At the beginning of the 19th century, two significant parties appeared on the American political field. They were the Democratic Party (1824) and the Republican Party (1854). The development of these two parties made the United States of America one of those nations, where two different ideologies were supported on a national level and had equal access to executive power that they used alternately.
The Democratic Party and the Republican Party have many differences in their colours, stands, philosophies, and symbols, but they are united by one strong goal that is to make the United States of America the most powerful nation and provide its citizens with the opportunities to live wealthy and happily.
First of all, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have different symbols and colours that make them memorable for the population. The democratic donkey is considered to be a symbol that signifies something “humble, homely, smart, courageous and loveable” (Anderson 44).
However, the Republicans think that the democratic donkey is nothing more than a stubborn and silly animal. On their turn, Democrats regard the republican elephant as a stupid and conservative symbol that does not underline American supremacy and uniqueness, and the Republicans admit that their elephant how “dignified, strong and intelligent” (Anderson 44) this animal is and how precisely it underlines the Americans’ nature.
In spite of the fact that the division of colours is informal and unofficial, media and public can easily recognize the party according to its colour. Till the year 2000, not much attention has been paid to the colours of the parties. However, the elections of the 43rd President of the United State were under so hot discussions, that the whole political field was divided in accordance with their colours: red states were for George W. Bush and blue states provided Al Gore with the necessary support.
The positions of the parties also differ considerably in various spheres of life. For example, on the economical field, Democrats stand for the empowerment of individual workers in order to strengthen the economy.
Americans have to be provided with the necessary compensation and treatment, and corporate fraud has to be abolished or, at least, controlled by the government. Republicans try to maintain the policies of large companies. In order to develop American corporations, it is crucially important to lower taxes and stimulate corporations but not workers (Long 238).
Social positions of the Democratic and Republican Parties are undergone changes within a short period of time, but still, their different nature is quite noticeable and worthy of attention.
Democrats prove that the idea of personal choice and liberty has to be the most important one in the United States. Only under such conditions, people turn out to be responsible for their thoughts, actions, and outcomes. According to the democratic point of view, the government has to provide people with a chance to choose and make decision independently.
In comparison to such free and undependable position, the ideas of Republicans seem to be rather restrictive, because they propose a strong control over people by the government. Morals and values have to be the same for each citizen, and only the government has enough power and authority to impose people follow certain rules and instructions. Only under such governmental control, the country may achieve great results and success in all spheres of life.
All these differences may create one simple question concerning how these two absolutely different parties may exist within one country, communicate peacefully, and provide the development of their country on different levels and in different spheres of life.
However, when we talk about the similarities of the Democratic and Republican Parties, we have to take into consideration the fact that these parties aim at developing the prosperity and success of the United States. The representatives of these two parties try to offer more and more effective ways in order to create really powerful nation and gain recognition around the whole world.
One more similarity of Democrats and Republicans is not that positive, but still influential: these parties care their business first of all, and only then they start carrying about their people. On my opinion, it is one of those features that are inherent to any political party of any country. However, maybe this very point makes these parties really powerful and reliable for the nation.
In general, “political parties are thus intrinsic to political life and a source of continual internal conflict in all states” (Schramm and Wilson 17). The Democratic and Republican political parties are the two major parties in the United States of America, which, in spite of their numerous differences, aim at promoting America as the most powerful states in the world.
Their philosophies and ideas are so different and even absolutely controversial, but such diversity is the one that provide USA with a chance to choose an appropriate way for success, taking into consideration current events and conditions. The parties supplement each other, and I think that the absence or collapse of one of the parties under consideration may certainly lead to the failure of another.
Democracy is a form of government where all citizens are involved in the process of making important decisions that shape their lives. It gives them equal chances to participate in the process. This is either done indirectly through the elected representatives or directly by the citizens themselves.
The participation involves proposing, developing and creating laws. Democracy includes the economic, social and cultural conditions that allow citizens to equally and freely exercise their political power (Bundu, 2001).
A democratic form of government is contrasted with other forms of governments like a monarchy where the powers are exercised by a single individual or governments where the powers are bestowed upon few individuals.
Examples of such forms of governments include aristocracy or oligarchy (Mackie, 2003). However, the above oppositions that emanated from Greek philosophy elicit controversy since contemporary governments exhibit elements of democracy, monarchy and oligarchy (Lansford, 2007).
Democracy exists in different forms but the basic ones are direct and representative democracies. Both forms focus on the processes through which the citizens exercise their will. Direct democracy fully involves them in the processes of decision making since they are treated as the sovereign power. However, political power in representative democracy is indirectly exercised through elected representatives (Winslow, 2012).
Democracy by Force
Despite the importance of democracy in giving citizens an opportunity to exercise their will, some governments do not embrace it. In such cases, the question remains whether democracy by force should be applied. This is because the efforts made to introduce democratic governance are rendered useless by hostile and negative intentions of selfish leaders who destroy everything.
Such governments leave the rest of the world leaders with no option other than to apply democracy by force. This is done to save citizens of the affected countries instead of leaving them to suffer in the hands of authoritarian leaders (Bohman, 2007). In the absence of democracy, countries experience chaos and civil war, something that compels powerful nations to introduce the concept of democracy by force.
The U.S foreign policies emphasise the importance of promoting international democracy to ensure that citizens of different countries enjoy their freedom. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S government has always been committed towards ensuring that democracy is practiced in every part of the world.
For instance, after the war, Bill Clinton made democratic enlargement the main focus of his administration’s foreign policy. Later, when George Bush took over as the president, he focused on the same issue since it was a key strategy of dealing with terrorism which, according to him, originated from the authoritarian form of governance that was practiced in the Middle East.
As a result, the U.S government invaded Iraq and ousted the administration of Saddam Hussein, which was characterised by oppression. This case was a successful example of democracy by force.
According to neoconservatists, the U.S is morally obligated to enforce democracy in any country since democratic countries do not fight with one another. The authoritarian rule in Iraq was an impediment that prevented liberalisation of the surrounding Arab countries.
Democracy by force was a successful attempt since it removed the oppressive regime that fuelled international terrorism. In addition, stability and liberalisation were boosted in the Arab countries that surrounded Iraq. In this context, democracy by force in Iraq was a success that initiated progress for the country and its neighbors (Hippel, 2000).
Another view held by neoconservatists is that military force is an effective way of achieving democracy in countries ruled by authoritarian leaders. It was not easy to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein and give the citizens a chance to enjoy their freedom.
Democracy by force made it possible for the U.S to bring to an end the reign of the dictator and the oppressive regime that had ruled the country for many years. His removal from power therefore brought freedom to the citizens of Iraq and gave them a chance to enjoy their rights.
It was not possible for the country to progress under the leadership of a leader who was not willing to allow democracy. The concept of democracy by force therefore succeeded in Iraq since the country was liberated and its citizens given a chance to exercise their freedom.
The concept also succeeds in many countries in the sense that it is transferable to all cultures regardless of religious affiliations, social divisions, poverty or lack of experience in handling democratic institutions. This is an idea that is shared by neoconservatists.
Democratic transition is highly influenced by international relations. The success of democracy by force is evident due to the public support that countries like the U.S get in their efforts to enforce it in dictatorial regimes. In addition, the concept has in the recent past been highlighted in academic literature, an indication of its success (Pham, 2005).
Scholars who advocate for democracy point out that democracy by force brings about positive change. This shows its success since it destroys and removes oppressive military and political institutions that operate against popular pressure.
Defeat of the military forces limits the powers of authoritarian leaders and creates new elites who promote democracy. The intervention and occupation measures that democratic powers take increase the costs incurred by the armed forces or other people who use violence to intimidate new regimes.
Consequently, this makes it possible for the new regimes to establish and oversee a military controlled by civilians. This was the case witnessed in Sierra Leone where democracy by force eventually liberated the country (Pham, 2005).
Democracy by force is also successful in the sense that it contributes towards the future success of newly established regimes and reduces their chances of collapsing. One of the privileges that forced democracies enjoy is that they gain access to international resources and links with democratic actors in foreign countries.
In most cases, successful democratic transitions are achieved when authoritarian leaders are removed through democracy by force. Studies conducted by different scholars indicate that there is a strong link between democracy by force and the process of democratisation.
Most existing democracies emanate from deliberate efforts by outside powers to impose democracy where abusive and authoritarian governments exist (Downes, 2012).
Conclusion
Democracy by force is successful in almost all the contexts in which it is applied. This is because the damage that countries suffer in the hands of oppressive leaders is not comparable to the gains associated with democracy by force.
It gives the citizens a chance to enjoy their freedom alongside making it possible for the establishment of new structures that enhance growth in all government sectors. Democracy by force is therefore a successful undertaking in countries where authoritarian regimes reign.
Reference List
Bohman, J 2007, Democracy across borders: from Dêmos to Dêmoi, MIT Press, New York.
Bundu, A 2001, Democracy by Force?: A Study of International Military Intervention in the conflict in Sierra Leone from 1991-2000, Universal Publishers, London.
