Another name of direct democracy is “pure democracy.” Its main principle is citizenly assembly, characterized by sovereignty (Schacter 1995). This type of democracy combines democracy and a civics theory. This sovereign assembly can consist of any citizen who chooses to participate, and it has the ability to make law, passing executive motions, conduct trials, elect and dismiss officials. When the assembly elects officials, they are considered to be bound to people’s will, being their direct representatives. Direct democracy differs from representative democracy, where a certain range of periodically elected people are practicing sovereignty and are able to advance their own agendas. In a direct democracy, it is the citizens who vote for different laws instead of the elected representative (Pipho 1994). In the European Union, the concept of direct democracy is governed by three main principles. These principles include initiative, referendums, and recall. Referendums provide the people with the ability to decide whether a certain law should be revised or scrapped (De Vreese et al. 2004). According to the last principle, the people are able to use petitions and referendums in order to recall any elected official.
One of the finest examples of direct democracy in the European Union is Switzerland. EU integration scholars have been paying much interest to the Swiss political system (Trechsel 2005). Over many years it has effectively used the initiative and referendum principles at the federal and local levels. Over its lengthy democratic history, the Swiss conservative population had been approving only 10% of the proposed initiatives and put to referendum over 240 of them. In this country, single majorities are sufficient at the town, city, and state levels; however the national level requires double majorities, as these majorities intend to ensure the legitimacy of any citizen-made law (Kobach 1993). In Swiss democracy, no law can be passed if there is approval from the majority of people but disapproval from the majority of states (Kobach 1993). However, the majority of the voters is enough for referendums or propositions (Swiss constitution 2005).
Slovak Republic is a country that does not have a 120-year-old history of direct democracy and is on the verge of EU integration. Only in November of 1989, the citizens of the Slovak Republic started regaining their trust in public administration. The democratic revolution related to democratic system established in this country has created some space for societal systematic changes that provided a pluralist economic and political system, and adopted legislations on fundamental human freedoms and rights through reconstruction of national councils and the Federal Assembly. The democratic revolution caused the formation of Slovak civic society, as well as renewment of Parliamentarianism (Smith 2003). The main principles of Slovak direct democracy allow public assembly of the citizens at municipal levels, allow local, regional, and national level initiatives, implement obligatory referendums, allow facultative citizens’ initiative-based referendums.
The Slovak Republic has attempted several referendums on national level however they proved unsuccessful, mainly due to low participation, whereas the Swiss population is always well aware of the referendums, and shows high participation. Currently the people of Slovakia are deciding whether their country should join the EU however this referendum does not seem quite fair. For example, the question of the referendum is whether the people are in favor of EU, when it should be whether the people want to join EU and allow the EU laws to rule over Slovak national laws in any given case. Another problem of this referendum is insufficient time to adequately inform all the citizens on the proposition, as most people are skeptical, as they do not possess comprehensive information about obtaining EU membership. Right now the country requires good referendum campaign in order to increase general awareness of the EU benefits, so that the country could be well on its way to the Swiss democratic model.
Reference List
De Vreese, C. & Semetko, H. 2004. Political Campaigning in Referendums: Framing the Referendum Issue. New York: Routledge.
Kobach, K., 1993. The Referendum: Direct Democracy In Switzerland. Dartmouth Publishing Company.
Pipho, C. 1994. The Drumbeat of Direct Democracy. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(2).
Schacter, J. 1995. The Pursuit of “Popular Intent”: Interpretive Dilemmas in Direct Democracy. Yale Law Journal, 105(1).
Smith, S. ed., 2003. Local Communities and Post-Communist Transformation: Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. London: Routledge Courzon. Trechsel, A., 2005. Towards a Federal Europe? Special issue of the Journal of European Public Policy, 12(3).
Sectarianism refers to discrimination and hatred between subgroups of a larger group that result from differences in political, religious, and social ideologies. Sectarianism is an obstacle to the democratization of Iraq because it has created rifts between different ethnic and religious groups.
The aftermath of the 2003 war that initiated by the United States was formation of different social and political factions that opposed each other. Iraq might be gradually gaining political stability. However, rifts between ethnic and sectarian groups might derail its democratization. The Sunni insurgents, Shia Islamists, Sadrists, and the central government oppose each other thus compromising democratization efforts.
