Suchergebnisse

Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America is probably one of the most oftreferred books today in the United States. It is widely seen as the best book ever written on this country, its words endlessly quoted by different political camps which claim the book as their own. This article examines the ways in which the American have read this magnum opus of the Frenchman, especially during the last few decades, on the assumption that their reading is reflecting their perceptions on contemporary American society and its future. The aim of this article is twofold. First, it tries to show that Democracy has long been read in America as an (or, in not a few cases, the) important source to reflect on a remedy for an increasingly "individualistic" and thus "despotic" American society. What the American have commonly found a solution to this problem out of reading the book is the restoration of the tradition of self-government, which is highly hailed by Tocqueville as an admirable feature of American society. Second, this article aims at showing that, although the different political views between conservatives and liberals (one of the most visible political divisions in this society today) are surely affecting the American reading of Democracy, this is only one aspect of the story. Many Americans, whatever their political tendencies are, end up calling for the revival of a self-governed American society as a consequence of studying the book. This common 'conclusion' derived from their reading could be interpreted as a proof that the image that America is the country built on citizens' active participation in public affairs is widely shared among the American themselves. In this considerably diverse society that could fragment at any time potentially, the image has thus been contributing to keeping it in unity, probably to not a small extent.

The United States suffers political and social polarization at its worst since the Civil War. Is Trump the "result" or the "cause" that accelerated this malaise? As a former Washington correspondent who covered the Trump administration last four years, I tried exploring answers for this American self-questioning. Trump-style governance, so-called Trumpism, has been characterized with its unique communication style to inspire anti-elite ressentiment among American public especially for white male middle-class who feel themselves less and less belongings to mainstream in their country. This communication sometimes takes the form of "dog whistle" aiming at Trump's core supporters or at other times takes the form of sense of complicity sharing misinformation intentionally. The anti-elite undercurrent and the partisan confrontation which accelerates political polarization have been fostered in the US even since before the rise of Trump. In this respect the Trumpism can be called the "result". On the other hand, it is also pointed out that Trump would be the "cause" which overturned the hierarchical order of policymakers, bureaucrats, experts and major media institutions playing himself destroying the existing order. In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic played a major role in amplifying its effects. This reminds us of importance of further exploration to find out how infectious disease has caused significant impact on the state of democracy.

As of 2021, Europe is entering a new period in two respects. One is that the COVID-19 virus effect that has continued since 2020 has be controlled due to the vaccine program, and the world after COVID-19 has become visible. The other is that the rift between the United States and Europe, which emerged during the four-year U.S. Trump administration, is showing signs of healing with the birth of the U.S. Biden administration, and is able to produce a unity that regards China as a common enemy. Otherwise, there are still many unstable factors in the situation surrounding Europe. Regional powers such as Russia and Turkey, which had been the target of democratization support from Europe, have become more authoritarian, and instead, have intervened in Europe in various ways, threatening European values such as democracy and human rights. However, Europe's greatest threat is within not without. The possibility that the right wing will take power in major European countries cannot be ruled out, in which case the existence of the G7 and EU itself will be threatened. It is also a concern that the nature of European populism has changed from the former "politics to gain popularity" to a politics that controls and manipulates citizens.

The conflict over Kashmir has been a core issue between India and Pakistan since their independence. It is not only just a territorial conflict but also the core issue of the region, which has been changing along with the regional and international environment. In particular, after the 1990's, the people of Kashmir committed to armed resistance, which has become the focus of the risk to regional and international security because both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. Resolution of this problem is quite difficult because it would require committing to the ideas of national integration of both countries. Specifically, for India, it is secularism; for Pakistan, it is the two-nation theory. However, the people of Kashmir want to choose their own destiny—integration with neither India nor Pakistan. India promised Kashmir a degree of freedom and democracy under article 370 of the Indian Constitution; however, for the time being, these right have been curtailed. To resolve this issue, two main plans have been presented by both countries; a referendum and the partition of Kashmir along the Line of Control. But, these ideas disregard the right of self-determination or the nationalist sentiment of the people of Kashmir. Recently a new idea emerged based on the notion of shared sovereignty. The history of discord between India and Pakistan has caused critical anxiety for regional peace and stability. However, there will is hope that a constructive solution to this problem can be found in the future through continuity of dialogue and negotiation between the two countries. We as an international society surrounding these nations, we should maintain a supportive stance for continued cordial dialogue.