Recently there has been an ongoing debate about the role of democratically elected governments in the global economy. There are some who are of the opinion that the government and not the international finance should be the ultimate source of discipline for national economies. While others argue that democracy itself is the problem when it comes to the global economy.
Democratic government in the global economy
Democracy is one of the most effective forms of government in today’s increasing integrated World. As it allows governments to be accounted to the electorate who brought them into power and not the global financial institutions. While the international finance players advocate for free market economy system without considering the effects that it would have in the local economy.
Democratic governments have come up with fiscal policies aimed at insulating the local market against risks brought about by the free market especially those that originate externally. This has enabled these countries to have a good welfare state, as evidenced by countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark who have an open market system but still manage to keep the risks as low as possible (Rodrik 316).
As globalization has allowed workers to be easily substituted across national boundaries. Democracy has permitted governments to come up with minimum working conditions in order to safeguard the domestic workers from exploitation, as their main priority is the electorate.
Democratic form of government has allowed countries to develop their own form of capitalism nationally. This has allowed countries to come up with their own style of corporate governance, mode of organizing the labor markets and ways of administering safety nets. This has ensured that the system does not suffer from the backlash of globalization (Rodrik 310).
Problems Posed by a democratic government in the global economy
Though, the democratic form of government is one of the effective ways of dealing with globalization, there are various problems it poses in dealing with the global economy. Milton (90) argues that, while fiscal policies by governments are viewed by many as ways of helping the economy grow, they in fact make the economy to be smaller and less stable.
This is because as governments increase their expenditure it results in the GDP rising by the same margin. In addition, when governments institute trade barriers, they prevent the local market from competing effectively in the global market thus resulting in the imbalance of trade with other countries.
Also Sachs (30) argues in his book that, while many democratic governments applied blanket trade barriers in the hope of protecting the local market, they ended up hurting it. Since the results of the barriers became more detrimental than those that would have been caused by a free market. Also through protectionism, governments have limited the local market from accessing a variety of commodities in the global economy. This has denied the electorate freedom of choice, which they promised to protect.
Solutions to problems caused by the government
While there are many problems which democratic governments pose to the global economic system, they can take the following steps to solve these problems. First they need to understand the trade agreements keenly in order to avoid applying blanket barriers to trade, thus avoiding the negative effects caused by them (Sachs 30).
Also the governments need to monitor their fiscal policies so as to ensure that they grow the economy rather than destroying it (Milton 90). Governments need to come up with effective measures to globalization to protect the electorate as well as reap the benefits that come with it.
Works Cited
Milton, Friedman. Capitalism and Freedom. 40th anniversary ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2002. 85-107. Print.
Rodrik, Dani. Has Globalization Gone Too Far?. New York: Institute for International Economics, 1997. 316. Print.
Rodrik. Dani. The New Global Economy and Developing Countries: Making Openness Work”. New York: Overseas Development Council, 1999. 310. Print.
Sachs, Jeffrey. The end of poverty: Economic possibilities for our time (introduction). New York: Penguin Press, 2005. 30. Print
The politics of Argentina have been described as being eccentric and rather unconventional for various reasons. Economically, the country was rich, but deteriorated to almost bankruptcy between the year 1930 and 2001.
Politically, the country has seen the emergence of autochthonous political movements that have dominated its governance, a good example of which was the most elusive, but relevant example of Peronism (Brennan 64). Socially, Argentina has had a poorly developed middle class.
The region has a conventionally weaker middle class, with universal education barely existing anywhere (Grugel 21). On the international front, Argentina and Cuba have been the countries that have constantly opposed the United State’s foreign policies, even though Argentina never took sides openly, either with the Soviet Union or the Nazi Germany.
In its history, Argentina has been among the most economically developed countries in the Latin America, yet among the least politically stable countries in the region.
Despite having all these peculiarities attributed to it, the Argentine political cycles have been in tandem with the international developments, which have been taking place over time (Petras 26). The country has witnessed frequent breakdown of its democracy followed by re-democratization.
Between the year 1930 and 1976, Argentina experienced six coups d’état. The coups were mainly due to internal conflicts that led to rival alliances, mainly civil-military, to rise against one another.
None of the coups were instigated externally, as was the case in most parts of Central America; neither had the coups ever been caused by indirect involvement of external forces, as was the case of the United State’s support in the ousting of the Chilean president (Tella 43).
However, Argentina’s authoritarian leaders shared periods with their counterparts in the region in implementing key policies economically and in the combating of terrorism.
Regime change, in the region, was not an exclusively domestic phenomenon, but a rather coordinated cooperation among the supporters of the authoritarian regimes in the region, despite the regimes being rivals with one another, in the same measure, as some were friends (Portantiero 31).
In 1946, Domingo Peron ascended to Argentina’s presidency. He introduced corporatist policies in which the institutions that were sanctioned by the state had influence in government. Peron allowed labor leaders distinct privilege, since he had much of his support from the labor union movements.
According to Clarin (19), Peron’s administration appealed to the working class that was less skilled, as well as, the middle class, mainly industrialists who saw the regime as favoring industrial growth, due to the hostile policies of the regime towards foreign corporations.
Peron introduced far-reaching policy initiatives in 1947 that aimed at creating national self-dependence through industries that would sustain military and strategic independence. He nationalized docks and railroads from the British and made possible public ownership of the financial sector.
Through public enterprise, entities were created to supply military goods and other services that were considered essential. His loan policies favored the production of food, machinery and cars (Blanksten 102).
Peron’s government closely controlled foreign trade, and provided differentiated protection to stimulate industries in specified sectors. The protectionism favored plastics, pharmaceuticals and chemicals, which responded with growth that was faster than average.
In a bid to earn favor from the unions and fulfill electoral promises, Peron raised the real wages for workers by 25 percent, which was way ahead of labor productivity increase in Argentina (Clarin 27). As a result, unit labor costs increased more than the nascent industries were able to support.
The social outcry increased while the government increasingly became unstable. Peron had achieved most of the goals he had initially intended by changing the Argentine output structure. However, the economy bore a heavy burden due to his distorted wage policies that saw the country fail to respond to incentives from the comparative advantage point of view.
Argentina fell in international competitiveness as a deficit emerged in its balance of payment. In a desperate bid to maintain stability, the government controlled foreign trade (Pion-Berlin 49). However, the crisis grew leading to escalated foreign debts. Dissatisfied by the government, the military overthrew Peron in 1955.
In 1989, the Peronist party led by Carlos Menem won the presidential elections amid hyperinflation and a shrunken gross domestic product. When he ascended to office, Menem whose campaign had a populist approach executed an unexpectedly neoliberal economic program (Balze 87).
During his first month as president, Menem persuaded the congress, which was already divided to approve a law that would reform the state law and allow an economic emergency in which state enterprises were sold off. The government then embarked on privatization and other reforms with little congressional oversight.
Having minimized interference by the congress in state matters, Menem reduced the independence of the judiciary and enlarged the Supreme Court, which became dominated by appointees loyal to him, and that would shield the courts from challenging the government’s often-controversial policies.
Menem also replaced the fiscal tribunal membership as well as the administrative inquiries’ state attorney unconstitutionally. The justice minister quit his post in 1991 due to his unwillingness to support administration in a plan to replace state prosecutors and independent federal judges with people who were loyal to the president’s agenda (Smith 74).
By early 1990s, Menem had as much power as the previous military dictators in Argentina, something he termed as unavoidable, and it would enable him tackle the looming economic crisis (Paolera 33). Several cabinet ministers resigned from office in 1991 on an allegation of corruption.
In a move to regain credibility, Menem appointed a renowned economist to the post of economic minister, who with assistance from the World Bank overhauled the privatization framework and negotiated for privatization of the airline and highway.
The economy minister helped introduce a new currency whose exchange rate with the American dollar was to remain one-to-one. The move controlled the hyperinflation and sparked rapid economic growth. In 1995, Argentina together with Paraguay, Uruguay, and Brazil created a free trade zone called Mercosur.
Having achieved national and international acclaim for successful reform Menem embarked on constitutional reform and democratization that would enable him to vie for reelection in 1995 (Ferrer 143).
He won the elections. Although he was a Peronist, Menem’s policies differed from Peron’s radically. While Peron emphasized on state-led industries and resisted foreign capital, Menem believed in openness, privatization and liberalization.
Mercosur, under the leadership of Argentina, adopted a democracy clause in 1996 that barred interruption of the constitutional order in any of the member states. Menem’s regime ended in the year 2000 with the country having slipped poverty back with a collapsed economy (McCoy 123).
