When Samoa got its independence in 1962, it adopted democracy to improve economic, social, and political aspects of life in the country. Since Samoans cherished their customs and traditions, they demanded for a democracy would reflect on their beliefs.
In the quest for forming a unique system of governance that comprised of democracy and customs, Samoans adopted and promulgated a constitution that recognized both the customs and democracy (So’o 68).
The alliance of customs and democracy became uneasy with time, as customs restricted the growth of democracy. Therefore, this is a book review of Democracy and Custom in Samoa: an Uneasy Alliance, which highlights major issues of Samoan government.
Problem
In the book, the author discusses the issue of democracy in Samoa. Since Samoa got its independence in 1962, its democratic development has been slow because of the customs and traditions. When Samoans adopted and promulgated their constitution, they demanded that it must reflect their customs and traditions.
The hybrid system of governance, which comprises of customs and democracy, was central in socio-political development of Samoa. However, since Samoa has undergone a massive transformation in terms of social, political, and economic aspects, the hybrid system of governance is no longer appropriate and applicable.
In this view, the author argues that customs and traditions hinder Samoa from achieving a perfect democracy, and thus no longer appropriate in the constitution (So’o 203). The customs and traditions are not relevant because they are not in tandem with the ideals of democracy in modern society.
The questions that the book examines include:
What are the roles of customs and traditions of Samoans in democracy?
Why did Samoans incorporate their customs and traditions in the constitution and governance?
How did customs and democracy co-exist in Samoa?
Why the co-existence of customs and democracy did become the uneasy alliance?
Are Samoans’ customs and traditions still relevant in modern democracy?
Significance
The book, Democracy and Custom in Samoa: an Uneasy Alliance, is important because it shows how customs and traditions influenced the development of democracy in Samoa. Samoans incorporated customs and traditions in their democracy with the objective of preserving their culture.
Given that the customs and democracy formed a hybrid system of democracy, the book presents Samoa as a case study, which shows how customs and democracy effectively interacted and formed a system of governance. As customs and traditions represent old culture, democracy represents new culture.
In this view, the book examines how old and new cultures interact in bringing about changes in social, economic, and political aspects of Samoa. Ultimately, the book concludes that customs and traditions are no longer relevant in modern democracies, and thus countries that still uphold them need to discard and embrace ideal democracy.
Theoretical and Topical Approach
The theoretical and topical approach of the book is modern democracy. The modern democracy provides enhanced rights for citizens to participate in governance through political and civic activism. The book assesses the development of democracy in Samoa since its independence up to the 21st century.
Essentially, the author illuminates the democracy of Samoa based on tenets of modern democracy, and highlights its strengths and weaknesses. The democracy of Samoa is transitioning from custom-based democracy to legal-based democracy that reflects the ideals of democracy in civilized societies.
Fundamentally, the author is assessing the nature of democracy that Samoa practice in relation to the ideals of democracy. What makes the democracy of Samoa unique are the customs and traditions, which Samoans adopted as part of their constitution.
Hence, the author approaches the democracy of Samoa from the perspective of modern democracy as demonstrated by civilized societies in the western world. From the perspective of modern democracy, the author concludes that customs and traditions that are in the constitution of Samoa are not essential because they hinder the development of democracy in the country.
Key Concepts
Customs and traditions: These are practices, values, principles, and institutions, which reflect the culture of Samoans.
Democracy: It is a modern way of governance that allows citizens to participate or contribute to their governance equally.
Uneasy alliance: Refers to the alliance between Samoans’ customs and democracy, which is no longer relevant and applicable in Samoa because of the advancement in western democracy.
Indigenous institutions: These are traditional institutions formed based on the customs and traditions of Samoans.
Consensus politics: Politics that require a political class to make decisions based on consensus of individuals.
Party politics: Are politics that involve election and nomination of individuals according to the constitutions of their respective parties.
Matai system: socio-political system of Samoans, which controls social and political activities in Samoa.
Brief Summary
The book presents how democracy evolved in Samoa from customs-based to legal-based one. In the first section, the author presents the nature of indigenous institutions like the matai system. The matai system is an indigenous system of governance, which permeates into every aspect of Samoan community.
Although foreigners had been trying to influence the political system of Samoa from 1830 to 1962, Samoans remained conservative, and they retained the matai system. The second section describes how the matai system became instrumental in achieving the independence and adoption of constitution.
The third section highlights that Samoans continued to keep the old matai system despite the fact that they did adopt the new constitution and gained independence. In constitution, Samoans adopted customs and traditions, which made the democracy of Samoa unique.
In spite of the fact that the Samoans adopted customs and traditions in their constitution, their democracy continued to flourish with time. In the fourth and the fifth sections, the book underlines a transformation of consensus politics into party politics. The party politics led to the development of political parties and democratic institutions that supported the growth of democracy.
The sixth section denotes campaign strategies that political leaders employed in their quest to improve democracy, the seventh section shows how political leaders competed and shaped the political system of Samoa.
What transformed Samoa political system are the constitutionalized rights as the eight section presents. Constitutionalization of rights such as freedom of expression, association, voting, and other human rights paved the way for the maturity of democracy in Samoa.
Ultimately, the ninth section underlines that the customs and traditions of Samoans are currently irrelevant in the constitution because they undermine the development of democracy.
Data and Evidence Presented
The data and evidence that the author used for making the argument is the information from a number of historical books. Given that the book examines the history of Samoa as far as the early part of the 19th century, historical books are essential and relevant. The historical books provide reliable secondary data, which are appropriate in the analysis of the democracy and customs of Samoans.
In addition to historical writings, the book relies on the culture of Samoans as a primary source of information regarding the matai system. The culture of the Samoans is central to the argument because it supports the assertion of the uneasy alliance. Moreover, the author used interviews as primary sources of information; the author sought opinions of historians and political analysts.
The argument
Evidently, the argument that the author presents in the book is convincing because it is based on reliable and valid evidence. The reliable and valid evidence is trustworthy because it provides multiple sources of information, which corroborate and support the argument.
In this view, the argument that the customs and democracy of Samoa formed an uneasy alliance is in line with other accounts that explain the evolution and the nature of democracy in Samoa.
Strengths and Limitations
The strength of the book is that it provides a comprehensive view on how democracy evolved in Samoa. In the comprehensive view, it is evident that customs and traditions are socio-political issues that have prevented Samoa from developing its democracy and attaining mature democracy that is common in civilized countries.
Moreover, the strength of the book is that it presents Samoa as a case study of an uneasy alliance between democracy and customs. However, the limitations of the book are that it disregards positive elements of customs and traditions in democracy and overlooks negative impacts of modern democracy.
Conclusion
The book review shows that the author highlights how democracy and customs have continually interacted in Samoa. The interaction between democracy and customs has led to the evolution of democracy in Samoa, but currently customs and traditions have restricted its development.
When Samoa underwent through a period of transformation in terms of economic, social, and political aspects, democracy became incompatible with customs and traditions. Thus, the author of the book recommends that Samoa should disregard customs and traditions, and embrace complete democracy. Overall, the book is very enriching, as it elucidates the evolution of democracy since when Samoa got its independence.
Works Cited
So’o, Asofou. Democracy and Custom in Samoa: an Uneasy Alliance. Fiji: International Publishing Services, 2008. Print.
Democracy is probably one of the most complicated concepts to be understood in political science. On the one hand, it seems to be so easy to comprehend the main idea of democracy as the form of government that is controlled by the citizens.
On the other hand, such form of government has a number of components which have their own characteristics and peculiarities which are hard to define. Due to the Hudson’s idea that the citizen participation may have two faces, it is not always easy to define the impact of such participation on democracy in the USA.
A certain control is required to enhance political participation and define its level by means of which it is possible to consider citizens’ opinions and promote the worth of government; in other words, political participation may enhance considerably American democracy in case this participation is properly organized in the forms of votes or Internet activities; however, current conditions undermine democracy a lot.
Summary of the Author’s Ideas
Hudson is one of the writers who creates a powerful system by means of which it is possible to evaluate the conditions under which American democracy may be organized. His American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America’s Future is a unique collection of professional ideas of what may challenge democracy and how this sphere of life may be improved. He introduces four theories of citizen participation and clearly describes an appropriate model for each.
The role of people is huge indeed, and society should realize its impact on the development of the country. The author defines two sides of citizen participation: on the one hand, “fewer citizens seem interested in showing up to vote representatives into office”, and on the other hand, “elected representatives are beleaguered with citizen activists monitoring every vote and ready with vociferous demands on every conceivable issue” (Hudson 144).
The role of citizen participation in the system may be both decreased and increased under different theories given. For example, Hudson uses protective and pluralistic models of democracy under which citizen participation is passive, and society is too weak to protect its diversity, property, and liberty (Engel 46).
However, the other two models, participatory and developmental, aim at involving citizens to the political sphere of life in order to prove social as well as economic equalities. Still, it does not matter for Hudson what model of democracy is used by society because each form is another serious challenge for people and for democracy. People are biased because of the encouraged trivialized elections, spreading radical individualism, and even inequality that is increased in the sphere of business.
Participation should provide citizens with more opportunities to improve their political rights and ideas; people may become more responsible for their activities. However, the author underlines that unfortunately “the character of American political participation undermines our democracy focuses not on who participates but on how participation is organized” (Hudson 160). Even citizen participation remains to be a serious challenge for American democracy under the current conditions.
Argument: Does Participation Challenge or Enhance Democracy?
According to Hudson, the relations between participation and democracy play an important role and should be organized properly basing on the theories. In the introductory part of the book, the author defines four main theories according to which citizen participation may be organized. Each theory has its own impact on politics, this is why it is necessary to pay certain attention to every aspect.
