Category: Democracy

For a long time, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has been considered as a country unattractive for Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs). Since the 1990s, the country has experienced endless periods of violence that have hampered its political stability and economic growth. There are high rates of poverty and unemployment, especially among the rural populations. However, the country is also abundant in natural resources such as iron ore, phosphates, oil, wood, and potassium. This is in addition to its vast agricultural productive lands. On the other hand, DRC has a population that is heavily urbanized and has been lately trying to diversify its economy. Its goal is to become an emerging market economy by the year 2025 (FDI in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2021). Towards this end, it is developing its infrastructure along four special economic or foreign trade zones.

One of the special economic zones that DRC has opened for the FDI is in real estate. Incidentally, this is a sector that requires an abundant supply of building materials and finishing equipment such as doors and windows. Therefore, a global company involved in the manufacture of doors and windows will find a huge but untapped market in the DRCs emerging real estate. The countrys capital, Kinshasa has a population of 14 million. The biting levels of poverty in rural areas is driving more people into cities. This implies that the populations in cities are bound to increase further. These people will need houses to live in, hence, the need to expand the real estate. Moreover, the government has limited and reduced the legal restrictions involved in the repatriation and transfer of investment-associated funds. Therefore, by partnering with the government to solve the housing crisis in the DRC, a global firm can be guaranteed state protection for FDI in the country.

Reference

Foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Democratic Republic of Congo. (2021). Lloyds Bank. Retrieved.

The Relation

It is hard to give a clear answer to whether democracy and economic growth are related to each other. Before analyzing this question, it is important to define the terms involved in this issue. Democracy is a system of government in which the people of the country choose the members of the government through majority elections. Political stability is the measure by which the likelihood of decentralization of the government is measured. A politically unstable government is likely to be overthrown through civil unrest or military coup. Economic growth is the measure of the increase in the market value of goods and services over time. It is often indicated by the gross domestic product also known as GDP. Corruption is dishonest conduct by people holding power over various governmental organizations. A coup detat is an illegal seizure of the government by the military or other members of the government supported by the military. A coup can be both violent and bloodless. Civil unrest is a term that describes all forms of civil disturbance such as protests, riots, looting, etc.

To showcase how democracy and economic performance can relate to each other, the case of Nigeria could serve as an example. Since gaining its independence in 1960, the country has experienced a variety of governmental systems and coups. It could be seen that most of this time was spent under the military rule of different fractions, with different goals and aspirations (ONeil et al. 746). However, despite the previous failure of democracy, the populace of the country persists on creating a democratically run government, and in recent years it seems like they are on the right track. The economic situation in the country is dire, with a large portion of the population living on under 2$ a day. However, this situation is not caused by a lack of resources or funds, but by the systemic corruption that the citizens have experienced since the country has become independent. Nigeria is an oil-rich country, and unfortunately, it is the leading cause of corruption throughout its history. This corruption was present in both democratically elected governments and authoritarian ones. The oil exports of the country have allowed the governments to be less reliant on taxes provided by the people and focused most of the money-making ventures of Nigeria to be reliant on siphoning money from the oil industry in both legal and illegal ways (ONeil et al. 760). Early on this brought the country to making poor investments inspired by bribes, rather than research such as the early attempt of the country to start producing steel, which only resulted in major losses (ONeil et al. 768).

However, since the 1990s the democratically elected leaders of Nigeria started to focus on the fight against corruption, and have attempted various tactics to improve the economic condition of the people. This has not been a smooth transition from the corrupt authoritarian government to a democratic one. Despite the first steps in the fight against corruption, the leaders have participated in massive bribery to rig the elections, with 2007 elections being the most corrupt in the history of Nigeria (ONeil et al. 760). The members of the Nigerian government are some of the highest-paid in the world, and it is estimated that since 1960 more than 400 billion dollars have been stolen through corruption by the members of the government (ONeil et al. 767). These funds have rarely been invested back into the country, and even still it is common for the government to buy extraordinary expensive vehicles, products, and real estate with the money that would otherwise go toward the development of the country. However, efforts against corruption have not been fruitless. After a relatively long time under a democratic government, the government has established an impressive system designed to prevent election rigging. Also, a separate independent agency was established to control and invest the excess money from oil trade (ONeil et al. 769).

Looking at the GDP of the country since 1990 it could be seen that it has become much more stable in comparison to the turbulent years of coups and authoritarian governments. Could this be the indication that democracy facilitates successful national economic performance? The answer is slightly more complex than the question. On the one hand, in early stages democracy has only facilitated corruption which became the main issue of the country, and gave 80% of all money to 1% of the population. On the other hand, the recent string of democratic rulers has shown interest in controlling corruption due to the will of the citizens. While GDP does not provide a completely accurate impression of the economic situation within the country, it can show its stability, and besides a high spike in 2004, it was relatively stable. The path to democracy is different in each country due to the differences between them, and in the case of Nigeria, I believe that the history of civil unrest and military coups, coupled with the undying desire for democracy has created accountability where it was previously absent. Before recent years, both elected and not elected rulers of the country were reliant on the money from the oil trade. This removed the democratic power of the people, which resulted in a long line of governments toppled by military coups, or resigned in fear of assassination. The GDP of the country shows that during those times it has fallen dramatically, with a few spikes during more peaceful moments. The reality of the unsustainability of corrupt governments has forced the new Democratic leaders to reconsider the previous approach of stealing money without developing the country. While corruption is still a major issue in the country, its GDP has not yet fallen under the 0 line how it was in the previous decades. It is clear that political stability has played a big part in this development, and it may improve in the coming years if these efforts are continued. These signs show that stable democracy has a positive effect on national economic performance. The causes might differ between the countries, but political stability can be seen as a cause of the increase in national economic performance. The example of Nigeria is a unique one, a country is rarely able to sustain the desire for democracy after decades of failed attempts and false promises, but the numbers show that it was not a lost cause. With the coming years, it is possible that democracy would play an even larger role in the country due to the advances in alternative fuels. The government would have to change its strategy to continue operating, making taxation a more important part of the economy, which would, in turn, strengthen accountability and democracy in the country.

Work Cited

ONeil, Patrick H et al. Cases in Comparative Politics. 5th ed., W. W. Norton & Company, 2015.

