Since the popularization of the Internet, there has been a public debate on its impact on political life in countries worldwide. Some believe that this is a step towards liberalization; others see digitalization as the end of democracy. This essay argues that the Internet introduces the world to the new quality of liberal democracy degradation. The age of conventional media affected democratic society in a vertical way that is monopolized by the major stakeholders. Nowadays, the Internet is a horizontal platform that yet does not become Habermas public forum (Sunstein, 2001). As people limit their sources of information online, one can observe the degradation of discourse and the growth of populism as well as the radicalized population.
Main text
To begin with, conventional media like television and radio has always been indeed monopolized by the establishment, especially in the U.S. due to technical reasons. This situation is comparable to the Medieval Age before the introduction of printing in the 1440s. The church and the courts monopolized books, and the population had no chance to learn an alternative opinion on the essential matters of life. Television and radio become game-changing technology in legitimizing political decisions, even in democracies (Barstow and Stein, 2005). As Herman and Chomsky (1988) conceptualize it, information translated by the conventional media goes through five filters, which create agendas and messages beneficial for the ones at power. Hence, such media creates private space without the actual debate, which harms democratic principles.
As for the Internet, in its era population still cannot hear all the voices. The reason for that lies in the fact that people and media create communication universes, bubbles that filter the sources and opinions contradicting users believes. It is proved by the research conducted by Iyengar (2006), who examined media preferences of different parties sympathizers. That is why social media produce a reasonable number of online communities, oriented on specific groups with specific political interests like IAFF Union Firefighters for Trump or Black Women for Bernie Sanders on Facebook. Meanwhile, Sunstein (2001) emphasizes the crucial role of shared experience and empathy for a society living in a democracy. In reality, the Internet intensifies solidarity within the group of ones choice, which makes them more confident about their position.
Furthermore, the Internet seems to attract more users to populist figures who gain their popularity by putting on a show online and articulating simple solutions to structural problems. Probably, the most widespread example is Donald Trump for whose election Twitter is sometimes blamed. His central premise to his voters was building up a wall separating the States from Mexico that presumably could solve the issue of illegal immigration. As a result, the American migration policy has seen several scandals with children separated from their parents and Muslims having no access to the country. However, the problem stays unsolved. This causes the degradation of discourse, which brings a society to less prudent decisions.
At the same time, the Internet serves as a platform for radicalization instead of the spread of democratic values. For instance, it has become the condition without which the rise of the Islamic State terrorist organization would have hardly ever happened. First, Facebook and Telegram were the critical mediums of jihadi propaganda. What is more, the efficient recruitment of foreign fighters who joined the IS from all over the world was only possible in the era of messengers and social media. Another vital example to draw ones attention to is the Christchurch shooting that the far-right extremist who organized the attack was broadcasting in real-time on Facebook. The network had no chance to prevent such actions while the violent events happening on the video were seen by a reasonable number of users, spreading the idea behind the former. Social media become the space of glorification of violence and the spread of hatred and extremism. This tendency does not contribute to the flourishing of democracy: on the contrary, people are demonstrated that there are alternative means to act and to articulate their political agendas.
Turning ones attention to the opposite camp, one could learn that many claims that the Internet is a democratic tool in the way it provides a platform for the ones whose voices could not have been heard without it. It seems that the antiracism movement in the United States would have developed faster if Facebook or Twitter was developed ten or twenty years before it happened. Now, the oppressed groups can find their voices, which leads society to greater transparency. Putins Russia is an illustrative example of how the Internet makes the actions of the regime more visible. Informal oppositional leaders like Alexey Navalny or Yegor Zhukov, who are not allowed to speak on TV, can reach their audience online. Police abuse and the violent oppression of the 2019 protests in Moscow are discussed online. In a way, all this pushes the country towards democratization.
While this opinion does have a strong foundation, such a scheme functions only when the state does not control the cyber platform. In the case of Russia, the Federal Security Service cannot ban publications on Facebook or even Telegram, at least, if the user does not fall in the definition of an extremist. The recent case of Antifa demonstrates the fact that if the state seeks to take away the voice of an organization, there are still means to do so despite the freedom opportunities the Internet is supposed to give to civil society. Moreover, even if a figure finds an opportunity to speak out online, it does not mean changes towards democracy offline as it is in Russia today. Hence, this argument works just until the state allows the marginalized groups to be seen, and the Internet, in this case, does not have much to do with democratization.
Another point to be made is that the Internet is claimed to stimulate competition in the political field. Hence, candidates become more electorate-orienteered, and this is indeed the power of the people. Even in Iran, during the presidential elections, candidates communicate with their electorate via social media. Recently, the state has banned Instagram, where the president has about 2 million subscribers. Even fundamentalist and conservative politicians who do not support the idea of social media popularization use them to reach the audience. This controversial example demonstrates that social media push candidates to use them as a political tool to keep or even grow the electorate.
However, this idea is also relevant for television. First, there is the classic example of John Kennedys victory in the elections of 1960. One of the critical factors of that outcome was his effective performance on TV debates with Richard Nixon. On a black-and-white screen, Kennedy wearing his bright blue costume, attracted the audiences eyes while Nixon was in grey. Kennedy spoke more confidently even though, according to analysts, substantially, he lost the debates. Nevertheless, his popularity grew (Botehlo, 2016). Another example of nowadays can be found in contemporary Ukraine. In 2019, Vladimir Zelensky came to power as his primary opponent, Petro Poroshenko not only proved his orientation on the local oligarchy not nation but also appeared a pale non-charismatic figure in comparison to the present president. On the contrary, Zelensky, being an actor and an excellent speaker, gained popularity during the TV broadcast of the show Servant of the People, where he starred in the role of a down-to-earth, close-to-people president Holoborodko. These cases show that the conventional media are capable of creating the level of competition discussed above apply to the Internet.
Furthermore, some argue that social media enable societies of authoritarian regimes to transit to the democratic state. The Arabic Spring the wave of uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa that started in 2011 is a frequent illustration of such a thesis. For instance, the Egyptian Revolution is sometimes called the revolution of Facebook (Gerbaudo, 2016) as the protest and its actions were all coordinated in the community on that social media called after Haled Said, who was killed by the police. That is why during Algerian and Sudanese uprisings, the government cut down the Internet and blocked social media. Hence, it is evident that the introduction of social media in contemporary life contributes to the democratization of the world as the transit from authoritarian regimes becomes easier for protesters applying such means.
On the one hand, it seems evident that protest movements apply unconventional media to make their actions more efficient. On the other hand, even the classic examples of Facebook or any other social media revolutions do not draw the full picture. First, most of the Arabic Springs uprisings, including the one in Egypt in 2011, did not bring democracy and freedoms to the society, which was the reason for another revolution already in 2013. Secondly, it would be unfair to ignore the role of conventional media in the process. In 2011, the Qatari TV channel Al Jazeera agitated its audience to go out on the Tahrir square in Cairo, intentionally overstating the number of protesters there. To say nothing about the role of mullahs and mosques as the traditional agents and spaces for ideas exchange, including the ones that inspired the uprising in 2011. Therefore, while facilitating protest movements, social media cannot be fully responsible for them. Moreover, an uprising does not always aim for democracy and, in many cases, does not lead to one.
Conclusion
To conclude, it is evident that the Internet and social media popularization does not univocally strengthen institutes of democracy. It changes the nature of media influence on democracy, switching it from the horizontal form established by the conventional media to the vertical one. Meanwhile, Internet users are enabled to create information bubbles around themselves, which contradicts democratic principles of the need to consider alternative opinions. The contemporary rise of populism also has a lot to do with the digitalization of the public debate: voters end up choosing the candidates broadcasting their not-so-sophisticated political ideas effectively via social media. Furthermore, such platforms provide more space for the agents of radicalization who seek new followers of their ideas. Though some argue that the Internet changes the nature of political competition and protests and brings new opportunities to find ones voice, in reality, such claims appear to be not so fair as conventional media were the initially game-changing tools for these tasks. Moreover, they are still successfully used.
References
Barstow, D. & Stein, R. (2005). Under Bush, a new age of packaged TV news. The New York Times: Web.
Botehlo, G. (2016). The day politics and TV changed forever. CNN: Web.
Herman, E. and Chomsky, N. (1988). A propaganda model. Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon.
Iyengar, S. and Morin, R. (2006). Red media, blue media. Washington Post: Web.
Gerbaudo, P. (2016). Rousing the Facebook crowd: Digital enthusiasm and emotional contagion in the 2011 protests in Egypt and Spain. International Journal of Communication, 10, 254 273.
Sunstein, C. (2001). Exposure to other viewpoints is vital to democracy. Republic.com. Princeton University Press.
Since the popularization of the Internet, there has been a public debate on its impact on political life in countries worldwide. Some believe that this is a step towards liberalization; others see digitalization as the end of democracy. This essay argues that the Internet introduces the world to the new quality of liberal democracy degradation. The age of conventional media affected democratic society in a vertical way that is monopolized by the major stakeholders. Nowadays, the Internet is a horizontal platform that yet does not become Habermas public forum (Sunstein, 2001). As people limit their sources of information online, one can observe the degradation of discourse and the growth of populism as well as the radicalized population.
Main text
To begin with, conventional media like television and radio has always been indeed monopolized by the establishment, especially in the U.S. due to technical reasons. This situation is comparable to the Medieval Age before the introduction of printing in the 1440s. The church and the courts monopolized books, and the population had no chance to learn an alternative opinion on the essential matters of life. Television and radio become game-changing technology in legitimizing political decisions, even in democracies (Barstow and Stein, 2005). As Herman and Chomsky (1988) conceptualize it, information translated by the conventional media goes through five filters, which create agendas and messages beneficial for the ones at power. Hence, such media creates private space without the actual debate, which harms democratic principles.
As for the Internet, in its era population still cannot hear all the voices. The reason for that lies in the fact that people and media create communication universes, bubbles that filter the sources and opinions contradicting users believes. It is proved by the research conducted by Iyengar (2006), who examined media preferences of different parties sympathizers. That is why social media produce a reasonable number of online communities, oriented on specific groups with specific political interests like IAFF Union Firefighters for Trump or Black Women for Bernie Sanders on Facebook. Meanwhile, Sunstein (2001) emphasizes the crucial role of shared experience and empathy for a society living in a democracy. In reality, the Internet intensifies solidarity within the group of ones choice, which makes them more confident about their position.
Furthermore, the Internet seems to attract more users to populist figures who gain their popularity by putting on a show online and articulating simple solutions to structural problems. Probably, the most widespread example is Donald Trump for whose election Twitter is sometimes blamed. His central premise to his voters was building up a wall separating the States from Mexico that presumably could solve the issue of illegal immigration. As a result, the American migration policy has seen several scandals with children separated from their parents and Muslims having no access to the country. However, the problem stays unsolved. This causes the degradation of discourse, which brings a society to less prudent decisions.
At the same time, the Internet serves as a platform for radicalization instead of the spread of democratic values. For instance, it has become the condition without which the rise of the Islamic State terrorist organization would have hardly ever happened. First, Facebook and Telegram were the critical mediums of jihadi propaganda. What is more, the efficient recruitment of foreign fighters who joined the IS from all over the world was only possible in the era of messengers and social media. Another vital example to draw ones attention to is the Christchurch shooting that the far-right extremist who organized the attack was broadcasting in real-time on Facebook. The network had no chance to prevent such actions while the violent events happening on the video were seen by a reasonable number of users, spreading the idea behind the former. Social media become the space of glorification of violence and the spread of hatred and extremism. This tendency does not contribute to the flourishing of democracy: on the contrary, people are demonstrated that there are alternative means to act and to articulate their political agendas.
