Liberal Democracies Vs. Liberal Democracy Essay

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.

Liberalism, in general, was an ideological movement that emerged out of the ideas of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution in the early 19th century. It embraced the ideas of individualism which were established in the Renaissance and Reformation era. The Renaissance period sparked a belief in the importance of the individual in society. It helped promote the beliefs of classical liberalism which gradually formed into the liberal ideology of the 19th century. Individuals that were waiting to get their individual rights and freedoms were allowed to finally gain liberty and power through this period of time. Classical liberalism developed

Since the dawn of human civilization, individuals have been constantly immersed in conflict with each other. Whether these conflicts stemmed from socio-economic inequalities, political disputes, property rights, religious disagreements, or any other contentious matter, the creation of human governments has necessarily been to handle, organize, and resolve conflicts between people within communities in the least destructive manner possible. Governments act as a formal instrument through which individuals in a society can agree upon shared rules, solve problems, and engage in cooperative behavior, and it helps avoid the severe repercussions resulting from revolutionary social upheaval. The purpose of government – as spelled out in the Preamble of the Constitution – is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” While countless forms of government have sprung up over the centuries, only one has been resilient enough and has had the pervasive influence necessary to stand the test of time: democracy. While there are many different types of democracies, this paper will focus on liberal democracy specifically. A liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy that operates under the paradigm of classical liberalism. According to the Center for Research on Globalization, liberal democracy is defined as:

voted against a policy which is found to be the best for the general, must have

In the United States, we have a liberal democracy meaning our rights and liberties are protected. The US also has a multiparty electoral system with free and fair participation and a checks and balances system that prevents a single party from taking sovereign control. Liberal democracy is a political system that is supported by free and fair elections, but also a separation of powers between branches and the protection of its citizens basic liberties such as, freedom of speech, assembly, property, and religion (Zakaria 22). Constituitonal liberalism is mostly based on limiting power in government, while democracies tend to be more about its accumulation and use (Zakaria 30).

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.

Robert Audi argues that citizens in a free democracy should make a difference between religion and between secular aspects or state and give them two separate domains. The one has nothing to do with the other and for each to be functioning well and for the state to be functioning effectively; religious convictions should be separated from political debate.

Realism and Liberalism are two extremely prominent theories of international relations. These doctrines exhibit sagacious perceptions about war, foreign affairs and domestic relations. The fundamental principles of protocol in which we rely upon aren’t always apprehensive (Karle, Warren, 2003). By interpreting the data one could fathom these ideas. The assessment of these faculties wield noteworthy dominance about the concepts of international affairs. In analyzing this data, you will comprehend the variant relationship between Realism and Liberalism.

In a world where the drive for power and the will to dominate are held to be fundamental aspects of human nature as the Classical Realists would argue, the necessity for International Organizations cannot be dismissed as some liberalists argue. According to Iriye 2002, IGO’s consists of institutions that come into existence through formal agreements among nations and represent their corresponding governments (Iriye 2002, Pg. 12-14). With that in mind, some liberalists argue that joining international organizations and institutions like the United Nations socializes some leaders so that their motivations are more benign (Dunne 2011, Pg. 103). I am convinced to a certain extent with this idea as I feel that even though classical realists argue that every man has within him the desire to rule or the desire for power (Dunne and Schmidt 2011, Pg. 90). When several leaders come together all from different IR theoretical backgrounds (liberalists, realists, constructivists) each decision they make comes collectively thus not leaving too much room for their individual biases based on their theoretical perspectives to impact important international relations issues "negatively". Although I highly doubt if anything can be done to control the human desire for power accumulation as a classical realist would say, a part of the psyche of man, I do believe the liberalists argument to be of substance.

Democracy varies in every country depending on the type of government or regime they have. There is the liberal democracy, which is all about giving people their rights and liberties; everything is done through fair voting and electing. The people are aware of everything that happens in their government. Illiberal democracies are basically the same as liberal, but the people in power are more secretive of their activities, and there is less civil liberty. It is essentially a partial democracy. Now Authoritarian regimes designate any political system that concentrates power in the hands of one leader or a small elite. There are no free elections and very little regard for the law. Political institutions, social structures, and the democratic rule of law all affect liberal, illiberal, and authoritarian regimes democratic quality differently.

However, since direct participation was not possible in large societies, Mill thought the `ideal type of a perfect government would be a representative 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

Due to society, cultural diversity troubles the mode of governess. This is because at times there are circumstances where cultural ideologies oppress other cultures and limit the concept of a democratic

Liberal democracy, with a capitalist economy, is the only form of social organization that will work in this world. Socialism and Communism appear to be sound in theory, but would never come close to achieving what capitalism does. Liberal democracy and capitalism allow for a beneficial competition where communism does not. This competition, in the liberal tradition, on both political and economical levels, allows for the best balance of security and freedom to the people under the government. However, this liberal tradition does not take care of every problem, but it does a better job than any alternative. Competition is a necessity in this world. A more competitive market allows for a more functional

When Schmitt speaks of an identity of governed and governing, he means a system of government in which the mechanisms of the state only carry out the will of the people, without any interference from liberal deliberative bodies or aristocratic political influences. For example, in a democracy possessing the identity of governed and governing, the governing are obligated to only execute the will of the governed, not to pursue autonomous idealistic notions of 'right action ' or 'moral law ' as is common in liberal parliamentary democracy. This conception of democracy denies the legitimacy of a government which seeks an end separate from the general will of the people, such as the liberal idea of parliamentary democracy.