Should Politicians Use Social Media?

/in /by

 

Introduction

Social media has greatly affected the political scene. It is only slightly over a decade ago, that politicians had to heavily rely on print presses and television networks to communicate to the masses. Such means of communication, although effective at the time, were and still are highly costly to the owner of the advert. As such, the introduction of social media networks such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram came as a relief to politicians who can communicate with the masses at the touch of a button. In addition, the general public is the biggest beneficiary of social media. Politicians should, therefore, use social media as it enhances service delivery.

The use of social media across the globe keeps rising. There are over a billion users across the globe (Graber & Dunaway, 2017). It is, thus, the most convenient way to communicate with the public. Traditional forms of communication such as the newspapers and television have so far almost been rendered outdated. Take for instance twitter; a tweet by a given politician about a development agenda takes only a few seconds to reach millions of voters. Compared to that, means such as newspapers are very slow. After all, one might have to wait for the next day to get today’s news. The same case with televisions, having to wait for the prime news to know what happened during the day. Social media is the best way to reach the greatest number of voters in the shortest time.

Social Media enhances accountability by politicians. During campaigns, politicians present their agendas upon which they are voted. The voters expect such promises to be fulfilled. Social media allows politicians to communicate their various accomplishments conveniently (Engesser, Ernst, Esser, Büchel, 2017). The voters can also ask the politicians questions directly through the various platforms provided such as the comments sections on Facebook or even the inbox. By expressing the satisfaction or dissatisfaction, the politician and their team can know which steps to take to correct their actions. Such accountability and transparency builds trust among the public and also promotes democracy by ensuring that every voice is heard.

Despite the numerous benefits to the votes, there are concerns that social media use among politicians is not without its downsides. The messages sent by politicians whether, through tweets, Instagram, or even Facebook posts are mostly unverified and hence might mislead the public (Engesser et al., 2017). Such instances have been reported, whereby prominent government officials manipulate information to improve their image towards the unsuspecting public. This is unlike other media, whereby journalists go the extra mile of conducting unbiased investigations. While this is truly tragic, it does not invalidate the significance of social media. Such cases can be countered by being wary and not believing each and everything that is posted on social media, but rather demanding proof of any statements posted.

Conclusion

Politicians should indeed use social media as it enhances service delivery. In present times, social media is the best way to reach the majority of the voters. After all, the number of people reading newspapers daily keeps dwindling, while the populous using social media keeps rising to the billions. Furthermore, continued use of online platforms encourages accountability among politicians who can constantly report their development progress to the voters. Such voters can then express their satisfaction or the lack of it hence promoting democracy. Although social media use by politicians has few shortcomings, overall, it is one of the best things ever to happen to democracy and governance.

References

Engesser, S., Ernst, N., Esser, F., & Büchel, F. (2017). Populism and social media: How politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information, communication & society, 20(8), 1109-1126.

Graber, D. A., & Dunaway, J. (2017). Mass media and American politics. Cq Press.

Hospitality

/in /by

 

Hospitality has primarily been referred to as the kind treatment of guests and strangers mainly in the hotel industry. This is often not the case since hospitality cuts across almost every service rendering industry ranging from the hotel industry, the transportation industry to even the catering industry. Hospitality can, therefore, be regarded as the relationship stemmed from timely and honorable management of the client’s demands or expectations from the host (Lashley, Paul and Alison 8). These demands hence bring about various classes in the service industry forcing the hospitality industry to even expand further. For instance, an airline will charge more money for a first-class ticket compared to an economy ticket on the same flight because the first-class client expects prompt services such as full access to a steward on the go. Hospitality, therefore, places too much emphasis on the host rather than on the guest hence hospitality assesses how guests or strangers are treated.

The diversity of the hospitality field led to it being harmonized into four segments which include:

  1. Food and Beverage

This segment takes the lion’s share of the hospitality industry since the demand for food and beverages increases day by day as the population burgeons each day. Food and beverage segments task itself with preparing food ranging from snacks, meals, and beverages to be consumed either on their premises or on the go. The food and beverage segment is so wide that a recent study conducted in the United States found out that it accounts for half of the meals eaten there daily.

 

 

  1. Travel and Tourism

This sector deals with the comfort, safety and time efficacy in both business and leisure travel. Business travel is associated with the movement for income generation activities such as work which results in demand for lodging and food (Novak). Leisure travel involves travel for recreation that is too dependent on both food and lodging services. Leisure travel is commonly associated with vacations.

