Among comparative scholars there is a continuing debate about which kinds of institutions would work best for stabilizing peace in ethnical divided societies. In general, they agree on the necessity of democratic institutions. The question is whether these institutions should be built on the principle of inclusion or moderation (O‘Flynn 2007: 731). O‘Flynn is reviewing the work of Arend Lijphart and Donald Horowitz, the two main characters of this debate. While Lijphart focuses on inclusion with his consociational democracy (ibid.: 734), Horowitz‘s incentives-based approach deals with moderation (ibid.: 736).
The author enters the discussion by pointing out that inclusion and moderation are co-requirements for the fundamental issue of political equality. He offers a perspective of deliberative democracy in which equality is the basic premise followed by moderation and inclusion and, consequently, leading to stability in the long run (ibid.: 731-732). Moderation, being concerned with how to justify political decisions, is supposed to be reached through reciprocity. When people listen to each other open-mindedly and behave rationally, they will shift their position to the better argument (ibid.: 740). Inclusion, dealing with the scope of the justification, can be obtained through publicity. This is about creating a public sphere in which the people are able to discuss political topics across ethnic cleavages (ibid.: 744).
Deriving from this short summary, I state the hypothesis that the key points of deliberative democracy are too ideal to be applied to deeply divided societies. Instead of being a system, it is similar to a protocol on how people should behave when they are confronted with having to resolve a conflict and having...
... middle of paper ...
...rks Cited
Dryzek, John S., 2005: Deliberative Democracy in Divided Societies: Alternatives to Agonism and Analgesia. Political Theory 33(2): 218-242.
Horowitz, Donald L., 2008.: Conciliatory Institutions and Constitutional Processes in Post- Conflict States. William and Mary Law Review 49(4): 1213-1248.
Lijphart, Arend, 2004: Constitutional Design for Divided Societies. Journal of Democracy 15(2): 96-109.
O‘Flynn, Ian, 2007: Review Article: Divided Societies and Deliberative Democracy. British Journal of Political Science 37(04): 731-751.
Powell, Robert D., 2006: War as a Commitment Problem. International Organization 60 (Winter): 169-203.
Sisk, Timothy D., 1996: Power Sharing and International Mediation in Ethnic Conflicts. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, U.S., Chapter 3: Democracy and Its Alternatives in Deeply Divided Societies: 27-45.
“ … we… need an alternative to winner-take-all majoritarianism… with Nikolas’s help… I call [this] the ‘principle of taking turns.’ [It] does better than simple majority rule… it accommodates the values of self-government, fairness, deliberation, compromise, and consensus that lie at the heart of the democratic ideal” (para.
Factions, or parties, are described in The Federalist No. 10 as groups of citizens “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest.” According to Madison, these human passions divide the public into competing parties that are “much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.” These parties often negatively impact the rights of other citizens as they pursue their own specialized goals, but it is “the nature of man” to create them. Thus, in order to protect the rights and voices of the people, a successful government must be committed to the regulation of these various factions. A pure (direct) democracy, argues Madison, cannot effectively do this because it offers every citizen a vote in serious public matters, and economic stratification alone prevents th...
The first point of mutual agreement that can de drawn upon relates to the people and their rights to themselves and others. Both Meiklejohn (1948) and Habermas (1964) mutually agreed upon the fact that democracy could not be achieved without acknowledging that each and every person has first and foremost a high degree of respect for each other. The need for mutual respect for one another can be seen at various times throughout their texts under closer inspection when analysizing their displayed arguments.
Democracy is rule by the people; the people elect governing officials based off of their personal values and beliefs. Different political parties rule the political scene and are serving to represent the people’s opinions in the best ways possible. Previously, I had a belief that my political view was essentially the only one possible and therefore it was the best. These views changed quickly once I learned the different political parties, their views, how they represent the people’s views, and how public opinion shapes politics. The government is formed around differentiating opinions on which policies should be in place and which social aspects need to be considered first. Not only is the government guided by opinion, but the people’s lives are guided by opinion as well. Each individual holds a different view, and each view can have an influence on society. Fortunately, after roughly eight weeks of studying American Government, I now have a better sense of complexity and the value of
As is evidenced in the UK’s devolved unitary system, the Canadian federation and the European Union, each model aims to protect regional diversity and autonomy within it’s limitations, though the degree to which autonomy is granted creates a natural tension between unity and the desire for subsidiarity and self-determination. In devolution, asymmetrical federalism and the constitutional framework of a confederation there is the ability to manage diversity, discourage secession, and ensure stability, but with each of these comes the danger of divisive encouragement of difference. It is up to the individual governments in question then, how to best manage diversity and unity. As phrased by George Anderson, perhaps “stability can be enhanced if the culture goes beyond mere tolerance of diversity to the active embrace of diversity as part of what defines the country and gives it it's value. Institutional arrangements can hep societies better manage their conflicts, but institutions alone are not enough…” Perhaps the answer to encouraging national unity is not then found in the model, but in the contingencies of identity and
William Smith, Democracy, Deliberation and Disobedience (Paper presented at the UK Association for Legal and Social Philosophy Annual Conference, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, April 2003).
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.
Farber, H. S., & Gowa, J. (1997). Common Interests or Common Politics? Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace. Journal of Politics 59 (2): 393-417.
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?”
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.
Many theorists have tried to explain how any why conflicts end. Some theories have proven to be more successful than others. It is difficult to create a theory that applies to all conflicts because each conflict is different. Conflicts can be ethnic and religious based or they can be about resources and territories. William Zartman advocates a theory of ripeness and mutually hurting stalemates to explain how and why conflict have ended. Throughout this essay his theory will be analyze through the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Cambodia and the Oslo agreement. Through these three conflicts the strengths and weaknesses of ripeness theory can be seen
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.
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.
Rousseau describes democracy as a form of government that “has never existed and never will”. Yet twenty-six countries in the world are considered to be full democracies. How can this be possible? Rousseau’s concept of democracy supports the most fundamental and basic premise of democracy – one in which all citizens directly participate. While his idea of democracy cannot be considered an effective indictment of what passes for democracy today, it is not Rousseau’s account which is flawed, but that in modern society it would be practically impossible to achieve this idea of democracy.
...ic Use of Multiple channels of Negotiation in Middle East Peacemaking’, 2001, A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of The Fletcher School Of Law And Diplomacy Tufts University, viewed at http://repository01.lib.tufts.edu:8080/fedora/get/tufts:UA015.012.DO.00003/bdef:TuftsPDF/getPDF on 10 April 2012 .