Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The origin of modern democracy
The history of democracy essay
The origin of modern democracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The origin of modern democracy
The West African nation of Benin (population of 10,879,829) is a presidential, representative democratic republic in which the president is head of state, head of government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government, and legislative power is vested in both the government and the legislature, whereas the judiciary is independent of both the executive and the legislature.
In 1960, Benin gained independence from France and went through a series of turbulent regimes, including military coups and various types of government. In 1972, Mathieu Kerekou took control and imposed a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship, under single-party rule and military leadership that lasted for 17 years. As the country became bankrupt
…show more content…
Ironically, even though democracy seeks to eliminate conflict and bring about peace, achieving it often involves unrest, social upheaval, and even war as old and new regimes clash for power and control. Further, each country needs to transition to democracy in its own way based on its history, culture, political and economic conditions rather than according to set agendas provided by well-meaning donor nations.
Will Georgia and Benin be able to sustain their transition to democracy or lose their hard won freedom in backsliding towards their former political systems? The risk of regression is ever present and democratic achievements are no guarantee of permanent democracy. On a positive note democratic regimes have existed in both Georgia and Benin for nearly three decades.
Before 1970 only 46 countries in the world were considered to have some degree of democracy. Beginning with Portugal in 1977 the number of democracies expanded significantly through the mid-1980s as part of the third wave of democratization. Global democratization reached its highest point in 2005 (62.5%) and then the number of democracies began to decline over the next seven years (Figure 1), with losses in Africa, Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Russia, Thailand, and
…show more content…
Despite the incredible gains in democratization in the 20th and 21st centuries there has been periodic regression as well in what Huntington identified reverse waves. In counter-waves, countries fail to achieve their democratic goals or regress to previous authoritarian systems. Currently, we appear to be in a reverse wave; perhaps the end of the third wave. The Arab Spring had been anticipated as a fourth wave, but democracy has not taken hold in the Middle East.
It will be interesting to see if Georgia and Benin achieve full consolidation and become liberal
Woods, K (2008), ‘The Art of the Benin: Changing Relations between Europe and Africa I: The Art of the Benin’, in Brown, R (ed.), Cultural Encounters (AA100 Book3), Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp.4-16
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.
Western attitudes to African people and culture have always affected how their art was appreciated and this has also coloured the response to the art from Benin.
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...
Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations.” The democratic peace proposition encourages hope for a new age of international peace. Over the years since Michael Doyle’s essay a lot of literature has been written about “democratic peace theory”. A lot of analysis has focused on the claim- that liberal democracies do not fight each one another. There is a lot of action- reaction sequence in the academic arguments. As an idea catches on it accumulates adherents. The more popular an idea, there is more likehood of a critical reaction that raises serious and strong reservations about the validity of the new idea. In this essay, I would like to examine the claim- that democratic states are more peaceful as democracy causes peace. In this essay I draw on the writings of John M. Owen, Michael Doyle, Christopher Layne, Mansfield and Snyder, Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin for their views on why democracies do not fight one another and then deduce my own conclusions.
Human history is pock-marked with innumerable wars and revolutions. The cause for most of the revolutions has been the choice of freedom. The opportunity to live a life without physical, mental or emotional restrictions has been and still is of supreme importance to man. This has resulted in the most widely followed discipline of political governance: Democracy.
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...
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years, having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that is largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.
In conclusion Nigeria has never been able to sustain a legitimate democracy. The legacies of British colonialism have created unstable political institutions that have been extremely susceptible to military coups. While ethnic tensions have lead to political party association and corruption, rent-seekers and continual economic decline have decreased support for the government. Although recently Nigeria has seen a shift away from military control as people have recognized its unsuccessfulness, questions still remain about the new democracy. Consider the last time this type of democracy was established, it only lasted four years. Given all these factors and the military history of OlusgunObasanjo, it is no wonder the new democracy is considered fragile.
Political instability and regime change in Nigeria will be observed in this paper. The resource curse has greatly weakened Nigeria as it has led to the numerous regime changes, the hindering of the nation’s democratization, corruption in the government, as well as, civil conflict. According to Samuels in Case Studies in Comparative Politics, Nigeria began as a group of states and empires, which were conquered by the British Empire who ruled Nigeria through indirect rule with varying degrees of rule in North and South Nigeria (Samuels, 323-326). Since they were granted independence in 1960, three republics have been created and each has ended by military rule, which led to the creation of the fourth, and current republic in Nigeria. In the current regime, Nigeria’s GDP is ranked 108 out of 156 and has been decreasing, lower than some of the non-oil-producing nations in Africa (“Nigeria”).
The Nigerian Civil War lasted from July 6, 1967 until January 15, 1970. The belligerents were the Federal Republic of Nigeria, led by the military governor Yakubu Gowon, and the Republic of Biafra, led by the military governor C. Odumegwu Ojukwu. After an abortive counter-coup d'etat in favor of Northern independence, General Ojukwu declared the independence of southeastern Nigeria. Each of these regions were dominated by one particular tribe, and the Hausa of the north long felt oppressed by the southerners underneath colonial rule, while during the short-lived military government from 1966 to 1967 the Igbo had been the victims of several pogroms within the army itself.1 2 To further complicate the tribal tensions already fueling the conflict, British Petroleum, and several other oil companies, had vested interests in vast fossil fuel reserves in the secessionist state, which they feared would be unfriendly to their business.3 The ultimate result was a 3 year civil war, during which 150, 000 troops and as many as 3 million civilians died.
Democracy has come to mean a principle under whose flag has most of the developed countries aced in their race for Imperialism. It has gone beyond all previous governing systems and has made room for progress and development. By offering free and fair elections, democracy has redefined human dignity and patriotism. It has also helped to improve decision-making among the citizens, and brought down the crime level. Democracy is for sure the most fitting among the other types of government, and needs to be implemented fully for effective functioning of a state.
Actually, democracy is deemed to be a difficult form of government regardless if it is favourable circumstances or not. It seems to be all the more difficult when society’s economic environment is weak, civil society is still developing, and finally ...
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.