Should Democracy Be Exported?

We know that democracies are common among the economically urbanized countries and rare between the very deprived ones. The reason we scrutinize this pattern is not that democracies are more probable to emerge, as a result, of economic development but that they are to a large extent more possible to survive if they occur to emerge in most urbanized countries. The paths to democracy are diverse. Indeed, they appear to follow no unsurprising pattern. But once democracy is conventional, for whatever reasons, its endurance depends on a few, easily particular, factors.

In the article “Democracy in Decline: How Washington Can Reverse the Tide,” the author, Larry Diamond, details the declination of democracy across the world as a global issue. Diamond explains that, following the Cold War, democracy became vibrant across the world. However, it slowly began to decline, which was seen in Kenya, Russia, Thailand, and Turkey. Additionally, other non-democratic states, particularly authoritarian regimes, are drifting further away from democracy, becoming less responsive to their people. Diamond explains that these authoritarian states are becoming less open because they are increasing their censorships and are arresting those who resist. Furthermore, these governments are also restricting organizations from outside communications and operations. Nearly a hundred laws have been enacted in the past four years restricting freedom of assembly in governments across the world.

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.

The Unites States of America and its government drilled into its citizens that they should spread the political idea of democracy for "the common good of the people". The United States government has established democracy in foreign lands, like Guam. They have encouraged countries to use democracy, like Mexico. There are still some countries though, that are not open to the idea of democracy, like Cuba for example. Some countries, like Russia and China, have been open to the idea of it and are incorporating democratic ideas into their government and economy. The biggest reason the United States spreads democracy is for economic and political gain. Money makes the

Liberty is in inalienable right of each and every person, and is the pre-political concept that gives us intrinsic worth.

But sometimes when democracy is exported, it's rejected in the most emphatic and sometimes violent ways. What is it about the idea that people in non-Western societies don't like?

Democracy and respect for human rights have long been central pieces of U.S. foreign policy. Supporting democracy not only promotes such American values as religious freedom and worker rights, but also helps create a more secure, stable, and prosperous global arena in which the United States can advance its national interests. In addition, democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others. Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and help human

Two major governmental systems that Larry Diamond asserts to be anti-democratic are “oil states” and “predatory societies.” According to Diamond, both of these have the potential to lead to overbearing leaders who take away basic human and civil rights. When evaluating these types of states he specifically turns his attention to Nigeria, Venezuela, and the Philippines. In order to prove his point that not all poor countries are inherently bound to have governments that hinder the development and spread of democracy, he looks at India, a nation that is relatively poor but has still managed to maintain a fairly high level of democracy.

Some long standing societies have failed to become democratic, even with popular support for such a political system for many different reasons. One, tradition and change is hard. Some states have such a thick religious, cultural, etc. history that they do not know how to incorporate democracy with what their state has, needs and wants. Two, they do not want a democracy. They want to be different and try something new to become better or even equal to the presence that the United States used to play as the main actor of politics worldwide. They see the United States diminishing in ways that it does not wish to, so it does not go with the democracy route. Three, some leaders may find that fear works better than anything else. Isolating people

People in democratic societies would like to think the process would/could/should work everywhere. But sometimes when democracy is exported, it's rejected in the most emphatic and sometimes violent ways. What is it about the idea that people in non-Western societies don't like?>

Democracy: A political system in which citizens enjoy a number of basic civil and political rights, and in which their most important political leaders are elected in free and fair elections and accountable under a rule of law (26). In the studies we have undertaken, comparing and exploring various countries and systems politically, economically, and psychologically throughout the quarter, this outcry of democracy has prevailed as a main theme. Successful countries such as the United States and Great Britain are based upon such democratic ideals. It is no wonder that countries have striven more recently toward this goal of democratization. Both the Russian and Mexican revolutions prove that democracy is an attainable goal in the next

America should export democracy because it could help a lot of developing nations and probably even other nations that are already developed. Giving people choices and options, and allowing the people to rule is part of what makes America a great place to be. Living in America, for the most part, your voice can be heard, especially when it comes to issues of gay rights, womens' rights, educational issues, etc. America can serve as a role model for other nations because it can teach them, that controlling your citizens is not the way to rule a nation. Giving the citizens a voice makes the people feel important to that country. Who doesn't want to feel important and have their opinions matter? America can teach other nations of our voting system.

The data provided is helpful in determining the nations perception of democracy so that it may help improve and put in place interventions that promote

Democracy has become the most widespread political form of government during the past decade, after the fall of all its alternatives. During the second part of the 20th century, the 3 main enemies of democracy, namely communism, fascism and Nazism, lost most of their power and influence. However, democracy is still only to be found in less than half of this world's countries. China with a fifth of the total population "had never experienced a democratic government" and Russia still doesn't have a well established democracy. By adopting a democratic perspective, 3 types of governments emerge, non-democratic, new democracies, and old democracies, and all have a different challenge to overcome: either to become democratic, to "consolidate"

Also democracy provides political rights, civil liberties and freedom of press, freedom of association and freedom to oppose to their governments without being afraid of the consequences. Each nation has a unique democratic way of controlling things and under a democratic system people in Latin America could be govern by the government that they choose to and not the military authority or dictatorship. In order to form democracy in Latin American there had to be revolution against authority and the violence that imposed to their citizens. (Isbester K., 2011) O’Donelli defines democracy as ‘patterns, formal and informal and explicit or implicit, that determine the channels of access to principal government positions; the characteristics of the actors who are admitted and excluded ... and the resources and strategies that they are allowed to use for gaining access’