Summary
This literature explores the correlation between economic problems within a given country and the political dimensions taken by the people at the specified time. The book lays a strong introductory foundation by referring to an 1830 political endeavor in which Governor Lucas sought to have the territory of Iowa gain statehood status. Through a plebiscite, the residents of Iowa rejected his plea twice out of fear that since there were no landowners in the territory, all residents would have to be taxed a portion of their private property if the territory is transformed to a state. The third time the referendum was held, the people voted for statehood not because of a change of mind but still for economic reasons. They wanted to be allocated money from sale of public lands and this could not be achieved if Iowa was not a state.
Overall, the paper takes the position that the economic situation of a country or territory significantly dictates the direction of the politics of the day. However, a twist that comes in this discussion is the type of economic approach that is taken by the people while making such huge political decisions. On one hand the literature explores the various jurisdictions in which people look at their individual financial status alongside the lapse of time and make a political decision. Other electorates are keen to consider the overall economic growth and other factors like rate of employment and general inflation and from this angle, decide whom to elect. Here is a concise response to this text considering the political stances that have recently been exhibited in many regions across the world.
Response
The substratum of this scholarly work is highly reflective of the day to day political atmosphere in a majority of countries which have concise democratic structures in place. The essence of having a governance system is premised on the Social Contract Theory. This theory of government stipulates that a state gains its governance authority having entered into a contract with the people. In this arrangement, the people agree to cede some of their rights to the state including paying taxes to the authorities. In exchange, the government is expected to offer protection and security, be it financial, social or general (Kiewieta & Douglas, 22). In this case, it is incumbent upon the state to ensure the wellbeing of all citizens by facilitating a generally optimal environment for thriving.
This implies that the state should also go ahead to make sure that it shapes the economic situation and growth of the Country. If in any country, the state seems unable to stabilize the economy or to ensure that its people are living desirable lives, then this denotes ineptitude and it is a breach of the social contract. The people, are thus at liberty to repudiate the contract with the leadership in which case they wait for elections to force the regime of the day out of power. In this relationship, the only weapon or judicious mechanism that the people have against the government is the vote. Tumultuous economic times tremendously shape the political landscape of a country. For instance in Greece, people voted for Alexis Tsipras just because he had promised them a negotiated deal of less stringent austerity measures against the country. The case of Greece also confirms the fact that Sovereignty of a country is vested in the people especially on matters regarding the economy. This is because the country had to go to a referendum just to decide whether to accept new terms given by the European Union.
The paper also explores the dimensions from which people look at their economy. The two perspectives within which economic prosperity can be looked at vary depending on the country from which the electorates are from. It is plausible to say that in most developed countries, people tend to look at the country’s economy from a wholesome point of view. They look at the overall economic growth rate of the country, the rate of unemployment and then make an informed decision on whether the government is steering the country in the right direction (Kiewiet a& Douglas, 76). The justification of this approach is that if the whole country’s economy is in good shape, then opportunities are created for everyone to enjoy.
On the other hand, citizens within the developing countries and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) take an individualistic approach while analyzing the status of the country’s economy. They think about whether they themselves are employed and whether they are living a better life than yesterday despite the figures indicating economic growth. It is for this reason that political patronage and getting so close to the leadership regime are highly valued in such societies (Markus 37). This is because of the individual benefit that is associated with such practices. In addition to this other unscrupulous election malpractices are often predominant in these regions. For instance, voter bribery is often rife because of that individual benefit mindset.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, the economy of a country has a notable bearing on the political inclinations of the people within that country. Regardless of the level of civilization in that society, people are not oblivious of the essence of having a growing economy and that is why they make major political decisions during electioneering periods.
Works Cited
Markus, Gregory B. "The Impact of Personal and National Economic Conditions on the Presidential Vote: A Pooled Cross-sectional Analysis." American Journal of political science 32 (1988): 137-54.
Kiewiet, Roderick, and Douglas Rivers. "A Retrospective on Retrospective Voting. "Economic Conditions and Electoral outcomes. ed. Michael Lewis-Beck and Heinz Eulau. New York: Agathlon. 1985. Print.
