Why do we observe more democratic countries in some regions than others? Provide examples to illustrate your arguments.
Political scientist Samuel Huntington once wrote about how democracy seems to spread in waves across the world, “It floats, stops and retreats” (Huntington, 1991). Over time the forward movement has been tremendous. However, as of now, democracy seems to be in decline, writes Professor Larry Diamond (source) in the journal Current History.
The intent of this essay is to explore why more democratic countries can be observed in some regions than others. In order to achieve a conceivable conclusion when comparing the political properties of different regions, the challenge lies within finding an appropriate approach ensuring as accurate and valid results as possible. Thus, having chosen Europe and the Middle-East/North Africa as areas of comparison the PACL/DD measure appears to be the most feasible approach as investigating regions require a method enabling a “Large-N – study”. In addition, to further strengthen the conclusion, the essay will include a comparative analysis (MSSD) of four countries of choice, applying the results from the PACL/DD measurement on empirical data to ensure its validity. Assuming that the rate of democratic countries within a region to a large extent depends on the respective countries freedom of information, the essay will attempt to figure out why we observe more democratic countries in some regions than others by putting the
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.
Fourth, the definition of the word "democracy" has changed. The way Americans see the word doesn't refer to a static system as it once did, it is ever changing and improving.
Despite the many crises that the United States has faced historically, democracy has persisted. However, this is not to say that the system is secure or deeply rooted. In fact, based on the events of recent decades, it has been weakening. In How Democracies Die, Levitsky and Ziblatt provide examples of how American democracy has exemplified the positive and negative aspects of other global democracies of the past and present. Although the US is exceptional in some ways, with its longstanding democratic institutions and diverse population, it is more similar to others than different. Thus, the idea that few parallels can be drawn to other nations is disproven. The process of comparing each state is analogous to that of differentiating between
The United States is no longer the democracy it stands for. Democracy stands for a government controlled by the majority of the population. The United States is no longer controlled by the majority. America is controlled by the powerful corporations and rich elite. The combination of an uninformed, disinterested public, a flawed election process, and an economy controlled by 1% of the population have all led to the formation of the American Oligarchy.
“The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment". 1
Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines democracy "as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by the people" (www.merriam-webster.com). But the one big problem is that "We the people" are not exercising their "supreme power" to determine the U.S. government. Less than half of the eligible electorate showed up at the polls for the 1996 U.S. presidential election. While lower turnout has marred previous presidential elections, 1996's voter turnout dipped below 50 percent for the first time in more than 30 years. It appears that the people's increasing cynicism about politicians that they lie to get elected and the perception that people have no respect or confidence in the
In the contemporary world, democracy is one of the most progressive system of government that states freedom as a core value. Democracy is based on the free expression of people’s opinions, points of view as well as their opposition to the government actions. Citizens have a great control over the political events taking place in their country because through the elections they can select the right candidate who will be able to represent their interests. Core values of the democracy such as freedom, equality, pursuit of happiness are similar in different countries. However, the implementation of democracies may vary. USA and Canada are two big and prosperous countries that can be a prime example of how democracies may vary despite all the similarities. There are three major differences between US democracy and Canadian democracy such as consensus or in other words substantive goals of political actions, checks and balances or how do different branches of government work, and the last but not least federalism in regards to the division of power between federal government and territorial entities.
Democracy has come to America. With the foundation of democratic by the Greeks and Romans, of English roots was the first to experiment and democracy was the answer for the Americans. By its equality of everyone has a role to vote, its voting vested in the people of supreme power through the representation of elections. With "that all men are created equal," and without the regulation of state power, that democracy could not survive. We learn from the mistakes, or to utilize critical parts is use today in America.
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
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’
We must question to what extent democracy relies on external factors of stability in order to be accepted as legitimate. I would very much argue that the wealth and stable economy of each democratic country plays a large part in its citizens accepting democracy as a legitimate governmental system. Let us first look at the UK, Britain has always had a strong democratic nature to the country and relies on the electorate to vote for the MP’S in the House of Commons. However in late 2010 the London riots shocked the world and showed how the legitimacy of democracy relies on prosperity of the economic situation of a country and when this does not exist it creates a social backlash devaluing the legitimacy of the democracy. Similarly grease one of the oldest democracies in the world has also felt this effect and now the government there has all but collapsed all due the financial support of the democracy failing sending the country into mass chaos.
As stated before, some people argue that there is a relationship between both indicators, with economic development causing democracy. Based on the data presented here, I would say that that might be true in some countries, but not in the ones that have been addressed here. For example, Russia has a greater GDP per capita than Mexico, but it is considered to be a not free country, while Mexico is a partly free one with a lower GDP per capita. Yes, Russians might have a greater income per capita, but they are not free people. In sum, it can be said that democracy and economic development play huge roles in the development of a country, however these are not the only factors that need to be taken into consideration, and it
Democracy varies in every country depending on the type of government or regime they have. There is the liberal democracy, which is all about giving people their rights and liberties; everything is done through fair voting and electing. The people are aware of everything that happens in their government. Illiberal democracies are basically the same as liberal, but the people in power are more secretive of their activities, and there is less civil liberty. It is essentially a partial democracy. Now Authoritarian regimes designate any political system that concentrates power in the hands of one leader or a small elite. There are no free elections and very little regard for the law. Political institutions, social structures, and the democratic rule of law all affect liberal, illiberal, and authoritarian regimes democratic quality differently.
Winston Churchill once remarked that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”. In agreement with his statement, this paper will examine the problems of democratic governments using specific examples, and compare it to the failure of fascist governments in Nazi Germany and Italy and communist governments in the Soviet Union and China.
Democracy and its critics is a political science book written by Robert Dahl In 1989 and published by Yale University Press in America. The book looks at the assumptions of the democratic theory and is able to test them in relation to the questions raised by critics. Thereafter, Dahl suggests the ways in which the states must move towards improving their democracy.