Kirchner ascended to power in 2003. His regime promoted class bias as the underlying economic recovery strategy. By 2004, Argentina had realized an economic growth of 8.7 percent with unemployment decreasing at 6 percent. The export sector grew rapidly due to devaluation with the agriculture and petroleum sector performing well.
The devaluation also promoted the growth of local industries (). Kirchner’s exchange rate policy had a substantive impact on Argentina’s fiscal balance, which improved revenue via export tariffs.
Argentina, under Kirchner, has also been favored by high international prices for most of its products, while the competitive and stable exchange rate served to aid the macroeconomic policies of the regime. However, Kirchner’s regime has been characterized by high poverty levels, indigence and increasing inequality among the people economically (Weyland 89).
Politically, Kirchner’s regime carried out fundamental changes in the military, judiciary and law enforcement agencies. He replaced corrupt Supreme Court judges that had served under Menem with a team of respected jurists.
He also forced police chiefs and top military generals into retirement, due to inadequate human rights credentials, such as involvement in kidnapping, illicit contraband, and extortion activities (Rapetti 98). He also repealed amnesty, which military generals in the 1976 to 1982 dirty war, had been granted by previous administrations, as well as, fought the bribe-taking tradition that was deep-rooted in the congress.
Through these efforts, Kirchner managed to partially re-legitimize government institutions and improve public confidence in the government. Kirchner carried out many social programs, the most successful of which was in pharmaceuticals.
His government provided drugs in primary care clinics to the low-income families estimated to cover over 15 million people. It also provided drugs, to AIDS victims, while the generic prescription law increased access to prescription drugs, by about 4 million Argentines, who could not previously afford the drugs.
Works Cited
Balze, Felipe. Remaking the Argentine Economy. New York: Council of Foreign Relations Press, 1995. Print.
Blanksten, Glodberg. Peron’s Argentina. New York: Russell & Russell, 1969. Print.
Brennan, James. Region and Nation: Politics, Economics and Society in Twentieth Century Argentina. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. Print.
Clarin, Tella. Argentina under Peron: The Nation’s Experience with a Labor-Based Government. Hong Kong: Macmillan Press, 1983. Print.
Ferrer, Aldo. The Argentine Economy. Los Angeles: University Of California Press, 1967. Print.
Grugel, Riggirozzi. “The Return of the State in Argentina.” Journal of International Affairs 83.1 (2007): 20-26.
Mccoy, Jennifer. Political Learning and Re-Democratization in Latin America: Do
Politicians Learn From Political Crises. Miami: North-South Center Press, 2000. Print.
Paolera, Gerardo. A New Economic History of Argentina. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print.
Petras, Munck. “Unarmed Utopia Revisited: The Resurgence Of Left of Centre Politics in Latin America.” Journal of Peasant Studies 22.2 (2006): 20-25. Print.
Pion-Berlin, David. The Ideology of State Terror: Economic Doctrine and Political Repression in Argentina and Peru. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1989. Print.
Portantiero, Prebisch. The Political and Economic Crisis in Argentina. Hampshire: Macmillan Publishers, 1989. Print.
Rapetti, Frenkel. “Five Years of Competitive and Stable Real Exchange Rate in Argentina.” International Review of Applied Economics 22.2 (2008): 98-100. Print.
Smith, Roberts. “State, Market and Neoliberalism in Post-Transition Argentina: The Menem Experiment.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 33.4 (1991): 72-76. Print.
Tella, Guido. The Political Economy of Argentina. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986. Print.
Weyland, Kurt. The Politics of Market Reform in Fragile Democracies: Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Venezuela. Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2010. Print.
The original United States Constitution, often cited as the foundation of the US democracy, was created in 1787 by the country’s founding fathers. While its admirers holds a perception that the Constitution is a virtually perfect charter, its critics have over the years sounded an alarm that some of the provisions in the Constitution are undemocratic, and therefore end up enhancing unjust and ineffective governance structures (Levinson 13). However, the middle ground is that the original Constitution consisted of a hybrid of democratic and undemocratic principles that gave rise to functional and dysfunctional rules and procedures.
Although the Constitution was not exclusively envisaged in a void, its creators had very few examples to refer from in attempting to institute a democratic form of government (Dahl 15). It is the purpose of this essay to critically evaluate the ways through which the US original Constitution was both democratic and undemocratic. Its functionality will also be evaluated.
The Framers of the original Constitution of the US can be credited for creating a republic rather than a democracy. Although the two concepts are perceived as synonymous, “a republic is a political unit governed by a charter, while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is that of the majority” (Dubroff para. 1). In a republic, the charter is supreme as the official source of power, while the rule of the majority controls official power in a democracy.
Also, a democratic nation is more aligned with the fundamental standard of ‘one man one vote,’ while in a republic, power is vested in the representatives, who in turn are responsible to the people (Dahl 7). According to Dahl, the Framers of the original Constitution crafted a representative democracy for the reason that they dreaded direct democracy, seen as a threat to the property rights of influential land owners.
It is therefore safe to assert that protective theories of democracy were used by the Framers during the creation of the original Constitution. In the protective model, the elected representatives are offered the mandate to speak for their constituents, condemning citizens to a rather passive role concerning how government affairs are run (Held 47).
There are many instances of democratic elements in the original Constitution. However, their effectiveness is camouflaged by the many instances of undemocratic principles and practices in the same Constitution. On the democratic elements, the original Constitution made provisions for the separation of powers into three branches – executive, legislative, and judicial.
Powers to make all laws governing the country, control budgetary allocations, declare war and ratify treaties were vested in the Legislative arm of government, also known as the Congress. The executive arm, also known as the presidency, was granted the powers to preserve, protect and safeguard the US Constitution; faithfully execute the laws governing the land; implement the instructions made by Congress, veto laws that may be deemed unconstitutional, and implement spending as endorsed by Congress.
The judicial arm, also known as the Supreme Court, functioned to establish the jurisdiction of particular cases under the US judicial system; the disposition of convicted prisoners; and the production of evidence and testimonies as the law provides for in the Constitution. The judicial arm is specifically crafted and limited by the legislative arm (Dahl 42).
However, the above arrangement of the separation of powers has proved dysfunctional, especially between the legislative and executive arms of government. In practice, the president and the Congress have rather dissimilar constituencies as revealed by the competitive struggle of votes from the electorate in elections (Hardin 11).
The separation is also dysfunctional by the very fact that neither the executive nor the legislative arm exercise significant control or sway on the appointment of the other to office. Still, the American model of separation of powers does not “fix responsibility on a government to govern and on an opposition to debate the government by offering alternatives” (Hardin 113).
Other democratic elements espoused in the original Constitution consist of the freedom from domestic violence, freedom from the extremists of religion, and the right to be protected against invasion (Held 36).Article 6 of the unadulterated US constitution made provisions that nobody was to be subjected to a religious test as a prequalification to gain entry into any public office.
This provision offered more freedom to US citizens. Although not seen as entirely democratic, the original Constitution also promoted a representation form of government in which all constituents within the state had an opportunity to be represented in the Senate and House of Representatives.
There exists a multiplicity of undemocratic elements in the original US Constitution. First, although the original Constitution guaranteed freedom from domestic violence, it neither prohibited slavery nor sanctioned Congress to do so.
In essence, failure by the constitution to abolish slavery not only denied the legislative arm the power to forbid the importation of slaves prior to 1808, but it offered constitutional sanction to repressive laws such as the fugitive slave laws, which dictated that a fugitive slave had to be hunted down and taken back to the slave holder (Dahl 11).
The slavery perspective reveals a dysfunctional Constitution in the sense that its preamble had sought to establish justice and blessings of liberty (Levinson 13).
Second, the original Constitution was unsuccessful in assuring the right of suffrage, leaving the interpretations and qualifications of suffrage to individual states (Dahl 12). This inherently meant that half of the population, mostly women, African-Americans, and poor Native Americans could not vote in an election.
By then, the Constitution had suppressed the civil liberties of these groups of Americans. However, the same civil liberties, under the auspices of civil rights groups, were instrumental in campaigning for the rights of the women to vote a century and half later. Voting privileges for African-Americans were attained some two centuries later, courtesy of the same civil rights groups led by astute rights activists such as Malcolm X and Martin Luther King (Hardin 38).
It is therefore safe to ascertain that the extent to which the civilians’ voices or inputs in the public field are subdued or are permitted to be heard have fundamental implications on whether the answerability and responsibility essential for government effectiveness will be created (Pritchet & Kaufman para. 1).
Third, by coming up with a system of electing a president that was to be shielded from both the desires of popular majorities and the overbearing influence of congressional control, the Framers of the original Constitution probably never stopped to ponder the contour that politics would assume in a mature democratic republic.
