The Americans are globally famous for their relentless support for democratic governance. Jacobs et al asserts that the ideals of democratically responsive governance are highly cherished by the American people (3). Ironically, the situation is markedly different within the American government even as they actively support democracy in other countries. With the growing inequality issues in the country, the ideals of democratic governance have been highly compromised.
The major disparities existing are mostly noticeable within the public domain (Jacobs et al. 3). Primarily, the issue is about income differences, opportunities for wealth creation and equal citizenship (Jacobs et al. 3). These gaps are growing rapidly in the United States compared to any other country in the world. Yet the US still considers herself the world’s greatest advocates of democracy. The American government is making little or no progress in the efforts to realize the democratic ideals set forth by the founding fathers of the nation.
Equal rights
The American society is the most culturally diverse in the world and this comes with a number of challenges as well. There were steps made to achieve equality in the 1950s and 1960s at the height of racism. Racial segregation and exclusion became illegal and socially unacceptable hence moving a step towards equality (Jacobs et al. 4). This allowed the white and black community to access education in the same schools and get access to health services in the same health facilities.
This was a good gesture towards democratic governance. It is also worth noting that major gender based barriers started to break down during the same time and women were empowered to pursue academic, political, and economic opportunities just as men did (Jacobs et al. 4). Other marginalized groups like the Latin Americans also got access to equal rights on an equal footing with the rest of the Americans.
Notably, the previous barriers that promoted inequalities such as race, gender, ethnicity to mention but a few do not exist today. Nonetheless, new barriers that are fostering inequality in the American society have emerged and they are rapidly spreading within the government and the country at large posing a threat to the realization of democracy.
The greatest of these barriers is the gaps in income and wealth between the Americans (Jacobs et al. 4). The gap between the rich and the poor is greatly increasing owing to disparities in income especially in the private and the civil sectors. This gap is increasingly creating a major segregation in the job market as well as in schools and colleges.
Apparently, the rich and the wealthy are better positioned to cease opportunities that are out of reach for the middle and lower income classes. Consequently, the rich are in a position to get richer while limiting access to resources by the poor man. That is why the saying that the rich will continue to get rich while the poor man becomes poorer is very true.
Some element of racist treatments is also present in school among students. In America today, one has to work very hard in order to maintain his or her current economic position (Jacobs et al. 5). One would expect that through hard work, there would be an upward mobility in the economic ladder but that is not normally the case in the US.
Inequality in contributions on national matters
Voicing the needs of the American people has never been easy and only a selected few can do this. The opportunity to exercise one’s right in the US does not come easily as there are factors that influence the ear of the government. These factors include a high income, occupational or career success, and high levels of academic achievements (Jacobs et al. 4).
Members who fit in these criteria are more likely to participate in political, social, and economic decision-making process than the ordinary citizen is. Government officials are more likely to listen to the needs of such elite citizens and deliver on their demands more promptly. Unfortunately, this is the bitter truth and the reality of the American government amidst its call for democratic governance around the world.
Voting turnout has also declined since the beginning of the 21st century when the income gap began to grow rapidly. Statistics show that the majority who vote are also the elite while the low-income earners decline to exercise their democratic right to cast their votes. How does the decline of voter turnout relate to inequality? A number of decisive factors discourage or make the voting process a struggle for the electorate.
The economic inequality is a major factor that discourages the less economically privileged eligible voters from voting. There are also some laws in some states that forbid the minority from voting and a good example is the law forbidding prisoners and former prisoners from voting (Verba, Lehman, and Brady 1). In addition, the current methods of campaigns are keen on raising funds and persuading the already existing voters to vote. A more different approach is necessary to woo the non-voting yet eligible voters to get out and exercise their rights.
Through campaign contributions, the rich and wealthy folks have a leeway to express and voice their demands as the platform gives them an advantage over the poor folks. Today, one can only gain justice and political influence through money and affluence thus leaving the poor man out of the standard bar. The least contributors in the national campaigns are the poor ordinary citizens while the few political donors are in charge in the political arena due to their financial influence.
In order to exercise the rights of citizenship, one requires resources and skills. These requirements are only accessible to the wealthy hence the inequality. People with higher education and great careers such as doctors and lawyers among other professional have more confidence to speak compared to an ordinary citizen working as subordinate staff. Naturally, the nature of American politics gives no voice to the poor while the rich and affluent get enough attention at the expense of the poor man.
Jacobs et al argues that three quarters of the well-off citizens are in one way or another associated with an organization that has great influence on the political arena (10). They also noted in their research that half of the wealthiest people in America are in contact with public officials. This gives the rich double access to public resources compared to the middle and low-income earners in the US (Freeman).
Government responses
Government officials are highly influenced by the privileged citizens. The response of the government today in America no longer represents the will of the majority. A selected few wealthy men and women determine the future of the vast majority which is not a principle of democracy. Money has become the essential for government attention.
Ironically, the already wealthy and advantaged citizens who are able to take care of themselves are the most catered for by the government. Democratic rule should ensure equality and fairness with the majority influencing the political stands. Nonetheless, in America, it is a reversed role since the minorities hold the realms of power while the majorities ride under the mercies of the few wealthy citizens.
Through money, the wealthy establish relationships with government officials creating a connection that enables them to access national resources that are out of the ordinary peoples reach. This gives them a further advantage despite the fact that they already have an advantage over the poor with their wealth and money. This disparity is among the issues that are widening the gap between the rich and the poor. The gap grows wider because the more one earns, the more they gain access to resources and consequently the further the resources get away from the poor man’s reach. The effect is cyclic in that one direction influences the other.
The affluent also influence government policies as well and normally, policies will always consider the needs and demands of the wealthy business communities and organized groups (Frankenberg, Orfield, and Lee). The government is always bias when responding to national issues normally bending to the side that favors the rich (Skrentny). The government is moving towards a more tragic direction by allowing a few affluent individuals to take the country hostage.
The lack of spread opportunities and the gap between the rich and the poor is a disastrous condition in any economy. What this does is that the ordinary citizen will get discouraged and be reluctant to participate in national activities. This may include voting and working, which contributes to the national financial muscles, to mention but a few.
Conclusion
In the United States of America, democracy is only known theoretically and not as a practical state of affair. This paper has established the facts about government inequality and bias treatment of its citizens. The striking income disparity in the country is not a good example of a democratic nation since it is in contradiction with the idea of democracy. In the above research, it is clear that democracy is not as easy to achieve as it sounds and the quality of political leaders as well as the political will to pursue democratic governance highly counts.
The financial gap between the American citizens is creating a division not only affecting social interaction but also economic and political well-being. The voter turnout for instance has been on the decline since the beginning of the 21st century just when the gap begun to build up. This clearly means that income disparities greatly influence the political structure of a country.
Democracy is a good leadership model that allows for equal social, economic, and political opportunities for all citizens without favoritism. The government under democratic principles must always work towards engaging the majority rule and open access of power and influence to the majority as opposed to a select few. That is the real essence of democratic governance.
Works Cited
Frankenberg, Erica, Chumgmei Lee, and Gary Orfield. A Multiracial Society with Segregated Schools: Are We Losing the Dream? Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2002. Print.
Freeman, Richard. Working under Different Rules. A National Bureau of Economic Research Project Report, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994. Print.
Jacobs, Lawrence, and Robert Shapiro. Politicians Don’t Pander Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Print.
Jacobs, Lawrence et al. American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality. Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy American Political Science Association. 5 Sep. 2012. Web.
Skrentny, John. The Minority Rights Revolution, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Print.
Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman, and Henry Brady. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. Print.
Since the revolution that took place in 1954, Egypt has had three presidents namely: Gamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak. Hosni Mubarak became the president in Egypt after president Sadat was eliminated by the leaders of the Islamic Jihad group, who viciously differed with his policies.
Before becoming the president in Egypt, Mubarak had served in the military and even as a minister of defense in the country. For over thirty years now, the leading party in Egypt has been the National Democratic Party. Even if the state constitution depicts Egypt as a democratic country, in the real sense it is not.
The regime is usually authoritarian, given authority by elections. On 25th January 2011, mass demonstrations against Mubarak and his government exploded in Cairo and other towns in Egypt. A week later, Mubarak declared that he would not vie during the presidential election scheduled in September.
He also guaranteed constitutional changes. However, this did not persuade the majority of demonstrators as they wanted Mubarak to leave the office instantly. The protests went on and on 2 February, brutal clashes happened amid pro-Mubarak and anti-Mubarak demonstrators. Later on, Mubarak left the seat and he is currently awaiting trials for the crimes sued against him.
In this paper, we shall conduct the first step of a partial democracy and governance assessment (DG) for Egypt during Mubarak’s regime. We shall examine consensus, rule of law, competition, inclusion and good governance. We shall then make a conclusion that summarizes the key points that will be discussed.
Consensus
A sophisticated consensus on the basic values, standards and rules of how a community will be ruled is the foundation on which protracted democracies are constructed.
The course of institutional transformation supported by Egypt’s most powerful businessmen shares significant aspects of harmony with the reforms recommended by followers of Islamic constitutionalism and liberal constitutionalism (Alaa Al-Din Arafat, 2009).
These groups support the formation of a more liberal nation with valuable constraints on its authority; a lucid and unprejudiced lawful code; and fortification of political and civil privileges. Nevertheless, there is no analogous consensus on the significance of expanding public involvement in politics. This verity implies that democracy and liberalism have become de- connected in the Egyptian instance.
Liberalism is expected to progress gradually in prospect, while democracy is expected to progress slowly and irregularly. This course may finally result to democracy in prospect, especially if liberalism improves the private segment’s autonomy from the state and forms a more independent and politically vigorous middle class (Alaa Al-Din Arafat, 2009).
Conversely, constitutional changes in 2007 were exclusively disappointing to the democrats. They felt that Egypt should stay as a hybrid regime with legal and institutional restrictions on the managerial authority.
Rule of Law
The constitution in Egypt grants for a well-built executive. Power is vested in a designated president who in turn appoints the prime minister, the vice presidents, and ministers. The judiciary in Egypt emphasizes that the state is supposed to respect the law and be controlled by it. In this light, the law is essential in ensuring that the government observes impartiality in its affairs with the public.
For a long time, judges in Egypt have powerfully defended their autonomy. The judiciary has formed an extensive body of jurisprudence that usually seeks to fortify the independence and veracity of the courts.
This body also seeks autonomy in control of special courts including: the Court of Values, the Emergency State Security Courts and the Socialist Public Prosecutor Courts. These bodies were formed largely to evade the ordinary judiciary and allow the government to prosecute its rivals before specially selected judges using slick methods that augment the possibility of conviction.
Furthermore, judicial rulings in Egypt include a huge number of cases that guard fundamental rights of due procedures. The Court of Cassation guards’ resident’s right to lawful representation if prosecuted, the right to timely and just trial, freedom from illegal search and arrest and freedom from suffering. As ruled by the executive courts, no person is supposed to stay in an official record of suspects for an indefinite period.
At the same time, no person can be regularly subjected to examination or detention without the appearance of exact evidence validating suspicion of crime. This court also asserted that it has the power to decide on whether an individual’s name should appear in the inventory of those deemed risky to security.
The Supreme Court Council (SCC) has given related rulings, holding that investigations may just happen with a court order, and that residents may not be incarcerated or deprived of professional chances on the grounds of sheer suspicion. SCC verdicts have also avowed the presumption of virtuousness in addition to a resident’s right to trial and gentle treatment while under custody.
The degree to which these rulings guard entity rights forms one of the most tolerant aspects of Egyptian jurisprudence. Nevertheless, these rulings boast significant distinctions from liberalism. The liberal notion is based in the principle that entity rights lie at the center of political order (Rutherford, 2010).