During several decades, the countries in North Africa are characterized by the prolonged transformations in relation to maintaining the democratic principles in the political and social spheres within the territories. The orientation to democracy is typical for a lot of countries around the world, but the situation in the Maghreb region is more controversial than within the other territories.
Civil wars in the countries of North Africa resulted in the necessity to change the developed political regimes. The discussion of the contemporary situation in Libya can be referred to the arguments presented in the article by John Barger in which the researcher concentrates on predicting the possibilities to build the democratic society in Libya after ceasing the rule of Qadhafi.
In spite of the fact the situation of ceasing Qadhafi’s rule provides the political opposition with a lot of opportunities to change the regime in relation to the democratic basics, there are more limits for the process than advantages because of the impossibility to overcome the social and political apathy and consequences of the previous rule immediately.
Democracy in Libya could not be reached during a long period of time because of the peculiarities of Qadhafi’s regime known as Jamahiriyya. However, today the situation is changed.
What obstacles can prevent the political activists from using the opportunities and building a democracy in the country? According to Barger, the process of democratization can be realized with the help of different organs of civil society used to guarantee the concentration on the people’s rights (Barger 64).
These organs can be established only as a result of forming definite political parties as the symbol of the democratic society. From this point, the exiled opposition to Qadhafi can be discussed as the effective force, but the realization of the idea also depends on a lot of particular limiting features.
Moreover, Barger focuses on the definite apathy and passivity of the exiled opposition forces in spite of the possibility to establish certain organizations oriented to democracy. Thus, these organizations often showed a high degree of “apathy even for the minor roles allowed them by the Libyan state.
After three decades of institutionalized passivity, it is questionable that interest groups will be capable of assuming politically active – or at least effective – roles” (Barger 66). That is why, it is possible to state that in the situation of receiving the opportunity to build a democracy, Libyan political activists can be rather helpless to mobilize their forces and establish the effective political system based on the democratic principles.
However, the new approaches to the Libyan politics can be used by the Islamists who can establish the alternative regime. Barger accentuates that “any successful future political settlement in Libya will have to include the Islamists who … have demonstrated their ability to disrupt any political order of which they do not approve” (Barger 71). Nevertheless, the Libyan political system requires significant transformations, and there are no opposition forces which are sufficient enough to complete the transformations in short terms.
The contemporary situation in Libya and the analysis of John Barger’s arguments presented in the article allow speaking about the impossibility to establish a democracy in the country quickly. However, the orientation to the multi-party politics can be discussed as the effective strategy for the further development of Libya according to the democratic ideas and principles.
Works Cited
Barger, John. “After Qadhafi: Prospects for Political Party Formation and Democratisation in Libya”. The Journal of North African Studies 4.1 (1999): 62-77. Print.
Democracy is a word often used to refer to being ruled or governed by “the people.” Democratic societies base everything, crucial state decisions, control, and policy formulation upon the people. This is contrary to communist societies where everything is controlled by the government.
Interestingly, even communist nations like China claim to be democratic. Democracy gives power to the people and not their representatives. It puts the interest of the majority and minority in public administration and gives no room for leaders to practice individualist and selfish leadership.
The openness of democracy has many advantages and is the principal reason that has continued to push many nations to fight for democratic leadership. In the last decade, many countries moved from being non-democratic to being democratic. Considering this trend, it is possible to predict that all recognized counties in the world could attain democratic leadership, something that has been deemed impossible for centuries.
Even though some Middle East countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine are still non-democratic, it is just a matter of time before they can become democratic. This is not an outrageous claim considering the pressure non-governmental organizations, and human rights groups in these countries have been putting on the respective governments to adopt democratic leadership.
The fight for democracy in these countries cannot be belittled. Democracy ensures accountability of leaders (Mitchell 2). This, therefore, gives the people authority over public funds. They can question how their funds are used, influence government spending, revenue collection, and trade policies.
Democratic countries also have good international standing, which enhances their trade ties with other countries. Generally, democratic nations have a better chance of achieving significant economic growth as compared to non-democratic nations.
Non-democratic countries have tried so hard to maintain the status quo. Protesters, human rights activist, and the media face threats in these countries for voicing the need for democratic government. Many have been executed, others detained, others tortured, and others have been forced to flee the countries for fear of their precious lives.
These governments resort to the use of uncodified rules to instill fear among the people and to make them submit to authoritarian leadership. Freedom of expression and human rights are vocabularies to these non-democratic governments. By refusing to allow free expression, they have succeeded, until now, in denying the people democratic government. Freedom of expression is pivotal in the fight for human rights and democracy.
It gives the chance for existence of uncontrolled press, free flow of information, the sanctity of citizens’ opinion and embraces free speech. The freedom of expression is integral to other rights, civil and political. It is designed to support, protect, and enhance democratic governance. These non-democratic governments are aware of the power of the freedom of expression and hence the fight to thwart it.
Despite the limitations and endless efforts by these non-democratic governments to maintain the status quo, the fight for democracy has continued to gain momentum with each passing day. The fight for democracy is both complex and demanding. Thomas claims, “There is a question which is deep and fundamental and which I am afraid we are inclined to ignore; that is the question-how to fight for democracy” (58).
He further claims, “The method men commonly use in fighting allegedly for democracy has not proved to be overwhelmingly successful…” (58). The fight for democracy in the Middle East non-democratic nations has taken different fonts. First and most importantly, the human rights activists have often resorted to street protests at a great cost. The protesters have witnessed gross human rights violations meted against them by the authoritarian governments.
In Iraq, for instance, many protesters have been shot with live bullets killing many instantly. Kennedy, a Middle East AOL News correspondent, reported that the Iraq police killed six people on “the day of rage” protests marked on February 6, 2011. There have been many other attacks targeting human rights activists aimed at scaring them to submit to the governments.
Interestingly, these attacks have continued to spur wide spread support for their course. Many people have joined the human rights activists including University students. This has given the activists the much-needed momentum and morale to continue pushing for democratic leadership.
The activists have also sought the support of democratic nations to intervene and save the situation before it can get out of hand. Since many countries have achieved democratic government through blood shade and loss of human lives, such nations are a good inspiration to the activists. By seeking the support of these nations, activists in the Middle East countries believe they can get indirect of direct support in their fight for democracy.
The United States of America and the United Kingdom have provided a lot of support to these nations. At times when the lives of these activists are threatened, the western nations have been ready to provide asylum to them. In Bahrain, for instance, those opposed to the ruling family’s leadership “fear retribution and are claiming asylum in Europe” (Parvaz).
However, this intervention has faced great challenges from developed non-democratic countries that continue to support these governments. Counties such as China and Iran have continued to support these non-democratic governments thereby leading to continued resistance for change (Dominick 247).
The media have also been a critical tool in the fight for democracy. The activists have continued to use the media to air their grievances to the international community. Despite state control of media houses, the fight for democratic rule has not stopped as activists have resorted to using alternative means such as the internet, social media, and international media such as the BBC, and CNN.
These media houses have not disappointed. They have continued to air the grievances and unjust activities of these governments to the world. This has made their reporters to be targeted as the enemy of the people. There have been cases of journalists being arrested, tortured, or even killed by the regimes.
In 2011, for instance, more than 11 journalists were killed in Afghanistan alone (Plunkett). Ahmed Omed Khpulwak, who worked as a news reporter with BBC, was amongst those killed in the insurgent attacks. His death was described as “unspeakable tragedy shared by whole BBC family,” (Plunkett). Despite the losses, the international media have not stopped highlighting the filth in these nations.
Seeking the support of the international community through the United Nations is another avenue that has been exploited to help achieve democracy in these nations. Western states have thus attempted to intervene by imposing trade sanctions, punitive actions, and in some cases like in Iraq, military intervention.
Despite the will to support these nations by the western states, successful non-democratic states have continued to act as the obstacle to achieving democratic rule in these nations. The United Nations Security Council, which is responsible for enforcing the rule of law and promoting human rights in the world, is comprised of member states who must vote to adopt any resolution.
The People’s Republic of China is a member of the Security Council. China has frequently frustrated efforts to install democratic leadership in these nations by voting against any such resolutions. Worst, it has continued to trade with nations such as Iraq despite trade sanctions.
The non-democratic states in the Middle East deserve democratic rule. In the current world, two forms of democratic governance are considered most appropriate; that is, a parliamentary democracy and direct democracy (Goldwin and Kaufman 65). In parliamentary democracy, citizens take part in elections where they vote for leaders they believe will air their grievances and help in policy formulations that favor them.
These leaders then join the legislative assembly where crucial decisions are made to help in governing the nation. This is the form of democracy widely used around the world. Many Western nations France, Germany, Spain, and the United States of America have adopted this form of government.
The success of this democracy in the Western world has seen the West pushing for its adoption in the Middle East. Direct democracy, on the other hand, stipulates that members of the public take the responsibility of making state decisions themselves by voting before any decision is made. Such elements are associated with lower level governing units such as counties.
