Canada today is a wealthy, stable, pluralist and democratic country, but things were not always so. A century or two ago, Canadians were a lot poorer and lived much shorter lives than they do today; our government was a lot less democratic, and the threat of political violence was common. Our social and political values were very different back then, and governments often imposed the religious beliefs and practices of the dominant groups on other members of society. Yet Canada evolved, some would say developed, into the country we know today. That process of social, economic and political change was not smooth or linear. It was highly disruptive, often contested and sometimes violent. Along the way, there were winners and losers. If Canada can rise from being a marginal collection of colonies on the fringes of two empires, a place torn by social, religious, political and ethnic tensions, a country whose relations with its neighbour were for decades tense and even violent, to being a stable, prosperous and democratic country living in peace with its neighbour, can other countries not do the same? You are expected to answer theoretically whether other countries are able to do the same, applying the problems of a theory, different perspectives, and main assumptions. You may combine more than one theory together if you feel this will best help you answer the question. You can pick a case study to focus on to assist you in answering the question. Question two: (Canada’s position towards fragile states) By 2010, the lackluster results of interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq were leading the U.S. and other Western governments to rethink their approach, particularly given the fiscal constraints generated by the global economic recession. FCAS governments were also questioning prevailing priorities and calling for new approaches. Their calls were informed by surveys, coordinated by the OECD Development Assistance Committee, on the implementation of the Paris Declaration and the Principles for International Engagement in the Fragile States. Those surveys showed that Western donors were not meeting their commitments on issues like donor alignment on national priorities, or on linking rapid action with long-term engagement, despite significant advances in some FCAS (OECD 2010). Using democratization, good governance, or human security, or any combination of the three, what are Canada`s approaches to dealing with fragile states? To what degree do you think that they are effective? Question three: (On the conception and meaning of development) The 1970s literature on ethics and development shows an interest in reflecting on the question of development in a way that was fundamentally different from the mainstream. This position was particularly expressed by a group of scholars that in spite of being surprisingly liberal in their theoretical tenets, viewed development from an ethical perspective. Although development ethicists essentially do not represent a unified perspective, they shared a unified question that is directly related to the conception of good development. What is a good theory of development? How is good development related to ethics? Provide a good description of the conception from one theoretical perspective of your choice.