Francis Fukuyama argued that liberal democracy was deemed to be the final viable form for political institutions. This implies that liberal democracy will become the last form of regime for states. Fukuyama’s argument was reasonable at the time he created it because it was created after the cold war and the power state was The United States, and they implemented democracy to states surrounding them and states that were influenced by the U.S. However, during the 1990’s there started to become more authoritarian type regimes arising. I argue that Fukuyama was wrong that democracy would not be the final viable form for political institutions. A way that states will be able to survive democracy is because states and incumbents want power, and will gain this be any means. Another reason is because states have been able to implement capitalist or competitive authoritarianism. Lastly authoritarian regimes are able to survive because democratic states are depending on these authoritarian states for trade, so both democratic and authoritarian regimes are benefiting from this.
Totalitarianism and democracy were the two extremes before The Cold War and during The Cold War. Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan (pg. 267) argue that there use two “poles” and they were totalitarianism and democracy. However, this is still the case states are still able to become totalitarian regimes, but states do not see that as a viable option for the way the world’s states depend on international trade and how ideology breaks down a government. In a totalitarian regime the borders are closed and states do not trade with each other. Because totalitarianism has dismissed states that had totalitarianism regimes had to find a new form of regime because of The Cold War...
... middle of paper ...
...ontrol much of the economy authoritarian regimes are able grow quickly. However, this applies to large states not small or medium size states that are more likely to collapse (Schmitter and Karl pg. 543). Authoritarian regimes are able to survive if they are large states because they are able to benefit by trading, resources and have a large population size so their economy is able to grow.
Authoritarian regimes are able to survive by being able to implement more democratic like ideals in their government. However, states are able to manipulate these ideals to act like they are leaning towards a democracy when there is a vast amount of corruption happening. Although Fukuyama states that democracy is the final form of regime for states, it will not happen if states and their incumbents want power and will obtain power by any means such as violence and corruption.
The Cold War was an ideological struggle between Soviet Union and Eastern Europe opposing the United States and Western Europe. Liberal democracy became the First World; it was capitalistic and democratic countries with United States leading these countries. Authoritarianism became the Second World, which were communistic and autocratic countries with the Soviet Union leading the Second World countries. Lastly, anti-colonialism became the Third World; it was less economically developed where poverty is more pronounced. This world was looking for a ‘third way.’ There were three patterns to find a ‘third way’ – decolonization: negotiated transfer of power, violence, and revolution. All of these three worlds were in competition for influence of the
Between the Authoritarian government and the American democracy, there are many differences. Some are small, but you can definitely see the big differences. Most are between how the government acts to certain situations and how they treat the people of their country.
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.
The repression used in authoritarian regimes is defined as “actual or threatened use of physical sanctions against an individual or organization, within the territorial jurisdiction of the state, for the purpose of imposing a cost on the target as well as deterring specific activities” (Gerschewski, 2012)) . Repression is defiantly seen as the defining feature of autocracies but again alone like legitimation, an authotarian regime would fail. There are 2 types of repression, one is hard repression which is the use of force for example being put into jail for political reasons and the second type is soft repression which is non-violent for example censoring a newspaper. Both these types of repressions are used in China and Iran. (Lecture notes) China has defiantly used hard repression throughout the years and there is many examples of this. 25 years ago, the Chinese regime shot unarmed pro-democracy protesters and 5 years ago an activist jailed for 11 years protesting for civil rights. The CCP use repression to maintain their reign in government and use these activists as examples of what will happen if people go against the government. As social demands are being repressed it is probably right to say that china will soon overcome this regime and democratize, showing the durability of this regime will crash at some point. (Nathan, 2014) It is also seen that China uses soft repression, the censorship of the internet is used in china.
The shocking collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989-91 has often been an indicator in the West as a triumph of capitalism and democracy, as though this event was clearly a direct result of the policies of the Reagan and Thatcher governments. This arrogant analysis has little relation to measurable facts, circumstances, and internal political shifts that were the real historical causes of the deterioration of the Soviet empire and ultimately the Soviet state itself. Spirited political speeches and tough calculating postures make good theater, but they are ineffective at forcing political change in totalitarian nations, as is proven by the stamina of far less powerful Communist regimes in Cuba and east Asia in the face of punishing trade embargos.