Turning ones attention to the opposite camp, one could learn that many claims that the Internet is a democratic tool in the way it provides a platform for the ones whose voices could not have been heard without it. It seems that the antiracism movement in the United States would have developed faster if Facebook or Twitter was developed ten or twenty years before it happened. Now, the oppressed groups can find their voices, which leads society to greater transparency. Putins Russia is an illustrative example of how the Internet makes the actions of the regime more visible. Informal oppositional leaders like Alexey Navalny or Yegor Zhukov, who are not allowed to speak on TV, can reach their audience online. Police abuse and the violent oppression of the 2019 protests in Moscow are discussed online. In a way, all this pushes the country towards democratization.
While this opinion does have a strong foundation, such a scheme functions only when the state does not control the cyber platform. In the case of Russia, the Federal Security Service cannot ban publications on Facebook or even Telegram, at least, if the user does not fall in the definition of an extremist. The recent case of Antifa demonstrates the fact that if the state seeks to take away the voice of an organization, there are still means to do so despite the freedom opportunities the Internet is supposed to give to civil society. Moreover, even if a figure finds an opportunity to speak out online, it does not mean changes towards democracy offline as it is in Russia today. Hence, this argument works just until the state allows the marginalized groups to be seen, and the Internet, in this case, does not have much to do with democratization.
Another point to be made is that the Internet is claimed to stimulate competition in the political field. Hence, candidates become more electorate-orienteered, and this is indeed the power of the people. Even in Iran, during the presidential elections, candidates communicate with their electorate via social media. Recently, the state has banned Instagram, where the president has about 2 million subscribers. Even fundamentalist and conservative politicians who do not support the idea of social media popularization use them to reach the audience. This controversial example demonstrates that social media push candidates to use them as a political tool to keep or even grow the electorate.
However, this idea is also relevant for television. First, there is the classic example of John Kennedys victory in the elections of 1960. One of the critical factors of that outcome was his effective performance on TV debates with Richard Nixon. On a black-and-white screen, Kennedy wearing his bright blue costume, attracted the audiences eyes while Nixon was in grey. Kennedy spoke more confidently even though, according to analysts, substantially, he lost the debates. Nevertheless, his popularity grew (Botehlo, 2016). Another example of nowadays can be found in contemporary Ukraine. In 2019, Vladimir Zelensky came to power as his primary opponent, Petro Poroshenko not only proved his orientation on the local oligarchy not nation but also appeared a pale non-charismatic figure in comparison to the present president. On the contrary, Zelensky, being an actor and an excellent speaker, gained popularity during the TV broadcast of the show Servant of the People, where he starred in the role of a down-to-earth, close-to-people president Holoborodko. These cases show that the conventional media are capable of creating the level of competition discussed above apply to the Internet.
Furthermore, some argue that social media enable societies of authoritarian regimes to transit to the democratic state. The Arabic Spring the wave of uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa that started in 2011 is a frequent illustration of such a thesis. For instance, the Egyptian Revolution is sometimes called the revolution of Facebook (Gerbaudo, 2016) as the protest and its actions were all coordinated in the community on that social media called after Haled Said, who was killed by the police. That is why during Algerian and Sudanese uprisings, the government cut down the Internet and blocked social media. Hence, it is evident that the introduction of social media in contemporary life contributes to the democratization of the world as the transit from authoritarian regimes becomes easier for protesters applying such means.
On the one hand, it seems evident that protest movements apply unconventional media to make their actions more efficient. On the other hand, even the classic examples of Facebook or any other social media revolutions do not draw the full picture. First, most of the Arabic Springs uprisings, including the one in Egypt in 2011, did not bring democracy and freedoms to the society, which was the reason for another revolution already in 2013. Secondly, it would be unfair to ignore the role of conventional media in the process. In 2011, the Qatari TV channel Al Jazeera agitated its audience to go out on the Tahrir square in Cairo, intentionally overstating the number of protesters there. To say nothing about the role of mullahs and mosques as the traditional agents and spaces for ideas exchange, including the ones that inspired the uprising in 2011. Therefore, while facilitating protest movements, social media cannot be fully responsible for them. Moreover, an uprising does not always aim for democracy and, in many cases, does not lead to one.
Conclusion
To conclude, it is evident that the Internet and social media popularization does not univocally strengthen institutes of democracy. It changes the nature of media influence on democracy, switching it from the horizontal form established by the conventional media to the vertical one. Meanwhile, Internet users are enabled to create information bubbles around themselves, which contradicts democratic principles of the need to consider alternative opinions. The contemporary rise of populism also has a lot to do with the digitalization of the public debate: voters end up choosing the candidates broadcasting their not-so-sophisticated political ideas effectively via social media. Furthermore, such platforms provide more space for the agents of radicalization who seek new followers of their ideas. Though some argue that the Internet changes the nature of political competition and protests and brings new opportunities to find ones voice, in reality, such claims appear to be not so fair as conventional media were the initially game-changing tools for these tasks. Moreover, they are still successfully used.
References
Barstow, D. & Stein, R. (2005). Under Bush, a new age of packaged TV news. The New York Times: Web.
Botehlo, G. (2016). The day politics and TV changed forever. CNN: Web.
Herman, E. and Chomsky, N. (1988). A propaganda model. Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon.
Iyengar, S. and Morin, R. (2006). Red media, blue media. Washington Post: Web.
Gerbaudo, P. (2016). Rousing the Facebook crowd: Digital enthusiasm and emotional contagion in the 2011 protests in Egypt and Spain. International Journal of Communication, 10, 254 273.
Sunstein, C. (2001). Exposure to other viewpoints is vital to democracy. Republic.com. Princeton University Press.
This report provides the history of Middle East and how democracy movement came to be in the Middle Eastern countries. According to Steele, 2009, Middle East is a broad term that involves approximately sixteen countries in Western Asia and North America. Middle East has been a vital centre for most of the worldly affairs.
The region is said to be the main origin of religions like the Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The most widely spread being the Muslim religion in some of the countries. It is said to be the most ancient region for human civilisation (Bernard, 1996). This is one of the regions that is said to have dominated by the European culture mostly in the past because before the 20th century it was highly dominated by the European colonization.
Middle East possesses an arid and hot climate hence people in this region can only survive under irrigated agriculture with water provided from the major rivers. This is only done under a limited region in the whole of Middle East. It was also the first for introduction of year round agriculture. Currently, Middle East is characterized by strategic, economical, political, cultural and religious based regions.
Middle East has been the centre for serious conflicts from the Persian-Greek Wars to the Crusades to the Iran-Iraq War. Democracy movement in the Middle Eastern countries tackles the issue of the current development of democracy and political systems. In this report, several significant ideas and issues will be addressed. A section of this will cover the results for the successful introduction of democracy in to the Middle Eastern countries (Friedman, 2006).
The other sections will address matters concerning the introduction of democracy in a traditionally based country or region and associated with political systems that do not favour liberalism. In addition, the sections will highlight the assumptions of conflicts of Islamic religion as far as democracy is concerned.
Finally, threats of religious terrorism and extremism will be thoroughly examined and the binding ties of any effective response to terrorism which has a direct impact to the democratic movement success in the Middle East (Paya & Esposito, 2010).
Objectives of this Study
The main objectives of this report are;
To study and analyse the evolution of the democracy movement in the Middle Eastern countries.
To address matters concerning the introduction of democracy in a traditionally based country or region and associated with political systems that do not favour liberalism.
To find out the results for the successful introduction of democracy in to the Middle Eastern countries.
To identify the benefits and limitations of the democracy movement in the Middle Eastern countries.
Scope of the report
This report tries to examine the introduction and implementation of democracy movement in the Middle Eastern countries. It covers countries that make up the Middle East that is the western Asia and North America. As far as the democracy movement in Middle Eastern countries is concerned; the report will address the crucial issues arising from the democracy movement in Middle East.
The study also covers the benefits as well as the limitations of the democratic movement in the Middle Eastern countries (Chatterji, 1973).
Procedures used
To achieve the goals of this study, several procedures have been used to come up with the details of the results of introduction of democracy movement in the Middle Eastern countries. A number of books for reference were part of the resource material that has been used to come up with this report.
Other sources include consultation from colleagues with similar knowledge of democracy movement in the Middle East, history of the Middle Eastern countries, websites of the various countries in the Middle East and consultations from friends who have been to these Middle Eastern countries and have some knowledge on the topic of study. The sources of reference for this report have been taken from the years between 1900 and 2011.
Discussion analysis of the Report
Evolution of democracy in Middle East
Democracy in the Middle East began when the Middle Eastern countries decided to overthrow the British government, which had colonized most of the countries. Most of the countries in the Middle East had no freedom before the 20th century. They were operating under the British colonization, meaning that there was no democracy movement in the whole of Middle East.
Some of countries like Iran had a constitutional movement that was highly throttled by the British colonial government. This is the reason why Iran had to operate under the British people without any liberty for quite some time until they had to fight and throw away the British people so as to gain freedom. Fortunately, in the early 1950s the Iran attained a freely elected government with its own constitution which was no longer under the British colonization.
This constitution was led by some of the national heroes who assisted in overthrowing the British colony (Friedman, 2006). In some of the Middle East countries like Iraq, establishment of a democratic process was quite a painful process. This is because it brought some critical issues in the whole of the Iran.
Democracy movement establishment has also brought in several issues that have to be addressed in the open. In such regions, the Muslims, Christians and other religion hold some posts in the government so as to facilitate equal distribution of power in the various religions (Dalacoura, 2011).
Measures of Democracy in the Middle East
According to democracy in the Middle Eastern countries several classifications have evolved in order to give each country its own democracy index. The various terms that are used to classify democracy index in the Middle East are; free, partly free, or not free. These are classified in reference to several measures of freedom.
According to Davenport, 2007 approximately 170 countries in the Middle East were classified into five broad categories (Garnham, 1995). These countries have been classified into these five categories, and further subdivide into four broad categories; and then they are ranked according to the current level of democracy. The four categories are full and flawed democracy; hybrid and authoritarian regime and they have been discussed below in the analysis of democratic index (Goldberg, Kasaba & Migdal, 1993).
Democracy movement in Middle East
From the past history relating to the Middle East, books and websites concerning democracy in the Middle Eastern countries findings indicate that, Democracy movement in the Middle East has been covered in various countries, which record a high democratic index. The country, which records the highest democratic index, is Israel which has 7.53. This figure corresponds to flawed democracy in only one region of the whole continent. The second highest countries have a range between 5.2 and 5.8 which is classified as the hybrid regimes.
These are countries like turkey, Mauritania, Tunisia, Egypt and Iraq among others. The other remaining countries are classified as authoritarian countries with their democratic indices lying below 2 (Yacoubian, 2008).
Benefits of the democracy movement in the Middle East
Democracy in the Middle East is a form of government where the citizens form the governance themselves. This democracy movement involved both direct and representative democracy; whereby direct democracy involves the citizens making the decisions themselves on all government policies while representative democracy is whereby decisions are made by individuals chosen to be representative of the whole number of citizens.
The Middle Eastern countries benefited much from the establishment of this democratic movement (Runciman, 2006). Some of the benefits are;
It provides the Middle East countries freedom for frequent elections after a period which ensures that unpopular governments are overthrown and replaced by new regimes to rule. The new office should implement policies that favour citizens so as to retain the office.
Due to the democratic movement the Middle East countries have been able to benefit from leadership that has been elected from their own choice. This has created peace and reduced conflicts in some of the countries.
Middle East countries have benefited from equal distribution of property and wealth due to this democratic movement. This is brought about by the representatives who continue to fight for their people in order to facilitate fair sharing of development funds from the government (Carothers & Ottaway, 2005).
Democratic government in the Middle East has allowed for competition of power where most of the political parties compete. This enables the candidates and the electorate a brad field to make a choice on voting.
In the Middle East voices of citizens and their wishes are heard and put in to consideration. This means there is freedom of expression (Halperin, Siegle & Weinstein, 2005).