Introduction

Natural resources, specifically petroleum, natural gas, and minerals, have been linked to high-levels of corruption and authoritarian leadership. Bolivia, Indonesia, Belarus, and Congo among others are considered resource cursed countries (Haber and Menaldo 6). Much of political economy literature presents both theoretical and empirical arguments to understand the issue. Consequently, literature shows the existence of both resource curse and resource blessing across various countries. One major claim fronted is the resource rent, which ultimately leads to poor governance (Dunning 60).

In addition, resource exploitation itself is considered as a rent-seeking engagement that facilitates rent seeking in different sectors of the economy and restricting growth. Some scholars have used empirical evidence to demonstrate that natural resources facilitate authoritarian regimes. On the other hand, it has also been demonstrated that some resource rich nations have realized resource blessing characterized by low-levels of corruption and authoritative tendencies. These observations have puzzled scholars for years. As such, it remains clear how natural resources influence political economy and governance of countries. In this political economy essay, an attempt is made to explore this puzzle and present a balanced argument based on both theoretical, empirical, and critical assessments.

Theoretical Analysis

Political economy literature has employed various theories to explain the relationship between natural resources and forms of governance. Theories generally demonstrate that authoritarian political regimes or democratic political regimes may emanate in natural resource rich countries. In fact, Michael Ross (325) claims that political scientists have pointed out the extremely odd features of oil as a natural resource. Most researchers have shown that when income increases, governments tend to be more democratic (Ross 325). Conversely, Ross (325) points out that this rule does not apply in other cases. That is, a rise in income levels is more likely to result in dwindling democracy.

The claim that oil wealth or wealth from other natural resources often hinders progress to democracy is based on the theory of resource curse. According to the resource curse theory, minerals and oil abundance in poorly developed countries often drive unfavorable developmental outcomes demonstrated by massive corruption, poor economic outcomes, retarded economic growth, inefficient government, and substantial political violence. That is, poor countries endowed with abundant natural resources tend to experience a curse rather a blessing. The theory is based on the notion that a curse will affect countries over time (Andersen and Ross 993).

Haber and Menaldo claimed that the resource curse theory was not about change, but about levels witnessed in states. That is, variables had to be expressed in higher levels and, therefore, higher levels of depending on natural resources are generally responsible for lower levels of democracy while lower levels of dependence on natural resources in a country will ultimately lead to higher levels of democracy over time (Andersen and Ross 1004). This idea emanated from Mahdayy in 1970 when he argued that revenues from oil in the Middle East countries were directly collected as external sources of rents by governments that never accounted to the public (Haber and Menaldo 1).

Based on this notion, political scientists have developed the concept of natural resource rents and authoritarianism (Haber and Menaldo 1). It is argued that representation can only be attained through taxation without any exceptions. Further, oil revenues are collected by states, which then escalate the state bureaucracy power. Since the accrued revenues are most likely to reduce or eliminate taxation altogether, they also eliminate or reduce cases of the public subjected to taxation. As such, low levels of taxation leads to low demands for representation. Scholars point out specific examples to support the resource curse theory. Venezuela, Bolivia, and many resource-rich sub-Saharan African countries, which are poorer today than they were at independence (Dunning 34) are examples of countries that support the theory of resource curse.

Ross (332-336) highlights three theories to support the lack of democracy in oil-rich nations (these theories are mainly derived from studies done in the Middle East). The rentier effect is linked to the resource curse theory  governments spend oil revenues on social pressures to reduce accountability. The notion is based on low taxation (taxation effect), spending effect (heavy spending to reduce pressure for democracy), and group formation effect (spending to prevent the rise of independent groups that may demand for accountability). The repression effect is noted on increased spending on internal security and therefore prevents the public from democratic aspiration. Finally, modernization theory shows that if economic developments cannot produce social and cultural changes noted in urbanization, higher levels of education, and occupational specialization, then democracy is difficult to achieve (the case of Libya and Kuwait).

Some scholars have however demonstrated that the theory is flawed. For instance, Haber and Menaldo (1-26) use historical data analyzed from 1800 to demonstrate that there is no resource curse.

Conversely, the theory of resource blessing has also emerged. It appears counterintuitive to present a new narrative of resource blessing against the standard narrative of natural resource wealth as a curse for democracy and economic growth. However, current literature strives to show that natural resources can facilitate democratic processes and create stable institutions and countries. In fact, the notion that abundance of natural resource is beneficial to economic development is supported by Haber and Menaldo (1-26) and mentioned by Dunning (5) and Andersen and Ross (1003). The idea is based on nationalization of natural resources to facilitate and gauge national development. In fact, it argued that natural resources are responsible for democracy in Botswana, Mongolia, and Peru among others (Haber and Menaldo 6).

Overall, the resource curse theory and other examined theories demonstrate casual mechanisms, such as power, control, and institutions, which governments use to restrict or promote accountability while minimizing or improving democratization.

To prove such claims, researchers have conducted extensive studies using data drawn from various countries covering significant periods before, during, and even after the natural resource boom.

Empirical Analysis

Andersen and Ross (9931021) observe that the claim by Haber and Menaldo that no resource curse exists is partially right for the period before 1970s, but flawed after 1980s because of the obvious widespread resource curse. They argue that the resource curse was witnessed after the events of the 1970s that facilitated the collection of oil rents previously looted by foreign-owned companies. The relationship between oil and democracy is vital, as well as other variables such as period, resource-reliant states, polity, incomes from resources, and fiscal reliance among others.

Based on these observations, Andersen and Ross (9931021) show that natural resources do indeed promote autocracy. Dunning attempts to challenge the conventional claim of resource curse, but he ends up with two valid arguments that oil and mineral wealth can result in both democracy and autocracy using different mechanisms. Hence, it is imperative to comprehend these mechanisms to identify when democratic or authoritarian outcomes are comparatively strong. Statistical modeling and game-theoretic models can help to understand such relations. Ross (325-361) after analyzing time-series cross-national data from 113 states between 1971 and 1997 to explore three aspects of the oil-impedes-democracy claim concluded that oil does negatively affect democracy even in poor nations with relatively small exports. Second, harmful effects of oil on democracy go beyond the Middle East. That is, it affects all countries across the world. In addition, non-oil natural resources also have similar effects on democracy.