Consequently, the Framers hatched the Electoral College, a group of presidential electors comprising men of outstanding wisdom, character and value, charged with the responsibility of choosing the president (Dahl 15). Through this provision, the US is often led by unpopular and incompetent presidents, who have lost the popular vote but goes ahead to be chosen by the Electoral College.
Indeed, the Electoral College was conceived to bring the small states on board in the process of forming a federal government. Federalism, which is defined as a structure of government in which authority and power is distributed between a national government and constituent regional governments, has obvious advantages of guaranteeing government services remain closer to the people, decentralizing resources, enhancing exclusive and innovative techniques for tackling issues bedeviling society at a regional level, and providing safeguards to the domination by the majority. However, it leads to duplication of government services, overlapping policies, inequality between regions and corruption (Johnson 13).
This not withstanding, the Electoral College in the 21st century has served to curtail participatory and pluralist democracy, with small states such as Wyoming and North Dakota having equal votes in the college with highly populated states such as California. This reveals the dysfunctional nature of the original constitution.
Forth, the original Constitution failed to curtail the power enjoyed by the judiciary to proclaim as unconstitutional statutes that had been aptly approved by the Congress and duly signed by the sitting president (Dahl 18). Again, this reveals a dysfunctional aspect of the original Constitution in the fact that federal judges assumed the responsibility of formulating government laws and policy frameworks, a task that undoubtedly belonged to the Congress.
The method used to select senators and the issues of equal representation in the senate are other sticky issues found in the original Constitution. Senators were to be chosen by the state legislatures rather than the constituents, effectively curtailing participatory democracy and a rule by the majority since the selected senators would be minimally receptive to popular majorities and conceivably be more receptive to the requirements of property holders (Dahl 16).
This is both undemocratic and dysfunctional. In equal representation, the senate tied American voters to geographical attributes rather than population densities, effectively tilting political power in the direction of the alliances of smaller states. This is undemocratic.
All in all, the original Constitution has had its fair share of democratic and undemocratic elements, as well as supporters and detractors. In 2000, Americans were ruled by an unpopular president in the name of George W. Bush as a direct result of the Constitution’s shortcomings.
What alarms many experts and policy makers is the fact that it is extremely hard to change some offending provisions in the US constitution. The American people never took part in a referendum to ratify the Constitution. In the light of this, concerted efforts need to be initiated to ensure that the US constitution represents the true value of democracy – rule by the majority.
Works Cited
Cunningham, F. Theories of Democracy: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge. Web.
Dahl, R.A. (2002). How Democratic is the American Constitution, 2nd Ed. Yale University Press. 2002. Web.
Hardin, C.M. The Separation of Power needs Major Revision. In: R.A. Goldwin & A.
Kaufman, Separation of Powers — Does it Still Work? American Enterprise Institute. 1986. Web.
Held, D. Models of Democracy, 2nd Ed. Stanford University Press. 1997. Web.
Johnson, K.S. Governing the American State: congress and New Federalism, 1877- 1929. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Web.
Levinson, S. Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution goes wrong and how we the People can correct it. New York NY: Oxford University Press. 2008. Web.
Pritchet, L., & Kaufman, D. Civil Liberties, Democracy, and the Performance of Government Projects. 1998. Web.
Modernization can be defined as a set of symptoms of social changes in relation to industrialization. one set of these symptoms is motion which infiltrate through all phases of life to make life more comfortable by improving standards of living, enhancing economic growth and development, reducing mortality rate by increasing life expectancy among others.
Modernization also means discarding ones way of life and accepting civilization, urbanization, or occupational specialization.
Modernization results in improved social life, transformed political institutions, and may even bring in increased political participation, which may result in the recognition of democratic institutions. This paper gives an in-depth analysis of modernization as it tries to relate it to the concept of democratization.
Modernization started as early as the 19th century but became apparent in the 20th century. Some scholars believed that, by abolishing all the property owned by private enterprises and individuals, inequalities, and exploitation would be reduced.
On the other hand, capitalist theorists argued that, economic development would result in improvement in standard of livings, which would finally result in democracy. Democratization can therefore be defined as the system of letting people decide for themselves (Haggard and Kaufman 17).
In politics, the term democratization refers to the transition from an authoritarian government to one that is liberal. An authoritarian government leads people through dictatorship whereas in a democratic government, there is freedom. When country achieves democratization, leaders are elected by a majority vote thereby creating competition in politics, the market becomes liberal, and traders can trade anywhere and in almost every thing.
Many scholars have been holding many conflicting debates as to whether democratization results from modernization. Some strongly hold that, democratization has its roots in modernization because, once a country become civilized and people get to learn more about their rights, then for democracy begins.
In an authoritarian government, citizens are exploited and denied their rights for instance their right to land because they are assumed to be ignorant about rights and freedoms. However, with modernization, people are exposed and meet other people and are able to realize and point unto the areas where they are receiving unfair treatment from the law officials. There are mainly three forms of democratization; behavioral, attitudinal, and constitutional.
A system is said to be experiencing behavioral democratization when there are no factors, for instance from the economic or political systems that are knocking down the regime. Attitudinal democratization occurs when majority of the citizens in a given country are willing to adopt democratic principles. Last but not least, constitutional democratization becomes evident when regulations and laws are put in place in order to prevent the system from falling (Linz and Stepan 62).
Before the Second World War, democratization was a term that was only found in dictionaries and many scholars had not developed an interest in it. However, towards the end of the war, many scholars were interested in knowing why some governments would choose to replace their political systems with laissez-faire democracies.
They were amazed at how some countries such as Europe would adopt the rule of law to ensure that, its citizens enjoyed their liberties in a political, social, and economic perspective (Karl 23). That is when most scholars defined this shift in political systems as a democratization wave.
Since 1970s, many developing countries have made democratic reforms by shifting their systems to liberal systems in other times referred to as “the western democracies.” They are called western democracies because they emerged from the western countries such as East Asia, and Europe.
To explain the factors that lead to democratization, scholars have come up with three theories namely structural, transitional, and modernization. Using the structural theory, democratization is believed to have emerged from the change in structures belonging to the state and some intermediary power.
On the other hand, transitional scholars believe that, democratization is caused by inventiveness made by political intellectuals. According to modernization scholars, democratization is led by economic development made by the state.
Out of the three theories, modernization seems to carry more weight than the others do and it was actually the first theory to explain the democratization process. According to Rustow (338), economic development is responsible for all the major changes that occur in a country.
It is through economic development that, a nation gains stability even in the global world. Economic development is a result of increased industrialization, urbanization, and literacy levels. According to Lipset (73), more often that not the underdeveloped rural areas lack political democracy simply because their development level is very low.
It would be true to say that, modernization leads to democratization. However, there are other factors attributed to democratization, such as change in structures but modernization seems to be leading. It also looks logical given that most of the countries with liberal economies are actually the ones that have high economic development.
Most countries in Africa and Asia are yet to achieve democratization because their economic development is still very low and unless it rises, they may continue to be led by authoritarian governments.
Works Cited
Haggard, Stephan and Kaufman, Robert. The political economy of democratic transitions. Lisa Anderson: Transitions to Democracy, 1999
Karl, Terry Lynn. Dillemmas of Democratization in Latin America. New York: Prentice Hall, 1990.
Linz, Joseph and Stepan, Andrew. Problems of democratic transition and consolidation. New York: John Hopkins University Press, 1996
Lipset, Samuel M. Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy, American Political science Review 53 (1) 1959, pp. 69-105
Rustow, D. A. Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model, Comparative politics 2 (3) 1970, pp. 337-363
Typically, democracy is a system of governance in which people choose their preferred government and rulers. This can be exercised through voting in a free and fair mannerism.1
It is instantiated by rights like freedom of expression and freedom of speech amongst others. Therefore, at its core, democracy signifies a fair and justifiable power distribution in any kind of society.
This paper discerns whether democracy can be spread by force. Concurrently, it argues against the possibility of attaining democracy through forceful strategies. It also provides relevant countries and global instances (as examples) to certify this claim.
This is a critical provision when considered comprehensively in the realms of democracy and its relevant benefits. In a democratic society, an individual has more power of governing his or her life as it would be appropriate (self choice of expression). Considerably, there are four main elements of democracy.2
Besides a political system where people choose and replace their government through elections (which are free and fair), people also participate actively as citizens in their civic life and politics.
In addition, the rule of law which applies equally to every citizen should be used to protect the fundamental human rights of each and every citizen.
Even though democracy is much embraced in most countries of the western world, it has failed in some continents such as Africa, Middle East regions, and to some extent, south Asia. Tribalism, which has its deep roots in these counties, is the major reason for this failure.
