Are Free Elections Necessary to Have a Democracy?

In the article “Democracy in Decline: How Washington Can Reverse the Tide,” the author, Larry Diamond, details the declination of democracy across the world as a global issue. Diamond explains that, following the Cold War, democracy became vibrant across the world. However, it slowly began to decline, which was seen in Kenya, Russia, Thailand, and Turkey. Additionally, other non-democratic states, particularly authoritarian regimes, are drifting further away from democracy, becoming less responsive to their people. Diamond explains that these authoritarian states are becoming less open because they are increasing their censorships and are arresting those who resist. Furthermore, these governments are also restricting organizations from outside communications and operations. Nearly a hundred laws have been enacted in the past four years restricting freedom of assembly in governments across the world.

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.

When identifying the presence of a democratic deficit in the European Union, it is important to consider a range of factors, including international treaties and the effect they had on its structured governmental framework. One of the first official agreements established by the European Union (formerly

In the contemporary world, democracy is one of the most progressive system of government that states freedom as a core value. Democracy is based on the free expression of people’s opinions, points of view as well as their opposition to the government actions. Citizens have a great control over the political events taking place in their country because through the elections they can select the right candidate who will be able to represent their interests. Core values of the democracy such as freedom, equality, pursuit of happiness are similar in different countries. However, the implementation of democracies may vary. USA and Canada are two big and prosperous countries that can be a prime example of how democracies may vary despite all the similarities. There are three major differences between US democracy and Canadian democracy such as consensus or in other words substantive goals of political actions, checks and balances or how do different branches of government work, and the last but not least federalism in regards to the division of power between federal government and territorial entities.

Does democracy ensure freedom? I believe democracy can ensure freedom, but not always, thus my answer is maybe. For democracy is a form of government that rely on a system of law in which individuals are treated equally while having fair access to the legislative process through electing official who will act in their constituent’s interest and voice their concern. Through proper protection with legislation, individual's freedom can be ensured. Yet the nature of democracy favour majority thus it is possible for politician to cater to the mass to secure vote and have access to the seats of power. Democracy is unable to act if the votes are tied, such flaw can leads to politician abuse their power tilting the result either way to further his

They both gained independence from Yugoslavia, following ethnicity disputes. They neighbor one another with roughly the same population. Both states have similar climates and terrains, with the same geographical location. However, they have a stark contrast in the way their political systems function. In relation to freedom in the country Croatia is considered free and scored 87*. While Bosnia and Herzegovina is only partly-free and received a score of 57*. Croatia scored a 1** for political rights, a 2** in civil liberties, and a freedom rating of 1.5**. Bosnia and Herzegovina received a 4** for political rights, a 3** for civil liberties, and a freedom rating of 3.5**. Croatia was ranked 50/168*** and received a score of 51/100*** for corruption perception. Bosnia and Herzegovina ranked 76//168*** and received a score of 38/100*** also for corruption perception. Croatia’s GDP per capita is about $21,635.10 USD, while Bosnia and Herzegovina’s GDP is roughly $10,426.90 USD. These differences illustrate the effects of an effective political system, while comparing two similar

The collapse of Communism, and the resulting attempts to institute Western-style democracy and markets, brought immense uncertainty to the former Soviet bloc (and non-aligned Yugoslavia). Though the end of communism was welcomed by the vast majority of people, the question of what comes next, and how what has come next is any better, has vexed the former communist countries of Eastern Europe. Each country has adapted to the transition with varying degrees of success. Slavenka Drakulic explores this transition, and the difficulties that have come with it, in A Guided Tour Through the Museum of Communism.

In the 7th century, a central Asian Turkish tribe joined with the local Slavic community to create the first Bulgarian State. This state quickly fell to the Ottoman Empire, struggling to fight for independence for centuries until 1908 when autonomy was finally achieved. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) took over Bulgaria in 1949, and it wasn’t until 1990 that the country was an independent nation again. Since the fall of communism Bulgaria has been working towards democracy and a free market economy, though they are often hindered by object poverty and corruption, as this essay will further discuss later. Despite these negative aspects the country managed to join the North American Trade Association (NATO) in 2004 and the

Democracy has become the most widespread political form of government during the past decade, after the fall of all its alternatives. During the second part of the 20th century, the 3 main enemies of democracy, namely communism, fascism and Nazism, lost most of their power and influence. However, democracy is still only to be found in less than half of this world's countries. China with a fifth of the total population "had never experienced a democratic government" and Russia still doesn't have a well established democracy. By adopting a democratic perspective, 3 types of governments emerge, non-democratic, new democracies, and old democracies, and all have a different challenge to overcome: either to become democratic, to "consolidate"

The European Union (EU) is fundamentally democratic and is evident through its institutions, however, the current democratic electoral structure is of great concern. The EU is a new type of political system, often referred to as a sui generis, implying its uniqueness as there exists and a non comparable political body. The EU can neither regarded as a ‘state’ nor as an ‘international institution’ as it combines supranational as well as intergovernmental characteristics (Hix, 1999, p7). In this regard it has developed its own understandings of what democracy is. It is evident that the development of and spread of democracy is a central concept and foundation to all politics within the EU, and remains focuses on makings its governing

A legitimate state can be defined as “A state in which its citizens have little or no significant resistance to the public policy and leadership of the state in question due to the rightful/legitimate exercise of power.” This Legitimacy of state is often a hard term to apply to any form of government in the modern political world due to the very differing cultures between the western and eastern world. However the general consensus of many political leaders is democracy is the only truly legitimate way of ruling any state. Democracy in the words of Abraham Lincoln is a government formed “of the people, by the people, for the people” where the power of

When discussing the twentieth century in Europe everyone can agree that this period was a brutal one for the continent. A common opinion, many have is that despite all of the turmoil experienced throughout this period, including two world wars, the success of democracy as a style of government was never truly in doubt. This paper will go against this widely held belief, and argue that democracy’s success in this period was not written in stone.

How can states in different regions of the world be similar? Russia and Iran are an example of this because they are both similar in the type of regime they have but yet are completely different. The way a regime rules a state makes vastly different people fit in the same category. Each state, Russia and Iran, have institutions in regards to where they fall in the model of how they rule. Iran and Russia have different methods of co-optation for their regimes. Russia and Iran fit in the models of nondemocratic rule, the state institutions of nondemocratic rule, and the methods of co-optation in the regimes will be explored.

Mandatory voting has been a topic of debate in democratic countries since the creation of democratic republics themselves. Voting is a crucial part of democracy because it determines who will be the leaders of both the voters and nonvoters. It is the right of a citizen to vote, but whether or not it is the responsibility remains disputed. However, voting must be performed with a basic understanding of policy and what it takes for someone to fit the role which they are running for. Voting should not be compulsory because it results in more uneducated voting that counteracts the educated voting.

Michel Crozier argues that despite the many issues surrounding the governability of European democracies (Crozier, 1973, 39), the crisis of democracy in Europe arises on a more basic level from our understanding of “the relationship of institutional values to behavior”- a relationship that has defined European government and societies for centuries (Crozier, 1973, 40). Devoid of rapid economic and technological change, people were able to define goals according to their preferences. Generally, this meant that the “technical knowledge of societies” could provide them with the means to create certain political goals. (Crozier, 1973, 40) Despite this fact, Crozier emphasizes that a since the