However, a few states have adopted direct democracy despite its costliness. Some forms of democracies are representative of the people and provide room for freedom of the people than others. As such, a representative democracy can be the best solution for the Middle East countries wallowing in dictatorial regimes.
This will ensure that the people elect their representatives and the president. In order to win a re-election campaign, elected leaders often try to follow the wishes of the people. The system should also be structured to avoid any branch of the government from altering the constitution to enable them bypass the people in making any crucial decisions or enacting essential policies.
Such tendencies have been witnessed in other parts of the world and cannot be ruled out. After voting for a new constitution in a referendum, greedy and selfish leaders find their way around the corrupt and inefficient justice corridors and change the constitution to further their selfish ambitions.
If a stable democracy in the Middle East is to be achieved, constitutional amendments must be pushed for to create space for democratic leadership. However, keeping the process on course requires vigilance and stringent constitutional amendment policies to deter any attempts by leaders to alter the constitution to favor them.
The need for democratic leadership in the current world cannot be understated. It is the right of every citizen to be governed by the leaders of their choice in the manner they want. This choice of government and participation in policy formulation is only possible through democratic leadership.
As such, adopting democratic rule gives power to the people and should be promoted. Despite strong resistance from the Middle East leaders and other developed non-democratic states, the fight for democratic leadership should not be abandoned, as this could be betrayal to those who have lost their lives in the fight.
Works Cited
Dominick, Joseph R.. The dynamics of mass communication: media in the digital age. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. Print.
Goldwin, Robert A., and Art Kaufman. Separation of powers–does it still work?. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1986. Print.
Kennedy, Dana. “5 Protesters Killed in Iraq as Soldiers Move to Contain ‘Day of Rage’.” Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. AOL News, 25 Feb. 2011. Web.
Mitchell, Neil J.. Democracy’s blameless leaders: from Dresden to Abu Ghraib, how leaders evade accountability for abuse, atrocity, and killing. New York: New York University, 2012. Print.
Parvaz, D. “Bahraini activists: Seeking refuge in a storm.” AJE – Al Jazeera English. N.p., 18 Nov. 2011. Web.
Plunkett, John. ” BBC journalist killed in Afghanistan.” Latest US news, world news, sport and comment from the Guardian. N.p., 28 July 2011. Web.
Thomas, Norman. “Fighting for Democracy.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 3.216 (1941): 58-64. Print.
Democracy is an issue that has raised controversies in many parts of the world, including the United States. Some individuals support democratic ideals while others are of the view that democracy is the tyranny of the multitude because it does not represent the interests of the majority in society. In fact, some observe that justice should always be sought instead of democracy.
May American Muslims are believed to the non-sympathizers of democracy, but modern studies show that they support democracy. Democracy allows the most individual or group to rule. In the United States, Muslims are also involved in the management of parties. Others engage in activism since they believe that human rights are sought through lobbying, but not other means such as terrorism.
Research Question
To what extent do American Muslims participate in the affairs of political parties and interest groups?
Hypothesis
American Muslims participate in the affairs of the political parties and pressure groups because they believe in democracy.
Methodology
Quantitative research is a kind of study that utilizes figures to arrive at certain conclusions. In this regard, the research would take the form of a survey whereby the researcher identifies the sample population and posts questionnaires to them. In this research, there would be need to compare the relationship between variables in order to establish the cause and effect
The researcher is interested in knowing how different independent variables would have an effect on the perception of Americans on Muslims (dependent variables). This would demand for a method that would be objective and able statistically to generalize the findings. Quantitative method is the most appropriate method to use in this research.
Quantitative research involves systematic empirical study of a phenomenon by use of statistical tools. Its main objective is always to employ mathematical theories and models in developing its generalization. Therefore, quantitative method would help in this research. It would enable the researcher to test the hypotheses put forth for validity and allow the use of a sample as a representation of the entire population.
It would help the researcher to determine the perception of Americans on Muslims. Moreover, the method would help determine the views of Muslims on democracy. The quantitative method would also help in knowing if there is any relationship between democracy and equality.
Primary data for this research would be collected from various Muslims and Americans in the United States. The data would be collected with the help of the questionnaire. The scope of data collection would be limited to the two categories. This is because of the time available for the research.
Because most Muslims and Americans are United States nationals, they are clearly expected to understand the social structure of the American society. In this regard, they would be in a position to respond appropriately to questions regarding the society in the United States.
The research would be done conducted with a sample representing the entire population. From this sample, the researcher would generate data by formulating questions, which would further generate desired answers.
To shed light on this research, a hypothesis was developed to create a vision of the research. The research question was meant to generate an answer that would either confirm or reject the hypothesis. The questionnaire was designed to reflect this requirement.
The United States of America has majorly been a liberal society where the will of people is given priority. It is believed that people should be left free to work and enjoy the fruits of their labor. In addition, individuals come first than society and therefore any government should place the people first.
In this regard, the right to own property and the principles of capitalism are given great emphasis whenever leaders stand to speak to the public. However, agreement is not unanimous and there has been arguments regarding the role of the state. The republicans and the democrats have different views regarding where the principles of “Minimal State” and “Active State” should apply.
Democrats
Democrats believe that it is the role of the government to protect its people from exploitation by others. As a result, they usually propose implementation of tax that would in turn be used to give vital services to the less privileged. On the same note, democrats believe that economic inequality is a social evil and thus advocate for government intervention to ensure equality is attained (Rossides, 1998).
They are also accommodative and believe that over time, the principles of governance will have to change. Consequently, democrats tend to be “Active State” liberals as far as the economy is concerned but advocate for a moderate state in social freedom.
Republicans
On the other hand, republicans are conservatives who believe that there are some issues in society that cannot change. They are very strict in matters of social morality and thus oppose in totality issues like gay marriages. Conversely, they have special regard in property rights and less government interference in economic affairs of the nation (Rossides, 1998).
In other words, republicans stand for less social freedom and increased economic freedom. Therefore, they are known to advocate for minimal state in economic matters but active state in issues affecting morality, national defense and crime.
The Immigration Issue
An example of an issue that can depict how differently the republicans and democrats look at issues is the immigration debate. The American government has made significant strides in ensuring that its border, especially with Mexico, is impervious. However, people still illegally find their way into the U.S. In this regard, the Dream Act was proposed to put into check these issues.
Democrats support this Act which seeks to provide legal status, education and jobs to individuals who came to the United States when under sixteen years of age but are yet to attain the age of 30. On the contrary, republicans propose stiff measures like sending all illegal immigrants back to their home countries (Rossides, 1998).
On this issue, democrats are depicted as “Minimal State” liberals and republicans as “Active State” liberals. Libertarians on the other hand argue that those already in the U.S. whether illegally or not should be left while measures should be taken to curtail illegal immigration in future.
Conclusion
Each party has different thoughts on different issues. While one party supports freedom in economic issues, the other encourages social freedom. Therefore, one cannot conclusively say that a given party qualifies to be called “Minimal State” or “Active State” liberals.
In this regard, depending on the nature of the issue being addressed democrats or republicans can fit either description. Nonetheless, both parties believe in protecting private property and some freedom for people.
Reference
Rossides, D. W. (1998). Social Theory: It’s Origins, History, and Contemporary Relevance. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
The rise of the United States as a world superpower has led to the global interest in how she conducts most of her activities. Her large population has also been on the watch out due to criticism on the U.S for involving herself in international affairs some of which have been disadvantageous to the nation.
There have been mixed reactions by the citizens to such conflicting issues that have combined with the notion of color, thus giving rise to two main opposing camps. The fate of a political candidate would then be judged by his or her position on these contentious issues.
Traditionally, the way by which a candidate could reach the public to sell his or her policies was through public campaign forums, where a candidate would schedule to visit a state and address the public concerning his or her presidential ambitions.
However, those who could not attend personally would be forced to follow the speech through electronic media like radio and television. One disadvantage of this is that, the audience, especially those that were miles away, would not find it easy to comment on the policies sold, neither would they be able to show their position on the candidate.
The latter is usually a significant factor in campaign and politics in that, the more fame a candidate gains the more supporters he/she will continue to obtain (Some people do not make their own decision, but follow the direction to which the wind blows). Then appeared the use of Internet to sell a candidate’s policies and give various other political adverts. This was due to the increased use of modern technology in various other sectors and the need to quicken and democratize the electoral process.
The introduction of internet in American political arena has had both positive and negative implications on the democratic rights of the public. As Sifry pointed out, the use of internet in America “has introduced a new age of mass participation and personal activism in which anyone can be a community organizer, message maker or fund raiser and can mobilize the others” (Para. 1).
A report released by Pew Center on Internet and American Life showed that about 25 million Americans access online information daily and can give comments and contribution to various political debates online. The flooding of the information sites by comments from politically active citizens does not only signify a unified public voice, but it also contributes to polarized political platform and governmental standpoint.