Considerably, some attempts to attain democracy through force have worked in some countries including Japan and Germany after the World War II. Nonetheless, some forceful efforts have failed significantly.
Actually, the majority of people from these countries would prefer voting for a candidate who is a member of their tribe, religion, or sect rather than someone else who is a not a member even if that individual have got better governance ideologies.
This is very evident in countries such as Zimbabwe and Iraq. The United States of America is at the forefront in spreading democracy.3 But why should they seek to spread democracy? And can democracy be achieved by force?
Evidently, forced democracy might destroy a society during its establishment. Consequently, the society should be rebuilt after achieving the concerned democracy as it happened in the developed nations such as the Japan and Germany amongst others.
Democracy can be spread by force
To some extent this statement is true. For instance, the United States of America has launched an international war on terror, which involves strategies that embrace the regime change concepts.
This creates new identities which are politically democratic and wins the hearts and minds of people. As an illustration, the involvement of the US in both Afghanistan and Iraq was premised on the view of eliminating terror and putting democracy in place.
The United States has been successful in campaigning and spreading democracy through the use of military, politics, and psychology in almost each and every area that is involved around the world.
Definitely, this close connection has implied that the extent of influence by the United States around the globe has been expanded. In fact, they have exploited every globalization device like television broadcasting and internet to compound the extent of its influence.
These have been very effective in spreading democratic propaganda in most regions of the globe that are governed by dictatorships. In addition, they have created changes in the political awareness in support to democratizing.
At the end of the Second World War, US took an active role to deepen and widen democracy in western parts of Europe. The European integration was encouraged by the United States in establishing and stabilizing the democracy.
NATO was the fortification within which West Germany, Spain, Portugal, and Italy became democratic. The integrated Europe and the twin NATO institutions jointly formed powerful incentives for developing democracies of the East European countries to link with the multilateral institutions of Western Europe at the end of the cold war.4
This shows how democracy spread in the western countries. However, it is important to note that war is characterized by the destruction of economy and ruining of the whole society.
The society is rebuilt after the achievement of democracy as it happened in the developed nations such as the Japan and Germany amongst others as indicated earlier.
There are certain problems that plague political efforts; typically, creating an arrangement that is able to safeguard people’s interests without persecution threats. Different nations around the globe have struggled with power balance by either using imperial or even more idealistic schemes to concentrate power for governing the world.
There has been lots of debate domestically on how much right the executive should have. The strong executive supporters believe that the best way of preserving peace is through uncontrolled ability to discourage or anticipate an attack.
However, the antagonists of such kind of a scheme distress that it is likely to allow the executives to start war very easily and would be particularly unstoppable if many nations adopt it.
This dilemma was tried to be resolved by the administration of George W. Bush by creating the democratic empire concept.5
America is regarded as inalienable military power that is able to enforce a peaceful order in any part of the troubled world. In this way, America continues to keep unchallengeable military strengths.
Thus, it is not necessary to destabilize weapon competitions of other eras and also restricts the contentions to trade as well as other peace pursuant. Actually, most people around the globe are uncomfortable with the policy of the United States which welcomes power in the provision and commitment to freedom.6
Their policy stresses that freedom commitment can and must create a common cause to counter the enemies of freedom.
This a clear indication that if such policies are not available to safeguard the rights and freedoms of individuals in the society -their democracy- then most of the nations will not allow their people to exercise these rights.
It is very likely that the democratic institutions of governments will not be able to thwart the abuse of power used in promoting democracy and the application of military power will instill democracy in these nations.
The demonstrations and protests that swept the Middle East in the beginning of the year 2011 is a further illustration that indeed democracy can be spread by force. These protests resulted to the removal of Tunisian president Ben Ali and shook Hosni Mubarak’s government of Egypt.
In these countries, it is not only the world superpowers like the United States that gave a more vocal support to the people who demanded democracy on the Cairo streets but also the people stood firm in calling for change of leadership in their country.
Eventually, the kind of leadership that was characterized by dictatorship and the oppression of the poor and the disadvantaged in the society had to cede power, sending a strong message to the rest of the world that if a leader clings to power through corruption and denial of democracy, at long last he or she will have to face the consequences. This is one way in which democracy has been spread around the globe.
There is also a lot of argument as to whether the use of force or military action is justifiable in promoting democracy. In some cases, the action of military may not only be essential in facilitating and restoring democracy but also in ending certain cruel kind of dictatorship.
For instance, in Rwanda genocide of 1994 is a typical example. The military involvement was very justifiable to put an end to genocide and restore peace in Rwanda.
Nonetheless, military intervention should be considered as a last resort since a lot of destruction of the society as well as economic degradation is associated with such forceful democracy.
While considering other viable theories, democracy is a major contributor to fundamental human values and should be encouraged all over the world.
It promotes values such as the rights of workers, freedom of speech and movement. It also establishes an environment that is secure and stable for citizens of a country. In addition to this, democracy is a value that ensures interests of all citizens and the country are taken care of and their rights are secured.7
Governments that promote democracy are the ones that enhance peace, avoid violence and wars, encourage development, and advocate for the rights of all humans. Democracy should be promoted in the modern world to assist in the achievement of stability and growth for humanity.
Its development should also be promoted to enable countries that are newly formed to adopt democratic principles. Countries that have not implemented principles of democracy should be denounced and encouraged to adopt them.
Many countries in the world have adopted democracy and continue to promote human rights. There are others still in the process of implementing strategies that will ensure democracy.8
The growth of democracy has taken a long time and there are various methods that have been used to spread it. There have also been various barriers to the spread of the value and commercial barriers are among them.
Some of the methods that have been used to spread democracy are through use of religion and education. However, there is the question of the effectiveness of coercion in spreading democracy. There are people who believe that force can be used in spreading democracy while others believe that it is not an effective method.
The question to use force or not in spreading democracy can be answered using theories of international relations. This section of paper will attempt to answer the question using realism and liberal theories.
With respect to democracy, realism focuses on the motives leading to proper security, control and capital (Gilbert 58). On the other hand, liberalism proposes that the difference that exists between countries regarding principles of democracy is the main causes of wars.
Realism first focuses on the main causes of wars. The theory also believes that the international structure and systems has an important role in international relations. The proponents of this theory further believe that the absence of authority from a central point leads to dilemma on matters of security.
This therefore means that attempts by one country to seek security assurance are likely to make its adversaries feel insecure.
These adversaries can them arm up and use other forms of interactions that are hostile by nature. The relative capabilities of countries thus play an important role in international relations.
Concurrently, the central authority plays important roles in the international relations and gives a reason for countries to relate in the international system.9
Groups based in various parts of the world are also important in international relations (according to the realists). Additionally, the behavior of the states is considered to be rational according to this theory.
The reason for this belief among realists is that states use logic when making decisions and act in the interest of the nation. They do this so as to survive, be secure, be powerful and gain capital.
The motives of the nation usually make analysts to manipulate how policy makers think and this has the effect of policy makers making laws that are in the interest of the nation.10
The realists also note that states respond to external factors. Thus, their actions are guided by what happens internationally. These can be used to explain how democracy can be spread using force.
For example, Iraq was a country led by a dictator. There were also extremists in Iraq and the rights of the citizen were not guaranteed. The United States, on the other hand, is a country that values democracy and protection of the rights of individuals.
United States thus attempted to promote these values in Iraq forcefully. However, according to realists, there are other interests that the United States had apart from the promotion of democracy in Iraq.
United States wanted to ensure that it is secure and its citizens are safe. The United States also wanted to avoid Iraq’s quest to develop weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq developed these weapons, then it would be a threat to United States and countries that are allied to it.
In addition to these interests of the United States, the need to develop military bases in the Middle East was another reason for going to Iraq. The United States wanted to develop military bases in Iran and Syria so as to help Israel, which is an ally of Unites States.
Another reason was the need to secure the supply of oil for the United States and the need to reduce complications that could result from energy shortage. This is a critical provision when scrutinized comprehensively.
Finally, United States hardly ratified inspections UN executed in Iraq to determine whether there were weapons of mass destruction. These, according to realism theory of international relations, guided the policy decisions of the United States.
It means that the United States checked the benefits that could result from invading Iraq and the costs of the invasion. It then made decision based on the findings with respect to democracy.
Additionally, the United States was a central point of authority. It had the military might and is a super power.11 The foreign policies of the United States are also war preventive against countries considered to be rogue. The military might of United States also played an important part.
According to the theory, the military strength of a country is important. It determines how the country establishes, ratifies, and protects its foreign policies.12
Thus, US ensured that its military might was unmatched and if Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, then it had to be dealt with. These informed one of the policies of Bush administration and this was to remove the Baathist regime in Iraq.
