The Nemesis of Individualistic Ontology in Globalization and the Practice of Liberal Democracy in Post-Colonial Africa
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Liberalism, one of the exports of Western globalization to the rest of the world including Africa, can be defined as set of ideas in social and political thought which emphasizes the value of individuals' rights, and individual freedom of choice and freedom from (1). J. N. Agbo has conceptualized globalization in itself as a product exported to Africa with sinister motives (2). An extreme liberal view of individuals' rights especially in the area of morality is usually expressed as libertarianism. central theme of libertarianism is the claim that individuals should be free from the interference of others. Personal liberty is the supreme moral good. Hence, one's liberty can justifiably be restricted only if he consents to the restriction. Any other restriction is unjust (3). We notice, therefore, the place of the individual in liberalism but of the place of the state? talk concerning the extent of a state's influence on the individuals, one way or another, interferes with the so-called individuals' liberties. Sometimes, it is the extent of interference and the extent of limitation of a state's influence that dominate such arguments. One thing is certain though, and it is the fact that the individuals' liberties harped by liberalism is in itself not a liberty of the individual to assert. individual in a state may desire and even demand certain liberties, but it is the state that would assert them. Corroborating this Mautner writes, The role of the state is primarily to protect these rights. This presupposes the rule of law and legal provisions for freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to travel, freedom to choose a gainful occupation, etc. (4) Thus in the event of ensuring these individual liberties, governmental restrictions and certain interferences are inevitable. And the rate of such varies from state to state or more ontologically, from culture to culture. This stimulated campaigners like Charles Taylor and Amy Gutmann (5) to write about different culture based liberalisms. Notably, they talk about models of liberalism that allow the goals of a particular cultural group, such as the French Canadians in Quebec, to be actively supported by government in the name of cultural survival. Similar advocacy can and are being made for the Stone Age people in New Guinea as well as the Chinese Tibets (6). Issues like the one above create the debate whether liberalism is a universal neutral culture or not. Steven Rockefeller states that many promoters of multicultural theory challenge the idea that liberalism can be neutral with regard to the conceptions of the good life, arguing that it reflects a regional Anglo-American culture and has a homogenizing effect (7). Generally, multiculturalists reject the view that liberalism is or can be a universal culture (8). This is the bedrock of our argument in this paper that liberal democracy, for example, is not truly a viable universal political option as the Western intellectual elements have presented it. crust of our conviction lies in the fact that in Africa, it has been a remarkable failure, to say the least. Our position does not, of course, preclude the fact that there might be other of democracy that would work in Africa. This is because the democratic instinct is generally shared by men although in different forms. A better expression of this view is that what is universally shared in human nature expresses itself in a great diversity of cultural forms (9). On this score, we wish to draw a line that from the liberal democratic point of view individuals have rights to certain liberties on the basis of their universal human identity and potential, not primarily on the basis of ethnic or culture identity (10). But the multiculturalists are against this yardstick on the ground that the liberal democratic principles are not truly extracted from a universal culture but from the dominant Anglo-American world-view. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it