The Contrasting Development of Democratic and Authoritarian States

For example, Iran has a strong political and military influence on other governments in states such as Iraq and Lebanon, which they are able to make use of in their desire to spread authoritarianism. Additionally, Russia is capable of invoking fear and violence to support separatist movements in Georgia and Ukraine, demonstrating similar methods of spreading their governmental form. Furthermore, China has globally supplied other dictatorships, such as Iran and Uzbekistan, with surveillance technology to increase repression on their citizens. All of these actions together are creating a difficult environment for democracy to prosper. The decline of democracy is causing a shift in the mindset of citizens in both authoritarian and democratic states as people begin to realize that their form of government may not truly be the best form of

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.

With the human civilization is progressing, there are several kinds of political system appeared in the world. It seems that an important reason that results in some countries are democratic or some countries not. Therefore, this essay will discuss 2 countries America and Cuba, which are liberal democracy country and non-democracy (authoritarian regime) country respectively. What are liberal democracies and authoritarian regime? What class of politics system runs in those two countries? How does politics system runs in those two countries and changes them. Following will help to further show what above is. This essay will also compare the some aspects of them, which are economics, party of country, human right.

Every since the turn of the 19th century, democracy, the core value and principle of the United Nations, has grown strong in many parts of Europe, North America, Latin America, and East Asia. However, many parts of the world still lay under authoritarian rule, and the change to democracy involves violent demonstrations and protests, riots and even civil wars. These violent transitions towards democracy result in an unstable foundation for the emerging democracies, especially when the country not only has to face the challenge of keeping their new government in check, but also enforce safety measures with subsequent planning to prevent a relapse into chaos and violence. The best option seems to be achieving independence by all means possible.

The government of the independent states of the world is usually either autocracy or democracy. Autocracy refers to a system where one person has absolute power over a nation. Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. The first wave of democratization started in the early 19th century and persisted until the 1920’s after which many democracies reverted to autocracy. Many democracies failed, creating the first reverse wave. After World War II had ended, the second wave of democratization came along. It was relatively brief with the bulk of countries deferring to autocracy by the 1950’s. The mid-1970’s brought the third wave of democratization which continued in

Totalitarianism is a form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of the individual’s life to the authority of the government. By the beginning of World War II, “totalitarian” had become equal with absolute and oppressive single-party government. In the years quickly after the WWI, a promising new time of vote based system appeared to be developing. The dictatorial administrations in Russia, Germany and Austria, were all overthrown and replaced by republics. The seven recently made states in Europe all received the republican type of government. Popular government appeared to be triumphant in the post-war world. Yet inside of two decades, numerous law based nations in Europe

In 20th century the global community witnessed a tremendous amount of chaos. World Wars, and ideologically driven proxy wars brought destruction, and decline to many great countries. One would think that many people have died in these wars, but it is shocking to note that four times as many people have died at the hands of their government than in these wars. Institutions like the government are created to represent the people, to serve, and benefit their welfare. A type of government that does not follow this norm are often oppressive authoritarian regimes. These regimes can range from a one-party rule where a political party or group governs, to a one-man rule. Whichever it may be, authoritarian regimes tend to use similar tactics that

Democratic and nondemocratic regimes are two broad categories in which all countries are able to fit into. Within each of the two regimes, there is a high degree of variance. Even though a majority of countries are currently categorized as democratic, nondemocratic countries still exist throughout the world in countries such as Russia and China. Major differences exist between the two regimes; however, they do share similar aspects and goals for their respective countries.

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"

The kingdom of Gulephistan is a country that sits atop vast quantities of oil, but it has numerous religious and ethnic divides. There is also a troublesome rebellion going on in the east. The country is in urgent need of political and economic development and I take charge of the kingdom of Gulephistan today. This country thereby becomes a non democratic and an authoritarian regime. This decision is based on the issues going in the country and it needs high degree of capacity and autonomy. Authoritarian, non-democratic regimes are capable of producing economic growth higher than that of democratic countries and able to sustain this growth (Arsenault, 2008, pg. v). They have several unique institutional traits, which encourage economic growth (Arsenault, 2008, pg. v). This will make it easy for major policies to be carried out and fulfill basic tasks to solve these issues without public intervention. Huntington said that if the political system is opened first, it is likely to complicate economic reform. The oil in the country will be exploited but won’t be depended on in order not to suffer from resource curse. Oil serves as a source of revenue and it will also be used to support this regime. The oil revenue will result into taxing the citizens lightly or not at all so that the regime will not be accountable to the public. There will be a tradeoff between economic benefits and political rights. While authoritarianism deprives people of their political rights, it also serves

With Authoritarian rule, power is only enjoyed by a small group of leaders, not the people. The use of an Authoritarian government means there is a bigger chance that power can fall into the wrong hands. Also, the more power an authoritarian country has, the more probable that country will become corrupt. For example, take a look at Mexico before it was a democracy, when it was ruled by the PRI, the “perfect dictatorship”. In the years of PRI leadership, the government and president had extraordinary power that shook the institutional framework of the country and even the party itself. The PRI also caused the judicial system to suffer from weakness and lack of independence. After the defeat of the PRI in 2000 there has been greater competitiveness in the electoral system. Mexico’s transition from an authoritarian dictatorship to a democracy is a perfect example of the benefits that come with being a democracy. But what about the poverty and corruption that Mexico is still plagued with today? According to Comparative Politics, the poverty was, “transmitted through cultural traits like authoritarianism, a tendency toward interpersonal violence, misogyny, and poor education”. Also important to note, most of the traits that are associated with Mexico, especially the ones Comparative Politics speaks of, are not unique only to them. These traits are common among all forms of government, so the negative

Latin America has had numerous bureaucratic authoritarian regimes. During this paper, I will discuss how many of these regimes came to rise through the use of the ISI. I will then discuss how incorporating the popular sector into the political sphere is relevant to the rise of these regimes. I will then conclude with how these two characteristics combined can result in a bureaucratic authoritarian regime.

Authoritarian regimes remain in power using many different methods including public manipulation, strategic stacking and reward to their officials and institutions, and violent response to opposition. These examples allow for corruption that Pei (2009) describes as a, “vital governing tool for authoritarian regimes.” Bueno de Mesquita and Smith (2011) note that:

Authoritarian regimes which retain considerable power and the democratic transition is never fully consolidated, stable, or

I will first give a brief introduction of each of the two countries mentioned. Then, I will describe what it means for a country to be democratic and compare the two countries chose to those requirements. I will then go into reasons of how the degree capitalism is used affects the country’s regime type. I will use