It is imperative to recognize that authors covered in this essay show balanced accounts of influences of natural resources on democracy. That is, they all discuss diverse aspects of resource blessings and resource curses across many countries globally to ensure that analyses are not restricted to few countries. For instance, Haber and Menaldo (1-26) address the problem of the negative association between natural resources and democracy using time-series centric techniques on unique historical datasets. The authors tested possible long-run association between regime types and resource dependence within states over periods, and they concluded that increased dependence on natural resources was not related to authoritarianism. In fact, study results indicated several aspects of resource blessing.

Critical Assessment

The four authors present incredible findings about association between democracy and natural resources in political economy. One must appreciate that all the works have both theoretical and empirical underpinnings. As such, they strive to present balanced arguments based on theories and data to draw inferences. Consequently, Ross (325-361) and Andersen and Ross (9931021) support the resource curse theory. Conversely, a study by Haber and Menaldo (1-26) demonstrates resource blessing while Dunning attempts to go beyond resource curse and resource blessing to show that natural resources can result in both autocracy and democracy based on how they are exploited and distributed within a country. Scholars and students interested in political economy and influences of natural resources on countries, as well as democratic practices would find these works extremely useful.

One must note that the major constraints of these works could be linked to datasets used, historic periods, and other possible variables, such as institutions that could influence outcomes of the use of natural resource wealth and its effects on democracy.

These works fit well within political economy theories and build on previous studies to prove and disapprove theories of resource curse and resource blessing, but data used are original and specific to countries.

So far, in political economy of natural resources, the theories of resource curse and resource blessing have presented the best explanations for the outcomes observed. On this note, scholars require additional empirical evidence to support these theories.

Although all the works used in this essay demonstrate well-researched and presented articles, the work by Haber and Menaldo (1-26) goes against the standard narrative of resource curse to present resource blessing. Interestingly, Andersen and Ross (9931021) show that the findings by the later were flawed. Hence, the work by Anderson and Ross introduce some variables not previously used in the study that showed resource blessing. Besides, Dunning also presents a good book by demonstrating that both democracy and autocracy are possible outcomes but through different methods while Ross only confirms the known fact of resource cursing.

Works Cited

Andersen, Jørgen J. and Michael L. Ross. The Big Oil Change: A Closer Look at the HaberMenaldo Analysis. Comparative Political Studies 47.7 (2014): 9931021. Print.

Dunning, Thad. Crude Democracy: Natural Resource Wealth and Political Regimes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print.

Haber, Stephen and Victor Menaldo. Do Natural Resources Fuel Authoritarianism? Reappraisal of the Resource Curse. American Political Science Review (2011): 1-26. Print.

Ross, Michael L. Does Oil Hinder Democracy? World Politics 53 (2001): 325-361. Print.

Democracy and Successful National Economic Performance: India Case

There is a strong tie between the political regime of the country and its national economic performance while these elements tend to be interdependent. This assumption implies that one will cause the development or stagnation of another and vice versa. Consequently, in the first place, it is essential to discuss the impact of the political organization on the successful national economic performance that implies a well-balanced development of the country in all economic spheres with a positive effect on the overall financial growth. In this case, India cannot be referred to as a politically stable nation that focuses on ensuring the integrity of the existent political structure. The primary reasons for this matter are regular revolutions and conflicts between the representatives of different castes (ONeill 450). In the context of India, the caste system was established historically and had a strong influence on other segments such as politics, culture, and economics.

The first concepts of democracy that implied giving the citizens power to elect a governor while cherishing the equality of people of all races, ages, genders, and socioeconomic statuses were stated in Buddhism by emphasizing paramount importance of benevolence (ONeill 451). Subsequently, these ideas were developed with the help of colonization that increased the levels of trade and private property and caused the rise of Indian entrepreneurship (ONeill 453). These political changes contributed to the economic development of India while supporting the idea that democracy and economic performance were interdependent. Nonetheless, apart from the positive intentions of the governors and diversity, asymmetric federalism continues to exist while causing difficulties in decision-making and economic problems (ONeill 459).

As was indicated previously, the ideas of politics and economics tended to interfere. Consequently, it is also critical to review the effect of economics on the level of democracy in the context of India. One cannot underestimate the role of Indias independence in becoming a democratic state with a stable economic system (ONeill 454). However, the changes in the political regime and territorial borders of the country were accompanied by financial problems. These economic issues and gaps between different federal entities caused the development of intercultural conflicts and, as a consequence, political tensions (ONeill 458). In this instance, economic instability affected politics adversely. The described situation portrays a purely negative example.

Nonetheless, economic stability can have a positive impact on society and support the dogmas of democracy. For example, today, social mobility is highly important, as it gives an opportunity for people to change their position in the society and socioeconomic status with the help of various instruments such as pursuing a particular career path. This trend was impossible in India in the recent past due to a substantial role of the castes system in the society and its effect on other spheres (ONeill 450). The elements of the caste framework continue to exist today, but successful national economic performance gives an opportunity to fill in this gap. For example, now, with the help of technological development, the representatives of lower castes have their identity protected and have access to their bank accounts online (ONeill 489). It could be said that this example clearly shows that these dependence and influence tend to exist from both sides, and one cannot underestimate the significance of the phenomena of economics and democracy and has to consider them as equally critical.

Work Cited

ONeill, Patrick, et al. Cases in Comparative Politics. W.W. Norton & Company, 2015.

The rise of democracy over the globe raises the question of how effective democratic regimes are in maintaining the welfare of its citizens. Many well established democracies have high rates of positive population health, however, it is unclear whether the two factors are causally connected. My research question is: does democracy have an effect on population health? The dependent variable is population health and the independent variable is the level of democracy. To measure the relationship, I will be looking at the effect that democracy has on life expectancy. This essay will first explore the relevance of this research question, then offer data to explain the relationship, before evaluating such data and drawing a conclusion from it.

