Analysis Of Mlk Jrs Letter From Birmingham Jail Religion Essay

Analysis Of Mlk Jrs Letter From Birmingham Jail Religion Essay The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s was a time of great unrest. While the movement was felt across the south, Birmingham, Alabama was known for its unequal treatment of blacks and became the focus of the Civil Rights Movement. Under the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr., president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, African-Americans in Birmingham, began daily demonstrations and sit-ins to protest discrimination at lunch counters and in public facilities. These demonstrations were organized to draw attention to the injustices in the city. The demonstrations resulted in the arrest of protesters, including Martin Luther King. King was arrested in Birmingham after taking part in a peaceful march to draw attention to the way that African-Americans were being treated there, their lack of voter rights, and the extreme injustice they faced in Alabama. King immediately strives to justify the need for nonviolent direct action through his statement, Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. What is direct action? Direct action is a form of political activism which may include sit-ins, strikes, and demonstrations. Kings explanation to the clergymen for protesting segregation began with an explanation of their actions, Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. In this case King was invoking the right of freedom of expression, not only freedom of speech but the freedom to assemble. The clergy and many of the citizens of Birmingham believed the demonstrations, sit-ins, and strikes, considered peaceful by King and his supporters, as a taunting and violation of the segregation laws in place in many of the southern states. Within the first paragraphs of his letter King rebukes the many injustices of his people in Birmingham. King responded with dismay at the clergys reference to him being an outsider. King stated that he had a reason for being in Birmingham and he was not an outsider as the clergymen claimed. He responded with a profound statement, Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds. King explained that his purpose for being in Birmingham was due to the injustices within the city. He continued by comparing himself to the eighth century prophets in that he too was carrying a message the gospel of freedom. King explicitly compared himself to the apostle Paul whose travels were extensive in spreading the gospel of Christ. Just as Paul left Tarsus to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, King left Atlanta for Birmingham. He claimed that his job as a Christian minister was to attack injustice wherever it appeared. Kings imprisonment could a lso be compared to the imprisonment of Paul. King answered the clergymens allegations that breaking the law was not the way to achieve the results Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that, an unjust law is no law at all. King did not believe that they have broken the law. Kings response to the clergymen was that a law that is not morally sound is not a law. Kings statement supports the conservative theory of the Nature of Law in that law existed before man. The fundamental principles of law are to distinguish between that which is right and that which is wrong. Therefore, laws are made to protect the people not degrade and punish. King defined just and unjust law as follows: A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. King wrote that a law could be just on the surface and unjust in its application. The example given was how he had been arrested on the charge of parading without a permit. He explained that there is nothing wrong in having a law which requires a permit for a parade, but that it becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens their First Amendment privilege. King connected the nonviolent civil disobedience or unjust laws to the revolutionary arguments of Thomas Jefferson. Kings writings include, law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson argued that governments exist to protect basic human rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. King addressed civil disobedience, the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence, through his example of the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. Other examples of civil disobedience were incorporated into the letter. King wrote, civil disobedience was demonstrated by the early Christians who were willing to face lions and the chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. King understood completely that his audience was not the clergymen alone. So, while appealing to the Christian and Biblical beliefs and principles of the clergy, he included non-Biblical examples of civil disobedience as well Socrates and the Boston Tea Party. King responded to the clergymens accusation that he was an extremist by countering with examples of extremists. King wrote, Was not Jesus an extremist for love: Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. Amos was an extremist for justice, Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.' He continued providing examples of other extremists including the apostle Paul, Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, John Bunyan, and Thomas Jefferson. King was concerned with the oppression of the African American. He continued by writing of the yearning for freedom of the African American. He wrote, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. Using the analogy of the promise land was not accidental. The promise land was the Israelites land of freedom from their enslavement at the hands of the Egyptians.   King quoted Abraham Lincoln, This nation cannot survive half slave and half free, and Thomas Jefferson, We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equalà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Christianity played a major role in Kings response to the clergymen. He shared his disappointment with the church as a whole. King believed that he would find support for the cause of justice within the community of the church. He wrote of the strength of the early Christians and of their rejoicing for being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. He also wrote of the weakness of the contemporary church and the concerns he had about Christianity losing its meaning. King was so distraught over the actions of the church that he found himself asking, What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? And, while disappointed, he responded with statements of love and hope. As King concluded his letter he shared his belief that the struggle for freedom would be won, not only in Birmingham but across the nation, because the black mans destiny was tied up with the destiny of America and the goal of America is freedom. Kings letter from the Birmingham jail inspired a national civil rights movement. The goal was to completely end the system of segregation in every aspect of public life (stores, separate bathrooms and drinking fountains, etc.) and in job discrimination. The enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in employment practices and public accommodations, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 reinforced the guarantees of full citizenship provided under the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments. The passage of these two acts marked the end of the Jim Crow system in the South. The desegregation of public facilities was swiftly implemented. With the enforcement powers of the federal government enhanced, the desegregation of public schools was also initiated.