States are formed to guard these rights inside a structure of ordered liberty. The state may not breach them except for a case whereby there is a persuasive public requirement to do so.
Egyptian judiciary lacks paramount stress on entity rights. In several rulings, the judges fail to declare the doctrine of basic rights that leads the law and the nation. Individual rights are usually rationalized in terms of their role in safeguarding the safety of the society.
Competition
Whereas consensus makes a foundation of general perception, shared values and the established order that underpins the organizations and structures via which democracy can be experienced, competition is the system that persons living in democracies use to create and challenge ideas, advocate diverse interests, arbitrate diversities, prioritize predilections, create policies, and balance authority.
Competition happens in all sectors and at all heights of society, and within constructions that are both formal and informal.
Competitive parliamentary elections in Egypt characterize the greatest reaction from an authoritarian government that is surrounded by numerous political issues (Brownlee, 2007). A principal cause for this is that elections alleviate imperative shapes of distributional arguments, especially over access to loots within Egypt’s big class of elites who cover the major source of support for the government (Blaydes, 2008).
However, the moderation of distributional argument is not the sole functional advantage of a competitive electoral promotion in Egypt. Elections cause dominance via official channels, offer vital information for the government, provide a central point for the relocation of wealth to state workers and the public and improve the international status of the autocrat while intensifying his political grip (Blaydes, 2010).
This does not mean that holding elections eliminates the entire risk of an authoritarian headship; there subsists a trade-off amid the intra-elite serenity and other practical benefits as well as costs associated with the manner that elections intensify state-society affairs, chiefly relations amid the country and followers of its prime opponent, the Muslim Brotherhood.
Inclusion
Egypt boasts an authoritarian regime. The multiplicity of trade unions is never permitted, and the formation of charitable unions and political parties is usually restricted (Soliman, & Daniel, 2011). However, there are 13 authorized political parties although the New Democratic Party (NDP) has remained to be the leading party since its inception in 1978.
The Muslim Brotherhood has also made significant efforts into the political institution, but so far it has not succeeded the NDP. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood is legitimately prohibited by the Egyptian law since it has a religious basis. Furthermore, state bodies are usually subjected to the president, who has absolute authority.
In reaction to the growing fame of Islamist unions, the Mubarak government has faltered on its strategies towards the Islamists (Smith, 2008). The regime has opted to pursue a policy of greater litheness towards the inclusion of faith in cultural existence.
Even though there has been some discourse with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic groups for a long time the height of contact amid the Muslim unions and the regime varies with the political atmosphere (Smith, 2008). Nevertheless, the regime’s reaction to the Islamists has been met with lots of criticism.
Good Governance
Some scholars consider Mubarak’s regime to be more flexible than the regime that prevailed during the reign of his predecessors (Africa Institute of South Africa, 2008). Mubarak’s political pluralism has expanded the nation’s democracy. At present, the media enjoys the freedom of expression, the judiciary works autonomously and many political parties have been born. Besides, the civil society has been revived.
When Mubarak came into power, the country was in huge debts. As a consequence, he initiated reform programs which emerged successful. Mubarak’s regime was able to control inflation and reduce the debts.
Mubarak was also able to preserve peace with Israel and maintain close relations with America. He retained Egypt’s loyalty to the Camp David peace practice and re-affirmed the pose of Egypt as the leader of Arabs. During Mubarak’s reign, Egypt was re-positioned to the Arab League. At the same time, Egypt held a moderating task in the Non-Aligned Movement and the United Nations (UN).
Egyptian political bodies have developed over time to contain changing situations and realities. Egyptian societies have also demonstrated a level of path dependence, implying that there is a sustained prejudice in political bodies (Bowker, 2010).
In fact, the desire to shun costs allied with undoing an already established body, such as elections, may have essentially motivated the ruling regime to invent approaches that have made the already established bodies to work for solidity (Douglas, 2006).
Given the multicolored institutional alternatives allied with the electoral process, Mubarak’s regime appears to have experienced little as an outcome of this institutional adhesiveness (Bowker, 2010). The evolving character of these bodies implies that political change has occurred within the historical restraints of Egypt’s institutional bequest.
At present, the Egyptian government operates on approximately half of the national revenue as compared to the time when Mubarak initially came to authority. Income from the Suez Canal, gas and oil profits and foreign support are never adequate to nourish the state assets and boost low tax incomes.
Financial crisis is a problem for any authoritarian government, as its solidity relies not merely on political subjugation, but also on acquiring the loyalty of parts of the residents.
For a long time, the Mubarak government made efforts to stop the decreasing rentier revenues and restructure civic expenditures in an effort to lessen the political overheads of the fiscal decline. Finally, the account of Mubarak’s regime is purely one of a demonstrated capacity to delay, a restricted success at forestalling the unavoidable political results of financial crisis and a shifting political economy.
In conclusion, this DG assessment highlights several facts about Egypt. First, the multiplicity of trade unions is never permitted, and the formation of charitable unions and political parties is usually restricted.
The course of institutional transformation supported by Egypt’s most powerful businessmen shares significant aspects of harmony with the reforms recommended by followers of Islamic constitutionalism and liberal constitutionalism. These groups support the formation of a more liberal nation with valuable constraints on its authority; a lucid and unprejudiced lawful code; and fortification of political and civil privileges.
Nevertheless, there is no analogous consensus on the significance of expanding public involvement in politics. Second, the judiciary in Egypt emphasizes that the state is supposed to respect the law and be controlled by it. Judicial rulings in Egypt include a huge number of cases that guard fundamental rights of due procedures.
The Court of Cassation guards’ resident’s right to lawful representation if prosecuted, the right to timely and just trial, freedom from illegal search and arrest and freedom from suffering. There exist special courts in Egypt including: the Court of Values, the Emergency State Security Courts and the Socialist Public Prosecutor Courts.
Third, competitive parliamentary elections in Egypt characterize the greatest reaction from an authoritarian government that is surrounded by numerous political issues. A principal cause for this is that elections alleviate imperative shapes of distributional arguments, especially over access to loots within Egypt’s big class of elites who cover the major source of support for the government.
However, the moderation of distributional argument is not the sole functional advantage of a competitive electoral promotion in Egypt. Fourth, the regime has opted to pursue a policy of greater litheness towards the inclusion of faith in cultural existence.
Mubarak’s political pluralism has also expanded the nation’s democracy. At present, the media enjoys the freedom of expression, the judiciary works autonomously and many political parties have been born. Besides, the civil society has been revived. Finally, the evolving character of political bodies in Egypt implies that political change has occurred within the historical restraints of Egypt’s institutional bequest.
Egyptian societies have also demonstrated a level of path dependence, implying that there is a sustained prejudice in political bodies. Given the multicolored institutional alternatives allied with the electoral process, Mubarak’s regime appears to have experienced little as an outcome of this institutional adhesiveness.
References
Africa Institute of South Africa (2008). Good governance-African political elites: the search for democracy and good governance. Johannesburg: African Books Collective
Alaa Al-Din Arafat, A. (2009). The Mubarak leadership and future of democracy in Egypt. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Blaydes, L.A. (2008). Competition without democracy: elections and distributive politics in Mubarak’s Egypt. Los Angeles: University of California
Blaydes, L.A. (2010). Elections and distributive politics in Mubarak’s Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Bowker, R. (2010). Egypt and the politics of change in the Arab Middle East. London: Edward Elgar Publishing
Brownlee, A. (2007). Authoritarianism in an age of democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Douglas, R. (2006). Change and politics in Egypt. London: Sage
Rutherford, B. (2010). Egypt after Mubarak: liberalism, Islam, and democracy in the Arab world. New York: Oxford University Press
Smith, K.E. (2008). Inclusion-European Union foreign policy in a changing world. 2nd Ed. New York: Polity
Soliman, S. & Daniel, P. (2011). The autumn of dictatorship: fiscal crisis and political change in Egypt under Mubarak. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Kant was a world-renowned political philosopher who among his greatest concepts of peace advocated that democracy could actually create lasting peace between nations. Firstly, he notes that for peace to be realized, a world of constitutional democracies, established by political units, ought to be established. Secondly, Kant’s philosophy greatly relies on the doctrine of the power of the state to protect its citizens; a concept which was largely borrowed from German jurisprudence (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 13).
A reliance on this concept is further affirmed by Kant’s reliance on the supremacy of the constitution. According to Kant’s reasoning, the constitution should guarantee the right of the citizens to be happy and peaceful. From this analysis, Kant’s philosophy was heavily reliant on constitutionalism and the power of constitutional governments to establish peace within given regions.
To a large extent, it can be analyzed that Kant had formulated the problem of constitutionalism by stating that “The constitution of a state is eventually based on the morals of its citizens, which in its turns, is based on the goodness of the constitution” (Lane 1996, p. 58).
The constitutional theory of the 21st century can even be traced to Kant’s’ development of constitutionalism because he states that: “The task of establishing a universal and permanent peaceful life is not only a part of theory of law within the framework of pure reason, but per se an absolute and ultimate goal.
To achieve this goal, a state must become the community of a large number of people, living provided with legislative guarantees of their property rights secured by a common constitution. The supremacy of the constitution… must be derived a priori from the considerations for achievement of the absolute ideal in the most just and fair organization of people’s life under the aegis of public law” (Joerges 2004, p. 67).
This means that citizen rights stipulated in the 21st century concept of constitutionalism stems from the constitution itself. Nonetheless, many scholars have identified shortcomings in Kant’s philosophy and many have made reference to the European Union (EU) as ill equipped to face the challenges on the non-Kantian world outside the EU because it largely bases its policies on Kantian philosophies (Weiler 2003, p. 207).
One of the biggest criticisms to Kantian philosophy stems from the fact that direct democracies means a prevalence of majority rule and this may limit individual liberties. To affirm this opinion (Thompson 1992, p. 58) notes that:
“…democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which “all” decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, “all”, who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom”. (p. 58)
In this regard, various forms of government have emerged and they include aristocracy, democracies and monarchs but the classical form of this democracy lies in a mixed from of government which encompasses all the above types of government.
This study acknowledges the fact that democracies rarely go to war or take part in it in first place, but in the same context, it identifies that this concept distorts the realistic form of interstate relations and a support of this concept is bound to make political scholars too sanguine about the ability of democratic nations to deliver world peace. These factors withstanding, this study advances the fact that Kant was wrong to argue that democracy brings peace in today’s world.
Conceptual Analysis
When analyzing the biggest threat to the emergence of war between nations in the 21st century, we can deduce three most significant possible causes of war. They are nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and ethnic or religious conflicts (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 7).
For instance the conflict between India and Pakistan had been the closest the world had come to a nuclear war and this can be traced to the first concept described above (nuclear proliferation) (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 3). Interestingly, the United States (US) which is the world’s biggest democracy has in the recent past waged a war against Afghanistan which manifests the two possible causes of war (terrorism and religious conflicts) also discussed above (Tinnevelt 2010, p. 86).
Contrary to Kant’s philosophy of democracy and peace, the recent September 11th attacks in the US, as alleged by terrorist groups, was a reactions to US’s democratic interventions in religious conflicts on the terrorist’s part of the world. From this analogy, it can be said that democracy is a great contributor to the three causes of war discussed above; meaning that the vaulted political machinery of democracy has consistently failed to work (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 8).
Nuclear Wars
Inevitably, nuclear proliferation which is a big threat to world peace has the potential of increasing conflicts between nations. In relative terms, the threat of nuclear weapons to the realization of world peace increases from an increase in nation-states that posses them. Equally, the risk of nuclear weapons also increases with an increase in the number of nuclear weapons but the same risk is also evident in establishing world peace, when terrorists get hold of such weapons.
