More handpicked essays just for you.
Demerits of democracy introduction and conclusion
Demerits of democracy introduction and conclusion
The transition to democracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Political systems fluctuate across the world, and can range from democracies to dictatorships. In “What Do We Know About Democratization After 20 Years”, Barbara Geddes explores the changes in democracy over a period of twenty years and the likelihood of countries interchanging between democratic governments and authoritarian regimes. Geddes compares the differences between the three main types of authoritarian regimes, which are single-party, personalist, and military. She also argues that military regimes tend to have shorter life spans than the other main types of authoritarian regimes because the military regimes are more susceptible to crumbling, and are less resilient to overcoming exogenous shocks.
In her article, Geddes describes that
…show more content…
The leader can even be an officer in the military or can create his own political party in order to support him and his campaign. Personalist regimes usually develop after rival leaders struggle to gain power and one eventually seizes an office. Rafael Trujillo’s personalist regime in the Dominican Republic (1930-1961) was an example of an occurrence where they transformed from a military to personalist regime. Personalist regimes are also relatively resistant to internal splits except when disastrous economic conditions disrupt the regime. Moreover, they are particularly vulnerable to the death of their leader, powerful overthrows, and violent …show more content…
Furthermore, the military desires to be self-run without civilian interference, and also to have a budget large enough to purchase state of the art weapons, and to recruit top military personnel. Geddes explains that military regimes have a greater chance to collapse because of relationships and rivalries within the rulers of the authoritarian government, and the cliques surrounding it. Another key factor in military rule transitioning to a different authoritarian regime is that military governments have a higher chance of stepping down before a country reaches a major crisis, and the military leaders are more likely to negotiate an obedient transition. Because negotiations play an important role in the transition from military rule than quick and hectic personalist rule, it is more probable that pacts will
In the years immediately after the First World War, a promising new era of democracy seemed to be unfolding. The autocratic regimes in Russia, Germany and Austria, were all overthrown and replaced by republics. The seven newly created states in Europe all adopted the republican form of government. Democracy seemed triumphant in the post-war world. Yet within two decades, many democratic countries in Europe were taken over by some kind of dictatorship.
... dictators have been exiled or even executed as a result of the widespread use of these technologies. Dobson also writes that the biggest problem that dictators and authoritarians face is their own people (9). These factors drive dictators to learn their mistakes and their fellow dictators’ mistakes, causing the nature of dictatorship to change over the years. Particularly, Russia and China are still going strong as dictatorial regimes even though they do not appear to be so. Additionally, the involvements of non-state actors such as the CANVAS, have also affected the dictatorial regime power. With these non-state organizations have grown stronger and more powerful over time, the power of dictatorial regime has become more vulnerable to attack. In fact, these non-state actors can easily overthrow some less powerful dictator and might forget their democratic identity.
My thinking, though perhaps idealistic, was that the maintenance of a large military during relative international tranquility is an overt admission of weakness and increases the likelihood of unnecessarily employing that force—it is contextually irrelevant. Instead, I propose that a strong and stable economy is the best metric of national prowess, for such an economy can resource many opportunities as they arise. On the contrary, a robust military has a much narrower utility. To be sure, this author is not one that intentionally seeks to take an interdisciplinary approach to academia, but the connection seems relevant given the nature of this assignment. Whereas a nation may accomplish a strategic goal through military force, a leader may accomplish a task relying upon coercive power; whereas a nation may transform and develop the world through its economic strength and versatility, a versatile leader may transform others through the employment of one or many leader development principles—both theoretically based and experientially acquired.
Many countries have decided against having a totalitarian government system, but there still are countries that continue with running their country with authoritarianism. The Middle East persists on having an authoritarianism style government over having a democracy. Theories that prove to be true to Middle Eastern people of how a totalitarian government is better relate to economics, religion, and international involvement. People living in the Middle East want to avoid having political liberation because that can lead to a consistent and stable democratic government. Another reason keeping them from changing is that since their countries aren’t struggling economically, the citizens don’t see it necessary to elect new leaders. The countries in the Middle East region decide to continue with authoritarianism because the fear and pain is greater than the feeling of freedom.
