Democratic versus Authoritarian Regime
State - is a complex multi-faceted mechanism which shares many traits and characteristics that define its essence. Among them is one of the main such as a political regime. Depending on the political regime, it is determined by what means the country 's ruling elite controls the people, economy, puts into practice it’s economic, social and political agendas and views. There are different categories of political regimes, but I want to examine democratic and authoritarian regimes.
It is no secret that the modern civilized world is trying to build on the foundations of democracy. Democracy is the mode of the West, as well - the goal of the most developing countries of the East. Philippe Schmitter and Terry
…show more content…
If the power is concentrated in the hands of one person, it does not necessarily make citizens of their country powerless. A striking example of the positive authoritarianism is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Modern and well-maintained country, where authoritarianism is held not due to the fabulous profits from oil, but from religion. King, who is actually the owner of absolutely everything that is in his country, provides the highest standard of living. In theory and in practice, the monarch 's power is limited only by the rules of Sharia. But this does not mean that the state acts without the executive, legislative and judicial bodies. And despite the fact that everything is controlled by the king, none of European politicians or political call the ruler of this country tyrant or despot. He did not appropriates all the income from the sale of "black gold" (oil) that he could do quite legally, but provides good leadership of the state, which gives a measure of the 19th place in the world for GDP per capita (Listed by International Monetary Fund). More than a quarter of the country 's annual budget is spent on education, by providing free access to it from school to universities. Also the government created six ultra-modern seaports. And all this is at the expense of the state, in fact - at the expense of an authoritarian ruler who does not steal from the people, does not hide …show more content…
I compared authoritarian and democratic regimes and discovered some interesting facts. These two regimes can be differentiated by looking at some of their main features that have been set for ages. The democratic regime is more about involving people in the political system that authoritarian state unfortunately doesn`t provide. However I don`t think that authoritarianism has extremely negative system. It still has the dictatorial leadership, but the governance of the state tries to readjust to better suit people. I found out that democratic political system severely limits the sheer power of personality and strengthens the power elite groups. When people elect their deputies to the power structures, in fact it forms the elite. And this elite can turn into an authoritarian group, whose opinion is dominant in decision making. I would prefer democracy, rather than authoritarianism. Even though democratic regime may have some flaws, it still provides freedom, equality and justice that every human being
Democracy may be the best foundation on which to build a society, but to glorify it
In addition, they are also hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who do not adhere to them. Authoritarian right’s members want society and social interactions develop in ways that increase uniformity. Therefore, they support social control and coercion. Moreover, they use the group authority to place constraints on the behaviors of people. The Authoritarian right’s members are characterized by obedience to authority and punish towards
Janda, Kenneth. Berry, Jeffrey. Goldman, Jerry (2008). The Challenge of Democracy (9th ed.). Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Janda, K., Berry, J., Golman, J., & Hula, K. (2009). The Challenge of Democracy: American
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.
Thus outcomes number two and three are most likely to happen eventually. The question remaining is thus, how can a nation prevent a domineering government for the longest time? This is outcome number one comes into play; a democratic system is by its very design meant to prevent a domineering government from arising. Outcome number four is the most unlikely to happen becau...
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?”
There have been enormous efforts to spread democracy as a political system throughout the world by the developed democratic countries and the international development organizations including the World Bank. By the late 1990s the United States alone spent over a half billion dollars to promote democratic expansion throughout the world (Diamond, 2003). These were done considering that the democratic system leads towards development. As a result in the late 20th century we saw a huge political transformation towards democracy. During the last few decades a huge number of countries adopted democracy as their political system. However, it retain a big question how far democracy is successful in bringing development of a country? At this stage, some people also criticizes the effort of democratization arguing that it is done without considering the context of a country, sometimes democracy is not ideal for all countries and it is an effort to extinct diversity of political system. In studying the literature regarding the debate, we found a paradoxical relationship between democracy and development. Some argue that democracy has failed to ensure expected outcomes in terms of development. While others confronted that democracy has a considerable impact on development. Another group of people argue that form of political system actually does not have any impact on development process. On the verge of these debates, some development institutions and academics throw light on why democracy is not working properly, and what measure should be taken to make it more successful in bringing effective development of developing countries. Consequently, this writing is an effort of revisiting the different views about impact of democra...
The rise of illiberal democracy is about how democracy for some countries has become illiberal democracy. Free and fair elections have become the majority and so what happens is the majority gains power and the citizen’s natural rights are completely abuse and ignore. Zakaria mentions that “Leaders in these countries have argued that they need the authority to break down feudalism, split entrenched coalitions, override vested interests, and bring order to chaotic societies” ( Zakaria 32). Illiberal democracy is on the rise is growing fast especially in the third world countries where leaders feel having more power would actually aid in changing its countries into a more liberal democracy. Today more than half of the countries in the world are illiberal democracies. Illiberalism is nowhere near going away it’s actually a mixed of democracy and illiberalism. So what happening is the majority are electing these dictators into office which are going as extreme as restrictions on speech, assembly and etc. Zakaria believed that in order to truly have a liberal democracy they should be strong base for checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals and the separation of church and state. The truth is that an illiberal democracy doesn’t cater to all races, to which really cause more problems. Zakaria also mentions to democracy, but democracy does not seem to bring constitutional liberalism. In contrast to the Western and East Asian paths, during the last two decades in Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia dictatorship with little black ground in “Constitutional liberalism have given way to democracy.( Zakaria 28)”. Most countries today are in face democratic, but actually have s...
Democracy is “...the word that resonates in people’s minds and springs from their lips as they struggle for freedom and a better way of life...” (Schmitter and Karl, 1991:75). However, the word democracy has many different means depending on the country and context it is used in. “Every country has is own culture and comes by its political system through its own history” (Greenberg, 2007:101, cited in Li, 2008:4). Li, (2008) states that because of China’s political structure the usual road to democracy may be difficult for it to achieve. The western idea ...
Firstly, K. Isbester mentions that democracy has a different meaning for everyone, as some can define democracy as a good aspect for development, on the contrary other believe that it is nothing more than voting after several years. Although, Latin America see democratic g...
In an authoritarian regime there are two kinds of people having their feet stick to the power, the soft-liner and the hardliners both groups present different chemistry in an authoritarian regime. More specifically the authors of the book identify these two groups as “duros” hardliners and blandos as soft-liners. The duros or hardliners are the ones who still believe that continuation of the authoritarian regimes in some cases are possible by ignoring and rejecting democratic reforms. In an authoritative regime these hardliners are composed of various fictions and layers and cling to the idea of position of authoritarian for various purpose and reasons. Some adopt this position to maintain and keep their positions
In his book International Politics on the World Stage John T. Rourke (2008) states that governments range from the strict authoritarian at one end of the spectrum to a completely unfettered democracy at the other end (p. 78). His definition of an authoritarian style government is a “political system that allows little or no participation in decision making by individuals and groups outside the upper reaches of the government” (p. G-1). Those of us who live in a country that has a democratic government may find it difficult to understand why people who live in countries with authoritarian governments do not revolt and change their system of government, but in fact a truly democratic system of government is a relatively new concept in the age of man.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.
Yet, there are nations that ascribe to the democratic ideals as realistically as possible. By allowing and encouraging citizens to vote and by creating and implementing laws equally, these democratic governments are instituting some of the most important ideals of a democratic government. Works Cited Economist Intelligence Unit. The "Democracy Index 2010" Information Policy. -. Economist Intelligence Unit, 2010.