Interestingly, some of the world’s biggest democracies have shown the worst examples by possessing these nuclear weapons. It is also very interesting to note that of the eight countries alleged to have (or have) nuclear weapons (US, Russia, China, France, UK, India, Pakistan and Israel) are majorly democratic states. In detail, six of the states are democracies and only two are dictatorships (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 8).
The US which is the biggest democracy in the world, started developing such weapons when it was quickly rising to be one of the world’s superpower. In this regard, nuclear bombs have been synonymously associated with world power and unfortunately, nations such as the US have used them in causing massive destruction to people through wars, as can be evidenced from the Hiroshima bombings in Japan.
When the US started developing these weapons, nations across the globe went ahead and started developing the weapons as well. This led to an arms race and inevitably the cold war. Regardless, maybe these states would have possessed the weapons anyway, but the root of the arms race stems from the fact that the US, which is arguably the biggest democracy in the world started the movement and set precedent for other nations across the globe to follow.
The pursuit for nuclear weapons across the globe was therefore inevitable. The rush to have these weapons has been characterized by a flurry of excuses, with the US claiming that it first developed the weapons to stop Hitler but the production of such weapons never ceased even after Hitler was defeated (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 8).
Later, the US claimed it needed the weapons to protect the state from the Soviet Union. However, it apparently became clear that the nation used the weapons to wage war against Japan. In fact, after Japan was defeated, the production of these weapons increased tremendously (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 18).
From this analysis, it can be seen that democratic states not only develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves against their enemies, but to advance their power in global politics and sometimes even wage war against other nations. All in all, this is the coin of political realm, even though democracies are supposed to protect its citizens against the danger of war in today’s society (as purported by Kant); but it is hard to ignore the fact that democracies are a great part of the problem.
Terrorism
Terrorism is another good example of the failure by democracies to establish world peace. It had been evidently clear from the terror campaign that the UK and the US invaded Afghanistan, thus increasing anxiety amid India and Pakistan, which were on the brink of a fully blown nuclear conflict (Tinnevelt 2010, p. 5). It is also interesting to note that the biggest targets of terrorism activities are majorly democratic nations and they include the US, UK, Germany, France, Israel, Italy, Turkey and Peru (Tinnevelt 2010, p. 5).
The leading reason advanced by most terrorist organizations for targeting these democracies is the fact that democratic countries have consistently adopted unfavorable foreign and domestic policies (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 8).
It is also interesting to note that democratic regimes which have noninterventionist foreign policies are seldom targeted by terrorists; meaning that the issue here is not a moral evaluation of terrorism and its antecedents but rather the exploration of the question about whether democracies provoke or discourage terrorism (which is also a big threat to world peace). Undoubtedly, democracies provoke terrorism acts.
Ethnic and Religious Conflicts
Ethnic and religious conflicts are probably among the leading cause of organized conflicts and a big threat to world peace. Though a significant portion of these conflicts have been largely characterized by dictatorships and oppressive regimes, a significant portion of the conflicts have also been perpetrated under democratic regimes.
For instance, religious and ethnic conflicts evidenced in Turkey, Yugoslavia, Spain, Philippines, Russia, Peru, Namibia, Mexico, India, Georgia, and Colombia have all happened under democratic regimes (Tinnevelt 2010, p. 5).
Research studies show that about 25 of the most recent intrastate conflicts have been either religious or ethnically instigated and a staggering 23 out of the 25 intrastate conflicts have prevailed under democratic regimes, either partially or fully (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 17). In fact, in some cases, democratic regimes have been successfully overthrown because a significant minority of the population has felt neglected by such regimes.
Empirical evidences have shown that democratic states have promoted ethnic conflicts but a close scrutiny of the process of democratization explains this phenomenon. Even in the biggest democracies across the globe, people have since immemorial voted along ethnic or religious lines although these two parameters (ethnicity and religion) can be closely analyzed together.
In close analysis, people hailing from one ethnic subgroup have always voted for a candidate coming from their ethnic group or sometimes the same people have been seen to vote for candidates they believe best represent their own interests.
This kind of scenario also inevitably brews controversy among voters because voters who fail to propel their candidate into office always harbor some form of resentment on voters who prevented their candidate from entering office in the first place. Even an increase in the population of another subgroup may potentially seem threatening to a specific ethnic group since they may feel like other ethnic groups are a potential threat to advancing their own interests.
The nature of democracy therefore leads to the thriving of such animosities because it gives one vote to a single person and this means that it is easy for one candidate from the majority ethnic groups to capture office; thereby sidelining the wishes of other ethnic or religious groups. Thus, it can be said that democracy, from its own inherent nature possesses the seed of ethnic conflict.
Theoretical Critique
The theory of democratic pacifism is usually advocated by academicians, politicians, diplomats and a significant population of the general citizenry; however; the biggest question we should ask ourselves is: are democratic states really peaceful? In another context, we should majorly ask ourselves is the world’s biggest democracy (US) peaceful?
History affirms that these states are not peaceful and in fact, some of the world’s deadliest conflicts have been instigated by democratic states. Affirmatively, the two bloodiest wars in the past ten decades have been the two world wars plus the American civil war which led to more than 620,000 deaths (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 16).
However, theorists of democracy as a facilitator of peace, such as Rummel, argue that democratic states have a lesser frequency of war when compared to dictatorships but the truth of the matter is that these theories ignore many other potential influencing factors of peace (Tinnevelt 2010, p. 5). These theorists tend to incline towards the classical liberal state which defines states with limited powers but the truth of the matter is that there are very few states in the world which are classical liberal today.
Also, from the analysis of the democratic liberalist states, it is evidently clear that democracies bestow a lot of power on governments and this essentially becomes very dangerous in the upheaval of citizens’ rights. In other contexts, it can be viewed from the dangers of power that power essentially kills; meaning this is a contravention of democratic pacifism theories advocated by scholars such as Spencer Weart (Ostrwoski 2010, p. 19).
However, there’s no doubt that democracies lead to a number of positive outcomes such as the fact that: democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with each other; democracies tend to be more peaceful than each other; democracies have a less internal voice and democracies have relative peace; however, it is still hard to ignore the fact some of the biggest democracies like the UK and the US have been the biggest instigators of war. It can therefore be seen that the realization of peace happens from structural make up and not by coincidence or accident (Joerges 2004, p. 207).
Conclusion
Kant’s assertion that democracies lead to the attainment of world peace is a misplaced argument because contrary to his philosophy, democratic states have constantly destabilized world peace because some of the biggest world conflicts have been instigated by some of the world’s biggest democracies.
The US and the UK in particular are singled out in this study as the biggest democracies although in many instances, they have been fighting with many nations; considering the fact that they have taken part in some of the world’s bloodiest conflicts. These countries are also at the forefront in the war against terror by carrying out invasions even though they are supposed to uphold world peace through their constitutions (as purported by Kant).
Also, this study identifies that democratic governance by the virtue of its own structure is ethnically motivated to brew conflict. This arises out of the fact that democracies encompass a “one man one vote” policy where the majority rule and the minority lose. This kind of policy has brewed conflicts of a civil nature.
Religious conflicts have also majorly occurred under democratic regimes and the kind of conflicts which have either been provoked or occurred under democratic regimes are still endless. These issues withstanding, it becomes clear that democracy in its own nature brews conflict and Kant’s argument of democracy as a facilitator of peace is definitely wrong.
References
Joerges, C. (2004) Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism. London: Hart Publishing.
Lane, J. (1996) Constitutions and Political Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press ND.
Democracy, in its rudimentary form, is described as a kind of a political government whose powers are derived from the people. The power is often found by referendum or by electing representatives in county governments, members of Congress and other political government representatives.
Democracy is therefore the system of rule, which the people who are governed have chosen. Democracy contrasts with other systems like monarch, totalitarian rule, communistic rule, and timocracy. This is because, in the case of democracy, there is freedom of expression and the public is free to participate in sociopolitical activities. There is more freedom and the public participates directly in the system of governance.
In a democratic system, all citizens are allowed to vote whoever they want. Apart from participation in governance by the public, there is also liberalization of economic sector and social activities. It is worth noting that the United States is a Republic not a democracy. A republic is a system in which the people chose people who represent them in formulating policies.
Settings and the mediation organizations should be restructured to ensure that they enhance reclamation of public work for citizens. This will in turn reinvent the citizenship of Americans. The practice of public works is crucial in this aspect. This is because the practice forms a basic conceptual approach to civic education. Thus, public work provides the framework in which the reinvention of active citizenship is built.
Therefore high schools should incorporate the culture of mandatory community service in their curriculum. Work places should be in democratic environments which allow for the participation of their workers in community services and public activities. Forums should be encouraged so that people can assemble to petition their representatives to redress their grievances.
In these assemblies, the public can also speak and act in concert. Reinventing citizenship through the above ways has its own pros and cons. In addition to this, the civil society has the mandate to train people on civic education so that they become more effective in the contemporary political world.
First of all, teaching the habits and skills of citizenship has a particular challenge in that some members of the public are known to be law breakers. In any particular community, there are those people who heed the law and those who do not heed. Those who do not heed cannot implement the teachings of citizenship. Similarly with offering mandatory civic courses, those people who are law breakers, tend not to heed to civic education thus offering a direct challenge to this method.
The issue of mandatory community service has also been met with a lot of resistance from a section of the public. This is because some legislators claim that it is unconstitutional and also offers the public free labor from the young people. Due to these challenges, mandatory community service has not been implemented in all parts of the country.
Public spaces in communities are very important areas for the public to meet and discuss major issues concerning the community. Public spaces in communities which are supposed to be used for social activities and public gatherings have reduced in number. In most cities, public land has been changed into other utility because of the high demand on land.
Thus there are certain places where public land is no more thus making this method of reinventing citizenship not viable. Most neighborhoods have already been designed such that there are no easy connections between citizens. This creates a hindrance for people to meet and exchange ideas aimed at problem solving.
Time is also a major issue when it comes to participation in public activities. In most of the major U.S cities, everyone is busy in their own business and lifestyle. It is not possible to gather the desired number of members of the public at one given time. Collective problem solving becomes quite difficult in this case. Thus, a decision made in a particular gathering during a particular time will not necessarily be a decision representing everyone’s opinion.
Workplace policies also face a major challenge. Implementing the culture of community service and participation in public activities is quite hard for many workers. This is because some say that it adds on the burden of work they already have in the workplace.
Therefore, some workers will find it hard to do community service because they already have enough workload to worry about. The current budget of the Government does not give business enough incentives to help them actively take part in community service. This also compounds the issue since every business is aiming at making profit.
Democracy plays an important role in enhancing public participation. In the political arena, democracy enables Americans to vote whoever they want to. It also enables the public to participate in social activities they want to. And it also gives workers a democratic space in which they are able to work in good work conditions.
Such activities bring the public together thus creating a good atmosphere of solving problems. The process of public participation also helps in reinventing citizenship. Democracy gives the public enough space to engage in social activities without fear of reproach. Thus community service can be done without fear. Democracy in the work place also gives workers enough freedom to express their views and practice their culture.
The government usually does the people’s business without the participation of the public. Citizens are required to share the work of setting the public agenda with politicians and civic leaders. New opportunities should be formed or expanded so that the public can deliberate and also to elect leaders who are more serious with public judgment.
It should be noted that public confidence has the capacity to act effectively in political issues so that participation is enhanced. Those citizens who are most efficacious are much likely to try in political participation than the least efficacious. The personal logic of political participation has a relationship with the individual characteristics of the individual participation.
Thus, people participate in politics when they benefit by getting something tangible as a result of their participation. Political logic of political participation on the other hand has a direct relationship with political leaders. This is because the participation of politics by the public is governed by the way politicians influence them into taking part in the game.