Scholarship which proposes the causal relationship between democracy and good health first distinguishes the importance of competitive executive recruitment. Democratic elections create a competitive struggle between elites for support from the electorate (Wigley and Akkoyunlu-Wigley, 2011). Consequently, representatives have greater motivation to widen their public support: in this case through advocating for policies which will improve public health. Accountability to the people ensures governments are directly responsible for improving population health. Second, the openness of the electoral system allows for the government to be scrutinised by interest groups, the media and the wider population, with democratic governments being more likely to respond to such criticism (Bollyky et al., 2019). Third, democracies generally allow greater access to information due to larger political and social freedoms, allowing populations to be better informed on healthcare matters. Finally, democratic regimes are more likely to increase spending on social programs which improve population health, due to the competitive nature of politics and the inclusion of the working class into the decision making process, who politicians assume rank health care high on their own political agenda (Brown and Hunter, 1999).

However, the relationship between these two variables is not comprehensively agreed upon. Ross (2006) highlights that often democratic societies fall in line with their autocratic counterparts when it comes to the distribution of health services to the poorest areas of the population. Even democratic countries are able to distort their successes by improving overall population health without targeting the most disadvantaged societies, weakening the link between democracy and good health. This highlights the importance in further investigating the relationship between democracy and health.

The data was collected from the Polity IV Project and the World Bank organization.

I chose to use a democracy index as my measure of democracy over factors such as voter turn out as it is arguably a more valid measure. The Polity IV index collects data on multiple attributes of democracy, focusing on the constraints of the executive, political participation and political competitiveness. Taking account of these attributes the index then creates an ordinal scale in which states are ranked from -10 (strongly autocratic) to 10 (strongly democratic), which allows for a straightforward comparison of regime type. However, the measure is not entirely valid. The Polity index focuses narrowly on the electoral properties of political participation and does not account for factors such as suffrage or civil liberties, which are essential when assessing the definition of democracy. In terms of reliability, the Polity index is largely reliable. The accumulation of electoral data is easily accessed, as well as the level of citizen participation in the political process. This can be measured through electoral turnout, the number of candidates up for election, party membership or active contestation against the government through protests and petitions.

I chose to use life expectancy as an indicator for good health, unlike other indicators of health such as infant mortality rates, life expectancy summarises mortality risks across a spectrum of age groups, allowing for easier tracking of health improvements in populations. However, increases in life expectancy can be attributed to a range of factors, including improved living standards, education or healthcare, which although could be indirect consequences of democracy, do not directly correspond to democracy as an institution itself, limiting its validity. The World Bank data is mostly reliable, however its reliability could be reduced due to the nature of census data collection, where factors such as homelessness, poor literacy rates or under-registration can mean large sections of the population are unaccounted for.

The data shows there is an interdependence between the level of democracy within a country and how healthy its population is. However, it is difficult to conclude that it is democracy itself which is causing greater population health. In addition, the data shows that there are exceptions to this trend, with some countries exhibiting high levels of life expectancy despite living in less democratic regimes.

Abstract

Recent literature on populism influencing democratic society in regard of migrants’ rights shows tremendous changes in its treatment. Throughout history, there has been no more need for migrations than in present, especially from the East. However, these changes in the treatment of migrants’ rights have shown that citizens are less willing to welcome refugees and provide them help needed. This paper will show how populism influences Europe in meeting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights focusing on Migrants’ Rights and how Hannah Arendt talks about it in her essay with reflection as being a refugee. Also, it will be discussed how does the influence of populism in democratic society change the perspective of the migrants’ rights and tools

Keywords: Populism, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Migrations’ Rights, Hannah Arendt

Introduction

The migration of humans has been present before pre-modern civilizations. Conscious human unsatisfied with their surroundings is very likely to seek a better place to live. This fact has had an impact on primitive societies million years ago resulting in migrations happening throughout history. It is well known that history and rising influence of the economy have started to classify Worlds’ humans in regard their status and political decision-making in society. This resulted in the disclosure of the new phenomenon in human kind called Populism. The general influence of populism in the World has reached remarkable results in changing the mindsets of democratically structured countries. The same follows when it comes to migrations rights. Elites have been trying to make a distinctive division between classes. Unfortunately, this has resulted in great confusion in democratic countries where everyone should have been treated in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, it is difficult for people to move from one country to another, especially from developing to developed countries. This rise the question related to migrants. The paper will discuss more about the influence of populism leaving trails on democratic society tied with peoples’ right to move and migrants’ rights. It results into questioning why populism does not meet migrants’ rights and which tools are the most commonly used to change perspective.

1. Populism: Phenomena in Europe and Migrations Pre and Post WWII

Populism has started to take place at the beginning of 20th century. It changes aspect of the real meaning of a democratic or liberal-democratic country. Although it can be recognized in the left-sided parties (that populism is more individual than institutional), it is more likely to be considered in the right-sided ones. The specific fact about European populists is their bigger focus on movements and engagement of voters rather than activists.[footnoteRef:2] This populists’ approach to politics obviously implies to their greater importance to win rather to actually deal with specific concerns of a certain society. In this way, elites are taking over the control of large number of population as well as their way of thinking.

The distinctive division between classes is being made by weakening the lower classes in regard general decision-making. For example, in both developed and developing European countries ethnic nationalism has became more influential in terms of disrespect minority rights.[footnoteRef:3] In this regards, the aspect of migrations has also changed throughout the last century in Europe. Especially in the time before WWII stubborn nationalism was waking up and taking places not just in rural places but also in cities. Hannah argued that Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR in WWII had characteristics of populism. People who are not politically involved are the most likely to be manipulated by propaganda. In this case, leaders who do not have particular political plans as guidelines in their mandate are taking over the control with radical slogans and wrong ideology.[footnoteRef:4] In this case, nationalism is closely related to populism which implies as well to immigrants and opportunistic migrants. [2: Erik Jones. ‘Populism in Europe’ In SAIS Review of International Affairs, Volume 27, Number 1, by John Hopkins University Press, 37-47. Winter-Spring 2007.] [3: Pranab Bardhan. ‘Populism In Less Developed Countries Is Somewhat Different.’ 3 Quarks Daily, 2018.] [4: KLANT. ‘Populism through the eyes of Hannah Arendt: Now and Then.’ Eyes on Europe, 2016.]

