Pros And Cons Of An Authoritarian Government

The United States currently faces many threats to American Democracy. In a functional government, the people of America are protected under the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In this country the most valuable right is the First Amendment which gives each individual citizen the Freedom of Religion, Speech, and right to assemble. Moreover, it is the Freedom of Speech, which gives citizens the right to voice out their concerns, as the most upheld and protected. But of course these Rights come with some guidelines and the methods for them to be utilized without breaking any laws of the land. Furthermore, I do not believe that it is just one threat that threatens the American Democracy but several that effects the country

From the early 1840s to the present day, a democracy can be described as a flawed establishment which has been shaped by the power of wealth and control, complex social relations, and most importantly the people’s desire to live a fulfilling life. Throughout this time period the principles of democracy, such as equality, protection of the people’s interest, and promotion of human rights were shifting in order to increase the democracy efficiency. Therefore the continued importance of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and Constitution remain significant since, in American today, democracy is a system that is continuously being shaped by the people within it.

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

Who would think Oligarchy has so many advantages and benefits? As an oligarch, I would like to introduce the pros of Oligarchy to the citizens. The structure of Oligarchy makes the decision- making process fast and easy. Parliament and the constitution are absent in oligarchy. The decisions in oligarchy are made rapidly. The agreements get accepted quickly because it’s made by a handful number of people. Oligarchs are knowledgeable and intelligent individual and everyone is capable of making a wise decision. In Oligarchy, women get the opportunity to advance to the higher position in power. People don’t have to be wealthy to advance to a better position; they only have to have knowledge and creativity. A competent person, who serves

What comes to mind when you think of tyranny? Most people imagine it as one person in charge of everyone else, that person can be a king, a dictator, or any absolute ruler. Although these people would be considered tyrants, tyranny is much broader than that. Tyranny can also be tyranny of individual states over the central government, of one branch of government over other branches, and of big states over little states. The framers of the constitution foresaw this and they made sure to include things in the constitution that would safeguard against all types of tyranny. The constitution does this through separation of powers, federalism, and balancing power between large and small states.

There exists a fine line between the degree of responsibility a government has for its citizens, and the control it assumes to ensure the proliferation of its power. While freedom may be a traditional American value, how it is defined is a question that has long been a source of debate. Furthermore, when an institution follows a course of action that becomes detrimental to society, what responsibility, if any, do the citizens have to show their dissent, and what form should that dissent take?

Imagine one morning, waking up and realizing that the country you used to know as the land of the free, was not free anymore. That your freedom of speech had been stripped away a long time ago. Imagine realizing that your right to vote and the right to have a say in the government had been gradually replaced by a dictatorship, and you were just now noticing it. In the 2007 article, “Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps” Naomi Wolf argues that the Bush administration had begun to implement the ten steps to take down a democratic nation. The article addresses the ten steps that are “basically a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship” (Wolf). Naomi Wolf compares past policies that dictators have enacted to 2007 American

“How Democratic Is the American Consitution?” written by Robert A. Dahl is a novel that’s main purpose is to “suggest changes in the way we think about our constitution” (Dahl 2003, p.1). Robert A. Dahl revolves his book around a few questions. However, the main focus of all the questions are “why should we Americans uphold our constitution” (Dahl 2003, p.1)? This question is asked because he questions why we uphold something that was written more than two centuries ago. He also questions how democratic our society is because of our constitution. Dahl examines the fact that some Americans have no problem with the constitution as it is today and then he also states that some find it to lack in some crucial areas. Dahl explains that there are seven crucial areas in which the constitution lacks democracy. These include: slavery, suffrage, election of the president, choosing senators, equal representation in the Senate, Judicial power, and Congressional power.