Disadvantages of the democratic movement in Middle East
Though democracy movement may have been too beneficial to the citizens in Middle East, it also has some setbacks to the country itself which in turn has affected the individual citizens without their knowledge. Platzdasch (2009) in his book highlighted some of the setbacks of this democratic movement which include;
In the Middle East countries the citizens have the right to elect their own representatives to take up the office; from past records it has been observed that most of the citizens are not usually aware of what happens in the political system of their country. This results in most of the citizens making wrong choices during the election period.
A substantial disadvantage that has affected the Middle East countries is the fact that the status quo can influence most people. This is whereby citizens are forced to vote for a party under the influence of others. This leads to most citizens producing force opinions, which can cause chaos arising after the elections.
Over dependence on the democracy movement in most of the countries in the Middle East has resulted to underdevelopment in the countries. This is because the government constitution is always subject to change after a term is over hence this force the candidates in authority to work towards winning the elections instead of working for the people.
From a detailed study of democracy movement in the Middle Eastern countries, observations made clearly indicate that democracy is inefficient, and the changes are slow.
Conclusions
From the objectives, it is clear that;
Democracy movement in the Middle Eastern countries has been well established and implemented. In addition, it can be concluded that democracy movement in the Middle East countries has benefited the citizens, as well as various regions, which could not have been developed without the introduction of the democracy movement.
Clear records of the study of the democracy movement in the region show that the introduction of democracy has had a significant impact as analysed and discussed in section 3.5 of the report. That is, it has had some limitations to the countries constitution which has in turn has a great impact on the citizens.
Recommendations
From the analysis of the findings, I can highly recommend that most of the countries surrounding the Middle East should establish a democratic government. This will help to create freedom between the citizens and leaders. This is because the democratic movement has caused the development of some of the countries in the Middle East.
In addition, I can recommend that, as much as introduction of democracy has been found to benefit most of the countries in the Middle East; countries should not over rely on democracy. This is because detailed research shows that, democracy movement in the Middle East has created a lot of conflicts amongst the people.
Research shows that democracy in a country can be of a considerable disadvantage to the country, as well as the citizens without their knowledge. This is as discussed in section 3.5 above. A Middle Eastern country is a particularly compelling example as seen from the analysed results (Chaurasia, 2005).
Self evaluation
From the entire research, the following evaluations have been provided;
The sources from which the information was obtained were much helpful in the analysis of the democratic movement in the Middle East. For example, the history of the Middle Eastern countries assisted in discussion of the evolution and establishment of the democratic movement in the Middle East. The most relevant information source was the books and websites. These gave adequate information to discuss the topic and analyse various issues in the entire report.
The most intriguing section of this report was basically the area of the discussion and analysis of the findings. This is because it is the body of the whole report and it is the main part of the report which touches the major critical issues in the entire report. My ability to plan the steps and complete report on time was highly accelerated by having various sources of reference and selection of the most significant sources.
This helped me in achieving my objectives. I highly recommend that students should be able to plan their report first before they start writing down the report content. This is achieved by getting all the resources that are required for reference; and choosing from them the most influential sources that will help achieve ones objectives and complete report on the time allocated.
List of References
Bernard, L 1996, The Middle East. New York, ISBN Publishers.
Carothers, T & Ottaway, M 2005, Uncharted journey: promoting democracy in the Middle East, Washington, D.C, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Chatterji, C 1973, Muddle of the Middle East, New Delhi, Abhinav Publications.
Chaurasia, R S 2005, History of Middle East, New Delhi, Atlantic Publ. & Distributors.
Dalacoura, K 2011 Islamist terrorism and democracy in the Middle East, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Davenport, J C 2007, Democracy in the Middle East, New York, Chelsea House.
Friedman, S S 2006, A history of the Middle East, Jefferson, N.C. [u.a.], McFarland.
Garnham, D 1995, Democracy, war, and peace in the Middle East, Bloomington [u.a.], Indiana Univ. Press.
Goldberg, E, Kasaba, R & Migdal, J S 1993, Rules and rights in the Middle East: democracy, law, and society, Seattle, University of Washington.
Halperin, M H, Siegle, J T & Weinstein, M 2005, The democracy advantage: how democracies promote prosperity and peace, New York, Routledge.
Paya, A & Esposito, J L 2010, Iraq, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World, Iraq, Routledge.
Platzdasch, B 2009, Islamism in Indonesia: politics in the emerging democracy, Singapore, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Runciman, D, 2006, The politics of good intentions: history, fear, and hypocrisy in the new world order, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Steele, P, 2009, The Middle East, New York, Kingfisher Books.
Yacoubian, M 2008, Promoting Middle East Democracy II: Arab Initiatives, Washington, D.C, DIANE Publishing.
A belief that one persons race is superior has been causing discrimination and prejudice for many years. The theory of racism states that biological characteristics predetermine individuals moral and social traits ( The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community 25). Some people also define racism as explicit hate towards human beings because of their distinguishing features, such as skin color, country of origin, religious beliefs, or native language. Governments around the world tried to solve the issue of racism, and some of them are believed to be successful in educating their populations about it. For instance, different scholars claim that Brazil has effectively escaped racial discrimination. As noted by Da Cota, there exists a view that Brazilian race relations are relatively harmonious and that race is of minor importance in shaping identities and life chances ( The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community 25). Nevertheless, it is claimed that Brazils racial equality is just a myth created by the government. Therefore, this paper will prove that racial democracy is absent in Brazil by, first, defining this term and explaining its cons and, second, discussing how and where racism is present in the state.
Main body
Racial democracy in Brazil is a phenomenon connected to the idea that racial differences encourage individuals to look for a broad identity that would include every population presented in the country. Race plays a secondary role in shaping ones personality and affecting a persons behavior. On the other hand, it unites people and helps them to appreciate their distinct characteristics. Da Costa stated that this belief had been occupying the minds of Brazilian citizens as a hope for a better future and equality in the society ( The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community 25). For the countrys population, their motherland is a state that successfully reduced the level of racism by blending its native, European, and African inhabitants ( The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community 25). Thus, the power of cultural mixture encourages individuals to believe in interconnectedness and support rather than separation depending on racial differences. Blending helps people to seek a more extensive collective identity that exceeds characters based on racial categorization ( The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community 27). Hence, distinct features are seen as the way to unite and discover familiar characters each culture has.
However, there exists a strong belief that racial inequality is highly present in Brazilian society despite the mixture. The faith in racial democracy due to cultural connectedness is viewed as a contradiction or paradox since people who achieve happiness through blending see racism and discrimination as aberrations among general conviviality (Da Costa, The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community 29). These delusions are perceived as obstacles on the way to accomplishing understanding of society and the self and, consequently, developing strong personal relationships with other individuals (Da Costa, The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community 29). In other words, blending does not let people discover the advantages of their culture that, eventually, cannot move them towards a complete understanding of society. Therefore, it means that racial discrimination and inequality have not disappeared because cultural blending did not prove to be an effective means of concretizing racial democracy in community relationships. The use of cultural mixture as a way to achieve racial justice can be proved inadequate since it does not take into consideration the effect of difference on the foundation of an ideal community.
Moreover, Brazil is not successful in applying the idea of racial democracy since it operates with the help of racialized power while, at the same time, claiming that race is insignificant. Da Costa defines Brazil, and other states using the same forms of governance, as post-racial ideologies ( Confounding Anti-racism 497). These forms of discourse and thought to try to reduce racial differences and their influences from the attention of activists, public debaters, academic scholarships, and state policies (Da Costa, Confounding Anti-racism 497). Post-racial philosophies create complete understandings of inclusion and belonging that ignore racial differences and the issue of racism within a community (Da Costa, Confounding Anti-racism 497). Thus, despite transforming inequalities within local and international development, ideologies merely take away attention from the existing problems. In addition, when post-racial ideology is applied as a strategy of governance, it continually seeks to depoliticize race and difference in a way that disarms anti-racism politics and unique cultural recognition (Da Costa, Confounding Anti-racism 497). The government of Brazil tries to portray its effective use of racial democracy while hiding the real way of accomplishing things.
Furthermore, even though Brazil is presented as an equal country because of the existence of different cultural groups there, the superiority of white people can still be seen in everyday life situations and the media. Most Brazilians are sure that racism is common and that discrimination turns the lives of various cultures into suffering. The population reports that while the state is known for mulatas and an Afro-Brazilian community, once people turn on the TV program or open a newspaper, all one can see is light-skinned and white faces (Duarte). Even in traditional television movies and soap operas, only a few of the characters are played by black actors and actresses (Duarte). Thus, the Brazilian population can easily understand that their eyes are being blinded and minds overwhelmed by the ideas of cultural blending and mixed identity. By simply watching a television program, it is evident that racism did not disappear with the termination of slavery. Contrarily, it is present in modern society and needs action.
One of the prime examples, when racism was explicitly present on the Brazilian media and resulted in a response from people, is a situation concerning a Brazilian actress Tais Araujo. As indicated by Duarte, in November 2015, a famous Black Brazilian media personality Tais Araujo received extensive media coverage due to several offensive comments on her Facebook profile. Dozens of racist social media users stated that Araujo can be compared to an animal and a monkey and commented with sexually embarrassing statements while disrespecting her cultural origin and skin color (Duarte). However, instead of deleting irritating reports from her profile, she decided to publish them to all social media accounts and started a legal procedure against insults (Duarte). As a result of this situation, Brazilians created a multimedia campaign aimed at fighting racism and inequality in the country. Individuals designed supportive hashtags and contributed to the emergence of similar events on the local social media space (Duarte). The process helped to raise awareness about the current issue in society and proved that people need to learn to speak out and punish the offenders through the court.
Even though Brazil attempted to fight and hide the problem of racism for years, its Afro-Brazilian population remains to be an oppressed group in society. Brazil created the concept of a cultural mixture, confirmed legal ownership of land for citizens, and implemented laws in the sphere of education, which allowed all people to attend schools and universities (Araujo). Besides, the government implemented the program which purpose was to fight poverty among the black population of Brazil (Araujo). Nevertheless, these changes were not enough to diminish racism in the country. As noted by Araujo, nowadays, no one can state that racial democracy exists in Brazil. The presence of severe racial and social inequalities is detectable in different spheres, such as healthcare, housing, and education (Araujo). For instance, the young generation of Afro-Brazilian youth is in the first place on the list of those who are most likely to be the sufferers of crimes in Brazil (Araujo). The black population has a 2.5 times higher risk of being killed than the light-skinned community (Araujo). Hence, despite constant attempts to fully implement racial democracy in Brazilian society, the country still occupies a prominent position concerning the issue of inequality.
Conclusion
To summarize, Brazilian scholars and public activists do not make a mistake when starting to challenge racial democracy in their native country. According to various sources and events in society, they have the right and ability to claim that racial justice is a myth and that inequality is highly present in modern Brazil. An ineffective concept of cultural blending and offenses of individuals because of their country of origin, skin color, or language continually contribute to the worsening of the social equality situation in Brazil. Therefore, the central issue of racism needs to be addressed through various actions, such as raising awareness on social media platforms. The presented paper proved that racial democracy does not exist in Brazil by discussing this concept and its disadvantages and by providing examples of racism in the country.
Works Cited
Araujo, Ana Lucia. The Mythology of Racial Democracy in Brazil. openDemocracy. Web.
Da Costa, Alexandre Emboaba. Confounding Anti-racism: Mixture, Racial Democracy, and Post-racial Politics in Brazil. Critical sociology, vol. 42, no. 4-5, 2016, 495-513.
Da Costa, Alexandre Emboaba. The (Un) Happy Objects of Affective Community: Mixture, Conviviality and Racial Democracy in Brazil. Cultural studies, vol. 30, no.1, 2016, 24-46.