By Arendt, Term ‘refugee’ itself underrates all the immigrants living in a country. Furthermore, she discussed that this term should been used in a context that referred to those who moved to another country but held grudges of some structure and had a specific state of mind in a negative political context.[footnoteRef:5] dodaj [5: Hannah Arendt. ‘We Refugees.’ In The Jewish Writings, Edited by: Jerome Kohn and Ron H. Feldman, Hannah Arendt, 264-274. New York: Shocken Books, New York, 2007.]

After WWII, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has improved many things related to general respect among nations. It also proposes respect of the rights regarding migration. In the ‘Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and ‘Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees’ proves that from 1951 Convention removed limitations regarding geographical and temporal limits, and further in 1967 Protocol removed limitations in scope to persons fleeing events occurring before 1 January 1951 and within Europe:

Grounded in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of human rights 1948, which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, is the centerpiece of international refugee protection today.(1) The Convention entered into force on 22 April 1954, and it has been subject to only one amendment in the form of a 1967 Protocol, which removed the geographic and temporal limits of the 1951 Convention.(2) The 1951 Convention, as a post-Second World War instrument, was originally limited in scope to persons fleeing events occurring before 1 January 1951 and within Europe. The 1967 Protocol removed these limitations and thus gave the Convention universal coverage.[footnoteRef:6] [6: The Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees. ‘Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.’ Text of the 1951 Convention; Text of the 1967 Protocol. Geneva: UNHCR, 2010. 2-5.]

After the creation of the European Union as a free trade market area, many European countries have become popular to migrants all over the World. All of this could not be possible without respect of migrants’ rights in those countries. The first phase of migration happened from 1945-the 1970s. People from all over the World were moving to Europe (Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain, Holland, Luxembourg etc.) for better economic status and quality of life. For example, in the 1960s it was popular that Turks, Moroccans, Algerians and Tunisians would move to work for the EU countries.[footnoteRef:7] As it can be understood, Europeans were very welcoming towards migrants for a particular reason. At the time, it was beneficiary for both Europeans and migrants. Migrants became diaspora and were able to finance and help families in their home countries. [7: Joint Research Center. ‘European Migrations: Dynamics, Drivers, and the Role of Policies.’ Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg, 2008. 6-9.]

Democracy has become a keyword in international debates about politics in various parts of the world. Lack of democracy is widely viewed as the root of the issues that plague some societies. Inherent in the concept of democracy is the certainty that people should be allowed to participate in making decisions about how they are governed (this being the base idea of democracy) because they have certain fundamental rights and freedoms and a society is democratic to the extent that these concepts reinforces each other. Another way of looking at it is in terms of freedom: freedom from a coercive state and freedom to exercise certain rights. In practice, democracy is more complex than in its theory.

Immediate definitional difficulties arise about concepts such as “people”, “decision-making” and “governance.” Is “people” synonymous with the majority? Moreover, how can particular “wills” arising from segmented population conflate with the “general will?” On the means side, what rights supersede all others? All societies that describe themselves as “democratic” have at one time or another had to struggle with these questions. In any event, the rights held by citizens impose limits on what the government can do or take away.

For democracy to function representatives need to make critical value trade-offs for citizens. But how can citizens send messages on how they would like their values to drive policies when the issues are so complex that very few citizens (and not too many politicians either) really understand enough of what might happen and at what probabilities to know how to make decisions that do optimize the value signals from citizens.

The ultimate in irrationality is to make a decision that doesn’t even advance your values because the situation is so complex that the decision makers or the public can’t see clear connections between specific policies and their potential outcomes (as one who works on the global warming problem I see this conundrum all the time).

The capacity to be literate about scientific and political establishments and their disparate methods of approaching problems is a good start, but such literacy is not widespread and the complexity of most issues sees public and decision-makers alike disconnected from core questions. Educational establishments often call for more content in curriculum to redress this issue, but I think more understanding of context of scientific debate and political and media epistemologies will go further to build the needed literacy.

Complex systems theory is usually used to study things like the immune system, global climate, ecosystems, transportation or communications systems. But with global politics becoming more unpredictable (highlighted by the UK’s vote for Brexit and the presidential elections of Donald Trump in the USA and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil) it is being used to examine the stability of democracies. This field is studied by international, interdisciplinary teams including mathematicians, economists, psychologists, philosophers, sociologists and political scientists.

The history has been oriented around empires and, since the seventeenth century, around the idea of nation-states. What the central powers had to manage was originally circumscribed in general to the scale of their territorial jurisdiction with the exception of long-distance trade and, of course, international relations. The sovereignty of the State was exercised over a large number of functions of society (legal, economic, social, even religious regulations). But the twentieth century can be seen as that of the explosion of regional and global ‘external effects’, that is to say the consequences of local actions beyond national jurisdictions. The environment is an example of one of the fields where this phenomenon has developed the most. The accelerated colonization of the planet by human societies because of population pressure is leading to the disappearance of the forest, and the scarcity of water supplies on scales beyond the nations. The industrial revolution and the massive use of coal and oil in some countries of the northern hemisphere have induced a greenhouse effect that affects the entire planet. Pollutions such as those of certain propellants emitted in a limited number of countries have begun to destroy the planet’s ozone layer, at the risk, in the event of extreme evolution, to threaten life there. Free access to live fish stocks in the seas and oceans results in a decrease in the overall common resource. The extension of the transport of persons and goods increases the epidemiological risks here again on a planetary scale … In the same way, for the health of the economy and the companies, the external effects of the global extension of the market mechanisms are equally recognizable. The consequences in terms of inequality and impoverishment are now largely global phenomena. Monetary, banking and economic crises are now having a very rapid impact on the world stage.

There is therefore a global stage that is increasingly binding on the states, calling for decisions on their part. But to reach the stage of decision-making, States want to analyze and understand phenomena that go beyond the scope of their traditional interventions, to identify the causes, to evaluate their consequences, to measure them, to propose solutions, and to discuss the whole in a negotiation. This is a slow and still unstable process! The issue of the ozone layer and that of the future of the climate were among the first emblematic fields of these global and vital issues. Other long-standing issues are facing resistance, such as the protection of endangered species such as whales. But, faced with the generalization of the great planetary issues, the international decision processes evolve.