The media comes in handy in bringing people into political participation. The media can create interactive shows which require participation of the public. However, creating new occasions for public deliberation such as National Issues Forum and Study Circles does not exactly involve every desired member of the public.
Not everyone will participate because of many issues, time, being one of them. There are also the issues of use of resources such as time and money which take a toll on public funds. Public forums use a lot of these resources which may also end up to waste if the decisions of the forums are not implemented.
Neighborhood councils can be quite effective in relation to aims of bringing the public back into political activities. These councils can serve as meeting points for the public to speak out and share their views concerning politics and governance. However, it has become quite difficult to bring people together in communities which share different cultures. This method may only be effective if proper plans are executed and enough resources are used.
Thus, the method may not be as easy, in the city, as in the country. It must be noted that this will also depend on the financial and political elite. The ruling class will always affect the community in the area of decision making. Conflicts between the elite can either be detrimental or of benefit to the community. Thus the conflict theory holds. This is because power is the ability to affect the conditions of life in a society.
Political campaigns play a major role in making the public to participate in political issues and public activities. This is because it acquaints the public on their political leaders and gives them an opportunity to select the leaders of their choice according to the politician’s policies. The length of political campaigns is therefore important because it is a factor that gives people enough time to engage in public and political activities.
Reducing the length of political campaigns only serves as a reducing factor in the time needed for public participation. The public will not have enough time needed to actively take part in political activities. It should be noted however, that political socialization plays a major role political activities. Thus if a person’s parents held a certain belief against a certain political party, the person will most likely have similar views.
The competition of political parties is well known as a breeding factor of public’s interest in politics. If this interest works to the advantage, higher turnout will be experienced during the voting process. Political parties create a good atmosphere for greater public participation if they treat each social group rationally.
Thus the young should be treated just like the adults and senior citizens. The financially handicapped should also be treated the same as the economic elite. If political parties become irrational towards members of a particular group, the members affected will become less interested in politics.
Reducing the cost of political campaigns will reduce the resources needed to familiarize the public with their leaders and therefore acts as an inhibiting factor in enhancing political participation by the public. It should also be noted, however, that, expanding public funding to political campaigns will not help much.
It will only be of bad taste to the public since the public will notice an element of misuse of funds. Political parties are therefore placed strategically in this issue. They have to balance between increasing funds for their political rallies and the public opinion about the same.
Conclusion
There are a number of concepts and theories which have been considered as major factors that affect public participation in the United States of America. Public participation is directly related to democracy. If there is total democracy, more of the public will participate in political and public activities.
Civic education is quite necessary in enhancing public participation because civic activities bring people together and learn how to solve problems. Schools are also required to offer civic education and to improve the participation of their students in community services. Communities should have public spaces so that neighbors can connect with each other. Thus reinventing citizenship and improving public participation of the public should be enhanced.
It is increasingly becoming doubtful; if it is possible for some countries and societies to successfully transits from their autocratic governments to democratic societies. A good number of these societies have obtained independence from colonial rule in less than a hundred years ago.
While Most established democracies have generally taken centuries to fully embed the tenets of democracy in their governments and societies, it has been expected that young nations emerging from colonial rule in recent decades would establish democracies within a much shorter period. It has been expected that; the development of democracies in these societies would be catalyzed by the increasingly emerging global community; greatly driven by western democracies.
These democracies have been striving to promote democracy mainly because; democracy has been believed to promote human rights and has also encouraged economic prosperity and the general wellbeing of societies where it thrives. Just as history can ascertain, transition from autocratic to democratic societies has been a painful and a difficult road where enormous challenges have been encountered.
The difficult road to the attainment of democracy that has been experienced by western nations is the same road that is currently traveled by struggling democracies. This paper explores the challenges that are currently hindering the successful transition by some societies from autocracy to democracy.
Democracy has become a key word that is often mentioned to define an ideal society today. Major world powers today have embraced the ideology of democracy; which is thought to be the main ingredient that has driven their economies to admirable levels and one that has generally guarded the wellbeing of every person in their societies (Hilla University for Humanistic Studies).
Democracy therefore permeates from the government to the society in significant ways. A democratic society is not therefore just a society that elects its government representatives in a transparent and open manner. A democratic society is also a society where the government hears and respects the voice of every citizen in decision making (Hilla University for humanistic Studies).
Citizens in democratic societies are normally empowered to guard their rights and will constantly and continuously check their governments; not only ensure that they do not abuse their powers but also to ensure that they respect their active and passive voices in every action that they (governments) take. In a democratic society, the citizens are never wrong. They only need to enshrine whatever they think is best for them in their constitutions, and consciousness.
Having set the bar quite high in understating the basic aspects of democracy, it becomes doubtful whether; any society in our planet today has really achieved democracy. It is however easier to differentiate between a society that respects and strives towards democracy and one that does not. Where the government has not created a framework for a transparent and fair process of electing government representatives, democracy has failed.
The same applies where the government does not respect the voice of its citizens, or where universal human rights are constantly abused. Unlike their democratic counterparts, societies where democracy has failed are therefore burdened by high poverty levels, disrespect for human rights among other common elements present in these societies (Hilla University for Humanistic Studies).
Many historians generally credit the Greeks for inventing the concept of democracy. Indeed, many aspects of the global society in general and the western society in particular were first coined by Greeks. Spartans created a government that was run by five officials who were elected by a few citizens (Mathews and Platt 40). The Spartan government was therefore based on a constitutional framework that guided the elective process and allowed for the passage of laws by high class citizens (Mathews and Platt 40).
Among the laws that were passed by high class citizens in Sparta included; laws that bared immigration as well as those that discouraged creativity and material possessions (Mathews and Platt 40). Athens on the other hand created a democracy that was more repetitive in terms of class although it discriminated against women (Mathews and Platt 40). Although every person that was not a slave could participate in government in Athens, women were bared from government participation (Mathews and Platt 40).
The Greek democratic concepts were first passed to the Roman Empire and then to our society today. One common characteristic that I have observed in the development of democracy is a trend whereby democracy first took root in the empowered ruling class, before spreading to other segments of the society.
For example, in 753 to 509 B.C, a rich council of landowners was the only segment that was allowed to participate in the government; in the Roman Empire at the time. This class elected the roman ruler, and made laws as well (Mathews and Platt 115).
With an increasingly empowered middle class however, things overturned in 509 B.C; when the powerful middle class created a democratic republic (Mathews and Platt, 115). A significant achievement in the Roman democracy was the creation of the separation of powers concept; which was missing in the Greek direct democratic system. Democracy has therefore evolved to create a system of power separation as well as a system that embraces; every member of the society irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity or religion.
While examining whether democracy has failed in a society or not, it is important to examine whether the democratic concepts that have evolved to define democracy as we know it today are wanting.
These concepts include: a truly representative system based on free and transparent elections, a working system of separation of powers and a system that allows every citizen’s participation in government without discriminating on gender, race, religion, beliefs or any unjust criteria. Societies that have failed to successfully transit from autocratic governments to democratic governments have therefore failed to completely embed the above three concepts of democracy in their system of governments, and their societies.
It can therefore be seen that isolation of a particular segments or segment in a society will automatically hinder democracy (Odhiambo). This isolation could be direct or indirect; but the effect is the same-collapse of democracy.
Indeed, a democratic society is a society that has integrated to desirable levels and is therefore able to direct its energy in unison. According to Lord Acton theory, a society that is truly civilized should struggle to embrace all groups within it to prevent a situation whereby a group or groups in that society develop intolerance towards another group or groups (Odhiambo).
To truly embrace the tenets of democracy, a community therefore needs to find a common denominator that will act as a catalyst for democracy to thrive (Berman, 167). Often times, aristocratic rulers who commonly embed in weak democratic systems exploit disunity in a community to strengthen their powers that they often abuse, as they isolate parts of the community even further. Prime among the factors that discourage integration ins a society include: ethnicity, historical factors, religious differences among others.
According to Lentz, ethnicity in whichever form or magnitude or name is such an important resource in politics and an important parameter in the creation of societies that sociologists and even anthropologists are bound to tackle it (Lentz 310).
George Carew on the other hand stated that the existing relationship of tension between independent African states and ethnicity play to hinder a transition to democratic societies (Odhiambo 267). This has been witnessed in many countries including Kenya, where ethnic tensions have particularly been observed between the community and the state.
In 1992, Kenya experienced clashes between ethnic communities; these clashes were instigated to prevent some communities from participating in oncoming elections during that year (1992) (Muhammad). A notion that has been driving these clashes rests in the belief that; some communities were disregarded in allocation of tracts of fertile land left by British settlers on Independence (Kenya’s independence).
Land is not the only resource that has been thought to have been unfairly awarded to some communities in Kenya, in a poor country with limited active resources, government Jobs and other sources of opportunities have been exploited to divide the community. This division of the Kenyan community has almost led to the death of the Kenyan state. The Kenyan state recently exploded into unimaginable scale of violence following the controversial presidential elections in 2007 (Muhammad).
Ethnicity has therefore acted to derail the transition to democracy in diverse ways. As has been seen, it can and has led to intolerance tendencies and even violence.
Violent environments are generally antagonistic to democracy. Human rights are normally violated (Darby 243). Besides, formal institutions like the police that are expected to guard individual rights are normally abused under such. The government becomes volatile and unstable and unreliable, setting the stage for disregard of any established democratic principles (Darby 243).
Moreover, ethnicity prevents a logical election process; where the populace is likely to vote along ethnical lines, instead of considering important attributes of candidates; like their qualifications and their capacity to govern. Ethnicity normally permeates from the highest to the lowest office in a country, where discrimination instead of fairness is the threshold in the provision of services to citizens (Norman).
This creates a society of hate, revenge and other evil elements that prevent integration of communities and therefore prevents democracy (Norman). The Rwandan genocide for example; where hundreds of thousands of people were massacred, is just one of many other tragedy events that have been driven by ethnicity (Muhammad). Ethnicity is therefore not just an enemy to democracy; it is also a proven foe to mankind.
Apart from ethnicity, limitation of a society’s integration can arise from historical reasons. A look at the African map ascertains the historical role of western colonial nations. These colonial powers divided the African continent without regarding the need for integration between communities living in the area (Darby 244). The result is a collection of communities that have very little in common and yet; they have been compelled to live together (Darby 244).
Moreover, in order to prevent an uprising from the communities that they had colonized, many colonial powers encouraged disintegration of African communities through the divide and rule strategy (Darby 245). Many African countries made up of different ethnic communities have not been able to completely unite even after attaining independence. Succeeding governments in many countries have continued to exploit disintegration of communities to abuse power, as democratic tenets continue to wear down.
Historical factors come at play to haunt countries like North Korea, where democracy as defined by the concepts that I had described, has failed. In this case, a single community was divided by an existing feud between the United States and Russia. While South Korea emerged as a democratic nation, North Korea has remained as a Communist nation (Darby 250).
North Korea has focused significant energies in combating perceived threat from South Korea as well as from the United states. The focus of energy on South Korea and the United states has denied South Korea the ability to concentrate on issues like poverty among the like; which go hand in hand with democracy (Darby 250).
In this controversy between South Korea and North Korea resulting from historical factors, a scenario exists where North Korea has failed to benefit from Western nations in various ways that could aid its democracy. South Korea on the other hand has been aided by western nations including the United States in the development of its democratic structures and institutions. Historical factors therefore play a role in the future of a country.
This future includes the democratic future of a community. Many communities have not been able to effectively tackle their past in a gainful way that can empower their democracies; to transit from autocratic to democratic societies.
Another key component that has played to water down democracies in the society today is the issue resulting from religious differences (ICPD). Unlike ethnicity, religious differences are potentially more dangerous in destroying democracies and societies.