Developmental type of democracy “takes much more positive view of people, especially people in democratic society” (Hudson 10). In other words, the peculiar feature of such model is that democracy here makes sense and has a purpose. Magstadt examines this model as “a kind of school for civic education and socialization” (103).
Pluralistic democracy is one of the most recognizable models as it aims at defining social interests and their competition. There is a certain hierarchical order that is inherent to the economic elite, and such model defines the idea of non-participation as the only positive aspect to satisfy citizens with the offered political process.
Protective democracy usually aims at protecting popular governmental control as the only reliable method to protect citizens’ liberty. The point is that citizens are free to perform passive roles in all political activities, still, they become active on the economic arena. Though this type of democracy is characterized by properly defined political rights as votes or protests, this model fails to focus on inequality that is spread in society.
The essence of participatory model lies into the fact that political and social institutions may be improved by means of direct citizen participation. Democratic citizenship should be provided with freedom and opportunities to create a world the living conditions of which may be considered. Unfortunately, government is not able to control such model of democracy all the time, this is why such attitude to citizens’ rights is usually neglected or poorly organized.
To create a properly working society, citizens should have a certain number of skills and a good level of knowledge. Political awareness is an important issue to be considered as citizens should understand the messages they send and receive (Kuklinski 278). Unfortunately, not all American citizens are ready to study the required material to participate in different political activities and introduce new ideas of how the current living conditions may be improved.
Of course, people may have their own opinions, still, they are not ready to find practical and legal application to their oral ideas and thoughts. This is why the only rational idea about the level of political participation in the USA should be connected to the protective democracy under which citizens’ ideas and rights are taken into consideration still require certain improvements and elaboration from a pure political point of view.
It is seems to be rational to take some aspects of the two theories defined by Hudson in his work, protective and participative. In other words, political participation may enhance democracy in case citizens are provided with a number of opportunities and rights, still, their ideas and suggestions in the forms of votes, personal initiatives, and the Internet activities will be controlled by the government to protect human rights and not to create the situations which are legally hard to explain and introduce.
Success of political participation is predetermined by the possibility to organize and maintain the control of human activities without neglecting human rights and initiatives.
Conclusion
William Hudson contributed considerably to the sphere of political science, and his idea to define citizen participation as one of the challenges to American democracy deserves recognition. In fact, political participation may enhance American democracy in a variety of ways in case a proper model is chosen and implemented to society.
People are free to choose what kind of democracy they want to live in, still, they should be also ready to improve personal understanding of the political terms and be promote ideas which have appropriate legal bases. Still, each person should ask one question to him/herself whether he/she is ready to learn more in order to take the step and be able to change the present and improve the future.
Works Cited
Engel, Michael. The Struggle for Control of Public Education: Market Ideology vs. Democratic Values. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000.
Hudson, William, E. American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America’s Future. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2006. Print.
Kuklinski, James, H. Citizens and Politics: Perspectives from Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Magstadt, Thomas. M. Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions, and Issues. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2010.
The internet has had a deep impact on various spheres of life of individuals. For example, it enables us to communicate in real time (Barber, 2003). In essence, the internet has reduced the world into a global village whereby you can reach someone on another continent in a matter of seconds.
The internet has played a significant role in ensuring that the cries of the oppressed are heard. For example, for the better part of 2011, we have witnessed massive protests in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, and Libya, to name but a few countries, whereby the power of the internet has been used positively to educate and empower citizens against abuse of their human rights.
Consequently, we have seen hitherto powerful regimes brought to their knees thanks to the power of the internet. On the other hand, the emergence of the internet as a global tool of communication may have come at a price. One question that we need to ask ourselves is whether technology supports democracy?
Right from the very beginning, telecommunications technology has been seen by many as the engine that drives democracy (Carry, Cross & Young, 2001; Hurrell & Longford, 2006). In recent years, internet technology has been a central pillar in driving globalization by enabling us to grind down the narrow-minded limits that separate various national enemies and at the same time, helping us to make frontiers porous.
On the other hand, even as internet technology has been instrumental in the quest for globalization, it may also play a crucial role in undermining democracy. The current essay is an endeavor to examine the issue of democracy and power in the online world. In this case, the essay shall endeavour to assess how online technology has impacted on democracy and the balance of power.
Does global technology support political democracy?
In this day and age, participatory democracy appears to be on the decline. The emergence of the internet seems to have played a significant role in helping to enhance this breakdown (Howard, 2005; Mezirow, 2009). The fact that the internet calls for intellectual and financial investment has also played a role in the decline of democracy.
This, along with lack of centralised control means that an internet user has a lot of freedom at his/her disposal, and this may compromise democracy because there are not many restrictions facing an internet user (Turkle, 2004). On the other hand, many political leaders have gained fame and popularity thanks to the internet and as such, the internet has played the pivotal role of a medium for the attainment of true democracy.
Class and prejudice have no place in the online environment. When we consider such an interactive setting as an online chat for example, we realise that information exchange occurs in the form of text exchanges, meaning that there is no identification of sex, race, and colour (Malina, 2003).
Consequently, it is very hard to contaminate the exchange of ideas that takes place freely. In addition, we need to take into account the fact that internet users have historically been opposed to control or censorship of information dissemination online.
That is why the decision by the Chinese government to censure that internet has been met with a global outcry, with media activists and democratic governments voicing their concern about the undemoctratic and unconstitutional acts taken by the Chinese government. In addition, we also need to consider the fact that an individual may partake in democratic practice and processes using the internet devoid of any commercial partiality or government filtering.
However, the idea of participatory democracy that has been popularized by the internet has its own problems and these needs to be addressed. For example, we have a number of boundaries to participation that many advocates of the new media appear to have disregarded.
To start with, the internet seems to be defined in terms of hardware. For instance, the cyberspace has been defined by many scholars as several computers that have been joined together in order to form “a network of networks” (Longford & Patten, 2007). In the end, the definition of the internet does not entail human terms.
Therefore, participation in the online world entails the use of a series of computers that have been linked up together, effectively forming a network, as opposed to human interaction using the same hardware. However, we also need to take into account the fact that the input of humans is required in order to ensure that networking occurs.
Nonetheless, the internet itself has more to do with the phenomenon of linkage, and less to do with the people involved. As such, suggesting that we can be able to achieve democracy through the internet as a medium of communication is to a certain extent, an overstatement (Las, 2002) because when talking about the internet, we are essentially interested in the infrastructure, as opposed to the concepts involved.
On the other hand, one of the privileges that the internet allows us to enjoy is democracy. The internet connects individuals from various locations of the world, regardless of their cultural differences or geographical location (Jenkins & Thorburn, 2003). However, we seem to have ignored the fact that in order for this interconnectivity to take place, it is important to have the machines first so that internet communication can be facilitated (Wenger, 1998).
This means that we must first invest in the necessary hardware so that we can enjoy the power of the internet and by extension, the democracy that is purported to accompany this technology (Turkle, 1996). Therefore, we need to confine participation in this form of technology to those individual who can access the necessary funds to buy the needed equipment, as well as the literacy levels of the individuals who are involved in the internet information exchange process (Castells, 2010).
From a political point of view, the emergence of digital technology has totally transformed global politics. The internet enables members of the public to easily access government documents and as a result, they are in a position to keep track of how their tax is being utilized and the areas of development that the government appears keen to prioritise (Jenkins & Thorburn, 2004).
In addition, the public can also keep track of the content and tactics of political campaigns, as well as reports on the behaviours of aspiring leaders seeking political office. For example, many a political candidate has been forced to shelf his/her desire to take political office following reports that they have been involved in corruption or sex scandals.
Normally, most of these allegations have been propagated by the internet and specifically, such social media sites as Facebook and twitter. This goes to show us that the internet has been a very powerful tool in helping to root out corrupt individuals and government.
In addition, the internet has also helped to shape the behavior of politicians because any prospective candidate knows that they cannot afford to behave in a manner that is contrary to the expectations of the society as such behaviours will always be brought to light and this is likely to dash their political dreams (Galston, 2003). The internet also helps us to understand the behaviors of voters, and the manner in which certain topics enter the public discourse.
The growth of the internet has brought with it a revival of the civic sphere. In addition, it has also been very instrumental in extending community life by way of providing diverse and broad forums for discussion (Deibert, 2003). These are important tools in helping to bring democracy to the people in the community.
The internet has also facilitated online deliberation, consultation, political debate, administration, scrutiny, and decision-making. In addition, it has also facilitated online organising, mobilization, protesting, and petitioning. Recently, we have witnessed the fall from grace of Hosni Mubarak, the former Egyptian president for more than 30 years.
The same case also befell his Tunisian counterpart, Ben Ali. Other leaders that have fallen victim to the recent global political protests that have been perpetuated by the internet and specifically the social media include the Yemeni president. The citizens from these regions have had to bear with bad governance and oppression for far too long and their quest for redemption has failed up until now, because their respective governments have been able to control the political machinations that would have allowed them to air their grievances.
For example, some of these regimes have been accused of media gagging. However, it has not been easy for them to gag internet communication. From this context, we realise that the internet is a powerful tool in the fight for democracy among marginalised citizens.
The internet has also made election, polling, and plebiscites comparatively accessible and cheaper. The voice of the masses can conceivably be expressed loudly and regularly using the internet thereby helping to enhance popular decision-making and in the process (Dahlberg, 2005), ensure that the gap between members of the public and their political leaders has been closed.
Although the internet has supported democracy, nevertheless, we need to be concerned with the issue of the real discussions that takes place online (Howard, 2005). Sometimes, an internet user will be required to just say whether they are in agreement with a certain statement, or not, with just a click of a button.
