Introduction
This essay discusses the issues of democracy in Australia and the United States. In this case, the essay specifically compares the similarities and differences between the two countries. In addition, the essay also discusses matters related to governance, social changes, and public policies.
Democracy in Australia
The chosen country in this case is the Commonwealth of Australia, commonly referred to as Australia. Australia can be described as a representative democracy. This implies that eligible citizens are allowed and encouraged to vote for their preferred candidates to perform the business of governing the nation on their behalf (Aroney, 2008). The democracy in Australia has core democratic principles, which include responsible governance and the rule of law among others (Aroney, 2008).
Democracy: A comparison between Australia and the United States
It is important to note that there are both similarities and differences between Australia and the United States in terms of democracy. Concerning similarities, it is worth pointing out that both countries can be described as representative democracies; this is because their citizens do not exercise direct powers of governance (Alexander, 2007). Leaders are elected and mandated by citizens to run the affairs of the states on behalf of everybody (Alexander, 2007; Hoffe, 2007). In addition, both countries emphasize respect for human rights (Stubb, 2008; Smith, 2013). Moreover, both countries have also applied the democratic principle of the separation of powers; the principle ensures that every branch of government exercises distinct powers (Fabbrini, 2007). The two countries are also federated, which means that they are divided into federal units of governance. The federal units allow citizens to effectively participate in the policy decisions of the countries (Fabbrini, 2007).
In terms of differences, one of the things that can be observed is that the United States is a republic while Australia is a constitutional monarchy (Hirst, 2011). In this case, the overall structures of the governments and the references to the heads of the states are quite different (Hirst, 2011). The political system in Australia can be considered as a hybrid of the governance systems of the United States and the British (Baier, 2011). It is noted that the executive and parliamentary aspects of the political system of Australia originate from England, whilst the federal system is mainly derived from that of the United States (Baier, 2011). Despite the differences in the structures of governance, both states still ensure that the democratic principle of participation still applies within their territories. For instance, citizens are still allowed and empowered to participate in the governance process through their democratically elected representatives (Baier, 2011).
Insights from the Comparisons
Several insights emanate from the comparisons in the previous section. One of the insights is that the application of democratic principles is not uniform in all countries. This implies that the approaches to democracy in different countries are dynamic in terms of governance and policy-making processes. The other insight is that democracy forms the core value of both the United States and Australia.
The Selected Public Policy Area
The selected policy area relates to immigration innovations. Immigration is one of the most salient issues in the United States public domain (Grigorenko, 2012). This is explained by the fact that the citizens and government officials have been concerned about border security, especially since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001 (Grigorenko, 2012). The next section discusses how technology has impacted immigration as a policy area.
The Impact of Technology on Immigration Policy Issues
Technology has had significant impacts on immigration policy issues in the United States (West, 2010). The government of the United States increasingly relies on the use of electronic technologies to track and analyze data on immigration. It also uses the technologies to administer its immigration systems (Siskin, 2011). Through this, the government can trace most of the immigrants within the country. The government is also able to use the information gathered to come up with immigration policies to deal with illegal immigrants (Siskin, 2011). The current immigration policies are based on data obtained through various technologies, like biometric gadgets (LeMay, 2012). Besides, for the legal immigrants, technology has specifically been applied concerning Green Card lotteries, which constitute a system in which the government randomly chooses individuals from different countries to permanently live and work in the United States (Bray, 2013). Further, the government can use different technologies to enlist public participation during policy formulation processes (Bray, 2013). It is still anticipated that as the number of immigrants continues to increase, the technology will have more impacts on the way immigration policies are formulated and implemented.
A Public Policy as an Instrument of Social Changes
It is important to note that there are many ways through which social changes can take place. Specifically, the government has a limited number of options through which it can affect social changes in ways that are agreeable to everybody (Porter, 2013). Of all the options available, a public policy is the most appropriate instrument through which the government can peacefully and accountably affect specific social changes within the country (Anleu, 2009). In this case, it is through public policy that both the government and the public can collaborate to achieve certain social changes (Anleu, 2009). For instance, climate change is a global problem that has had numerous negative impacts on society (Wheeler, 2012). Concerning this, the government has come up with different public policies to change the way people conduct their activities to ensure sustainable development (Ralm, 2010). This entails a social change that is meant to alter the way individuals, groups, and corporations conduct their operations about issues of climate change (Ralm, 2010).
The Legitimacy of a Public Policy as an Instrument of Social Changes
Democratic governance requires that the public members are allowed to participate in any process that either directly or indirectly affects them (Bevir, 2009). In this case, it is important to note that the only sure way the government can involve the public members in the process of making decisions is through policymaking and implementation initiatives (Bevir, 2009). A public policy is always a product of a process in which both the public members and government officials participate; based on this fact, it is right to consider it as a legitimate instrument of achieving social changes (Bevir, 2009). A public policy process is the most effective participative approach to running the affairs of the state; public participation ensures that all stakeholders are adequately represented during a policy-making practice. This makes a social change to be smooth and acceptable to every stakeholder (Bevir, 2009).
Conclusion
The democratic governance in both Australia and the United States has specific similarities and differences. Besides, it is also important to remember that technology impacts different policy and governance areas. A public policy can be used as an instrument of social changes within the society, which can be considered as a legitimate approach to effecting social changes as it allows the participation of all stakeholders.
References
Alexander, D. (2007). Selecting Leaders in Democracies (Indirectly). Social Alternatives, 26(4), 20-30.
Anleu, S. (2009). Law and Social Changes. London, UK: SAGE.
Aroney, N. (2008). Democracy, Community, and Federalism in Electoral Apportionment Cases: The United States, Canada, and Australia in Comparative Perspective. Nicholas. University of Toronto Law Journal, 58(4), 420-490.
Baier, G. (2011). Courts and Federalism: Judicial Doctrine in the United States, Australia, and Canada. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
Bray, I. (2013). U.S. Immigration Made Easy. New York, NY: Nolo.
Fabbrini, S. (2007). Compound Democracies: Why the United States and Europe Are Becoming Similar. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Grigorenko, E. L. (2012). U.S. Immigration and Education: Cultural and Policy Issues Across the Lifespan. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Hirst, J. (2011). The Australians. Collingwood, Australia: Black Inc.
Hoffe, O. (2007). Democracy in an Age of Globalization. New York, NY: Springer.
LeMay, C. (2012). Transforming America: Perspectives on U.S. Immigration. Ann Arbor, MI: ABC-CLIO.
Porter, S. (2013). Tidy’s Physiotherapy. Winchester, Hampshire: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Ralm, D. (2010). Climate Change Policy in the United States: The Science, the Politics, and the Prospects for Change. Boone, NC: McFarland.
Siskin, A. (2011). Immigration Enforcement within the United States. New York, NY: DIANE Publishing.
Smith, J. M. (2013). The U.S. Democracy Project. National Interest, 1(125), 25-40.
Stubb, R. (2008). Freedom of Information and Democracy in Australia and Beyond. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43(4), 660-690.
West, D. (2010). Brain Gain: Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Wheeler, S. (2012). Climate Change and Social Ecology: A New Perspective on the Climate Challenge. New York, NY: Routledge.