The Importance of External Influences in Building a Democracy

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 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

Since the dawn of mankind, there has always been a struggle for power, from our primitive ancestors to our present day, supposed, enlightened times. There have been a variety of systems that spawned and died in the political world. It can be assumed that the fruition of democracy emerged after the desire to create a system in which it was equal, sustainable, and transparent and where human rights was recognized. Robert Dahl, a prominent political scientist, had believed creating a democratic society in which he considered was perfect had to have (Dahl, 2000): effective participation, equal voting, enlightened understanding, an open agenda setting and inclusion (p.37-38) . In the present day, there are many countries that consider themselves

Since the French Revolution, America has been actively pursuing promotion of democracy on a global scale. The desire to build inclusive political processes globally by America has an underlying motive of economic gain, veiled by the promotion of general liberties and civil rights. Democratic nations are more likely to honor international treaties, participate in global economic interactions, uphold the right to civil liberties, and less likely to engage in conflict. However, due to conflicting platforms of major parties and integral political leaders and representatives, the implementation of plans to promote democracy are consistently vetoed or are weak in practice. This fault of democracy promotion can be significantly attributed to divided government.

For the first time in known history, most people around the world are living under democratic ruling. Although to many this can be seen as a positive step forward from the gruelling nature of dictatorship and other forms of governance, one needs to understand the true nature of the worlds democratic state. This report will investigate and analyse the state of democracy around the various countries of the world and elaborate on the chosen countries democratic crisis and state of governance.

The United States prides itself on its democratic idealism and believes the every state should have the opportunity to experience the freedom democracy offers. Democracy, in term of American values, allows for the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” . These are inalienable for everyone and those countries that withhold this must be change or reformed. The United States with other democratic countries has taken on the project of converting all non-democratic states into democratic governments. This process in motivated by the face, many believe democratic nation are better for the world than the latter. Unfortunately moving to such “perfect” model of government is not easy and sometimes close to an impossible

Democracy as a form of government is usually exposed to different understanding, interpretations and even definitions. For some it is the solution and for others it is a problem. It is a term that is a fundamentally disputed concept—a concept that is at the heart of endless debates that although are not settled by any kind of argument, are nevertheless continued by all sorts of scholarly evidence. Democracy is a disputed concept because nearly everyone values the “ideal”, yet there are different legitimate but also incompatible criteria for judging whether the ideal is actually one to strive towards. In a perfect world, we as comparative thinkers would use concepts that reflect the uniqueness of each country and yet are simple enough to be relevant and measurable in every country. In reality and practice, the difficulty of gathering political information usually prevents scholars from achieving these goals so we tend to settle on concepts that focus on characteristics of democracy like Robert Dahl in his book, On Democracy, and Sheldon Wolin in his articles “Fugitive Democracy” and “Norm and Form”. These scholars lead us to question why

Since the Cold War era, the spread of democracy and its implications have been highly debated across the world. As more states adopt this method of government, the question of how to interact with opposing states has taken the spotlight in the context of international relations. Some scholars, like Robert Kaplan, believe that democratic elections do not help with social and economic stability in developing countries. Others, particularly supporters of the United States idea of democracy such as Sean Jones, believe that democracy benefits the inhabitants of newly democratizing states, promotes peace in the international system, and advances U.S. interests. This paper will explore the support and opposition of the claim that spreading

James Cairns and Alan Sears use two key frameworks as contrasting lenses on the current state of democratic theory and practice. The use of these frameworks is designed to help readers become more cognizant of where they stand on certain questions regarding democracy, as well as reflecting on why they might hold these views. In addition, their frames are used to help reflect upon the fact what counts as a democracy is defined otherwise, depending upon the perspective from which you approach the question.

The U.S government has been in the past make several trials promote democracy within their state and in the whole world. There are various ways through which there are developments of democracy by different administrations of the United States. The approaches to democratic promotion range from realism, liberalism and constructivism (Carothers, 55).

In the study of US international relations, democracy promotion has been historically an integral part of US foreign policy since at least the early twentieth century. According to the three most popular theories in international relations (the three main theoretical approaches to the studying of international relations), which are realism, liberalism and constructivism, each approach has its unique perspective towards US democracy promotion. In Realists’ point of view, the democracy promotion efforts of US to its allies have been great component of US foreign policy, as US has provided supports (e.g., financial, strategic, moral, etc.) to a number of successful democratic movements in many countries such as society-driven political changes

Countries such the United Kingdom, Germany, and India followed a common theme of having undergone a process of democratization that has entailed a divergence from or acceptance of authoritarian rule before embracing a consolidated democratic system of government. Each of the countries listed also experienced a level of economic instability or turmoil that is connected to their past conflicts with authoritarian rule that acted as the catalyst to an eventual acceptance of an improved democratic system that would yield greater economic stability. Countries such as Mexico, Brazil, and Nigeria all followed the concept of being afflicted by influences of past or present corruption that has prevented the governments of each country from yielding a more consolidated democratic format. Regional identity divisions and unequal distributions of power and representation for electoral arrangements have put each of the listed countries at risk for a democratic breakdown if changes are not enacted for the sake of veritably hindering the causes behind such instability. Moreover, countries such as China Iran, Russia both follow the concept of operating under a system of creeping authoritarianism

“Rather, there are all shades of democracy, ranging from purely façade democracies, such as the now-demised Fujimori regime in Peru, to formal to procedural democracies, where you have relatively free and competitive elections and the institutional forms of democratic governance, but where other important aspects—e.g., a free press, respect for human rights, strong and effective legislative and judicial institutions.” - Interesting

A democratic government has always proved to be effective in more prosperous than other governments. Although this is true, many efforts have to be made in order for it to be successful. The founding fathers of the democratic government of each country have to have the knowledge and resources that are vital for building this type of government. After establishing this government, the advancement and maintaining of this government have to have a stable environment. The stable environment includes many essential elements. Education and literacy are vital for this because you need to be able to learn and read to make educated decisions. The political knowledge that is in the background of every political figure highly affects their decisions while

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