The exercise of democracy by involving the public has been witnessed throughout the political past with its peak being observed towards the elections. According to Sifry, “it started with Howard Dean in 2004 and flowered in 2008 with Barrack Obama; and now the “right roots” have mastered the new online platform, especially since the GOP lost its hold on Washington” (Para. 4). In effect, there have been various sites established, that serve the interests of political partisans in different ways.
instance, there are sites blogs that contain various pieces of information vital to the public; e-mail sites for the partisans to issue comments; SeeClickFix that enables the public to contribute to the solution of an emerging issue; and InfluenceExplorer that enables the user to see who donated what to the candidates among many other sites, all of which focuses on the access of information by the public.
Moreover, in his article, Hurwitz (656) stated that “Internet activists have succeeded remarkably in making government and political information available to citizens.”
Discussions
Internet and democracy during campaign
The use of Internet during campaign and election processes has been embraced successfully in the United States. However, the same is yet to be exercised in the United Kingdom, where there is still doubt on whether it will succeed or fail. In the United States, the use of Internet as a campaign tool helped the current president Barrack Obama to gain popularity among millions of citizens.
Primarily, his campaign program was organized online and even his policies were, in several cases, sold online. In addition, the campaign team established a website, MyBO, where they could interact with the candidate’s supporters.
Financial contributions by well-wishers could also be done through this site. Moreover, the campaign speeches given by Obama were available on You Tube; while he also had almost two million friends on Facebook and MySpace, as well as tens of thousands of followers on Twitter (Thornton Para. 3).
Generally, Obama’s campaign over the Internet was successful especially given the fact that he was able to express himself explicitly. In such a case, internet can be seen as a tool that makes campaign as simple; thus, democracy is promoted now that the candidate can reach several people, one on one.
The use of internet requires a kind of mutual relationship between the user (or the public) and the program itself. Abuse by any party will always lead to a fault somewhere. It has been observed that “Technology is used by the members of the society; its diffusion and use depend on social conditions; the conditions of the society, in other words, shape technological development” (Yang 406). Yang argues that the use of Internet alone is not sufficient to ensure democracy; the social factors in the society also contribute substantially.
Besides, there are sites that a potential supporter can access in order to help finance the campaign of his or her favorite candidate. This promotes democracy now that even those with little contributions that would otherwise shy off can reach the campaign team; indeed, politics is thus not left for the giants only.
Sifry (Para10) observed that the “Internet-powered politics is helping to shift America toward more open, participatory and accountable political process; big contributors have become less necessary in campaigns, giving more influence to small donors and independent organizers.”
The use of political blogs like Dailykos, Big Governments, Talking points Memo on the left, and many others ensures that the public are fully politically informed. All the blogs serve the same purpose, and as Sifry states, ‘they serve partisan red meat to their readers” (Para. 5). Therefore, by accessing the political information on these sites, a potential political partisan is able to develop an informed opinion on any political issue including whom to support.
Moreover, campaigning over the internet can be hazardous especially to a defending candidate who cannot fully give a clarification on a scandal that emerged under his or her docket. Such was the agony that befell the U.K Prime Minister Gordon Brown when he could not give an explicit clarification on the expenses scandal over the You Tube.
Such a candidate will be officially surrendering himself to the public who will not hesitate to take their stand. Democracy shall have been exercised here in some paradoxical sense; the public can now make a positive decision that whoever is selling the policies is not the right person for the seat in question.
Nevertheless, the extensive involvement of Internet in politics can lead to its mismanagement, rendering it quite inappropriate. As Sifry (para6) pointed out, the “rapid rise of social media has generated more talking than listening, more pushing than parsing, and more fragmentation of attention than concentration; the resulting sense of information overload may cause more people to retreat from the public arena, simply because it feels too crowded and noisy.”
The use of email sites can also be mishandled by self-centered political activists. In as much as it is usually used to criticize the opponent’s ability and previous conducts, the site can form a good platform for the activist to defile the opponent wrongly.
In this case, the public who learn and believe such accusations will have no otherwise, but to join the undefiled camp. As a result, democracy shall have been interfered with in two ways. First, the voter has been influenced into rejecting a candidate on false grounds, as well as being denied a chance to make his own-judged opinion. Secondly, the defiled candidate has been denied an equal political platform, hence denying him his democratic right.
How Internet promotes democracy during Elections
The process of election is the most fundamental stage in ensuring democracy is exercised. The need to have the exercise conducted quickly and the counting and tallying of votes done immediately not only gives no room for rigging, but also boosts the spirits of the electorate.
In most cases, delayed vote tallying and official release of the results have led to election rigging that has resulted into post-election violence witnessed in several countries in the recent past. Majority of the public, who felt they were denied their democratic rights, lost their confidence in the electoral process and vowed not to vote again. In such a case, the use of the modern technologies like the Internet would have saved the situation.
Firstly, no much time is wasted during voting as compared to the traditional manual system. This encourages even the old, sick and the disabled who would find it cumbersome to stand on a long queue waiting voting. These minority groups in the society have in many cases been left out during elections and that signifies lack of democracy (Warf and Grimes 261-263).
Secondly, there are those individuals who work away from their polling stations. They could also have traveled elsewhere during the period of election. Such people are usually left out of the election due to their inability to access their register from where they are. The use of Internet therefore allows such people to vote from the comfort of their workplaces or wherever they could be.
Finally, the votes are recorded as soon as they are cast. As such, manipulation of figures by the elections officials who probably had directions from a leader defending a seat is minimized. The results are usually available for official release some few hours from the end of the voting period.
The use of Internet however poses some challenges in ensuring that the democratic rights of the public are not denied. This stems from the social-economic interrelated factors prevailing in a given societal setting that generally contributes to low level of education.
Lack of enough funds and poor, outdated culture could lead to high level of illiteracy in a given community. This will contribute to a mixture of results should the system of electronic voting be introduced in such a setting. To begin with, the illiterate voter will depend entirely on the clerks and agents at the polling station for assistance.
This could give room for some form of corruption as the clerks or agents could secretly direct the voter in favour of their favorite candidate. Besides, most of the illiterate and semi-illiterate suffer the inferiority complex. In certain cases, they would rather boycott the election than to go and reveal to the public, which had better expectation of them, that they are actually semi-illiterate and need assistance. This might sound odd and untrue but it is the reality underlying low voter turnout in some areas.
Another less serious case occurs when even the polling clerks who have the electronic expertise are not available in a given area and have to be imported from elsewhere. In such cases, the less qualified individuals and their close associates from these areas usually have a feeling that they were denied an employment opportunity. In many cases, they try to mobilize the public to boycott the elections as they claim that justice has not been exercised. These have also been the reasons behind low voter turn out in some cases.
The lower voter turnout resulting from mass participation in politics could further lead to some irregularities. A less potential candidate could probably manage to be outspoken among the competitors and ends up the winner. Even though democracy is not directly affected here, there is an indirect impact that simply emanated from the extensive use of the cyberspace (Sifry Para. 6).
Conclusion
The use of internet in political world can effectively promote democracy. However, this is only applicable to an extent that the legislations governing the roles of media in politics are obeyed. With the struggle to do away with poverty and low level of education, the system will be less viable to mismanagement by the corrupt individuals.
Internet’s is and will be the best measure to ensure democracy prevails in the public sphere. To achieve this, there is also need for continued innovation in the fields of Information Technology to help come up with better technologists. There is need for “a generation of civic technologists who engage the fundamental infrastructure of the Internet and standards processes in the public interests” (Clift 31). This approach would be the most efficient in ensuring that nobody is wrongly influenced.
Works Cited
Clift, Steven. An Internet of Democracy. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43 Issue 11, p31-32. Nov2000. Minnesota USA.
Hurwitz, Roger. Who Needs Politics? Who Needs People? The Ironies of Democracy in Cyberspace. Contemporary Sociology, 28.6 (1999): 655-661.
Sifry, Micah. “The Internet has fueled polarization and gridlock, but it is also giving US a new tool for self-government.” Wall Street journal, Oct 30, 2010, pg C.3. New York. Web.
Thornton, John. Vote with Your Finger. Public Finance. London: Apr 23-Apr 29, 2010. pg18. Web.
Warf, Barney & Grimes, John. “Counterhegemonic Discourses and the Internet.” Geographical Review, 87.2 (1997): 259-274.
Yang, Guobin. “The Co-Evolution of the Internet and Civil Society in China.” Asian Survey, 43.3 (2003): 405-422.
As much as there is no universally accepted definition of democracy, this system of government should have at least four elements if it is to be embraced in the Middle East.1 First, this political form of government should provide the citizens with an opportunity to choose their leaders through free and fair elections; therefore, the people are considered as the highest form of political authority. Second, democracy guarantees the active participation of the citizens in the affairs of the country.
Third, in a democratic regime, the people have certain basic rights that the government cannot infringe upon. Lastly, the political system upholds the rule of law, which protects the rights of the citizens. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., calls for reform in Middle East reverberated across the globe. The Arab Human Development Report issued in July 2002 chronicled the long-standing political, economic, and social ills of the Arab world. Therefore, for Middle East to be recognized as democratic, it must follow these four tenets.
