More handpicked essays just for you.
The difference between democracy and dictatorship
The difference between democracy and dictatorship
The difference between democracy and dictatorship
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
PLSC 116
Kaitlin Gately
9/24/14
Short Response #1: What are the differences between democracy and dictatorship?
According to Przeworski, the fundamental difference between democracy and dictatorship is that in democracy, leaders are selected through competitive elections. While there exists this fundamental difference between democracy and dictatorship, democracy has also been proved to be related to the state of economic development. According to evidence presented by Seymour Lipset, economic development is much higher for the more democratic countries compared to those characterized as ‘less democratic’ or authoritarian. Although the fundamental difference between democracy and dictatorship that Przeworski presents is competitive elections,
…show more content…
If a democracy is merely a “system in which rulers are selected by competitive elections” , then is it still right to call an electoral system a democracy if some portion or specific group of the population has no voting rights? Up until the nineteenth century, many Western democracies had property qualifications specified in their electoral laws. In the United States, for example, the electoral system established in 1776 at first only favored white, privileged men because only white men with a certain property qualification were given the right to vote. Furthermore, women were not granted the right to vote until 1920 under the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment and even when African Americans were at first given the right to vote, many of them were still restricted due to taxes imposed at voting polls. While I agree that democracy consists of competitive elections as Przeworski states, I also believe that the minimal definition should include the universal right to vote of citizens. If democracy is defined by ‘majority rules’, how accurate are the results of elections in determining what the majority of a population desires if some people aren’t even allowed to vote? While the fundamental difference between democracy and dictatorship is that democracy has competitive elections that induce compliance, these elections should not have restrictions on who can vote based on race, gender, or ethnicity, so long as democracy is defined as a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who can rule either directly or through elected
Before that can be established, I think a definition of democracy should be stated so that it may be called upon later in this essay. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, democracy is stated as "the principle of social equality and respect for the individual within a community" .
The word "democracy" is a tricky one, and it is important to bear in mind that it meant different things to different people in the 19th century, Just as it does today. For some mid-Victorians the word democracy was a term of abuse. But for many others, it was worth pursuing, but not to be taken too far. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham were a famous thinkers and philosophers who held an important attitudes toward democracy. Each one of them call for a different theory toward suffrage and the right to vote.
First of all I would like to bring to your attention that many votes don't even get counted if you call the United States a democracy. The way the whole Electoral College thing works is that each state is allowed a certain number of "electors" (the state's number of Representatives plus its Senators), who then vote for the president. The elector's vote based on the state's popular vote. After the state verifies the votes, the candidate that receives the most votes get all of that state's elector's votes. Because the state's constitution awards electoral votes that way, the innumerable individual votes become meaningless. Does that sound fair to you? It doesn't to me.
The majority of Americans when asked what type of government their country practices, will answer with a strong and proud, “Democracy!” but the reality is vastly different. The Unites States is not strictly a democracy. Democracy as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is, “a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity… are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly,” (Oxford English Dictionary) and if you observe our practices including gerrymandering, the electoral college, the intentions of the founding fathers, our history of racism and discrimination, and a republic vs. a democracy, you will see that the U.S. is in fact, not
There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.
middle of paper ... ... t Democracy in a Neoliberal Order: Doctrines and Reality, Z online Magazine Iversen, T., (2006), Handbook of Political Science, 1st ed, Spi Publisher Services. Pp 614-615 Koelbe, T. and Lipuma, E. (2008), 'Democratizing Democracy: A PostcolonialCritique of Conventional Approaches to the 'Measurement of Democracy', Democratization , Vol.15, No.1, Pp. 16-18 Przeworski, A., 2004. Capitalism, Development and Democracy.
The term democracy is ambiguous, but Abraham Lincoln (1863) defines it as the “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” This modern take of democracy should guarantee basic personal and political rights to every individual person, everywhere, every day. Josiah Ober (2007, p.4) points out that “the Greek word dêmokratia conjoins kratos, a term for ‘power’, and dêmos, a term for ‘the people’.” It therefore means ‘power of the people’. But the Athenians did not call it democracy at the time, “they called it ‘isonomia’ or “equality in law”, writes Bernard Randall (2004, p.86). The earliest forms of democracy were formed by the ancient Greeks around 510 B.C in Athens.
More importantly, what is a democracy exactly? Some would define it as a form of government where the people rule, others as where the poor rule, and I would say it is where everyone contributes in how the government is ran but do not control the final decisions made. In Aristotle 's "Democracy and Oligarchy", he discusses the different kinds of democracies that exist and how equality plays a huge role in defining it. Without equality, or even limiting it, it can change a democracy into an oligarchy. He goes into detail about each kind there is and further analyzes how regardless of having similar elements, they are each unique in their own way.
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...
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...
...ople define democracy. Not only does it bring up the complex question of what a democracy really is but also, depending on the definition of democracy, it question whether the theory is accurate or inaccurate. For instance, if one views democracy to be a system of government where there is equality and the people are free and autonomous, it could be argued that democracies go to war with each other and have in fact done so. On the other hand, if the definition of democracy is clear, straightforward maybe even restrictive, the truth of the theory comes forth. If democracy is defined as a political system where universal suffrage exists, then it really can be argued that democracies do not conflict with each other and no democracies have. This does lead to the conclusion, that for this theory to apply, countries considered to be democracies must really be democratic.
Communism is an original system of society, quite different from Democracy in many ways. While total democracy is not widely spread, many forms of it are prosperous throughout the world today.
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.
Democracy, in its truest sense, does not exist. There is no political authority currently existing where every person contributes an equal amount to the decision-making process of the authority’s directives. The election of officials and representatives by the populace does not, in itself, automatically result in the most democratic and widely accepted directives being enacted. However, this does not decrease the political power of the authorities, nor does it limit their practical power over their jurisdictions.