To what extent can Lord of the Flies be considered a Marxist piece?

Lord of the Flies centres on a group of boys stranded on a tropical island when their plane crashes en route from England to Australia as part of an evacuation during an atomic war (hypothetical war.) The story is essentially an allegorical tale of the innate evil of man – good versus evil. Of the book, Golding said that he wrote it to illustrate how political systems cannot govern society effectively unless they take into consideration the inherent defects of human nature. Marxism is seen as the development from an oppressive capitalist society to an equal and classless society. Golding tries to set a utopian world within the island devoid of adult, societal constraints but in the end the innate animal characteristics of man come to the fore. Golding based his story on the 19th century novel ‘The Coral Island' written by R M Ballantyne. Whereas Ballantyne's novel, an adventure story of three boys stranded on a desert island, was optimistic, Golding's is terrifyingly pessimistic. The novel was written shortly after World War II , in the early days of the Cold War when paranoia about communism was at its height. In the early 1950s many people were accused, often falsely, of being communists (the McCarthy era in the USA at this time is a good example of this.) It is within this context that Golding wrote Lord of the Flies. The battles between Ralph and Jack, the struggles between the Conch group and the Savages and above all the fight of good versus evil, originate in a degree of paranoia typical of the era in which the novel was written. Lord of the Flies' reflects elements of Golding's own life – his experiences during the war made him second guess the traditionally held belief that while society might be evil, man was inherently good. Golding had witnessed the evil in man, not just in the enemy but in his own allies (he was on the ship that sank the German ship Bismarck.) Golding said in his essay ‘Fable' – originally given as part of a lecture series in 1962 – â€Å"My book was to say: you think that now the war is over and an evil thing destroyed, you are safe because you are naturally kind and decent. But I know why the thing rose in Germany. I know it could happen in any country. It could happen here.† The breakdown of order and discipline is prominent throughout the novel. This idea was drawn from Golding's experiences as a school master (his father was also a school teacher.) Golding taught in an English public school so much of his insight was drawn largely from this. Golding felt that at the time, the education system lacked a balance between discipline and creative freedom. By placing the boys on an island without adults, free from the constraints of society, he allows the boys freedom to indulge their desires and impulses. But by setting the story in a tropical paradise, Golding allowed the boys' downfall to come not through a basic struggle for survival but instead from within themselves and commented â€Å"If disaster came, it was not to come through the exploitation of one class by another. It was to rise, simply and solely, out of the nature of the brute . . . . . the only enemy of man is inside him.† (Fable, 1962.) Golding uses the varied characters in the novel to symbolise the varying degrees of savagery exhibited by man and their rift with organised civilisation. For example, Piggy demands that the boys stay within the parameters of organised society – his frequent references to his ‘auntie' represent the only adult voice throughout much of the novel. Jack, on the other hand, is more interested in satisfying his own desires and is of the belief ‘if it's fun, do it.' Ralph, however, is caught somewhere between the extremes exhibited by Piggy and Jack. It is in the clashes between Ralph and Jack that the conflict between a civilised society and a savage one are dramatised and it is in their differing attitudes towards authority that these differences in ideology are portrayed. Ralph is eager to establish order – using the conch to assemble the boys – and although as Golding says â€Å"what intelligence had been shown was traceable to Piggy while the most obvious leader was Jack† it is Ralph who is chosen as the ‘chief.' There is something about Ralph that has set him apart from the others, an innate quality; but it is his hold on the conch that seems to determine his election as leader of the group. The conch symbolises the old, established adult order the boys had been used to – it represents the rules and regulations or law and order of civilised society. Ralph is representative of government and authority and uses his own authority as chief to try and establish rules (for example, you can only speak if you are holding the conch) which are for the good of the group as a whole – he strives to enforce the moral rules of the society they are stranded from. Jack is the antithesis of this – seeking to gain control of the boys to satisfy his basic