Sectarianism began when the U.S military failed to establish a government after toppling Saddam Hussein (Al-Sheikh and Sky 119). Iraqi people took revenge against their government by revolting. Resistance against the state was worsened by the violent actions of more than 35,000 prisoners released by Saddam before his downfall. In addition, dissolution of the military increased disorder, looting, and violence.
Due to dissolution of security forces, many communities formed militia units to defend themselves (Al-Sheikh and Sky 120). A coalition established in 2003 to handle the situation promoted sectarian and ethnical precepts. The coalition’s composition comprised more Shi’ites than Sunnis.
Kadrists were excluded from the coalition. Rifts intensified when Shia and Kurdish leaders proposed the proposal that government positions be divided according to the size of each group. Sunnis and Sadrists disagreed because they were aware that it was a move to divide them in order to rule easily (Al-Sheikh and Sky 120). De-Ba’athfication further separated the groups because Sunni leaders claimed that the initiative targeted its people. On the other hand, Sadrists were unsatisfied with the new regime that promoted sectarian precepts.
Sunni leaders advocated for election boycott by its members. As a result, Shia parties took control of the government. In forming a new security force, Shi’ites declined to join due to intimidation and discrimination from Sunnis (Al-Sheikh and Sky 123). As a result, other groups waged violent attacks against them. For example, Sadrists murdered them in great numbers. Attacks betweenShia and Sunni groups worsened after the 2006 bombing of the Samara mosque.
The civil war led to the demise of more than 10,000 people. Communities became divided into sectarian groups whose main was to protect their people. Sectarian tensions worsened after the execution of Saddam Hussein. After losing to Shi’ites, Sunnis decided to join forces with U.S. military to fight the Shia militias and al-Qaeda groups (Al-Sheikh and Sky 124). This heightened tension and violence among the three groups.
Efforts by the Iraqi government to unite warring groups failed because Shia and Sunni leaders were disinterested in unity. Shi’ites maintained that Sunni militias were supposed to be tried for the crimes they had committed. They also considered reconciliation as a means of abolishing the political system established in 2003.
The government’s effort to implement the law led to more violence and murders among different groups. This worsened the rifts and intensified hatred among them. Every group fought to survive and protect its people (135). The situation improved during the 2010 elections. However, sectarian accusations from some groups compromised the newly found unity.
The rifts between different groups in Iraq are so deep that they are an impediment to its democratization. Each group feels discriminated and left out of the government. The goal of the groups is survival and self-preservation. They do not work towards a common goal that could unite them.
In addition, the decision of Iran and the U.S to take sides worsened the rift between the groups. The only avenue of democratization of Iraq is establishment of peace among the different sectarian groups. Since the invasion, different groups have instigated violence against each other thus causing more divisions and compromising democratization efforts.
Works Cited
Al-Sheikh, Safa, and Sky, Emma. Iraq since 2003: Perspectives on a Divided Society. Survival 53.4 (2011): 119-142. Print.
Social democracy is a form of political ideology that originated from Marxist reformists. The main principle of the ideology includes provision of social services to all members of the public, such as education, healthcare, and pension schemes. The ideology seeks to support the disadvantaged in society, including the elderly and children from poor families.
In the labor industry, the ideology aims at achieving collective bargaining for all workers. Therefore, the advocates of the ideology are trade unionists. Scholars note that it is difficult to stage a revolution because of the evaluation of the class system. Therefore, social democracy is the alternative. Fromm observes that human beings no longer enjoy fundamental freedoms and rights because of the shifting relationships in the family unit.
According to Fromm, the society influences the behavior of an individual in a number of ways. The society restricts an individual from pursuing certain goals. These restrictions are negative because they impede the freedom of an individual. Therefore, people can participate fully in society if they are allowed to make independent decisions.
However, capitalists note that individualism should be encouraged because it encourages innovativeness and creativity. On the other hand, Fromm observes that increased individualism leads to several challenges in life. When individuals are left to perform duties that satisfy their pleasures, they are likely to break the law because they will use illegal techniques.
The ideas of Fromm justify the existence of social democracy because individualism no longer holds in society. Fromm’s main idea is that individuals cannot learn to tolerate the views of others in society because of human nature. This has led to authoritarianism since some groups try to dominate others. This means that democracy sets other people free and at the same time alienates others from governmental power and authority.
Individuals in opposition feel that their interests are not represented adequately. In the modern society, individuals are willing to submit themselves to totalitarian rule because of the effects of democracy. Democracy creates a society that is characterized by tension, individualism, and conflicts.