Thanks to the internet, it is now possible to sign and garner petitions. However, we have to take issue with the approach of coercing our politicians to stay in touch with the issues that they are supposed to attend to , and if there is any democracy at all in this approach. We should also be concerned about how legitimate the results of an internet petitions can be because many people are less likely to use their real names anyway. In the later 2000s, the emergence of online social networking has led to a rise in the integration of internet petitions.
This has led to an increase in the number of criticisms directed at politicians who have failed to deliver in the current democratic dispensation. However, one wonders if this approach leads to an integration of democracy because those accused of wrongdoing may not be called upon to participate in such debates that ends up crucifying them.
Conclusion
The internet has been both a blessing and a curse in as far as the issues of democracy and power are concerned. To start with, the internet has allowed individuals to vet their leaders who do not honour the constitution. This ensures that they remain on guard that they should not misuse their powers in office. In addition, the internet has allowed society to take an inclusive and participatory role in the fight for democracy.
For example the social media sites, twitter and facebook, have played a pivotal role in the overthrowing of many of the regimes in recent years. In addition, wikileaks has enlightened members of the public on corrupt dealings and scandals that are being perpetrated by politicians and leaders behind the scenes. Internet petitions have been used to deliver a vote of no confidence on unpopular leaders. As to the question of whether global technology supports democracy, this is still debatable.
For instance, some critics have argued that some of the leaders who have been accused of opposing democracy do not have a chance to have their side of the story heard. On the one hand, the internet has helped to enhance global democracy by enabling people to air their political views and opinions on the issues that affects them.
Also, the legitimacy of internet petitions for example, has been put to question. Nonetheless, the role of the internet in creating awareness to the public about heir rights and what they may expect from their leaders has been instrumental.
Reference List
Barber, B. R., 2003. Which technology and which democracy? Democracy and New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Carry, R. K., Cross, W., & Young, L., 2001. Canadian Party Politics in the New Century. Journal of Canadian Studies, Vol. 35, No. 4, p. 28.
Castells, M., 2010. The power of identity: the information age: economy, society and culture. Cambridge, MA: Oxford.
Dahlberg, L., 2005. The Corporate Colonization of Online Attention and the Marginalization of Critical Communication? Journal of Communication Inquiry, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 160-80.
Deibert, R. J., 2001. Civil Society Activism on the World Wide Web: The Case of the Anti-MAI Lobby. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Galston, W. A., 2003. If Political Fragmentation is the Problem, is the Internet the Solution? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Howard, P. N., 2005. Deep Democracy, Thin Citizenship: The Impact of Digital Media in Political Campaign Strategy. London: Palgrave.
Hurrell, C., & Longford, G., 2006. Online Citizen Consultation and Engagement in Canada. Hershey PA: Idea Group.
Jenkins, H., & Thorburn, D., 2003. Democracy and the new media. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Las, S., 2002. Critique of information. London: Sage Publications.
Malina, A., 2003. e-Transforming Democracy in the UK: Considerations of Developments and Suggestions for Empirical Research. The European Journal of Communication Research, Vol. 28, No. 2, p. 135.
Mezirow, J., 2009. An overview of transformative learning. London: Sage.
Turkle, S., 1996. Life on the screen: identity in the age of the internet. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Turkle, S., 2004. Second self: Computers and the Human Spirit. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Democracy refers to as a form of government whereby the citizens have the right to contribute in making decisions that affect their lives. These rights and freedom are demonstrated through their participation in national debates, proposals development and in passage of important laws and legislations (Mulligan 20). Democracy also to some extend encompasses economic, social and cultural aspects, which enable or rather, enhance freedom and equality in making certain choices.
It also ensures that citizens engage in a free and fair process of political systems by choosing their own representative without any harassment whatsoever. Therefore, democracy fosters transparency, equality and freedom to all the citizens of a given state. In terms of its meaning and application, democracy although has no specific definition, has aroused different opinions and arguments among various personalities with some arguing for and some against it.
Argument for democracy
Democracy is seen as the fundamental principal of upholding the rights of people. The proponents of democracy argue that, through democracy, citizens are accorded the freedom to participate on issues concerning their country enjoying a peaceful coexistence as the rule of law applies (Decker and Lim 170).
Therefore, democracy ensures that equality of all the citizens regardless of their language, color ethnicity or any other attributes that may be used upon a given person to deny him his rights is binding. This form of government is therefore seen as the most preferable for states as it has a big room for autonomy. The democratic form of government seems important in ensuring stability, peace, growth and development of a nation.
Countries, which have different ethnic groups have a higher chance of falling in civil wars because of fight over resources and political leadership. In democratic countries, such instances are minimal as the society coexists on the same level. Such differences for instance ethnicity remain covered in the constitutions, which provide freedom of movement to all citizens and which accords rights of every individual to live everywhere.
Therefore, democracies rarely experience political instability or wars because they are united through well-structured systems, which accord equal rights to the citizen of a given state. Furthermore, democracies remain vital because they give the citizens an opportunity to engage in important issues like legislations that affects them. Such freedom and room ensures that people’s ideas and views are used to form the basis of decisions hence helping in ensuring transparency, farness and justice amongst others.
Argument against democracy
On the other hand, those against democracy have raised an alarm of certain types of democracies, which do not provide freedom, and equality to their citizens as expected. This arises especially when certain democracies are not well-structured therefore leaving some gaps to be misused by those in power.
For instance, a democracy that is structured in a way that it deny its people from participating in important legislations processes and those whereby some braches of governments interfere with the separation of powers in order for their own favors are not democracies as the repercussions are dreadful. Such democracies are prone to be affected with rampant cases of corruptions, violations of human rights and impunity because of toothless legislative process and protection of certain individuals from facing the rule of law.
Such democracies therefore experience poor governance and therefore do not show any growth or development. Although the majority rule stands out as a phrase used often in democracy, it can also be oppressed by the tyranny of the majority in circumstances where there is absence of constitutional protection and governmental protection of groups and individuals in a given state.
For instance, in democracies, which have a larger majority agreeing to certain issues pertaining to them, they may turn out as oppressive and retrogressive to the minorities.
This clearly demonstrates some weaknesses in democracies implying that democracies lack of perfect per se. Democracy may also be hindered by the people themselves when they do not follow their own conscience or instincts in making decision in political and any legislative processes (Altindag and Mocan 111). There exist various variables influencing their instincts or thoughts like media, and key political leaders making the people to fail exercising their constitutional rights based on their perceptions and opinions.
Such occurrences also demonstrate that democracy is not actually practiced but is just a tool to cover the evils that are being perpetrated by certain governments. An economist like Milton Friedman also criticizes democracies based on its efficiency. For instance, where voters make political decisions without being informed, they remain unaware of many political issues, which make them to be biased on the things or knowledge they posses hence makes decisions which are not well thought out.
Conclusion
Based on the expositions made in the paper, it seems evident that many states stand committed towards attaining democracy. As they crave to attain democracy, it is important for the governments to be aware of what democracy entails in order to be able to uphold to it. The proponents of democracy argue on how it promotes freedom, equality and majority rule, which are good concepts and leadership principles.
On the other hand, democracy has its stinky side if it is not well implemented and structured: it turns out to be a bogus good for nothing form of government. Democracies may misuse their power by using the opportunity to manipulate and oppress the citizens intelligently. It is therefore important that states, which embrace democracy, abide by the rule of law providing leadership that is free from oppression and manipulation as opposed to autonomy and openness.
Works Cited
Altindag, Duha and Mocan, Naci. Joblessness and Perceptions about the Effectiveness Of Democracy. Journal of Labor Research 31.2 (2010): 99-123.
Decker, Jessica and Lim, Jamus. Democracy and trade: an empirical study. Economics Of Governance 10.2 (2009): 165-186.
Mulligan, Casey. Social Security and Democracy. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy: Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy 10 (2010): 1-44, 46.
Comparative politics is a field that is crucial to understanding the world political systems. Though there are ways in which human beings analyze phenomena, comparative politics takes an empirical approach. This means that information is collected and analyzed objectively. This therefore means that political scientists are faced with the difficult problem of classifying states of the world.
To achieve this, various paradigms are suggested that can be used to classify states. But what causes a major problem is whether the very paradigms used are adequate and whether only the empirical method is the only direction that effectively analyses phenomena. It is against this awakening that some scholars developed some measures of aggregation to capture these paradigms (Munck, 53).
Issues such as democracy and political power have motivated several political scientists to advance theories. For example how does one measure democracy? In essence, this question is very difficult to answer. Thus, it is not easy to say such a country is more democratic than the other.
However this does not mean that it is not important to find a certain way of measuring democracy. This standard through which democracy can be measured should incorporate an almost universal acceptance of what the characteristics of democracy are. Several political scientists came up with some ways of measuring this by advancing certain theories.
Theoretical Frameworks
Dahl’s measure of Polyarchy
Robert Dahl coined the term polyarchy with reference to the rule by many (Dahl 45). This was guided by the fact that democratic support emanates from consensus and participation of the larger group of citizens. This is however an ideal scenario. So, states that tend to be closer to this can be said to be more democratic as opposed to those who deviate from this ideal.
Dahl, therefore, has gone to a greater extent to aid us in using the principle of polyarchy to group various systems as being democratic or non-democratic. He says that citizens must fully participate in the government for that government to qualify as a polyarchy (Dahl, 98).
This means that the citizens should not only agree with the government to be seen to be participating but they should also be at liberty to criticize or even contest whatever issue the government may advance that they do not agree with. The people, in actual sense, must be free to formulate what they prefer without any form of discrimination by the government (Dahl, 76). This could be seen fully effected by the government being able to put in place some sure guarantees.
For instance, the government should allow its members to freely form and join organizations of their choice; have the right to expression, vote, contest for power and, finally, to have freedom of access to information. What is more, the elections must be free and fair as well as the ordinary people having unrestrained eligibility to vie for those elections (Diamond, 33). The state should be beholden to the whims and will of the citizens. The reverse should not occur.