It did not, however, attack other countries such as North Korea or Libya or Iran. This is because of the interests that it had. In the attack, democracy was to be achieved by force in Iraq. In other words, the foreign policy of the United States is democratic in nature.
On the other hand, according to liberalism, decisions to ratify force (to initiate democracy) are made based on differences that exist between countries that are democratic and countries that are non-democratic.
Thus it is the ideologies that exist in a country, the beliefs and the views to the world operations are the guiding factors on whether to go to war or not. This is different from the realists who see financial, political and bureaucratic motives of the elites as the reasons for going to war.
Liberalism theory believes that the spread of democratic principles can lead to peace in the whole world. They argue that countries that uphold democratic principles are usually peaceful compared to countries that are ruled by authoritarian regimes.
In addition to this, the liberals argue that economic interdependence among countries can promote peace too. This is because countries that are cooperating or depending on each other economically cannot go to war against each other because this would destroy both economically.13
According to liberals, states are the main actors in international matters and relations and not any other organization such as international corporations. According to liberals, the United States fear that Iraq could attack it and its allies because the ruler in Iraq was a dictator is one reason it attacked Iraq first.
Secondly, it attacked Iraq because US’s security, security of other nations, and the rights of the Iraqis could only be derived through democracy. This means that the security for the whole world can be achieved when democracy is spread in the whole world.
Security for the world can also be attained through trade and regulation of conflicts by international organizations. The liberals thus propose that force can be used to remove dictators from power and this will enable enhancement of freedom and thus democracy.
In Iraq, this is what happened according to many people. A dictator, Saddam Hussein, was removed from power and the Iraqis gained democracy.
Democracy cannot be achieved by force
Even though most nations (especially in the western world) have been able to achieve forceful democracy, there are some regions where forced democracy has failed.
Currently Americans have different opinions about the idea of promoting democracy.14 Even though most people believe that the aim of the US foreign policy should be focused on endorsing democracy, there is unwillingness to make its promotion a key theme in their foreign policy as well as an opposition to the use of military force or threats to achieve democracy.
Concurrently, the Americans believe they have a moral obligation of promoting democracy.15 There is a considerable support for cooperative approaches to promote democracy and involving the United Nations.
There are people who would prefer to promote democracy in more friendly dictatorial countries regardless of whether it may result into unfriendly governments.
Most people approve putting public and diplomatic pressure to respect the fundamental human rights. In 2005, the Americans resisted the recommendation of George w. Bush to make democracy promotion as the Central American policy.
Evidently, Iraq and Iran have indicated unsuccessful instances where force was applied to establish democracy. Despite the US’s efforts to restore democracy in the region, some instances of impartiality can be noticed within the region.
The main purpose of democracy is creating reason and order in the society. However, when forced it could result into even more chaos, like in Israel and Palestine.
Here the Israelites were given land (by the US), which the Palestinians claimed to be theirs. Consequently, there has been a constant war between the two countries. There are other countries which cannot keep democracy whether forceful or peaceful.
Russia is a typical example where capital revolution rather than democracy has taken its deeper roots.16 In the majority of the undeveloped countries, democracy is difficult to sustain. In most cases, in smaller countries with already established set of cultures or government, when democracy is forced upon them it is more likely to backfire.
In this case democracy will lead to tyranny17. Democracy has failed in America, majorly, because the government gets involved too much in the activities of businesses like Microsoft. It imposes lots or restrictions which limit what can be done by the company thus hindering the value of democracy within these businesses.
Even if democracy is forced on some countries, leaders still manipulate their way into dictatorship with impunity. Ngo Diem from the republic of Vietnam was a leader who never liked the public elections idea.
When he was forced to establish and agree to the democracy of holding public elections, he organized it in a way that favored his victory. In this case, he sent soldiers in plainclothes into the districts of his opponents to make sure that he wins.
This shows that democracy was still not yet exercised. The concerned election was not a free and fair. Precisely, the democratic society idea has changed and evolved over the past years to fit the country and its citizens.
Even if not everybody is willing to accept a democratic government easily, there should be willingness of all parties involved.
Democracy has succeeded in some countries simply because people have decided to exercise democracy rather than using force to impose it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, using force in spreading democracy is often necessary in most cases; however, it is not a vital success element. Democracy is changing regularly, not just for the citizens but also for the period it takes place.
As evident earlier, democracy can be achieved through force in some cases; nonetheless, force never gives positive results in other instances.
This is a critical provision when considered critically in the context of democracy and its promotional events. Every government should embrace democracy to give its citizens their necessary freedoms and rights.
Bibliography
Aron, R, Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations, Transactions Publishers, New Brunswick, 2003.
Art, RJ & K, Waltz. The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, 2003..
Barkawi, T & M Laffey. Democracy, Liberalism, and War: Rethinking the Democratic Peace Debate, Lynne Rienner Publ, Boulder, 2001.
Benjamin, P, The Foreign Policy Disconnect: What Americans Want from Our Leaders but Don’t Get, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2006.
Botscher, J, Neorealist Assessment of India’s Look East Policy, Grin Verlag, London, 2011.
Bulliet, R, The Earth and Its People: A Global History, Cengage Wadsworth, Boston, 2011.
Bundu, A, Democracy by Force?: (a Study of International Military Intervention in the Civil War in Sierra Leone from 1991-2000, Universal Publication, Parkland, 2001.
Carter, A, Direct Action and Democracy Today, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2004.
D’Anieri, PJ, International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston, 2012.
Fortmann, MT & JJ, Wirtz, Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2004.
Gilbert, A, Must Global Politics Constrain Democracy?: Great-power Realism, Democratic Peace, and Democratic Internationalism, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1999.
Hobson, J, Imperialism: A Study, Cosimo, New York, 2005.
Lambert, A, Democratic Civilian Control of Armed Forces in the Post-Cold War Era, LIT, Münster, 2008.
Rousseau, DL, Identifying Threats and Threatening Identities: The Social Construction of Realism and Liberalism, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2006.
Traub, J, The Freedom Agenda: Why America Must Spread Democracy (just Not the Way George Bush Did), Straus and Giroux, New York, 2009.
Varas, A, Democracy Under Siege, Greenwood, Westport, 1989.
Footnotes
1 A Bundu, Democracy by Force?: (a Study of International Military Intervention in the Civil War in Sierra Leone from 1991-2000, Universal Publication, Parkland, 2001, p. 65.
2 T Barkawi & M Laffey. Democracy, Liberalism, and War: Rethinking the Democratic Peace Debate, Lynne Rienner Publ, Boulder, 2001, p. 73.
3 P Benjamin, The Foreign Policy Disconnect: What Americans Want from Our Leaders but Don’t Get, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2006, p. 23.
4 A Veras, Democracy Under Siege, Greenwood, Westport, 1989, p. 45.
5 PJ D’Anieri, International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston, 2012, p. 86.
6 J Botscher, Neorealist Assessment of India’s Look East Policy, Grin Verlag, London, 2011, p. 36.
7 R Bulliet, The Earth and Its People: A Global History, Cengage Wadsworth, Boston, 2011, p. 67.
8 R Art & K Waltz, The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, 2003, p. 25.
9 J Traub,The Freedom Agenda: Why America Must Spread Democracy (just Not the Way George Bush Did), Straus and Giroux, New York, 2009, p. 50.
10 A Gilbert, Must Global Politics Constrain Democracy?: Great-power Realism, Democratic Peace, and Democratic Internationalism, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1999, p. 97.
11 MT Fortmann & JJ Wirtz, Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2004, p. 64.
12 A Carter, Direct Action and Democracy Today, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2004, p. 60.
13 A Gilbert, Must Global Politics Constrain Democracy?: Great-power Realism, Democratic Peace, and Democratic Internationalism, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1999.
14 DL Rousseau, Identifying Threats and Threatening Identities: The Social Construction of Realism and Liberalism, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2006.
15 A Lambert, Democratic Civilian Control of Armed Forces in the Post-Cold War Era, LIT, Münster, 2008, P. 467.
16 J Hobson, Imperialism: A Study, Cosimo, New York, 2005.
17 R Aron, Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations, Transactions Publishers, New Brunswick, 2003, p. 25.
Roark envisioned democracy as something that was inevitable for the wellbeing of the nation (25). However, he was not of the opinion that it was inevitably good. There is a dilemma caused by democracy and this, according to the author, is democracy itself. The dilemma exists in the reconciliation of freedom and majority rule.
If the majority is the one that rules, how can there then be true freedom? Majority rule made it possible to have a majority based tyranny that subverts the liberties which constitute an acceptable doctrine in politics. Majority rule, however, in this context, is not interchangeable with mob rule. It does not whatsoever depict a numerical advantage as voting has its limitations and can only account for so much.