Therefore, social democracy is the only ideology that can resolve the current problem. For instance, minorities feel that their demands are not always provided in time. They have to demand their rights through organizing strikes, demonstrations, go-slows and lobbying. In this sense, the views of Fromm that democracy alienates some members of society are valid.
In fact, some ancient scholars observe that democracy is the worst form of governance because it generates hatred. Plato claims that democracy is the tyranny of the multitude because the majority might be wrong yet they end up ruling. Social democracy is a refined ideology that stems from the ideas of Marx. It supports the ideas of Plato on justice.
The effects of individualism can be prevented through the application of social democracy ideals. The ideals of social democracy include freedom, justice, and solidarity. Social democracy is different from communism because communists believe that human nature is maintained by a system of value production. To a communist, exploitation is a social construct that aims at oppressing the poor.
Social democrats underscore the fact that human beings are driven by self-interests in their actions. In this case, equality cannot be interpreted to mean justice. For capitalists, justice means a free market economy whereby production of goods is determined by the market forces. In society, capitalists observe that some individuals are strong while others are weak.
The strong individuals have the ability to accumulate wealth while the weak can simply offer labor. The government should never interfere with the market because it will be giving undue advantage to the weak. Market competition might bring happiness because consumers will have a variety of choices. This is based on the idea that an individual is free to do as she wishes. However, this might not guarantee happiness.
Social democrats believe that the free market economy is unpersuasive. This is because the government needs to control the market in order to safeguard the consumer. In this case, the government needs to ensure that the society functions effectively. For instance, the government must come up with some of the strongest institutions to control the behavior of individuals.
The society should exist to offer opportunities, as well as limit the behavior of individuals. In society, the government needs to ensure that the interests of various groups are achieved. For instance, women should be given similar chances as those of other groups.
Even though women might be allowed to divorce and procure an abortion, the procedures governing abortion must be formulated. Social democrats fight the cultural aspects that restrain the success of certain groups in society. However, they do not fight the rich in society. They ensure that even the poor accesses economic opportunities.
Social democrats have a different interpretation of the concept freedom. In this case, social democrats support liberal freedoms. They interpret freedom to mean the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, expression, and the right to privacy. In society, an individual has the right to choose what he or she desires. However, the right of an individual should not interfere with the rights and freedoms of other individuals in society.
Capitalism is an ideology that allows individuals to exercise their rights without interruption. However, it breeds individualism because it does not give individuals the means to enjoy their rights. Communism restricts individual freedoms and rights. Freedom cannot be enjoyed without money, shelter, and food. For social democrats, freedom means political and economic liberty.
In a capitalist society, individuals are interested in their own affairs. They simply think of ways through which they can accumulate wealth.
Social capitalists observe that all human beings should be provided with food, shelter, and healthcare. Individualism encourages private ownership of property whereby the state cannot use public funds to provide basic needs to the poor. For capitalists, provision of basic needs to the poor would amount to violation of the rights of the rich.
The last ideal of social democracy is solidarity. Whenever there is a problem in society, social democrats suggest that each person should be involved in resolving the problem. Therefore, cooperation and unity are some of the ideals valued by social democrats. Individualistic societies do not encourage cooperation, especially when the issue at hand concerns the poor.
Problems affecting one group in society should be considered the problems of the entire society. For instance, each person is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the poor and the elderly are provided with the basic needs. Without solidarity, the society cannot achieve its objectives. A society that cooperates during the difficult time has many chances of success.
To its basics, democracy is defined as the political orientation of those in favor of a government by the people or by their elected representatives (Lukács & Levine, p. 42). Over the past few generations, comparative politics have been the source of much-anticipated debates and research as the twin subjects to democratization and democratic consolidation. Diverse comparative politics literature has had their place since the early post-world War II period, with early scholars such as Lipset and Dahl demonstrating their obsession for topics on the process of democracy (69; 10). The scope of this paper is not only the establishment of democracy in the African countries, but the long-term consequences and attributes of it, or lack of the ability to support democracy.
As defined by Arinze, democratic consolidation is a necessary process that ensures the protection and feasibility of democracy upon its initiation, which is the aspect that lack representation in the African countries. As noted by Arinze and Masipa, after the 2009 events, many governments in Africa declared their aim of becoming democratic states (118; 114; e1713;). However, this process is complex and relies upon the national context and power-sharing processes.