The Americans are globally famous for their relentless support for democratic governance. Jacobs et al asserts that the ideals of democratically responsive governance are highly cherished by the American people (3). Ironically, the situation is markedly different within the American government even as they actively support democracy in other countries. With the growing inequality issues in the country, the ideals of democratic governance have been highly compromised.
The major disparities existing are mostly noticeable within the public domain (Jacobs et al. 3). Primarily, the issue is about income differences, opportunities for wealth creation and equal citizenship (Jacobs et al. 3). These gaps are growing rapidly in the United States compared to any other country in the world. Yet the US still considers herself the worlds greatest advocates of democracy. The American government is making little or no progress in the efforts to realize the democratic ideals set forth by the founding fathers of the nation.
Equal rights
The American society is the most culturally diverse in the world and this comes with a number of challenges as well. There were steps made to achieve equality in the 1950s and 1960s at the height of racism. Racial segregation and exclusion became illegal and socially unacceptable hence moving a step towards equality (Jacobs et al. 4). This allowed the white and black community to access education in the same schools and get access to health services in the same health facilities.
This was a good gesture towards democratic governance. It is also worth noting that major gender based barriers started to break down during the same time and women were empowered to pursue academic, political, and economic opportunities just as men did (Jacobs et al. 4). Other marginalized groups like the Latin Americans also got access to equal rights on an equal footing with the rest of the Americans.
Notably, the previous barriers that promoted inequalities such as race, gender, ethnicity to mention but a few do not exist today. Nonetheless, new barriers that are fostering inequality in the American society have emerged and they are rapidly spreading within the government and the country at large posing a threat to the realization of democracy.
The greatest of these barriers is the gaps in income and wealth between the Americans (Jacobs et al. 4). The gap between the rich and the poor is greatly increasing owing to disparities in income especially in the private and the civil sectors. This gap is increasingly creating a major segregation in the job market as well as in schools and colleges.
Apparently, the rich and the wealthy are better positioned to cease opportunities that are out of reach for the middle and lower income classes. Consequently, the rich are in a position to get richer while limiting access to resources by the poor man. That is why the saying that the rich will continue to get rich while the poor man becomes poorer is very true.
Some element of racist treatments is also present in school among students. In America today, one has to work very hard in order to maintain his or her current economic position (Jacobs et al. 5). One would expect that through hard work, there would be an upward mobility in the economic ladder but that is not normally the case in the US.
Inequality in contributions on national matters
Voicing the needs of the American people has never been easy and only a selected few can do this. The opportunity to exercise ones right in the US does not come easily as there are factors that influence the ear of the government. These factors include a high income, occupational or career success, and high levels of academic achievements (Jacobs et al. 4).
Members who fit in these criteria are more likely to participate in political, social, and economic decision-making process than the ordinary citizen is. Government officials are more likely to listen to the needs of such elite citizens and deliver on their demands more promptly. Unfortunately, this is the bitter truth and the reality of the American government amidst its call for democratic governance around the world.
Voting turnout has also declined since the beginning of the 21st century when the income gap began to grow rapidly. Statistics show that the majority who vote are also the elite while the low-income earners decline to exercise their democratic right to cast their votes. How does the decline of voter turnout relate to inequality? A number of decisive factors discourage or make the voting process a struggle for the electorate.
The economic inequality is a major factor that discourages the less economically privileged eligible voters from voting. There are also some laws in some states that forbid the minority from voting and a good example is the law forbidding prisoners and former prisoners from voting (Verba, Lehman, and Brady 1). In addition, the current methods of campaigns are keen on raising funds and persuading the already existing voters to vote. A more different approach is necessary to woo the non-voting yet eligible voters to get out and exercise their rights.
Through campaign contributions, the rich and wealthy folks have a leeway to express and voice their demands as the platform gives them an advantage over the poor folks. Today, one can only gain justice and political influence through money and affluence thus leaving the poor man out of the standard bar. The least contributors in the national campaigns are the poor ordinary citizens while the few political donors are in charge in the political arena due to their financial influence.
In order to exercise the rights of citizenship, one requires resources and skills. These requirements are only accessible to the wealthy hence the inequality. People with higher education and great careers such as doctors and lawyers among other professional have more confidence to speak compared to an ordinary citizen working as subordinate staff. Naturally, the nature of American politics gives no voice to the poor while the rich and affluent get enough attention at the expense of the poor man.
Jacobs et al argues that three quarters of the well-off citizens are in one way or another associated with an organization that has great influence on the political arena (10). They also noted in their research that half of the wealthiest people in America are in contact with public officials. This gives the rich double access to public resources compared to the middle and low-income earners in the US (Freeman).
Government responses
Government officials are highly influenced by the privileged citizens. The response of the government today in America no longer represents the will of the majority. A selected few wealthy men and women determine the future of the vast majority which is not a principle of democracy. Money has become the essential for government attention.
Ironically, the already wealthy and advantaged citizens who are able to take care of themselves are the most catered for by the government. Democratic rule should ensure equality and fairness with the majority influencing the political stands. Nonetheless, in America, it is a reversed role since the minorities hold the realms of power while the majorities ride under the mercies of the few wealthy citizens.
Through money, the wealthy establish relationships with government officials creating a connection that enables them to access national resources that are out of the ordinary peoples reach. This gives them a further advantage despite the fact that they already have an advantage over the poor with their wealth and money. This disparity is among the issues that are widening the gap between the rich and the poor. The gap grows wider because the more one earns, the more they gain access to resources and consequently the further the resources get away from the poor mans reach. The effect is cyclic in that one direction influences the other.
The affluent also influence government policies as well and normally, policies will always consider the needs and demands of the wealthy business communities and organized groups (Frankenberg, Orfield, and Lee). The government is always bias when responding to national issues normally bending to the side that favors the rich (Skrentny). The government is moving towards a more tragic direction by allowing a few affluent individuals to take the country hostage.
The lack of spread opportunities and the gap between the rich and the poor is a disastrous condition in any economy. What this does is that the ordinary citizen will get discouraged and be reluctant to participate in national activities. This may include voting and working, which contributes to the national financial muscles, to mention but a few.
Conclusion
In the United States of America, democracy is only known theoretically and not as a practical state of affair. This paper has established the facts about government inequality and bias treatment of its citizens. The striking income disparity in the country is not a good example of a democratic nation since it is in contradiction with the idea of democracy. In the above research, it is clear that democracy is not as easy to achieve as it sounds and the quality of political leaders as well as the political will to pursue democratic governance highly counts.
The financial gap between the American citizens is creating a division not only affecting social interaction but also economic and political well-being. The voter turnout for instance has been on the decline since the beginning of the 21st century just when the gap begun to build up. This clearly means that income disparities greatly influence the political structure of a country.
Democracy is a good leadership model that allows for equal social, economic, and political opportunities for all citizens without favoritism. The government under democratic principles must always work towards engaging the majority rule and open access of power and influence to the majority as opposed to a select few. That is the real essence of democratic governance.
Works Cited
Frankenberg, Erica, Chumgmei Lee, and Gary Orfield. A Multiracial Society with Segregated Schools: Are We Losing the Dream? Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2002. Print.
Freeman, Richard. Working under Different Rules. A National Bureau of Economic Research Project Report, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994. Print.
Jacobs, Lawrence, and Robert Shapiro. Politicians Dont Pander Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Print.
Jacobs, Lawrence et al. American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality. Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy American Political Science Association. 5 Sep. 2012. Web.
Skrentny, John. The Minority Rights Revolution, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Print.
Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman, and Henry Brady. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. Print.
Democracy refers to a system of government in which citizens participate in decision-making and decide how they want to be governed (Cheibu & Dahl 2003). It gives citizens an opportunity to contribute in maters that determine the course of their lives. Democracy allows citizens to participate in the process of making laws either directly or indirectly through elected representatives (Burns et al 2001).
Political self-determination is one of the most vital aspects of democracy. This is because democracy encompasses economic, social, and cultural aspects of peoples lives. Other forms of government include monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy.
In a monarchy, power is held by one individual while in an oligarchy, power is in the hands of a few people who make all decisions (Burns et al 2001). Democracy should be adopted in all nations because it promotes equality, freedom, and peace.
Freedom
Aristotle described democracy as a form of freedom that allows citizens to live, as they resolve because the will of the majority prevails (Cheibu & Dahl 2003). In a democracy, there is a government and a constitution that guides citizens in order to promote peace and tranquility. However, they should not pose as obstacles to liberty and freedom. Even though democracy exists, its execution in some nations applies partially (Burns et al 2001).
As such, there is widespread violation of human rights and denial of freedom. Freedom is one of the main objectives of adopting democracy in a nation (Cheibu & Dahl 2003).
A nation should adopt democracy because it promotes freedom, as well as giving citizens power and authority to make laws that govern them (Christiano, 2004). During the process of making laws, the needs and preferences of citizens are considered and incorporated in to the laws. This is in contrast to other forms of government in which a few individuals make laws on behalf of citizens.
Equality
All nations should adopt democracy because it builds on the principle of equality (Christiano, 2004). All citizens are equal and are supposed to enjoy similar social, economic, and political rights. This implies that the government should not discriminate against any citizen or group of citizens because of their religion, ethnicity, or gender (Geer & Schiller 2011).
Democracy promotes equality because every citizen is equal before the law. One of the main components of a democracy is a constitution. A constitution ensures that every citizen enjoys similar rights as everyone else, as well as equal treatment despite their race, religion, gender, or socio-economic class (Lijphart 2012).
Historians have argued whether true attainment of democracy is possible. In many countries, several aspects that include level of education, gender, ethnical affiliation, and economic status hinder democracy. Greed for money by the elite, who oppress the poor despite existence of democracy, has greatly hindered its adoption (Lijphart 2012).
Freedom to make laws and participate in governance gives citizens a sense of belonging (Geer & Schiller 2011). It bestows upon them the feeling that they are responsible for their own welfare and should therefore participate in creating laws. In other government forms, the leader possesses power to make laws according to his/her wishes.
This has led to grave misuse of power as witnessed in countries such as Iraq, Egypt, and Cuba where democracy is not recognized (Mill, 2009). By participating in elections, citizens get an opportunity to elect leaders that they feel possess the best qualities for leadership. In a democracy, people chose their own leaders, unlike in other forms of government.
Democracy creates a feeling of obligation and responsibility in citizens (Ross 2006). They have a responsibility to elect good leaders to lead their nation, and an obligation to participate in elections. This gives them a feeling of belonging because they decide the government that governs their nation.
This applies through elections and referendums. Democracy gives all citizens the opportunity assume leadership positions (Mill, 2009). Any citizen can vie for an elective post and represent other citizens in the government. This encourages fair competition and responsibility, which are necessary for promotion of democracy.
Responsible and stable administration
One of the main benefits of democracy is that its statutes promote and advocate for a stable and responsible government (Ross 2006). A study of major democracies in the world revels that stability, efficiency, growth, and firmness are the main characteristics of democracy. Democracy forms a firm and responsible government because it is based on the wishes of citizens.
In addition, leaders are accountable to citizens who elect them into office. In representative democracy, elected leaders make informed decisions based on ideas and opinions of the people (Ross 2006). Elected representatives are responsible because if they fail to fulfill the wishes of their electorate, they remove them from power when they participate in elections after a certain period.
A stable administration means that there is little chance of revolution. Democracy is primarily based on the will of the people. Therefore, there is low possibility that people might revolt against the government except in cases of violation of the democratic rights of citizens.
Democracy has been shown to be the most stable and effective form of government because it functions on consensus (Shapiro & Corsdn 1999). Any critical decision undergoes the scrutiny of the public before implementation.
The benefits of democracy are evident from observation of democracies such as the United States. The US has grown tremendously over the last few decades because it upholds democratic ideals (Shapiro & Corsdn 1999). This has enabled it to become the most powerful nation in the world. A similar case applies with countries in the Europe that have embraced democracy.