The evil potential of religions to destroy democracies arises from the fact that; being based on faith, they are able to cut across boundaries, races, ethnic groups and can therefore catalyze evil tendencies across a wider populace than ethnicity (ICPD). Religions determine many aspects in our lives that define our actions; which emanate from; the beliefs that have been passed to us by our religions. Many countries have been hindered from successfully transiting to democracies because of extremist religious beliefs.
Looking at the History of European nations, we can clearly see that; these countries came to a stage where they needed to overcome some extremist religious practices, to successfully transit to democracies (ICPD). Much of autocratic leadership is established on extremist religious beliefs; that are generally used to exploit communities.
One way in which religion has hindered democracy is through the creation of religious wars. Countries like Nigeria have suffered from constant religious wars. Religious conflicts create an environment of violence where democracy can hardly thrive (Diamond 4). Democratic principles emphasize the respect of human rights; which are often grossly abused during religious conflicts.
Moreover, religious conflicts prevent equal treatment, thus violating an important democratic principle (Diamond 41). Countries like Somalia are governed by groups that believe in Islamic extremism (Muhammad). A group like Al Shabaab has established a government that is not based on any tenet of democracy at all.
The rights and freedoms of people, including common freedoms; like the freedom of movement and communication, are grossly abused by Al Shabaab (Muhammad). It is ironical to note that; Al Shabaab has found supporters; in established democracies like the United States (Muhammad). It is important to note that; Somalia was once a country that was progressing towards a democratic society, before ethnic divisions and Islamic extremism became embedded there (Muhammad).
Many Arabic countries practice some Islamic behaviors that are; directly or indirectly against democratic leadership in general (Bukay). Some of these countries are ruled by non elected leaders, who are also considered to be the religious leaders of their communities (Bukay). Even in countries that have established the representative democratic concept through the ballot, community votes have oftentimes been driven by religion, preventing genuine democracy (Bukay).
Following the September bombing, there has been a temptation to revenge against Muslims and therefore; discriminate them on religious grounds in the process (Bukay). Some of the laws that have been passed to fight terrorism in the United States as well as in other countries are fundamentally discriminatory (Bukay). The rights of groups from the Islamic communities are therefore likely to be easily abused in countries that; especially lack strong democratic institutions.
Moreover, many Islamic fundamentalists have marketed the United States war on terrorism as; discrimination against Islam. The effect of such an action of portraying the United States and her allies in bad light especially in the Islamic world has resulted in; communities that have been more interested in empathy towards Islamic extremists and possible revenge to the US and her allies, than in the development of democratic institutions. In such kind of scenario, democracy has been weakened.
If we scratch the surface of ethnicity and other parameters that divide our societies, we are likely to find layers of poverty and, fights over economic resources hidden deep therein. It is arguable that democracy and human rights are inseparable (Norman). Democracy thrives hand in hand with human rights (Norman).
An important parameter in the description of human rights includes economic empowerment (Norman). A population that has been empowered to meet its basic and secondary needs is more capable to participate in democratic practices (Norman). Psychologists concur that our behavior is prioritized first, by our biological requirements. The desire to obtain food, shelter and clothing, form an important composition of our biological requirements (Brewer).
According to psychologists, we are likely to experience stress and be rendered incompetent to participate in other activities in life when we fail to obtain important biological needs (Brewer). Many societies that have not attained democracy, suffer from large scales of want and poverty. Citizens in poor communities are therefore unable to participate in democratic practices.
In many instances, the fight over resources as a result of poverty generally leads to, isolation of population segments. The isolated segments may consist of minorities, or even ethnic groups (Coleman). The rights of isolated segments of the population in poor societies are therefore trudged upon, in the process. In many cases, poverty contributes to low egos and poor self esteem, which directly prevents a person from realizing their capacity in multiple areas including; the capacity to participate in democracy (Coleman).
Such a poor society is less empowered to check the government and, voice its desires to check democratic institutions. In many African countries, politicians have used their wealth to lure and intimidate people to vote for them. The capacity of the population to participate in elections; is thus destroyed, and the notion of democracy remains an illusion.
It therefore becomes extremely difficult, for poor countries to emerge from autocracy to democracy (Diamond). One common denominator that is present in an economically empowered society is an educated society. An educated society is capable of making wise decisions in regard to democracy, and politics. It is also capable of pressurizing its government to act in a democratic manner (Diamond).
Another challenge closely related to poverty which has acted to prevent a transition to democracy in autocratic society is; corruption. In a way, corruption directly leads to poverty, which has been seen to limit democracy. In many instances, corruption benefits a very small proportion of the population; in powerful offices, and their associates (Comaroff). This may significantly center on ethnical lines; hence perpetuating intolerance in the process.
In a corrupt society, a person is not able to freely obtain services from, what should otherwise be democratic institutions, like the judiciary and the police. An important tenet of democracy-justice; is therefore unavailable. Generally, corruption oppresses a society, by denying them human rights, perpetuating poverty, and increasing the capacity of the political class to abuse their powers. It does not matter what the powerful class do in such a society, since they can always escape justice; through the application of corruption.
There is hardly justice in a society that is endowed with corruption. An institution like the legislature, the executive, and others, can always be compromised in a corrupt society. The capacity of a society that dwells in a corrupt environment, to monitor the government, is therefore eliminated. Countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kenya and Nigeria, have suffered a setback in the attainment of democracy, because of corruption.
The roman model of democracy, that is applied today, contains not only a representative system of electing the government, but also contains a system of separation of powers (Comaroff). Separation of powers allows a framework whereby, government institutions can prevent one another from abusing their powers (Comaroff).
For a system of power separation to operate in a government, it is important for the government to contain powerful and independent institutions. Since the institution of the Judiciary has been empowered with the power and capacity of making the final decision in most matters that arise in a society, it is a very important office in a democratic society. Most weak democracies lack strong institutions, and are therefore likely to slide easily; into autocratic societies instead of progressing to democracies.
One reason why weak institutions exist in weak democracies is because; such countries contain weak constitutions, which have not been keen enough to enshrine effective separation of powers (Saul). The other major reason is of course is, an open disregard for the provisions of a governing constitution; something common in autocratic societies (Saul).
Addressing the inadequacies of a constitution is therefore an important first stage, in strengthening democratic capacities (Darby 230). In many cases, the constitutions of weak democracies have been repeatedly weakened by; amendments tailored by the ruling class to increase their powers at the expense of the populace (Darby). By weakening their constitution, such societies have slid further; into autocracy.
To prevent the disregard of the constitution by the powerful elite, complementing government institutions especially the judiciary needs to be active. However, in societies that slid into autocracy, these institutions have been weakened by corruption, incompetence of office holders, among other factors.
Most appointees to the judiciary and other important offices are subject to governing rulers; who use them as their puppets. Separation of powers does not therefore exist in these societies (Saul). Even the important institution of conducting elections is often compromised, opening a loophole for election rigging, limiting the democratic capacity of the society in the process (Saul).
Abuse of office by the government in failing democracies has also been accelerated by; weak political parties that commonly exist in these societies (Escobar). Through discrimination, oppression, corruption and application of other methods, the political elite in autocratic societies has endeavored to weaken political parties (Maxwell). Besides, most political parties identify with particular personalities, ethnic communities, religions and the like, instead of identifying with particular ideologies (Maxwell).
Moreover, political parties in autocratic societies lack a transparent system that can allow internal democracies (Escobar). It is therefore almost impossible for new ideologies and personalities independent from party controllers, to emerge in the political landscape of such societies (Coleman 250). The result of such a system is; the possible recycling of old autocratic ideologies and personalities, hence preventing a transition to democracy in the process (Coleman 250).
In a society where the capacity of citizens to elect their leaders has been compromised and important institutions like the judiciary have been also compromised, the remaining tool that can push such a society back to democracy is the civil society, and possibly pressure from the international community (Hyden). Civil groups in many weak democracies are; either weak or are, commonly intimidated by the government.
By preventing the active role that should proceed from civil groups, the remaining internal voice of democratization is weakened (Hyden). In a country like Zimbabwe, several members of civil groups have been murdered or tortured by the government (Hyden). Quenching civil groups by the use of threats, torture, murder and other inhuman means illustrates how a government has progressed; deeply into autocratic principles. The last shreds of democracy are becoming rare.
This is where the international community, apart from a rare miracle, becomes the only hope for such a society to move towards democracy again. In many cases, the role of the international community has been discouraging, as much as it has tried to help (Huntigton).
Countries like South Africa have remained quiet, even when their Zimbabwe neighbor has been practicing blatant autocracy. Several factors including economic ties, foreign policies, among others have played to water down the needed international pressure, which is desperately required to push autocratic countries back onto the democratic lane (Huntigton). Indeed, conscious, as well as unconscious practices, by the international community have acted to discourage some democracies.
Many countries continue to relate, and even fund countries that are sliding into autocracy (Huntigton). Moreover, it is commonly known that; some western powers have installed puppet governments that practice autocracy, and helped to build multinational companies; that exploit some societies, leading to abuse of human rights and, aggravating poverty (Haynes).
Unfair trading relations and in effective aid have acted to drown many societies into autocracy in significant ways (Haynes). Many countries have a selfish foreign policy, which trudges on the wellbeing of other societies, most of which have struggling democracies (Haynes). In general, the international community has been ineffective in nurturing democracies (Haynes). Weak democracies that have not been stimulated by the international community have therefore found it easier to slide into autocratic societies.
Conclusion
Although the development of democratic societies is an ideal goal, it is a difficult task to achieve. Democracies in America, Europe and other areas have been built on constant struggles, betrayals, sweat, and blood. Democratization will remain a difficult task because of ingrained interests by powerful groups that; are not willing to let go of their powers, status, greed and wealth.
A lot of internal and external sacrifice is therefore needed for a democracy to mature. Many emerging democracies have been taking longer that expected to establish their democracies; if not sliding back into autocracy. The onus is therefore on such societies and the international community to make the necessary efforts on their part; so that democracy is nurtured, to avoid the imminent destruction of weak democracies; sliding fast into autocracy
Cited works
Berman, Bruce et al. “Ethnicity and Democracy in Africa?” Ohio: Ohio University, 1998. Print
Brewer, J., et al. (2000). “Event-Related Activation in the Human Amygdala, associates with later memory for Individual emotional experience.” Journal of Neuroscience. 10.5 (2000): 26-50
Bukay, David. “Can there be an Islamic Democracy?” Middle East Quarterly. 2007. Web
Coleman, James. Political Parties and National Integration in: Tropical Africa. London: McMillan publishers.
Comaroff, Jean. Modernity and its malcontents. Chicago: University of Chicago. 1993. Print.
Darby, Philip. “Taking Field House Further.” Journal of Imperial and Common Wealth history 26.2 (1997): 232-50.
Diamond, Larry. Class, Ethnicity and Democracy in Nigeria: The Failure of the First Republic. New York: Syracuse publishers, 1988. Print.
Escobar, Arturo. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of ‘The Third World’. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995. Print.
Haynes, Jeffrey. Democracy and Political Change in ‘Third World’. London: McMillan, 2001. Print.
Hilla University for Humanistic Studies. “What is Democracy?” Hilla University Press. Web.
Huntigton, Samuel. The Third Wave of Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Oklahoma: Oklahoma University Press, 2004. Print
Hyden, Goran. Party State and Civil society: Control vs. openness. Boulder: Lynne Publishers, 1994. Print
Norman, J. “Human rights and Democracy.” Democracy. 29 Oct, 2010. Web..
Odhiambo, Atieno. Seek ye First the Economic Kingdom. Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 2000. Print
Saul, John. “For Fear of Being Condemned as Old Fashioned: Liberal Democracy Versus Popular.” Development Democracy and Post Colonial Politics Quest 10.2 (1997): 3-36
Democracy refers to a system of government in which citizens participate in decision-making and decide how they want to be governed (Cheibu & Dahl 2003). It gives citizens an opportunity to contribute in maters that determine the course of their lives. Democracy allows citizens to participate in the process of making laws either directly or indirectly through elected representatives (Burns et al 2001).
