plea for rationality and lay down the conditions for meaningful dialogue. The present situation is irrational, anarchic, and in the grip of powerful corporate and military structures. More importantly, it is in the grip of modes of thinking that see their solutions only by means of them. It is the mindset of modernity that needs to be addressed, criticized, and revised.

4. Unequal distribution of financial resources. Global poverty and hunger are increasing each year instead of decreasing. The agricultural land of the earth is owned by fewer and fewer people. Much of what is left in the hands of small farmers is being bought up by international agribusinesses—by multinational corporations distant from land but close to big money. In part, admittedly, the problems of the world are a function to increasing population and decreasing resources, but we must see that the global expansion of large aggregations of capital is also a factor. This is allowed by a modern thinking that gives permission to international anarchy, that does not demand justice and human rights in the allocation of land, does not demand ecological practices in the use of agricultural resources. Again, the nations of the world (and not just corrupt governments controlled by the military industrial complex) must grasp their solidarities, their common interest in controlling the consolidation of capital into larger and larger politically powerful units.

The overwhelming power of multinational corporations over governments. Here, we go beyond agribusiness to other giant corporations—the big oil, the pharmaceutical companies, the media conglomerates, the insurance companies, including medical insurance—that have more influence on government policies than the poor or even the general population. Government policies seem more oriented to maintaining the economy than in the economic and physical well-being of their populations. Again, Gadamer does not have a method for bringing down the power of Grosskapital. What he does offer is a critique of the modern assumptions that make them possible. We don’t just need power; we need reflection, critique, coming together as we share a common fate on this earth. For the “fate of the earth” is not just a matter of nuclear weapons, but of the management of the earth as our home in such a way as to promote the maximum well being of all its inhabitants now and in the future.

6. Nuclear weapons; the imminent danger of worldwide catastrophe. It seems that the danger posed by an arsenal of 50,000 missiles in Russian and America is less today than 15 or 20 years ago when Jonathan Schell’s The Fate of the Earth saw catastrophe on the horizon and a real possibility of giving the earth back to the insects and grasses. The cold war between Russia and the U.S. has thawed, but the proliferation of weapons goes on, and the growing masses of nuclear waste. Why? Because the military ways of thinking go on, the national security imperative still drives small countries to spend most of their small budget on weapons instead of social programs. We need to outgrow the dangerous and costly structures of thinking that are our legacy from modernity. Instead of endless debates, we need dialogue and negotiations—not just in Ireland, Russia, East Timor, Pakistan, the Balkans, the Middle East—but in the United Nations about the natural resources, power concentrations, poverty, human rights of the populations of the world. The right of sovereign states must be further limited when it comes to human rights and the management of its resources. The rest of the world must have a say in such matters. Nuclear weapons do not risk just the populations of the nations that build them but everybody else. They must be internationally controlled for the good of humanity.

Military means and thinking as a way of resolving political problems. War is a means of accomplishing political objectives when negotiations break down. Within a country military repression is a mark of a country not solving its problems by other means, of fear of rebellion. The situation in Colombia is an example: The farmers grow marihuana because it is a more profitable crop, as is tobacco in the U.S. Earlier, it was even government subsidized. Instead of dealing with the problems that lead to the large-scale consumption of drugs that raises the price, the U.S. government tries to stem the flow of drugs into the U.S. And it is filling its prisons with drug offenders who are no particular danger to society except perhaps when driving a car or carrying a gun. Gadamer’s modest contribution to this gigantic problem is to ask us to interrogate the modern thinking that resorts to force and incarceration instead of confronting the social inequities that encourage the resort to drugs.

Racism, sexism, hatred of homosexuals, anti-Semitism. Hatred is generally a product of fear. Communication, negotiation, closer acquaintance, clearer thinking, break down fear. Again, the structure of dialogue so emphasized by Gadamer can help to break down the climate of fear.

10. Rising expectations in third world countries and in the U.S. as television brings the American/European standards of living into the dwellings of peoples living on the very margins of existence. This raises questions of justice and unmet social needs in many parts of the world. Liberation theology, in particular, concerns itself with these problems. Enrique Düssel uses Gadamer’s hermeneutics in combination with conceptions of the Other from Levinas to show that the view of the Other in modernity lead to the unjust situations in the Americas. His book, Ethical Hermeneutics. dedicates itself to seeking a way out of these problems. Philosophical hermeneutics, with its analysis of how meaningful dialogue comes about, helps to deal with the situation. With insight and common desire for justice, means could be sought to remedying the inequities involved in this situation. Again, dialogue and solidarity are the keys to the resolution of problems of injustice.

11. Fundamentalism and narrowness, exclusivism, particularism, terrorism. These are major problems today, but how are we dealing with them? Fear, avoidance, military repression. Admittedly, it is hard to deal with religious fundamentalism with Gadamerian hermeneutics, but Gadamer is able to enter into dialogue with anyone who is willing to speak! He looks for common ground and sees whether a basis for working together instead of against would be possible, say, on the world problems we face. Secondly, he looks at the presuppositions of fundamentalism and asks where they come from. In some cases, fundamentalism is a rebellion against modernity; in this case they might even find common ground. Also, fundamentalism thrives on poverty, discrimination, and lack of education, so indirect approaches to alleviate these could serve in the long run to reduce the incidence of fundamentalism. Gadamer’s thinking breaks down barriers and enters into dialogue even with those claiming exclusive and particular favor from God, for instance. His appeal is always to reason and reaching an accommodation with respect for the Other and his/her/their claims, which are not necessarily religious matters but retreat from the world and fear of being manipulated.