Significance of the Research
This research is significant because the African states are a unique example of mineral-rich countries with a long-standing history of dictatorship or authoritarian leadership that showed effort towards democratic consolidation (Clapham, p. 423; Khagram, p. 55; Kpundeh, p.50). Understanding the reasons why this failure occurred can help improve the initialization process when transitioning towards a democratic society.
Detailed Research Question
Through this research, one can identify the external and internal factors that helped some African states establish democracy and obstructed others from doing so, and the following are the main questions:
Analyze the consolidation process in the context of two main theories – preconditionists and universalists;
Define the impact of the out of state actors on the democratization process
Analyze how African countries, for instance, Somalia, can overcome the difficulties when consolidating democracy
Literature Review
Democratization allows the citizens to be represented in the government, which ultimately should contribute to the improvement of their well-being and the country’s overall state, and the example of Africa from 2009 till present is a representation of the failure of democratic efforts. According to Khorram-Manesh, in 2011, nine out of forty-nine countries in Africa were declared as democratic by the Freedom House, a non-government organization that aims to examine political freedoms in the worlds. Despite this, only Eritrea does not have a governmental election process in place, suggesting that other countries have established some democratic institutes. Additionally, in their research on democratization in Africa, scholars such as Diamond and Plattner concluded that “of Africa’s fifty-odd countries, twenty are now full-fledged “electoral democracies and only Somalia and Swaziland have held two competitive elections”.
The process of state democratization in Africa has undergone several stages, that can be separated into three stages, from 1989 until 1999, from 2000 till 2009, and from 2009 until the present day. The example of Benin protests in 1989 is the first among many other protests in Africa that led to a regime change. Bratton and van de Walle that the political sciences’ scholars have excluded the examination of Africa and its democratic processes from their studies. Benin’s example is also supported by the state changes in Botswana, Ghana, Senegal, South Africa, and Mauritus, all of which established feasible democratic institutions. This fundamental work by Bratton and van de Walle explores the politics of the African region prior to 1997, which helps define the causes that helped some of the states establish democracy. The examples contrast with the recent events in the region, such as riots and appraisals that aim to change the government’s policy.
An especially important question is the failure of the African countries to establish a democratic rule upon the events in December 2010 in Tunisia that experienced major riots and demands to change the governing policies. In the 1990s, the African citizens evoked many efforts for democratization (Lukács 67; Naokatsu; Cheeseman 10). The main question is why, despite the long-standing authoritarian rule, economic disparities experienced by the African people, and significant uprisings starting in 2009, the democratic consolidation in these states has not been successful.
A large number of leaders in the African countries stated that establishing democracy is their primary goal. Arinze reviews the democratic consolidation in Congo, stating that the government declared its objective for transforming the state into a democratic country in 2002. This country, similarly to others in this region have elections and state their desire to transform institutions into the democratic ones aligning with the demands of the society. However, the analysis of the state’s policy reveals that continuous internal conflicts, instability, and economic disparities are a severe obstruction to this process.
The democratic transition, a process necessary to transform the existing governmental institutes into the ones suitable for democracy is essential. Hence, one can conclude that these countries, due to their declaration of the need to align with the democratic practices are in the transitioning process. Arinze defines the notion of a democratic transition as “phase in the process of change from one state to another along a democracy continuum”. In the context of Africa, the violence, and autocratic leadership there, democracy establishment is threatened by a high risk of reversing towards old regimes or becoming an anocracy, which Arinze defines as an intermediate state between democracy and dictatorship. The factor of anocracy in the context of the African states is not well-explored in the political science literature.
An essential element that one should consider is the prevalence of war of violent conflicts on this continent, that follow major political transformations. Schedler describes the theory relevant to this issue as “reverse waves,” which are the processes of returning to the previous autocratic rule that can be seen in many African countries. Bratton and van de Walle’s work remains to be fundamental in the examined field, and their examples of countries similar to Benin provide insight into the strategies that can help establish and consolidate democracy in the other African states.
In order to understand the specifics of democratic consolidation in Africa, one must understand the elements contributing to the establishment of it. Lukács and Naokatsu highlight the alliance of the state’s elites, public belief in democracy as the best regime for a state, and commitment by non-state actors. Hence, both internal and external factors play a role in this process and should be considered. According to O’Donell, the following are the necessary requirements for democracy consolidation – “free and fair elections, universal suffrage and the right to run for office, freedom of expression, alternative sources of information and freedom of association”. Additionally, a spillover effect, which is the impact of other states in the African region, since as was mentioned, only a minority of African countries are well-consolidated democracies. The present of out of state actors is examined by Hackenesh, including China, Russia, the United States, and the European Union. Specifically, Fukuyama cites China and Russia as the significant global authoritarian powers that impose their influence on countries in both African and Asian region. The region-specific factors should be considered as well since there are African countries with a long-standing democracy.