Political self-determination is one of the most vital aspects of democracy. This is because democracy encompasses economic, social, and cultural aspects of people’s lives. Other forms of government include monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy.
In a monarchy, power is held by one individual while in an oligarchy, power is in the hands of a few people who make all decisions (Burns et al 2001). Democracy should be adopted in all nations because it promotes equality, freedom, and peace.
Freedom
Aristotle described democracy as a form of freedom that allows citizens to live, as they resolve because the will of the majority prevails (Cheibu & Dahl 2003). In a democracy, there is a government and a constitution that guides citizens in order to promote peace and tranquility. However, they should not pose as obstacles to liberty and freedom. Even though democracy exists, its execution in some nations applies partially (Burns et al 2001).
As such, there is widespread violation of human rights and denial of freedom. Freedom is one of the main objectives of adopting democracy in a nation (Cheibu & Dahl 2003).
A nation should adopt democracy because it promotes freedom, as well as giving citizens power and authority to make laws that govern them (Christiano, 2004). During the process of making laws, the needs and preferences of citizens are considered and incorporated in to the laws. This is in contrast to other forms of government in which a few individuals make laws on behalf of citizens.
Equality
All nations should adopt democracy because it builds on the principle of equality (Christiano, 2004). All citizens are equal and are supposed to enjoy similar social, economic, and political rights. This implies that the government should not discriminate against any citizen or group of citizens because of their religion, ethnicity, or gender (Geer & Schiller 2011).
Democracy promotes equality because every citizen is equal before the law. One of the main components of a democracy is a constitution. A constitution ensures that every citizen enjoys similar rights as everyone else, as well as equal treatment despite their race, religion, gender, or socio-economic class (Lijphart 2012).
Historians have argued whether true attainment of democracy is possible. In many countries, several aspects that include level of education, gender, ethnical affiliation, and economic status hinder democracy. Greed for money by the elite, who oppress the poor despite existence of democracy, has greatly hindered its adoption (Lijphart 2012).
Freedom to make laws and participate in governance gives citizens a sense of belonging (Geer & Schiller 2011). It bestows upon them the feeling that they are responsible for their own welfare and should therefore participate in creating laws. In other government forms, the leader possesses power to make laws according to his/her wishes.
This has led to grave misuse of power as witnessed in countries such as Iraq, Egypt, and Cuba where democracy is not recognized (Mill, 2009). By participating in elections, citizens get an opportunity to elect leaders that they feel possess the best qualities for leadership. In a democracy, people chose their own leaders, unlike in other forms of government.
Democracy creates a feeling of obligation and responsibility in citizens (Ross 2006). They have a responsibility to elect good leaders to lead their nation, and an obligation to participate in elections. This gives them a feeling of belonging because they decide the government that governs their nation.
This applies through elections and referendums. Democracy gives all citizens the opportunity assume leadership positions (Mill, 2009). Any citizen can vie for an elective post and represent other citizens in the government. This encourages fair competition and responsibility, which are necessary for promotion of democracy.
Responsible and stable administration
One of the main benefits of democracy is that its statutes promote and advocate for a stable and responsible government (Ross 2006). A study of major democracies in the world revels that stability, efficiency, growth, and firmness are the main characteristics of democracy. Democracy forms a firm and responsible government because it is based on the wishes of citizens.
In addition, leaders are accountable to citizens who elect them into office. In representative democracy, elected leaders make informed decisions based on ideas and opinions of the people (Ross 2006). Elected representatives are responsible because if they fail to fulfill the wishes of their electorate, they remove them from power when they participate in elections after a certain period.
A stable administration means that there is little chance of revolution. Democracy is primarily based on the will of the people. Therefore, there is low possibility that people might revolt against the government except in cases of violation of the democratic rights of citizens.
Democracy has been shown to be the most stable and effective form of government because it functions on consensus (Shapiro & Corsdn 1999). Any critical decision undergoes the scrutiny of the public before implementation.
The benefits of democracy are evident from observation of democracies such as the United States. The US has grown tremendously over the last few decades because it upholds democratic ideals (Shapiro & Corsdn 1999). This has enabled it to become the most powerful nation in the world. A similar case applies with countries in the Europe that have embraced democracy.
Their rule was characterized by abuse of power, corruption, wars, and violation of human rights. However, this changed when they turned to democracy. Russia has been through many forms of government than any other European country. Anarchy resulted in communism, and monarchy ended in violence (Shapiro & Corsdn 1999).
The formation of a communism government had adverse effects on countries of the USSR. The economy deteriorated and many countries experienced extended periods of abject poverty. However, after they embraced democracy, they were able to rebuild Russia and regain stability and economic prosperity.
Better governance
Another reason why all nations should adopt democracy is the profundity of corruption of power (Schumpeter 2003). In essence, power is not corrupting, but when an individual assumes power, there is high possibility that they will misuse it. This observation applies in monarchies where one individual possess all the power.
In case the individual results to misuse of power, this results in adverse effects such as deterioration of the economy, wars, famine, and corruption. This affects the whole government. This is in contrast to a democratic form of government. Abuse of power by an individual does not crumble a governance system due to even distribution of duties and responsibilities (Schumpeter 2003).
Power is in the hands of many people. Therefore, it is difficult for an individual to corrupt the system with power. The advantage of democracy is that people form the government.
Therefore, it is not possible for the will of the government to conflict with the will of the people (Schumpeter 2003). In other forms of government, the will of the people always conflicts with the will of the leaders. This is because citizens do not get an opportunity to give their opinions or to voice their concerns.
Counterargument
Despite being the best form of government, democracy has flaws too. These include misappropriation of public funds, promotion of dictatorship of the majority, lowering of moral standards, disinterest by voters in elections, and capitalism (Smith 1996). Despite these flaws, democracy is the best form of government. Advantages of democracy outweigh the disadvantages.
Conclusion
Democracy has been labeled the best system of government that any nation can embrace. It has certain weaknesses but it is more stable, efficient, and stronger than other systems such as monarchies and oligarchies. All nations should adopt democracy because of several reasons.
These include stability and efficient administration, promotion of freedom, equality of all citizens, equal opportunity to power, and responsible administration. Benefits of democracy are evident for observing democracies such as the US and European countries. Through democracy, they have been able to achieve growth and prosperity that has placed them among the most prosperous and powerful nations in the world.
References
Burns, J, Pelatson, J., Cronin, T & Magleby, B 2001, Government by the People, Prentice Hall, New York.
Cheibu, A & Dahl, R 2003, The Democracy Sourcebook, MIT Press, London.
Christiano, T 2004, The Authority of Democracy, Journal of Political Philosophy, vol.12 no.3, pp. 266-290.
Geer, J & Schiller, W 2011, Gateways to Democracy: Introduction to American Government, Cengage Learning, New York.
Lijphart, A 2012, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, Yale University Press, New York.
Mill, J 2009, Representative Government, GRIN Verlag, New York.
Ross, M 2006, Is Democracy Good for the Poor, American Journal of Political Science, vol.50 no.4, pp. 860-874.
Schumpeter, J 2003, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Taylor & Francis, New York.
Shapiro, I & Corsdn, C 1999, Democracy’s Values, Cambridge University Press, London.
Smith, b 1996, Sustainable Local Democracy, Public Administration and Development, vol. 16 no.2, pp. 163-178.
The proponents of it, see democracy as good and very important. It enables individuals to decide what is good for them. Others argue that people don’t know what is in their best interests. Also, the definition of autonomy to various individuals differs. For example, democracy cannot in itself ensure that each individual will prevail.
Democracy provides a mechanism for solving group conflicts and social differences. It offers a channel for open discussion and expression of diverse ideas for better decision making. But then, the value of democracy in theory is very different in practice. Even when there is economic growth, it has always been accompanied by social inequality, embezzlement of public wealth and grand corruption.
Public dissatisfaction with how democracy works has been evident with the various civil protests on hampered economic growth, social inequality and the subsequent emergence of criminal gangs. Some just waive their constitutional right to vote. In fact, most individuals believe in the rule by the technocratic elite as compared to democracy.
Democracy’s ability to result to economic sustainability is contentious. This I because the heavy taxation often results to reduced productivity. Further, it may not be able to curb inflation through strict policies. Democracy also leads to religious and ethnic conflicts. Economic association and availability of information and transparency and accountability yield economic growth. Without democracy, there is no way of making the government accountable through the electoral process making them wasteful in their economic dealings.
Chinese perception of democracy
The Chinese citizens favor an economically rich country as opposed to their desire for a democratic society. Freedom is not the only way to measure what is important to a society. Instead, it should be associated with something of value to society. Democracy does not mean much if the citizenry is hungry, sick, uneducated and generally chained with poverty.
Chinese scholars argue that how democracy can only be equated to how much individuals are able to make decisions on what they hold important in their life. It is the abilities that one has to make his own individual choices on the things that we value and hold in high regard.
People associate leaders with individuals who have acted to empower people rather than those who concentrate on economic growth. The Chinese public however, views the government as caretakers and protector other than as owing obligations to them to offer them the basic needs.
Chinese movement towards democracy
At the beginning, due to the scourge of war, instability and famine facing them, the Chinese people were only concerned with fighting for a peaceful and safe environment that is free from hunger with political stability and cohesion. They did not worry about individual freedom and democracy. And these they achieved less for the now emerging high cases of instability and criminality in their country and people have resulted into ranking social order as the topmost current concern for them.
Then there was need for educating the public so as to empower them to utilize the opportunities available for economic growth. Basic education was integral for the Chinese people to integrate their own economic goals with the world market. Though the government was unable to achieve a compulsory nine years education for all its masses, it is determined to universalize its education system in this era that education has become important for any individual to be successful in life, even in the Chinese economy.
The Chinese government has also worked hard towards the realization of an improved health facilities and nutrition. There is increase in both protective and curative measures adopted as well as fight against epidemics and improved sanitation. This has resulted to low mortality rate and increased life expectancy laying a ground for the need of higher rights.
Women rights have also taken shape where women can choose their own spouses, right to divorce, to education and even to hold a job. They are also empowered to make political stands. Even though this has not been fully realized, it has been a great milestone for the Chinese people.
The people’s right to a job and subsequently the employer’s right to choose a worker of his choice have created free movement of labor as opposed to the rigid and immobile system that existed, even though this has resulted to risk of unemployment since the government no longer guarantees the public with jobs.
Further, almost all the population has been issued with houses increasing people’s freedom to make decisions concerning their own lives leading to economic growth. This in turn has resulted to institutional and cultural change pushing political reforms even higher.
Chinese Reaction to Democracy
Chinese public has its own feelings toward the individual freedoms and rights. From the controlled flow of information, now there is not only increased freedom of speech but also increased use of the internet and international communication through fax, telephones, mails and computers.
The government has invested heavily on technology and telecommunications all over the country. The media is no longer under the threat of the government on what it publishes. However, the media is not as free as it should be. There are still limitations imposed on the media both directly by the government and indirectly by the business people.
But the freedom has its own disadvantages such as the uncontrolled informational flow carrying with it lifestyles that were formally regarded as a taboo thus eroding public morals and standards of values, especially with pornography infiltrating the market. However, people generally believe that the media should expose the current social evils and problems facing the country, as they too no longer support the increased freedom of information.
The right to consumer goods too has a different aspect to it. If ones financial position is low, then the right to choose the products he would want to consume is inhibited and does not help. But the Chinese economy has grown thus empowering the consumers to purchase not only the necessities, but also the luxuries.
