After the fall of Soviet Union in which communist dictatorship dominated, the fifteen previously Soviet republics have become independent. This was noted as “The end of History” by Fukuyama, however there are still arguments to whether the past regime has been replaced in real terms or just has become a hybrid of the two: liberal democracy, so hailed in the Western countries, and dictatorship form of the post-communist states.
There are more than just two multiple-vector processes that were stated in the question, and they are happening at the same time but with a different dynamics.
The conservative method which is not to make any changes in the structure of the society is supported by people who were raised in the times of the communist regime.
…show more content…
Almost all post-communist states are the countries of the Warsaw Pact which is the ‘union of peace and socialism’ (a counterbalance to NATO), which is supposed to be enclosed from as it were, ‘the hostile rest of the …show more content…
Russia’s actions towards Ukraine show that if Ukraine were to decide and play by the EU games which is has been trying to do since 2004, it will not be let to do it.
The main sign of liberal democracy is the presence of civil society, independent individuals that are aware of what is going on in their countries. Different public organisations emerge along with political parties and trade unions. However these values cannot be created with vertical political power, this can only be achieved by participation of the masses on horizontal power sharing.
Signs of oligarchy where the so-called ‘asian mentality’, where all the orders come from above, with the idea being of a patronage state, but in reality a simple minimalistic level of salaries, pensions and benefits is being provided to keep the masses quiet. Power is highly centralized in the hands of few people who will not let the liberal democracy to come
After World War II, Europe emerged as a continent torn between two very different political ideologies, Communism and Democracy. As the two major superpowers, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States, struggled to defend their respective governmental policies, the European Continent was caught in an intrinsic struggle to preserve the autonomy which had taken so long to achieve. During the Cold War, Eastern European nations struggled to achieve autonomy with the help of the West's dedication to break the Soviet sphere of influence. After the disintegration of the USSR, the struggle for autonomy among nations shifted from an intense, inward, nationalistic struggle to break away from a superpower to a commitment of international unity and cooperation as nations began to take moral and political responsibility for their actions.
During the 20th century, the rise of communism sparked rage in people throughout the world. More towards the end of the 1900's the fall of communism and dictatorships was just the beginning of what would eventually be a large democratic change for several countries. 1989: Democratic Revolutions at the Cold War's End, speaks about the change brought to several different countries from the 1980's-1990's and plans to show "the global transformations that marked the end of the cold war and shaped the era in which we live"(Pg V). During the cold war, communist had power and control over a large area and spread communism throughout several continents. This book specifically hits on six different studies of where communism and dictatorship affected these areas and what they did to stop it. Poland, Philippines, Chile, South Africa, Ukraine, and China throughout the end of the 20th century created revolutionary movements which brought them all one step closer to freeing themselves and creating democratic change.
Conservatives, ideology places the values on status quo. They have difficulties accepting changes, and believe that change should be taking at a slow pace. They believe that human institutions are the product of a gradual process of experience. Conservatives believe slow changes would be more effective over a long period of time. time. They believe changing institutions and practices would affect the would affect the underlying structure. Conservatives be that it is not realistic to expect that that changes in institutions and practices would replace the existing without causing chaos.
The Constitution gave our country a frame work in which we have built into a great nation. Their idea is that the purpose of our system, meaning our democracy, is to protect an individual’s liberty. William Hudson tries to convince us that there should be a connection between the government we have today and the government in other countries, Parliamentary System. In chapter 1 of the textbook, Democracy in Peril, starts off by giving the reader background knowledge of the found fathers, signers of the Declaration of Independence and the drafters of the Constitution, which reflect as “democracy models” or “protective democrats.” What the founding fathers did not want to happen is for there to be a corrupt government which ignored the rights
The concept of peace leads us to accept it as a “state of tranquility, quietness, security and order provided by a law or a custom”₃ (Webster dictionary) and is also known as “a state of freedom from civil disturbance or conflict guaranteed by mutual agreement between governments”₄ (oxford dictionary). Linked to this ancient concept is the definition of liberal governments: form of representative democracy based on the recognition of individual freedoms and the belief that people should rule “in which decisions form direct or representative processes prevail in many areas”₅ (Collins dictionary). As Fukuyama puts it, liberal democracy is “the final form of human government”₆ (ver obra). According to John Ikenberry (referir obra e tal) constitutionalism, open markets, international institutions, cooperative ...
- Conservatism is essentially the defense of economic individualism against the growth of a welfare state.