Ensuring that the Middle East region is democratic has been a major objective of most renowned world leaders. In fact, the U.S-led 2003 invasion of Iraq was intended to make the country a model for democracy in the region. The state of Israel has been recognized as the only free electoral democracy on the region.
Whether democracy can be achieved in the Middle East or not is a hot topic since different theories exist on the subject. Some argue that it is impossible, while others argue that is a necessity, especially in this century.
A number of theories have postulated that there is a problem with promoting democracy in the Middle East. “Today, the Middle East lacks the conditions, such as a democratic political history, high standards of living, and high literacy rates, which stimulated democratic change in, for example, central Europe and East Asia.”2
Paradoxically, authoritarian leaders, who embrace liberalism even more than the people they lead, govern many nations in the region. The most fundamental principle of human existence is that no one likes to be regarded as inferior; therefore, when the Arabs are infringed upon by foreign ideologies it will inevitably lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled regimes hostile to the U.S.
As much as it is true that the number of democratic countries is increasing, the belief that the U.S. can accelerate this process is ill advised. This is because it is the same fatal conceit that led to the demise of the Soviet empire. Therefore, foreign governments cannot dictate noble ends for other countries.
During the 1990s, the U.S. spent a lot of money in promoting democracy in Middle East, which did not bear much fruit. The U.S. failed to recognize that the success of freedom depends on the readiness of the free people to sacrifice; therefore, the people of the region, not the American people, must make these sacrifices. Today, the events in Iraq have proved that forcing democratic programs in the region is a futile exercise.
To promote democracy in the Middle East, the Free World should lead by principled example. Attempts to impose the principles by military conquest, as history has shown, are fruitless. Since democracy upholds equality and freedom, use of forces only risks undermining these principles from within.
The U.S. and its affiliates should not try to erode their own foundations for democracy even as they attempt to impose it on other nations overseas. It is important to note that the ingredients for successful democratic regimes are derived from the domestic political kitchens; therefore, the states in the Middle East should be allowed to prepare this dish for themselves without undue outside interference.
The attempt to promote democracy in Middle East is not compatible with Islamic culture and values. This is because there is no clear-cut distinction between religion and the state, which makes democratic principles unattainable in the Arab world.3 There is a clash between democratic principles of the western world with those of the Arab world, which can be authenticated by the historical differences between the Western culture and the Middle Eastern culture.
In essence, the Arab world flourished in times when the western world was still in the ‘dark ages.’ This made the Arabs to have prejudice against the ‘backward’ westerners. Therefore, when the west was developing through Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment, the Arabs never let go of their attitude of superiority.
This same attitude is why religion has held the region back. Therefore, their belief in superiority is incompatible with the democratic principles of the western world. That is why promoting democracy in the region may be a futile attempt.
On the other hand, some say that forging democratic principles in the Middle East is a necessity that the world must seek to address. Several theories exist that support the promotion of democratic reform in the region in this decade. It is of essence to note, “Both the United States and Europe have identified the absence of political and economic freedoms in the Middle East as a primary source of instability and a threat to international security.” 4
Even though supporting democratic principles in the Middle East involves certain inherent risks, the denial of freedom to the Arab people would increase the number of problems in the long run. If the Middle Easterners can have the opportunity to put across their complaints freely and peacefully, they will be less prone to turn to violent ways of addressing their problems.
In such a situation, they will uphold democratic principles in their political system. Consequently, more open and prosperous societies will come up. Moreover, both the government and the people will respect human rights as well as the rule of law.
The long-term advantages of enacting democratic principles in the Arab world prevail over the potential difficulties that can be encountered in the short term. There are at least four benefits of Arab democracy. To begin with, regardless of the fact that some extremist organizations will still be present, principles of moderation and tolerance will give people the opportunity of amicably solving their grievances.
This will be possible due to the more open political environment present. Second, “political, economic, and social reform will likely, over time, reduce the reservoir of recruits to extremist organizations such as al-Qaeda and others that target the United States and the Americans”.5
Moreover, some arguments have supported the “democratic peace theory.” The position of this theory is that it is impossible for democracies to engage in conflicts with each other. Therefore, peace, in the long run, can be achieved in the region. Finally, encouraging political change, economic restructuring, and social reform in the Middle East will increase the region’s interactions with the rest of the world.
For years, the Islamic extremists have enjoyed support in societies that are typified by brutal, autocratic leadership. They have held the belief that they can thrive best in societies where teenagers have no hope for a better future. To fail to enact democratic principles in the Middle East, by whatever means, is perpetuating the status quo that has existed for decades.
Currently, in the Middle East, many Arab civil societies have sprung up to challenge their oppressive regimes. The majority of the population in the Arab world is dejected with their ruling autocrats. Instead of delivering their promises, they have given the people dust and tyranny.
Therefore, there is nothing unique or intrinsic about the Islamic faith that prevents the region from embracing democratic ideals. Like their counterparts in other parts of the world, the Middle Easterners are still struggling for freedom. However, with the support of the West, especially the U.S., great success can be accomplished in the region.
Having looked at both sides of the debate, I will proceed by arguing that implementing democracy in the Middle East is easier said than done.
The proponents of democracy in the Middle East suggest that it will be a milestone improvement in the War on Terror. However, it has been proved that democracy cannot end terrorism. Sageman, who worked as a CIA official, argue that the sections of the societies that do not have authoritarianism are the ones that are likely to promote the growth of terrorist organizations.6
For example, al-Qaeda, the terror group that threatens the U.S., is composed of learned men who have lived in societies, which have advanced social, economic, cultural, and political systems. Someone like Mohammed Khan, the architect of the July 7, 2005 London bombings, did not have the opportunity to grow in an authoritarian backwater, but in the center of the democratic England.
Even if the countries in the region embraced democratic ideals, the new Islamic governments produced would not work together with the international community. Apart from assisting the international community in fighting against terrorism, they would be less likely to cooperate on some essential policy objectives.
These include, but not limited to, pressing forward the Arab-Israeli peace process, addressing the security issues in the Persian Gulf, and making sure that the supply of oil is not distracted. There is no one who knows the course that a new democracy will take if it is embraced in the region. Trying to impose it in the region is gambling with history.
Based on public opinion and the history of recent elections in countries like Egypt, Iraq, and Palestine, the advent of freedom in the region can bring more problems than earlier anticipated. Free elections in the region would not lead to a democratic and a peace loving regimes in the Western sense. However, it would inevitably bring supporters of radical Islamism to power. This situation was evident in the Palestinian National Authority and previously in Algeria.
Democracy has several aspects, but it must uphold self-rule. Democratic principles should be a reflection of the will of the people in one way or the other. For example, it is not appropriate to say that in the U.S., democracy entails exercising the will of the U.S. citizens, and in Saudi Arabia or Syria, democracy must also entail exercising the will of the U.S. citizens.
That is not how thinks work! What if the will of the citizens of a certain nation in the Middle East want to have a political system and laws that the Free world consider to be very “undemocratic?” In the U.S., the laws of the country prohibit polygamy. Practicing polyandry or polygamy cannot be considered inherently undemocratic, but that is how the U.S. instituted its regulations.
In the U.S., government regulations prohibit the financial support of stem cell research because of some religious considerations. In Iran, for example, funding of such a research is lawful because a different religion is practiced there. In this situation, what can be considered more “democratic?” Which country is more “liberal?”
On September 5, 2005, for the first time in the history of Egypt, a democratic election was done. The reelection of President Hosni Mubarak was thought to be the success of the Bush administration because of its persistent promotion of democracy in the Arab world. It was thought that the country had ended almost fifty years of authoritarian regime. However, a thorough check on the country’s system reveals that its democratic principles are ailing.
Political movements in the country seem to be wearing out. The Mubarak’s government is still determined to stay in power. Most of the Egyptians hold the belief that democracy is a luxury that is not still applicable to their situation. One Egyptian was reported saying, “The last thing people here are talking about is democracy… Maybe the rich and educated care about it, but around here we don’t.” 7
The Egyptian government pretends to be supporting democratic principles, but it oppresses its people. Police brutality, lack of media freedom, and outlawing of street demonstrations are some of the evils practiced by the authoritarian regime. More so, the dictatorial government manipulates the country’s judicial system instead of allowing it to be independent. Corruption incidences are rampant in the country.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s only opposition group, has not been spared either by the Mubarak regime. Many of its members and supporters have been arrested and their assets have been frozen simply because of their active participation in public life. Is this democracy, or it is still “democracy” in the Egyptian language? The Freedom House gives an evaluation of the levels of democracy in various countries after every year based on political rights, civil liberties, and the status of the government.
Based on Freedom House analysis, despite having a parliament, a president, and regularly held elections, Egypt is still categorized as “Not Free” in terms of democracy.
To this end, it is clear that liberal democracy cannot still be implemented in the Middle East states. Most people in the Arab world still view this political system as a form of Western political hegemony and domination, which serves the purpose of intervening in the Arab/Muslim internal affairs in order to divide and conquer.