During the twentieth century, the nations of the world have felt the imperative need to organize themselves, to avoid the return of wars but also to structure monetary, banking and commercial interactions. This coordination took the form first of the League of Nations (in 1920), then of the United Nations (from 1945). Over time, it gave birth to a complex apparatus: a general assembly, a general secretariat, a security council, an international court of justice, specialized agencies, an economic and social council, regional and specific committees, councils, commissions, groups of experts, international institutions (FAO, UNESCO, ILO, among others), economic institutions and programs (World Bank, IMF), special funds, research institutes and universities, etc.

In this set, through each of its organs, each country has theoretically equal power, according to the principle a country, a voice.

But this democratic equality of voting power contradicts the very great inequalities of economic, military and diplomatic power between countries. As a result, the coordination between major countries (G7, then G8, then G20) has emerged, so that global governance can be done more pragmatically between the dominant countries on the international scene and with lower transaction costs. In this set, through each of its organs, each country has in theory an equal power, according to the principle of a country, a voice.

This mode of regulation is considered to some to bypass the democratic principles of United Nations system. But it is not designed to be the only international mechanism. Because the world is no longer organized according to inter-nation space, therefore inter-state. There are also spaces that are directly ‘globalized’, tending to ignore borders: the space of companies and the market, the space of civil societies, the information space (in particular the Internet), the space of culture.

We speak of a ‘global’ space for which it is the terrestrial globe that is seen as the main scale of interaction. Admittedly, in this global space, states retain a regulatory role, but it is increasingly limited in relation to the growing volume of private initiatives that are being taken all the time around the planet. The relations between the sphere of inter- nation and the global sphere are therefore in full evolution. And they are more and more complex. In the same way that, within a country, the relations of governance become more complex and evolve, between the state institutions and the interventions of the sphere of the civil society, at the level of the world also are organized progressively and equally complex relations between international institutions and global actors. The complexification of governance is accompanied by a diversification of actors. The question we are asking here is whether or not this new stakeholder participation is in the direction of more democracy on an international and global scale.

The development and expanded commonness of social media all around the world has given individuals a stage to take an interest all the more effectively in democracy. This had made social media platforms an integral asset of articulation for a democracy.

“Social media has become an expansion of our lives. Everybody has a nearness via social networking media. Although there are a few defects and sick impacts, it can’t be run down in light of the fact that it is likewise a striking apparatus to interface, team up, and join individuals in spite of regional confinements.

Online networking has become an indispensable specialized instrument through which people can practice their privilege of opportunity of articulation and trade data and thoughts. In the previous year, a developing development of individuals around the globe has been seen who are upholding for change, equity, equity, responsibility of the ground-breaking and regard for human rights (for example Arab Spring Revolution) wherein the Internet and Social Media has assumed a key job.”

“In an ongoing ungated article in the Journal of Democracy, we answer this inquiry with two perceptions. To begin with, web based life is an apparatus for offering voice to those prohibited from access to the predominant press. Second, regardless of the way that social media democratizes access to data, those utilizing it can at the same time blue pencil and control data to attempt to quiet others’ voices. A portion of these types of restriction —, for example, frustrating access to data or undermining would-be resistance figures — are hundreds of years old. Others —, for example, utilizing bots and trolls to change the online discussion — are specific to the computerized age. Taken together, these two variables — utilizing on the web instruments both to extend chances to make some noise, and to grow chances to quiet — can enlighten the mind boggling connection between online life and majority rule government. We presume that internet based life itself is neither intrinsically law based or nondemocratic, yet one more field in which political on-screen characters challenge for power. ”

Anna Hazare started a Satyagraha movement for passing a more grounded enemy of debasement Lokpal bill in the Indian Parliament. He began hunger strike when the interest was dismissed by Indian government. The development stood out in the media, a large number of supporters inside and outside of India. Individuals demonstrated help through social media, for example, Twitter and Facebook. Online Signature Campaigns like avaaz got more than 10 lakh marks in only 36 hours. This drove Government to truly consider the presentation of Lokpal bill in parliament.

In December 2012, Delhi rape case, which made people’s total disdain to affect and turn out on roads. The country over disputes at India Gate area in New Delhi was a people’s advancement and it was the second thoughts of the people who made them turn out and demand value for Nirbhaya. Social media expected a turn work in collecting people to India Gate. More likely than not T.V. was communicating all the upgrades for the circumstance anyway it was mobile phone which was reviving those seating on streets. Every news thing was reaching them on their remote by methods for Facebook and Twitter, etc. People got the reactions of acclaimed people who are respected moreover, hold a remarkable spot in the open field on twitter and got strengthened like never before. The gigantic battles drove the apex court to set up Justice Verma warning gathering to obtain changes Rape law.

Abstract

“E-word of mouth” has become a global phenomenon, solving problems online users are concerned. It can make a change for transnational issues. Some critics insist that online wisdom cannot replace the existing establishments even in a democratic state. According to Scholte (2012), there has been a paradigm change to global democracy because globalization is driving constantly, and global phenomenon is being driven in a way in which collective intelligence can understand and enact people’s rule, human rights, and global concerned factors. Democracies are more open to trade and capital controls to exploit constituents’ demand. Yet, they are not likely to be manipulated in such a tendency of globalization. Hence, this essay concludes that online wisdoms in this globalizing world are necessarily competent to precipitate hope for a better future.

Introduction

In the previous compare and contrast essay, it argues that the rise of information technology globalization in recent decades heavily relies on global wisdoms to empathize with collective wills on the internet. In terms of the contemporary globalization topic it is concerned, examining the reliable relationship between online users and their possible impacts on human being is important. However, some critics demand that comments made by online users cannot be effective. They will not come to a consensus contributing the world’s people.

Hypothesis

This essay thinks of todays’ globalizing process as shaped by information technology globalization. In addition, online users are anew bestirred from idle individuals to the active opinion participants. Therefore, I argue that Globalization may herald new wisdoms that will replace existing establishments, values, democracy.

