Democracy And The State Of Economic Development

We know that democracies are common among the economically urbanized countries and rare between the very deprived ones. The reason we scrutinize this pattern is not that democracies are more probable to emerge, as a result, of economic development but that they are to a large extent more possible to survive if they occur to emerge in most urbanized countries. The paths to democracy are diverse. Indeed, they appear to follow no unsurprising pattern. But once democracy is conventional, for whatever reasons, its endurance depends on a few, easily particular, factors.

In the midst of the prevalence of democratic transitions, a number of developing countries are seeking to achieve the successful consolidation of civil order in modern days. Among those participants, Mexico and Nigeria has been spotlighted for the completely contrastive endings at the end of their long-adventures towards democratization since their independence; Mexico, from its independence, has maintained the political stability despite the authoritarian single-party regime and even accomplished the solid democratization at the time of the 2000 election whereas Nigerian regime has been deteriorated by a series of military cues d’états and

Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the

Democracy: A political system in which citizens enjoy a number of basic civil and political rights, and in which their most important political leaders are elected in free and fair elections and accountable under a rule of law (26). In the studies we have undertaken, comparing and exploring various countries and systems politically, economically, and psychologically throughout the quarter, this outcry of democracy has prevailed as a main theme. Successful countries such as the United States and Great Britain are based upon such democratic ideals. It is no wonder that countries have striven more recently toward this goal of democratization. Both the Russian and Mexican revolutions prove that democracy is an attainable goal in the next

The authors also argue that the greatness of the government driven by democracy is the right to

Today, 118 of the world 's 193 countries are democratic, encompassing a majority of its people (54.8 percent, to be exact), a vast increase from even a decade ago (Zakaria 23). When we are faced with the term “Democracy”, we think of safety but what people do not understand is that there are two types of democracy and they are completely opposites of each other. The two types of democracies include liberal and illiberal. In the article, Zakaria warns us about the rise of illiberal democracy (the worst possible form of government). From the beginning of time, democracy has meant the rule of the people but when the power gets into the wrong hands and there are no limits on that power, we are faced with illiberal democracy, a form of government growing rapidly as we speak.

Does Modernization lead to Democracy or does it not? My hypothesis for this research question is that modernization does not lead to democracy even as I explore the different kinds of literature written on this subject. As part of my research design I have decided to use a single case study as a comparative method. This is because case studies offer a detailed explanation of the topic of discussion transforming “journalism into political science” (Hague & Harrop, 2013: 361). I have decided to look at Singapore to provide a well-rounded description which will therefore show how it operates in the context of modernization and democracy. One of the primary authors who decided to study the relationship between economic development and democracy was Seymour Martin Lipset in both this books titled Political Man and The Social Requisites of Democracy. (Heo & Tan, 2001) Since his literature came out more and more social scientists began to expand or critique on the words of Lipset in carrying out their own research. It is clear to see that discourses around economic progress and democracy are still debated to this day. Arguments around whether or not democracy should come first then development follows are also being discussed in other areas. However there is a general consensus across the board of most authors that the two are closely related. Many argue that they go hand in hand; it is not wise to have one without the other. In helping to answer my research question the work of

The United States of America is one of the oldest contemporary democracies, is currently the second largest democracy, and is ranked the 16th best democracy in the world (Campbell et. Al, 2014). Yet there is a legitimate question over whether or not the United States can still truly be considered a democracy, with some studies even suggesting it has begun to resemble an oligarchy (Chumley, 2014). In this essay, I will use Dahl’s criteria of voting equality and effective participation to determine whether or not the United States are truly a democracy.

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"

one essential conviction, expressed in the word democracy itself: that power should be in the hands of the people. Although democracy today has been slightly inefficient in this idea, with the wealthy, elite class challenging this right, “it nevertheless claims for itself a fundamental validity that no other kind of society shares….” To completely understand the structure of democracy, one must return to the roots of the practice itself, and examine the origins in ancient Greece, the expansion in the Roman Empire, and how these practices combined make what we recognize as today’s democratic government.

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

Winston Churchill once remarked that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”. In agreement with his statement, this paper will examine the problems of democratic governments using specific examples, and compare it to the failure of fascist governments in Nazi Germany and Italy and communist governments in the Soviet Union and China.

The author has been able to fulfill the target of the book, which is to test and answer the questions raised by critics through the provision of evidence of the reason no democracy exists at the present. The author presents the arguments in a chronological way that gives a better understanding of the past, today, and prospective future of democracy. The root of the present democracy is stated in the book and lays the basis of the other arguments in the book. Dahl argues that there are conditions that any state should attain in order for it to be considered as a democratic

Churchill’s claim that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” is deliberately provocative and intended to challenge the reader’s simplistic ideal that democracy is without faults. There are an estimated 114 democracies in the world today (Wong, Oct 3rd lecture). A figure that has increased rapidly in the last century not necessarily because democracy is the best form of government, but primarily for reason that in practice, under stable social, economic and political conditions, it has the least limitations in comparison to other forms of government. Be it the transparency of a democratic government or the prevalence of majority rule, all subdivisions of democracy benefit and hinder its

It is just this arrangement that Zakaria finds problematic. There is a fundamental tension between democracy and constitutional liberalism: democracy is about the accumulation of power, while constitutional liberalism takes up the limits to that accumulated power (140). Democracy without constitutional liberalism lacks the protections for the people that make it an agreeable form of government by Western standards. It is precisely this type of government which Zakaria sees gaining ground around the world, in such politically problem-plagued places as Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and the former USSR (134,138). Where there is evidence that constitutional liberalism may eventually provide for stable democracy as well, there is no indication that the reverse is true (138). Countries with emergent illiberal democracies elect leaders that then proceed to ignore the rights of the people and the governmental framework within which they are supposed to operate, in effect consolidating and absconding with the power given them by the people (138), clearly not an ideal situation.