As depicted by the current situation in Egypt, Middle East is not prepared enough to embrace the basic tenets of modernism and democracy. In the Islamic world, leadership is still the privilege of the ruling elite and it is patrimonial, coercive, and dictatorial. The basic elements in a democracy have not been able to do up until now, or they will be achieved slowly. Let us wait and see.
Held, David. Models of democracy. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2006.
Korbel, Madeleine Albright, Weber Vin and Cook Steven A. In support of Arab democracy: report of an independent task force, New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2005.
Lewis, Bernard. What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2002.
Sageman, Marc. Understanding terror networks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
Yacoubian, Mona. Promoting Middle East Democracy: European Initiative. Washington: United States Initiative for peace, 2004.
Footnotes
David Held. Models of democracy. (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2006), 44.
Patrick Basham and Christopher Preble, “The trouble with Democracy in the Middle East,” CATO Institute, 2003.
Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2002).
Mona Yacoubian, Promoting Middle East Democracy: European Initiative (Washington: United States Initiative for peace, 2004), 12.
Madeleine Korbel Albright, Vin Weber and Steven A Cook, In support of Arab democracy: report of an independent task force (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2005), 43.
Marc Sageman, Understanding terror networks (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004).
Ben Wedeman, “Analysis: Egypt’s ailing democracy movement,” CNN, 2007.
Democratic consolidation is mostly termed as a critical consideration when it comes to developing and the thriving of a state across the world. However, democracy is something that is easily talked about than it is implemented by many states across the globe.
Democracy is built on the political landscape and the presence of a volatile landscape in the Latin America region has raised a lot of questions concerning the possibility of the countries in the region to consolidate democracy. Most commentators argue that it is quite daunting for the countries in the region to develop structures that promote democracy.
The rationale behind such conclusive views is that most countries in the region have volatile politics, which largely bar them from developing and embracing internal structures that are critical in promoting democracy. However, recent times have seen an implementation of changes in a substantial number of countries in the region, which point to the embrace of democracy.
One of the countries that has shown tremendous improvements when it comes to the consolidation of democracy in Latin America is Brazil. This paper explores the challenges facing democratic consolidation in Brazil. The paper argues that the embrace of structural changes in the political, social, and economic realms of Brazil is greatly helping the country to consolidate democracy.
The paper is divided into four parts. The first part of the paper paints the real picture of democracy in Latin America through a description of the military, political and economic problems that engulf democracy in the region.
The second part of the paper analyses the general landscape of Brazil; political instability, presidentialism, political parties, and populism and how they impact democratic consolidation and the executive-legislative relations.
This is followed by an exploration of critical issues that appertain to democracy in Brazil, like crime and insecurity, law enforcement, and the rule of law. The last part presents an analysis of the economic challenges in Brazil and how they impede democracy in the country.
Political, military and economic challenges facing democracy in Latin America
Political stability is one of the pointers to the prevalence of democracy in a given state or region across the globe. It is also critical to note that democratization is a political process, thus the level of democratization in any region across the world is measured by the level of independence and functionality of key political institutions like the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive.
Political stability in any region of the world is marked by a number of factors. Among these factors are the open space for the political participation of the masses, the presence of functional institutions, and the lack of interference of other institution by the executive. Indeed, a closer assessment of the political situation in the entire region of Latin America for the past few years indicates the lack of political stability.
A substantial number of countries in the region of Latin America have had extreme politics, marking the lack of open politics that are critical for the establishment of democracy. These countries include Haiti, Honduras, and Venezuela where there have been attempts by the executive of these countries to amass power through exercising power and influence over other key institutions in the country like the legislature and the judiciary.
The consolidation of power and the subsequent exercise of the same power is a key recipe to the lack of political correctness, thereby hampering of the process of democratization.
For instance, the regime of Venezuela has continuously pushed for the centralization of power, which implies the placement of a lot of powers in the hands of the president and the subsequent killing of other important institutions like the judiciary, which are critical in the administration of justice and key attributes of democracy.
According to ECLAC (1), the economy of Latin America has continued to show tremendous improvements throughout the 21st century, with the reduction in the cases of poverty and inequality in terms of resource distribution.
The sluggishness in the pace of economic development in the region has been a major source of illegal acts like the prevalence of gangs and organized criminal groups in countries like Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico, and Jamaica. The prevalence of such groups in the region continues to promote a lot of social ills and instability, thereby undermining the democratization process in the region.
The early century in Latin America marked a period of industrialization. The emergence of mass politics that accompanied industrialization denoted populism in the region. A class of populist leaders emerged in the region then, who embraced oligarchic rule.
However, the influence of these leaders faded as military repression begun in a substantial number of countries in the region towards the mid of the 20th century. Therefore, the slow growth of most of the national economies of the region emanated from the lack of populist support and the consolidation of political power by a series of leaders who emerged in the region (Conniff 1-4).
Most countries in Latin America either follow the presidential system of governance or the super-presidetialism where presidents have power by virtue of ascending to power through massive support.
The presidential system of governance encourages the presidents in the region to engage in certain activities that denote the centralization of power and the constriction of the public arena, meaning that it is hard to attain democracy.
For instance, the President of Honduras amended the constitution through the removal of the clause that limited the term of the presidency, a factor that necessitated a coup in the country. Also, there were other strains of rogue leaders in the region who attempted to exercise a lot of power and control. An example is Pinochet of Chile.
Safdar (140) observes that a substantial number of countries in the region still strongly embrace the principles of autocracy, which totally negate democracy and democratization of institutions.
According to (Safdar 141), resource is another issue that hinders democracy in the region where a number of countries fall for populist forms of governance in a bid to secure the natural resources that they depend on. An example that can be given here is Venezuela, which promotes populism in the political realm as a way of attaining solutions to its economic and social problems.
Presidentialism, political instability, executive-legislative relations, populism and democracy in Brazil
According to Power (218), the political landscape of Brazil denotes the exercise of volatile and competitive politics. However, there have been significant changes in the political landscape of Brazil. Most of the changes in politics that denote the embrace of democracy in Brazil can be traced back to the last quarter of the 20th century.
Democracy in Brazil can be better explained by analyzing the presidency in the county from the mid years of the 20th century. Major policy advances that point at the improvement of the political landscape can be traced from the beginning of 1990 into the 21st century (Power 218).
According to Pio (para. 2), there was an alternation between a quasi-representative government and authoritarianism in Brazil, a factor that made it extremely difficult for the country to embrace democracy and participation.
As observed earlier, populism as applied in Latin America is an intense issue. Populism grew in the early years of the 20th century and then declined in the mid years of the same century.
As one of the countries that are embracing the principles of democracy in the region, it is critical to note that populism in the country can be looked at in terms of political organization and the way political support is mobilized by the political parties in the county. Brazil has a volatile political environment, which makes it hard for the country to attain a highly democratic environment (Duarte 111-116).
According to Sachs, Wilheim, and Pinheiro (192-195), participation in the country is highly modeled along the social lanes. Perhaps, it is critical to mention the issue of class in the country and the role that is played by the social structures in mobilizing political support in the country.
Just like in the mid years of the 20th century, populism in Brazil is still highly supported by the people from the lower class who see this as chance of exerting their influence in the politics of the country (Sachs, Wilheim, and Pinheiro 192-195).
According to Mainwaring and Chalmers (4), the transformation of Brazil into a country that embraces democracy is closely associated with the dynamic interaction between the political regime in the country and the opposition, especially in the first regime of democratic rule that reigned between 1985 and 1987. The military regime was a real thorn in the flesh of politics in Brazil for the better part of the 20th century.
Joseph (1524) observes that Brazil is one of the countries in Latin America that have managed to promote democracy in the realms of race. In what is referred to as racial democracy, it is evident that people in the country have embraced the opinion of each other, irrespective of the presence of a mixture of different races in the country.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that racial democracy is something that has only been promoted in the recent years. What prevails in the country today is a racial environment that has been largely pacified due to the concentration of the country’s government on the implementation of policies of development that seek to put it at the scales of development being attained by other countries across the globe.
Military regimes in Brazil were seen as the main impediments to the embrace of democracy in the country. An end to military governance in the country was seen as a force behind the promotion of democracy. However, the most important question to ask at this point is whether all aspects of militancy have been eliminated.
A close observation of the political regime in the country reveals that aspects of militancy have been largely upheld by the presidents in the country. An example is the Belo Monte dam project, where the government used force to advance the project, violating the rights of the citizens in the course. This is just one of the indications of abuses of power in the country, which highly undermines democracy (Picq para. 1-7).
The last elections in Brazil marked a difference in the history of the country, where a female candidate was elected to be the president of the country. A lot of people are of the view that this is an important marker in the democratization of the country (Safdar 135). The elections depicted a higher level of democracy in the political realms with the support for political parties being done in a more open way.
However, the task ahead is huge for the president, especially the harmonization of the structures of governance in the country. In the recent years, the government received a lot of resistance from the judiciary because of what was seen as an opposition to the certain reforms that were being implemented by the government (de Staal 1).
