Democratic Political Strengths And Weaknesses

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.

The United States is the oldest recognized democracy in the modern world. It has stayed strong for such a long time because this type of government protects the interest of citizens, promotes equality, and prevents a monopoly of power. The American Democracy, like all systems of government, has strengths and weaknesses in relation to the power, politics, and people in the country.

OBJECTIVE: Students will be able to analyze a series of sources related to the causes and effects of exploration and answer questions.

Half a millennium ago, kingdoms were all the rage and those not under monarchial rule were savages and uncivilized creatures. In 500 years, democracy may not be the ideal Western government. We could, for say, come to the great realization that we should be ruled by artificial intelligence. It may be popular now to say that democracy is the best form of government, but that may not be true for the West in the future and it may even not be true for some parts of our present world. Some cultures would reject democracy, like some countries in the Middle East such as Afghanistan, where the U.S. is still attempting to prop up a democracy, despite Afghanistan’s high place on the Fragile States Index, by The Fund for Peace, with a score of 107.9, putting them at number 6 out of 178 measured countries. By this ranking, they fail in many aspects as a nation-state, such as protection.

During the course of this analytical paper, we will look at the impact of warfare on world societies and people's consciousness, during the period of the 1500s in world history, called the Early Modern Period; also, we will discuss the consequences of the Great War. Additionally, apart from studying the altering methods of warfare and their magnitude, we will look up to different motivations of statesmen and peoples who declare wars or engage in several types of violent actions towards certain societies. Throughout the paper, we will stretch any pertinent evidence at appropriate points of what war leaders, intellectuals and common citizens view war and violence, which they experience during their life. Some of the examples include the Arabs that vastly expanded the world of Islam, yet were traditionally predatory in nature, which benefited more from the taxation of the conquered than from their conversion. There are also examples like the Mongol Empire, which was too, predatory, but differently from the Arab

Throughout time, history has been recorded from the perspective of the victors. It is this bias within the archives that shape the views and motives of the groups involved. As a result of this influence the general way of thinking, and recollection of historical events has been altered to a certain degree to conform to the conqueror’s ideals. Society turns a blind eye to the horrors of the past, preferring to plead ignorance than to face the reality of the cruelty humans are capable of. There are parts in history that conversely cannot be ignored, such as the genocide in Rwanda, 9-11, Terror in Paris and the most historical, the holocaust in World War II, where the true extent of human vindictiveness came to light. In spite

The history of humanity is written in blood. Even as violence as a whole is decreasing, acts of extreme violence continue to be perpetrated. To be clear, this essay is not about individuals violent and cold at their core. Such people are readily understood within the image of a lone, antisocial killer set apart from humanity by their very lacking of it. This essay is about violence conducted on a scale that can only be enabled by the participation of people who, under normal circumstances, would not act violent. The puzzle of how and why genocides, apartheid, state brutality, torture, and mob killings are perpetrated by ordinary people points to psychosocial mechanisms as their cause. Ordinarily non-violent people commit extreme violence

In society, there always has, and will continue to be groups who are demonised by civilians and authority alike. Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda define moral panics as a “scare about a threat, or supposed threat from deviants or ‘folk devils’” who are thought to be guilty of “menacing a society’s culture, way of life, or central values” (1994, p.2). In other words, the concept denotes that by hyperbolising societal concerns, terror is generated and a caricature is created of both the situation and the accused involved. Moral panics are intended to be applicable to multiple topical debates, ranging from Bikie Gangs to online predators. The case study of Middle Eastern, African and Southeast Asian refugees is an ongoing discourse that demonstrates

In the time since the Middle Ages, the West has experienced a number of radical shifts, both politically and ideologically. Each of these shifts has “broken the previous pattern” of cultural norms. But while some have been beneficial, others have caused injustices and suffering. Either way, each of these events has had a dramatic effect on world history, and will likely never be forgotten.

America is a shining beacon of democratic hope. Its light casts an eminent reminder upon its complex history. King George III’s reign fell short of the (virtual) representation we needed. Breaking free from the British grips of tyranny that once held us near, the colonists boasted a new form of government: a republic.

In recent decades, many people have sought refugee status and this has caused a lot of discussion on the issue. Many argue that refugees should not be given priority in gaining entry to democratic countries, while others believe they should. The purpose of this essay is to point out that democratic countries should have an obligation to accept refugees. To support this position, the following areas will be examined: firstly, the reason why those countries are called democratic countries. Secondly, refugees are under the difficult situation. Thirdly, countries can take advantage of accepting refugees.

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.

Although our nation’s government relies on the fundamentals of liberal democracy, it still has many flaws. Articles written by Francis Fukuyama share a clear message suggesting that America’s political institutions are decaying and its flaws will not be fixed unless we have good leadership within the government that yields good policies. It is still not too late to make reformations in the system. Today, US citizens share a distrust for the inner workings of our government, and through the years, there are many things that must change. Although our government is able to withstand failures right now, it may cause an expansion of problems that will cost us indefinitely. The existence of interest groups has caused an exponential increase in the elite control of the system, thus creating people’s lack of trust for the government.

Fukuyama and McFaul make strong arguments for the importance of democracy promotion, but it is not without its flaws. The world is fragmented by ethnic, linguistic and religious differences, and as such, the notion that there exists 'moral universals' is viewed as dangerous (Dunne 2001, pp. 179). Gray (1995, pp. 146) aptly articulated that "the universalizing mission of liberal values such as democracy, capitalism and secularism undermine the traditions and practices of non-Western cultures." And that may illustrate the rejection of Liberalism thus far. Democracy, when promoted by Western states, is inextricably tied in with other Western ideals such as capitalism and secularism. These ideals often do not mesh well with prevailing cultural practices, resulting in dissent and potential military conflict, results contrary to Liberalism's ultimate goal. This leads to the second rationale: national security.

Willy Brandt once remarked:” Western Europe has only 20 or 30 more years of democracy left in it; after that it will slide under the surrounding sea of dictatorship” (Crozier, Huntington, Watanuki, 1973, 2). It would seem that democratic governments have become increasingly unable of facing “the challenges of the modern world”. Specifically, democratic European governments have become increasingly incapable to adequately represent the interests of the governed, while economic growth has also produced forces within nations that could potentially lead to the potential “regression”(Crozier, 1973, 49-50) of European states from democracy into tyranny (Crozier, 1973, 49-50).