Online users make collective intelligence

Despite those overriding free will on the internet, Carter & Yeo (2018) research analysis was to interview 43 participants about the importance of online users and their reviews on various internet platforms. Their results maintain that “e-word of mouth” is one of the most major forces, that is collective intelligence (CI) which, in their study, has become an exponential belief for global innovation. In a globalization context, it is increasingly relied on internet collective intelligence. CI has become a global phenomenon that numerous online wisdoms adhere to raise problem they are concerned rather that a government does. It is because internet is used to gather an array of recently generated knowledge. Therefore, online users’ activities can somehow make a change of the transnational issues. On the other hand, another academic journal claimed that “New media genres such as online reviews challenge well-established hierarchies in culture, yet at the same time, they also reproduce some existing forms of cultural capital.” (Vasquez & Chik, 2015, p.231) Vasquez & Chik analysed users-generated reviews from two differently geographic context. They concluded that online user-generated content is useful in today’s world that individual concerned on the same matter can shares the same interests. In short, their reviews are invariably a global phenomenon in regard to a democratizing tendency and that is an alternative to an e-expanded forms, similar to e-word of mouth mentioned above, due to the abundant diversity of never-seen real opinions or expertise which can undermine the existing establishment. Therefore, a universal belief as well as collective intelligence can be found online; a significant number of world’s people believe in it, notably in both some political, civil issues rather than an authority discourse.

Online wisdoms dissolve establishments

However, a staggering number of critics insist that globalization as well as online wisdom will not replace the existing establishments even in the democratic states. Furthermore, authorities are elected by people and these represent government officials to serve the autonomous state; officials do not become obsolete and abandon the shared manipulative enactment in the democratic states. It entails falsely egalitarianism, transnational redistribution of human rights, political, and civil liberty that are oftentimes absent in the mainstream perspective, that is, democratic government is ruled of, for and by people. Scholte (2012) proclaimed that, with respect to culture, a paradigm shift from global democracy to proffer a ground-breaking principle of plurality and transculturality has underpinned diversity in the way in which globalization is driving constantly. Online users, in Scholte essay, are the key rather than upholding statism. In other words, the rise of online wisdoms in a developing state will be eager to convey diverse opinions, ideological leaning perspectives that generate multiple possibilities against existing limits. Hence, global democracy, in my view, is responded to either the mistrust or limit of existing establishments. Globalization is depended on democratization which is striving for the best sake regardless of a less developed or mature democratic states. Global democracy may have become a global phenomenon in which collective intelligence can understand and enact the people’s rules. Scholte also makes an assumption about global users’ solidarity that does constitute evermore possibilities or other national perspectives on the internet while the post-establishments have narrow side. The implication follows hereby that people’s rules, human rights are global concerned factors turning global democracy to come true across nations despite Statist deprives the existence of universal community. In all, global democracy may be a goodwill to know in today’s expeditiously globalizing process; a person even in a less developing state can access to, comment transnational events on the internet; analogically, global users can also likely hold serval nations’ identity.

Trades make democracies work

Eichengreen & Leblang (2006) scientifically statistical examining the financial openness, the data between year 1870 to 2000, finds that “the effect of democracy across these periods is positive and statistically significant… more mature democracies are more open to trade… these results again support the idea of a positive relationship running from democracy to globalization: that is, democracies are more likely to remove capital controls” (p. 19) In summary, capital controls are the instrumental method for authorities in an even democratic state to exploit the inflation, unemployment, popular mandate, constituents’ demand or satisfaction in particular and that are not likely to be manipulated in such a tendency in which globalization is proceeding. In addition, Griswold (2006) viewed global democracy exposure as reflected within trade activities which are also followed by President George., W. Bush April 2002 speech “Trade creates the habit of freedom… begin to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institution. Societies that are open to commence across their borders are more open to democracy within the borders.” Griswold heightens three states models: in less developed countries, people bribe or beg government officials for better food; developing countries require trade agreement for economic development; and mature democracy involves governmentally refined control of cultural capitals in order to consolidate its governance. Griswold consequently argues that people, who are developed in the rise of business, viz middle or educated class, will turn into the awareness of human rights and political disparity centred in the issues or influences upon and outside the government. In response to Griswold, I dissent partly with Griswold argument that online wisdoms’ responses can become a collective intelligence. That is due to the intellectually infinite knowledge gathered online; democracy is not an asset owned by wealthier, educational classes. In short, democracy gives privilege to people raising concern in different regards and internet is inevitably open for people accessing whether the global good of humankind; online wisdoms in the globalizing world are necessarily competent to precipitate hope for a better future.

Conclusion

Globalization may herald new wisdoms that will replace existing establishments; global democracy is inevitably enhanced and shaped by online users. In todays’ globalizing process, the exposure of online wisdoms may have generated cross-border knowledges. That is collective intelligence as reflected within consolidated beliefs for global innovation. Collective intelligence has become a global phenomenon together with democratizing tendency that e-expanded forms of dissemination may change the authority discourse. Some critics remain that online wisdoms cannot dissolve establishments because authorities are elected to serve the autonomous states which cannot be obsolete. I consequently argue that authorities may sometimes disregard the human rights as well as political and civil liberty if they do not value the contribution of collective intelligence. Since government is ruled by people and diverse opinions on the internet may break the ever-changing limit, global democracy has been a pivotal role in today’s globalization process rather than upholding statism.

Hence, global democracy may be due to the mistrust and modification of the existing status and that can be proceeded from mature democracy to less-developed countries. On the other hand, trade assists the idea of democracy. In fact, there is a positive correlation between democracy and globalization. Trade agreement is possibly a key in most of the countries for not just their development but posing freedom. By using transnational trade activities to develop even in a less developed countries, the outcome will turn to increase middle-class populations involving concerns in cross-border human rights and political disparities against their governments. In truth, the United Nations may regulate serval countries border clashes but cannot observe the relentlessly repetitive competition between the local human right issue of the world’s people and the rapidly changing conduct on the internet. It is believed that due to a lack of embodiment for collective intelligence; a lack of equal legal status for faulty internet behaviours; and an increasing number of internet warfare admitted by some superpowers, a new internet manifesto regulating countries inappropriate exercises should be of great urgency.

Introduction

In the 21st century democracy plays a key role in societies, however, there are still societies where democracy is not present. Moreover, countries where democracy is not established, are the countries where society lives between fences and walls.