12. Ethnic groups clinging to land, to resources, to sacred space, e.g., the struggle of Jews and Palestinians over Jerusalem. The problem of the Israelis and Palestinians seems insoluble. The Israelis were without homeland for 2000 years, whereas for the Palestinians it was only 50 years. Here is a case where the United Nations mandate of 1948 solved one problem but created another. It put the Palestinian people into camps on the border of land they formerly possessed. Again, the modern concept of sovereignty and sovereign rights over East Jerusalem is the key issue. One solution to this problem would be to revise the requirement each has of sovereignty, the presupposition of both sides, each claiming it, and instead to create a sacred space where neither side claims sovereignty. Again, the need is for Israelis and Palestinians to leap beyond a modern concept of sovereignty to something new. Also, in negotiations, when each side has more to gain by reaching a settlement than by holding out for a better deal, then progress can be made. It would seem, however, that when it comes to the sacred space we come to something non-negotiable. But it would seem that “shared” sovereignty might be possible. Here, again, some new structure that goes beyond the concept of competing claims for territorial sovereignty is needed.

Ethnic identity is basically about what culture your ancestors came from. Do you consider yourself English, Irish, Italian, German, Mexican, Chinese or other. Ethnic identity is about food, music, sometimes religion. Do you observe Dio de los Muertos or Hanukkah - or both? Does your grandmother make dim sum or ravioli? Civic identityis your citizenship and the nation in which you now live. Do you participate in school activities or charitable ventures? Are you aware of what's going on in government? Do you plan to register to vote? Do you plan to join the military? What does it mean to you to be American (or whichever nationality you are). Ethnicity is about culture. Civic identity is about how you see yourself in the world

The understanding of ethnicity as primordial has prevailed among the people of the former Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav identification was always present as a more "broader" identification for those who wanted to escape the narrow ethnic identification. The main argument of the article is that with the dissolution of the Yugoslav state the new functional equivalent to the Yugoslav identification is emerging in the form of the "civic identity". This new civic identification allows people to express their distance from the narrow ethnic identification and the intense ethnic revival characterizing the first post-communist phase. In order to empirically substantiate the argument we used the 1995 World Value Survey data from Croatia.

National identity is the person's identity and sense of belonging to one state or to one nation, a feeling one shares with a group of people, regardless of one's citizenship status.

National identity is not an inborn trait; various studies have shown that a person's national identity is a direct result of the presence of elements from the "common points" in people's daily lives: national symbols, language, national colours, the nation's history, national consciousness, blood ties, culture, music, cuisine, radio, television, etc.^{[ citation needed ]}

The national identity of most citizens of one state or one nation tends to strengthen when the country or the nation is threatened militarily. The sense of belonging to the nation is essential as an external threat becomes clearer when individuals seek to unite with fellow countrymen to protect themselves and fight against the common threat

Local government

An administrative body for a small geographic area, such as a city, town, county, or state. A local government will typically only have control over their specific geographical region, and can not pass or enforce laws that will affect a wider area. Local governments can elect officials, enacttaxes, and do many other things that a national government would do, just on a smaller scale.

Local government is a form of public administration which in a majority of contexts, exists as the lowest tier of administration within a given state. The term is used to contrast with offices atstate level, which are referred to as the central government, national government, or (where appropriate) federal government and also to supranational government which deals with governing institutions between states. Local governments generally act within powers delegated to them by legislation or directives of the higher level of government. In federal states, local government generally comprises the third (or sometimes fourth) tier of government, whereas in unitary states, local government usually occupies the second or third tier of government, often with greater powers than higher-level administrative divisions.

Local Govt is a small and lower scale institution,with limited authority,lake of decision making,answerable to central govt.While Local Self Govt is free in decision making and decentralized,on the upper level of local government.

Sometimes confederation is erroneously used in the place of federation. Some nations which started out as confederations retained the word in their titles after officially becoming federations, such as Switzerland. The United States of America was at first a confederation before becoming a federation with the ratification of the current US constitution in 1789.

Comparison chart

	Confederation	Federation
Sovereignty:	Held by the member states. In a Confederation, the federal government is accountable to the member states, who are the ultimate authority.	Held by the federal government. In a Federation, the federal government will hold the ultimate authority and the member states will be subordinate to it.
Central Authority:	The central authority of a confederation is usually a weak body appointed by the member states.	The central authority of a federation is a federal government which governs the member states.
Powers of the Central Authority:	Usually will focus on joint foreign policy and defense matters, but rarely will have the power to domuch more than that.	Determined by the constitution of the federation, but will generally have rights to exercise control over the diplomatic, military, economic, and legal spheres of the member states.

federation is a union comprising a number of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central ("federal") government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states is typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the central government.

The form of government or constitutional structure found in a federation is known as federalism (see also federalism as a political philosophy). It can be considered the opposite of another system, the unitary state. The government of Germany with sixteen federated länder is an example of a federation, whereas neighboring Austria and its Bundesländer is a unitary state with administrative divisions that became federated, and neighboring France is by contrast fully unitary, though its subnational entities appear similar to states of a federation government.

Federations may be multi-ethnic, or cover a large area of territory, although neither is necessarily the case. Federations are often founded on an original agreement between a number of sovereign states.

A confederation is an association of sovereign states or communities, usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution. Confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues, such as defense, foreign affairs, foreign trade, and a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all members. A confederation, in modern political terms, is usually limited to a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states.[1]