Though many of Luo Lei’s and Cheng Cheng’s actions throughout the class monitor elections process were definitely not ethically sound, it was in no doubt a strong example of democracy. The documentary Please Vote for Me challenges many of our notions about democracy, especially as the best mode of governance. Even though many aspects of the democratic system is flawed, is it still a preferable alternative to a dictatorship? Most likely. Despite the high degree of involvement from all of the candidates’ parents and the boys’ collective use of their classmates to ridicule the other candidates and dissuade them from participating in the election, the democratic process has undoubtedly taught them all (especially Luo Lei as the winer) the importance of appealing to their base and maintaining a good rapport with their constituents. Being that another election will be held a year later, Luo Lei’s victory does not provide him with a blank check to do as he pleases with the reins of power. His next year as class monitor cannot possibly be the same as his last two, because the newly-instituted democratic process will serve as a check upon his familiar authoritarian tendencies. While many of the candidates’ actions may fall under the Machiavellian principle of using any means necessary to preserve the security of the state, the democratic process provides stringent parameters for the candidates’ actions and will do so in Luo Lei’s next term as class monitor. While democracy has not turned the kids into perfect people, it will definitely change them for the better.

Evidently, a great percentage of the American populace has lost faith in the U.S.’s system of republican government. Some of the reasons for the changing public opinion include rising income inequality, the perception that the government no longer serves the majority, and the loss of the hope that each successive generation will fair just as well, if not better, than the last. Presumably, the people’s perception of government is shaped so much by technology and the modern media that provides non-stop coverage of the public goings-on of Congress and the presidency. With all the coverage, this may heighten the belief that government is ineffective, and make it seem as if it is moving at a snail’s pace. Undoubtedly the loss of confidence in republican government has led to a surge in support for more pure democracy in America, which both Plato and the Founding Fathers were wary of. While being a system of fewer checks and balances and a higher likelihood of a shift towards tyranny, pure democracy is an enticing idea for many people who seek more tangible results from their government, rather than having to wait for many of the back-room deliberations and political maneuvering. Further, it is apparent that a shift away from the United State’s democratic republicanism would not necessarily be reviled by the people. While most of the foundations of the country’s government remain revered, like the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, a transition to a more authoritarian government may not receive the backlash one might think if politicians devised ways to keep the people happy. Overall, while the foundations of American government remain strong, it is important to keep in mind the growing dissatisfaction of the people.

Daniel Lerner’s “The Grocer and the Chief” equates History with change. Before the election of 1950, the village of Balgat is essentially static. People have set, comfortable social positions and traditional values govern the way they live their lives. The state of society is not called into question, despite the sharp discrepancy in technological development between the village and the city of Ankara, not far away. The Chief of the village is a prime example of Balgat’s “pre-Historic” way of life. He is comfortable with maintaining the status quo. Perhaps the first Historical figure in Balgat’s narrative is the grocer, who alters the social equilibrium by openly stating his desire to live with more material wealth and technology, and seeking to belong to a society that mirrors American capitalism. Even though the grocer’s views are frowned upon by his fellow villagers, they serve as a precursor to the changes to come. Four years later, the grocer’s vision is viewed through a more “modern” historical lens. “He was the cleverest of us all…he was a prophet.” In the case of Balgat, change leads to the development of history, which ultimately shapes the concept of modernity. Modernity is exemplified through material wealth and more social mobility. Meanwhile, Balgat is integrated into the city of Ankara, and citizens lose many of their traditional values and economic independence. Overall, the anomaly of the grocer in Balgat foreshadows the rapid social and economic change that will shape the modern historical narrative of the small Turkish village.

Masha Gessen’s “The Dying Russians” is an interesting article that demonstrates the interdisciplinary quality of political science. On one hand, hard data is vital in creating any theory. The article cites the evidence of low birth rates and high death rates in Russia over the last century, specifically the modern fertility rate of 1.61 and the 27 million people lost between 1941 and 1946. While the death rate might have seemed to correlate with a lack of economic progress in the era following the demise of the USSR, it has continued to increase through the present, despite the surge of capitalism and relative economic success. In order to make sense of these patterns, one must venture into the humanities to try to find causality. It is not enough to simply site the relationship between heavy drinking and the staggering amount of cardiovascular disease. One must try to decipher the Russian population’s desire to drink so heavily. Gessen mentions both mental illness and the lack of “hope” among people. Aside from possible statics of mental illness, this causality between hope and death cannot adequately be described by hard science. It involves exploring the private transcript of the population that cannot be assessed accurately using state propaganda or the birth and death rate statistics, essentially the public transcript of modern Russia. Further, these trends will undoubtedly continue if they remained unquestioned by the people. If such widespread death is half-heartedly accepted, there will remain no impetus for change on a national scale. Overall, this issue can only be understood through a mixture of the hard sciences and humanities.

I think Sasha makes some good points with regard to the power of the majority and the “shared laugh” concept. Like I alluded to in my own post, while Orwell and the British may have authority over the Burmans, the native people actually have power over the Europeans. This is due in part to both the sheer discrepancy in numbers between the groups and the social obligations that Orwell’s authority entails. However, the two factors are often intertwined. When Orwell is gratuitously fouled in soccer, he is unable to complain because he is outnumbered by the Burmans and because he would appear weak if he were to show his fear, compromising the legitimacy of his authority. Evidently, the extent of Orwell’s authority does not translate to his extent of power in the situation. Meanwhile, despite the power dynamics of Orwell and the Burmans, the concept of the “shared laugh” may be applicable to the bigger picture. While the British exercise their power the Burmans are free to engage in whatever kind of private discourse they like, mostly likely regarding their anti-British sentiment. However, in the public sphere, they are well aware of their position in the Imperialist society. This is made evident after Orwell shoots the elephant and elicits a strong reaction from its owner. “The owner was furious, but he was only an Indian and could do nothing.” This matter-of-fact remark speaks volumes. Even though Orwell lacks power in the story, his authority is still firmly cemented in society.

I completely agree with the idea that Ingrid is putting forward, that our society promotes material success over everything else. I think this i a combination of many factors, including the structure of certain schools and particular family values. While we should not undervalue the importance of a great job, we must realize that income is not solely the determinant of a job’s worth. At the same time, I think that our society does us a disservice by not allowing us to truly live in the moment. When I was in grade school, I was preparing for high school and then I was preparing for college. I think this mentality is harmful. When we are always gearing up for the next phase of our lives, we cannot fully take advantage of all of the resources available to us at the present. If we only have an eye out for our future, we will most likely not seek a new academic endeavor or join an intriguing club that perhaps do not directly pertain to our career goals. In fact, I firmly believe that if we do seek out many of these new endeavors, we will actually provide ourselves with a greater chance of success. With the ever-rising amount of cogs in the educational machine, we owe it to ourselves to start thinking and acting outside the box. If we expand our own horizons and truly focus on our academic and spiritual enrichments, we will become even better candidates for our dream jobs. We must savor the transformative years of our lives to maximize our happiness and reconfigure the societal construction of success.