Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Could Mexico City, Istanbul, Paris Or St. Petersburg Be Able To Achieve Their Current Status Without The Politics Of Authoritarianism?. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
8 pages in length. National identity of any given state or country is that which defines its existence throughout the global community; while some live by the tenets of democracy, others adopt a considerably harsher approach through authoritarianism. Does this separation make a difference when examining the extent to which, for example, Mexico City, Istanbul, Paris or St. Petersburg have been able to achieve current status? Indeed, one might readily surmise that had these four global communities assumed anything but their historically authoritarian stance in relation to politics, their respective modern-day standing would not have warranted such a tremendous endeavor. Bibliography lists 5 sources.
Page Count:
8 pages (~225 words per page)
File: LM1_TLCMexAuth.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
some live by the tenets of democracy, others adopt a considerably harsher approach through authoritarianism. Does this separation make a difference when examining the extent to which, for example,
Mexico City, Istanbul, Paris or St. Petersburg have been able to achieve current status? Indeed, one might readily surmise that had these four global communities assumed anything but their
historically authoritarian stance in relation to politics, their respective modern-day standing would not have warranted such a tremendous endeavor. According to Hobsbawm (1992), nationalism has played an integral role in
the progression of such global communities as Mexico City, Istanbul, Paris or St. Petersburg. Nationalism may have originally intended to draw people together, but many believe it has accomplished
just the opposite, proving to pull people apart who would otherwise have no reason to battle. Indeed, it serves to divide what should be united a society. People
are forced to observe beliefs they do not support, making it quite understandable why there are so many modern-day states opposed to the blanket concept of nationalism. Critics contend
it has not proven to embrace the people in the way it may have originally been conceived; rather, it has served to create intensified hostilities among those who were previously
amicable. Some contend that despite all its past and present global implications, nationalism has not been a significant source of strife to the world order or international system; instead,
where it poses the greatest threat is in its desire to dominate powerful states and people. To be sure, nationalism represents different things to different people but for the
most part, it has traditionally affected such authoritarian regimes as Mexico City, Istanbul, Paris or St. Petersburg on a state level as opposed to a much broader global scale.
...