The majoritarian model is currently being used in Canadas political economy, however, Canada’s would be better off with a shift to the consensus model as it included all minority groups and represented the true meaning of democracy. The consensus model represented the people in a society by including minority groups, using a federal or decentralized government and a multi-party system. The consensus model ensured the inclusion of groups in plural societies, where this was absent under a majoritarian ruling. A majoritarian model of government only made decisions in the hands of a select few, whereas, in a consensus model the power was divided in a federal or decentralized government. Finally, a consensus model allowed for multiple parties to run for election under the multiparty system and voting was done under proportional representation. However, in a majoritarian government, there are two parties running for office which operated under a disproportional election.

“The Repression of Dissent” is explained by Dr. Parenti in that the government doesn’t benefit us. The National Security Autocracy is the government loosing group authorities because the main goal of the government is to free-market globalization. According to Dr. Parenti agencies such as the FBI and CIA are intelligence agencies in which their goal “is to defeat movements at home and abroad to seek alternatives to free-market globalization” (129). In order for these advanced programs to succeed, they are required to have a lot of money in their hands. Their intelligence budget was “about $44 billion in 2005” (130). Now, agencies with this much technology have the power to spy on regular citizens and congress. For instance, the Pentagon’s

The American Constitution, seen by Americans as guiding light and bedrock of civil rights and democracy is as Robert A. Dahl argues not so democratic and does not guard the rights of individuals. P.18 Dahl places his work asking fundamental questions as to the use and application of the constitution in the modern world, not as an attack as Gordon S. Wood from New York Review of Books clearly states on the front cover. Dahl merely and humbly is asks Americans to deeply reconsider their much loved constitution. P.122 The work is extremely relevant as it delivers an extremely bold insight into this sacredly held text.

Mexico is a product of its past; political violence early in its history proceeded to cause a quasi-authoritarian, corporatist regime. Its nationalist tone was a result of both foreign intervention and a search for stability, workers were expectant of unionized labor creating job security and a living wage, and businesses were accustomed to subsidies and tariff protection (Gill, 2014). However, this all changed in the 1980’s when Mexico experienced an economic crisis when the international economy changed, but interests in Mexico did not, causing a reimagining of both economic policies and the political system. Grassroots demand for democracy led the system from a one party system to a multiparty one. This crisis also showcased economic

150). Democracy is supposed to be about equal opportunity but when bribery is brought into the balance it disrupts the scale to tip the scales into the favor of the politicians which goes against the principle of democracy (“Rise of Democracy”, para. 1). In the majority of Latin American countries there is a system called “compulsory voting” which makes it illegal not to vote. Although it is illegal not to vote, in Brazil’s case, only 78.90% of eligible voters voted for the presidential campaign in 2014 (“Voter Turnout”, para. 3). While there is a huge amount of corruption in Latin America, it can be overcome. In September of 2015, a crowd of Guatemalans chanted at President Otto Perez Molina, “Resign, now.” Their voice was heard as the ex-Guatemalan president stood down from office and is now in prison awaiting trial over an alleged corruption scandal (Watson, p.1, para. 1-3). This is just a glimpse of the power the people can hold. If the voters can get a current president out of office than imagine what can happen if everyone were to vote for who they truly believe is worthy of representing and governing the country.

America is synonymous with the word freedom, even being dubbed “the land of the free” by its own national anthem. But, what makes America so much more “free” than other countries? Some would argue that it’s America’s system of democracy, despite the fact that democratic governments are now the most common form of rule found in countries around the world. American democracy, although effective, is not the best democracy style for all nations; because, like many other countries, its government contains many flaws, including: its low voter turnout, two-party political parties creating division and deadlock in congress, and government positions of power being bankrolled and controlled by the rich.

However, a regime is no longer democratic the moment it violates at least one of the norms that make elections democratic, hence the name electoral authoritarianism. Furthermore, there are intrinsic powers of representative institutions in driving the dynamic of stability and change in such regimes. Thus, there is motivation for rulers to manipulate them and gain electoral legitimacy without bearing the risks of democratic uncertainty. The manipulative tactics used by authoritarians to repress are assumed to render electoral authoritarian regimes more resilient. The article also assumes the manipulation of representative institutions to create imperfectly informed citizens are identified as more authoritarian than