can you help me to a response for these 2 questions. weather you agree to it or not . 3-4 sentences long please .
1)
Rapid urban growth contributes to the growth of democratic government in lesser developed countries by first increase the population norm. The increase in population results to a increase in need. A increased need for “jobs, housing, sanitation, protection, etc” (Handleman: 195). Each increased need contributes to more necessity for government. The increased need for jobs alone createsmore in employed work in the “formal sector” which is jobs “with the government, modern and private sector enterprises” (Handleman:195). There is also a greater increase in informal economy jobs that are less or non-regulated and without tax. As a result of the more popular growth in informal jobs ir creates the need for the government to cease regulate and licesence the informal sector. The rapid urban growth that results in the need for housing requires the government to create and maintain subsidized housing which “ by nature is limited” (Handleman: 199).
Rapid urban growth uundermines a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives by clientelism. “Clientelism involves the dispensing of public resources as favors by political power holders/seekers… in exchange for votes or other forms of popular support” (Handleman: 208). It is a strategy that the elite uses on the less powerful. I want to know the opinion of my reader to the obvious question does rapid urbanization constitute to progressive political government or to “political instability”?
2)in most urban areas LDC’s have a considerably large about of peasants, or other wise known as, the poor. Believe it or not but the poor have actually played a quiet role in the their countries society. Overall the peasants are used in order for the more powerful parties to win their elections. This is known as “peasant politics”. The purpose of having a large amount peasants helps the more powerful groups win every election. When least developing countries have rapid urban growth this helps the upper man. The greater the population of peasants, the better the growth of democratic government. The reason for peasant politics is because most of these countries do not have competitive elections. The elections that do tend to occur are dominated by the most powerful groups of the countries. The powerful groups step in and control the peasants votes so that can convert their votes into political influences. This is a down fall for the counties because the lesser people who do not want the powerful group to win have no say so in what they want in democracy. This is undermining the whole counties democracy because no ones voice is being heard. It is as if the powerful groups are monopolizing politics altogether. In my opinion this is another sad situation that least developing counties have to deal with. They are pretty much taking away their right to vote and exchanging it for a vote that will help them win. In the movie we watch about Chiapas, Mexico, the government was taking way the homes and the villages of the people and making them either leave or killing them. Seeking help they looked to a man and his followers to fight an on going battle. Taking away their freedoms and their home. Keeping them from having their full human rights. This is sad but it is something that is often seen in least developing counties.