Further, the right to choose consumer goods cannot in itself ensure that consumers get exactly what they want to buy. It requires an additional right to consumer protection by state against the producers so they can enjoy the primary right.
Also, the right to work and live in a house of your own as granted by the state is still regulated by the market forces of labor. Most of the population is now faced with massive unemployment leading to social disparities and therefore reduced ability to own houses. Also, the people have a right to personal lifestyle through the music they listen to though most of them listen to music reflecting their values. There are also other rights such as right to inheritance, to dealing in stocks, to acquire wealth or hard currency.
Therefore, what democracy means for the majority of other countries may not be the same conception for the Chinese people. They define what democracy is and they act towards its realization, their democracy.
This paper is aimed at discussing the status of Sharia under the regime of Hosni Mubarak. This question is closely related with the Islamization of Egypt. Moreover, much attention should be paid to the role played by the organizations which stated that the functioning of the state should not be separated from religion. Among these organizations, one can distinguish the Muslim Brotherhood.
These are the main issues that should be taken into consideration. These questions are vital for understanding the development of the political system of the country. Overall, it is possible to argue that Mubarak resisted the growing role of Sharia in the legislative system of this country, but he had to recognize the importance of Islam for the culture of the Egyptian society.
Moreover, he had to make concessions with Islamist organizations. To a great extent, he perceived Islamization as one of the factors that could eventually undermine his authority, but it was impossible for him to create a completely secular state that could be completely isolated from religion. This is one of the main points that can be made.
It should be mentioned that for approximately two decades after Mubarak’s ascension to power, the supporters of political and legal Islam did not play an important role in the social life of Egypt. The opposition to this regime was represented mostly by nationalist and leftist movements (Naguib 103). In turn, Islamist political parties could not significantly affect the decisions of Mubarak regime (Naguib 103).
This is one of the trends that could be observed in the eighties. Furthermore, Mubarak perceived the growing importance of religion as a potential danger to his government. There were two reasons for this policy. First of all, one can speak about the growing number of militant Islamist organizations that could use force against the state (Sullivan and Abeb-Kotob 11).
Secondly, it is important to remember that Muslim culture does not tolerate the authority of civil dictators. In turn, Mubarak policies were aimed at suppressing various Islamic organizations that could be both peaceful and militant (Sullivan and Abeb-Kotob 11). This information should be taken into account because it can explain the role of Sharia in the Egyptian society during Mubarak regime.
One can argue that the norms of Sharia were not strictly enforced by the administration of Mubarak. The only exception was family law which regulates such aspects as the inheritance of property, marriage, divorce, and so forth (Forsythe 112).
Admittedly, Mubarak enabled some of Islamic political parties to participate in the legislative discussions, but they could not shape the constitution of the country or other regulations. This is one of the main issues that should be kept in mind. Overall, it is possible to say that the Quran was not the main source of legislative norms in this country.
Religion could not significantly influence the life of people. This is one of the main arguments that can be put forward. Nevertheless, Mubarak could not completely disregard the role of political Islam. For instance, Mubarak claimed to be a civil or even democratic leader, but his government failed to empower women by enabling them to occupy the positions of authority (Forsythe 112).
Their role in the family or society was significantly lower in comparison with the Western countries. This attitude of the government can be partly explained by its compromise with Islamist organizations.
Thus, it is possible to say that Hosni Mubarak resisted the idea of Islamic state, but he could not completely reject the influence of religion. This is one of the aspects that can be identified. This detail is critical for understanding the policies of the Mubarak regime.
Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the role of political and legal Islam began to increase in the nineties. Moreover, much attention should be paid to the elections of 2005 when the Muslim Brotherhood won approximately 20 percent of seats in the Egyptian Parliament (Naguib 103). Since that time, they attempted to introduce Sharia as the basis of the legal, political, or economic policies of Egypt.
After this event, the role of Islam began to increase. Their strategies were aimed at transforming secular state into an Islamic one. To a great, the increasing role of the Muslim Brotherhood contributed to the downfall of Mubarak regime and current period of struggle.
At this point, Egypt passes through a period of political instability, and one cannot determine its future political development. The most important question is related to the role of Islam in the political life of the country. In the future, Sharia can permeate almost every area of life in this country. This is one of the options that cannot be dismissed. Nevertheless, it is also possible that its application will be limited.
For instance, Sharia may be relevant to the criminal and penal codes of the country. Thus, Islam can play different roles in the life of this state. It should be taken into account that in Egypt there are many Islamist organizations that are by no means radical (Naguib 108). Therefore, they may not necessarily use religion as a means of oppressing their enemies.
Currently, political scientists cannot say for certain whether Egypt can effectively combine political Islam with the principles of civic society and democracy. Furthermore, legal professionals want to determine whether Sharia law will be the basis of the legislative system. These are the main issues that should be considered.
There is another question that should not be overlooked. The collapse of the Mubarak regime gave rise to the intense political struggle in this country. In the course of this competition of the country, another authoritarian leader may come to power.
Thus, the collapse of Mubarak regime may not produce significant changes. Nevertheless, it is also possible that the country will gradually become more democratic. At present, it is not easy to make any accurate estimation about the future of this country, its state, and culture. This is another issue that should be disregarded.
On the whole, these examples suggest that the regime of Hosni Mubarak resisted the increasing importance of Islam in this country. Sharia was not widely applied to different areas of human activity. Nevertheless, Mubarak was not able to create a state that could be separated from the principles of Islam.
The growing political role of the Muslim Brotherhood was one of the factors that lead to the downfall of this regime. Nevertheless, at present the legal and political development of Egypt cannot be easily predicted since Islamist organizations are represented by various groups that have different values and priorities. These are the main arguments that can be made.
Works Cited
Forsythe, David. Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
Naguib, Sameh. “Islamism(s) Old and New.” Egypt: the Moment of Change. Ed. Rabab El-Mahdi and Philip Marfleet. London: Zed Books, 2009. 103-119. Print.
Sullivan, Denis, and Sana Abeb-Kotob. “Civil Society and Islamism in Egypt.” Islam in Contemporary Egypt: Civil Society Vs. the State. Ed. Denis Sullivan and Lynne Abeb-Kotob. New York: Rienner Publishers, 1999. 1-17. Print.
Leader selection procedures are very important in the success of every nation. While several countries practice different models of democracy, several countries have adopted liberal democratic minimalism. The liberal democracy gives the citizens the autonomy to choose their leaders through votes or authentic deliberation and express their dissent in the advent of dissatisfactions. Unlike several types of historic leadership, liberalism minimalism gives freedom to individuals and only limits the freedom if it infringes on the rights of other individuals. Remarkably, the leader selection procedures of liberalism democratic minimalism are among the best as it ensures that the citizens duly elect their leaders.
By giving the citizens the right to select their leaders, issues regarding dissent diminish, as they feel appreciated and valued. The essence of liberty transpires because industrial societies are a composition of individuals, who have different cultures, religions, and languages. Therefore, the essay discusses the different democratic models, dissent, and alternative approaches to liberalism to examine whether leader-selection procedures of liberal democratic minimalism is the only practical way to govern advanced industrial societies with multiple cultures, religions, and languages.
Different Models of Democracy
Developmental and Deliberative Models
A developmental model of democracy is one that advocates for the sovereignty of the people in a nation. Fundamentally, the model champions for equal treatment of individuals and protects them from unfair leadership. The model also protects leaders and cushions their activities from the sovereign and autonomous citizens. One of the major features that are evident in the developmental model of democracy is the decentralization of powers.
Schudson (2008) asserts that in an attempt to improve the livelihoods of citizens, the model states that countries need to decentralize powers and give the people the ultimate power to manage their resources. The focus of the developmental model is on the improvement of human livelihoods through aspects such as decentralization of government institutions, a factor that brings leadership closer to all the citizens.
On the other hand, the deliberative model of democracy is one that promotes the importance of consensus and authentic agreements among individuals living in a particular state. In the perspective of Keane (2011), the deliberative model points out the importance of agreement among a set of citizens empowered with the requisite information about leadership and governance. Unlike other models, which rely on voting as the cornerstone of citizen power, the deliberative model promotes the concept of authentic agreement or deliberation. In the explanation of Schudson (2008), voting is a universal consensus that limits the practicability of authentic agreement. As such, individuals need to discuss and come to a consensus. The emphasis accorded to the issue of deliberation is one of the elements that differentiate the deliberative model of democracy from other models currently practiced by various societies in the modern world.
Procedural and Plebiscitary Models
Fundamentally, the procedural model of democracy is one that utilizes citizen voting as the ultimate component, which defines sovereignty. The model, however, limits the participation of citizens and only accords them the power to vote and choose individuals, who represent them in various institutions of government such as the legislature. As opposed to other models, which have improved participation of citizens through decentralization or authentic deliberation, the model limits citizen participation and only allows them to vote. In effect, after the election, some of the leaders in nations that practice the procedural model of democracy devise strategies that see them enjoy long periods of leadership and fail to focus on the challenges experienced by citizens. It is important to explain that the model focuses on the procedures of elections and ensures that the election process abides by these procedures.
Plebiscitary model of democracy is another model that proposes a unique set of requirements that modern societies can apply in the selection of leaders. One of the notable features that the model presents is the inclusion of horizontal and simplified forms of communication between leaders and citizens.
Also, the model outlines the essence of power and autonomy of the citizens in a state. By advocating for the use of simple and modern communication systems, the model tries to ensure that all the citizens understand the various decisions made by leaders and equally voice their opinions promptly. According to Hacker and Dijk (2000), a plebiscitary model of democracy highlights that the state should apply modern technologies and use them to air the various decisions enacted by the leaders. Conversely, the aspect of citizen autonomy centers on the fact that by allowing them to voice their grievances, the state becomes vulnerable to their criticism. In actual sense, several governments in contemporary societies have become victims of improved ICT where social media and other modern media of communication subject them to criticism in the advent of a shortcoming.
Understanding Dissent
In modern societies, individuals can voice their grievances and disagreement with the leadership freely and without state coercion. The freedom associated with expression of disagreement or divergent opinions is unlike historic times when leaders punished individuals, who held conflicting opinions with the state provisions. Remarkably, dissent implies the expressions of disagreement or dissatisfaction in relation to the laws and provisions of the individuals in leadership positions. When citizens in a given state are not happy with the style of leadership or with how the leaders manage state resources, they can express their dissatisfaction.
In the assertion of Keane (2011) the expressions of dissatisfaction are usually an attempt to try to persuade the leaders to comply with a certain set of issues. Among the issues that persuasion focuses on include change of leadership or paving way for other leaders deemed by the society as competent and well qualified.
Principally, citizens express political dissent in some ways. The ways are diverse and range from less influential to those that are widespread and violence oriented. The ways of expressing dissent include the use of flyers, burning of effigies, peaceful demonstrations, strikes, and riots. According to Stokes (2002), riots and revolutions are the most violent and force related ways of expressing political dissent. Evidently, several governments in modern times are victims of the dissent occasioned by their form of governance. Notably, factors like recessions, terrorism, and increased freedom of expression have catalyzed the challenges that leaders experience about political dissent. In modern times, some countries are grappling with the challenges. While some governments opt to remain unchanged by the expressions of dissatisfaction, others decide to comply and adopt some of the suggestions advanced by the citizens, a factor which has a close relationship with liberal democracies.
Importance of Understanding Models of Democracy and Dissent in Political Science
The different models of liberal democracy and dissent are core concepts in the field of political science. By studying them, one acquires the insights on the need to have a comprehensive and practical understanding of the concepts. It is paramount to elucidate that enhanced understanding of the different models of democracy as well as dissent leads to a range of benefits on a particular government. Some of the benefits associated with an enhanced understanding of democratic models and dissent include improved quality of governance, fostered development, and peaceful coexistence.