Khorram-Manesh provides an explanation of the two major theories that can be applied to describe democracy establishment, preconditionists, and universalists. The first one refers to the established laws, regulations, and governmental institutes, suggesting that the readiness of these elements predefines the success of democratic efforts. The latter theory argues that democracy can arise regardless of the conditions in a specific state. In general, the literature on the topic of democracy consolidation in Africa is vast and highlights important state-specific or universal factors. The in-depth exploration of these factors will help understand why democratic efforts in contemporary Africa fail and what can be done to address this problem.
Methodology
In order to compare the successful African democracies and factors that contributed to their establishment with the modern-day African countries that failed to consolidate democracy, a small n qualitative study will be applied. This approach is useful for studies utilizing small samples and reviewing the subjects over long periods of time. In this case, the African countries and the process of their democracy establishment, from 1989 till 1999 compared to the 2009-2019 events is the focus. The central hypothesis is that the existing conditions in the social and political life of the contemporary African countries do not allow for the establishment of consolidated democracies, in accordance with the preconditionalist theory. The paper will be arranged in sections to facilitate simplicity. In the first section, the paper provides a detailed discussion of various theoretical contribution to the topic of democratization.
Plan
This project will take an approximated duration of four months. The first month will be a period of brainstorming and collection of data. Relevant resources will be collected from the school Library, online libraries such as proudest, Google scholar, Springer, Research gate, JSTOR, and World Cat. Primary sources cited by other scholars will be reviewed, such as the book by Bratton Michael and Nicholas van de Walle. The second month will be a month of compiling important information. The third month will be writing the official draft and analyzing the collected data. The fourth month will be polishing up, ensuring that everything we needed to cover has been covered.
Expected Results
There are various myths that have been created concerning the democratization process in Africa. Similarly, there are more severe myths and assumptions that have been put in place by politicians, scholars, and the public concerning the democratization process in Somalia (Elmi 45; Ghedi). It is necessary to clearly define the issues that are prevalent in countries like Somalia that aim to become democratic, in order to end the myths and stereotypes surrounding the African nations. The current review suggests that the issue of democratic consolidation is very complex and a large number of factors contribute to it. Hence, this research aims to fill the existing gap in the understanding of the specifics that affected the African democracies between 1989 and 1999 and 2009 and 2019 to define the existing issues.
Works Cited
Arinze, Ngwube. “The Challenges Facing Democratic Consolidation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.” Journal of Studies in Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, 2015, pp. 113-128.
Bratton Michael and Nicholas van de Walle. Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Cheeseman, Nic. Democracy in Africa. University of Oxford Press, 2015.
Cheeseman, Nic. Institutions and Democracy in Africa. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Clapham, Christopher. 2003. “Democratisation in Africa: Obstacles and Prospects.” Third World Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 423-438.
Dahl, Robert. On Democracy. Yale University Press, 2000.
Diamond, Larry Jay, and Marc Plattner. Democratization in Africa: Progress and Retreat. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.
Elmi, Nimmo Osman. “Making Democracy Work: Tools, Theories and Templates of Vernacular Democracy in Somalia´s Rebuidling”. Web.
Fukuyama, Francis. “Why is Democracy Performing so Poorly?.” Journal of Democracy, vol. 26, no. 1, 2015, pp. 11-20.
Hackenesch, Christine. “Not as Bad as it Seems: EU and US Democracy Promotion Faces China in Africa.” Democratization, vol. 22, no. 3, 2015, pp. 419-437,
Khagram, Sanjeev. “Democracy and Democratization in Africa: A Plea for Pragmatic Possibilism.” Africa Today, vol. 40, no. 4, 1993, pp. 55-72.
Khorram-Manesh, Nicki. “Democratic Consolidation in Sub-Saharan Africa.” QoG Working Paper Series, vol. 1, 2013, pp. 1-42.
Kpundeh, Sahr John. 1992. Democratization in Africa: African Views, African Voices. Summary of Three Workshops. National Academy Press.
Lipset, Seymour. (1959). “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.” American Political Science Review, vol. 53, pp. 69-105.
