Is Timor Leste A Change?

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

Political reform is often resulting in increased demands of oppressed and weaken state. New democracies tend to have security problems and questions of the democratic governance. The state must instill stability and social control; thus a weak state will fail. Democracy, however, can achieve peace by allocating power through elections, manage diversity without violence, and create political positions. State and nation-building, integration, and a development of a unified ideology can be a strategy to promote democratic consolidation.

In recognition of the indicators of democratic consolidation in various countries, it is significant to understand the features that characterize the presence of successful consolidation within a country’s government. Features such as the holding of free repeated elections, peaceful transfers of power through elections, survival of tribulations, adherence to a rule of law, lengthy survival, and legitimacy recognized by the populace are all characteristics of a successful consolidation of democracy. In terms of which indicators would convincingly indicate truly successful consolidation of democracy, it is evident that legitimacy, survival of tests and tribulations, the presence of free consistent elections, and an adherence to a rule of law by the public are the most appropriate characteristics that would indicate or refute veritable consolidation. Each of these democratic

Laos People’s Democratic Republic is a country in the Southeastern portion Asia. It is believed that Laotians migrated to Laos from South China as early as the 8th century. Lan Xang was the very first state established in the country during the 14th century. The ruler at the time, King Saya Setthathirat transferred the capital known as Luang Prabang to the newly formed Vientiane during the 16th century (“Brief History of Laos”). The Lan Xang kingdom was in decree until the early 1700s. From that point on, the Kingdom was split into 3 separate kingdoms under 3 different yet hostile dynasties. The 17th Century marked the Golden Age under the rule of King Suliyavongsa. It was during this time that the king established a good trade relation

The topic of this essay is whether or not democratic elections are important in rebuilding a failed state. I strongly believe that democratic elections are indeed important in rebuilding a failed state. But first of all, what are democratic elections?

When in a political environment the election of different governments can lead to frequent changes in the policies of the country, changing the political landscape of the country. For example frequent changes of the extraterritorial policies can cripple the nations economy by making investments non-profitable for foreign and local investors and thus crippling the nations economy. This fact is considered by some as to why a democracy is not the best kind of government for a developing nation whose aim is the economic growth and elimination of poverty.

Democracy has in the 20th and 21st century grown in popularity, which has been credited due to the ‘waves of democracy’, which has been caused by a variety of reasons all over the world. However because of the growth of democracy, it has led to debate between academics as to whether or not presidentialism has had a positive or negative effect on new and developing democracies. In this essay it will discuss the effect presidentialism has had on democracy as a system of government. A brief background of democracy will be spoken about, especially what affect the ‘waves of democracy’ has had on new democratic systems. Moreover the affect that institutional design plays in maintaining a stable political system, in terms of representation

The state is created to stave off anarchy and establish the rule of law. Critical to the organization of a new state is the constitutional democratic regime which it adopts to ensure the longevity and stability of the state. A key factor in determining state viability is the organization of the regime and allocation of political power, a concept known as institutional design. How political power is allocated among rival factions determines whether polarization and conflict results in compromise, gridlock, or, in extreme cases, the collapse of the state. In democratic regimes, there have historically been two formats under which political power has been designed: presidentialism and parliamentarism. However, both have been unreliable. Presidentialism has exacerbated systematic fragility in countries such as Brazil and Chile resulting in military coups. Parliamentarism has caused the fragmentation of political power leading to a confusing proliferation of minority parties and gridlock. In hopes of overcoming its constituents’ failures, a third system has been constructed mixing aspects of both presidentialism and parliamentarism – semi-presidentialism. Employing both a president and prime minister, semi-presidentialism attempts to provide flexibility and continuity to democratic regimes. This system is not to be confused with president-parliamentarism, where the president has the power to confirm or dismiss the prime minister . Without leverage over the prime minister,

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

The culmination of World War II saw many changes for nation building not only in the spheres of Europe and East Asia, but also in regions of the world infected by imperialism such as Southeast Asia. During this time many imperialist powers lost their footholds in Southeast Asia due to an inability to project their dominance as they had before, such as in the case of the Dutch in Indonesia and the French throughout Indochina. Nationalist movements would unfold in one manner or another during this time and by the mid 1950’s most former European colonies throughout the region had won their independence. Two such former colonies that I will be looking at will be the

According to Andrew Janos, “the price of economic progress has been political turmoil”. (Janos, pg. 21) If the Modernization Theory holds that countries tend to become more democratic the more they modernize, then political turmoil is to be expected in democracies. Certainly this can occur in both parliamentary and presidential systems: as Linz argues, the presidential system concentrates too much power on the president, resulting in “winner-take-all” politics (Linz, pg. 56) and the polarization of political parties. This is evident in the United States, where the president is elected separately and Congress is divided between the opposing Democrats and Republicans. Conversely, the parliamentary system in Britain, as well as that adapted by the former British colonies of Sri Lanka and Nigeria, has had its fair share of single-party hegemony and political abuse. (Horowitz, pg. 78) Democracy is therefore not a perfect form of government when put in practice, and much of its

In today’s world, it has to be admitted that more and more power is being given to the people and the hypothesis that power belongs to the people, and they govern themselves has undoubtedly established liberal democracy as the most appropriate form of governance. Ideas of equality, justice and freedom are secured by democratic regimes and therefore over centuries, from French revolution to Arab springs in 2010. Today’s governments are liberal but modern democratic territories. They preach supremacy and freedom of individuals provides fundamental rights, rule of law and security but at the same time the system representing people takes the leading role. Modern states have to incorporate various interests, requirements and political requirements and thus look at collective interests idealizing stability, international image, and maintaining balanced political structure.

A country’s past affects its future, especially within the political realm. In order to shift from a politically traditional to a more politically modern state, major crises must be underway. For efficient and effective progress to be realized, there must be changes to the customary norms of the political culture and overall political atmosphere, starting from the elites, moving down towards to citizens. Identity, leadership, and participation all must have dramatic shifts of their primary elements before a country is able to stabilize itself as a building block for a democratic government.

The four countries that will be evaluated in this essay are Albania, Croatia, Latvia, and Ukraine. By studying countries that seem to share similarities with each other, this essay hopes to find differences within these similar countries and highlight the reasons why these differences can make one country more democratic than another. Albania started to develop some liberal policies in the late 1980s after the death of communist dictator Enver Hoxha (Freedom House, 2013). The Democratic Party led by Sali Berisha won the election in in 2005 and is currently the government in Albania (ibid.). Even though the government is accused of being corrupted, the party still won 68 out of 140 seats in the 2009 parliamentary election (ibid.) The European Council declined to grant Albania EU candidate status on December 2012 for the third time due to insufficient reform priorities (ibid.). The country is considered “Partly Free” with an overall freedom rating of 3 out of 7 according to Freedom House. Croatia is a former constituent republic of Yugoslavia that gained its independence in June 1991 (ibid.). The country is led by Social Democratic Party under Zoran Milanović and

One of the most important lessons from the Asian crisis is that it is prudent and necessary for developing countries to have measures that reduce its exposure to the risks of globalization and thus place limits on its degree of financial liberalizations. In a globalized world, developing countries often face tremendous pressures coming from developed countries, international agencies, transnational and national companies to completely open up their economies. It is proven that liberalization can and has played a positive role development, however; the Asian crisis has shown up that in some circumstances, liberalization can play havoc, especially on small and dependent economies. This is more so prominent in the field of financial liberalization, where lifting of controls over capital flows can lead to such extreme results as a country accumulating a mountain of foreign debts within a few years, the sudden sharp depreciation of its currency, and a sudden rush of foreign owned and local owned funds out of the country in a few months. So,