Madelyn Cocagne

Dr. Scheuerell

Democracy and Global Diversity

December 7, 2020

Essay #1

Prompt: With respect to the time periods we examined in both France and South Africa, how

were rival understandings of the relationship between 1) justice and authority, 2) justice and

privilege, and 3) justice and community relevant to the transition to democracy? Address all

three of these themes, and make sure you support your answer by referring to specific historical

events, leaders, or organizations. (You are free to comment on in-game developments, but you

should include three authentically historical examples to illustrate each theme.)

Response:

Throughout the time periods in France and South Africa, the transition to democracy

affected the relationship between justice and authority, justice and privilege, and justice and

community. In the South Africa period, I noticed that justice and authority was one main point

and is a point that our class focused heavily on during the simulation. The concept of the

governing institutions was different from many role’s point of view. For example, my role in the

South Africa simulation supported apartheid while many roles wanted to abolish apartheid. My

role believed that apartheid was the best part of South Africa’s government and that it brought

modern technology, educational systems, and modern medicine to South Africa and helped

advance South Africa as a country. However, others believed that apartheid was the worst thing

that had ever happened to South Africa and that it drove a wedge between the races in South

Africa. The democracy that was formed in South Africa allowed races to be treated more fairly.
However, in the video we watched, we saw that even after the discussions and decisions at

Kempton Park, white and blacks still could not live-in peace together. Other claimed that justice

was served when there was a new authority government and democracy, but I believe it brough

more violence to South Africa.

Justice and privilege were a point that was discussed heavily in the French Revolution.

Many discussions were based around those who were given more privileges than others. There

were three estates in France and the nobility was the estate that was given the most privileges.

The nobility was given front seats in the church and exemption from certain taxes. In our class

simulation, the last point (exemption from certain taxes) was a big issue and something that was

discussed at length. The third estate had the most representation in France’s population but yet

had little legal power and no privileges at all. When the new democracy was formed, the third

estate was given more legal power and the nobility had some privileges revoked. The church in

France also controlled a lot of land while many of their people had no land at all and were barely

surviving. This was another privilege that was given to the elites but with the new democracy,

the third estate was given some land so they could support themselves and their families.

The point of justice and community was also a point that was heavily talked about in the

French simulation. The community in France started to question the identity of the Catholic

church and there was an increase secularization. With the new democracy, the Catholic church

officials were obligated to take an oath to the state rather than to the Papacy. Going back to the

privilege given to the nobility, the clergy and church were told to sell of the church land. There

was also a Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen that gave the people of France more say in

governmental matters and freedoms as individuals. However, there was tension in the French

Revolution because government officials were allowed to arrest anyone they say fit without any
probable cause and the King had complete power. The King was able to declare war and do

almost anything as he pleases without any checks and balances and was in control of the national

police and military forces. However, with the new democracy, the King was not allowed as much

power and there was a new checks and balance system to make sure things were fair and equal in

the government. Before the new democracy, the government was the problem and with the new

democracy the government more so fulfilled their purpose of creating and maintain laws and

order and providing services to the people. The new government served the people rather than

the old one that was controlled solely by the government for the King.
 Essay #2

Prompt: In surveying France and South Africa, we encountered a variety of different

understandings of democracy, what it entails or requires, and why it ought to be implemented.

Carefully present at least two arguments concerning democracy from each society (four

arguments total) that were of historical significance. What objections or counterarguments were

raised in response to these arguments? In the actual course of history, which perspectives

prevailed? (Include arguments that were significant in actual history, not just in your game.)

Reponses:

Democracy is a form of government that consists of a variety of different understandings

and concepts. The four concepts I want to focus heavily on is freedom to assemble, multiply

parties, Freedom of Speech, and Equality. Amongst the changes made in South Africa, I believe

freedom to assemble and multiple parties was the two most important concepts of their new

democracy. Kempton Park is a great example of freedom to assemble and multiple parties. At

Kempton Park, there were three main fractions (National Party, African National Congress, and

Concerned South African Group) but within each fraction, there were various party affiliations.

