Gambian Political Regime Essay

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

As the most widely adopted form of democratic government there are many strengths associated with a parliamentary government. The parliamentary system is often praised for the fast and efficient way in which it is able to pass legislation. The reason this is possible is because unlike a presidential system the legislative and executive power in a parliamentary system are merged together. Due to this fusion of power legislation does not have to undergo a lengthy process and therefore laws can be formulated and put into place much quicker(Bates, 1986: 114-5). Another advantage of a parliamentary system is that the majority of the power is not held by one individual head of state but rather is more evenly divided among a single party or coalition. One of the main benefits of this is that as there is more of a division of power a parliamentary government is less prone to authoritarianism than a presidential system. Juan Linz argues that a presidential system is more dangerous due to the fact that; “Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate”(Linz, 1990: 56), this sharp line between winners and losers increases tension between these two groups and allows the winner to isolate themselves from other political parties (Linz, 1990: 56). Due to this tension and isolation a presidential system is at a higher risk of turning into an authoritarian regime than a parliamentary system.

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 structures are defined as the formal or informal political procedures through which decisions are made regarding the usage, production and distribution of resources in any given community. Formal political structures through its organizations can control processes such as election of leaders; parts and tasks of the executive and administration; organization of political representation (through political parties); and the obligation and oversight of the state. Informal and communal political structures, customs and rules can work within or together with the formal political organizations. In development, democratic political structures are seen to deliver prospects for all without discrimination (Scott & Mcloughlin, 2014).

This book shows the transformation of Venezuela from being a pluralistic democracy into a hybrid regime (Javier). Hybrid regimes rule in two ways: they mechanize their way to power through “democratic” elections but perform autocratic and dictatorial practices through political and economic institutions (Javier). In this hybrid government, the opposition has been allowed to take part in elections, but the problem is that there is no separation of powers within the system of checks and balances. The opposition parties have rarely been able to make successful negotiations.

The core components of an authoritarian regime are the lack of accessibility for citizens to voice their opinions, and more importantly, to participate in politics through formal channels (Mintz, Close and Croci 256-258). Authoritarian regimes also share an absence of government accountability for any or all decisions due to a wide range of power (Mintz, Close and Croci 256-258). This is in stark contrast to democratic regimes where government accountability is held with the utmost importance with the citizens in said democratic country will move into action when their government does not align or hold true to what they may have previously put forth. Moreover, if a country’s leader holds most of the power over their citizens by the continuous use of coercive measures or other oppressive tactics by default will only lead to a greater deal of problems. Furthermore, by having the necessary power to proactively work part and parcel of a political community, a country, thereby grows through the collective understanding of other citizens concerns as well as from their allowed regular involvement in government discussions where the end decision can affect the citizens under that regime. Effectively demonstrating the differences of an authoritarian regime with a democratic one.

First, Linz’s argument is based on “regionally skewed and highly selective sample of comparative experience” (144). If a sample set drawn primarily from Africa would be used to analyze parliamentarism, similar conclusions about the regime design as a source of crisis could be drawn. Second, the “perils” of presidentialism are based on a “mechanistic, even caricatured, view of the presidency” (Horowitz

With the upcoming governorship election on November the 18th in Anambra State, South-East Nigeria, renewed international attention has been given to the unsolved ‘Biafra question’. In fact, actors from separatist movements such as IPOB and MOSSOB clearly stated that they will proceed with a boycott of the elections as a response to the refusal of the Federal Government of Nigeria to hold a referendum for Biafra restoration before then. Supporters of the referendum claim that the Muhammadu Buhari Presidency is failing to address the self-determination request of the Igbo population in the South-Eastern area of the State, bringing about new tensions in the area. Moreover, the results of these election can have a profound impact on the

In his 1994 essay, Kaplan describes the country of Liberia as one that is war-torn, led by inexperienced rebel leaders, and has over 1 million displaced civilians. Today, Liberia has had a decade of peace, held presidential and general elections, improved its social services and infrastructure, and protected human rights. As recently as 2013, the United States and Liberia entered into an agreement to cooperate and improve Liberia’s agriculture and energy sectors. Liberia now ranks among the fastest-growing economies in sub-Saharan Africa, even though the nation is still navigating through long standing issues typical of a developing Western African nation. The ability of Liberia to rebound from its political, economic, and social issues of the past exposes a serious flaw in Kaplan’s theory, and further demonstrates the ability of the international community to self-correct.

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

In the article, “Political Development and Political Decay,” Samuel P. Huntington looks at the importance of modernization, institutionalization, and mobilization in political development. He discusses the many definitions of “political development” and purposefully distinguishes it from modernization. Instead, he defines political development as the activities of political institutions. Huntington then addresses the affect political mobilization has on the deterioration of political institutions, and the ways in which institutions can develop.

This paper puts in practice a series of academic perspectives about constitutional frameworks, which I apply to the case of Eaglestan, a country which recently transformed into a democratic rule after twenty years of authoritarianism. My overall framework for Eaglestan is based on consensus political systems. I provide strong evidence that unicameral legislature elected through mixed-member proportional representation system (MMP), and semi-presidentialism, with both the president and the prime minister being responsible for the governance, should be constitutional structures through which Eaglestan strengthens its democratic framework. Yet, I discuss possible flaws which this structure might bring. I choose these systems because of the

The end of the Cold War marked a turning point for democracy promotion in Africa. As if overnight, somewhere between nine and 18 African states claimed to be democracies (depending on which definition of democracy one accepts) in only a span of six years (Diamond 1997, 2). This seemed unusual because, prior to this period, it seemed as though authoritarian regimes were a permanent fixture in African states, and Western donor states were perfectly happy to support those regimes (2005, 179). This period of rapid transition to democracy has been termed the ‘third wave’ of democracy (ibid). The mystery that has plagued many scholars through this time has been: why did this happen? Most of the early theories of African democratization argued that the real cause of democracy promotion was purely domestic (ibid, 180), but these theories tend to ignore important external factors such as the effects of colonialism on African affairs, the impact development agenda on African states political and economic systems and choices, and the fact that Western donor states engaged in campaigns to coerce regime changes. Thus, while understanding and analyzing domestic factors are important in order to understand African democratic transitions , this author argues that the surge of democratization cannot be understood without considering the impact of external factors especially the legacy of colonialism, years of

Despite the existence of institutional frameworks that are supposed to guide processes and delivery on essential services, the continued weakening of these institutions, through political mechanization and predatory nature of African elites, working in cohorts with external interests also contributes further to the undermining of stability in Africa. These tendencies exacerbate resources wars, ethnic rivalry, and more recently, the emergence of electoral violence as a characteristic of multi-party era elections in African. Although many events and occurrences might give the impression that African continent is still “drifting”, there are also positive things taking place in the continent and “the drift” needs to be analyzed from several perspectives that capture both the positive and negative developments and what informs the direction of these developments. There are pull and push factors, which keep shaping the internal dynamics in Africa. However, African people have not remained static, even though there are some retrogressive tendencies. The majority, whose perspectives are hardly captured in western media or academia, have made great leaps, in a number of areas, including their level of political awareness and popular participation in the political processes.

Rule by the people is what a democracy is made of, this might be achieved by having the party in power elected into office into office by the majority, the term democracy and the practice itself is diverse in each country but it has similar features which characterize all forms. This essay explains the impact or contributions of political parties in a Liberal Democracy using the Structural functionalist Approach. It will also converse the important roles that these political parties play in every political structure, specifically in Zambia. To start with, it will explain what the terms Liberal, Liberal Democracy and Political Parties are; it will also explain the Structural functionalist Approach. Thereafter, the works and critiques of