Advantages And Disadvantages Of Informal Integration In The Central Asian Empires

Throughout its long history, Russia has been trapped in a continuous cycle of authoritarian regimes; only interrupted briefly with periods of tumultuous democratic transitions that were plagued by poor bureaucracy and weak institutions. Therefore, time and time again, Russia has turned towards authoritarianism. In the late 1900’s to early 2000’s, Russia again saw the fall of democracy coincide with the rise of a competitive authoritarian regime. This rise of competitive authoritarianism in Russia in the late 1900’s to early 2000’s was largely the result of the resource curse which granted Putin’s Administration false economic performance legitimacy. This in turn reinvigorated past strongman ideals, while at the same time solidified negative

For example, Iran has a strong political and military influence on other governments in states such as Iraq and Lebanon, which they are able to make use of in their desire to spread authoritarianism. Additionally, Russia is capable of invoking fear and violence to support separatist movements in Georgia and Ukraine, demonstrating similar methods of spreading their governmental form. Furthermore, China has globally supplied other dictatorships, such as Iran and Uzbekistan, with surveillance technology to increase repression on their citizens. All of these actions together are creating a difficult environment for democracy to prosper. The decline of democracy is causing a shift in the mindset of citizens in both authoritarian and democratic states as people begin to realize that their form of government may not truly be the best form of

Democracy and the challenges it is facing has been the main topic in the field of international politics since some Authoritarian regimes have raised again as a great power after a long time of absence. In this essay, we will look at some of the challenges facing the international democracy based on the work of Azar Gat “ The Return Of Authoritarian Great Powers”. The article is presenting the author view on the rise of authoritarian regimes as the main challenge of liberal democracy. The main part of my essay will be an illustration and reflection on a number of arguments that have been brought by the author. Additionally and before concluding my piece I will establish my own argument as a critical response to the article or more specifically to the Economic efficiency argument brought by Azar Gat.

Owing its name to this famous quote, the spoils system has been widely discussed throughout the past centuries. The spoils system, also known as patronage system, generally refers to the process by which campaign workers, political party members and allies are appointed to the executive and top civil jobs by an elected candidate or a political party (Klingler & Nalbandian, 1998). It is a well-known practice in the United States (Bearfield, 2014), Nordic countries (Allern, 2011), Russia and many others. While many criticize this system (Golden, 2014) or even associate it with political corruption (Szeftel, 1982), others argue that it is the only way to ensure bureaucratic responsiveness in the multifaceted government structure (Bearfield,

Those who are in power are not accountable to constituencies and public policy does not derive from social consent. Within sociology and political science, particularly within comparative politics, authoritarianism has been understood as a modern type of political regime. Therefore, the concept focuses on the way of accessing, exercising, and organizing power, on the nature of the belief system, and the role of citizens in the political

Politics will try and dominate some places where there is a vast majority of supporters both to the government and to the opposition. Spade has highlighted the need to avoid these resistances that is likely to create hatred among different communities thereby resulting into exploitations of different communities. It is, therefore, important to analyze the norms so as to help eliminate the resist against some individual who may be proposing or opposing the developments. The book has generated individualistic rights that can be achieved as a result of the norms. “dispersion of power among people will help realize the generation of a mutual relationship between different people from different communities.” Spade has used the description given by Mitchell Dean to show different kinds of analysis that are experienced through the use of bureaucracy. The identification of different regimes within the government set up will, therefore, create a platform for generating multiplicity through heterogeneous and unlimited

Ideally, the national power structure in the U.S. would be of the pluralist model, in which “power is dispersed rather than concentrated,” under a democratic government, a government “by the people and for the people” (Eitzen, 318). Unfortunately, this is not the case. The national power structure in the U.S. is one of the elitist model of power in which “there is a pyramid of power. The people at the apex control the rest of the pyramid” (Eitzen, 318). According to Eitzen there are three Power Elite models, the model I wish to focus on, as it best represents the national power structure in the U.S., is the Power Elite II model, G. William “Domhoffs “Governing Class” Theory.”