Lukács, György, and Norman Levine. The Process of Democratization. State University of New York Press, 2001.
Masipa, Tshepo. “South Africa’s Transition to Democracy and Democratic Consolidation: A Reflection on Socio-Economic Challenges.” Journal of Public Affairs, vol. 18, no. (4), 2018, p. e1713.
Competition exists in every aspect of life, and people contesting for a particular post have to employ all efforts to win. The efforts must be strategic, and an effective structure is the main tool for effective organizing campaigns (Bike 12).
This paper outlines the importance of structure, the best way to create structure, and coalitions as they incorporate Jo Freeman’s principles of democratic structuring.
Essentialness of structure
In the contemporary world, coherent structures are imperative for effective organizing campaigns owing to the high level of competition in elections. Every political campaign should have an organized structure comprising of staff with different levels of authority.
The topmost leaders of the campaign ought to formulate and implement all possible strategies to win an election. The aspect of specialization is widespread in campaigns, and it works towards the success of the contestant (Gravely 11). Structure enables people with specialized skills to undertake roles that they can perform best.
Moreover, the aspect of accountability is evident in any structure, as staffs have specific duties to deliver, failure to which they become answerable to the entire team.
It is worth noting that a structure enables organizers to work with people, whose career is full-time campaigning. Such people have sufficient experience to make a contestant win a competitive election.
Creation of structure
To achieve effective organizing campaigns, organizers should create a coherent structure similar to that of any great business. Every person in the structure becomes a campaign staff by default; however, unlike businesses where staffs aim at making profits, campaign staffs should aim at winning an election.
The first step in creating a structure is identifying a competent manager to foresee the entire campaign process. Campaign managers ought to be smart people, as they have the highest authority. Organizers should consider choosing reliable managers, who would coordinate the main operations of the campaign.
Managers are the core setters and executers of strategy, and they link other staffs to competent political consultants, who analyze campaigns using sophisticated management tools.
The second step in creating structure is obtaining learned fellows to take care of all administrative activities. Financial matters, for example, need people with very high integrity, and that applies to all staffs handling other official matters.
The field department, communication, legal, and technology departments need brilliant people for a successful campaign.
The final people that organizers need in creating structure are the activists. Activists are fourth in the rank after the campaign manager, political consultants, and administrators. Activists are loyal to the group, and they work hand in hand with volunteers.
This group of people comprises of humble individuals, who can do any menial activity towards the success of the candidate. They can go from one door to another canvassing for their candidate, and actively participate in outdoor campaigns (Thurber 22).
They act as office messengers, who undertake all the odd jobs, as long as their candidate wins.
Coalitions and their incorporation with Jo Freeman’s principles
In campaigns, coalitions comprise of temporary formed groups or teams that have a common goal of ensuring that a particular candidate wins in an election. Coalition organizations bring people together, and they obligate them to fight against a common opponent.
In building a coalition, members act as a group of interacting individuals. Coalition organizational structures are unique, as they have no formal structure (Katz and Mair 20). Coalitions are often powerful, and all members have the capacity to act as bosses without any personal interest or external focus.
Coalition organizations play a critical role in increasing personal power, and they take time to form owing to the need to identify the common goal and the best manner to attain the goal. Coalition members are objective, and they work in some set of connections to attain a mutual goal.
Coalition organizing structures incorporate Jo Freeman’s principles of democratic structuring in one way or another. Jo Freeman insists on the ideology of having no formal structure in managing things. Similar to what happens in coalition organizing structures, Jo Freeman encourages consensus decision-making.
The collective intelligence of every person obligates people to perform their duties with commitment (Webb, Farrell and Holliday 16). Members of coalition organizations exercise much responsibility, as it applies in Jo Freeman’s principles.
Moreover, there is nothing like hierarchical management in coalitions, as decentralization facilitates the distribution of authority amongst all members. Labor specialization is evident in coalitions, and there is open flow of information amongst members of the coalition.
With equal powers, members of coalition organizations always have equal access to resources, which is one of the principles of democratic structuring.
Conclusions and recommendations for further actualization
From the discussions, it is evident that coalition organizations meet the common principles of democratic structuring. However, further actualization is important to achieve full democratization. It is important for any organizing structure to have defined responsibilities for every member.
Moreover, it is important to have some form of hierarchical leadership to have things done properly; otherwise, people may become negligent, and lack of accountability may prevail. Lastly, organizers would rather embark on specialization rather than rotation of duties to achieve optimum results.