Madison, in the federalist papers, cautioned against a monetary majority which is characterized by wealthy property owners who have power over a very large portion of the government hence defeating the purpose of a greater good envisaged by the democratic doctrine (51).
He was very concerned with the numerical majority’s interest being overtaken by those of a monetary majority which could have been largely considered aristocratic. All these concerns raised are genuine and therefore in an effort to understand what true majority democracy is about, one must examine closely what a majority is constituted of.
Discussion
Plato dismissed democracy as mob rule and decided that the problem could not be solved in any manner of way (509). He thus insinuated that, democracy and in turn, a tyranny resulting from this majority was the worst form of leadership any one country could adopt. Thus, the only solution he could conjure up was to have an out-of-world leader who would inevitably be in a position to balance power as it was meant to be.
Another thought is that democracy is simply the will of the majority. Thus, so much time should no be wasted in a bid to discussing the liberties accorded to the minorities as they inevitably lost in the ballot His was simple as it was based on popular sovereignty.
However, does the person that inevitably looses, become the minority? Or is the minority a group of people who are always destined to loose because they have a set of circumstances that do not elevate their status so? If he considered the latter, then his theory is not consistent with what democratic principles hold ideal.
A second weak point in his theory is: what factors did he consider when calculating who the majority is. Was it on a local, state or global scale? The answer then is that the factor that determines how the majority is calculated also determines who the majority is thus punching holes into his theory.
In most aristocratic societies, an absolute leader oppressing his subjects is what drives them to fear. However, in a democratic society, the fear stems from the fact that the majority use their power to suppress the freedoms and rights of the minority. It thus comes to the conclusion that, fear in either case is elicited by legitimate powers.
These powers are accorded by the structure of the government and are used in a systematic and unjust manner to mistreat others. The problem stemming from a democracy, like America, is in the justice system being institutionally skewed to one-sided thinking, thus, it is more complicated than an aristocracy. Therefore it is a problem of the people and their own selves; in this era.
Land is a major source of equality and inequality. In a bid to control the majority of people who own large tracts of land whereas other do not, there is a need for land redistribution. The solution thus lies in federalism as a constitutional order. Federalism has a clear separation of powers and would assist in ensuring that majorities, either monetary or numerical, would not corrupt the entire system as there would be autonomy in every branch.
The doctrine therein is simple; by reducing the chances of establishment of a tyrannical order, the interests of the minorities would be justly protected. By decentralizing power and the functions of government, the wealthy and influential would be prevented from controlling them which is in contrast to them being centralized.
This approach was envisaged by the Author as the best approach to democracy in the future, but he did not oversee the systematic occupation of all political positions by a cartel of the wealthy and influential over a long period of time. The government has largely resembled a monarch and it seems that positions of power are occupied by protégés of their predecessors.
Tocqueville was convinced that in order for prevention of a tyranny of the majority, there was need for a strong and decisive judiciary that would expeditiously endeavor to cap the excesses arising from this tyranny (103). “Restricted within its limits, the power granted to American courts to pronounce on the constitutionality of laws is yet one of the most powerful barriers ever erected against the tyranny of political assemblies” (Tocqueville 104).
Only the judiciary itself has the power to protect the minorities’ rights and freedoms from the control of the majority. Although he predicted that democracy in America could survive due to the uniqueness of the philosophies adopted and also due to land equality that was evident then, he cautioned against two things.
First, he cautioned against the ‘unnatural’ love for money which had the power to make people overlook their civil responsibilities. As is evident today, economic self-interest has led to the abandonment of active involvement in supervision of the democratic order.
The connection between the love for money and democratic inequality is overwhelming. When a person is so into money, they ultimately ignore the political process reducing considerably the chance of a numerical advantage. This is detrimental as it gives way for other people with self interests to use the government to further their agendas.
To curb this, the government should ensure that all citizens are actively involved in the political system and also ensure that the basic needs of a citizen are met so to avoid distractions of any manner. Meeting basic needs does not insinuate free hand outs, but rather the creation of opportunities that make it possible for a person to eke out a basic life.
Secondly, Schlesinger cautioned against individualism (97). This drives citizens, otherwise democratic; to keep off public related issues. When a democratic individual is so bogged up in his own life, it is a fact that they ultimately ignore the public concerns. This creates an avenue for tyrants to ply their trade. It could contribute to others being oppressed since their voices are suppressed by the concerns of a private life.
A person cannot be actively involved in one aspect his life without consequence to the other. There thus needs to be a balance between private and public life. The government should therefore challenge its citizens continuously so as to elicit interest in the political process and ensure active participation of all citizens and discourage tyranny.
The structure of the American government should thus be reevaluated to weed out the corrupt few whose dealings are only focused on the satisfaction of their own interests. In the same respect, there must be no individual or single group that is allowed to have absolute influence on any political issue or process.
Citizens should also be actively involved in all processes as individuals. Forming political associations with the aim of subverting majority rule is also paramount. Advocacy should be on the involvement of each and every person in the political process.
“It naturally follows that these individuals, operating under the guise of enlightened self-interest, will form political associations with the purpose of both forming and resisting majority rule” (Welch 95). Citizens not only need to be involved but also enlightened to elicit self-interest.
Conclusion
The way out of any democratic stalemate is negotiation and not violence as is witnessed in many areas around the world. America may be considered as performing relatively well in terms of true democracy, however, there is more that needs to be done.
Tocqueville proposed a dual mechanism that aims at striking a balance between inclusive political processes and mechanisms. This balance could be essential in the control of the social processes.
There is therefore need for the government to develop avenues that allow people to give their views and not be secluded. This inclusivity would go a long way in ensuring that all protests, opinions and views should not only be seen to be heard but also acted on to avoid violent means.
Works Cited
Madison, James, Hamilton, Alexander & Jay, John, The Federalist: A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States. New York: Random House, 1967
Plato. The Republic, Translated by Grube G.M.A. and Revised by Reeve, C.D.C. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992
Roark, Eric. Tocqueville’s Fix: Solving the Riddle of Democracy with Enlightened Self-Interest. Columbia: University of Missouri, viewed on 29 April, 2011
Schlesinger, Arthur. Individualism and Apathy in Tocqueville’s Democracy. London: Rudgers University Press, 1988
Tocqueville de Alexis. Democracy in America. Edited by Mayer, J.P George and translated by Lawrence, George. New York: HarperCollins, 1969
Welch, Cheryl. De Tocqueville. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001
The developmental undertakings within a nation that undergoes nontrivial transitions in democracy are directly analyzed. In countries where democracy dominates are established to develop rapidly compared to a priori identical nations, while in countries where democracy is not much practiced economic progress is comparably less.
These variations do not appear to be due to distinctions in investment and education levels. The purpose of this paper is to establish the connection between democracy and economic development.
Democracy and Economic Development
Whether educated or trained in terms of modernization point of view or the chronological stand point, theories explicating the cradle of democracy possess deterministic characteristics.
Contained in the theory of modernity no stimulates or causes democracy, but instead it is generated by economic advances and the consequent changes in the society.
According to Moore in his theory, chronicle can be altered by social strata actors; nevertheless, they maneuver at a distance of generations with the agrarian social stratification structure of the 17th century determining the forms of government embraced in varied countries with reference to two or three centuries later (Mayer, Patterson & Thames, p. 299, para 3).
Author’s View
With reference to Przeworski outline of phenomenological observations, this deterministic stress resulted to a view of all methodologies being extraneous whenever an issue regarding democratization was presented in political forums during the 1970s period.
The heroes in the democratic battles did not and could not be persuaded that the destiny of their nations would based either on the contemporary levels of progress and advancement or by the far-away past events.
They held that, even though within confinements, democratization was a repercussion of actions, and not just states. Thus, some initiatives were taught based on actors and plans instead of being enlightened in terms of deterministic situations (Mayer, Patterson & Thames, p. 302, para 2).
This paper’s makes inferences that profoundly justify the later perspective. The surfacing of egalitarianism is not a derivative of growth in the economic sphere. Democratic system is or is not founded by political figures undertaking their ends, and it may be instigated at any developmental point.
It is after establishment that economic problems becomes active and can be held responsible, hence the probability of democratic system to survive is higher when the country’s economic development is at a reputable position.
Hitherto even the most recent country’s wealth status is not crucial: egalitarianism is by far likely to endure in an economy that is progressive with below $1,000 revenue per capita compared to where revenue ranges between $1,000 and $2,000 that diminishes in economic terms.
If these two nations or countries make it in secreting progress, it is very possible for democracies even in the poorest countries to endure recession (Mayer, Patterson & Thames, p. 305, para 8).
