Creating a democracy is no easy task. It requires a lot of internal and external factors that could either make or break a successful transition from a non-democratic regime to a democratic one. This essay explains the three major threats to democratic consolidation (international relations, elite commitment, and the role of the military) that countries undergoing transitions from a non-democratic regime to a democratic one might face. This essay will also explain on the argument on why international relations is considered the greatest threat to democratic consolidation.
International Relations
International relations represents one of the three major threats to democratic consolidation in a country undergoing democratization. According to Pinnell, if a new regime is not supported by neighboring or powerful states, then it may have to contend on a possibility of a conflict on legitimacy, either directly by outside neighboring/powerful states through open conflict between two countries through military/economic means like war, embargoes, sanctions, etc... and/or indirectly by having outside neighboring/powerful states supporting counter-revolutionary and anti-democratic insurgents/political forces in an internal conflict bent on destroying any democratic consolidation of the new regime and reviving the old authoritarian regime.1
Elite Commitment
Elite commitment represents another factor on whether democratic consolidation can make or break. A successful democratization requires the old elite to tolerate loss of power, in which case it could mean giving the old elite new positions of power in a much lower level, or having at least a comfortable way to step down.1 This may require a strong level of negotiations and compromis...
... middle of paper ...
...New York, London: W.W. Norton, 2013), 169-170
Pinnell, Sabrina. “Modern Nondemocratic Government” Lecture, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, Februrary 18, 2014).
Price, Claire. “Zimbabwe: Diamonds Are Worth More Than Democracy”, Fair Observer, July 31, 2013 http://www.fairobserver.com/article/elections-zimbabwe-do-they-really-matter
Salehi, Sarallah. “The “Forgotten” Arab Spring in Bahrain: Paradox of Oil and Democracy”, The Politick Press, October 6, 2013 http://www.jhupolitik.org/?p=1912
Saunders, Doug. “Poland's Round Table Laid Out Course For Freedom”, The Globe and Mail, October, 25, 2009 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/round-table-laid-out- course-for-freedom/article1337763/
Tynan, Deirdre. “Turkmenistan: Ashgabat Playing Key US/NATO Support Role in Afghan War”, Eurasianet.org, January 10, 2011 http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62683
Although the United States has been celebrated as a pioneering democracy, the nation’s constitution formulates a system of government that deviates from purely democratic principles. That is, when assessing the intentions of the framers, the Constitution’s calculated deviations from an absolute popular rule establishes a system of governance in which the security of American liberties is prioritized. Moreover, by examining the nuances of the Constitution from the framers’ lenses, the divergence from purely democratic ideals becomes all the more apparent. However, despite paving the road for democracies to come, emerging democracies around the world have broken away from the American system of governance outlined by the constitution through
Factions pose a threat to democracy and its associated ideals. This notion is proven through the overpowering of the minority by the majority, in which the opinions of certain groups are silenced, while others amplified. This majority and minority also forge animosity that not only creates competition, but sways the government away from its true purpose. Therefore, since the purpose of government is swayed, leadership becomes an issue. These issues are part of a cluster of other issues that prove factions detrimental to democracy and its principles.
Democracy’s major focus is on the freedom and representation of the people, along with the promotion of a the fluid free market system. “One man, one vote” being one of the inspirational quotes used to demonstrate the democratic outlook on the liberty within the government; and its ability to establish and make decisions based upon the will of the people. However, like our textbook, “Introduction to Comparative Politics,” points out, “No country fully satisfies all these criteria for democracy. Even in long established democratic states, there remains a gap—often a substantial one—between the aspirations and ideals of democracy and the practice and results of any actually existing democracy.” Furthermore, despite efforts to amplify this political system as a proper means for representation and freedom in other countries, various authoritarian regimes now present themselves under the guise of democratic political ideology in order to gain power.
Although many of Sebastian Rosato’s criticisms of the causal underpinnings of both the institutional and normative explanations of the democratic peace are valid, his analysis of the failure of the public constraint is incomplete. While I do not disagree with Rosato’s contention that, “democracies are just as likely to go to war as non-democracies” (Rosato, 2003, p. 594), I believe this misses a key contention of the democratic peace: that democracies are less likely to fight wars against other democracies. I argue that democracies are particularly averse to conflict with other democracies, which would explain why democracies are no less likely to go to war in general, but avoid war with democratic nations. Applying the observation that the democratic peace is essentially a post-World War II phenomena restricted to the Americas and Western Europe strengthens this argument.
