Nigeria

Making a change in a country’s government can either break a country apart or make it stronger. Nigeria held its first free election after about twenty years of military dictatorship. Making the change into a representational democracy from a military dictatorship was needed in order for the country to become stable. Olusegun Obasanjo and Olu Falae were the two candidates running for presidency, and in May 1999 Olusegun Obasanjo became the new president of Nigeria. Obasanjo was voted to be Nigeria’s first President because he promised to protect the people, their country and their rights as citizens.

Although the elections, which brought Obasanjo to power in 1999, were not fair Nigeria had improved in attempts to tackle this new system of government. Obasanjo showed willingness and determination to fight corruption, and create a stable government. Olusegun Obasanjo had a lot of responsibilities and began making changes right away. Nigeria was dysfunctional even before Obasanjo came to power, so he started off with problems. Even though the country had problems of its own, the citizens of Nigeria now had an opportunity to join together and make mutual decisions. Most civil society leaders and a majority of the Nigerian citizens saw a marked improvement in human rights and democratic practice under Obasanjo’s power. The press enjoys greater freedom than under previous governments.

The decision to convert into a democratic government was a mutual decision made by the society towards the end of Shehu Shagari’s regime. The Shagari government was viewed as corrupt and incompetent by virtually all of the Nigerian society, so when the idea of a change in government came across it was generally viewed as a positive development by most of the population.

Nigeria becoming a representational democracy was one of the best and helpful decisions that they made that created a stronger bond between the

government and the people. Although at first, dealing with integrity and electoral system made the change in their system of government more difficult, these major issues were resolved and made it a point to get through it.

Nigeria becoming a democratic government made a huge impact on what the country has become in present day. In the 2003 the election to find a new president was successful. They had taken their problem from the election of 1999 and used that as a guideline and avoided similar issues. Becoming a democracy was a great decision that made both ruler and society satisfied and at peace.

The decision made to turn Nigeria’s military dictatorship into a representative democracy was in this case a major success.

Government have decisions which can drastically change a society in a positive or negative light. Nigeria’s choice to become a democratic government over a dictatorship led the country to higher points. They have achieved greatness from this decision as well as others that have followed.

Khmer Rouge

The Khmer Rouge was made up of rebelling communists in Cambodia that set out to turn Cambodia into a Communist society. This was done under the orders of Pol Pot, a cruel and brutal leader who killed nearly two million of his own people in hopes of turning Cambodia’s government into an ideal Communist government. Pol Pot ruled by intimidation, and threatened anything and anyone that would have jeopardized his goals. Populations of urban areas were evacuated, and sent to do slave work, this included all men, women, and children. Many of the victims were brutally killed, and tortured. However, a majority of the people died from starvation, devastating diseases, and exhaustion.

Pol Pot had only managed to take his own thoughts into consideration, and ruled without even the acknowledgment of his people. There is no reason for one man to make a simple decision that effects the entire country. In Pol Pot’s attempts to make Cambodia into a Communist Society he basically stripped down the citizens of all they had, and simply demanded all of his people to start living by the rules of this entirely new lifestyle. This led to numerous insolvable problems between the two. This miscommunication between a leader and his people is what is clearly unacceptable to have a functioning country.

The disagreement or inability to come to a compromise is what causes problems, and can lead to drastic events, including the Cambodian Genocide. Pol Pot was completely focused on his goals of communism he was willing to take the lives of two million people, which was about twenty-one percent of Cambodia’s population.

In order for Pol Pot to convert all of Cambodia into a comm

unist society he had to make very drastic changes, this included him taking away or destroying all private property, closing down necessary businesses including banks, hospitals, and schools. He also forced people out of their homes, and made them do slave labor for twelve to fourteen hours a day. He gave the citizens of Cambodia no say, and no chances to adjust; he immediately took action.

Pol Pot’s ideas to change the government was different from the motivation of other genocide's. Although it was a horrible event that ended the lives of two million people, it differs because unlike the Holocaust, the Cambodian Genocide, and the Khmer Rouge was done in order to change the government, instead of just killing out of hatred and the unbearable feelings towards people.

Pol Pot had no communication, and had no consideration towards his citizens, and no one would dare try and stop him, so his reign continued on. He didn’t posses of any of the characteristics of a leader, and therefore didn’t rule in the best interest of the country, but his own interests. This shows what a poor leader he was. There should always be a strong relationship between who is in power, and the citizens. Pol Pot was a horrible leader, and all of the citizens were forced to pay the price for his bad choices.

Pacts and Treaties Effect on The Invasion of Poland

In order for a world war to take place, you must first have an event that triggered it, and all the countries that are effected to take action. Before long, you have a ton of countries either coming together or fighting against each other even if that one little event didn’t concern them in the beginning. This comes as a result of treaties and pacts that are signed between countries. Pacts make it very hard for two countries to fight without involving many others. The invasion of Poland by the Germans is a perfect example how pacts can have a very negative effect on the world.