Personal Opinion
Basing the argument from this stand point, the idea of the link between progress and egalitarianism that subjugated the intellectual attitude and served to familiarize U.S abroad measures during cold war seems in a bizarre manner complicated.
Even though Lip set viewed economic development as an exogenous variable, his colleagues were convinced that authoritarianism is the unavoidable cost that brought by development. Galenson asserts that the self-governed a regime is, the higher the degree of resources dissemination from savings to the expenditure.
According to arguments posited by De Schweinitz, if the underdeveloped nations are to economically develop, restriction of their democratic contribution in political issues becomes mandatory. Accordingly, for development to be realized, despotism plays a fundamental role (Mayer, Patterson & Thames, p. 304, para 5).
Conclusion
Conclusively, since this paper supposes that despotism causes economic development which in turn yields democracy, it becomes then logical to claim that the most suitable approach to democracy is a meandering one. In addition, commonsense shows that for democracy to be strong it is individual citizens to reinforce it through despotism rejection at all cost.
Therefore, at least with modernity most long-lasted despotic regimes especially in the Eastern region of Europe in the end collapses. Most of the nations established recently, many of which are languishing in absolute poverty even after being granted sovereignty, are still drowning in poverty with the few that resisted development still retaining dictatorship (Mayer, Patterson & Thames, p. 301, para 1).
Reference
Mayer, L., Patterson, D., & Thames, F. (2009). Contending Perspectives in Comparative Politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Democracy is type of political administration in which the governing individuals of a country are voted in by the people (Dahl, 2003). The people have basically equal say when it comes to making the laws that govern their country.
In addition, democracy goes to the extent of allowing the society to overrule verdicts that have been passed by the legislative body. These verdicts may revolve around economy, social and cultural factors (Dahl, 2003).
For a nation to be termed as democratic, it should have fundamental civil liberties for all kinds of people residing in that nation, and distinction of authorities between the organizations of the country. These organizations are usually the judiciary, legislature and the executive.
A democratic government should also have liberty of expression; this means that all the individuals should be allowed to air their thoughts. Furthermore, it should put the interest of the society without favouritism first. At the appropriate age, the citizens should be allowed to choose their representative through a fair election.
Lastly, every citizen should be allowed to worship in whichever manner they wish as long as there will not be a conflict of interest. All these factors should be written down in a constitution of that particular state (Arendt, 1993).
Currently, there is proof of democracy in United States of America. From the 2008 elections, we realize that every citizen had an equal right to vote for their desired representative of the state. Apart from that, the elections were fair and free from fraud or any irregularities. In thee U.S constitution, there is a bill of right which ensures that every citizen is treated fairly by corporations or other fellow citizens (William, 1962).
There are various kinds of democracy. The three main types of democracy are: semi direct, direct, and indirect democracy. Other types of democratic systems stem from these three.
Direct democracy is a type of democracy in which the citizens contribute directly in the decision making processes of a nation. Besides, the citizens influence the executive, legislative and judicial powers of a country without the use of intermediaries. In the indirect democracy, ruling is done by the use of an elected body to act as their representative.
On the other hand, the semi direct democracy is a type of democracy which contains both the rudiments of direct and indirect democracy. A good example of semi direct democracy is deliberative; this is a type of democracy which combines both the direct and representative components (Arthur, 1996).
In indirect democracy, representatives are not chosen by the society but are haphazardly selected from the community. The best examples of indirect democracy are the representative and the parliamentary types of democracy. Representative is a type of democracy in which societies choose a body which makes implementations and decisions on behalf of the society. On the other hand, parliamentary democracy is the one which the country’s rulers are elected by the members of parliament (Arthur, 1996).
United States of America has a representative type of democracy; the state elects a body of people who represents the entire society in matters relating to their interests such as political, economical, culture and social (Dahl, 2003).
In conclusion, there are many other types of democracy not discussed here. They include cosmopolitan, religious, Supranational, Consensus, social and inclusive democracy. Democracy is not only political; it involves all factors that affect an individual in a nation (Dahl, 2003). Such other factors may be related to education, health and corporate governance.
References
Arendt, H. L. (1993). What is Freedom? Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. New York: Penguin.
Arthur, W. C. (1996). Liberisation and the problem of knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dahl, R. A. (2003). The Democracy Sourcebook. Chicago: MIT.
William, R. H. (1962). The Theory of Political Coalition. New York: Yale University press.
Americans have the power to elect a leader who they deem fit to lead them. The population elects its desired leader based on the policies and political manifestos that points out on what such leaders would do for them once in office. Normally, this is the right time to put in power a party with a vision for America.
In the next general elections, I will be voting for the Democrats because the party has a leader who has a spirit to make a better tomorrow for the Americans by creating jobs, improving healthcare, taxation policies among other things. One of the most comprehensive strengths is the health care policy that has been introduced by the Democrats.
In my personal opinion, the Republican Party is on the line again to mislead people so that they can get their votes. We require political scientists to educate and guide people on political issues especially on issues of diversity as people have little information on the role of diversity.
This fact has been noted by Kanthak and Krause (842) who assert that ”political scientists are keenly interested in how diversity influences politics, yet we know little about how diverse groups of political actors interact.” When the Republicans were in power, there were allegations of inhuman treatment especially in Iraq. A good example is the torture of prisoners at Abu Graib prisons by American soldiers.
The Republicans insist on a single party system of government. This sounds more of dictatorial than plain governance. During the past year when America had only one party to rule, the ordinary citizens had nobody to represent their claims in the government (Besley, Persson and Sturm 1341). All over the world, single party governance is associated with dictatorial and lack of respect for human rights. Sinlge party leadership also lacks respect for voter’s rights.
Another issue that makes me detest the Republican was their policy on the war in Iraq. This war claimed the lives of many American soldiers and although they are currently compensated, the government took unnecessarily long time before the compensation was done. The delayed pay can be attributed to the lack of touch with the populace that characterized the Republican leadership.
According to Kanthak and Krause (844), the afflictions of the Iraq veterans can be equated to the problems of being from a minority group, since the government had other issues to address at the expense of the soldiers. They quote that “…..group size affects how members of a political organization differentially value majority and minority group colleagues…” (Kanthak and Krause 844). In this case, this party has no point in promising peace to the American citizens.
By the time the Democrats took over office form the republicans, the American economy was suffering from one of its worst depressions which, according to some financial analyst, was caused by unsound financial policies.
Led by President Obama and the Federal Reserves leader Ben Bernanke, the republican aggressively saved the Americans from incurring further losses due to their urgency in arresting the problem. This is an indication that the Democrats have the interest of the people at heart as opposed to the leaders of the Republican Party.
The Democrats argue that the Democrat political party was formed with an aim of ensuring that America is not ruled by wealth and privilege, but rather by the value of hard work and justice. America became the World’s number one country by giving the citizens an opportunity to write their own constitution to govern them and by rewarding their hardwork and not the greed.
The Democrats are promising to fight the greed attitude and take the economy of the country where it ought to be. At the same time, the party is fighting to provide the people with the necessary information on the voting rights and protection of a voter.
Although it is true that I support the Democratic Party, I do not underscore the importance of having other parties as the main challengers. There is a need to have political competition in order to boost economic growth.
Whereas I have my own personal issues with policies of the Republicans, its role in ensuring that the Democrats deliver to the populace cannot be ignored. Besley, Persson and Sturm (1333) notes that the role of a competing party cannot be ignored as single party leadership appears to be less development conscious.
In their work Besley, Persson and Sturm (1333) write, ”… we find robust evidence that lack of political competition in a state is associated with anti-growth policies: higher taxes, lower capital spending, and a reduced likelihood of using right-to-work laws. We also document a strong link between low political competition and low income growth.”
While assuming office, the Democrats promised to put in place policies that would ensure that the financial position of the people was improved. It is important to note that due to the harsh economic times, most of the Americans are opting to delay their retirement dates as this is seen as the only way to guarantee a comfortable future. This is an indication that the financial position of the American people has deteriorated after the economic crunch.
Although the problem was quickly addressed by the Democrats once they assumed office, there are areas that need to be improved. The confidence that Obama’s government accrued to itself after it reversed the economic trends during the period of economic crisis makes them have a huge following of Americans as people are still optimistic that their financial positions will improve.
Through the American Jobs Act, the Democrats promises to put more people to work and give them fare remuneration. These include the teachers and construction workers. Employment of construction workers would be of great benefit to the overall infrastructural sector as a big section of the roads in America requires to be repaired and others constructed afresh. America has highly qualified engineers and construction workers who can plan and renovate the transport and communication networks.