In a nutshell Dahl’s measure of democracy bases its conclusion on combining two measures, rights and liberties on the scale of 1-7. Each indicator runs on a scale between 1 and 7; this therefore means that the theoretical scores will range from 2-14 (Dahl, 121). Remember this is reached by adding the earlier two scores together. After this is done, Dahl then brings in a cut-off point of 7: meaning that any score above 7 shows that the state is democratic, whereas any score below 7 shows a non-democratic tendency.
Polity Project Rankings
Polity project has existed since 1970s. Its rankings are based on two major scales: democracy and autocracy. The democracy scale comprises other sub-scales that have to do with political participation, competition, openness and constraints on the chief executive.
For the autocracy scale, there are also four subscales namely: absence of competition, regulated political participation, no competitiveness and finally, absence of the constraints on executive authority. The scales run from -10 to +10; where -10 reflects a state that is totally undemocratic while +10 reflects one which is fully democratic.
So the particular state has all the democratic elements put on scale as well as the undemocratic elements. Finally, the autocracy scale is subtracted from the democracy scale and the difference taken and put on the resultant scale of -10 to +10 for conclusion. For example, -10 could represent a hereditary monarchy while +10 score could represent a consolidated democracy.
Vanhanen’s Index of Democracy
Vanhanen’s index of democracy (ID) largely focuses on three variables: degree of competition, extent of participation and finally the extent to which power is distributed (Sodaro, 88). Unlike other measures discussed above, this index is open-ended. Competitiveness can be seen from the number of political parties that take part in an election, while participation is reflected by the number of people who take part in the election of state leadership.
Power distribution is, on the other hand, reflected by the dispersion of seats in the legislature. The final ranking is placed on a continuum of very high index values to that of zero index values, such that the higher the country scores on that continuum, the more democratic that country is considered. Should a country score zero that country is considered highly undemocratic.
Scores for United Kingdom, France, Japan and China
Dahl’s measure of Polyarchy
Country Score
United Kingdom 12
France 10
Japan 8
China 2
The results for United Kingdom are justified looking at the type of government. Though UK can be considered a constitutional monarchy, there is clear evidence that there are rights and liberties enjoyed by its citizens. Its election system comprises two parties namely Conservative and Labour parties (Diamond, 65).
Although it has a monarch too, the monarchy is only symbolic. But what makes it not score highly is that though there is a monarchy the citizens do not play any role in the elevation of one to this position. Now put against Dahl’s measure of polyarchy we see in this case the citizens fall short of feeling free to “formulate own preferences. In other words, they are not free to join this ‘organization’ of royalty. All in all, the citizens of Britain enjoy freedom of expression.
The leaders are equally free to compete politically. Another flaw is that some people from Northern Ireland are not clearly well represented in leadership of UK, thus the conclusion that though UK falls in the bracket of polyarchy, it falls short due to its failure to meet certain requirements as discussed.
France is almost like UK only that its system of government comprises a mix of both parliamentary and presidential system (Hollifield and Ross 90). Its citizenry is free to join organizations and is also able to participate in elections. This is evident from the number of political parties there. The citizenry also can demonstrate against the government. Though its people are free to participate in electing the president, they do not have the same power when it comes to choosing or vetting the cabinet and those that will take party posts.
Japan, on the other hand, takes the form of a parliamentary democracy. The executive is usually selected from the dominant party or a coalition of parties. Members of parliament are competitively elected by the people. The dominant parties here are Liberal Democratic Party (LPD) and the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ).
The prime minister is appointed by parliament. The Japanese people are free to join parties of their choice. The Japanese also have the freedom of expression as seen in plurality of the parties and media. They also have the right to vote. Its political leaders, however, are not free to compete for political power since the major parties seem to decide who leads the party while parliament chooses the prime minister and not the citizens being bestowed the responsibility of directly electing one.
China performs dismally on Dahl’s measure. The citizens of China do not have the freedom to select their chief executive. Only the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has the power to do this. This party has ruled the country for decades.
Currently the president happens to be executive secretary of CCP. Actually, China is a one party dictatorship. Dissent is abhorred by the leadership. There is censure of both print and electronic media. The people lack freedom of expression. Political dissent is usually crushed ruthlessly. In essence, the rights and liberties of the citizens are almost absent.
Polity Project Rankings
Country Score
United Kingdom 09
France 08
Japan 04
China -9
United Kingdom citizens on democracy scale participate in the politics. This is evident in the presence of political parties. Other small parties are not discriminated against. The rights of its citizens are also respected and protected. The prime minister is elected through a multi-party political system that is highly competitive.
There are also executive constraints on the executive in the UK. Though the UK has an unwritten constitution, constraints are placed on the executive through the legislature, judicial precedents and even the norms that have been set and respected over a long period of time.
France has competitive multiparty elections to elect the president. The prime minister is usually chosen by the president from the party that wins the majority seats in an election (Hollifield and Ross 92).
On the executive constraints, they are a bit not as many as those of the UK. For instance, in France, the president has immense powers to dissolve parliament even without concurring with the prime minister. Besides, the national assembly is usually obliged to give priority to bills emanating from the executive as opposed to those coming from elsewhere (Duch 44). However, the assembly still has matters to do with education, tax, war etc.
Japan, having a parliamentary system through which the chief executive is appointed, scores highly when it comes to competitive elections. Power has been seen shifting between Liberal Democratic Party (LPD) and the Democratic Party of Japan (LPJ).
In Japan the executive is subordinate to the House of Representatives, from which the prime minister is selected. The prime minister is also checked by legislature.
As earlier mentioned, Japan has elections that are carried out competitively through the several political parties like DPJ, LDP, Komeito and even Your Party, among others. In all aspects Japan ranks zero. This is why I awarded it 4 in the polity rankings.
China performs dismally in the polity rankings. Elements of autocracy are many. The Communist Party is the only one designated to choose the chief executive.
There are almost nil executive constraints. The CCP dominates both the political, social and even economic life of Chinese society. Though there is some rule of law, it majorly deals with issues social, economical and not political.
Political participation is missing. In cases of political dissent, this is met with high-handed state repression that leads to those involved being hanged, committed to long jail terms or even forced to seek asylum abroad.
Vanhanen’s Index of Democracy
Country Score
United Kingdom 19
France 13.5
Japan 12
China 0.2
From the above scores on the continuum, the United Kingdom takes the lead, probably based on the concepts earlier discussed, followed by France Japan and then China. It can be gleaned that UK is more democratic unlike China which is placed lowest on the continuum.
Conclusion
From the discussion it can be concluded that the various theoretical frameworks have provided great inroads into classifying states. Even though the various frameworks have their weaknesses one sees a pattern of consistency in the way various countries are classified. However, what needs to be looked into is whether democracy is good for all societies and whether there is a connection between democracy and economic prosperity.
Works Cited
Dahl, Robert. Polyarchy; Participation and opposition. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1995. Print
Diamond, Larry. Developing Democracy: Towards Consolidation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. Print
Duch, Raymond Michael. Economic Chaos and the Fragility of Democratic Transition in Former Communist Regimes. Journal of Politics, (1995):121-158.Print
Hollifield, James and Ross George. Searching for the new France. New York, Routledge, 1991.Print
Munck, Luis Gerardo. Measuring democracy: a bridge between scholarship and politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. Print
Sodaro, Michael. Comparative Politics. A global Introduction. New York, Mc Graw Hill, 2004.Print
Tunisia as a case study for democracy in Africa portrays nature and the extent of democracy in Africa. Prior to her independence in 20 March 1956, Tunisia was under colonial rule of French since 1881. After independence, Habib Bourguiba became the first president of Tunisia and progressively led his regime with imperial powers, which resulted into his re-election as president for life until 1975 when doctors declared him medically unfit to rule.
In 1987, prime minister Zine El Abidine Ben Ali came into power and continued suppressing democracy as he wanted to become president for life but the Tunisian revolution ousted and exiled him from power in January 2011. During the two regimes, “the media was controlled repressing even members of the secular opposition, human rights activists and their families …Tunisia today remains a limited democratic system where expression of critical views is constrained” (El-Hajoui, Aviel, and Keppelman 2).
Although multiparty democracy system of government was adopted in 1988, President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali managed to gag democracy and ruled for 33 years; an autocratic rule at its best. Due to incidences that led to the Tunisian revolution, multiparty democracy should be promoted in Africa for it is inevitable.
Since independence in 1956, the Tunisian government has been grappling with economic, political, and social issues that stalled due to poor democratic environment, which did not allow citizens to enjoy their fundamental rights of freedom (Driss 3).
During the reign of Habib Bourguiba, citizens experienced dictatorial regime that suppressed and constrained exercise of democracy. Based on experiences of the dictatorial regime of Habib Bourguiba and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the Tunisian government did not make any significant economic progression due to constrained democracy as compared with the developed countries such as France.
Rodrik argues that, “democracies perform better on a number of dimensions: they produce less randomness and volatility, they are better at managing shocks, and they yield distributional outcomes that are more desirable” (15). Therefore, for economic, social, and political stability for African countries, democracy is essential.
Given the events that led to the Tunisian revolution, it is quite evident that dictatorial regimes will not last in Africa because of the overwhelming influence of globalization that calls for the democratization of all countries in the world.
Democratic system of government is the dominant form of government in the world; hence, it is practically difficult for African countries to continue exercising other forms of government that do not uphold democracy. “Owing to its macroeconomic achievements, for decades Tunisia projected an image of stability to the world and distinguished itself from other Arab countries for its progress in the areas of economic growth, health, education and women’s rights” (Ayadi, Colombo, Cristina, and Tocci 1).