instincts (Ralph in fact recognising Jack's disappointment at not being chosen as leader is consolatory in announcing that Jack is in charge of the choir or ‘hunters' as they quickly become.) Jack's shift or decline towards savagery is marked throughout the novel. In the early chapters, his eagerness for killing pigs is really a show of bravery but is intertwined with the need to obtain food for the group. In this sense, Jack conforms to society's rules. It is only later in the novel when Jack no longer recognises Ralph's authority and forms his own splinter group with the hunters that Golding shows the reader Jack's true and more dangerous character. In this way, Golding is able to highlight the fact that to a degree certain savage aspects are an inherent part of man's nature (there is an overriding will to survive in humans) nevertheless in most instances this is suppressed to acc eptable levels by the mores of society. Golding himself does not see the novel as a Marxist piece, but as an illustration of â€Å"the darkness of man's heart†. Whilst the novel wasn't about class differences, Golding cleverly uses the language of the boys to highlight the fact there are indeed differences. For example at the beginning of Chapter 1 when Ralph meets Piggy and he asks â€Å". . . What's your father?† When responding Piggy asks â€Å"When'll your dad rescue us?† Alternate explanations from critics seem to come to the conclusion that the events of the novel were a result of circumstance and not of the evil within man. But Golding dismisses the idea that the actions of the boys were not inevitable. He suggests that the violence occurs â€Å"simply and solely out of the nature of the brute.† Modern critics will argue that the meaning of the text is individual to each reader. â€Å"I no longer believe that the author has a sort of patria potestas over his brainchildren. Once they are printed they have reached their majority and the author has no more authority over them, knows no more about them, perhaps knows less about them than the critic who comes fresh to them, and sees them not as the author hoped they would be, but as what they are† (Golding, Fable) Golding is suggesting that the meaning of a text is not always governed by the author, so although he clearly did not intend for â€Å"Lord of the Flies† to be a Marxist piece, it could be argued that it has become one. It could be argued that given Golding's life experiences and his father's influence, this was inevitable. Roger's sadistic manner was only stopped by the taboos and laws of society, but without these constraints he is unable to unleash the â€Å"id† that is caged by society, but is a demonic feature of the human psyche. In the chapter ‘Painted Faces and Long Hair' Roger is seen along with Maurice to destroy the ‘Littluns' castle. Then Roger throws stones at Henry, although deliberately misses – in this sense his action is controlled by the presence of the rules of society. Later in ‘Castle Rock' Roger, feeling that all aspects of civilised society have disappeared is now free of the constraints imposed by society and so unleashes his true savagery by throwing a stone at Piggy – this time deliberately aimed to harm. It can be argued that Golding uses Roger, who becomes the epitome of savage when he murders Piggy, to embody the central theme of the novel. The conflict between desire and moral obligation is a central theme of the novel. Golding uses the different personalities of the boys to indicate the varied degrees of savagery that humans demonstrate. Piggy juxtaposes Roger as he exhibits no animalistic qualities and adheres to society's rules. Golding expresses that this vehemence is a more natural aspect of human behaviour and that civilization forces compassion onto us rather than it being a natural human instinct. Even the naval officer recognises that the boys have become out of control – his comment to Ralph that they might have been able to â€Å"put up a better show than that . . . â€Å"illustrates this; Ralph recognises that in the beginning they were a cohesive group, a society. The signal fire's purpose is to hopefully attract the attention of a passing ship so that the boys may be saved. Metaphorically, indicates how savage the boys have become and how far they have moved away from socially acceptable behaviour. The boys start the fire using Piggy's glasses in an attempt to be rescued .This suggests that they still long for the order of civilisation. As the fire diminishes, we notice decay in the moral obligations the boys feel and they become more savage. The signal fire allows the reader to gauge how much of society is left on the island. Golding uses dramatic irony at the end of the novel when the officer arrives on the island. Ironically the fire is the antithesis of society at this point in the novel; it has now become a metaphor for the ferocity that man is capable of. The boys ask for some sign of the beast – the sign sent by the grown-ups is the dead parachutist; the