Their rule was characterized by abuse of power, corruption, wars, and violation of human rights. However, this changed when they turned to democracy. Russia has been through many forms of government than any other European country. Anarchy resulted in communism, and monarchy ended in violence (Shapiro & Corsdn 1999).
The formation of a communism government had adverse effects on countries of the USSR. The economy deteriorated and many countries experienced extended periods of abject poverty. However, after they embraced democracy, they were able to rebuild Russia and regain stability and economic prosperity.
Better governance
Another reason why all nations should adopt democracy is the profundity of corruption of power (Schumpeter 2003). In essence, power is not corrupting, but when an individual assumes power, there is high possibility that they will misuse it. This observation applies in monarchies where one individual possess all the power.
In case the individual results to misuse of power, this results in adverse effects such as deterioration of the economy, wars, famine, and corruption. This affects the whole government. This is in contrast to a democratic form of government. Abuse of power by an individual does not crumble a governance system due to even distribution of duties and responsibilities (Schumpeter 2003).
Power is in the hands of many people. Therefore, it is difficult for an individual to corrupt the system with power. The advantage of democracy is that people form the government.
Therefore, it is not possible for the will of the government to conflict with the will of the people (Schumpeter 2003). In other forms of government, the will of the people always conflicts with the will of the leaders. This is because citizens do not get an opportunity to give their opinions or to voice their concerns.
Counterargument
Despite being the best form of government, democracy has flaws too. These include misappropriation of public funds, promotion of dictatorship of the majority, lowering of moral standards, disinterest by voters in elections, and capitalism (Smith 1996). Despite these flaws, democracy is the best form of government. Advantages of democracy outweigh the disadvantages.
Conclusion
Democracy has been labeled the best system of government that any nation can embrace. It has certain weaknesses but it is more stable, efficient, and stronger than other systems such as monarchies and oligarchies. All nations should adopt democracy because of several reasons.
These include stability and efficient administration, promotion of freedom, equality of all citizens, equal opportunity to power, and responsible administration. Benefits of democracy are evident for observing democracies such as the US and European countries. Through democracy, they have been able to achieve growth and prosperity that has placed them among the most prosperous and powerful nations in the world.
References
Burns, J, Pelatson, J., Cronin, T & Magleby, B 2001, Government by the People, Prentice Hall, New York.
Cheibu, A & Dahl, R 2003, The Democracy Sourcebook, MIT Press, London.
Christiano, T 2004, The Authority of Democracy, Journal of Political Philosophy, vol.12 no.3, pp. 266-290.
Geer, J & Schiller, W 2011, Gateways to Democracy: Introduction to American Government, Cengage Learning, New York.
Lijphart, A 2012, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, Yale University Press, New York.
Mill, J 2009, Representative Government, GRIN Verlag, New York.
Ross, M 2006, Is Democracy Good for the Poor, American Journal of Political Science, vol.50 no.4, pp. 860-874.
Schumpeter, J 2003, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Taylor & Francis, New York.
Shapiro, I & Corsdn, C 1999, Democracys Values, Cambridge University Press, London.
Smith, b 1996, Sustainable Local Democracy, Public Administration and Development, vol. 16 no.2, pp. 163-178.
Kant was a world-renowned political philosopher who among his greatest concepts of peace advocated that democracy could actually create lasting peace between nations. Firstly, he notes that for peace to be realized, a world of constitutional democracies, established by political units, ought to be established. Secondly, Kants philosophy greatly relies on the doctrine of the power of the state to protect its citizens; a concept which was largely borrowed from German jurisprudence (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 13).
A reliance on this concept is further affirmed by Kants reliance on the supremacy of the constitution. According to Kants reasoning, the constitution should guarantee the right of the citizens to be happy and peaceful. From this analysis, Kants philosophy was heavily reliant on constitutionalism and the power of constitutional governments to establish peace within given regions.
To a large extent, it can be analyzed that Kant had formulated the problem of constitutionalism by stating that The constitution of a state is eventually based on the morals of its citizens, which in its turns, is based on the goodness of the constitution (Lane 1996, p. 58).
The constitutional theory of the 21st century can even be traced to Kants development of constitutionalism because he states that: The task of establishing a universal and permanent peaceful life is not only a part of theory of law within the framework of pure reason, but per se an absolute and ultimate goal.
To achieve this goal, a state must become the community of a large number of people, living provided with legislative guarantees of their property rights secured by a common constitution. The supremacy of the constitution& must be derived a priori from the considerations for achievement of the absolute ideal in the most just and fair organization of peoples life under the aegis of public law (Joerges 2004, p. 67).
This means that citizen rights stipulated in the 21st century concept of constitutionalism stems from the constitution itself. Nonetheless, many scholars have identified shortcomings in Kants philosophy and many have made reference to the European Union (EU) as ill equipped to face the challenges on the non-Kantian world outside the EU because it largely bases its policies on Kantian philosophies (Weiler 2003, p. 207).
One of the biggest criticisms to Kantian philosophy stems from the fact that direct democracies means a prevalence of majority rule and this may limit individual liberties. To affirm this opinion (Thompson 1992, p. 58) notes that:
&democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which all decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, all , who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom . (p. 58)
In this regard, various forms of government have emerged and they include aristocracy, democracies and monarchs but the classical form of this democracy lies in a mixed from of government which encompasses all the above types of government.
This study acknowledges the fact that democracies rarely go to war or take part in it in first place, but in the same context, it identifies that this concept distorts the realistic form of interstate relations and a support of this concept is bound to make political scholars too sanguine about the ability of democratic nations to deliver world peace. These factors withstanding, this study advances the fact that Kant was wrong to argue that democracy brings peace in todays world.
Conceptual Analysis
When analyzing the biggest threat to the emergence of war between nations in the 21st century, we can deduce three most significant possible causes of war. They are nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and ethnic or religious conflicts (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 7).
For instance the conflict between India and Pakistan had been the closest the world had come to a nuclear war and this can be traced to the first concept described above (nuclear proliferation) (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 3). Interestingly, the United States (US) which is the worlds biggest democracy has in the recent past waged a war against Afghanistan which manifests the two possible causes of war (terrorism and religious conflicts) also discussed above (Tinnevelt 2010, p. 86).
Contrary to Kants philosophy of democracy and peace, the recent September 11th attacks in the US, as alleged by terrorist groups, was a reactions to USs democratic interventions in religious conflicts on the terrorists part of the world. From this analogy, it can be said that democracy is a great contributor to the three causes of war discussed above; meaning that the vaulted political machinery of democracy has consistently failed to work (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 8).
Nuclear Wars
Inevitably, nuclear proliferation which is a big threat to world peace has the potential of increasing conflicts between nations. In relative terms, the threat of nuclear weapons to the realization of world peace increases from an increase in nation-states that posses them. Equally, the risk of nuclear weapons also increases with an increase in the number of nuclear weapons but the same risk is also evident in establishing world peace, when terrorists get hold of such weapons.
Interestingly, some of the worlds biggest democracies have shown the worst examples by possessing these nuclear weapons. It is also very interesting to note that of the eight countries alleged to have (or have) nuclear weapons (US, Russia, China, France, UK, India, Pakistan and Israel) are majorly democratic states. In detail, six of the states are democracies and only two are dictatorships (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 8).
The US which is the biggest democracy in the world, started developing such weapons when it was quickly rising to be one of the worlds superpower. In this regard, nuclear bombs have been synonymously associated with world power and unfortunately, nations such as the US have used them in causing massive destruction to people through wars, as can be evidenced from the Hiroshima bombings in Japan.
When the US started developing these weapons, nations across the globe went ahead and started developing the weapons as well. This led to an arms race and inevitably the cold war. Regardless, maybe these states would have possessed the weapons anyway, but the root of the arms race stems from the fact that the US, which is arguably the biggest democracy in the world started the movement and set precedent for other nations across the globe to follow.
The pursuit for nuclear weapons across the globe was therefore inevitable. The rush to have these weapons has been characterized by a flurry of excuses, with the US claiming that it first developed the weapons to stop Hitler but the production of such weapons never ceased even after Hitler was defeated (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 8).
Later, the US claimed it needed the weapons to protect the state from the Soviet Union. However, it apparently became clear that the nation used the weapons to wage war against Japan. In fact, after Japan was defeated, the production of these weapons increased tremendously (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 18).
From this analysis, it can be seen that democratic states not only develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves against their enemies, but to advance their power in global politics and sometimes even wage war against other nations. All in all, this is the coin of political realm, even though democracies are supposed to protect its citizens against the danger of war in todays society (as purported by Kant); but it is hard to ignore the fact that democracies are a great part of the problem.
Terrorism
Terrorism is another good example of the failure by democracies to establish world peace. It had been evidently clear from the terror campaign that the UK and the US invaded Afghanistan, thus increasing anxiety amid India and Pakistan, which were on the brink of a fully blown nuclear conflict (Tinnevelt 2010, p. 5). It is also interesting to note that the biggest targets of terrorism activities are majorly democratic nations and they include the US, UK, Germany, France, Israel, Italy, Turkey and Peru (Tinnevelt 2010, p. 5).
The leading reason advanced by most terrorist organizations for targeting these democracies is the fact that democratic countries have consistently adopted unfavorable foreign and domestic policies (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 8).
It is also interesting to note that democratic regimes which have noninterventionist foreign policies are seldom targeted by terrorists; meaning that the issue here is not a moral evaluation of terrorism and its antecedents but rather the exploration of the question about whether democracies provoke or discourage terrorism (which is also a big threat to world peace). Undoubtedly, democracies provoke terrorism acts.
Ethnic and Religious Conflicts
Ethnic and religious conflicts are probably among the leading cause of organized conflicts and a big threat to world peace. Though a significant portion of these conflicts have been largely characterized by dictatorships and oppressive regimes, a significant portion of the conflicts have also been perpetrated under democratic regimes.
For instance, religious and ethnic conflicts evidenced in Turkey, Yugoslavia, Spain, Philippines, Russia, Peru, Namibia, Mexico, India, Georgia, and Colombia have all happened under democratic regimes (Tinnevelt 2010, p. 5).
Research studies show that about 25 of the most recent intrastate conflicts have been either religious or ethnically instigated and a staggering 23 out of the 25 intrastate conflicts have prevailed under democratic regimes, either partially or fully (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 17). In fact, in some cases, democratic regimes have been successfully overthrown because a significant minority of the population has felt neglected by such regimes.
Empirical evidences have shown that democratic states have promoted ethnic conflicts but a close scrutiny of the process of democratization explains this phenomenon. Even in the biggest democracies across the globe, people have since immemorial voted along ethnic or religious lines although these two parameters (ethnicity and religion) can be closely analyzed together.
In close analysis, people hailing from one ethnic subgroup have always voted for a candidate coming from their ethnic group or sometimes the same people have been seen to vote for candidates they believe best represent their own interests.
This kind of scenario also inevitably brews controversy among voters because voters who fail to propel their candidate into office always harbor some form of resentment on voters who prevented their candidate from entering office in the first place. Even an increase in the population of another subgroup may potentially seem threatening to a specific ethnic group since they may feel like other ethnic groups are a potential threat to advancing their own interests.
The nature of democracy therefore leads to the thriving of such animosities because it gives one vote to a single person and this means that it is easy for one candidate from the majority ethnic groups to capture office; thereby sidelining the wishes of other ethnic or religious groups. Thus, it can be said that democracy, from its own inherent nature possesses the seed of ethnic conflict.
Theoretical Critique
The theory of democratic pacifism is usually advocated by academicians, politicians, diplomats and a significant population of the general citizenry; however; the biggest question we should ask ourselves is: are democratic states really peaceful? In another context, we should majorly ask ourselves is the worlds biggest democracy (US) peaceful?