  1. Lodging

This sector focuses on the provision of a safe and secure environment to sleep ranging from a single night to weeks or even months. This has led to mushrooming of various clusters of lodging providing facilities such as five-star hotels, camping sites, and elderly homes. Accessibility, comfort, security, and space are the most relevant aspects that clients put into consideration when seeking lodging facilities.

  1. Recreation

This is another sector that is often disregarding when discussing hospitality but is a key segment of the hospitality industry. This sector deals with the refreshment of the mind and the body through rest, relaxation or distraction from normal strenuous activities. The sports and entertainment businesses such as movie theaters and amusement parks make up this sector of hospitality.

From the above context, it’s quite evident that hospitality is a field that cuts across many service rendering businesses based on the four sectors of hospitality. Exceptional customer service is hence critical in this sector since competition is at its premium in this industry. The failure to satisfy a client expectation or demand within a given time might mean a loss of reputation which leads to loss of business and eventual losses overtime (Lashley, Paul and Alison). Hospitality can, therefore, be defined as the art of meeting dynamic client demands to ensure a positive and long-lasting partnership for both the host and the guest. These demands may arise from one sector of hospitality or fall all sectors combined.

References

Lashley, Conrad, Lynch Paul and Morrison J Alison. Hospitality: A Social Lens. London: Elsevier, 2007.

Novak, Peter. “What Are The 4 Segments Of The Hospitality Industry.” 24 April 2017. Hospitality.net. 10 October 2019 <https://www.hospitalitynet.org/opinion/4082318.html>.

 

 

 

Summary of the Documentary: The French Revolution

/in /by

 

King Louis XIV- Monarchy

Louis XVI- Marie Antoinette from Austria

Louis XIV had lost the seven year war in North America draining France’s finances. The population was increasing and needed more resources. Finally the King dies. Louis the XVI

The new age of enlightenment inspired by science and literature. Undermined monarchy. Was also inspired by the American war of independence. Louis wants revenge for grandfathers death. investment in the war strained the resources. Marie was also a spendthrift with unnecessary ceremonies, gambling, staged plays, and strange hairdos. Still, they have not produced an heir to the throne. This makes her unpopular. Art portrayed her as promiscuous.

Bad harvests and deregulation raises cost of flour hence bread. A charge is leveled against the loyals. Maximilien accusses the loyals of spending too much leaving little for the peo ple. Louis attempts to an economic reform by introducing taxes. This only burdens the poor while nobility don’t pay. The weather makes it worse in 1788 with harsh cold. Flour was the essence of life. Bread was the measure of existence. The cost of flour skyrockets. Hunger turns to rage culminating in riots. Louis hires a finance minister, Jacques Necker, popular with the people.

Traditional estates representatives called in 175 years. Clergy, nobility, third estate (97%). May 4 1789, maximilien as a deputy stands before representatives estates general to speak for the third estate. Lawyer. Robespierre demands 2 estates pay taxes. Deputies start being silenced. They open the national assembly. July guards sent to overthrow rebellion. Bastille prison. Firing of finance minister inspires more revolt. Killing of bastille governor and mounting of his head on a pole. Is it a revolt, no it is a revolution.

The national assembly pens a charter called the declaration of the rights of men. Classes abolished and all men considered as equal. They demand constitutional mornachy, equality and justice. Oct 2 1789. Shortage of bread. The women from marketplaces took their complaints to the king. Also called The women’s march on Versailles, October march. Louis agrees to sign the declaration of the rights of man. The crowd demands that they move to Paris. May 1791.  France is now a constitutional mornachy. Louis power decreases. He decides to make a run and look for allies to fight the revolution to the border of Austria. He is arrested and taken back to Paris. The king was viewed as a traitor. Power shifts to the revolutionaries. Robespierre demands an end to slavery and end to death penalty. Guillotine comes up with a new device for instant death. Fearing attacks by members of extended family, assembly declares war on Austria. Prussia joins Austria. Aug 1792 crowds attack king and queen. French republic is born. Justice minister motivates people to go to frontier war. Prisoners are attacked , September massacre leaves over 1600 dead. Robespierre stands to guide the revolution. Decides that France will put its king on trial. Many wanted to king. He is found guilty of betrayal and sentenced to death. Jean-Paul Marat keeps calling for people to be killed. He believes that chopping of heads will make things alright. July 1793, (sharot code (sic)) comes to kill marat. Gives him a pretense list and stabs him on the chest. He is silenced. She is executed. Marat was considered a legend. Marie Antoinette is jailed. She was tried later. On oct 15. Accused of high treason and even incest with her son. She is sentenced to the guillotine. Regarded as the last queen of France. Sept 1793. France is being torn apart. Enemies such as Britain took an apportunity to attack France. The reign of terror began. Marshal Law is declared and constitution suspended. Any suspected betrayal is sent to the guillotine. 12 man cousel is formed to consolidate power. Robespierre emerges as the fierce voice and as a proponent of  power.

