wrote this for a government assignment, it has to do with wether community can exist w/o democracy and vise versa.
A community is a network of people with some level of connection on a regular basis who seek a common end outcome. Such connection could be as interactively negligible as living in a common general area with a mere goal of coexistence. Contrastingly, relations could be as notable as a set of people who depend on each other for basic survival and function on a day to day basis. With such a span ties fill the spectrum between both extremes at every level. A democracy is a governing system that takes shape as the result of individuals, from varying communities, raising a point in respect to an umbrella figure that touches each people group in relation to how it interacts with other such voicing parties vying for recognition. This contacting umbrella is most often the government but can also be seen in other forms.
On a personal level I am member of many communities, though democratically active in far fewer. The broad community in which I am most involved is that of the outdoor, trail oriented people set. More specifically I am active in the mountain bike sub collection. In this trails encompassing situation the umbrella is similar to a government system with multiple branches holding independent and conglomerative areas of jurisdiction. This umbrella of trail orientate issue connects communities of hikers, runners, dog walkers, nature watchers, wilderness advocates, motorized organizations, mountain bikers, and many more. While the entire previous list is forced to community status by the matter of limited area in which there is only so much room for all interest to fit. More the more distinct communities though are groups with identifiably similar goal sets. This is because members interact on a much more expansive scope than that between conflicting trail user groups that only make contact when unavoidable. When common goals are sited people work together to achieve those goals and enjoy acquisition of such sites such as gaining access to new land, allowance of new trail or feature construction or improved user relations. Democracy in general could not exist without such a base of communities. If there were not groups of united individual with similar interests there would not be the backing to put forth those persons who would pursue such ends on a more elite level. Rather, there would radical individuals voicing their singular, personal points which would result in each drowning out each of the others. With no recognition demanding support the impact of the individual on the governing system would be removed thus erasing the basis of democracy that the individuals within such a rule mold and guide their overseeing unit. Within the trail management scheme this is evident as each user group sprouts figure heads that represent the correlating interest group before overseeing powers such as Ridge to Rivers or the National Forest Service. When single persons enter the chess match that is negotiating progress there concerns and points are “noted” for future reference then set aside. However, when individuals such as board members of Southwest Idaho Mountain Bike Association enters the match and lays down concerns and key points the receiving end is significantly obliged to act in some way in response to such propositions.
Conversely, community would not exist without a democracy. If there were no chance of influence on the enveloping organization, that is the effectively government, by those subject to it then the incentive for putting in the significant effort of building community would be negated. This would spiral to individuals dealing with what was given to them and not seeking the help of fellow users to improve the situation in long run notably slowing or potentially halting progression. In relation to the trail model this would consist of all user groups dissolving to singular entities with no ability to advance efforts in favor of their sought end. This void of voice would result maintenance of current access, trail standards, and user tensions while increasing user density which dramatically inflates limitations and weakness already in place. Such frustration would more violently drive the wedge between users competing for space in end demolishing each community and therefore the whole.
Results 1 to 4 of 4