The achievements were not sustainable because the Tunisian government has been struggling against pertinent issues of globalization that are critical for the economic, political and social stability. Thus, if issues of globalization determine stability of a nation, how can governments guard itself from the negative influence of globalization?
The influence of globalization in terms of democratization of the world’s governments for effective and progressive leadership does not offer a room for other forms of governments that tend to suppress democracy. The Tunisian revolution has set precedent that no any dictatorial regime has sustainable power to last for long amidst dynamics of democracy that has already engulfed the whole world.
Since it cost lives and economy for the Tunisian revolution to occur, then, how can other dictatorial regimes in Africa embrace democracy without necessarily undergoing period of revolution and upheavals? In the case of Tunisia, Graham argues that, “we feel hope, as the people of Tunisia have made clear their deep-seated desire for democracy and their willingness to confront authority in their efforts to install democracy in their country (1).
Therefore, Tunisian revolution has demonstrated that democracy is the cornerstone for sustainable development of governments not only in Africa, but also in the entire world.
Works Cited
Ayadi, Rym, Silvia, Colombo, Maria Cristina, and Nathalie Tocci. “The Tunisian Revolution: An Opportunity for Democratic Transition.” Institute for African International, 2011: 1-12
Driss, Ahmed. “Thoughts on the Tunisian Revolution.” Mediterranean and Arab World Politics, 2011: 1-7
El-Hajoui, Medhi, Marrache Aviel, Susan Keppelman. “Tunisia.” The Journal of Democracy 3.22 (2010): 1-67.
Graham, Paul.”Statement on Behalf of the Non-Governmental International Steering Committee of the Community of Democracies on Events in Tunisia.” The Nongovernmental Process of the Community of Democracies, 2011: 1-6
Rodrik, Dani, “Democracy and Economic Performance.” Journal of Political Science 3.6 (1997): 1-22.
The whole world knows how seriously the United States takes the observance of the law. However, it does not mean that nothing threatens our democracy and politics. If we are eager to hold our field of being a democratic state, all the civilians should do their best to support the enactment of laws.
Thus, democracy is a collaborative work of state, politicians and ordinary people. That’s why all the people should perform their civic duty and be aware of the political situation in their country. Voters’ apathy, illiteracy and dependence on the mass media undermine the modern state order. However, I consider misinformation that the mass media and Internet provide to threaten our democracy more than the unawareness of electorate.
The problem of people’s lack of knowledge about the contemporary situation in the politics, government and law bothers the conscientious part of society. A special public inquiry made in 20/20 In Touch Should Some People Not Vote? shocks with the level of voters’ civic education.
It is mentioned that “civic education is an essential component of political socialization” in Essentials of American and Texas Government: Roots and Reform (O’Connor 286). However, those people are guided by other sources such as “demographic characteristics, family, peers and the mass media” (O’Connor 286).
Unfortunately, nowadays, the mass media affects the formation of the politic opinion of the civilians most of all. The Pew Research Center determined that the young people are more depended on the mass media and Internet (O’Connor 299).
The facts discussed there are specially selected and misrepresented. It would better for the promotion and improvement of our state order if TV shows create programs deepening people’s knowledge in basic civic education. Voters’ unawareness in politics is like a disease that can be treated. However, mass media do not try to heal the society.
The news we get from those resources are very specific and limited. The real facts are enlightened from the point of view which is favorable for the press.
Thus, people failed to recognize Joe Biden, the current Vice President, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court’s Associate Justice, in 20/20 In Touch Should Some People Not Vote?. However, they are fond of the rock concert in support of some politician. Famous musicians propagandized people that they should have voted for a person about whom they did not know anything.
Thus, contemporary voters guided by mass media just repeat the thoughts popularized by modern celebrities. They give their vote for the candidate chosen for them. The democracy means that all the civilians should express their own opinions and make their own choices. Thus, people appear to be deprived of their right to be free in voting. It is the greatest blow to the democracy.
All these TV shows bring home to people very dangerous ideas. The poll made in 20/20 In Touch Should Some People Not Vote? evokes mixed ideas. I had a feeling that this show was not intended to encourage people to improve their civic education, but was aimed to provoke the rest of the society to consider those people unworthy voting.
However, we should not forget that the equality of rights guarantees people to have an opportunity to vote. This right is stated in our Constitution that is the base of our democracy. Thus, when press prejudices the fundamental law, it makes the entire society step back of the democratic way.
Mass media and Internet go against democracy and manipulate electorate depriving them of their personal politic opinion and even of their right to vote. I consider that mass media should provide people with independent news to extend their civic education.
Works Cited
O’Connor, Karen, Sabato, Larry J., and Alixandra B. Yanus. Essentials of American Government: Roots and Reform. 2009 ed. New York: Longman, 2009. Print.
O’Connor, Karen, Sabato, Larry J., Yanus, Alixandra B., Gibson, L. Tucker, and Clay Robison Essentials of American and Texas Government: Roots and Reform. 2011 4th ed. New York: Longman, 2011. Print.
“Should Some People Not Vote?” 20/20 In Touch Webcast, ABC News. ABC, New York. 14 Oct. 2008. Television.
Years back, the general perception of democracy by most countries was that a democratic system of governance was only possible under particular socio-economic and cultural conditions and thus a preserve for the rich western countries. However, democracy characterized by regular free and fair elections is common in most countries today, with majority of them being poor developing nations.
Increasingly, democracy is becoming a universal concept as opposed to the earlier beliefs that it is a preserve for rich industrialized nations. In non-democratic countries, democratic movements are a common occurrence, where the citizenry demand freedom and expansion of the democratic space as a way of promoting peace and development.
Although the spread of democracy depends on internal attributes or societal factors within a nation, international influence also promotes the spread of democracy in non-democratic countries. Given the rapid global spread of democracy, multilateral assistance is important to promote democracy in non-democratic and autocratic countries. Democracy leads to peace either nationally or between countries, thus contributing to regional stability.
Evolution and Development of Democracy
The social origins of democracy involved a revolutionary shift of the relative importance accorded to individuals by the society to a collective system where the rights and interests of all the society members were upheld.
The expansion in the democratic space gave rise to democratic forms of governance that contributed to the developments in the various aspects of the society. It contributed to developments in science, education, economy and culture in ancient world (Russett, and Oneal 2001, 112).
The earlier democratic forms of governance particularly the American democratic revolution, led to the rise of Renaissance in the field of science, religious reformation and the rise of capitalistic economies in earlier democracies. In the non-democratic governance, the social elite including the military or religious personalities or royalties ruled the countries.
The revolutionary shift particularly in Western Europe in the last century intended to advocate for the recognition of the rights of the individuals from the ruling elite and in the process give more power to the people. During this shift, political democratic institutions emerged to advocate for the interests, values, and rights of the people from the authoritarian leadership.
This shift was gradual, characterized by shift of power from a centralized system to the society. The military or monarchial rule gave way to the rule by the rich and wealthy traders in the society who comprised the majority of the earlier parliament. Later, the need for the recognition of universal rights and freedoms for all individuals necessitated the distribution of power to the commercial class and much later extended to all citizens.
The origin of democracy can be linked to the ancient city of Athens in Greece. The emphasis on freedom and earlier religious and philosophical studies in Greece coupled with the need for freedom of worship and trial by a competent judicial system contributed to the rise of democracy in this ancient civilization. The increasing concern over autonomy helped grow and stabilize independence that was a critical ingredient in major achievements in the field of politics and science.
In ancient Rome, the governance included aristocratic and democratic principles with the aim of promoting a collective welfare of all the members of the society. During this period, the empire enjoyed relative peace compared to the other nations in Europe. However, much of the rulers of the Roman Empire disrespected the rights of individuals leading to the collapse of the empire.
With the fall of the Roman Empire, political absolutism took over suppressing the individual rights and liberties. After the fall of the Roman rule, the security of the people in Europe was compromised giving way to protection by warlords in exchange for payment. Individuals submitted to authoritarian leadership of monarchs and appointed priests, thereby depriving the populace of their individual civil rights and privileges.
The economic development and religious practices were under control of these rulers. Economic freedom contributed to the rise of democratic governance in most civilizations of the ancient world. The growth in trade characterized by the use of a common currency shifted power and dependence from the monarchic leaders leading to wealthy merchants giving rise to a form of individualism, where the rich merchants enjoyed certain privileges.
The shift from a centralized power system to the new system characterized by economic freedom encouraged the social development and development of individual enterprises. The economic freedom also contributed to Renaissance financed by the wealth merchants giving way to a change in human thinking and social organizations. Learning, particularly of philosophical concepts and languages provided the means of spreading new ideas on governance to all parts of a society contributing to breaking the prevalent political ideologies.
The increase in knowledge freed people from the religious and absolutistic control by demanding the recognition of individual rights and liberties from the ruling class. The intellectual and economic development in Europe led to religious reformation where the authority previously centralized in religious institutions, shifted to individuals giving rise to the democratic governance.
The Democratic Peace Theory
The democracies of the world seldom engage in international conflicts or wars between them as supported by empirical data research. This phenomenon shows a direct relationship between growth and expansion of democratic ideologies with peace or relative stability of a country or a region. In addition, the empirical research evidence suggests that violent actions are rare within democracies as opposed to aristocratic or purely monarchial countries. The democratic peace theory is based on Immanuel Kant’s philosophical ideas.
Immanuel Kant in the 16th century postulated the idea that the establishment of democratic republics could contribute to world peace. He believed that with democratic governance, people will see no reason to go to war or engage in a conflict, unless in self-defense (Kant 1991, 106). If there is relative peace in a country or a region, wars could be limited if not eliminated. Kant’s ideas gave rise to the modern democratic peace theory, which claims that democracies rarely engage in wars.
