Therefore, it is not about the nature of liberal democratic character, but the nature of norms itself, which evolve in time between states. Norms are essential to International Relations as they define what actors should do, accounting for a basis so that all states follow such norms. Democratic political culture has shown over time that it encourages peaceful means of resolution. Thus, this perception of critical-solving through peace has become a shared norm between states since leaders in one democratic state will suppose and expect the other democratic state will act in the same manner, smoothing the conflicts and differences between them in a peaceful way. Political ideology consequently begins to have a degree of similarity between these states. As mentioned before hand, these norms are not fixed and can adjust within time, “cultural norms influences the creation and evolution of political institutions, and institutions help generate a more peaceful moral culture over time” (Placek, 2012). This creates a general aspect of what behavior ought to be between these democratic states, more than the nature of them being
3. The democratic peace theory indicates that a war will never happen between two democracies. There is some few strength in this theory. Firstly, the democratic is obligated to the people from that country, which means that the ruler needs to get permission from the citizens on a decision about war, they cannot act on their own. Of course, people don’t like to go war. Further, there is a shared value among democratic countries. For instance, the U.S and the United Kingdom don’t compete against the other, while the U.S and North Korean are in the different story. A country without democracy based shares a little common background with the other. Finally, democracy countries are wealthier than those who are not. The evidence shows that countries
With the development of human society, civilization is incessantly progressive. One aspect of human civilization’s progress is political civilization. Democratic politics can be considered to be the representatives of political civilization. When people refer to the history of human progress, they find that human beings struggle to achieve this great goal and no one can stop the human desire for political freedom. In 2011, one more country took a step towards democracy. Egypt is in the ancient, sacred and conservative Middle East. Egyptians are cheering for their own political aspirations as they overthrew Mubarak’s dictatorship, and are gradually making efforts to establish a democratic and peaceful country.
Since the dawn of mankind, there has always been a struggle for power, from our primitive ancestors to our present day, supposed, enlightened times. There have been a variety of systems that spawned and died in the political world. It can be assumed that the fruition of democracy emerged after the desire to create a system in which it was equal, sustainable, and transparent and where human rights was recognized. Robert Dahl, a prominent political scientist, had believed creating a democratic society in which he considered was perfect had to have (Dahl, 2000): effective participation, equal voting, enlightened understanding, an open agenda setting and inclusion (p.37-38) . In the present day, there are many countries that consider themselves
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. (Ray, 1998, pp. 27) Over the years having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that
The Democratic peace thesis, whose basic concepts were studied by Kant in the 1700s, is the theory that suggests that democracies have been pacific in their relations with one other and are unlikely to go to war with another democracy. “Democracies rarely fight each other (an empirical statement) because (b) they have other means of resolving conflicts between them and therefore do not need to fight each other (a prudential statement),and (c) they perceive that democracies should not fight each other (a normative statement about principles of right behavior), which reinforces the empirical state¬ment. By this reasoning the more democracies there are in the world, the fewer potential adversaries we and other democracies will have and the wider the zone of peace.” russet
Since the initiation of the Third Wave of Democracy, several countries have attempted to form a democratic system of governs. We take note that not all have succeeded. At the dawn of this era, democracy was being applied to countries with no prior history of a governing body that was place by the people for the people hence success of such a system could not be guaranteed because of the innumerous variables that existed in each country. People being the highlighted factor of variance, it may become easier to understand how countries such as Pakistan and Nigeria, both countries prior to the Wave had no local governing machinery. Pakistan further endured a partition from India which resulted in not only an instant religious and
Current Issues, 35th edition, examines both the pros and cons of spreading democracy. This text explains that promoting democracy is in the U.S. national interest because democracy creates a safer, more stable world. Democratic nations cooperate with other nations and the U.S. better because they are more answerable to their citizens. The text also claims that such nations will deny terrorists from a base from which to plan and carry out attacks.
Aside from stability and loyalty which democracy brought into our society, we have seen inequality that generates conflicts. These conflicts can be seen in class, race and gender.
Every since the turn of the 19th century, democracy, the core value and principle of the United Nations, has grown strong in many parts of Europe, North America, Latin America, and East Asia. However, many parts of the world still lay under authoritarian rule, and the change to democracy involves violent demonstrations and protests, riots and even civil wars. These violent transitions towards democracy result in an unstable foundation for the emerging democracies, especially when the country not only has to face the challenge of keeping their new government in check, but also enforce safety measures with subsequent planning to prevent a relapse into chaos and violence. The best option seems to be achieving independence by all means possible.
Political reform is often resulting in increased demands of oppressed and weaken state. New democracies tend to have security problems and questions of the democratic governance. The state must instill stability and social control; thus a weak state will fail. Democracy, however, can achieve peace by allocating power through elections, manage diversity without violence, and create political positions. State and nation-building, integration, and a development of a unified ideology can be a strategy to promote democratic consolidation.
Democracy is almost everywhere in the world. Europe has used its form of government for almost half a century. North and South America are now virtually a hemisphere of democracy; Africa is experiencing democratic reform; and new, democracies have taken root in Asia. Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused. Freedom and democracy are often used to mean the same thing, but they are not the same. People in democracy have many rights. This form of government isn’t just for the government, it helps the people. Also how democratic leaders are elected.
Primarily, if one looks at the variants of the democratic peace theory that argues democracies are not likely to pursue one another in a violent manner resulting in conflict or war, they can clearly see that democracies are generally peaceful in relations with one another. The rational public thesis states that democracies show the peaceful tendencies of people who are aware of the destruction that war will bring upon them. Also, the culture thesis makes evident the fact that democracy
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.
Over the last century, the Middle East has been the location of ethnic rivalry, political and economic instability, religious conflict, territorial dispute and war. Much of this tension in the Middle East comes from the various interpretations of Islam and how the religion should be applied to politics and society. Over the last ten years, the United States and their allies have pushed to promote democracy in the Middle East. However, they too have many obstacles they must overcome. They face problems such as the compatibility of Islamic law and democracy, the issue of women’s rights, and there is always the problem of how to go about implementing a democratic reform in these countries. Many initially would assume that it is only the