The end of the Cold War was one of the most unexpected and important events in geopolitics in the 20th century. The end of the Cold War can be defined as the end of the bipolar power struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union, which had existed since the end of the World War II. The conclusion of the Cold War can be attributed to Gorbachev’s series of liberalizations in the 1980s, which exposed the underlying economic problems in the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc states that had developed in the 1960s and 70s and prevented the USSR from being able to compete with the US as a superpower. Nevertheless, Reagan’s policies of a renewed offensive against communism, Gorbachev’s rejection of the Brezhnev doctrine and the many nationalities
He then further explains the growth pattern between those eras which has led to the current ideology of liberal democracy. He believes that liberal democracy is the best ideology and that it is the final stage in human ideological development. He further suggested that human history should be viewed as a progression or battle of ideologies. With the current trend of universalization of liberal democracy and individualism, both characteristics of Western culture, he argues that Western liberal democracy has become the grand victor. He also asserts that despite the liberal democratic ideology has not completely been realized in the material world, the idea has been accepted and has triumphed over all alternate ideologies.
In the post-Cold War world, Russia has been struggling to reestablish itself as a world power. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia found itself surrounded by hostile nations that feared nationalism and expansionism from Moscow, leading many to seek solace in the form of closer relations to America. Isolated geo-politically, Russia has sought to reclaim what it considers its rightful place in the world through both its foreign policy and economic/energy policies.
The cold war was failed by the Soviet Union for many reasons, including the sudden collapse of communism (Baylis & Smith, 2001.) This sudden collapse of communism was brought on ultimately by internal factors. The soviet unions president Gorbachev’s reforms: glasnost (openness) and perestroika (political reconstructering) ultimately caused the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Gorbachev’s basics for glasnost were the promotion of principles of freedom to criticize; the loosening of controls on media and publishing; and the freedom of worship. His essentials of perestroika were, a new legislature; creation of an executive presidency; ending of the ‘leading role’ of the communist party; allowing state enterprises to sell part of their product on the open market; lastly, allowing foreign companies to own Soviet enterprises (Baylis & Smith, 2001.) Gorbachev believed his reforms would benefit his country, but the Soviet Union was ultimately held together by the soviet tradition he was trying to change. The Soviet Union was none the less held together by “…powerful central institutions, pressure for ideological conformity, and the threat of force.
Liberal democracy is prevalent in the West. This political arrangement guarantees the rights of a people in relation to their government. Many Westerners, unfortunately, cannot give a philosophical explanation and/or justification for it. Ultimately, an examination of liberal democracy will demonstrate that it rests on notions of human dignity, equality and happiness, which are not recent developments in philosophy, but have their origins in classical and scholastic thought. It is in said examination that one can reasonably conclude that liberal democracy while not the best system of government is certainly better than the alternatives.
At the heart of the crisis in the Ukraine is the question of whether that country would be better off forging a future with the European Union or with Russia. The answer is very complex as the Ukraine and Russia have a long history together with many citizens of the Ukraine having very close ties to Russia. But there is also a strong desire by many Ukrainians to build a future that has a more open political system, more promising economic opportunities, and a less oppressive and corrupt government with a better track record on human rights. Many believe Russia’s intention is to reassemble those Eastern European countries into a 2014 version of the Iron Curtain. The Ukraine is very important to Russia economically, militarily and historically. In recent months, Russia has gone to extreme measures to protect its interests, whether it is persuasion or brute force. Despite Russia’s aggression, the Ukraine should resist moving backward into a murky alliance with Russia and strike out in a new, freer direction by building a stronger alliance with the Europe Union.
...some rules that have been broken but if there is a way for them to do it the legal way then why not. The citizens should have a say in all of this after all that is really what started this big mess. Was because the people wanted to have a voice and now this is their chance ,to let their voices be heard and when they signed the deal with Russia that was their way of saying “ Thank You but no thank you” to the EU. Still to this very day, there is still a struggle to come to some kind of civil agreement to end this feud. That is why the EU, the United States, and their allies have imposed sanctions. The European Commission are currently working now on more far-reaching economic measures that will be imposed if Russia takes further steps to undermine Ukraine. If there cannot be an agreement reached soon the fate of Ukraine and its people is looking very bleak.
First condition is that liberal democracy is the best form of government. This is because I interpret political system as being analogous to consumer goods where consumers (citizens for forms of government) are gravitated towards the best product. It has to be best on two levels of analysis: by being compatible with human nature, and with the current social zeitgeist. Regarding human nature, the liberals posits that humans tend to prioritize the idea of individuals over communities, and that the human nature is not malleable. However, given that no empirical evidence systematically and rigorously supports such a claim, and there are plethora of other claims, like those of conservatives’ and Marxists’, and equally valid empirical evidence (as those that support the liberal’s) support the non-congruent claims, it is difficult to determine whether human nature is compatible with liberal democracy. Furthermore,...