The democratic peace theory holds that democracies do not engage in war between themselves although they may engage in war with non-democracies. Empirical evidence supports this claim to some extent.
The proponents of the democratic peace attribute the lack of war in democracies or friendly relations between democracies to the peaceful conflict resolution mechanisms inherent in democratic societies or restraining public opinion. The democracies opt for peaceful means of solving internal political conflicts through mediation and dialogue rather than war or civil conflict.
Additionally, democracies engage in bilateral or multilateral trade, which eliminates chances of going to war in case of strained relations. Democracies also have established democratic institutions including a free electoral process and an influential legislature that deter the government from going into war.
The democratic peace theory advances two important reasons as to why democracies seldom engage in war with each other. Firstly, the democratic institutions in democracies deter these nations from engaging in war.
According to Doyle, basing his argument on Kant’s philosophy, the democracies fail to go to war with each other because in a democracy, the leadership is answerable to the citizenry (Doyle 1983, 323). If the democratic government unilaterally decides to go to war against the public opinion, it faces the risk of removal from power through elections.
In addition, democracies allow the public opinion to be incorporated into a country’s foreign policy hence reducing or eliminating the chances of going into war. The domestic political structures in democratic countries also contribute to avoidance of war by democratic nations as it increases political competition between the incumbent government and the opposition.
The second reason advanced by the proponents of the democratic peace theory involves the inherent social and cultural practices that promote peaceful resolution of conflicts allowing rival parties within a nation to reach a compromise, which is then extended to other democratic countries.
In addition, democracies also develop a positive perception of each other pertaining justice and conflict resolution within their boundaries, which encourage peaceful resolution of a common conflict. Democratic states also cooperate in many aspects, particularly in trade, because of common interests leading to a community of states with common interests that prevent wars among them or with other democratic states.
The critics of the democratic peace theory, among them Christopher Layne, argue that democracies fail to engage in wars because of other reasons other than those advanced by the democratic peace theory. The crises in democracies do not often result to war because of various reasons. Layne posits, the crisis between the “Great Britain and France in 1898, which have the most developed democracies in the world, did not result to war because the British war machinery was simply overwhelming” (1994, 43-44).
Other critics argue that, only interstate wars conform to the democratic peace theory and that internal dispute resolution in a democratic nation cannot be attributed to democratic peace theory by considering the civil wars in democratic states such as the American Civil War of 1861-1865. This challenges the applicability of the democratic peace theory in internal disputes of democratic nations.
In contrast, non-democracies lack democratic norms of compromise and peaceful resolution of conflicts or crises. They are, therefore, war-prone and can engage in war with democratic states. Democratic states on the other hand exercise restraint when in a conflict with a non-democratic nation.
However, the democratic nation may go into war with a non-democratic nation if the expectations are not met or if the non-democratic state takes advantage of the moderation exercised by the democratic nation. Thus, according to the democratic peace theory, democratic nations develop peaceful relations with each other but behave differently to other non-democratic states.
The Spread of Democracy and Peace
The spread of democracy termed democratization began in the last century from a few democracies but spread to the current state where more than 50% of all the states are democratic republics. The spread of democracy even to non-democratic nations is partly dependent on the democratic nature of the surrounding nations or region.
The democratization of a non-democratic nation is enhanced when the surrounding nations are democracies (Kant 1991, 114). Conversely, a democratic state surrounded by authoritarian countries will most likely revert to non-democratic practices. The democratic states increased sharply after World War I but fell in the advent of World War II. At the end of the Cold War, the number of world democracies has continued to increase.
The democratization process and its contribution to peace are best explained by the classical theory by Immanuel Kant (Kant 1991, 112). Kant advanced a series of democratic processes that would eventually result to peace. Firstly, Kant argued that the idea of development of a peaceful democratic community would encourage the elimination of non-democratic ideologies.
He also considered the contribution of democracy based on democratic norms to the process of democratization and peace following an evolutionary pattern. However, the major concern is whether democratization reduces the chances of a nation engaging in warfare. Empirical evidence indicates that dictatorships increase the chances of a country going into civil war or engaging in war with other nations.
Democracy often in the Western world entails freedom of expression and association by all the citizens within a nation and people-driven governance characterized by free and fair elections. However, the role of democracy in the spread of peace within nations and between democracies is often contentious. Historically, democracy was a revolutionary and social movement whose main aim was to break away from the authoritarian rule in most countries.
The major reason for the rapid spread of democracy is that democracies rarely go to war. However, critics argue that established democracies do not engage in war with each other not because they uphold democratic principles, but because they have common trade and social institutions even within their borders.
While it is evident that democracy promotes peace and integration both nationally and internationally, new rivalries between states might generate interstate wars. During the Cold war, the rivalries between powerful democratic nations such as Russia and China led to minor wars and border insecurity.
Despite democracy being one way of solving interstate conflicts and achieving peace, in my opinion, democratization alone does not normally result to avoidance of wars. Countries that boast of internal democracy engage in warlike actions with their neighboring countries, which is a pointer that democracy does not always lead to peace like the tensions between India and Pakistan. Additionally, democracies just like military leaderships can opt for war, to improve their popularity among the electorate within a country.
The old regimes within democratic countries also manipulate democracy by engaging in war with neighboring states or against minority society within the democratic nation. In other emerging democracies, the regime, which is normally inclined towards authoritarian rule, uses the electoral process to consolidate power over the people with less regard to fundamental individual rights and liberties.
In my opinion, it is difficult to convince non-democratic states that democracy is beneficial compared to authoritarian rule. The ruling elite in democratic countries often use democracy and democratization as means of legitimizing cruelty and tyranny to its citizens. In some cases, the leaders exercise authority over the electoral process making it impossible to conduct free and fair elections.
In addition, in these countries, the freedom of the media is minimal and the opposition parties often face mistreatment from the governing party. In developed democracies, the threats of war with minority dissidents or with neighboring countries are common. Thus, the notion that democracy contributes to peace is not always right.
Indeed, in the modern era, democracy is used as one way of seeking international recognition by breakaway states while at the same time committing various acts of atrocity. This, in my opinion, further complicates the notion of democratic peace as held by the Western powerful democracies.
The leaders of the breakaway nations use ‘democracy’ as the reason for seeking independence from the dominating state. However, in the process of democratization, the minorities are forced out of the territory as the leadership seeks to establish a homogeneous ethnic group to bolster their political interests.
Forced expulsion or genocide of the minority communities is committed in order to attain a uniform state comprising of a single ethnic group. After the atrocities, performed in the name of democracy, a referendum is held to confirm the majority rule of the new state.
The War and Peace Zones
Modern democracy and peace belong to the new world order. Given that democracy alone faces challenges in achieving universal peace even between industrialized nations, the real world order provides an ideal way for countries to regulate its institutions in the wake of globalization in the 21st century.
This can be achieved through intergovernmental cooperation. In addition, the real world order provides means of engaging the non-democratic institutions through use of international institutions. Under the new world order, the international institutions such as the United Nations, undertake the role of ensuring peace and security of the nations with the support of developed nations.
However, the world order faces challenges amongst them, the unpopularity of the concept. In addition, centralized rulemaking body requires universal participation by all the member states including the non-democratic states. The major challenge includes the fact that the United Nations cannot operate effectively without support from the powerful democracies neither will the states approve overall authority to this international body that would compromise their sovereignty.
The common belief that the new world order will bring universal peace even to authoritarian-ruled countries is based on the democratic peace theory, which postulates that democracies seldom engage in war amongst themselves.
While democracies may engage in war with non-democracies, they abstain from engaging in war amongst themselves hence establishing a ‘zone of peace’. The zone of peace will keep on expanding with the spread of democracy until universal peace and democracy is attained in all regions of the globe through an international federation.
The notion of a zone of peace, established under a democracy, began in the eighteenth century based on the Kant’s ideologies about the democratic peace and the idea of a global federation. The origin of the idea for a common federation has its roots from military alliances common in the sixteenth century.
The military alliances promoted peaceful resolution of conflicts by allowing enemy states to cooperate. However, the new world order bases its quest for global peace through international institutions, while Kant’s theory holds that universal peace can be attained through the establishment of democratic republics in the countries of the world.
In addition, the peace theory , which advocates for the formation of an international federation to enhance peaceful coexistence among nations, claims that democratic nations act only peacefully towards each other but can fight with non-democratic nations. However, Kant expected democratic nations to behave peacefully towards all the other nations, whether democratic or non-democratic as a way of achieving global peace.
Democracies often remain peaceful unless they are attacked or threatened by regimes from non-democratic nations. Under the democracy theory, the democratic nations are justified to employ force against authoritarian regimes because the non-democratic states may interfere with the peaceful democratic life in these countries. In addition, democracies cannot go to war with one another in order to promote the spread of peace among nations.
Thus, the spread of democracy is believed to increase the level of regional stability and peace among the various nations of the world beginning with the zones of peace and later spread to include the other non-democratic countries or the ‘war zones’. However, powerful nations particularly the Western governments and the International institutions such as NATO have wrongly used the spread of democracy to propagate forceful intrusion into relatively stable countries.
The ‘zones of peace’ as supported by liberal democracies are portrayed as just and the best way of attaining global peace. However, other forms of political organizations can also promote the development of specific ‘zones of peace’. The liberal democratic peace can be achieved through other forms of political organizations other than the liberal democracy supported by the Western world (Singer, and Wildavsky1993, 32).
Countries that do not conform to the ideologies of the liberal democracies or the Western cultural or socio-economic practices, experience relative peace and have friendly relations with the neighboring nations. The current democratic peace theory proposes a universal peace and security among nations, which is only achievable though democratic practices and international institutions’ presence.