In this way, these workers will earn a substantial amount of money for their living and also this will help ease the congestion in the busy roads and airways. With an improved infrastructural network, various companies will easily and conveniently sell their goods in the local market and also abroad in the international market.
Further, the Democrats proposed that every company that hires a worker or raises the salaries of its workers will get tax subsidies. Offering tax incentives to the businesses is a perfect way of ensuring that the entire economy is not stagnated as the efforts of the government will be supplemented by the private sector (Cooper et al 691). By so doing, they will encourage managers of these companies to employ more people with an aim of cutting down on the tax expense.
Similarly, the taxation rates for the small businesses will be lowered and as a result, these businesses have chances of expanding into large businesses or companies and thus create more employment opportunities for the citizens of America. By so doing, the government of the United States of America will encourage more investors to invest their money into the available businesses or even start new ones and thus improve the economy.
The Democrat leaders have a great as far as education is concerned. Although they took office while the No Child Left Behind Act was already operational, their roles in ensuring that the act is followed to the latter has shown immense positive results. Aghion et al (12), the current administration ahs provided the avenues that lacked before for effective governance of education affairs.
Nicholson and Heit (1509) further assert that the role of the current leadership in effective provision of the needed impetus for effective implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. This also gives me another reason to opt to vote for the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans.
It is important to note that the American soldiers risk their lives fighting for the freedom of their families and the nation as a whole. Thus, it is important that these war veterans are well taken care off once they leave the military.
Ethically, it is wrong for such people to lack job opportunities and the chance to enjoy peace, despite their sacrifices for the nation. In its pursuit of service delivery to its citizens, the Democrats have promised to create more job opportunities for the veterans who get back home safe (Schreiber 630).
Contrary to the Republican leaders, the Democrats should emphasize on the importance of good relations and peace with other countries such as Iraq and understand the religions of other people to avoid conflicts. It is important that religious diversity is respected in international affairs.
The Democrats have managed to be more objective in respecting religious diversity unlike the Republican leadership that, according to Froese and Mencken (110), lacked respect for diversity. According to Froese and Mencken (110), “Bush’s presentation of the Iraq War highlights the religious relevance of the war with numerous references to God, religious faith, and the Bible.”
In conclusion, it is worth noting that based on the overwhelming win that characterize the 2008 elections, majority of the Americans supports the Democrats policies on overall governance of the country.
This is the kind of leadership for Americans, a leadership that understands the needs of its citizens and cares for them. Leaders should be on the leading line to campaign for peace among nations. War is not the solution to all the differences that occur, but results to more harm than good. At times, diplomacy would work better as compared to missiles.
A lot of money is used by the government to buy these weapons of war and to cater for its soldiers. These funds could be used to in other projects such as education. This fact was noted by Martin Luther King, Jr. who quotes ”A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom” (Hoffman, 452).
Works Cited
Aghion Philippe, Dewatripont Mathias, Hoxby Caroline, Colell Mas-Andreu and Sapir Andre’. The governance and performance of universities: evidence from Europe and the US. Economic Policy.25 (61) Pp7-59. 2010. Print.
Besley,Timothy, Persson Torsten and Sturm M. Daniel. Political Competition, Policy and Growth: Theory and Evidence from the US. Review of Economic Studies.77 (4) Pp1329–1352. 2010. Print.
Cooper ,J. Michael, Gulen Huseyin and Ovtchinnikov. Corporate Political Contributions and Stock Returns. The Journal of Finance. 65 (2). Pp. 687-724. 2010. Print.
Froese, Paul and Mencken F. Carson. A U.S. Holy War? The Effects of Religion on Iraq War Policy Attitudes. Social Science Quarterly. 90 (1). Pp. 103–116. 2009. Print.
Hoffman, Michael. What explains attitudes across US trade policies? Public choice. 138(3- 4). Pp 447-460. 2009. Print.
Kanthak Kristin and Krause A. George. Valuing Diversity in Political Organizations: Gender and Token Minorities in the U.S. House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science. 54 (4). Pp 839-854. 2010. Print.
Nicholson P. Stephen and Heit Evan. The Opposite of Republican: Polarization and Political Categorization. Cognitive Science. 34 (8). Pp. 1503-1516. 2010. Print.
Schreiber, Darren. Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans. Journal of Political Science. 54 (4). Pp. 624-639.
Modernization refers to a process through which a society improves its socials aspects and economic and political capabilities. On the other hand, democracy refers to the vesting power on the people so that they can exercise it directly and independently through various means.
Economic enhancement is attained through industrialization while political capabilities improve through the process of bureaucratization (Inglehart, 1997). The issue regarding the correlation between modernization and democracy has undergone endlessly debates.
There exists a close relationship between democracy and modernization. Modernization facilitates the conditions conducive for development. A combination of various aspects of the society plays a vital role in the process of modernization, which must include democratization to be complete.
An analysis of varied cultural aspects demonstrates that some cultures are more conducive to processes of modernization and democratization compared to others. An analysis of Catholicism and Protestantism clearly demonstrates this phenomenon. The idea of modernity first emerged in protestant countries considering their early modernization. On the other hand, countries practicing Catholicism modernized and democratized late (Wucherpfennig & Deutsch, 2009).
This aspect and the time lag factor concerning the onset of the process of modernization have led to the cold reception of democratic transformation in some countries. This confirms the historical experience which tends to indicate that late modernizing societies have had delayed democratization.
Late modernizing countries encountering underdevelopment in terms of the economic, infrastructural and other aspects have the state playing a central role in the society especially concerning the economic life. This, to some extent, delays the emergence of economic independence. As a result, there is hindrance to democratization because an independent middle class is crucial in the realization of a functioning and stable democracy.
A democratic system is crucial for sufficient development to occur in any society. Lack of democracy hampers development and make is considerably difficult to preserve the results of the already achieved development. Almost all human endeavors aim at attaining freedom and thus democracy.
The process of modernization affects almost all aspects of life. In this regard, it brings about occupational specialization, urbanization, enhanced education and economic growth among others. These changes initiate a self-reinforcing process, which causes various changes in the society. Of all the changes, the most significant are the transformation in social life and political institutions.
In this regard, there is mass participation in various aspects such as politics, which lead to the establishment of democratic political institutions (Berman, 2009). Democracy entails the socio-economic conditions that create and maintain an environment that supports democracies. In order to promote democracy, modernization, which is largely the socio-economic development, is essential.
Improved socio-economic status brings about emphasis on value of self-expression and increased priority to freedom of choice. In this regard, the public desires democracy and attempts to repress such demands have adverse effects especially on economic effectiveness (Fukuyama, 1995). In addition, modernization produces changes in the worldviews of the societies that have experienced it.
Regarding religion, which is a central component in various aspects of our lives and influences democracy, modernization makes it less influential. The worldview of people who do not attach much importance to religion is not as restrictive as that of the people who regard religion highly. Modernization, which entails economic development, facilitates trust, tolerance, political activism, gender equality and the freedom of expression.
It facilitates long-term social and cultural transformations. All these factors enhance democracy. Modernization enhances independence and abilities of people motivating their demand for democracy as it increases emphasis on self-expression values, which is a central component of democracy in any society.
Therefore, there is a close relationship between modernization, self-expression values and democracy. People attain freedom through socio-economic endowment an aspect considerably facilitated by modernization. When people are fully dependent on a central power to cater for their various needs, their freedom of self-expression and thus democracy becomes compromised. In this regard, they are unable to demand for the respect on human rights, justice and participation in government matters.
However, with an independent class of people who are aware of their rights, there is more vigilance on how the relevant authorities handle matters affecting the people (Przeworski & Limongi, 1997). This large independent population has at its disposal effective means through which they can ensure that their demands are addressed.
Individuals gain such power through modernization, which brings about changes in various aspects of the common man’s life. History indicates that they were more leaders that were dictatorial in the early years of modernization owing to the poor socio-economic endowment during that era. Since the people mostly depended on a central power to address all their issue, those in power exploited the opportunity to oppress their subjects excessively.
During that time, people rarely questioned the authority, as they were more concern about accessing basic needs. As modernity grew and various opportunities opened up for people to improve their lives, uprisings against oppressive leadership started to emerge in various parts of the world.
Even today, there are leaders that are more oppressive in the developing countries as compared to the developed world. Analysts have attributed this phenomenon to the late onset of modernization in developing countries and thus a significant number of people still dependent on the state to cater for most of their needs. The considerable level of modernization in the developed countries has boosted self-expression values and thus the high level of democracy in these countries.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Confucianism and Democracy. Democracy and Human Rights, 6(2), 20-33.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: cultural, economic, and Political change in 43 societies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.