The entire NP fraction consists of all National Party members, but the ANC and COSAG. The

ANC consisted of four different party affiliations while COSAG consisted of five different party

affiliations. If the entire country was only one party, there wouldn’t be any disagreements and

changes made at the governmental level. The use of multiple parties almost keeps the other

parties in line and is a checks and balance system. The use of multiple parties also allows more

ideas to be generated, spread, and developed into the government. Kempton Park was also a

great example of using freedom to assembly. As mentioned before, all of these different parties

came to Kempton Park to assembly together and make changes for the betterment of South
Africa as a whole. Each party had their different views as to what was better for South Africa,

but these individuals took advantage of their freedom to assembly and created a change in South

Africa that would be for the betterment of their nation and their people. At Kempton Park, they

also used their freedom of speech to voice their opinions on what they needed and wanted in

their new democracy. They were all allowed to talk about what they needed in their new

democracies and were allowed to make changes that would affect South Africa for years to

come.

However, there were many counter arguments that were raised to eliminate so many

parties in South Africa as well as who I allowed to be in leadership positions and assembly in

these leadership roles. There were talks about the National Party agreeing on the same side with

the African National Congress. It was also believed that they were trying to make a South Africa

were only those two parties were surviving and the rest would eventually join one of the two

parties. However, throughout history we can see that South Africa still has many political parties

today. There was also the stance on whether anyone who supported apartheid previously could

take on leadership roles and assembly as leaders of the new South Africa. As it played out in our

simulation and in real life, individuals who supported apartheid previously were not allowed to

hold any leadership positions and therefore could not assembly as leaders of the country.

However, the free to assembly was kept for all citizens of South Africa. As seen in our

simulation as well as real life, freedom to assembly did make Kempton Park noisy and deliberant

since there were constantly people fighting over what was best for the country and people always

talking over each other.

In the French Revolution, they used their freedom of speech and freedom of the press and

also the concept of equality when establishing their democracy. Many individuals would use
freedom of speech and freedom of the press to voice their opinions in newspaper articles or

letters to the editor. This was a concept that we focused heavily on class since we wrote two

newspapers ourselves. However, unlike today, newspaper was the only way to spread ideas fast

if they did not want to speech publicly on the matters. Individuals were allowed to write

whatever they wanted in their newspapers and they would have their voices heard all across

France. However, equality was a large part of the new democracy since in France, the third estate

make up the majority of the population, but they were treated very poorly. The nobility was

given special privileges while the third estate was barely surviving as it was. With the new

democracy, they focused heavily on giving the third estate legal power while limiting the

privileges given to others. With the new democracy, the Church was forced to sell their lands

that they controlled and to allow the third estate to buy them and make a better life for

themselves. The nobility was also forced to start paying taxes when before the new democracy

was developed, they were exempt from paying most of their taxes. With the new democracy,

there was more equality given amongst the three fractions in France and the people were given

more rights. Since there was power taken away from the King, the people were allowed more

input and say in government matters and were given more freedoms as the people of France.

Through the French Revolution, there were a lot of counterarguments against freedom of

speech and freedom of the press. The King could have anyone arrested that he saw fit and

therefore if anyone disagreed with him and spoke out against it, he could have the arrested if he

pleased. With the new democracy, the King was given far less power than he previously had and

there was a checks and balance system created. Many said that if the power was taken away from

the King that I war would break out since there would be no one leading the country with

leadership experience, but as we can tell today France is still standing as a country and they
survived after the French Revolution. There were also arguments as to the equality between the

three factions. The nobility did not want to give up their land or their special privileges since

they were used to them for so long. They believed that things were being taken away from them

and simply given to the third estate but in reality, the third estate was holding on by a thread and

something had to be done or else France would have lost most of their population due to

malnutrition. With the new democracy, more equality was spread amongst the three fractions,

but there will always be a more powerful and better off fraction in the end. However, the third

estate was given more legal power than before, and the nobility was revoked most of their

special privileges which served as a step in the right direction. Throughout our simulation as well

as in real life, the meetings were noisy and deliberant because people were constantly expressing

their freedom of speech and wanted everyone to hear what they had to say but didn’t really care

if anyone else’s viewpoints were heard. However, the French Revolution allowed other

democracies to use the idea of different parties sitting on opposite sides of the room with each

party having their own spot in the room to sit. This is still a concept that the US use today in our

government branches with Republicans on one side of the room and Democrats on another side

of the room.

Democracy allows individuals to express their beliefs and use their human rights.

Democracy is a form of government that allows the power to reside in the people. Democracy is

the best form of government in my opinion. But overall democracy is diverse. Democracy allows

the people to have a say but not have all the power. It is not just one idea but consists of

thousands of ideas.