In my opinion, democracy can spread both within a nation and internationally with help from democratic institutions within a democratic state and the international institutions such as the UN. However, the control of political affairs of the country should be left to the citizenry as opposed to the forceful application of the democratic principles on the people. Otherwise, the citizens would retaliate with revolt, which could harm the spread of the democratic peace.
Internationally, democratic peace can spread through emphasis of respect to fundamental human rights by all nations irrespective of whether they uphold liberal-democratic ideologies or they are simply non-democratic. The social development and expansion in religious and economic freedoms can also contribute to the spread of democratic peace across the world.
International Institutions and the Spread of Democratic Peace
Despite democracy playing a vital role in the spread of peace, it faces many impediments in the spread of democracy among many nations. In most authoritarian nations, reforms are rare with electoral systems that deter the spread of democratic peace.
In addition, these countries have a weak and non-vibrant civil society and cannot effectively challenge the governing regime. Other emerging democracies practice authoritarian rule under the guise of democracy. The international institutions such as the United Nations help to foster democratic peace in nations faced with governance challenges.
The United Nations, comprised of different democratic nations, undertakes to prevent common problems that hinder the spread of democratic peace. In particular, the internal conflicts or civil wars within a nation, government atrocities against its own people and wars between states are the major concerns of the United Nations of the Security Council (Luard 1986, 93).
However, these global institutions experience faces challenges from the member states that may refuse to comply with the laid down statutes as seen during the Cold War. The structural frameworks of the new world order relies on the development of these international institutions, which should have formal authority to promote peace even if it means the use of force.
However, the West including the United States refuses to vest authority to the legitimate global institutions and thus affects their operations. In addition, these global institutions contribute less, if any, to the welfare of the citizens of most countries. The global interests, particularly of the non-Western developed countries during the Cold War coupled with the perceived ineffectiveness of the International institutions in promoting peace contribute to the continuation of authoritarian governance.
In my opinion, the UN system as presently constituted has the potential of promoting peace and security than during the Cold War. The new challenges facing the UN’s operations include the potential security risk of countries amassing weapons of mass destruction.
However, I believe that the UN through various commitments can solve this potential crisis and contribute to peace among nations. Through mobilization of UN peace keeping activities to countries ravaged by war, peaceful negotiations, and conflict resolution can be reached. The UN can also authorize the use of force in exceptional circumstances, especially in countries ravaged by war or in case of potential threat of weapons of mass destruction, which is important in promoting peace among countries.
The UN also promotes the establishment of democratic governance in a country by first allowing a transitional government to be in place. This, in my opinion, is a vital step in rebuilding a state ravaged by war. The UN has the mandate to carry out inspection and monitoring of a country’s nuclear plants to ascertain the activities of the nuclear plant. Thus, any potential threats from weapons of mass destruction can be avoided and contribute to global peace.
Under the UN Charter, the relations between nations are covered. However, the internal activities of nations such as civil wars and weapon amassment by nations remain unregulated. In addition, the Charter provided for open membership by all interested nations regardless of whether they are democracies or not.
However, I think the operations of the UN could be enhanced if the membership comprised of democracies only because democracies respect human rights and fundamental rights. Additionally, democracies seldom engage in wars between themselves and do not allow killing by governments or civil wars to occur.
Thus, creating a UN institution that is comprised of democratic nations only would contribute to the expansion of democracy and peace among nations. Democracies are also less prone to engage in production of weapons of mass destruction and are more likely to comply with international laws and treaties than non-democracies. Democratic nations are less likely to be threats to international peace than dictatorships and therefore, form important members of the UN.
In addition to contributing to the spread of peace, democratization or the spread of democracy has promoted international cooperation particularly with regard to peace and security of nations (Spencer 1998, 305). Democracies often do not fight other democracies but can engage in war with authoritarian regimes when attacked.
The democratic nations cooperate through international institutions under the new world order to promote global peace in the nations of the world. Democracies often respect and trust the democratic practices of the other democratic nations leading to peaceful relations and expansion of democratic peace among nations.
The spread of democracy also has promoted international cooperation in trade and economic sectors, which is not feasible in war or international conflict. However, economic depressions or boundary dispute between democratic nations may strain the international relations enjoyed by democracies.
The integration of the world economy particularly in the areas of communication and trade can be attributed to the spread of democracy. This has encouraged cooperation in the management and regulation of the international organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank. Additionally, democratic nations cooperate in promoting the spread of democracy by advocating for a vibrant civil societies and democratic institutions in non-democratic institutions.
Conclusion
The democratic peace theory holds that democracies rarely engage in war amongst them but can fight with authoritarian regimes. The spread of democracy, therefore, contribute to the spread of international peace among nations as postulated under the new world order. However, some democracies engage in dictatorial leadership and in the process hinder the spread of democratic peace. The international institutions play an important role in promoting the spread of democratic peace.
In addition, democracy promotes international cooperation among nations particularly in world economy and international trade. Given the important role played by international institutions in the spread of democratic peace, the membership of the United Nations or the United Nations Security Council should comprise of developed democracies in order to grow and consolidate democratic peace.
Reference List
Doyle, Michael . 1983. Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. Philosophy and Public Affairs 12: 323-353.
Kant, Emmanuel. 1991. On Perpetual Peace: Reprinted in Kant’s Political Writings Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Layne, Christopher. 1994. Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace. International Security 19, no.2 (February/March): 43-44
Luard, Evan. 1986. War in International Society. New Haven: Yale University Press Russett, Bruce, and Oneal, John. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: W. W. Norton.
Singer, Max, and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1993. The Real World Order: Zones of Peace / Zones of Turmoil. New Jersey: Chatham House.
Spencer, Weart. 1998. Never At War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Faith and leadership in the inner city: How social capital contributes to democratic renewal by Mark R. Warren is an article under discussion. The author speaks about social capital, faith communities and the contribution to democratic renewal.
The article speaks about social capital and its participation in democratic opinion, about religious communities in the Texas Industrial Areas Foundation network, about Mexican-American catholic communities, African American Protestant congregations and about some limitations to the Industrial Areas Foundation approach.
The main idea of the article is that different religious communities and organizations play important role in the political life of the USA. Much attention is paid to Industrial Areas Foundation and its role in political impact in the society.
Social Capital and Its Participation in Democratic Opinion
Much research has been conducted in the sphere of the impact of religious organizations and political life in the country. The author of the article states that impact of religious organization on human consciousness is great due to the particular specifics of the religious organizations.
“Social capital underpins democracy because it provides the relationships of trust and habits of cooperation for citizens to work together to solve common problems” (Warren 51). At the same time all religious organizations are based on trust and habit of cooperation, the main idea of each religious structure is to believe and to help. Therefore, the connection is inevitable. Different religious structures help poor and low-income people acquire some particular skills that adds to the social capital.
Thus, the opportunity to get trained in different workshop professions is significant for many people who do not have chances to be professionally taught (Nemeth and Luidens 264). Thus, it may be concluded that the author of the article is sure that social capital, religious structures and democratic opinion of the citizens are closely interconnected by means of trust and habit of cooperation.
Religious Communities in the Texas Industrial Areas Foundation Network
Industrial Areas Foundation is a national network of faith-based community organizations. There are a lot of such faith communities in Texas which are aimed at engaging political action for community development. The strategy of “relational organizing” (Warren 52) is used.
The main idea of this strategy is to create a discussion group which deals with the problems and necessities of the community. Thus, being offered help and assistance from Industrial Areas Foundation, religious communities are ready to assist the network with motivating others in being politically conscious.
The authors stresses on high number of Hispanic Catholic parishes which impact the raise of Hispanic population in the state. Trying to recruit as many communities as possible the Industrial Areas Foundation searches for connections with all churches which exist in the area. As it has already been mentioned Mexican-American communities are the most numerous.
The difficulty exists with African American communities which have another direction in religion opinion and different traditions. It created complications for Industrial Areas Foundation with recruiting the members of this community. Still, the work continues. For better understanding of the scope of work for the Industrial Areas Foundation the Mexican-American and African American religious communities should be considered in detail.
Mexican-American Catholic Communities
The teaching of this community adds greatly to the political awareness of the Industrial Areas Foundation. Mexican-American communities teach their members to deal with each other, to help and base relationships on reciprocal duties and responsibilities.
While some members of the Industrial Areas Foundation tries to convince priests that political action is one of the best ways for building a strong and supportive community, other, non-partisan employees of the Industrial Areas Foundation make all possible to represent the results of the political actions an attractive issue (Warren 59).
One of the main reasons why Hispanic communities are attracted with the offers of Industrial Areas Foundation and support them in intruding politically correct opinion in the society is that the Foundation is ready to assist in leadership and helping the priest leaders to organize their work inside the community. Leadership is an important facility which maybe helpful for priest and they are ready to do all possible to lead their community to the God.
African American Protestant Congregations
The situation with African American communities is different due to the specific background of faith which lies in the heart of their religion. The whole religion is based on the principle of freedom. This gives additional points to the democratization of the society as even though the community does not set such purposes.
It should also be stated that African American communities have rich experience in political issues as they have been the leading organizations in the political movement directed at releasing the community from slavery (Wilmore 260). The main problem of work between Industrial Areas Foundation and African American communities is that the latter are directed primarily on the racial justice while Industrial Areas Foundation wants to pay more attention to the community-building (Warren 63).
Thus, the proclamations of the African religious communities bear another nature, different from the desired. But this assistance is also valued and appreciated as the activities of the Industrial Areas Foundation are not limited to one specific idea and the desire to be free is one of the convictions of the African American community.
Some Limitations to the Industrial Areas Foundation approach
Industrial Areas Foundation is one of the few organizations which has managed to organize the leaders of the community and to encourage them for proclaiming democratic speeches among their members.
