Why Is The Fall Of Democracy In Aziile And Brazil

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.

During the early 1960s, Brazil entered a period of unrest caused by the military’s concern over the direction of government policies. The military’s concern rose toward the end of the 1950s due to the president’s perceived connection to communist world leaders. Prior to the Military Coup, the American government demanded that Brazil either move away from leftist policies or be forcefully changed. When Brazil did not comply, the United States, concerned that Brazil would join the communist block in South America, provided money and weapons to help the military overthrow the government. Although the Brazilian Military Coup of 1964 stimulated the Brazilian economy by investing more money into national growth, it was ultimately unsuccessful because

Many countries in the world have democracies, but there are still some where there is a dictatorship. In a dictatorship, nobody is free or safe and nobody will

Sound institutions will boost confidence across the board and encourage investment so long as no one has to factor into the equation the huge levels of gratuitous uncertainty that stem from useless government intervention. We have to accept that external circumstances will create good and bad times. No economic theory can ward off hurricanes, disease, or war, even if sound social institutions can contain some of their adverse effects. But the purpose of government is not to eliminate all the uncertainties of nature and politics. It is to not add to the confusion by creating baroque structures of taxation, regulation, and government spending that add fresh layers of uncertainty through mechanisms that expend real resources in order to reduce social output.

The authors also argue that the greatness of the government driven by democracy is the right to

In 1988, the country instituted a constitution and started to operate under the federal republic with a more liberal viewpoint, which consists of the Federal District of Brasilia and 26 states. Each state has its elected legislature and governor. Direct elections of the president and vice president that stay in office for six years. In Brazil, the president is the head of the state and the government. Michel Temer is the current President and Chief of State of Brazil. Corruption continues to be one of the largest problems within Brazil. (All facts and figures in the above paragraph are from

AIPA 2: UNDERSTANDING ACTORS, INTERESTS & POWER Institutions  Basic level – states exist to provide (1) defence and (2) social order  this requires the presence of a functioning economy.  State not only produces, consumes and redistributes; it’s also the main source and enforcer of “rules of games”.  “Rules of games” are institutions  institutional quality is related to economic performance.  Evidence: No country has gotten rich with bad institutions. Politics  Politics is the process of creating new institutions. Existing institutions create a constraint on this process.  Political processes can be analysed in terms of Actors involved in the processes, their interests and their relative power (AIP).  Actors: Political,

Like in Venezuela 's transition from a military dictatorship to a democracy, a country 's transformation can be broken down into three phases: a preparatory phase where the country 's leaders engage in a prolonged and inconclusive political struggle (Rustow 1970 : 352), such as the 1958 Venezuelan coup d 'état; a decision phase where the country 's leaders decide in favor of democracy, such as the Venezuelan general elections of 1958 and the transition of power from the interim military leader to the elected one; and finally a habituation phase where the country 's leaders and the citizens learn from successful resolutions and put their faith into the new rules, such as Venezuela 's establishment of a governing board after the 1958 coup d 'état to form a Democracy and hold elections. While Venezuela was able to successfully move through the three stages of democratic transformation, with the rise of the Bolivarian Revolution, the country has moved into a “gray zone” and has once again entered the preparatory phase where it could backslide fully into a full dictatorship.

To understand the evolution of political institutions in Latin American and Caribbean countries one must understand the history of how politics have typically been corrupted, often dictatorial, and infrequently democratic in these regions. “Latin America has been a region that has experience foreign invasions, instabilities of institutions, and revolutions”. Latin American countries such as Chile, exemplify a country that has experienced an evolution from an authoritarian rule to a democratic regime due to factors such as the political structure, stateness, economic performance, social institutions, and international power and influence, that have contributed and, or hindered to a democratization.

These governmental branches are important to the country of Brazil because they are who determine different circumstances in the country as a whole. Nevertheless, the government in South America as a whole plays a vital role in controlling many different sectors of the economy which to the

Following a decade of high development thanks to the commodity super cycle, Latin America has lost its glow: economic advancement is near zero, equality gains have slowed down, and the political landscape is changing. Although a few nations have started down the path of structural change required to raise efficiency and competitiveness, it is clear that the recent slowdown of economic progress has made the reform process more difficult. When growth slows or stalls, societies tend to shy away from processes of continual, systematic reform, despite the promise of positive results in the forthcoming time frame. At times of economic instability, the short term rules and attention to the medium/long term fades. Preventing this from happening is the main challenge facing Latin America today.

This essay will analyze the situation during dictatorships in the southern cone of Latin America, which consists of Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. The southern cone is the most prosperous area in Latin America with a higher standard of living than other countries, a very high life expectancy and a great deal of participation in the international market.

Over the last half century, Brazil has seen a change in state-run control from a military dictatorship to a liberal democratic regime. This transition was coupled with an economic shift from import substitution industrialization (ISI) to a neoliberal understanding of export-led industrialization. The subsequent reforms attempted to align the state with liberal ideology particularly through the presidencies of Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Considering the extent of policy reforms that occurred in the state, it’s a clear delegitimation of the former military regime. The aspiration to achieve individual liberty, autonomy, and security in terms of free civil societies did not advance as a smooth conjunction. Although the authoritarian state abdicated to an electoral democracy, much of the military-style enforcement remains an accepted aspect of Brazil, which clearly violates democratic principles of civil rights. This paper will analyze policies that ostensibly fortify the judiciary institutions, which are aimed to improve the blatant lack of accountability and efficacy that has plagued the country since the military regime.

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

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.