Overall, Jo Freeman’s work is worth some credit, as her principles of democratic structuring are superior to any other principles.
Works Cited
Bike, William. Winning Political Campaigns: A Comprehensive Guide to Electoral Success. Chicago: Central Park Communications, 2012. Print.
Gravely, Justin. Campaigning On American Soil and the Rules of the American Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Print.
Katz, Richard and Peter Mair. “Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party.” Party Politics 1.1(2008): 5-28. Print.
Thurber, James. Campaigns and Elections American Style. New York: Westview Press, 2004. Print.
Webb, Paul, David Farrell, and Ian Holliday. Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.
In the 1830s the rise οf a new political party in America emerged. During the presidency οf Monroe there was little turbulence created by opposition parties. Although there were no major opposing political parties during Monroe’s term, the formation οf parties began to occur during the Jacksonian democracy. Jackson’s opponents, who came to make up the Whig party, were strongly disturbed by his stubborn and harsh exercise οf presidential power. The Whigs condemned him as “King Andrew I”. While the Whig party was developing, the Democrats, a strong group founded earlier by Jefferson, were eager to challenge the Whigs. The Whigs and the Democrats strongly opposed each other’s beliefs, public policies, and supporters. Οf the many issues the Whigs and the Democrats disagreed on, slavery, banking, and tariffs were the most prominent arguments.
Southerners and south descendents in northern states generally supported the Democrats. Farmers and Catholic immigrants from Ireland and Germany also supported them. Generally the Democrats opposed a strong government, tariffs, were pro-slavery, and wanted strong national banks. New England citizens and their descendants, those benefiting from the market economy and other northern Protestants, generally supported the Whigs. They supported a strong federal government that promotes economic and social goals, tariffs, transportation and weak banks.
The Democrats, most strongly supported by Southerners, did not oppose the issue οf slavery. They felt that slavery should be left to do what it would naturally evolve. The Democrats let southerners know that slavery was safe as long as a Democratic Party committed to state’s rights was in power. Along with the limitation οf federal governmental power, they believed in states rights. Through state’s rights, the Democrats believed that slavery was an issue the individual state should monitor, not the national government. The Whigs strongly opposed slavery. Their supporters, form the north, thought slavery was immoral and unconstitutional. After all, through the Declaration οf Independence, “…all men were created equal.” The Whigs believed in strong government, thus limiting states rights.
They supported tariffs; they sought a high tariff that would protect northeastern factories from European competition, while at the same time it generated revenue for the national government. They proposed high prices for government in the west – a policy that would slow westward movement and increase federal revenue. Henry Clay, a prime supporter οf the Whigs, proposed the American System. Through the American System, the Whigs hoped to use money gathered from tariffs to construct roads and other forms οf transportation. With better forms οf transportation, manufactured and raw materials could easily be exchanged quicker. The Democrats saw the American System as an act οf unneeded tariffs. They wanted to keep tariffs at low costs and minimize the power οf government. Further, Democrats wanted to keep internal improvements within the state’s authority, not the national government, thus, they opposed the American System and other proposed tariffs.
Moreover, the Whigs insisted that the Bank οf the United States be maintained to stabilize currency and to discipline smaller banks. The Democrats wished to abolish the Bank οf America. They held it responsible for the financial panics οf 1819. They believed that there were discrepancies within the bank system that caused economic problems. Further, the Democrats were in favor οf land acquisition and western expansion. As the west expanded, so would slavery, thus giving the south and the Democrats more power. Generally the Whigs were against westward expansion. New England, where most οf the Whigs were located was now the mot populated and powerful area; expansion οf the west would affect New England’s population and power.
Despite the Whig’s short-lived life, the tense opposition between the Whigs and the Democrats influenced American history. The arrival οf the Whigs broke the “era οf good feelings”. Strongly opposing Jackson, the Whigs created competition for the Democrats. Their clashing views on slavery, westward expansion, tariffs, and the national bank system engendered many political arguments and opposing political bodies since the Monroe presidency.
Works Cited
Bailey, Thomas A. and David Kennedy M. The American Pageant: Tenth Edition. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company. 1994.
Democracy and global peace are intimately related. Democracy contributes to global peace. Nations can barely achieve peace in absence of democracy. For years, democratic governments have partnered to promote peace worldwide (Rosato 507).