Dechristianization is proposed. The church is seen as powerful. The Christian callender is replaced. Months are renabled and broken to 3 weeks. 10 day week removed Sunday. 100,000 are killed. Napoleon Bonaparte. The terror achieved its goal. 1794. Robespierre associates terror with virtue. Food is better. Dentonise. Robespierre launches the  great terror. Wants to replace the Christian God. He is arrested. The deputies declare him an outlaw. His attempted  suicide fails. He becomes a victim of the guillotine. The terror dies with Robespierre. Five years passed before power consolidated at the hands of Napoleon Bonaparte. Some say the revolution continued to the nineteenth century. How much violence is justified. The revolution has inspired many nations to rise for liberties from Russia to latin America .

 

Maximilien Robespierre

 

Socialism and Fascism

/in /by

 

 

Introduction

Socialism and Fascism share some characteristics but are entirely different in other ways. The two ideologies took shape in reaction to what was viewed as the faults in liberalism. Socialists, who preceded fascists, criticized liberal democracy for the inequalities that had emerged among the people and in advanced nations. Fascists, on the other hand, believed that the tenets on which liberalism was based were incorrect. Hence, we can compare and contrast socialist and fascist criticism of liberal democracy and their visions on how best to govern a nation.

Criticism of Liberal Democracy

Both socialism and fascism disagree with the liberals’ view on individualism. In a liberal democracy, society is made up of individuals who look out for their self-interests and adopt a laissez faire policy to pursue profits privately. This view is criticized by socialists, who believe that people are social creatures and must work in cooperation to achieve liberty and prosperity (Ball et al. 123). Fascists criticize individualism from the viewpoint of nationalism. This is the belief that people fall into distinct groups that form nations (Ball et al. 191). Gentile notes that in fascism, an individual finds a purpose and fulfillment in obedience (Gentile 292) According to the fascists, the nation takes precedence over the individual and it is only by coming together as a nation that true liberty can be experienced. Although both fascists and socialists are against liberalism, they differ in several other aspects. One of these is elitism.

Elitism is the view that society should be governed by a few elite individuals. Liberal democracy, on the contrary, maintains that people should govern themselves through a representative government led by democratically-elected leaders. For fascists, this idea is unacceptable. Elite theorists of the early twentieth century believed that society is, and will always be, ruled by a small group of leaders (Ball et al. 193). Subsequently, famous fascists such as Benito Mussolini of Italy adopted this ideology and implemented a totalitarian government. Socialists, on the other hand, support democracy, but in a different sense than liberal democracy. While liberal democracy is marked by policies that facilitate capitalism, socialist democracy allows the government to hinder capitalism in the quest for a classless society (Ball et al. 124). Besides elitism, fascists and socialists criticize liberalism on the issue of equality.

Liberalism calls for equality and freedom. This was the view of the classical liberals when they demanded minimal government interference and economic competition for all. However, during the industrial revolution, inequalities emerged as a consequence of capitalism. The rich steadily grew richer while the working-class was overworked, underpaid and poor. Socialists believe that such inequality should be corrected. They, therefore, call for equality of common people collectively, rather than that of the individual (Ball et al. 125). They believe this can be achieved through fighting capitalism. Fascists, on the other hand, find equality unnecessary and, at times, even distasteful. To them, equality promotes individual freedoms at the cost of the glory and greater good of  the nation. This disdain for individual equality and freedom is captured in Mussolini’s famous slogan “believe, obey, fight” (Ball et al. 187). Gentile addresses this issue by stating that for fascism, freedom has no importance except in the context of the state (Gentile 293). Hence, both socialist and fascist ideologies are against liberalism based on equality and freedom, but in quite different ways.

A study of the criticisms makes it evident that socialists and fascists are opposed to liberal democracy. Socialist and fascist views on individualism, governance, and equality do not resonate with the liberal political ideology. Fascists and socialists have their own vision of how best to govern a nation and are guided by the end goals of their ideologies. The socialists’ end goal is to fulfill human needs through such means as will ensure that all workers get a fair share of the product (Ball et al. 126). For fascists, the end goal is to obtain power and glory for the state (Ball et al. 199). One similarity between the two is that more power and authority rest with the government for the collective good in a socialist economy, and national glory in a fascist regime.