Nevertheless, there are a number of limitations which should be considered with the purpose to understand what should be done to reduce those limitations. Being directed at low-income and middle-class workers, Industrial Areas Foundation does not impacts the poorest layers of the population, but it is a greatest niche to work with. The greatest part of the Hispanic population is poor (Warren 64).
According to the research, poor people are less likely to attend churches, so they are not impacted by the community (Coleman 40). Furthermore, the political impact of black communities is not that broad as people may seem. Being directed at the freedom of the whole community, African-American communities are still participate in the political life of the society, but their impact on democratization renewal is too little.
Conclusion
Therefore, it may be concluded that e problem of democratization renewal in the society is solved mostly by means of the inclusion of the religion communities which work with low-income people and help those understand the impotence of being politically active and support democratization of the society. The activities of the Industrial Areas Foundation should be supported, and faith and cooperation which is declared by the religion communities is one of the main helper in delivering the message of democratization to the whole society.
Works Cited
Coleman, John A. “Religious social capital: Its nature, social location, and limits.” Religion as social capital: producing the common good. Ed. Corwin E. Smidt. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2003. 33-48. Print.
Nemeth, Roger J. and Donald A. Luidens. “The religious basis of charitable giving in America: A social capital perspective.” Religion as social capital: producing the common good. Ed. Corwin E. Smidt. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2003. 107-120. Print.
Warren, Mark R. “Faith and leadership in the inner city: How social capital contributes to democratic renewal.” Religion as social capital: producing the common good. Ed. Corwin E. Smidt. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2003.
Wilmore, Gayraud S. “Survival, elevation, and liberation in black community.” Black religion and Black radicalism: an interpretation of the religious history of African Americans. Ed. Gayraud S. Wilmore. New York: Orbis Books, 1998. 253-282. Print.
America’s foreign policy has for a long time entailed a powerful idealist element and has therefore aimed at promoting democracy abroad. As a matter of fact, USA has been in a constant endeavor to promote democracy in the Middle East even though it has involved a lot of unprecedented forcefulness. The two main reasons for this are; democracy has been a key principle in the neo-conservative world view and to contribute to the peaceful resolution of the conflict in the region (Terry, 2008).
The emergence of these democracy promotion misconceptions in the Middle East by US can be dated back to 2001. The promotion of democracy was done in various levels. The first level entailed policy initiatives that consisted of a cluster of projects to support civil society organizations and reform state institutions with an aim of encouraging democratic change.
Democracy promotion has since been emphasized by USAID with an aim of alleviating poverty and boosting the Security of America. This notwithstanding, US directed most of its efforts towards the Middle East that necessitated the initiation of Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) in 2002. This initiative mainly focused its attention on political, economic, women rights as well as educational issues (Dunne & Mulaj, 2010).
The second phase of US democracy promotion in the Middle East has entailed public as well as traditional diplomacy. Since 2001, state officials have often emphasized that democratic reforms in the Middle East are the main goals of the US policy.
As a matter of fact, during his speech at the National Endowment of Democracy in 2003, the former US president Bush laid a lot of emphasis on democratic change in the Middle East. In addition, the launching of Radio Sawa as well as Al Hurrah television station whose main target was the young generation in Arab was mainly aimed at promoting reforms.
In the final phase, the endorsement of democracy has indeed become a central part of a domineering US policy in the Middle East, as evident in the occupation and invasion of Iraq. For instance, in the case of Afghanistan, the Iraq combat in 2003 was justified on the grounds of self-defense against terrorism and the manufacturing of alleged armaments of mass destruction. This was despite the fact that democratization was an integral part of the underlying principle of military action (Sirrriyeh, 2007).
The American administration maintained that after becoming democratic, Iraq would naturally become America’s friend, and that the occurrence would promote reforms in other Arab nations. Political change in the Middle East could be just a mere illusion. This is because the US government handles the democracy issue with its Arab friends quite differently from its Arab enemies.
This creates some inconsistency as it appears that the US government does not press friendly regimes as hard in order to shelter them from the damage attributed from democratic reforms. More often than not it appears that the US commits money and troops to support democracy only when its vital interests are affected.
The book “Myths, Illusions & Peace: Finding a New Direction for American in the Middle East” was written by David Makovsky in collaboration with Dennis Ross. Ross, who wrote the book before assuming his position, is currently serving in the Obama administration while Makovsky is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
The book has been extensively commended and well received by several people who come across it and especially by those in the Middle East. It attempts to discredit the delusions of both the realists and the neo-conservatives. It talks about three myths and a tripartite means of transcending them.
In the mythologies, the two authors try to unravel the fallacy that the US has on the Middle East, which according to them are then main reasons why the US has failed to attain its objectives in the Middle East.
They have also outlined clear policies that should be adapted by America in future. In this book the authors outline the false assumptions/myths about the nature and the inspiration of Middle East nations together with their leaders.
As a matter of fact, the book cautiously offers a historical analysis of this region and builds on the remnants of the destructive fallacies to outline clear-cut and extensive principles that will help America set an effective course of action in the region. Since Iran, the Arab-Israeli conflict and Islamic extremists has been America’s most vexing foreign policy challenges, Ross and Markovsky (2010) discuss unexploited diplomatic instruments that could be used to solve the conflict in Iran.
In addition, they also come up with means of strengthening the hands of the modest forces within the region, as well as policies to reinforce the civil society among the regions autocratic systems of government while laying appropriate foundation for development and future independence.
The central mythology that the authors portray to be bogus and even dangerous is that all the tribulations in the Middle East are connected to the Israeli-Palestinian clash, while peace can only be attained by solving the Palestinian problem. In this myth, the duo attempts to dissociate the conflict between Israel and Palestine from other problems while emphasizing on the importance of solving this problem amicably.
The second mythology is about wider issues of engagement as opposed to non-engagement and the revolution of the government system and the question on which candidate America should support. Here, the two authors are mainly concerned with Iran and its neighbors; including Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah.
The third mythology is mainly concerned about the issue of the endorsement of democracy and the balance between principles and interests while handling all the regional stakeholders. This myth elaborates the ties between the US and Israeli (Stokes, 2009). The book is of the opinion that America has one main friend in the Middle East, who is Israel; while its foes are numerous including Hamas, al Qaeda, Iran and Hezbollah.
In each of the three myths, Ross and Makovsky provide solutions that are neither from the neoconservative’s approach nor from the realist schools of thought.
The neo-conservatives maintain that bargaining with autocrats is futile and that democracy will blossom in Arab with just a little bit of backup. Here, neo-conservatism joins the liberal objectives of democratization with the realist’s methodology of implementing hard power with the assumption that liberal democracy improves the security of America.
Its policy recommendations represent an assumed parallel between Islam and the communist view point in the cold world war period On the other hand, the realists hold that, ideology and religion are only tools for power politics and that the United States of America’s ‘cogent’ methodology is collective and obvious.
Both of these approaches stick to the erroneous conception that, regardless of the apparent proof to the contrary, the clash between Israel and Palestine is the main cause of misery and conflicts surrounding the Middle East region. This is despite the numerous coups, hostility, mass execution and deprived political and economic growth among the Arab nations which have no link with Israel.
According to some public opinions from some parts of the Arab nations, the alleged concern about democratic reforms by the US government in the Middle East is insincere.
They argue that the US government is not committed to democracy for instrumental purposes but for a hidden agenda such as to broaden America’s supremacy or to facilitate Israel to have power over the Palestinians and thus take over the Iraqi oilfields. However, I do not concur with this description of the position of US. As a matter of fact, America is indeed sober about democracy as an ideal and for the purpose of eradicating terrorism.
However, the main hitch of America’s democracy support policies lies in the way in which the neo-conservatives regard democracy; in that it is the key to ending the conflicts in the Middle East, a speculation that democracy will correct all wrongs. This notwithstanding, the neo-conservatives do not have a clearly outlined the mechanism with which to achieve this (Tessler, 2006).
In order to improve its policies, the US government should decrease the space between democracy endorsement policies assumed towards its allies and those adopted toward its foes. In addition, it should focus on reducing the attention on the question of terrorism and ensure that the war against terrorism does not impede on democratic independence and national liberties (Stansfield, 2010).
Moreover, the government should abstain from making democracy a minor goal after the achievement of its security and economic goals. Moreover, it should employ peaceful Islamist opposition essentials without emerging to support them. Furthermore, it should shift its focus towards achieving an unbiased peace between Israel and Palestine while avoiding stipulations and openly supporting pro-democracy nations (Makovsky & Ross 2010).
The aforementioned theories together with other historic misconceptions have triggered the failure of policies for a long period. Subsequently, it has resulted to the collapsing of America’s aptitude to identify prolific decisions in the Middle East, a country that will play a pivotal role in enhancing the international security in the twenty-first century. Indeed, Ross and Makovsky maintain that these Americans should critically analyze and change their perceptions especially at this time of global economy.
Reference List
Dunne, K. & Mulaj, K. (2010). America After Iraq. Journal of International Affairs. 86,6, 1287-1298.
Makovsky, D. & Ross, D. (2010). Myths, Illusions, & Peace: Finding a New Direction for American in the Middle East. New York: Penguin Books
Sirrriyeh, H. (2007). Iraq and the Religion Since the War 2003. Journal of Civil Wars. 9, 1,106-125
Stansfield, G. (2010). Reformation of Iraq’s Foreign Relations: New Elites and Enduring Legacies. Journal of International Affairs. 86, 2, 1395-1409.
Stokes, D. (2009). The War Gamble: Understanding US Interests in Iraq. Journal of Globalization. 6, 1, 107-112.
Terry, J. (2008). The United States and Iraq at Cross Purposes: A History Review. International Journal of Cotemporary Iraqi Studies, 2, 3, 333-347.
Tessler, M. (2006). What do Iraqis Want? Journal of Democracy.17, 1, 39,45-46.