The political institutions in Brazil in the contemporary times are highly functional with ideology still playing a critical role in informing political support (Snider 1).
Brazil embraces a system of governance known as presidential parliamentarianism. A number of commentators see this system as promoting centralization in the decision making landscape, irrespective of the fact that this system of governance promotes governability. It is, therefore, a hindrance to the promotion of democracy (Snider 2).
Rule of law, crime and insecurity, corruption, law enforcement
According to Mainwaring and Chalmers (4), one of the main challenges to the attainment of democracy in Latin America is the problem of attaining citizen security. Perhaps, the most critical question to ask when referring to the democratization process in Brazil is the issue of social inequality and the ability of the country to develop policies that favor equality.
Until today, Brazil still experiences a lot of problems of security, patterned by the difficulty to embrace the rule of law and the elimination of vices like corruption.
In spite of the embrace of change in most institutions in Brazil, the state of rule of law, which is a key factors that define and promote democracy, is still not well observed in the country. There is a lot of inequity in the legal system of the country, where the law largely favors the privileged citizens who belong to the upper economic class and the political class.
At this juncture, it can be argued that Brazil still suffers from the problem of impunity, which is a negation of democracy. The country has a complex court structure that is marred by incidences of corruption and manipulation of the judicial proceedings in favor of certain individuals.
There are also significant lapses in the civilian law system of the country, where cases of non-judicial executions and torture are often reported (Pio para. 21).
The level of insecurity in the region was at the peak in the last decade of the 20th century. However, this does not mean that the situation has largely changed in most of the countries today. In most countries in the region, the lapses in security and the observance of law and order continue to be the main cause of the high number of cases of crime that prevail in the region.
Crime is one of the hindrance factors in the consolidation of democracy in any state in the world because it depicts the lack of observance of law and order in the country. Most of the states in the region have remained weak, meaning that the regimes that prevail in these countries are largely incapacitated and cannot set up structures that can help to guard the rights and freedoms of the citizens (Mainwaring and Chalmers 5).
There are a lot of social challenges in Brazil, which makes it quite daunting for the structures of democracy to flourish. Most of the social problems in the country do not only revolve around poverty, but they are also steered by corruption, the disconnectedness of institutions, as well as the increase in the number of privatized security forces in the country.
The future of public security remains to be largely uncertain. However, education is playing a resounding role in eliminating social hierarchies in the Brazilian society (Snider 2-3).
The economic challenges facing democracy in Brazil
Research shows that Brazil is one of the countries in Latin America that have instituted a lot of changes in their economies, something that has immensely supported the growth of the economy. Brazil has fulfilled most of the attributes of a middle income economy having overcome most of the challenges that placed it in the category of least developed economies in the later years of the 20th century.
However, there is still an array of factors that still impede the country from attaining sustainable growth of the economy. According to Pio (para. 1), the democratic transition in Brazil is largely rooted in the economic crisis that faced the country in the 1970s, which made it hard to embrace military rule in the country.
Therefore, the country began to set up the structures of economic development through the promotion of local industries. These resulted in the transformation of the economy to an extent that the government was able to sustain most of its functions.
Unlike most of the countries that have closed economies that depend on oil and other natural economies in the region, the economy of Brazil is largely capitalistic. This makes the country to strongly fit within the international development framework (Safdar 141).
However, the integration of the country into the international economy and the accelerated pace of economic growth in the recent years has not fully transformed to economic welfare.
In a country where approximately 50 million people were living below the poverty line in the early years of the first decade of the 20th century, the failure of the government to institute a proper economic policy amounts to the abuse of the rights of the citizens.
This argument comes from the nature of economic policies that are implemented in the country without paying attention to the voices raised by the poor population in the country. The principles of democracy and participation in Brazil are highly impeded by the development agenda that is being fostered to promote economic independence.
However, the path that is taken in the enforcement of economic policies depicts the breaches of the rights of the poor citizens. Greater citizen participation does not receive significant attention in the key political and economic decisions that are made in the country.
An example that can be given here is the implementation of the land ownership structures of the Lula Regime without paying attention to the views of the public, which has predisposed the country to conflict over land and resources (de Staal 1).
Brazil is ranked as one of the most unequal nations in the world in terms of distribution of resources among its population.
Analysts argue that the broad gap of inequality in the county is not merely a sign of historical injustices that occurred in the country, but it also reflects the lack of consideration for the poor by virtue of sidelining the needs of the poor in the political and economic plans and policies that are implemented in the country.
This gap further subjects the country to an economic turmoil and a possibility of a mayhem situation between the government and the citizens who feel that they are being subjected to economic injustices by the political regime (de Staal 1).
According to de Staal (1), the political structure of Brazil is not also fully flourished. It is argued that political power in Brazil is controlled by a web of feudal networks. The feudal networks control resources and have a lot of influence on the political discourse in the country. A lot of economic ills in Brazil remain to be something that cannot be easily put to rest.
Power is hidden in the hands of the people who control the economy. Moreover, these groups of people receive better treatment from the government and the law enforcement agencies in the country. Moreover, the feudal networks also promote relations with the criminal gangs in the country, thereby undermining the attributes of security for their benefit.
Conclusion
According to the argument presented in the paper, it is worthwhile to conclude that Brazil has made tremendous progress in embracing democracy. The observation in the paper points to the fact that most of the attributes of democracy in Brazil are founded on the aspects of development through the strengthening of institutions in the political and economic realms.
Most of the challenges that hinder the growth of democracy in Brazil are historical in nature and keep recurring in the present political environment in the country. The issue of inequality in the social and economic arenas continues to be the main impediment to the growth of institutions in the country.
Moreover, it is bound to keep imposing negative pressure on the growth of democracy in the country. Overcoming the issue means digging deep into the history and ironing out the structures of inequality that make Brazil the most unequal nation state in the world.
Duarte, Adriano Luiz. “Neighborhood Associations, Social Movements, And Populism In Brazil, 1945-1953.” Hispanic American Historical Review 89.1 (2009): 111-139. Print.
ECLAC. Latin American and Caribbean Unemployment Rate Could Fall to 6.2% in 2013. 2013. Web.
Joseph, Tiffany D. “How Does Racial Democracy Exist In Brazil? Perceptions From Brazilians In Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais.” Ethnic & Racial Studies 36.10 (2013): 1524-1543. Print.
Mainwaring, Scott, and Douglas Chalmers. Problems Confronting Contemporary Democracies. 2012. Web.
Pio, Carlos. Brazil: Political and Economic Lessons From Democratic Transitions. 2013. Web.
Power, Timothy J. “Brazilian Democracy As A Late Bloomer-Reevaluating The Regime In The Cardoso-Lula Era.” Latin American Research Review 45.(2010): 218-247. Print.
Safdar, Mustafa. “Brazil: Opportunities And Challenges.” Brown Journal Of World Affairs 17.1 (2010): 135-143. Print.
Snider, Colin Michael. “Institutional Stability And Social Uncertainty: Unpacking The Challenges Of Democracy In Brazil In The Twenty-First Century.” H-Net Reviews In The Humanities & Social Sciences (2012): 1-5. Print.
Conniff, Michael L. Populism in Latin America. Tuscaloosa, Ala: University Alabama Press, 2012. Print.
Sachs, Ignacy, Jorge Wilheim, and Paulo S. M. S. Pinheiro. Brazil: A Century of Change. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009. Internet resource.
It wasn’t until the year 1998 that Indonesia saw actual democratic rule, even if it had attained independence years back. This country began experiencing the democratic rule after General Suhart stepped down following threats to overthrow his government. In a period starting from the year 1998 up to 2003, this country went through “the slow transition to democracy”.
However, as Ward notes, “contrary to countries where popular uprising has led to the natural formation of political parties and a ‘grassroots’ democracy taking shape, democracy in Indonesia was imposed from the top-down by its political elite” (Par. 5).
In the year 2004, the country’s first “direct presidential elections” enabled Susilo Bambang to take over leadership of the country. This leader was formerly an army general. From the time Susilo took over power, he has been seeking to make the democracy of the nation to be stronger. Following his popularity among the Indonesian people, he has been able to go for the second term, which started in the year 2009.
In considering the indicators of how strong the democracy of this country is, voter turnout can be one of these indicators. However, even if ‘voter turnout’ is indicative of a particular level of lack of interest in a nation’s “political system”, this indicator can not be considered as being one that can be relied upon for indicating the ‘democracy strength’ of Indonesia.
The Wolrd Bank makes use of a number of other indicators to measure the strengths of democracies in various countries all over the world. Basing on these indicators, beginning from the year 1998, the country has shown quite a number of improvements is such issues as “guarantee of personal freedoms….anti-corruption measures and the regime’s own accountability, but only because it began from such a low level …it still ranks below most of other East Asia democracies” (Ward, Par. 7).
In regard to the strength of the rule of law in Indonesia, Indonesia ranks lower than the rest of the Asian democracies.