From the perspective of Andrews and Chapman (2005), when a state allows its citizens to voice their opinions and provides a platform where they deal with the opinions in a deliberative manner, the quality of leadership, development, and peace improves. Improved quality of leadership, development, and peace takes effect because the citizens feel appreciated and valued by their leaders.
Consequently, when governments involve their citizen in a democratic manner and attend to their dissatisfactions, some rewarding opinions become attainable. Realization of rewarding opinions leads to an overall improvement in the quality of leadership. Notably, dissent emanates from feelings of poor governance, and the absence of certain services deemed as necessary by the citizens. Therefore, by listening to the advanced expressions, a government can make changes that boost the quality of leadership. Peaceful development and coexistence prevail in a nation when the citizens feel appreciated and valued by their leaders. In the words of Gumede (2005), when the feelings thrive, the leaders enjoy robust development and peace that a number of developed countries enjoy in modern times. Therefore, an enhanced understanding of the different models of liberal democracy and dissent is instrumental in advancing the overall development of a particular country.
Alternative Theories/Approaches
Although liberalism is one of the best leader selection systems, several alternative approaches have emerged. The emergence of alternative approaches is due to the need to amplify the outcomes yielded by liberalism. Some of the alternative approaches that scholars have proposed in the quest to boost the practicability and efficiency of the model of liberalism include capitalism and socialism democratic models.
Hacker and Dijk (2000), outlines the fact that capitalism and socialism serve as alternative approaches that augment the performance of liberalism and its models in leader selection. The perspective of Hacker and Dijk (2000), is an evident reflection of the solutions that can transpire when leaders complement liberal democratic minimalism with capitalistic or socialistic ideals. To foster the efficiency of alternative approaches, leaders need to capitalize on the strengths demonstrated by the approaches and minimize the effects related to their weaknesses. Notably, the approaches have significant influence in the democracy of particular countries and their application leads to a range of productive results.
Conclusion
Leadership selection procedures in several countries of the world are voter oriented. Apparently, several liberalist democracies give their citizens the right to vote and select leaders based on the people that they believe are qualified and suited for the leadership position. As such, leaders do not impose themselves but instead are chosen and put into office but the citizens. Evidently, the democracies give their citizens the ultimate power to make their choice using their votes or deliberations. In the aftermath of a shortcoming in the leadership, citizens in liberal democracies have the freedom to express their dissatisfaction, also known as, dissent. Enhanced understanding of the models and dissent is core in attaining the success and development of a particular nation. It is imperative to explain that several countries of the world are enjoying the rewards accrued from an augmented understanding of the concepts linked to liberal democratic minimalism and dissent.
Reference List
Andrews, G & Chapman, E 2005, The Social Construction Of Democracies 1870-1990, New York: Macmillan.
Gumede, W 2005, Democracy and the Importance of Criticism, Dissent and Public Dialogue, Durban: University Of KwaZulu-Natal.
Hacker, K & Dijk, J 2000, Models Of Democracy and Concepts of Communication digital Democracy, Issues of Theory and Practice, New York: Sage Publications.
Keane, J 201, Monitory Democracy, Cambridge: University Of Cambridge.
Schudson, M 2008, Changing Concepts of Democracy, New York: MIT.
Stokes, G 2002, ‘Democracy and Citizenship,’ Democracy and Citizenship, Vol.1, no.1, pp. 24-51.
There is no use denying the fact that the modern world could be characterized by the increase of the level of attention given to such issues as humanism, tolerance and human rights. Having passed through two world wars and lost millions of people, humanity realized the fact that the world should be changed if mankind wants to survive. That is why the shift of some values and attitudes towards certain issues could be observed.
A human being becomes the most important value which should be protected ad cared about. Therefore, the attempts to find the form of government which will be able to guarantee the creation of all these conditions appeared. One realized the fact that totalitarian states of the past could not continue their existence as it led to thousands of victims. Under these conditions, the world needed a new pattern to reorganize some states and create new beneficial conditions for people. Democracy became this very kind of state structure that could help to do it.
Starting the analysis of the given issue, it is vital to outline the background of the growth of democracy in various states and conditions that had a great impact on these processes. The fact is that WWII triggered a great number of various processes.
People obtained the thirst for freedom and realized the fact that they should rule their lives on their own. That is why, this period of time could be characterized by the collapse of various colonial empires and the appearance of a great number of new states which used to be the part of some greater countries. Additionally, the aftermath of the war made people reconsider their attitude towards the issue of power and look for new more efficient ways to govern. That is why, some states switched to the new pattern, hoping that it could help them to satisfy the new needs of people and guarantee stable and beneficial development.
Thus, having chosen democracy as the main direction of their development, various countries tried to achieve the goal using different strategies and remedies. Not all models were successful and some of them resulted in the collapse of the government or even civil wars. Under these conditions, the term democratic consolidation became very important. The given notion is used “to describe the challenge of making new democracies secure, of extending their life expectancy beyond the short term, of making them immune against the threat of authoritarian regression”1.
The importance of the given term and process was proved by the fact that not all states that tried to adhere to the main principles of democracy managed to create the needed conditions and collapsed, returning to the authoritarian pattern. At the same time, the countries that continue movement in this very direction also might face some problems and challenges. With this in mind, it is vital to analyze the functioning of these very countries in order to understand the main peculiarities of their development.
Japan could be taken as one of the states that managed to achieve great success due to the shift of priorities and adherence to the main concepts of democracy. It should be said that the given country has very powerful traditions of absolute power. For centuries the Emperor had been the only ruler of the state and had unlimited power. However, WWII and Japans defeat and occupation triggered the great process of change. Japanese society realized the fact that the military state had no future in the modern world and accepted the new constitution. According to this very document the liberal democracy became the pattern according to which the state should evolve and continue its development. Moreover, the peace and beneficial development of all layers of Japanese society became the main priorities of the new government. Japan remained the Empire, however, its image had changed significantly.
It should be said that Japan managed to achieve great success in the development of democracy and the creation of modern, humane and tolerant society. Using the Shedlers concepts that describe the stages and concepts of democratic consolidation, it is possible to say that the Japanese society is at the high level of the development of a state and has great perspectives for its development2.
There are no signs of anti-democratic behavior and all members of society are satisfied with the existing type of state structure. Moreover, elections, as the main tool of democracy, could be described as very clear and efficient. The government promotes the improvement of the given mechanism and introduces new tools that can make it more efficient and transparent. Nowadays, Japan is a constitutional monarchy that is ruled by the Emperor, however, the cabinet of ministers accepts the all-important decision and, that is why the power of the ruler is limited and there are perspectives for the development of democracy.
Thus, it is also vital to outline several problems that Japan still faces trying to develop democracy and exclude the possibility of the return towards the authoritarian state structure. First of all, one should keep in mind that Japan is the country with powerful traditions according to which hierarchy has always been an integral part of its society. That is why, even nowadays, there are the manifestations of this sort of relations when a social status of a person determines the attitude of society towards him/her and the way he/she is treated. Moreover, nowadays Japan is one of the most fast-growing countries with a powerful economy.
However, these goals were achieved by the hard work of the citizens of the state. The working conditions remain very complicated and the common Japanese live under constant stress. With this in mind, it is possible to make a conclusion that Japan could be taken as the state characterized by the great level of the development of democracy, however, there still some things to be done in order not to stop these processes and promote the further evolution of the country.
Continuing cogitations about the issue of democratic consolidation, it is vital to mention South Korea as another state that chose the new vector of its development and tried to create a democratic society. There are several important factors that should be mentioned while speaking about the state of democracy in the given country and perspectives for its development. First of all, one should remember the fact that South Korea appeared due to the civil war unleashed by the USA and the USSR on the territory of the once unified state. South and North Koreas chose various vectors of their development.
South Korea became the young democratic state supported by the Western world. That is why, it had the task to create the efficient mechanism of the functioning of democracy in accordance with the European pattern. The success of this task became one of the most important conditions of the further existence of the given state. However, till 1998 the country preserved the authoritarian form of government and only at the end of the 20th century, it became a democratic state.
Nowadays, the state has all the peculiarities of the developed democracy. It could be characterized by the complicated government which is elected by people. The president is the head of the state and the fact that this post is occupied by a woman could also be taken as the evidence of the democratic character of the given state. Analyzing the given situation, it is also vital to say that South Korea is recognized by the Western world and acts as its very important partner.
However, at the same time, it is impossible not to admit some threatening tendencies peculiar to the given state and which could neutralize all previous achievements. Thus, the liberty of speech and freedom of the press could be taken as the main aspects of the developing democratic state3. However, the law of South Korea forbids speculations on North Korea. Various means of media should not post or publish materials that describe some positive aspects o the functioning of this very state. Moreover, a person is not able to communicate with the citizens of North Korea without special permission given by the government. These facts prove the fact that there are still many problems connected with the civil liberties in the Republic of Korea, which means that democratic consolidation should be continued.
Finally, analyzing the development of democratic regimes in the given region, it is also vital to give attention to the situation in Taiwan or the Republic of China. The given state has an unusual history, and nowadays not every country accepts the existence of the Republic. Thus, the given fact does not limit the evolution of the region and nowadays Taiwan is one of the most fast-growing economies of the world. It should also be said that till the 1970s the country adhered to the authoritarian form of governance and the ruler had great power in the state. However, after the death of Chiang Kai-shek, a great number of various processes that introduced many shifts in the social and political life of the state started. Nowadays, Taiwan is one of the developing democracies.
Speaking about the progress achieved by the given state, it is vital to mention several facts. First of all, nowadays human rights are respected in the country and there are conditions for the development of various personal and professional skills of a person. Secondly, citizens of the state are really proud of their political system which results in the stability and development of the whole country. The President and the members of the government are chosen by people with the help of elections which are organized on a regular basis.
Nevertheless, being organized according to the western pattern, the given political system functions efficiently and promotes the economic and social development of the state. Finally, it helps to establish a complicated situation connected with the independence of the state and its relations with China.
Besides, there is still much to be done and there are some problems and challenges which the process of the development of democracy in Taiwan faces. Analyzing the sphere of law and punishments it should be said that the penalties are very severe in Taiwan. According to the laws of the country, people might suffer from very high fees of even imprisonment in case of some insignificant offenses. Moreover, the death penalty is not prohibited there and there is the possibility to use it. Cogitating about the process of democratization in Taiwan, it is also vital to mention the fact that the President still has much power and can use it for various purposes. The government limits this power, thus, there is still some possibility of power abuse.
With this in mind, it is possible to make a certain conclusion. It becomes obvious that the end of the 20th century could be characterized by the appearance of new democratic states that tried to align their functioning in accordance with the main concepts of traditional democracy. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea could be taken as this very sort of country. They have the authoritarian past and, that is why, the shift of priorities might face some real obstacles. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that the states manage to continue their development in terms of democracy and promote the improvement of their image. However, some problems still remain and some efficient steps are needed to find a good solution to them for these countries to be able to promote the development of democracy in the region and dominance of democracy.
Bibliography
Schedler, Andreas. “What is Democratic Consolidation?.” Journal of Democracy 9, no. 2 (1998): 91-107.
Schedler, Andreas. “Measuring Democratic Consolidation.” Studies in Comparative International Development 36, no. 1(2001): 66-92.
Slater, Dan. “Democratic Careening.” World Politics 65, no, 4 (2013): 729-763.
Footnotes
Andreas Shcedler, “What is Democratic Consolidation?,” Journal of Democracy 9, no. 2 (1998): 97.
Andreas Schedler, “Measuring Democratic Consolidation,” Studies in Comparative International Development 36, no. 1(2001):68.
Dan Slater, “Democratic Careening,” World Politics 65, no, 4 (2013): 743.