LIB220-06|07|08 - Democracy/Global Diversity-MD - S19 – Scheuerell

Final Exam

Janice Hines

Question#1

With regards to justice and authority, we saw two very different ways the government

was run. In India, the people were under the rule of the British where they were seen as ¼

citizens. In France, the people lived under a monarchy chosen by divine rule. The same can be

true for both countries, they wanted a change. They all wanted a voice in how their

government was ran. Rousseau posed a question that played a part in both these revolutions. Is

violence ever justified? During the French revolution, violence was a key factor in creating

change for these people. A perfect example would be the violence from the Paris crowd. They

felt that they had another way to have a voice besides a demonstration of violence. India was

different, they had a leader like Gandhi. He was a believer in nonviolence and an example of

this was the salt march he led.

With regards to justice and community one has to think about how the general will for

the people was looked at. Throughout the India simulation we argued about whether or not we

should have one India or a partition. This country has lived under the rule of the British for

centuries and the divide between religions led to some hesitations in what the future of India

would look like. They also had to make decisions on if there would be a national language or a

national curriculum in schools. This was obviously difficult because the different religions had

different rules and ways of life. In France, there was the question on if social rankings will
remain intact. The religious were forced to take an obligatory oath to France. This leads to the

question on whether people should sacrifice freedoms for national security. For both these

countries, some freedoms have to be sacrificed in order to serve the purpose of the general will

rather than individual wants.

Another factor to consider during these time periods is justice and privilege. We can see

this coming into play in both France and India. The monarchy in France was collecting taxes

from the poor while the nobles were exempt from paying them. The nobles had many special

privileges like special seating in church and the right to carry a sword. This led to peasants and

other 3rd class citizens to be outraged which in turn led to the revolution. During this time

feudalism was abolished and more people were given the rights they deserved. Rights were

given to women and there was now a right to property. In India, the British were exploiting

cheap labor and giving high taxation. The people in India were living by a caste system before

the revolution. The untouchables are a great example of unfairness people experienced. These

people were treated inhumanly and there was no way to change this until after the revolution.

Both these revolutions began with people being treated unequally in society and both had the

goal of creating a new government where all are heard.

Question#2

Democracy can mean different things to different people. Democracy is not a spectator

sport. In order for it to be affective, all must participate and voice their opinions. However, on

the downside to this, it is often a slow moving process that can in turn be corrupted. In France,

the people created a republic giving a voice to their people. The people wanted more equality
among all and stripped the king of all his powers. In India, unfortunately the people were

divided. Everyone was in agreement that the British had to go but many wanted India to be

separated. People were looking down on other religions and wanted a divide even though

democracy would have all voices heard of equal value. India did in fact become a partition

despite some peoples wants to remain as one. Both these countries knew that democracy was

better than one powerful leader, but had different ways of making democracy happen.