The Study Of Democratization Has Been A Key Cornerstone

Equally important, the Atlantic Revolutions sparked the development of different political institutions. Initially, most revolutions began with the desire for further democracy. But, in some individual societies, this political idea transformed into different systems. After the French Revolution demonstrated the impact of human action, communism began to rise. To illustrate, communism in Russia was inspired by Karl Marx and surfaced with the pursuit of economic and political equality. Socialism stems from democracy because both political parties benefit the general public. However, socialism and communism are like extreme forms of democracy as they are established for the people; democracy is built by the people. In another case, communism also emerged in China. Chairman Mao Zedong’s rule resulted in extractive political and economic institutions. Because of this, China was still able to grow. This “authoritarian growth” can be described as a “bird in a cage”: “China’s economy was the bird; the party’s control, the cage, had to be enlarged to make the bird healthier and more dynamic, but it could not be unlocked or removed, lest the bird fly away” (Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson, 438). By this, the cage is able to expand but the bird is still limited from achieving true freedom. These political changes fostered equality

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.

The elite theory believes that a small group consisting of powerful people holds the most power, and that this power is independent of a state's democratic elections process. Elite theory argues either that democracy is in all unrealistic, or that democracy is not able to be achieved within capitalism. Within the elite theory not everyone is going to have the power when making decisions only the most powerful group. Overall meaning the elite theory can determine the trajectory of the society, and therefore the conditions which the members of that society must exist and function. When considering who’s interest does the elite theory compromise it would be hard to find an answer considering that all these groups work together to protect each other’s

China and Russia are both countries with strong state traditions who have favored communist systems over the western idea of democracy. But, in the 1990’s, China and Russia began to stray from their communist systems in their own ways. Russia began the shift with rapid political liberalization under Gorbachev followed by the fall of the Soviet Union. China, on the other hand, embarked on a managed transition with step by step introduction of capitalism while the CCP remained the sole political power. China’s transition was hugely successful, experiencing astounding GDP growth and the largest increase in human welfare in history. Russia’s reforms on the other hand was a failure as the soviet lost half its territory and population. Following the fall of the Soviet Union was an economic recession with an increase in crime and death rates. China experienced a huge increase in human welfare while Russia saw a huge downturn. After comparing China’s and Russia’s different path towards modernization, China has seen stronger and stabled growth as opposed to Russia’s shortcomings.

Does people with criminal records should have the right to vote? My answer is NO. However, with the development of industrial society and modern technology, the continuous improvement of the degree of rationalization, democratization becomes a non-stop inverse trend. In developed countries democratization process, they always emerge situation repeatedly, along with the democratization of instability and recession. How to achieve democratization, and how to grasp the path of democratization, have became an unavoidable problem. Take a look at the process of democratization of the United States, we found that the democratization of experience that can help our political development. The most important aspect of democratization that electoral rights of citizens, the paper intends to investigate American citizens the right to vote of the development process. Evolution of American citizens the right to vote, can be divided into three stages: the strict restrictions on colonial suffrage, universal suffrage established in the 19th century period, extension of the suffrage of the 20th century.

The government in the United States supposedly revolves around American ideals such as equality and diversity; however, this is simply not the case as perpetuated by class inequalities. The meaning of democracy has been skewed in the United States to represent something entirely different than it did in 1776. Today, American democracy behaves more like an aristocracy, where the upper class exercises power within the government and state, influencing discourse and therefore the laws and resources in our country, which are purportedly “for the people”. Democracy is presumed to provide everyone with equal political power, but the government in today’s America, although seemingly following this ideal model, does not. Instead, the elite upper class has a monopoly over the political influence and are the sole benefactors from public policies due to their influence over the policy making process. The upper class has an overall benefit from class inequality, as it greatly impacts American ‘democracy’ through the significant power gained through money and status, leadership roles that impact government, and the influence in the policymaking process that creates upper class advantages.