History affirms that these states are not peaceful and in fact, some of the worlds deadliest conflicts have been instigated by democratic states. Affirmatively, the two bloodiest wars in the past ten decades have been the two world wars plus the American civil war which led to more than 620,000 deaths (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 16).
However, theorists of democracy as a facilitator of peace, such as Rummel, argue that democratic states have a lesser frequency of war when compared to dictatorships but the truth of the matter is that these theories ignore many other potential influencing factors of peace (Tinnevelt 2010, p. 5). These theorists tend to incline towards the classical liberal state which defines states with limited powers but the truth of the matter is that there are very few states in the world which are classical liberal today.
Also, from the analysis of the democratic liberalist states, it is evidently clear that democracies bestow a lot of power on governments and this essentially becomes very dangerous in the upheaval of citizens rights. In other contexts, it can be viewed from the dangers of power that power essentially kills; meaning this is a contravention of democratic pacifism theories advocated by scholars such as Spencer Weart (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 19).
However, theres no doubt that democracies lead to a number of positive outcomes such as the fact that: democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with each other; democracies tend to be more peaceful than each other; democracies have a less internal voice and democracies have relative peace; however, it is still hard to ignore the fact some of the biggest democracies like the UK and the US have been the biggest instigators of war. It can therefore be seen that the realization of peace happens from structural make up and not by coincidence or accident (Joerges 2004, p. 207).
Conclusion
Kants assertion that democracies lead to the attainment of world peace is a misplaced argument because contrary to his philosophy, democratic states have constantly destabilized world peace because some of the biggest world conflicts have been instigated by some of the worlds biggest democracies.
The US and the UK in particular are singled out in this study as the biggest democracies although in many instances, they have been fighting with many nations; considering the fact that they have taken part in some of the worlds bloodiest conflicts. These countries are also at the forefront in the war against terror by carrying out invasions even though they are supposed to uphold world peace through their constitutions (as purported by Kant).
Also, this study identifies that democratic governance by the virtue of its own structure is ethnically motivated to brew conflict. This arises out of the fact that democracies encompass a one man one vote policy where the majority rule and the minority lose. This kind of policy has brewed conflicts of a civil nature.
Religious conflicts have also majorly occurred under democratic regimes and the kind of conflicts which have either been provoked or occurred under democratic regimes are still endless. These issues withstanding, it becomes clear that democracy in its own nature brews conflict and Kants argument of democracy as a facilitator of peace is definitely wrong.
References
Joerges, C. (2004) Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism. London: Hart Publishing.
Lane, J. (1996) Constitutions and Political Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press ND.
Democracy, in its rudimentary form, is described as a kind of a political government whose powers are derived from the people. The power is often found by referendum or by electing representatives in county governments, members of Congress and other political government representatives.
Democracy is therefore the system of rule, which the people who are governed have chosen. Democracy contrasts with other systems like monarch, totalitarian rule, communistic rule, and timocracy. This is because, in the case of democracy, there is freedom of expression and the public is free to participate in sociopolitical activities. There is more freedom and the public participates directly in the system of governance.
In a democratic system, all citizens are allowed to vote whoever they want. Apart from participation in governance by the public, there is also liberalization of economic sector and social activities. It is worth noting that the United States is a Republic not a democracy. A republic is a system in which the people chose people who represent them in formulating policies.
Settings and the mediation organizations should be restructured to ensure that they enhance reclamation of public work for citizens. This will in turn reinvent the citizenship of Americans. The practice of public works is crucial in this aspect. This is because the practice forms a basic conceptual approach to civic education. Thus, public work provides the framework in which the reinvention of active citizenship is built.
Therefore high schools should incorporate the culture of mandatory community service in their curriculum. Work places should be in democratic environments which allow for the participation of their workers in community services and public activities. Forums should be encouraged so that people can assemble to petition their representatives to redress their grievances.
In these assemblies, the public can also speak and act in concert. Reinventing citizenship through the above ways has its own pros and cons. In addition to this, the civil society has the mandate to train people on civic education so that they become more effective in the contemporary political world.
First of all, teaching the habits and skills of citizenship has a particular challenge in that some members of the public are known to be law breakers. In any particular community, there are those people who heed the law and those who do not heed. Those who do not heed cannot implement the teachings of citizenship. Similarly with offering mandatory civic courses, those people who are law breakers, tend not to heed to civic education thus offering a direct challenge to this method.
The issue of mandatory community service has also been met with a lot of resistance from a section of the public. This is because some legislators claim that it is unconstitutional and also offers the public free labor from the young people. Due to these challenges, mandatory community service has not been implemented in all parts of the country.
Public spaces in communities are very important areas for the public to meet and discuss major issues concerning the community. Public spaces in communities which are supposed to be used for social activities and public gatherings have reduced in number. In most cities, public land has been changed into other utility because of the high demand on land.
Thus there are certain places where public land is no more thus making this method of reinventing citizenship not viable. Most neighborhoods have already been designed such that there are no easy connections between citizens. This creates a hindrance for people to meet and exchange ideas aimed at problem solving.
Time is also a major issue when it comes to participation in public activities. In most of the major U.S cities, everyone is busy in their own business and lifestyle. It is not possible to gather the desired number of members of the public at one given time. Collective problem solving becomes quite difficult in this case. Thus, a decision made in a particular gathering during a particular time will not necessarily be a decision representing everyones opinion.
Workplace policies also face a major challenge. Implementing the culture of community service and participation in public activities is quite hard for many workers. This is because some say that it adds on the burden of work they already have in the workplace.
Therefore, some workers will find it hard to do community service because they already have enough workload to worry about. The current budget of the Government does not give business enough incentives to help them actively take part in community service. This also compounds the issue since every business is aiming at making profit.
Democracy plays an important role in enhancing public participation. In the political arena, democracy enables Americans to vote whoever they want to. It also enables the public to participate in social activities they want to. And it also gives workers a democratic space in which they are able to work in good work conditions.
Such activities bring the public together thus creating a good atmosphere of solving problems. The process of public participation also helps in reinventing citizenship. Democracy gives the public enough space to engage in social activities without fear of reproach. Thus community service can be done without fear. Democracy in the work place also gives workers enough freedom to express their views and practice their culture.
The government usually does the peoples business without the participation of the public. Citizens are required to share the work of setting the public agenda with politicians and civic leaders. New opportunities should be formed or expanded so that the public can deliberate and also to elect leaders who are more serious with public judgment.
It should be noted that public confidence has the capacity to act effectively in political issues so that participation is enhanced. Those citizens who are most efficacious are much likely to try in political participation than the least efficacious. The personal logic of political participation has a relationship with the individual characteristics of the individual participation.
Thus, people participate in politics when they benefit by getting something tangible as a result of their participation. Political logic of political participation on the other hand has a direct relationship with political leaders. This is because the participation of politics by the public is governed by the way politicians influence them into taking part in the game.
The media comes in handy in bringing people into political participation. The media can create interactive shows which require participation of the public. However, creating new occasions for public deliberation such as National Issues Forum and Study Circles does not exactly involve every desired member of the public.
Not everyone will participate because of many issues, time, being one of them. There are also the issues of use of resources such as time and money which take a toll on public funds. Public forums use a lot of these resources which may also end up to waste if the decisions of the forums are not implemented.
Neighborhood councils can be quite effective in relation to aims of bringing the public back into political activities. These councils can serve as meeting points for the public to speak out and share their views concerning politics and governance. However, it has become quite difficult to bring people together in communities which share different cultures. This method may only be effective if proper plans are executed and enough resources are used.
Thus, the method may not be as easy, in the city, as in the country. It must be noted that this will also depend on the financial and political elite. The ruling class will always affect the community in the area of decision making. Conflicts between the elite can either be detrimental or of benefit to the community. Thus the conflict theory holds. This is because power is the ability to affect the conditions of life in a society.
Political campaigns play a major role in making the public to participate in political issues and public activities. This is because it acquaints the public on their political leaders and gives them an opportunity to select the leaders of their choice according to the politicians policies. The length of political campaigns is therefore important because it is a factor that gives people enough time to engage in public and political activities.
Reducing the length of political campaigns only serves as a reducing factor in the time needed for public participation. The public will not have enough time needed to actively take part in political activities. It should be noted however, that political socialization plays a major role political activities. Thus if a persons parents held a certain belief against a certain political party, the person will most likely have similar views.
The competition of political parties is well known as a breeding factor of publics interest in politics. If this interest works to the advantage, higher turnout will be experienced during the voting process. Political parties create a good atmosphere for greater public participation if they treat each social group rationally.
Thus the young should be treated just like the adults and senior citizens. The financially handicapped should also be treated the same as the economic elite. If political parties become irrational towards members of a particular group, the members affected will become less interested in politics.
Reducing the cost of political campaigns will reduce the resources needed to familiarize the public with their leaders and therefore acts as an inhibiting factor in enhancing political participation by the public. It should also be noted, however, that, expanding public funding to political campaigns will not help much.
It will only be of bad taste to the public since the public will notice an element of misuse of funds. Political parties are therefore placed strategically in this issue. They have to balance between increasing funds for their political rallies and the public opinion about the same.
Conclusion
There are a number of concepts and theories which have been considered as major factors that affect public participation in the United States of America. Public participation is directly related to democracy. If there is total democracy, more of the public will participate in political and public activities.
Civic education is quite necessary in enhancing public participation because civic activities bring people together and learn how to solve problems. Schools are also required to offer civic education and to improve the participation of their students in community services. Communities should have public spaces so that neighbors can connect with each other. Thus reinventing citizenship and improving public participation of the public should be enhanced.
It is increasingly becoming doubtful; if it is possible for some countries and societies to successfully transits from their autocratic governments to democratic societies. A good number of these societies have obtained independence from colonial rule in less than a hundred years ago.
While Most established democracies have generally taken centuries to fully embed the tenets of democracy in their governments and societies, it has been expected that young nations emerging from colonial rule in recent decades would establish democracies within a much shorter period. It has been expected that; the development of democracies in these societies would be catalyzed by the increasingly emerging global community; greatly driven by western democracies.
These democracies have been striving to promote democracy mainly because; democracy has been believed to promote human rights and has also encouraged economic prosperity and the general wellbeing of societies where it thrives. Just as history can ascertain, transition from autocratic to democratic societies has been a painful and a difficult road where enormous challenges have been encountered.
The difficult road to the attainment of democracy that has been experienced by western nations is the same road that is currently traveled by struggling democracies. This paper explores the challenges that are currently hindering the successful transition by some societies from autocracy to democracy.
Democracy has become a key word that is often mentioned to define an ideal society today. Major world powers today have embraced the ideology of democracy; which is thought to be the main ingredient that has driven their economies to admirable levels and one that has generally guarded the wellbeing of every person in their societies (Hilla University for Humanistic Studies).
Democracy therefore permeates from the government to the society in significant ways. A democratic society is not therefore just a society that elects its government representatives in a transparent and open manner. A democratic society is also a society where the government hears and respects the voice of every citizen in decision making (Hilla University for humanistic Studies).
Citizens in democratic societies are normally empowered to guard their rights and will constantly and continuously check their governments; not only ensure that they do not abuse their powers but also to ensure that they respect their active and passive voices in every action that they (governments) take. In a democratic society, the citizens are never wrong. They only need to enshrine whatever they think is best for them in their constitutions, and consciousness.
Having set the bar quite high in understating the basic aspects of democracy, it becomes doubtful whether; any society in our planet today has really achieved democracy. It is however easier to differentiate between a society that respects and strives towards democracy and one that does not. Where the government has not created a framework for a transparent and fair process of electing government representatives, democracy has failed.
The same applies where the government does not respect the voice of its citizens, or where universal human rights are constantly abused. Unlike their democratic counterparts, societies where democracy has failed are therefore burdened by high poverty levels, disrespect for human rights among other common elements present in these societies (Hilla University for Humanistic Studies).
