Rise Of Competitive Authoritarianism

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.

Francis Fukuyama; political scientist, economist, and author, in his article “The End of History?” discusses he rise and fall of major ideologies such as absolutism, fascism and communism, and suggests that human history should be viewed in terms of a battle of ideologies which has reached its end in the universalization of Western liberal democracy. Fukuyama concludes that the idea of Western liberal democracy has triumphed in the world through a variety of different ways and is a thriving piece of world order today. However, there are certain flaws to his argument including a US- centric view on the events of the twentieth century.

Both authors, Samuel P. Huntington and Francis Fukuyama, don’t have any conflicting views but have different perceptions as to how they see the world after the revolution and the cold war. Samuel believes that the west is dominating the world, changing cultures and customs of other countries. However, Francis analyzes the positive aspects of how the liberal democracy in the west is more powerful than all other democratic nations and he portrays how western dominance is effective and healthy for most of the nations.

This paradox presented by the United States exemplifies the conflicts and struggles faced by many democratic countries. As the country moves increasingly from a homogenous, Anglo-Saxon dominated state into a heterogenous, multicultural “beacon of freedom”, conflicts occur between diverse values and beliefs, making it difficult to balance the views of majority and minority. This leads to critics accusing the United States of being contradictory, if not hypocritical, but many fail to address the increasing complexity of modern global society and the difficulty, if not implausibility, of having principles overriding needs. There is no perfect democracy, no nation or system that can uphold its foundational, ideal values without some compromises. After all, the ideal principles can only be attained in a perfect, utopian world, and as long as those who construct and comprise such societies are flawed, so too will be their

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.

If I was able to sit down with the world’s most knowledgeable Psychologist, I would have many questions. However, there would be several main themes or topics that I would enjoy discussing with them in general. One would be about the rise of authoritarianism in the world today and what kinds of aspects of today’s world might be driving that kind of behavior to be dominant. Another topic would be about exponential technology and the potential for this kind of technology to disrupt the processes of the brain, or to be too advanced for the biological brain to handle for a wide swath of humanity. Moving from that topic, I would go directly into transhumanism and discuss the effects and challenges on psychology and the brain, but also the interesting

The fall of Berlin Wall, as a symbolic event, opened the way of democracy to many post-Soviet states and enhanced the third wave of democracy according to Samuel Huntington (Huntington 2012). Even though the institutions and practices of democracy are accepted by many, not all countries embraced democracy as an ideal. Instead, they used democratic processes to increase their authoritarianism. This attitude by was studied by many scholars and named in several terms. Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way argued a widely accepted concept for this kind of hybrid regimes, which is called “competitive authoritarianism” (Levitsky and Way 2010) especially in the case of Russia and Peru. But rejecting democracy via elections and democratic practices has been

In the study of Liberalism and its key values, those of Democracy and Social Justice have often been posited as providing the world with an ideology and political philosophy which can guarantee peace between its adherents. The ‘Democratic Peace’ has been formulated in order to illustrate a world in which democratic states do not engage in war between each oth-er as fellow democrats live with a stable and historically unique form of government. This essay shall explore whether it is acceptable that one can portray ‘liberal democracy’ in par-ticular as universally applicable in a standard form. This is a central tenet of the democratic peace theory and as such requires questioning to determine whether or not liberalism is indeed a force peace in world politics. Furthermore, it shall look at many pieces of postcolonial International Relations (IR) theory, engage with democratic peace theory directly, as well as some contemporary examples of liberal actions in order to assess the peaceful state, thus far, of liberalism. It is my argument that although the democratic peace theory does portray the best intentions of those Liberal States who actively engage in world politics, it is not, howev-er, accurate in portraying liberalism as a whole as peaceful. Instead by accepting and discuss-ing the peace between liberal nations, it fails to highlight and in fact sometimes seeks to hide the more aggressive and warring actions of liberals against those from outside of the para-digm.

A military regime, alongside monarchical, personalist and single party regimes, is a classification of an authoritarian regime. The regime is organised by a group of officers who decider a ruling mechanism and exercise some influence on governmental policy (Geddes, 1999, p.125). Authoritarian regimes arise through the eradication of an elected government and the majority party, through a coup or a military intervention. Survival of authoritarian regimes has become increasingly more difficult because of a developing democratic world which has now reached the ‘third wave of democratization’ (Huntington, 1991). All types of regime are vulnerable to collapse but the military regime is especially vulnerable as the institutional costs often counterbalance the benefits (Nordlinger, 1977). Thus, the longevity of a military regime is far shorter than that of either personalist or one-party regimes. The reasons as to why military regimes struggle to survive for lengthy periods of time can be explained through; the corporate interest of the regime, the benefits obtained from the regime during power or implementation, the vulnerability of the regime during power and the consequences that would emerge if the regime dissolved.

Bernard Lewis article titled “Islam and Liberal Democracy: A Historical Overview" presents the argument that Islam, in its essential nature and teachings, is inherently opposed to liberal democracy. He first defines the two keywords of the debate – Islam and democracy, and goes on to give historical and contextual evidence for why both are not compatible with each other. In defining democracy, he builds on Huntington as a useful starting point. An account of the influence of the West in the trajectory of

Democracy is a predominant authority regime that most countries both young and mature have adopted based on its accrued benefits. Defining democracy can be a daunting task as several countries may prefer to institute governing policies rather than adopt from other states (Rowley & Smith, 2009). The element of incorporating modified aspects of democracy is based on the difference in several factors that may range from religion, culture, to political ambition. Islamic states are considered complex as religion “sharia laws” play a prevailing role in the majority of the administration tasks conducted by the state. As such, Islamic countries defined by a democratic administration will prefer to integrate the alternative that will serve them best. This essay will evaluate two democratic regimes that were established in the Middle East, and further, discuss the factors that lead to Iran’s democratic failure over Turkey’s administration success.

(1) Democratic Norms and Cultures.In Common, the so-called normative interpretation (Normative Explanations). The explanation considers that the reason for why democracies don 't war, mainly because of the democratic countries have similar culture and values.The principles of liberalism would be transgressed if a democratic country declare war to another countries. the only reason Democratic countries launched war to another liberal states is to spread freedom, but before the war, democratic countries already were liberal state, which means the war would lose its necessity. furthermore, more reasons for Democratic States declaring war are intimidated by threats from non-democratic countries or promoting democracy。 Doyle noted that the liberal State has countless war against non-free countries.

Abstract. This essay attempts to explore the various features of Liberalism that are explained by the world politics and the ones obscured by it. It looks into how elements like Free trade, Internationalism, Theory of Democratic Peace, Security Co-Binding have shaped global politics and how the idea of liberal and illiberal fights been obscured in the realm of global politics. The essay is concluded with a gist of how post-cold war liberalism has shaped the west and is responsible in engaging the world in a liberal order.

An American diplomat Richard Holbrooke considered a problem in September of 1996 which happened to be the time of elections in Bosnia. He stated that democratically elected regimes that are elected through regimes are often times the ones that have been reelected or reaffirmed through referenda, are ignoring the constitutional limits on their power and denying their citizens of essential rights and freedoms. It wasn’t easy to bring attention to this problem because for almost a century, democracy has meant liberal democracy in the West. Which was a political system marked not only by free and fair elections but by the rule of law as well, a separation of powers and the protections of basic freedom of speech, assembly, religion and of course property. A scientist by the name of Philippe Schmitter pointed out a good point; he said that "Liberalism, either as a conception of political liberty, or as a doctrine about economic policy, may have coincided with the rise of democracy. But it has never been immutably or unambiguously linked to its practice."

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.