For Americans, the word “democracy” itself is strong enough to conjure up notions of a nation unhindered by an oppressive government where citizens are able to engage in the freedom of speech, press, and religious choice and practice. So powerful are American pro-Democratic sentiments that it is a common thought that any other country that does not prescribe to a liberal democracy is somehow inferior. Yet as time marches on, the feelings of superiority by American citizens become more and more unfounded. For, right before our eyes, the very notion of democracy, that Americans become braggarts about, is disappearing. While the U.S. government boasts of the freedoms it affords its citizens, it corrupts such an image through repeated non-democratic actions. While citizens cherish the affordances of a liberal democracy, many do not make the effort to support such a system; taking it for granted that no matter what, a democracy is a self perpetuating entity. In this paper I will argue that the liberal democracy that supposedly defines American government is a declining entity due to overt acts against the principles of democracy by the United States government and also due to the decline of civic engagement by United States citizens. The fact is, no system of government can be perpetuated if the government and its citizens do not work to keep their ideals alive and in practice.
All throughout the 20th century we can observe the marked presence of totalitarian regimes and governments in Latin America. Countries like Cuba, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic all suffered under the merciless rule of dictators and military leaders. Yet the latter country, the Dominican Republic, experienced a unique variation of these popular dictatorships, one that in the eyes of the world of those times was great, but in the eyes of the Dominicans, was nothing short of deadly.
"United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy. The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality. The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy or the First Party System to Jacksonian Democracy or the Second Party System and later to the Third Party System. In Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens, and they were given the vote as well." (Web, 1)
Kyi Suu San Aung. "The Quest of Democracy." Reading The World: Ideas That Matter, edited
Imagine yourself in a world where you are constantly having to fear not being able to ever be free from this cage that you've been wanting to get out of for so long. Now imagine that suddenly just being your real life and not just a world that was just imagined, it’s almost too unbearable to think about, but this happens. The book “Before We Were Free” is a good example of that. The books take place in the Dominican Republic in the 20th century, when the Dictator at the time was Rafael Trujillo, or in other words El Jefe. Dictators are rulers with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.
... This is the typical pattern for the totalitarian government. Works Cited "Dominican Republic" Gale Encyclopedia of World History: Governments. Detroit: Gale Books, 2009. Student Resources in Context.
Military power is not the only form of power. Economic and social power matter a lot. Exercising economic power is more valuable than exercising military power.
... act outside of personal motives and create political reform for the betterment of the country. That being said, autocratic governments are susceptible to succession crisis (Olsen, 1993, p 572). Dynastic successions are often more predictable in autocracies than other forms of changing over leadership because there is less uncertainty for the future. Without dynastic succession and the population not having a clear understanding of who their next leader is, autocratic regimes could falter in short time spans, decreasing the productivity of societies. With the susceptibility of succession crisis, there becomes more chance for political reform. In Cuba, Fidel Castro has recently handed his Presidency over to his brother Raul Castro due to his deteriorating health. With the fall of the president there is a chance for social and political change in the country of Cuba.
The fall of the Soviet Union ushered in the era democracy. The world has seen, since then, many countries overthrow their old governmental structures in favor of democracy. However, for some countries this is only a dream, because sustainable peace requires not just a reform of government but a reform of all agencies in any way connected to the government. One major area that must be reformed in order for a democracy to thrive is the Security Sector. The best way to affect sustainable peace through security sector reform is to allow the people of a country to reform their security sector with aid from or based on a more experienced democratic power this can be seen through two cases: the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Romania.
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
... and fascism offered bold new approaches to modern politics. These ideologies maintained that democracy was effeminate and that it wasted precious time in building consensus among citizens. Totalitarian leaders’ military style made representative government and the democratic values of the United States, France, and Great Britain appear feeble- a sign that these societies were on the decline. Totalitarianism put democracies on the defensive as they aimed to restore prosperity while still upholding individual rights and the rule of law”(Hunt & Martin, 852).