The Vision of How Best to Govern a Nation

Totalitarianism is the mode of governance for fascists and, in many ways, for socialists as well. Socialism requires that the state should own and control property for collective benefit (Ball et al. 123). Such control is exercised by a centralized or decentralized government. The result is a society where the government has the power to plan, manage, and coordinate the country’s economy (Ball et al. 124). Fascist governments, on the other hand, vest power in a few elites or even one individual to lead the nation to more power and glory. The people are expected to follow the vision of the leader without question as was the case with Nazi Germany under Hitler. Such kind of governance is, therefore, plainly dictatorial. Fascist leaders also use apparatus such as educational institutions and communication systems to control the masses (Althusser 143). One difference between fascist and socialist governance is the main agenda of each of the governments.

Socialist governance is mainly aimed at the economy. By controlling and coordinating economic activities, socialists believe that they can eliminate capitalism and the ills that result from it. This is meant to ensure freedom for all. On the other hand, the main agenda for fascist governments is achieving more power for the nation. This was proved by both Mussolini and Hitler who were obsessed with creating empires. For these fascists, the economy was not a major agenda. Mussolini’s Italy, for instance, was filled with corruption (Ball et al. 200). Ardent notes that fascism is all about a movement accompanied by terror to achieve an agenda dictated by an individual (Arendt 310)

Another contrast between fascist and socialist governance can be seen in their views and treatment of differences in people. Both apartheid rule in South Africa and Nazi rule in Germany had one thing in common: people are not alike (Ball et al. 190). This motivated the discrimination against the blacks by Afrikaners and the Jews by “Aryan” Germans. Many fascists, including contemporary ones, believe that whites are a superior race to others such as blacks. Therefore, it is common for fascist governance to discriminate based on race and ethnicity. Socialist governance, on the other hand, is devoid of such concerns. Rather than focusing on nationalism, socialists focus on social class divisions which they insist must be eliminated.

Finally, it is important to look at the liberties that these governments assure their people. Socialists aim for the freedom of the community while fascists place a premium on the nation’s freedom. Socialist governments work to facilitate freedom, at least in theory, in the form of a fair share of the profits, fulfilling work, and equal opportunities to develop talents (Ball et al. 125), and achieve this by taking full control of the economy. Fascists view liberty in a completely different light. According to fascists, true freedom and fulfillment can only be achieved by serving the state (Ball et al. 199). Hence, fascist governments demand the unwavering and unquestioning loyalty of the people.

Conclusion

Socialists and fascists, similar in some ways and different in others, developed as a reaction against the political ideology of liberalism. Hence it is possible to compare and contrast their criticism of liberal democracy. These two ideologies formulated what they considered the best way to govern a nation, while avoiding the pitfalls of liberalism. However, history has shown us that these ideologies, which favor an all-powerful state, take control and become restrictive and dictatorial in the name of the greater good of the people and have not been successful or endured for long. On the other hand, even liberal democracies aid and assist citizens through welfare schemes and processes that are undeniably socialist in essence. This information enables us to understand why fascists such as Hitler committed unspeakable atrocities, why Russia indulged in socialism, or even question whether capitalism is the best social, economic and political system of governance.

Work Cited

Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation).” The anthropology of the state: A reader, vol.9, no.1, 2006, pp. 127-186.

Arendt, Hannah. “Ideology and terror: A novel form of government.” The Review of Politics, vol.15, no.3, 1953, pp. 303-327.

Ball, Terence, et al. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal. Taylor & Francis, 2016.

Gentile, Giovanni. “The philosophic basis of fascism.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 2, no. 6, 1927, pp. 290-304.

 

WHY FROG CHOOSES KATAGIRI

/in /by

‘A man is judged by his character.’ This is one of the wise quotes that have held meaning since time immemorial. This quote overlooks other outward qualities such as strength in favor of the principles that one holds dear. Stories of men who lacked good character have been told in various fields such as religion and folktales. Their end is always disastrous. On the other hand, people of character are always admirable. A study of Haruki Murakami’s short story “Super-Frog Saves Tokyo” reveals the importance of character. It tells the heroic story of a giant frog who is on a mission to save Tokyo from a deadly earthquake. It will involve a fierce battle that requires only the best participants to be chosen. However, as the story unfolds, it is revealed that the battle does not only require strength, but also good character. The Story “Super-Frog Saves Tokyo” shows that moral character is more valuable than physical strength.