However, Under the current president, Yudhoyono, this country has gone on to realize improvements on a gradual basis in, as Ward points out, “all aspects of the World Bank’s democratic indicator’s, and his second term will therefore be closely watched for indications that the fledging democracy is becoming more firmly entrenched in all levels of Indonesian society” (Ward, Par. 8).
In general terms, Indonesia enjoys freedom of press, and there is guarantee of citizen’s civil rights among others.
Democracy in Thailand
Considering the case in Thailand, the differences that exist among the “political ideologies” go on to have a destructive impact on the stability of the country.
Claims are presented by the “Red Shirts Movement” that it has been engaging in a fight to have “real democracy” and that Abhisit’s government should surrender power because this leader ascended to power just through “a backroom deal shaped by powerful military rather than a popular mandate” (Chachavalpongpun, Par.1). In response to this, Abhisit presents an argument that he has intentions to save the country’s democracy from “the irrational demonstrators”.
This leader directs accusations towards the “Red Shirts” of just being a replacement of the Prime Minister, Thaksin, who was earlier on in power but later overthrown. At the center of all these arguments creating a crisis lies, “the deep-seated conundrum in Thai politics: that is, the widening gap between the Thai poor in the remote regions represented by the Red Shirts and the Bangkok elites whose power position has been guarded by the current royalist government” (Chachavalpongpun, Par. 2).
Democracy in Thailand, as it might be looked at from anywhere in the wolrd, still stands to be a concept that is manipulated. This democracy has turned out to be a “victim of elite interests”. For about fifty years, Thailand has gone through several kinds of tyrannical rule.
“The holy trinity of the established forces consisting of the monarchy, the military and the bureaucracy, has long called the shots….even under a civilian regime, the elite in Bangkok oversee every move in political life” (Chachavalpongpun, Par. 5). While this has gone on, the poor people in Thailand have been neglected.
When Thaksin came in to power in the year 2001, he opened the political space in the country. He employed his “political skills” to take advantage of the gap that exists in the society in order to be backed up those living in poverty. He did this by “challenging the dominance of power by the established forces” (Chachavalpongpun, Par. 12). He uplifted the living standards of the poor people. As a consequence, this leader became popular among the have-nots but a threat to the elites in Bangkok.
Mean while, as Chachavalpongpun points out, “Thaksin’s tilt towards authoritarianism while serving in office and even becoming a despot before he was overthrown allow the Bangkok elite to claim some kind of justification for the 2006 coup and its continuing aftermath” (Chachavalpongpun, Par. 13).
The effort to adjust again the “political equation” has resulted in to the current clash between the two opposite forces in Thailand. The political leaders work tirelessly to make their regimes stronger and to protect their wealth but at the same time making claims that they are protecting democracy.
However, in the case of Thailand, the truth is that, democratization has not actually paid attention of the citizen’s real needs. The aspiration of the “Red Shirts” has been to “to reverse democratization so that it becomes a bottom-up process” (Chachavalpongpun, Par. 13). In Thailand, generally, there are no guarantees of the citizens’ civil rights, there is no enjoying of free press and also, there are no free and fair elections.
Democracy in Vietnam
The present “socialist democratic regime” in Vietnam is “the first ever democratic regime in the country’s political history” (“The evolution of democracy in Vietnam” Par. 1). The country’s very start of the first democratic regime was marked by the “Declaration of the Independence for the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1945” (“The evolution of democracy in Vietnam” Par. 2).
Earlier on, “the economic and socio-political life was controlled by such systems as the colonial system, feudal and semi-feudal systems” (“The evolution of democracy in Vietnam” Par. 2).The well-known aspect associated with these systems was that the citizens did not possess any right to take part in whatever political life of the nation. This implies that, there existed a very minimal number or no mechanisms for setting up implementation of democracy. The rights and fate of an individual in the nation rested in the hands of the society or the crowd.
This country’s “first democratic regime” came in to existence in the course of the “national liberation revolution” and this regime resulted from “entire people’s struggle for liberation under the leadership of a communist party” (“The evolution of democracy in Vietnam”, Par. 7). The regime brought the basic rights to the people, including the right to life. Under this regime, the people acquired the right to be citizens of a liberated and self-governing nation and the right to take part in the “political life” of the nation, among other rights.
However, basing on the historical background where this country commenced on the journey of setting up and developing democracy, it can be realized that this country must continue working hard to completely understand “the nature of socialist democracy” so that it can be able to identify the incomplete features of the present democracy (“The evolution of democracy in Vietnam”, Par. 9).
It is true that, “Vietnam has been undertaking the building of the socialist democratic regime in the context of a tiny, underdeveloped economy after enduing wars to defend national independence and reunification for dozens of years of dealing with several socio-economic structural upheavals” (“The evolution of democracy in Vietnam” Par. 10).
Under such conditions, it is quite obvious that this country has not yet set up a democracy that is perfect and therefore should consider taking appropriate measures to make the gap between the goals the country has set and realty to be narrower.
However, it can be clearly seen that, even if the socialist democratic regime in Vietnam is still undergoing construction, “this regime has brought in to full play its pre-eminent characteristics” (“The evolution of democracy in Vietnam” Par. 12). The socialist democratic regime in Vietnam has moved along with the nation in the course of fighting for independence and freedom and has made a contribution, at a significant level, to “socio-economic development’.
The people of the “Socialist Republic of Vietnam” are assured of all “fundamental rights to freedom, including the rights to equality before the law, free and fair elections, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, complaints and denouncements”(“The evolution of democracy in Vietnam” Par. 33).
Comparing and ranking the states of democracy in Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam
The Indonesia’s state of democracy is seen to be higher than that of the other two countries. This country is “stable and tolerant under a mature president, with better growth prospects in the region” (Hartcher, Par. 10). Hartcher further points out that the United States “think tank Freedom House” has described this country as “the only free and democratic country in South-Asia” (Par. 10).
According to Hartcher, this point is also emphasized by Andrew Maclntyre and Douglas Ramage where they give a description that “Indonesia in 2008 is stable, competitive electoral democracy, with a highly decentralized system of governance, achieving solid rates of economic growth, under competent national leadership, and playing a constructive role in the regional and broader international community” (Par. 11).
More so, Indonesia enjoys freedom of the media and a judicial system that is uneven, but currently undergoing improvements. Democracy in this country has turned out to be concretely legitimate, having “generals and mutifs” battling it out through the ballot box and not fighting in the streets.
This whole situation is contrary to what is happening in Thailand. In Thailand, the poor people have been neglected. There is a crisis in this state where we are having two opposing forces. The urban elites are against the protection of the poor in remote areas. “Thailand is now suffering a constitutional crisis, emergency rule and an investment strike”(Hartcher, Par. 9).
In essence, the basic difference between the two countries is that the “Indonesian power elites” have a universal respect for the “legitimizing power of democracy” while those elites in Thailand do not. More so, Thailand does not enjoy free media the way Indonesia do.
On the other hand, looking at Vietnam, this country is making the necessary efforts to perfect its democracy. Unlike in Thailand where we have a strong conflict between two forces, here every concerned party is determined to ensure people enjoy freedom in the country. However, Indonesia seems to be ahead of this country in regard to the state of democracy. Vietnam is in the process of improving its democracy after going through a long history.
Considering these three countries, according to my personal judgment, Indonesia stands in the first position, followed by Vietnam and Thailand comes last. Indonesia has done all its best to improve democracy in the country and it is even seen to stand above all the countries in the region.
Vietnam, despite the long journey it has travelled, will soon also realize great improvement in the state of democracy, especially when it will be offered adequate support from friends. On the other hand, the wrangles that are seen in Thailand where by some sections of the society are neglected makes it to be less democratic compared to the other two countries. This country has a long way to go and it has to learn from Indonesia in order for it to improve the state of its democracy.
Prospects for further democratization in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam
In each of the three countries, there are prospects for further democratization. Starting with Thailand, in order for the state of democracy to be improved, there should be institutionalizing of the democratic structures and the democratic process in the country is supposed to be designed to be more relevant to the large majority of the people of Thailand.
“The legacy of past authoritarian regimes can only be overcome by greater popular participation and community mobilization” (Muntarbhorn and Taylor, Par. 2). It must be ensured that the state does not go beyond the boundaries of its powers.
It is the duty of such parties as the civil society and the NGOs to carry out this. A balance should not just be established between the state organs but also between the state and the “non-state actors”. The state organs refer to such organs as parliament, the executive, the military, and the judiciary. On the other hand, the non-state organs may include the NGOS, the business sector and the community as a whole. By taking these steps, Thailand will be able to take its state of democracy to a whole new level.
On the other hand, Vietnam is making an effort to improve its democracy state. This shows a move towards a positive direction. What this country needs is to obtain understanding and support from friends regionally and internationally in order for it to realize its goals. In the case of Indonesia, even if this country has a better state of democracy, it needs to carry out further improvements in such areas as the rule of law in order for it to climb to even a higher state.
Works Cited
Chachavalpongpun, Pavin. Thailand’s manipulated democracy. Asia Sentinel, 2010. Web.