Democratization Of Latin America And Eastern Europe

For example, Iran has a strong political and military influence on other governments in states such as Iraq and Lebanon, which they are able to make use of in their desire to spread authoritarianism. Additionally, Russia is capable of invoking fear and violence to support separatist movements in Georgia and Ukraine, demonstrating similar methods of spreading their governmental form. Furthermore, China has globally supplied other dictatorships, such as Iran and Uzbekistan, with surveillance technology to increase repression on their citizens. All of these actions together are creating a difficult environment for democracy to prosper. The decline of democracy is causing a shift in the mindset of citizens in both authoritarian and democratic states as people begin to realize that their form of government may not truly be the best form of

Those who are in power are not accountable to constituencies and public policy does not derive from social consent. Within sociology and political science, particularly within comparative politics, authoritarianism has been understood as a modern type of political regime. Therefore, the concept focuses on the way of accessing, exercising, and organizing power, on the nature of the belief system, and the role of citizens in the political

The Czech Republic and Slovakia were now able to own their own businesses. They could move freely for jobs and homes. The countries are now able to vote as they wish. They did however change their language. All countries in the Soviet Union used to speak German. Now Czech is spoken in the Czech Republic and Slovak is spoken in Slovakia. The national anthem changed, both countries now have their own. In the Soviet Union the religion was Atheism, and now Czechoslovakia is free to believe whatever they want. The soviet Ruble was the currency in the Soviet Union and then it changed to the Czechoslovak Koruna and finally, when Czechoslovakia split, it changed to Czech Koruna in the Czech Republic and the Euro in Slovakia. The government in the Soviet Union was dictatorship. Now, a Parliamentary Republic is the form of government in Slovakia and Czech Republic. Although life after the Soviet Union collapsed was free, some people say it was easier to live in the Soviet Union because everything was already set and organized for you. They were not making many of their own decisions. However, when Czechoslovakia became free, the people realized that they had more freedom. They had to make decisions on their

The cold war made a significant change to Eastern Europe. After WWII the Soviet Union wanted to spread their ideologies of communism and in order for them to do that, they

Among the ways the United States tried to curb the spread of communism in Latin America, was interfere in the inner policies of their countries. They were involving themselves in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. They were trying to convince Latin America that it was in their best interests to stay away from communist beliefs.

In the Middle East, each country has it’s own form of government. These forms of governments have been consistently changing throughout time. Throughout all the revolutions and overthrows, the national identity of the Middle East has slowly changed, some parts more than others. Over many years, overthrows in countries such as Egypt and Libya have led to a more democratic government. However, many other countries such as Iran and Iraq have remained more oppressive. The Middle East is still changing to this day. For example, Egypt recently overthrew their president Hosni Mubarak. There are also many protests currently going on in Libya.

A revolution has begun by the people in the Middle East against their long time dictators. The domino effect began first with Tunisia then Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and Libya. Thousands of protestors were gathered on the streets with posters, shouting for change and democracy. Why would there be protests unless the people are unsatisfied with the way the country is governed. Why would they go against their dictator unless they feel they have no rights and that they have no voice. Unlimited power should never be given to one person; the chances of corruption are very high because power can change even the most virtuous individual. That is why the path of a dictatorial country is a path of strife, oppression and economical downfall.

Rulers who apply harsher measures to control dissent continue to rule on for any duration of time, as long as they apply strict measures of control over their populations. See for example North Korea and Iran, where despite widespread human rights abuses and economic stagnation, the regimes have been able to perpetuate their rules, just by employing the fear factor and using even harsher measures to quell any uprising or rebellion. Regimes of dictators such as Ceausescu in Romania fell because they were perceived as weak. Towards his end, Ceausescu was no where to be seen and all the running of the government was literally left to his wife Elena. Other than perceived internal weakness, such dictators such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Qaddafi in Libya, could only be dislodged through overt military efforts. Even countries like China, Vietnam and Cuba which have embraced few aspects of a modern Westphalian state have been able to continue their one party communist rule as any dissent is effectively muzzled.

By the early 1990s, Soviet domination in Eastern Europe had ended. A number of individuals played a part in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Understanding the role that each played is an important part of understanding the process that changed European politics and geography.

As we have seen over the years, many people have risen to power. While many have risen many have also fallen. So what allows some to rise and stay in power and not others? Dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Napoleon Bonaparte remained in power for many years. Comparatively Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq for 24 years, while Bonaparte, the dictator of France, held power for fourteen years. How are their methods different from each other? How could one be in power longer than the other? While analyzing both of them, I found that Saddam Hussein was more willing to use violent methods to control his people, while Napoleon Bonaparte was more civilized and believed that he didn’t need to use violence. So does violence secure one’s place in power for

A country being authoritarian or democratic is not a choice; it’s a result of the policies the country makes. There is no one factor that makes a country democratic or authoritarian, but the degree of capitalism that is implemented in a country is the most effective factor in determining a countries regime type. Australia and North Korea are two countries, which have two completely different regime types and economies. Using these countries as examples, I will show how capitalism is the most important factor in the regime type of any country that exists in the world today.

In these systems, the regimes possess some of these characteristics but have found ways to manipulate the system to consolidate their power. “Rather than openly violating democratic rules (for example, by banning or repressing the opposition and the media), incumbents are more likely to use bribery, co-optation, and more subtle forms of persecution, such as the use of tax authorities, compliant judiciaries, and other state agencies to ‘legally’ harass, persecute, or extort cooperative behavior from critics” . While it is apparent that these regimes are not fully democratic, it would be unfair to label them as fully authoritarian either. Unlike traditional totalitarian governments, the persistence of true democratic institutions in competitive authoritarian regimes allows the opposition to contest, weaken and occasionally even defeat autocratic incumbents. While these situations are generally uncommon, these situations are possible in competitive authoritarianism due to four independent means, the electoral arena, the legislature, the judiciary and the media. These four branches are virtually independent of the executive control however, unlike in democracies, the competitive authoritarian regimes use its power to undermine their independence. “In regards to the electoral arena, large-scale abuses of state power, biased media coverage, harassment of opposition candidates and activists are widespread, legislatures tend to be relatively weak, the

Why is it that some countries are classified as developed and others not? What is the criteria used to determine this? Some people believe that within the criteria to evaluate a country’s development, democracy and economic development must be taken into consideration, and that a link exists between them. Democracy can be defined as a form of government in which people choose their leaders by voting, it also implies equal rights and treatment. (Merriam Webster n.d.) By the other hand, economic development can be defined as the progress in an economy referring to an improvement of living standards, the adoption of new technologies and the transition form an agricultural to an industrial based economy. (Business Dictionary n.d.)

Although the people’s voice is being heard and changes are being made, blood flows down the streets as people are being killed violently everyday. Many people believe it would have been more beneficial if the Middle East had completely avoid the Arab Spring or at least have gone a more passive road. Through the history of the region, leaders of Arab countries have anchored their position to later become rich and

The Arab Spring has been a life changing phenomena, not only for the people who are attempting to overthrow their governments but for political scientists everywhere. The events originating in the North African country of Tunisia have led to the snowballing of several other Middle Eastern, predominantly Muslim, nation states. The figurative breaking point might have finally been reached as the oppressed peoples of the Middle East have risen up to overthrow long-standing dictatorial governments in hopes of revolutionary change; change that is subject to the will of the people.