I. Introduction
With regards to democratic theory, this literature review hopes to determine the effects of foreign intervention on democracy and democratization. It will focus on whether foreign interventions result in increased or decreased levels of democracy within target states. This conversation is important because it will hopefully determine whether interventions will be successful in the growth of democracy in the future or whether or not interventions are needed as a mechanism for democratization at all.
II. Literature Review and Analysis
Democracy has been in a leading position in the world since it began to gain popularity during the beginning of the 20th century (Fukuyama, 2006). Because it expanded through coercive means, it has meant that democracy continues to extend across the world. When communism began to decline, the West was able to extend democracy into several places both openly and discretely in order to encourage favorable political systems. The nature of the expansion of democracy has been criticized in terms of its legitimacy and viability in developing strong and sustainable governments and benefits to the people of the target states. Most scholars say that intervention cannot lead to a stable democracy, Pickering and Peceny for instance provide a bleak picture by portraying that in the 50 years from 1946-1996, 84% of states going through democratization were not through intervention. Enterline and Greig (2008), argue that 30% of attempts made
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.
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.
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
Despite the many crises that the United States has faced historically, democracy has persisted. However, this is not to say that the system is secure or deeply rooted. In fact, based on the events of recent decades, it has been weakening. In How Democracies Die, Levitsky and Ziblatt provide examples of how American democracy has exemplified the positive and negative aspects of other global democracies of the past and present. Although the US is exceptional in some ways, with its longstanding democratic institutions and diverse population, it is more similar to others than different. Thus, the idea that few parallels can be drawn to other nations is disproven. The process of comparing each state is analogous to that of differentiating between
Observation 1: when we talk about promoting democracy, there are many ways to carry out this promotion. The United States is not obligated to take one course of action. Rather, the US can alter and adjust its approach to what is most suitable for that situation. Different tools might be appropriate at different points of time as well as differing based on the severity of the situation.
The United States was the first successful democracy in modern. Why democracy has worked well in the United States. Why Iraq cannot become a democracy? Why Judaism is not compatible with democracy? What true democracy requires a time commitment? Proponents of democracy believe it is the best political system, although opponents believe it is more complicated, particularly in Mid-East nations.
Is democracy-promotion a mask for hegemonic power? Should liberal democracies impose their principles, values and ideals upon less democratic states? Hegemony is the concept meaning primacy of the leading state over the subordinate states without the use of any direct forms of violence (invasion, occupation or annexation). Many scholars in international relations have tried to find an answer to these questions, but they are still open to a much debate and discussion. Liberals believe that democracy promotion is an essential action from more prosperous states in order to achieve international peace and protect human rights. However, realists claim that democracies promote their values and principles in order to fulfill their national
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"
We must question to what extent democracy relies on external factors of stability in order to be accepted as legitimate. I would very much argue that the wealth and stable economy of each democratic country plays a large part in its citizens accepting democracy as a legitimate governmental system. Let us first look at the UK, Britain has always had a strong democratic nature to the country and relies on the electorate to vote for the MP’S in the House of Commons. However in late 2010 the London riots shocked the world and showed how the legitimacy of democracy relies on prosperity of the economic situation of a country and when this does not exist it creates a social backlash devaluing the legitimacy of the democracy. Similarly grease one of the oldest democracies in the world has also felt this effect and now the government there has all but collapsed all due the financial support of the democracy failing sending the country into mass chaos.
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.
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.
It is important to understand the concept of democratization to examine newly developed democracies more critically and to have a better understanding of the contemporary politics around the world. Since many countries consider themselves as democracies, there needs to be a scale that represents the shared value and aspiration of democracy to evaluate these countries in a critical and objective manner to determine the democratic performance of these governments. The region this essay will be focusing on is central and eastern Europe. When Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republics joined NATO in 1999 (B. C. Biega 2004), it made a great impact in many countries in central and eastern Europe as they start to adopt the concept of democracy in
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
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.