Democracies And Their Tendency to be More Peaceful Than Authoritarian States

Many countries in the world have democracies, but there are still some where there is a dictatorship. In a dictatorship, nobody is free or safe and nobody will

Government is an essential part of civilization in modern and historic times. This crucial element of society has been observed in different forms. There are three main systems of governments: autocracy, oligarchy, and democracy. Which system a government belongs to is determined by who hold the sovereignty, meaning who has the supreme power and authority (“Sovereignty”). This leads to there being major differences between autocracies, oligarchies, and democracies.

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.

Exploring the Differences Between Liberal Democratic, Authoritarian and Totalitarian Political Systems Defining political systems is a difficult thing to do as no single system is completely static, they often change dependant on things like war and trends in regimes, such as the recent insurgence in ‘liberal democracies’ means that the classifications of systems changes over time. The British Westminster system is considered to be a ‘liberal democracy’ however in the Second World War there were several powers exercised by the government which do not fit with this type of system for example control was exercised over the media and labour and elections were put off. These powers were only used as a

The U.S is a representative democracy. We have the right to vote, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. In authoritarian the people do not have the right to actually vote. Power is taken by force or it is inherited. Even if the people thought they had the right to vote the election

Elections are an important part of creating a legitimate state. They allow us to have a say in how decisions are made in a government. However, the voter turnout for an election does not have an effect on the type of regime that will develop in a state. It does not matter if the election is in an authoritarian government or a democratic one, the regime does not have a large impact on the turnout of voters. What matters in voter turnout is whether the citizens believe in the regime. If they feel that the state is legitimate then they are more likely to vote. Also, if the voters believe that their vote counts and is not a ‘wasted vote’ then you are more likely to have a larger voter turnout. For example, the International Institute for Democracy

In the most basic sense, democracy can be defined as a system dominated by elections. Handelman states that democracy can be defined as, “... a political system that holds fair, contested elections on a regular basis, with universal adult suffrage.” (Handelman, p. 30). Additionally, Handleman offers up another, more thorough, definition of democracy that fully explains the intricacies of the ideology. Handelman expresses,

To determine whether or not authoritarian rule can be legitimate, we must first start at the very beginning. By this I mean we have to be specific about what we are asking. Let us first define legitimacy. When attempting to define legitimacy, we already run into problems. Is legitimacy the control and use of force over a given territory? Or is it international recognition by the governments and diplomats of the international community? What about the people over which the authoritarians rule? Do they determine the degree of legitimacy? For the purposes of this paper, I will discuss the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes in terms of its acceptance by the international community, as well as the role of the ruled people in determining legitimacy.

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

The two most common types of government is Authoritarian and Democracy. A democracy is a government where the people have a say in what happens. In an authoritarian government the people have no say in what happens. The two main differences is who holds the power in their government. The second difference is how it is ruled.

Just as important as it is to define what democracy is, it is equally important to define what it is not.2 Democracy does not always include protections for civil liberties. Take for example the execution of Socrates for his teachings.3 The vote was a majority vote, so it was democratic, but the reason behind it was far from liberal. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were aware of this problem, and sought to control "excessive democracy" and an oppressive rule of the majority. Unlike the ancient Athenians, the American Framers sought to have majority rule with minority rights. In the new democracies of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, many of these new governments ran into the problem of the potential negative consequences of having free elections. What happens if the people choose to be authoritarian? What happens when the majority chooses to exclude a certain minority? While a regime can fall within the spectrum of democracy, it does not guarantee that the regime can protect individuals' civil freedoms without some undemocratic

Democratic states nearly always have freer people than autocratic states. They obviously have the right to vote for their government so by extension deciding the policy of their nation and what their nation should be like. They have more freedom of speech and expression than in autocracies. In particular they are free to criticise their own government.

Democracy varies in every country depending on the type of government or regime they have. There is the liberal democracy, which is all about giving people their rights and liberties; everything is done through fair voting and electing. The people are aware of everything that happens in their government. Illiberal democracies are basically the same as liberal, but the people in power are more secretive of their activities, and there is less civil liberty. It is essentially a partial democracy. Now Authoritarian regimes designate any political system that concentrates power in the hands of one leader or a small elite. There are no free elections and very little regard for the law. Political institutions, social structures, and the democratic rule of law all affect liberal, illiberal, and authoritarian regimes democratic quality differently.

Singapore 's former Prime Minster, Lee Kuan Yew once said: "Human beings, regrettable though it may be, are inherently vicious and have to be restrained" (Kwang, Fernandez, & Tan 1). One can infer from Kuan Yew’s statement that he 's subtly saying that individuals shouldn 't be in control of their choices, yet there ought to be somebody to settle on choices for them. An ideology such as this can stem from an authoritarian government. In this day and age, most nations have a tendency to have a democracy. However, it wasn 't generally that way. Throughout history, there were nations under authoritarian rule. In order to fully understand what an authoritarian regime is, one must know the meaning of it. An authoritarian government is "an oppressive regime that rules through strict, intrusive, and violent enforcement of laws. It can “take the form of a dictatorship, but may also manifest itself in totalitarian bureaucracies or oligarchies" (Ritter 576). An authoritarian regime exists when a leader or a small group of leaders owns all property and are the sole decision makers for the entire population. There are only two questions left to be asked. How are authoritarian regimes created and how do they even stay in power? Authoritarian governments ascend to power due to a postwar upheaval and the leader in the charge; they stay in power by employing a resource trap and having a one party system.

I have always found the human need for power and domination interesting, which is why I choose it for the Research Project. I am interested about how the Dictatorial style of government affects the overall growth of the humanities globally. My goal for this project is to research and understand the positive and negative effects of dictatorships on the academic growth as well as growth in the humanities. There are clear negative effects like the loss of literature in countries such as Germany, where specific types of book from certain eras were burned. In addition to that there are positives such as leaders focusing on education more than other areas of government spending. The paper that would be written using the information gathered through research on this topic would be persuasive, arguing that though there are some positive effects, dictatorships have an overall negative impact on intellect and the humanities.