Many historians generally credit the Greeks for inventing the concept of democracy. Indeed, many aspects of the global society in general and the western society in particular were first coined by Greeks. Spartans created a government that was run by five officials who were elected by a few citizens (Mathews and Platt 40). The Spartan government was therefore based on a constitutional framework that guided the elective process and allowed for the passage of laws by high class citizens (Mathews and Platt 40).
Among the laws that were passed by high class citizens in Sparta included; laws that bared immigration as well as those that discouraged creativity and material possessions (Mathews and Platt 40). Athens on the other hand created a democracy that was more repetitive in terms of class although it discriminated against women (Mathews and Platt 40). Although every person that was not a slave could participate in government in Athens, women were bared from government participation (Mathews and Platt 40).
The Greek democratic concepts were first passed to the Roman Empire and then to our society today. One common characteristic that I have observed in the development of democracy is a trend whereby democracy first took root in the empowered ruling class, before spreading to other segments of the society.
For example, in 753 to 509 B.C, a rich council of landowners was the only segment that was allowed to participate in the government; in the Roman Empire at the time. This class elected the roman ruler, and made laws as well (Mathews and Platt 115).
With an increasingly empowered middle class however, things overturned in 509 B.C; when the powerful middle class created a democratic republic (Mathews and Platt, 115). A significant achievement in the Roman democracy was the creation of the separation of powers concept; which was missing in the Greek direct democratic system. Democracy has therefore evolved to create a system of power separation as well as a system that embraces; every member of the society irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity or religion.
While examining whether democracy has failed in a society or not, it is important to examine whether the democratic concepts that have evolved to define democracy as we know it today are wanting.
These concepts include: a truly representative system based on free and transparent elections, a working system of separation of powers and a system that allows every citizens participation in government without discriminating on gender, race, religion, beliefs or any unjust criteria. Societies that have failed to successfully transit from autocratic governments to democratic governments have therefore failed to completely embed the above three concepts of democracy in their system of governments, and their societies.
It can therefore be seen that isolation of a particular segments or segment in a society will automatically hinder democracy (Odhiambo). This isolation could be direct or indirect; but the effect is the same-collapse of democracy.
Indeed, a democratic society is a society that has integrated to desirable levels and is therefore able to direct its energy in unison. According to Lord Acton theory, a society that is truly civilized should struggle to embrace all groups within it to prevent a situation whereby a group or groups in that society develop intolerance towards another group or groups (Odhiambo).
To truly embrace the tenets of democracy, a community therefore needs to find a common denominator that will act as a catalyst for democracy to thrive (Berman, 167). Often times, aristocratic rulers who commonly embed in weak democratic systems exploit disunity in a community to strengthen their powers that they often abuse, as they isolate parts of the community even further. Prime among the factors that discourage integration ins a society include: ethnicity, historical factors, religious differences among others.
According to Lentz, ethnicity in whichever form or magnitude or name is such an important resource in politics and an important parameter in the creation of societies that sociologists and even anthropologists are bound to tackle it (Lentz 310).
George Carew on the other hand stated that the existing relationship of tension between independent African states and ethnicity play to hinder a transition to democratic societies (Odhiambo 267). This has been witnessed in many countries including Kenya, where ethnic tensions have particularly been observed between the community and the state.
In 1992, Kenya experienced clashes between ethnic communities; these clashes were instigated to prevent some communities from participating in oncoming elections during that year (1992) (Muhammad). A notion that has been driving these clashes rests in the belief that; some communities were disregarded in allocation of tracts of fertile land left by British settlers on Independence (Kenyas independence).
Land is not the only resource that has been thought to have been unfairly awarded to some communities in Kenya, in a poor country with limited active resources, government Jobs and other sources of opportunities have been exploited to divide the community. This division of the Kenyan community has almost led to the death of the Kenyan state. The Kenyan state recently exploded into unimaginable scale of violence following the controversial presidential elections in 2007 (Muhammad).
Ethnicity has therefore acted to derail the transition to democracy in diverse ways. As has been seen, it can and has led to intolerance tendencies and even violence.
Violent environments are generally antagonistic to democracy. Human rights are normally violated (Darby 243). Besides, formal institutions like the police that are expected to guard individual rights are normally abused under such. The government becomes volatile and unstable and unreliable, setting the stage for disregard of any established democratic principles (Darby 243).
Moreover, ethnicity prevents a logical election process; where the populace is likely to vote along ethnical lines, instead of considering important attributes of candidates; like their qualifications and their capacity to govern. Ethnicity normally permeates from the highest to the lowest office in a country, where discrimination instead of fairness is the threshold in the provision of services to citizens (Norman).
This creates a society of hate, revenge and other evil elements that prevent integration of communities and therefore prevents democracy (Norman). The Rwandan genocide for example; where hundreds of thousands of people were massacred, is just one of many other tragedy events that have been driven by ethnicity (Muhammad). Ethnicity is therefore not just an enemy to democracy; it is also a proven foe to mankind.
Apart from ethnicity, limitation of a societys integration can arise from historical reasons. A look at the African map ascertains the historical role of western colonial nations. These colonial powers divided the African continent without regarding the need for integration between communities living in the area (Darby 244). The result is a collection of communities that have very little in common and yet; they have been compelled to live together (Darby 244).
Moreover, in order to prevent an uprising from the communities that they had colonized, many colonial powers encouraged disintegration of African communities through the divide and rule strategy (Darby 245). Many African countries made up of different ethnic communities have not been able to completely unite even after attaining independence. Succeeding governments in many countries have continued to exploit disintegration of communities to abuse power, as democratic tenets continue to wear down.
Historical factors come at play to haunt countries like North Korea, where democracy as defined by the concepts that I had described, has failed. In this case, a single community was divided by an existing feud between the United States and Russia. While South Korea emerged as a democratic nation, North Korea has remained as a Communist nation (Darby 250).
North Korea has focused significant energies in combating perceived threat from South Korea as well as from the United states. The focus of energy on South Korea and the United states has denied South Korea the ability to concentrate on issues like poverty among the like; which go hand in hand with democracy (Darby 250).
In this controversy between South Korea and North Korea resulting from historical factors, a scenario exists where North Korea has failed to benefit from Western nations in various ways that could aid its democracy. South Korea on the other hand has been aided by western nations including the United States in the development of its democratic structures and institutions. Historical factors therefore play a role in the future of a country.
This future includes the democratic future of a community. Many communities have not been able to effectively tackle their past in a gainful way that can empower their democracies; to transit from autocratic to democratic societies.
Another key component that has played to water down democracies in the society today is the issue resulting from religious differences (ICPD). Unlike ethnicity, religious differences are potentially more dangerous in destroying democracies and societies.
The evil potential of religions to destroy democracies arises from the fact that; being based on faith, they are able to cut across boundaries, races, ethnic groups and can therefore catalyze evil tendencies across a wider populace than ethnicity (ICPD). Religions determine many aspects in our lives that define our actions; which emanate from; the beliefs that have been passed to us by our religions. Many countries have been hindered from successfully transiting to democracies because of extremist religious beliefs.
Looking at the History of European nations, we can clearly see that; these countries came to a stage where they needed to overcome some extremist religious practices, to successfully transit to democracies (ICPD). Much of autocratic leadership is established on extremist religious beliefs; that are generally used to exploit communities.
One way in which religion has hindered democracy is through the creation of religious wars. Countries like Nigeria have suffered from constant religious wars. Religious conflicts create an environment of violence where democracy can hardly thrive (Diamond 4). Democratic principles emphasize the respect of human rights; which are often grossly abused during religious conflicts.
Moreover, religious conflicts prevent equal treatment, thus violating an important democratic principle (Diamond 41). Countries like Somalia are governed by groups that believe in Islamic extremism (Muhammad). A group like Al Shabaab has established a government that is not based on any tenet of democracy at all.
The rights and freedoms of people, including common freedoms; like the freedom of movement and communication, are grossly abused by Al Shabaab (Muhammad). It is ironical to note that; Al Shabaab has found supporters; in established democracies like the United States (Muhammad). It is important to note that; Somalia was once a country that was progressing towards a democratic society, before ethnic divisions and Islamic extremism became embedded there (Muhammad).
Many Arabic countries practice some Islamic behaviors that are; directly or indirectly against democratic leadership in general (Bukay). Some of these countries are ruled by non elected leaders, who are also considered to be the religious leaders of their communities (Bukay). Even in countries that have established the representative democratic concept through the ballot, community votes have oftentimes been driven by religion, preventing genuine democracy (Bukay).
Following the September bombing, there has been a temptation to revenge against Muslims and therefore; discriminate them on religious grounds in the process (Bukay). Some of the laws that have been passed to fight terrorism in the United States as well as in other countries are fundamentally discriminatory (Bukay). The rights of groups from the Islamic communities are therefore likely to be easily abused in countries that; especially lack strong democratic institutions.
Moreover, many Islamic fundamentalists have marketed the United States war on terrorism as; discrimination against Islam. The effect of such an action of portraying the United States and her allies in bad light especially in the Islamic world has resulted in; communities that have been more interested in empathy towards Islamic extremists and possible revenge to the US and her allies, than in the development of democratic institutions. In such kind of scenario, democracy has been weakened.
If we scratch the surface of ethnicity and other parameters that divide our societies, we are likely to find layers of poverty and, fights over economic resources hidden deep therein. It is arguable that democracy and human rights are inseparable (Norman). Democracy thrives hand in hand with human rights (Norman).
An important parameter in the description of human rights includes economic empowerment (Norman). A population that has been empowered to meet its basic and secondary needs is more capable to participate in democratic practices (Norman). Psychologists concur that our behavior is prioritized first, by our biological requirements. The desire to obtain food, shelter and clothing, form an important composition of our biological requirements (Brewer).
According to psychologists, we are likely to experience stress and be rendered incompetent to participate in other activities in life when we fail to obtain important biological needs (Brewer). Many societies that have not attained democracy, suffer from large scales of want and poverty. Citizens in poor communities are therefore unable to participate in democratic practices.
In many instances, the fight over resources as a result of poverty generally leads to, isolation of population segments. The isolated segments may consist of minorities, or even ethnic groups (Coleman). The rights of isolated segments of the population in poor societies are therefore trudged upon, in the process. In many cases, poverty contributes to low egos and poor self esteem, which directly prevents a person from realizing their capacity in multiple areas including; the capacity to participate in democracy (Coleman).
Such a poor society is less empowered to check the government and, voice its desires to check democratic institutions. In many African countries, politicians have used their wealth to lure and intimidate people to vote for them. The capacity of the population to participate in elections; is thus destroyed, and the notion of democracy remains an illusion.
It therefore becomes extremely difficult, for poor countries to emerge from autocracy to democracy (Diamond). One common denominator that is present in an economically empowered society is an educated society. An educated society is capable of making wise decisions in regard to democracy, and politics. It is also capable of pressurizing its government to act in a democratic manner (Diamond).
Another challenge closely related to poverty which has acted to prevent a transition to democracy in autocratic society is; corruption. In a way, corruption directly leads to poverty, which has been seen to limit democracy. In many instances, corruption benefits a very small proportion of the population; in powerful offices, and their associates (Comaroff). This may significantly center on ethnical lines; hence perpetuating intolerance in the process.
In a corrupt society, a person is not able to freely obtain services from, what should otherwise be democratic institutions, like the judiciary and the police. An important tenet of democracy-justice; is therefore unavailable. Generally, corruption oppresses a society, by denying them human rights, perpetuating poverty, and increasing the capacity of the political class to abuse their powers. It does not matter what the powerful class do in such a society, since they can always escape justice; through the application of corruption.