Much of the contemporary commentary about U.S. policy towards Syria reduces to a debate for or against regime change which many observers characterize as a standard U.S. objective linked to a belief in American exceptionalism. President Obama tried to disavow such a view during his speech in Cairo in 2009 entitled, “A New Beginning.” His declaration there that, “No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other,” was an emphatic rejection of what John M. Owen, IV describes as a “fairly common practice of statecraft.” In this paper I will summarize Owen’s main ideas from The Clash of Ideas in World Politics: Transnational Networks, States, and Regime Change, 1510-2010, analyze his research design, evaluate the coherence of his central argument, and assess his contribution to International Relations scholarship. Although Owen’s work sheds light on the phenomenon of forcible regime promotion, his explanation is only one of several plausible causes.
In past and even in recent history, world politics has taken many faces ranging from the absolute monarchies of PhillipII to the dictatorships of Sadam Hussein. Some political institutions have even stood out and have taken center stage in political theses. Two successful institutions that follow this criteria include democracy, backed by de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America and communism, as written in Marx’s Communist Manifesto. While both these aspects of politics have enjoyed ample success, there is no possible way both these worlds can coexist and function because democracy has exceptionally achieved far more prestige and withstood the ravage of time in terms of American democracy. Communism could have been the answer to governing a nation but due to the vice of power-hungry leaders, democracy surpasses this institution with evidence from history, revealing why these political powers machines cannot remain mutually exclusive.
In his book, The Future of Freedom, Fareed Zakaria writes that we must make democracy safe for the world. The American democracy sets the standard around the world for liberal democracies, but transitions across for other countries across the world toward a liberal democracy is often difficult and with poor decision making, close to impossible. Liberal democracies are the systems in which people choose their government and live in an environment of freedom. In Zakaria’s book, he warns the readers of several telltale signs that their process toward a liberal democracy is in trouble. He uses examples of different countries doing it right and doing it wrong- the ones discussed in this essay will be Russia and China.
This essay will critically discuss how democracy can become corrupt, within some governments and what causes it. By using historical and current evidence to point out why democracy becomes undesirable. Also pointing out classical characteristics of democracy, executive powers, leading to corruption in the early forms of government.
In deciphering what constitutes the brilliance of democracy then, we find that it is not citizens’ ability to make informed decisions or an unflawed and subtly manipulated election process, but the unapparent way in which democracy persuades citizens – informed or not - and leaders – corrupt or not – toward working to build better, more prosperous societies.
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.
Although Levy believes that the democratic peace theory is by all accounts an empirical law in international relations, there are some scholars who have questioned and examined the practicality of the theory as it applies to a more conflict based or economic context. Scholars have researched this theory using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. On the qualitative side scholars have tested the theory by comparatively analyzing democracies that have actually engaged in conflict (Holsti, 1996; Ganguly, 1997; Kacawicz, 1998, Kivimaki, 2001). On the quantitative side however, scholars have tested the theory focusing more on whether or not the theory is applicable to lesser economically developed democracies (Hegre, 2000; Mousseau et al, 2000, 2002, 2003).
Democracy is robust, widely accepted and highly anticipated around the world. It is the triumphant form of government; dominantly used in Europe, North and South and America and becoming reformed and taking new roots in Africa and Asia. Although the term democracy is based on its Greek origin, demos kratos, meaning people rule, the term cannot be simply understood as such. Due to vast coverage, the adaptation of democracy has varied greatly, whether regionally, nationally, by state or through different branches of government. Perhaps this can be advantageous when the different categorizations listed above can use democracy to rule and suit themselves best, but other factors, such as globalization and neoliberalism, has caused the need for
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
The link between internationalization, governance and democracy is a central problem for politics as well as for political science. Even if clear evidence on the nature of this link is not yet available, the literature seems to support the view that internationalization both undermines the capacity for governance and puts into question traditional forms of democracy.
The current challenges of democracy around the world should prioritize each encounter that should be addressed through networks, global gatherings, and various activities. As a continuous concern, the progress of democracy discusses various strategies and activities. These various strategies and activities lead to lessons that are learned in advancing democracy, making democracy deliver, strengthening democratic fundamentals, and more current challenges. Democracy faces threats from every spectrum as the threats surge the need to reinforce democratic forces through aid and greater international solidarity. Each country reflects on a certain assessment towards the current status of democracy.