Английский язык для специальных и академических целей: Международные отношения и зарубежное регионоведение. Часть 1 - [7]

In short, what the British Empire proved is that empire is a form of international government that can work — and not just for the benefit of the ruling power. It sought to globalise not just an economic but a legal and ultimately a political system too.

Speak Up

Look more closely at the countries/regions you may be studying and say whether the author's claims are, in fact, true. Supply facts to support your view.

LISTENING 1

Richard Gott on the legacy of the British Empire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KvR0pTZvGQ&index=4&list=PL6D312E28AF131F80

VOCABULARY

Slaughter — to kill (people or animals) in a cruel or violent way, typically in large numbers Indigenous — native

Conscript (army) (adj) — enrolled compulsorily, drafted

To put down — to use force to stop a protest or an attempt by people to take power away from a government or leader

Subject (peoples) (adj) — being under the power or sovereignty of a ruler, government Proselytize — to induce someone to convert to one's faith

Straitjacket — something that limits someone's freedom to do something

PRE-VIEWING

Before watching the video suggest the Russian equivalents for the words above. What do you expect the speaker's position on the legacy of the British Empire to be?

VIEWING

While watching the video put down the names of the former British colonies the speaker mentions. In what context does he mention them?

Unit I. UK: from Empire to Democracy

POST VIEWING QUESTIONS

1. What, in Richard Gott's opinion, should the British Empire be blamed for?

Unit I. UK: from Empire to Democracy

2. In what ways was the British Empire violent?

3. What facts and statistics does Richard Gott support his arguments with?

Speak Up

DISCUSSION

Compare Richard Gott's and Niall Ferguson's (the Lead-in texts) views on the legacy of the British Empire. Is either of them unbiased? Which of them, in your opinion, makes a more compelling case?

READING 1

PRE-READING QUESTIONS

1. How would you define a democracy?

2. What are the types of democratic government in the modern world?

3. What are the main features of Britain's democracy?

4. Based on the title, do you expect the article to focus on the strengths or deficiencies of Britain's democracy?

Skim the text to decide whether you guessed correctly.

HOW GOOD A DEMOCRACY IS BRITAIN?

Professor Stein Ringen University of Oxford February 2007

The answer to this question is: not very good! Of course Britain is a democracy and a solid one, but there are many solid democracies and in this family British democracy is of only mediocre quality.

In my book What Democracy Is For I rank twenty-five of the most respected democracies in the world according to their quality on a scale from 8 (high quality) to 0 (low quality). In that ranking, Britain is on level 3. The best quality of democracy is found in some of the smaller countries with political cultures of egalitarianism, such as in Scandinavia (Norway and Sweden are on level 8 and Iceland on level 7). In Europe, Italy ranks the lowest, on level 0, and France and Germany are on level 3 and 4 respectively. The two great model democracies, those of the British Westminster model and of the United States with its pioneering democratic constitution are both in the bottom range of the ranking.

This is not where British democracy should stand or be expected to stand. The Westminster Model has very much going for it. It is embedded in an ancient and firm culture of liberty. It has evolved organically out of British history and experience and was never invented or imposed. Parliament is a model of careful and pragmatic deliberation. The press is robustly free and radio and television of the best anywhere, including in political scrutiny. Governance is stable, effective and by and large honest.

We should therefore expect British democracy to compare favourably with democracy anywhere else. In fact, however, it does not. Among the world's solid democracies, Britain compares unfavourably. In spite of all it has going for it, it turns out to compare badly in democratic quality.

Democratic deficit in Britain

My concern here is neither with non-democracy nor with weak and second-rate democracies. I am interested in the solidly established democracies and with differences in quality within this exclusive family. I can therefore take some things for granted that I do not have to bring into my comparisons, principally that civil and political rights are established. Even in this the solid democracies are not fully equal but the differences are marginal. In Britain these rights are certainly enshrined in the political and social order and there is no need to question the system on this account. That is very much part of what British democracy has going for it.

However, freedom depends on more than civil and politic rights. It is now widely recognised in political philosophy that values such as freedom and justice rest not exclusively on rights but also on the means to make effective use of rights. For freedom, rights are basic but in addition the individual needs to be in command of a modicum of physical and human capital to be able to live as the master of his or her life. The protection of freedom, then, is a complicated matter of good government. Citizens depend on governance for the effective protection of liberty and rights, for the regulation of economic and social life for equality of opportunity, and for protection against at least extreme deprivations in the resources of freedom. While in all solid democracies citizens enjoy basic civil and political rights, there is a great deal of difference between them in the effectiveness of governance measured against the modern understanding of freedom.