There is hardly justice in a society that is endowed with corruption. An institution like the legislature, the executive, and others, can always be compromised in a corrupt society. The capacity of a society that dwells in a corrupt environment, to monitor the government, is therefore eliminated. Countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kenya and Nigeria, have suffered a setback in the attainment of democracy, because of corruption.
The roman model of democracy, that is applied today, contains not only a representative system of electing the government, but also contains a system of separation of powers (Comaroff). Separation of powers allows a framework whereby, government institutions can prevent one another from abusing their powers (Comaroff).
For a system of power separation to operate in a government, it is important for the government to contain powerful and independent institutions. Since the institution of the Judiciary has been empowered with the power and capacity of making the final decision in most matters that arise in a society, it is a very important office in a democratic society. Most weak democracies lack strong institutions, and are therefore likely to slide easily; into autocratic societies instead of progressing to democracies.
One reason why weak institutions exist in weak democracies is because; such countries contain weak constitutions, which have not been keen enough to enshrine effective separation of powers (Saul). The other major reason is of course is, an open disregard for the provisions of a governing constitution; something common in autocratic societies (Saul).
Addressing the inadequacies of a constitution is therefore an important first stage, in strengthening democratic capacities (Darby 230). In many cases, the constitutions of weak democracies have been repeatedly weakened by; amendments tailored by the ruling class to increase their powers at the expense of the populace (Darby). By weakening their constitution, such societies have slid further; into autocracy.
To prevent the disregard of the constitution by the powerful elite, complementing government institutions especially the judiciary needs to be active. However, in societies that slid into autocracy, these institutions have been weakened by corruption, incompetence of office holders, among other factors.
Most appointees to the judiciary and other important offices are subject to governing rulers; who use them as their puppets. Separation of powers does not therefore exist in these societies (Saul). Even the important institution of conducting elections is often compromised, opening a loophole for election rigging, limiting the democratic capacity of the society in the process (Saul).
Abuse of office by the government in failing democracies has also been accelerated by; weak political parties that commonly exist in these societies (Escobar). Through discrimination, oppression, corruption and application of other methods, the political elite in autocratic societies has endeavored to weaken political parties (Maxwell). Besides, most political parties identify with particular personalities, ethnic communities, religions and the like, instead of identifying with particular ideologies (Maxwell).
Moreover, political parties in autocratic societies lack a transparent system that can allow internal democracies (Escobar). It is therefore almost impossible for new ideologies and personalities independent from party controllers, to emerge in the political landscape of such societies (Coleman 250). The result of such a system is; the possible recycling of old autocratic ideologies and personalities, hence preventing a transition to democracy in the process (Coleman 250).
In a society where the capacity of citizens to elect their leaders has been compromised and important institutions like the judiciary have been also compromised, the remaining tool that can push such a society back to democracy is the civil society, and possibly pressure from the international community (Hyden). Civil groups in many weak democracies are; either weak or are, commonly intimidated by the government.
By preventing the active role that should proceed from civil groups, the remaining internal voice of democratization is weakened (Hyden). In a country like Zimbabwe, several members of civil groups have been murdered or tortured by the government (Hyden). Quenching civil groups by the use of threats, torture, murder and other inhuman means illustrates how a government has progressed; deeply into autocratic principles. The last shreds of democracy are becoming rare.
This is where the international community, apart from a rare miracle, becomes the only hope for such a society to move towards democracy again. In many cases, the role of the international community has been discouraging, as much as it has tried to help (Huntigton).
Countries like South Africa have remained quiet, even when their Zimbabwe neighbor has been practicing blatant autocracy. Several factors including economic ties, foreign policies, among others have played to water down the needed international pressure, which is desperately required to push autocratic countries back onto the democratic lane (Huntigton). Indeed, conscious, as well as unconscious practices, by the international community have acted to discourage some democracies.
Many countries continue to relate, and even fund countries that are sliding into autocracy (Huntigton). Moreover, it is commonly known that; some western powers have installed puppet governments that practice autocracy, and helped to build multinational companies; that exploit some societies, leading to abuse of human rights and, aggravating poverty (Haynes).
Unfair trading relations and in effective aid have acted to drown many societies into autocracy in significant ways (Haynes). Many countries have a selfish foreign policy, which trudges on the wellbeing of other societies, most of which have struggling democracies (Haynes). In general, the international community has been ineffective in nurturing democracies (Haynes). Weak democracies that have not been stimulated by the international community have therefore found it easier to slide into autocratic societies.
Conclusion
Although the development of democratic societies is an ideal goal, it is a difficult task to achieve. Democracies in America, Europe and other areas have been built on constant struggles, betrayals, sweat, and blood. Democratization will remain a difficult task because of ingrained interests by powerful groups that; are not willing to let go of their powers, status, greed and wealth.
A lot of internal and external sacrifice is therefore needed for a democracy to mature. Many emerging democracies have been taking longer that expected to establish their democracies; if not sliding back into autocracy. The onus is therefore on such societies and the international community to make the necessary efforts on their part; so that democracy is nurtured, to avoid the imminent destruction of weak democracies; sliding fast into autocracy
Cited works
Berman, Bruce et al. Ethnicity and Democracy in Africa? Ohio: Ohio University, 1998. Print
Brewer, J., et al. (2000). Event-Related Activation in the Human Amygdala, associates with later memory for Individual emotional experience. Journal of Neuroscience. 10.5 (2000): 26-50
Bukay, David. Can there be an Islamic Democracy? Middle East Quarterly. 2007. Web
Coleman, James. Political Parties and National Integration in: Tropical Africa. London: McMillan publishers.
Comaroff, Jean. Modernity and its malcontents. Chicago: University of Chicago. 1993. Print.
Darby, Philip. Taking Field House Further. Journal of Imperial and Common Wealth history 26.2 (1997): 232-50.
Diamond, Larry. Class, Ethnicity and Democracy in Nigeria: The Failure of the First Republic. New York: Syracuse publishers, 1988. Print.
Escobar, Arturo. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of The Third World. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995. Print.
Haynes, Jeffrey. Democracy and Political Change in Third World. London: McMillan, 2001. Print.
Hilla University for Humanistic Studies. What is Democracy? Hilla University Press. Web.
Huntigton, Samuel. The Third Wave of Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Oklahoma: Oklahoma University Press, 2004. Print
Hyden, Goran. Party State and Civil society: Control vs. openness. Boulder: Lynne Publishers, 1994. Print
ICPD. Democracy: Social Origins of Democracy. ICPD Press. Democracy. 12 Jan. 2008. Web.
Lentz, Carola, Tribalism and ethnicity in Africa African Politics Journal 31.2 (2001): 303-28
Mathews, Roy and Platt Dewitt. The Western Humanities. London: Mayfield Publishers Company.
Norman, J. Human rights and Democracy. Democracy. 29 Oct, 2010. Web..
Odhiambo, Atieno. Seek ye First the Economic Kingdom. Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 2000. Print
Saul, John. For Fear of Being Condemned as Old Fashioned: Liberal Democracy Versus Popular. Development Democracy and Post Colonial Politics Quest 10.2 (1997): 3-36
The proponents of it, see democracy as good and very important. It enables individuals to decide what is good for them. Others argue that people dont know what is in their best interests. Also, the definition of autonomy to various individuals differs. For example, democracy cannot in itself ensure that each individual will prevail.
Democracy provides a mechanism for solving group conflicts and social differences. It offers a channel for open discussion and expression of diverse ideas for better decision making. But then, the value of democracy in theory is very different in practice. Even when there is economic growth, it has always been accompanied by social inequality, embezzlement of public wealth and grand corruption.
Public dissatisfaction with how democracy works has been evident with the various civil protests on hampered economic growth, social inequality and the subsequent emergence of criminal gangs. Some just waive their constitutional right to vote. In fact, most individuals believe in the rule by the technocratic elite as compared to democracy.
Democracys ability to result to economic sustainability is contentious. This I because the heavy taxation often results to reduced productivity. Further, it may not be able to curb inflation through strict policies. Democracy also leads to religious and ethnic conflicts. Economic association and availability of information and transparency and accountability yield economic growth. Without democracy, there is no way of making the government accountable through the electoral process making them wasteful in their economic dealings.
Chinese perception of democracy
The Chinese citizens favor an economically rich country as opposed to their desire for a democratic society. Freedom is not the only way to measure what is important to a society. Instead, it should be associated with something of value to society. Democracy does not mean much if the citizenry is hungry, sick, uneducated and generally chained with poverty.
Chinese scholars argue that how democracy can only be equated to how much individuals are able to make decisions on what they hold important in their life. It is the abilities that one has to make his own individual choices on the things that we value and hold in high regard.
People associate leaders with individuals who have acted to empower people rather than those who concentrate on economic growth. The Chinese public however, views the government as caretakers and protector other than as owing obligations to them to offer them the basic needs.
Chinese movement towards democracy
At the beginning, due to the scourge of war, instability and famine facing them, the Chinese people were only concerned with fighting for a peaceful and safe environment that is free from hunger with political stability and cohesion. They did not worry about individual freedom and democracy. And these they achieved less for the now emerging high cases of instability and criminality in their country and people have resulted into ranking social order as the topmost current concern for them.
Then there was need for educating the public so as to empower them to utilize the opportunities available for economic growth. Basic education was integral for the Chinese people to integrate their own economic goals with the world market. Though the government was unable to achieve a compulsory nine years education for all its masses, it is determined to universalize its education system in this era that education has become important for any individual to be successful in life, even in the Chinese economy.
The Chinese government has also worked hard towards the realization of an improved health facilities and nutrition. There is increase in both protective and curative measures adopted as well as fight against epidemics and improved sanitation. This has resulted to low mortality rate and increased life expectancy laying a ground for the need of higher rights.
Women rights have also taken shape where women can choose their own spouses, right to divorce, to education and even to hold a job. They are also empowered to make political stands. Even though this has not been fully realized, it has been a great milestone for the Chinese people.
The peoples right to a job and subsequently the employers right to choose a worker of his choice have created free movement of labor as opposed to the rigid and immobile system that existed, even though this has resulted to risk of unemployment since the government no longer guarantees the public with jobs.
Further, almost all the population has been issued with houses increasing peoples freedom to make decisions concerning their own lives leading to economic growth. This in turn has resulted to institutional and cultural change pushing political reforms even higher.
Chinese Reaction to Democracy
Chinese public has its own feelings toward the individual freedoms and rights. From the controlled flow of information, now there is not only increased freedom of speech but also increased use of the internet and international communication through fax, telephones, mails and computers.
The government has invested heavily on technology and telecommunications all over the country. The media is no longer under the threat of the government on what it publishes. However, the media is not as free as it should be. There are still limitations imposed on the media both directly by the government and indirectly by the business people.
But the freedom has its own disadvantages such as the uncontrolled informational flow carrying with it lifestyles that were formally regarded as a taboo thus eroding public morals and standards of values, especially with pornography infiltrating the market. However, people generally believe that the media should expose the current social evils and problems facing the country, as they too no longer support the increased freedom of information.
The right to consumer goods too has a different aspect to it. If ones financial position is low, then the right to choose the products he would want to consume is inhibited and does not help. But the Chinese economy has grown thus empowering the consumers to purchase not only the necessities, but also the luxuries.
Further, the right to choose consumer goods cannot in itself ensure that consumers get exactly what they want to buy. It requires an additional right to consumer protection by state against the producers so they can enjoy the primary right.
Also, the right to work and live in a house of your own as granted by the state is still regulated by the market forces of labor. Most of the population is now faced with massive unemployment leading to social disparities and therefore reduced ability to own houses. Also, the people have a right to personal lifestyle through the music they listen to though most of them listen to music reflecting their values. There are also other rights such as right to inheritance, to dealing in stocks, to acquire wealth or hard currency.
Therefore, what democracy means for the majority of other countries may not be the same conception for the Chinese people. They define what democracy is and they act towards its realization, their democracy.