beast is a dead pilot – Golding uses this to signify the chaos of an adult world at war. In chapter 5, Simon says â€Å"What I mean is†¦ maybe it's only us†. Simon suggests that â€Å"the beastie† is just a creation of the boys. It is the fear of the unknown that brings the beast to life. Simon's idea is one that links with Golding's views of humanity's savagery. Simon is the only boy on the island who does not abandon his morals, but he is savagely killed when he tries to help the rest of the boys. Simon's morality is overwhelmed by the other boy's amorality, so while Golding does not claim that mankind doesn't exhibit kindness, he does make the point that it is powerless when the rest of the world is evil. The island is a microcosm of society, and the boys represent different political ideologies. Ralph represents democracy, whilst Jack, with his symbolic red hair, represents communism. The boy's influence on the island itself can also be seen as a metaphor for human corruption of the planet. The forest scar created by the crashing plane symbolises the encroachment of corrupt civilisation onto the island. NOTES â€Å"What makes things break up like they do?† is the poignant question Piggy asks Ralph. Golding himself blames the breakdown of the island's democracy on the innate greed and ferocity that is an occupational hazard of being human. In a lecture at the University of California in 1962 he said â€Å"So the boys try to construct a civilization on the island; but it breaks down in blood and terror because the boys are suffering from the terrible disease of being human†. The fire is diatronically opposed to hunting which is the activity of anarchy. Ralph portrays democracy and the role of government in any modern society. He strives to satisfy the demands of the public at large but recognises that certain rules of behaviour must be followed in order to prevent anarchy. Anarchy eventually defeats order – Golding believed that government is ineffective in keeping people together. No matter how logical or reasonable government is, it will in the end give way to anarchical demands of the public.

Jessie Pope Essay

Jessie Pope was a journalist who wrote recruitment poems for the Daily Mail during the First World War. The poems she did write were positive propaganda poems for the war; her objective was to stimulate patriotism in the readers so that the men would join the forces. Pope wrote a persuasive poem where she compared war to a game. This is illustrated in the title ‘Who’s for the game?’ It shows that her attitude to war was that it was a great big event that everyone should take part in one way or another. The title is a short and punchy question inviting anyone to answer. This gives the wrong impression of the war, it is misleading and Jessie Pope – either intentionally or mistakably. Pope was ridiculed for doing this, but if she did write the actual reality of war, no one would really want to join, therefore the aim of the poem would not be fulfilled and the British army would have no chance of wining in the war. Stanza one begins again by referring to the war as a ‘game’ for the above reason and also emphasises that it is the ‘biggest’ game ever known, war is not a game where you may loose points but where it is likely to loose a limb or loose your life. By her saying war it the game, ‘the biggest that’s played,’ Jessie Pope gives a false notion in the first line and makes war sound remarkable when clearly it is not. The ‘game’ is then repeated to enforce excitement even more. Pope goes on to imply it could be a violent game, appealing to the masculine instinct whilst there is a comparison between ‘the red crashing game’ and the red blood shed in war, she makes it seem like a boxing match. Jessie Pope continues to base the poem on a game by stating: ‘Who’ll grip and tackle the job unafraid?’ This shows that Pope’s outlook on the war was it was not for cowards but men who will fight for their country and protect their families in every way they can. This is compared to a game like rugby, which was a popular sport amongst men at this time, whilst meaning who will rise essie Pope was a journalist who wrote recruitment poems for the Daily Mail during the First World War. The poems she did write were positive propaganda poems for the war; her objective was to stimulate patriotism in the readers so that the men would join the forces. Pope wrote a persuasive poem where she compared war to a game. This is illustrated in the title  Ã¢â‚¬ËœWho’s for the game?’ It shows that her attitude to war was that it was a great big event that everyone should take part in one way or another. The title is a short and punchy question inviting anyone to answer. This gives the wrong impression of the war, it is misleading and Jessie Pope – either intentionally or mistakably. Pope was ridiculed for doing this, but if she did write the actual reality of war, no one would really want to join, therefore the aim of the poem would not be fulfilled and the British army would have no chance of wining in the war. Stanza one begins again by referring to the war as a ‘game’ for the above reason and also emphasises that it is the ‘biggest’ game ever known, war is not a game where you may loose points but where it is likely to loose a limb or loose your life. By her saying war it the game, ‘the biggest that’s played,’ Jessie Pope gives a false notion in the first line and makes war sound remarkable when clearly it is not. The ‘game’ is then repeated to enforce excitement even more. Pope goes on to imply it could be a violent game, appealing to the masculine instinct whilst there is a comparison between ‘the red crashing game’ and the red blood shed in war, she makes it seem like a boxing match. Jessie Pope continues to base the poem on a game by stating: ‘Who’ll grip and tackle the job unafraid?’ This shows that Pope’s outlook on the war was it was not for cowards but men who will fight for their country and protect their families in every way they can. This is compared to a game like rugby, which was a popular sport amongst men at this time, whilst meaning who will rise essie Pope was a journalist who wrote recruitment poems for the Daily Mail during the First World War. The poems she did write were positive propaganda poems for the war; her objective was to stimulate patriotism in the readers so that the men would join the forces. Pope wrote a persuasive poem where she compared war to a game. This is illustrated in the title ‘Who’s for the game?’ It shows that her attitude to war was that it was a great big event that everyone should take part in one way or another. The title is a short and punchy question inviting anyone to answer. This gives the wrong impression of the war, it is misleading and Jessie Pope – either intentionally or mistakably. Pope was ridiculed for doing this, but if she  did write the actual reality of war, no one would really want to join, therefore the aim of the poem would not be fulfilled and the British army would have no chance of wining in the war. Stanza one begins again by referring to the war as a ‘game’ for the above reason and also emphasises that it is the ‘biggest’ game ever known, war is not a game where you may loose points but where it is likely to loose a limb or loose your life. By her saying war it the game, ‘the biggest that’s played,’ Jessie Pope gives a false notion in the first line and makes war sound remarkable when clearly it is not. The ‘game’ is then repeated to enforce excitement even more. Pope goes on to imply it could be a violent game, appealing to the masculine instinct whilst there is a comparison between ‘the red crashing game’ and the red blood shed in war, she makes it seem like a boxing match. Jessie Pope continues to base the poem on a game by stating: ‘Who’ll grip and tackle the job unafraid?’ This shows that Pope’s outlook on the war was it was not for cowards but men who will fight for their country and protect their families in every way they can. This is compared to a game like rugby, which was a popular sport amongst men at this time, whilst meaning who will rise essie Pope was a journalist who wrote recruitment poems for the Daily Mail during the First World War. The poems she did write were positive propaganda poems for the war; her objective was to stimulate patriotism in the readers so that the men would join the forces. Pope wrote a persuasive poem where she compared war to a game. This is illustrated in the title ‘Who’s for the game?’ It shows that her attitude to war was that it was a great big event that everyone should take part in one way or another. The title is a short and punchy question inviting anyone to answer. This gives the wrong impression of the war, it is misleading and Jessie Pope – either intentionally or mistakably. Pope was ridiculed for doing this, but if she did write the actual reality of war, no one would really want to join, therefore the aim of the poem would not be fulfilled and the British army would have no chance of wining in the war. Stanza one begins again by referring to the war as a ‘game’ for the above  reason and also emphasises that it is the ‘biggest’ game ever known, war is not a game where you may loose points but where it is likely to loose a limb or loose your life. By her saying war it the game, ‘the biggest that’s played,’ Jessie Pope gives a false notion in the first line and makes war sound remarkable when clearly it is not. The ‘game’ is then repeated to enforce excitement even more. Pope goes on to imply it could be a violent game, appealing to the masculine instinct whilst there is a comparison between ‘the red crashing game’ and the red blood shed in war, she makes it seem like a boxing match. Jessie Pope continues to base the poem on a game by stating: ‘Who’ll grip and tackle the job unafraid?’ This shows that Pope’s outlook on the war was it was not for cowards but men who will fight for their country and protect their families in every way they can.