Walled democracies

Countries such as China and Russia are perfect examples of societies that live in walled democracies . According to Larry Diamond, over the years after there has been a “democratic recession,” in which the cumulative number of democratic countries has decreased in different regions of the world ( Larry Diamond as cited in Fukayama, 2019, p.5).Therefore, a quantity of authoritarian countries, has increased , countries such as China and Russia, rely more on themselves they have become more self-efficient. Also, China has created a way to upsurge the wealth of China by executing it in a noticeably undemocratic manner, while Russia has criticized the liberal debauchery of the European Union and the United States ( Fukayama, 2019, p.5).

Moreover, over the years democratic countries have experienced the rise of nationalism, which is present in this political era. As a result, of the rise of nationalism in democratic countries has led to dictators coming to power, as consequence, shifting from a democratic country to a country where authoritarianism takes over the society. Also, according to Fukayama democratic countries that have shifted as authoritarian countries are Hungary, Turkey, Thailand, and Poland ( Fukayama, 2019, p.5). Additionally, during The Arab Spring of 2011 interposed dictatorships in the Middle East, the consequence was that these countries could not develop into becoming democratic countries , this took place in the regions of Libya, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria descended into civil war(Fukayama, 2019, p.5).

Furthermore, as stated by Krastev, Europe represents the ideology of freedom, that comes from after the second world war, Europe introduced liberalism in most European countries. Also, by establishing social democracy in European countries has created secureness and wealth. Additionally, the wealth of the world increases daily, and by doing so the European way of living becomes desirable. Further, countries such as China, India and Russia and certain Muslim regions, verifies that ethnic nationalism and religion are the main forces in global politics ( Krastev, 2019,p.8).

Hence, countries such as China and Russia are countries that live in walled democracies, seeing as how these countries want to portray to the world that there are fair elections and that they represent their people in a democratic way. In contrast, in Russia and China fair elections do not occur, these countries are corrupted and citizens get murdered or sentenced to jail if they speak negatively about the government. Moreover, due the rise of nationalism in democratic countries has led for Dictators to come to power according to Fukayama this is present in countries such as Hungary, Turkey, Thailand and Poland ( Fukayama, 2019, p.5).Thus, because of the rise of nationalism democratic countries become authoritarian countries , which means that these countries are also living in walled democracies. Lastly, according to Krastev ethnic nationalism and religion are the main sources of global politics (Krastev, 2019,p.8). Therefore, if these sources keeps increasing in other countries it may effect the democracy of these countries.

Fences and Walls

In society walls are seen as to protect society from danger, diseases or other countries. However, there are different walls build around the world, according to Brown these are for example seen in, Thailand and Malaysia has conjoined to build a concrete and steel border wall to prevent illegal immigration and smuggling between these countries. Also, another example is the wall between Egypt and Gaza, Iran also has build a wall between Iran and Pakistan. Lastly, the walls around Israeli settlements in the West Bank has caused tension between Israelis and Palestinians because , the Israelis has taken homes from the Palestinians(Brown, 2015, p.19). As a consequence, having walls can either have a positive effect for the country but also a negative effect. Furthermore, Brown states that, a country having borders comes in three forms of paradoxes which are:

“First, even as those across a wide political spectrum neoliberals, cosmopolitans, humanitarians, and left activists fantasize a world without borders (whether consequent to global entrepreneurship, global markets, global citizenship, or global governance), nation-states, rich and poor, exhibit a passion for wall building. Second, within the ostensibly triumphant universal political form, democracy (heralded by European post-Marxists, Islamic secularists, or American neoconservatives, even if each inflects democracy differently), we confront not only barricades, but passageways through them segregating high-end business traffic, ordinary travelers, and aspiring entrants deemed suspect by virtue of origin or appearance. Third, in a time featuring capacities for destruction historically unparalleled in their combined potency, miniaturization, and mobility, from bodies wired for explosion to nearly invisible biochemical toxins, these deadly but incorporeal powers are perversely answered by the stark physicalism of walls. So, three paradoxes: one featuring simultaneous opening and blocking, one featuring simultaneous opening and blocking, one featuring universalization combined with exclusion and stratification, and one featuring networked and virtual power by physical barricades” (Brown, 2015, p.20).

Hence, walls and fences benefits different countries in different ways for political gain or for increasing their country wealth, while other countries use walls to display power among other countries . Furthermore, by having open boarders but only allowing certain people in, that will provide economical gain for the country, while other countries decide to ban certain ethnicity from entering the country which happened in the United States with the Muslim ban. Also, according to Reinchlin-Melnick president Trump imposed a travel ban seven Muslim countries( Reinchlin-Melnick, 2018, para.1). Thus, societies are living within walls and fences that can protect society, as long that the government gets to choose which people can cross the border and which not.

The rise of Populism

The rise of populism has increased over the years, this is visible in US election by having Donald Trump as the president of the United States, populism is also present in Europe which is visible in the United Kingdom with Brexit. Moreover, Galston states that populism “accepts the principles of popular sovereignty and democracy, understood in straightforward fashion as the exercise of majoritarian power. It is skeptical, however, about constitutionalism, insofar as formal, bounded institutions and procedures impede majorities from working their will. It takes an even dimmer view of liberal protections for individuals and minority groups”( Galston, 2019, p.11). Furthermore, populism disturbs the moral of democracy by neglecting minority groups and prioritizing their own ethnicity to be superior. Hence, societies that choose to follow populist political parties, live in a walled society by only seeing and hearing what society thinks is best to be able to advance. Also, by allowing these political parties to use their power to neglect minorities, which also effects the democracy of the society.

Conclusion

To conclude, countries such as China and Russia are perfect examples of societies that live in walled democracies . Also, over the years democratic countries have experienced the rise of nationalism, which is present in this political era. As a result, of the rise of nationalism in democratic countries has led to dictators coming to power, as consequence, shifting from a democratic country to a country where authoritarianism takes over the society. Furthermore, walls and fences benefits different countries in different ways for political gain or for increasing their country wealth, while other countries use walls to display power among other countries . Hence, societies are living within walls and fences that can protect society, as long that the government gets to choose which people can cross the border and which not. Moreover, societies that choose to follow populist political parties, live in a walled society by only seeing and hearing what society thinks is best to be able to advance. Also, by allowing these political parties to use their power to neglect minorities, which also effects the democracy of the society.

Reference list

1. http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/04/26/what-happened-supreme-court-travel-ban/#.XbhvKVVKjIU