What started out to be a battle for territory among two countries soon turned into a war throughout Europe. Shortly after Germany invaded Poland, the Russians took the side of Germany and also invaded Poland on September 16, 1939, as a result of their non-aggression pact signed in August 23, 1939. This pact stated that they would work together, and they also planned to take over and divide the territory of Poland. Great Britain and France knew that Poland would never stand a chance against these two wartime allies. So, British P.M. chamberlain gave up on the appeasement, and Great Britain and France pledged their support to Poland if Germany were to attack. As time goes by more pacts are signed, binding countries together, and are now responsible for protecting not only their country and territory but the other country's who they made the pact with as well.

All of the other countries began getting deeply involved and before too long more and more countries would somehow get tied in. This is how World War II became triggered by a small battle over precious territory. And since Great Britain had signed a treaty to protect Poland, they declared war on Germany. So, basically Great Britain ended up fighting Poland’s battles. And if no treaties were signed, then no other countries other than Germany and Poland would have been involved in this battle and World War II would not have been brought on over this ridiculous obsession over territory. It used to be that every country fought for themselves, but now countries constantly find themselves fighting another country’s battles.

In the beginning of World War II pacts were not only being made but also being broken. If a country decides to break a pact due to a disagreement, that country has now made another enemy and it’s forces are weakened. When Hitler abolished the Polish- German Non-Aggression Pact not only did he betray Poland but he also created tension, and started the battle that soon lead to World War II. I feel that countries should be responsible for defending themselves, not only will this reduce the chances of world wars, but also keep peace, and not allow one country to suffer as a result of having to fight another country’s battles.

Another effect of pacts, are that if you are a stronger and more threatening to an enemy many times they will view you as the prime target. Therefor, since your country is stronger you will be looked upon as a major enemy, and then the country, the whole reason you started fighting, then fades into the background and becomes forgotten while you continue to fight. And since the other country is weaker, they will not be of much assistance in helping you fight off your new enemy.

Pacts and Treaties have many good and bad effects. However, if given the choice I don’t think that pacts should be made, it only involves more people and more territory, and can result in devastating situations.

Anti-Semitism

In Europe long before Adolf Hitler came to power, and even before the Nazis, Jews were viewed as an inferior group of people. Not only because they had separate religious beliefs, but they had a very specific and obvious difference in cultural practices as well. The intolerance of Jewish people was stretched across all of Europe, and existed among all of the people, and became known as anti-semitism. Jews first came to Europe in masses, and lived along side the Western people. The Jews intimidated these Western people with their superior knowledge, and cleverness. From this point on everyone not only viewed but also treated the Jewish population differently. The rest of Europe’s population then became aware of the Jews and prevented them from entering the rest of Europe by establishing laws and regulations. They did this in order to protect their own values and beliefs.

The severe disapproval towards the Jewish race because of ethnic background and different religious beliefs is in no way any excuse to be discriminative towards them. This feeling of hatred was dealt with in an extremely inappropriate way. Since when did it become okay for people to be viewed as unequal? Europe became brainwashed to believe that the Jews were the reasons behind their failures and mistakes. I don’t believe that it is acceptable for Jews to be punished because they are viewed as a threat. Their is also a difference between being anti-Jewish and trying to exterminate the entire Jewish population. Anti-semitism was still an issue even before Hitler, so this hatred was not only the ideas of one man, but the beliefs and ideas of an entire country. Just because Jews were different and viewed life differently than most of the other populations doesn’t make it okay for them to be physically and mentally damaged. Anti-semitism made the rest of Europe feel like they had power, which made them feel like they could do what ever they choose to this group because they didn’t belong. There is no reason for people to be considered less. After all, the entire reason behind them being discriminated against was because of their advanced knowledge, so it makes absolutely no sense for them to be talked down to. Europe’s hatred was so incredibly strong, Nazis, the specific group dedicated to eliminating the entire race of Jews, became overly popular. This just shows how isolated Europe truly was, and showed how incapable they were of change. They were also obsessed with power, and since Jews were socially brilliant, they were a threat and acted on impulse by trying to immediately some how get rid of the entire Jewish race. This hatred however, gradually got worse. When Hitler came to power in 1937 he strongly believed in the idea of anti-semitism, and began to turn the entire country against the Jews. I do not think this is fair at all, because, although there was a disapproval of Jews before Hitler, he was still a major part in blowing it out of proportion. One man should not be able to change the minds of people in order to destroy an entire population of Jews. The whole idea of anti-semitism is disgusting and truly upsets me. After all, if society was like this today, it would be truly impossible for any distinctive race to survive.