Both the Russian and the Chinese empires pushed from facing directions across Eurasia beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. On the Eurasian frontiers, Chinese and Russians also viewed their arrangement programs as the sagacity of reclamation into wilderness, ignoring or stop the unconstrained histories of other inhabitants. The common histories of both countries are intimately bound up with their expansion into the Eurasian interior. Although they have maintained public states, different the native Americans, Mongols and other Central Eurasian followers also still find much of their history literal in terms of penetration of their region expanding empires. Here, however I debate

To routinize charisma and solidify mass support, a populist leader attempts to establish low-institutionalized party in order for him to still maintain control over the party and engage in authoritarian rule

Jackson and Rosberg state that “the image of the ‘big man’ (a powerful leader) is deeply embedded in the political culture and politics is often a vertical network of personal, patron-client relations (422).” This is quite different in comparison to our political network. In most Western societies, the government is made up of a horizontal network wherein branches of government have some type of check and balance system to keep the other branches from growing too powerful. In the vertical network, the ‘big man’ can gain the loyalty of lower officials – whether in the military or local rulers – and they can, in turn, gain the loyalty of people below them. The ‘big man’ can do this until over and over until he has enough power to maintain

Although the aspirations and goals of states are often motivated by external political pressures, analysis of recent foreign policy decisions demonstrates how internal political forces can play equally crucial roles in the pursuit and execution of these objectives. Thus, it would be invalid to claim that domestic politics and the nature of regimes play minor roles in either the goals a state pursues or the means it employs to reach them. By understanding how the diffusion of power in governments affect policy decisions, one can develop increased awareness of the linkages that exist between the internal pressures of domestic politics and the external forces of foreign politics.

The U.S. has experienced almost a century and a half of political stability and this was largely owed to the system of checks and balances in the national government. The masses are generally focused on supporting a regime that is politically stable, as they know that this is likely to improve conditions in their community and prevent immoral individuals from taking power in the state. One of the principal purposes of the American system of government is to ensure that the country's leadership is unable to create a dictatorship (York 175). However, the system is

In these systems, the regimes possess some of these characteristics but have found ways to manipulate the system to consolidate their power. “Rather than openly violating democratic rules (for example, by banning or repressing the opposition and the media), incumbents are more likely to use bribery, co-optation, and more subtle forms of persecution, such as the use of tax authorities, compliant judiciaries, and other state agencies to ‘legally’ harass, persecute, or extort cooperative behavior from critics” . While it is apparent that these regimes are not fully democratic, it would be unfair to label them as fully authoritarian either. Unlike traditional totalitarian governments, the persistence of true democratic institutions in competitive authoritarian regimes allows the opposition to contest, weaken and occasionally even defeat autocratic incumbents. While these situations are generally uncommon, these situations are possible in competitive authoritarianism due to four independent means, the electoral arena, the legislature, the judiciary and the media. These four branches are virtually independent of the executive control however, unlike in democracies, the competitive authoritarian regimes use its power to undermine their independence. “In regards to the electoral arena, large-scale abuses of state power, biased media coverage, harassment of opposition candidates and activists are widespread, legislatures tend to be relatively weak, the

In recent times, no one can take total power by force alone; you must offer something favorable to the people in order to obtain support. Unfortunately, there are some countries that follow a dictatorship system, which is a form of government that includes social and political power to ensure that the individual’s capability remains strong. Vladimir Putin is a contemporary dictator of Russia. His rebelliousness as a child has led him to his leadership. His cold-heartedness to his rivals and invasion towards countries has led to an opposition towards him. Vladimir Putin’s experience as a street thug led him to his leadership, which easily rose him to power: Not only has he committed crimes against humanity, but he has made groups of people and countries oppose him.

In these, the acquisition of political power is legitimated