Income inequality is a phenomenon that is undeniably real in our current world, and more specifically, the present United States. Canon describes how the gap between the elite and the poor has been consistently growing for many years and continues to widen (189). Whether the differences between the top and the bottom are a threat to current society is another story. Does income inequality undermine a democracy? Ray Williams argues that societies are strongest when they have a higher rate of equality while George Will challenges that inequality is the very basis of what make democratic processes. A. Barton Hinkle takes a Libertarian approach to the idea that inequality is threatening to democracy and how it can be fixed. Some threats that each article addressed were economic impacts, civility, and fairness. Overall, there is a definite need to evaluate whether the United States democracy is being threatened due to the continuous rise of the elites and the fall of the working class.

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"

After many countries in Latin America received their independence, limited change of conditions occurred and the elite maintained control in the new republics. The basis for economic inequality remained the same and the patterns persisted. In the early 19th century, the majority of countries had developed republican democracies yet the upper class still had the power to act in their own interests. A direct bearing established the extent of the elite’s ability to influence the formation of government policies. Landowners opposed any institutional change that could transfer power

Despite the democratization movements in Latin America and Eastern Europe in 1980s and 90s, Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes proved to be resilient. Despite the recent Arab Spring protests, most Middle Eastern nations live under authoritarian regimes. How do these authoritarian regimes survive for so long? What are the factors that contribute to their longevity?

Rodrik’s work contributes to the extensive corpus on the relationship between institutions and labor-market outcomes, as well as the economic consequences of political democracy; however, most research on the role of institutions focuses heavily on labor-market institutions, while most research on the consequences of political democracy examines its

According to Andrew Janos, “the price of economic progress has been political turmoil”. (Janos, pg. 21) If the Modernization Theory holds that countries tend to become more democratic the more they modernize, then political turmoil is to be expected in democracies. Certainly this can occur in both parliamentary and presidential systems: as Linz argues, the presidential system concentrates too much power on the president, resulting in “winner-take-all” politics (Linz, pg. 56) and the polarization of political parties. This is evident in the United States, where the president is elected separately and Congress is divided between the opposing Democrats and Republicans. Conversely, the parliamentary system in Britain, as well as that adapted by the former British colonies of Sri Lanka and Nigeria, has had its fair share of single-party hegemony and political abuse. (Horowitz, pg. 78) Democracy is therefore not a perfect form of government when put in practice, and much of its

In the "Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy", the author Barrington Moore Jr. discusses or presents how the upper class and peasants were represented in different in the processes like democracy, fascism, and communism. In the book, Barrington separates the book into 2 parts. Part I focuses on the process to achieving democracy and capitalism in the cases of England, France and the United States of America. Part II of the book focuses on communism, fascism, and an Asian form of democracy for the countries of China, Japan, and India respectively. While there is a lot of material to discuss, reading about the evolutions of these country 's political systems was interesting to read and makes you think about how far we have come not

Additionally, in more precarious democratic governments such as India’s, peoples right to power is still recognized. Ronojoy Sen remarks of India’s 2009 elections that, “a handful of successful professionals and entrepreneurs even ran”(cite). Despite implying that only successful peoples were exercising their liberties, elucidated in this article is the potential of any citizen to attain political power, demonstrating true liberal democracy in its purest form. Communism does not give its people these liberties, the party is the “agent for creating political development” (Janos, pg. 2) and there is little need for elections as the outcome is pre-determined. In the case of Nazism, while Hitler utilised democracy to attain power, once in control democracy was replaced with autocracy.

This research paper uncovers the study of modernization and how it correlates to political development towards democracy. First, it examines the development and origins of the modernization theory that encompass a number of explanations that connect economic, social and cultural changes with shifts in political systems. Modernization puts forth the idea that economic development will lead to cultural and social changes that transform the political behavior of a country’s citizens that can ultimately lead to democratic governments. Subsequently, the paper moves to the empirical evidence supporting the modernization theory and critiquing the theory’s broader applicability. Some critics would suggest that certain types of economic development could actually destabilize society, rather than progressing the cultural and social components that provide the starting point for democratic societies. Meanwhile, others have advocated that wealth does not explain the emergence of democracy, and that the likelihood that a country remains democratic is higher in richer countries. Finally, it will look into future avenues in research on the correlation between political development and modernization.