The Enhancement of State Capacity Requires Democracy - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 1014 Downloads: 5 Date added: 2019/02/15 Category Politics Essay Level High school Topics: Democracy Essay Did you like this example? When it comes to state building, we see that many developing countries have failed to maintain the political order and enforce their authority. The failure of the state to create a political order, leading to uncertain political authority and legitimacy, ineffective public policies and insecurity, especially for the minority groups and or the poor. The main cause of these failure is bad governance. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Enhancement of State Capacity Requires Democracy" essay for you Create order What can only make matters worse is intervention from outside. The national and international policies that contribute to the collapse of the state must be revised. Work must be done to develop the state and development needs better and no less intervention from the state. Development and democratization are mutually supportive. Work must be done on the institutional capacity of the state. The consequences of institutional capacity can be seen in various areas, namely the economic development of human rights, justice and poverty reduction.. Social development relies upon institutional limit. Institutions are of eminent importance for democracy in particular the rule of law and the impartial bureaucracy, which offers a bit of security to those who have no political power associated with wealth and social status. When building institutions, it is important that all groups are taken into account, because ignoring inequalities of power in institution building can produce conflicting results. Both the political and administrative problems undermine the political capacity of the states and the building of policy capacity will not be easy because it is a threat to ruling elites and local rulers. The enhancement of state capacity requires democracy To achieve development, it is important that a coordination of all activities exist, in order to promote the state (our) prosperity. In a functional, regulatory state, with its regulatory capacity can provide service and value to the community. Imagine that the capacity of a country is weak, does that country need democracy to strengthen state capacity? Nowadays democracy is seen as a goal to achieve and as a means to achieve economic development, poverty reduction and protection of human rights. If that is true, it means that democracy goes hand in hand with state capacity. In other words, countries with low state capacity need democratic institutions to impose minimum restrictions on governments and to channel policies of those in power on public goods supply and decent economic management, but nothing is less true. Democracy is not a sine -qua-non (or mandatory) condition that guarantees state prosperity, or even state good functionality. Several arguments presented below: The involvement of the West in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya was to strengthen the states authority. What is striking about these countries is while they are promoting democratization, they have not been developed by democracy. The involvement of the West has led to a chaotic situation in those countries. These countries have been made democratic by the West (or at least the intention stated), while the conditions of the population have not improved. It seems that the administrative capacity has actually declined while they are democratic states. The subjects of these countries thems elves indicate that they would rather have their old leaders back. The people, therefore, ask for their autocratic leaders, concluding that not that democracy (the will of the people) is the pillar of well being and good governance. Having said this, does not mean that democracy cannot strengthen state capacity? I will indicate from the example of the police force of Suriname that it depends on the situation. The police force of Suriname is an organization that takes care of order and rest in the country. Because of this, you need a strong organization that functions well. In order for the organization to function properly, the administrative capacity is of eminent importance. Administrative capacity can be improved by a solid approach in creation of capacity building, intellect and professional capacity, by paying attention to the education of the police personnel (government officials). In practice, we see that too. If we take into consideration the arrest team(AT) of the police force Suriname, we see that in their cases they succeed in most cases. this is the result of well-trained staff. they know where they stand and train regularly. The police organization operates under the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and police. Which means that to a certain extent the police organization is democratically embedded because they are partly accountable to the minister of justice. With regard to public order, the authority rests with the district commissioner or citizen father and the public prosecutor for the investigation. The management of the police rests with the police chief. The distribution of responsibilities is reason why I say that the organization is democratic to a certain extent. If the organization were entirely under the direction of the Minister of Justice in the police, there could be a complete democratic embedding. Democracy can strengthen the capacity of the police force of Suriname to a certain level. democracy cannot be maintained in all situations. Imagine that the region assistance team from the middle region (RBT) Suriname during their regular surveillance are confronted with the criminals who were involved in the murder of the ex-journalist of â€Å"De ware Tijd van Suriname†, Isaak Poetisi on June 9, 2018. At that moment they are certainly going to battle, because the criminals are not going to give up easily and there is no time for deliberations to know how the people or the minister wants them to act. At that moment, action demands response. You need a strong leader who has to make the decisions, he have to call the shots. It is not about whether it is right or not. The result is important at that time. It does not matter how, because that is not the issue. The most important goal is for the criminals to be arrested. By arresting them a bit of peace in society. By arresting them, faith in the police restored. The strengthening of state capacity is possible through democracy, but that depends on the circumstances of the situation at that time. What is right is that the capacity of the state can be strengthened.