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.
For a historian, the 20th century and all the historic events that it encompasses represents a utopia with endless sources of inspiration for the analysis of political figures, events and their consequences. Political figures such as Benito Mussolini of Italy, Adolf Hitler of Germany, Mao Zedong of China and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union are all names we are familiar with due to the time period that they influenced; this time period after the trauma and atrocities of World War I and the Great Depression led to completely new forms of government in Europe and beyond. These “manifestations of political evil”, commonly known as totalitarian states, should not be considered as mere extensions of already existing political systems, but rather as completely new forms of government built upon terror and ideological fiction. Therefore, this was also a time in which political philosophers such as Hannah Arendt, the author of the standard work on totalitarianism, “Origins of Totalitarianism”, could thrive. When looking at totalitarianism as a political philosophy, two initial questions have to be dealt with: what is totalitarianism and what kind of effect it had on countries ruled by totalitarian regimes. The reasons for its occurrence have briefly been mentioned above, although there are much deeper ideological, social and economic reasons including imperialism and anti-Semitism. In order to fully understand it, we must also contrast it to other political systems like authoritarianism and dictatorship, which are similar to a certain extent, but lack crucial elements that are in the core of totalitarian ideology. Out of the many examples of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, Nazi Germany, Communist China and the Soviet Union stan...
Unlike America, authoritarian governments inherit or take their power. This means that the citizens of that country have no say in who governs them. This causes huge problems in the politics. Being able to take the power, makes the government more susceptible to corruption. In the United States, we practice democracy; which means that we elect our leaders. Democracies
In addition, Gaddis outlines three important lessons or ideas in his book. The first being that during the Cold War, “military strength ceased to be the defining characteristic of power itself, which it had been for the past five centuries”. Secondly, he argues that although “the USSR, China and several countries had authoritarian governments in 1948 and that during the latter part of the 20th century, communism fell out of favor”. Lastly he argues that the Cold War era witnessed “globalization of democracy which is illustrated by the rapid increase in number of democracies by the end of the 20th century”. (Malin and Joh...
"Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe.
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.
...e power with which powerful states can rule the weak preserving their status as a regional and global hegemony. Finally, it is incorporated the democratic system. Although debatable for some people, democracy serves to spread the altruistic and moralistic rhetoric of a free and peaceful world. Additionally, Western states do not hesitate about the rice of new powerful nations or the threats of the mass destruction weapons, they are constantly monitoring their menaces and evaluating what is the most accurate strategy to maintain at least the status quo in this respect. The Western states need the realist approach in order to be well prepared to cope with any threat. In a final conclusion, all of these reasons have been assimilated by Western states in order to restructure a strategic doctrines with the purposes of counteract any possible threat before they emerge.
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.
Reyes, Antonio Jose T. A53 11538406 Sir. Anthony Borja AUTHORITARIAN AND DEMOCRACY How does one rule a country? Politics has been the basis of power for more than a thousand years now. Traces of political movements have been discovered in different parts of the world; from the birth place of civilization found in the Middle East; the Mesopotamian, from the Western region of the world; England and even South America, and from the Dynasties of China and lands of Japan, politics was already in play during these times.
From Greek polis to French absolutism to Italian fascism, political system has varied across both spatial domain and temporal range. The dynamism with which the zeitgeist sways from one political system to other raises an essential question: Is there a final form of government? The dynamism, which has propagated other forms of governance in the past, now seems to favour liberal democracy, and many have posited the argument that liberal democracy is the final form of government. However, to establish such a case, three conditions need to be met. This essay will discuss what the three conditions are, how the three conditions are not met, or in cases they are met, the reasons for their insufficiency for the end of history with liberal democracy, and other shortcomings within the current political framework that suggest otherwise.