One of the qualities Frog values Katagiri for is courage. Katagiri is a collection officer for the Tokyo Security Trust Bank, which is not a job for the faint-hearted. It involves getting his hands dirty in the field as he pursues defaulters. To make matters worse, he has to collect debts within the dangerous neighborhood of Kabukicho, which is rife with violence[1]. Despite such a harsh working environment, Katagiri is not shaken, even after he receives death threats. His courage inspires Frog to choose him to fight the deadly battle with Worm. Frog realizes that this battle requires courage, something that even he, Frog, lacks when he admits that he is frightened.

Another reason that informs Frog’s decision is the deep respect he has for Katagiri. He reveals that he has been keeping an eye on Katagiri as he goes about his daily activities. Through the years, he has seen him readily undertake the most dangerous tasks without much appreciation from his colleagues or superiors[2]. Despite that, Katagiri has never complained. He has also extended the same qualities to his family as shown by his sacrifices to raise his two siblings single-handedly and educate them. Despite all this, the two who are now grown-up show no respect for their selfless benefactor. Even so, Katagiri has no complaints about their behavior. Frog finds such a selfless character respectable and is proud to go to battle with Katagiri, since the fight with Worm will provide no glory to either himself or Katagiri.

Frog finds Katagiri’s kindness admirable, which is one of the reasons he chooses him. Katagiri’s selflessness in raising his siblings at the expense of his time and income proves this virtue. This kindness costs him his marriage prospects, and yet, he goes ahead and arranges for his siblings’ marriages. No appreciation is accorded to him despite such praiseworthy actions[3]. Frog knows that the battle with Worm requires such a level of selflessness. It is a battle without glory; one that requires them to put their lives on the line without anybody knowing that they have done so. Thus, selflessness is required virtue in the one chosen for the battle.

Frog believes that Katagiri can offer the encouragement that he needs to fight Worm. He makes it clear that he does not expect the middle-aged, inactive Katagiri to fight the battle. Frog is prepared to do all the fighting. However, given that the battle is tough and scares him, he knows that he needs someone to keep cheering him on to fight the good fight. Katagiri fits this description. He is identified as a man who has a passion for justice and everything right[4]. Over the years that he has worked for the bank, he has performed his duties diligently, unafraid of threats from loan defaulters. He is not shaken by the hardcore criminals of Kabukicho. Frog hopes that Katagiri can extend this passion into the fight, and thus help him win it.

Katagiri has earned Frog’s trust. Out of the millions of people, Frog has identified him as the most trustworthy person[5] in Tokyo. His resolution is not made merely by guesswork but rather by thorough observation of Katagiri’s life through the years. To defeat Worm, Frog acknowledges that he does not only need a fighting partner, but also a person he can trust to have his back. He recognizes the importance of mutual trust as is shown by his actions. He does not merely convince Katagiri to join him in the fierce battle; rather Frog assists him in collecting a debt that has proven a headache for his new friend. This earns him Katagiri’s trust, which is essential for the fight.

Although Katagiri lacks physical strength, he possesses other qualities that lead Frog to choose him for the battle. These include Katagiri’s courage which has been proven through effective discharge of his duties despite the harsh working environment that exposes him to grave dangers. Also, Frog has a deep respect for the unappreciated debt collection officer who carries out difficult duties without thirsting for recognition. Katagiri’s kindness to his siblings further amazes Frog. Despite being strong, Frog needs encouragement in the battle. He believes Katagiri can provide this due to his passion for justice and all that is right. Finally, out of all the people in Tokyo, Frog trusts Katagiri the most as his fighting partner against Worm.

Bibliography

Murakami, Haruki. “Super-frog saves Tokyo.” In After the quake: Stories (2002): 111-140.

Welch, Patricia. “Haruki Murakami’s Storytelling World.” In World Literature Today, 79, no. 1 (2005): 55-59.

 

[1]. Murakami, Haruki. “Super-frog saves Tokyo.” (After the quake: Stories, 2002), 115.

[2]. Welch, Patricia. “Haruki Murakami’s Storytelling World.” (World Literature Today 79, no. 1, 2005), 59.

 

[3]. Haruki, “Super-frog saves Tokyo”, 117

[4]. Ibid., 118

[5]. Ibid.