The governments believe that free people can coexist harmoniously and work together for common goals. According to Rosato, Democratic Peace Theory maintains that democratic states hardly fight with one another (509). Consequently, the spread of democracy will help to accomplish global peace that many countries desire.
In most cases, people overlook the benefits of democracy. Some scholars argue that democracy is a major threat to universal peace (Spiro 44). They argue that the United States, which is a renowned democracy, is always at war with other countries, particularly from the Middle East.
Opponents of democracy argue that it forces governments to intervene in other states’ affairs in the name of restoring peace. The fact that major democracies are nonviolent is an indication that the potential spread of democracy will lead to a secure world.
Democracy and Peace
Hermann and Kegley argue that democracy does not lack its flaws (11). Hence, it is imperative not exaggerate or feign the advantages of democratization. Nonetheless, democracy has innumerable benefits to societies and world at large. Studies have shown that democratic states have never gone to war with each other.
In addition, statistics has confirmed that liberal states enjoy shared democratic peace. Challengers of democracy argue that liberal nations coexist peacefully with each other, but are apt to go to war with non-democratic countries (Hermann and Kegley 12). They cite the peaceful coexistence between the United States and Britain.
The countries uphold shared economic benefits that make them to coexist peacefully. The potential spread of democracy will lead to many countries engaging in trade, thus strengthening their ties and shunning disputes (Ray 28).
For instance, economic interdependence between Brazil and Argentina promotes democracy amid the two nations. On the other hand, lack of economic interdependence between Armenia and Azerbaijan made it hard to democratize the two nations and prevent them from fighting.
The spread of democracy will help to establish shared norms among countries, therefore ensure that they respect each others’ sovereignty. Democracy promotes the principles of liberalism. Consequently, one reason why liberal states do not fight is because they dedicate to safeguard the principles of freedom (Spiro 47).
Democratic ideologies offer no validation for conflict among democratic states. As a result, states address their disputes amicably.
In democratic systems, leaders are held accountable for all their actions. Hence, they fear to take actions that can make them to crash with the public. Besides, leaders are supposed to consult numerous institutions before making decisions.
For instance, in the United States, the president has to consult both the legislature and the executive before making key decisions. Institutional constraints found within democratic nations prevent countries from going to war with others.
The spread of democracy will ensure that national leaders are held accountable for their actions, thus ensuring that they do not result in wars in case of conflicts. Democratic nations ensure that all processes are transparent. Hence, they eliminate cases of prejudice and misperceptions that lead to conflicts.
There exist social forces that pull people in diverse directions in democratic societies. Hence, individuals are concerned with personal affairs making it difficult for them to fight since they do not share common interests. In most cases, violence emerges when people or nations compete for shared interests or economic resources.
In other words, the spread of democracy discourages the growth of common interests that lead to political and social conflicts. In totalitarian governments, social interests are centrally determined and controlled (Lai and Slater 114). Hence, chances of polarization of primary interests are high leading to conflicts.
For instance, the past turmoil experienced in Sierra Leone was as a result of polarized primary interests. In democratic states, people are tolerant to losses. However, totalitarian regimes are intolerant of losses. Consequently, they turn to violence as a way to protect their interests.
Democracy discourages union of public interests, which contribute to foreign hostility (Lai and Slater 115). Moreover, democratic leaders are unable to pursue foreign aggressions due to lack of public support.
Hence, the spread of democracy will help to tame global leaders and discourage them from engaging in international conflicts aimed at serving their egos and personal interests. Democracy requires states to deliberate on laws that outline when a country is supposed to engage in international conflicts.
Hence, it gives states an opportunity to weigh the effects of engaging in international conflicts and look for alternative measures.
Conclusion
The potential spread of democracy will provide numerous benefits to current and new democracies. However, scholars are against the proposition that democracies do not go to war. Democracy accommodates change of policies if states happen to conflict.
Moreover, it promotes liberal values and gives all people the freedom to participate in state’s affairs, thus avoiding hatred and animosity among citizens. The spread of democracy will guarantee that states no longer depend on military and economic power for peace.
Moreover, spread of democracy will ensure that there is peaceful coexistence among developed and developing states. Therefore, developed nations will no longer be afraid of emerging economies.
Works Cited
Hermann, Margaret and Charles Kegley. “Military Intervention and the Democratic Peace.” International Interactions 21.1 (1995): 1–21. Print.
Lai, Brian and Dan Slater. “Institutions of the Offensive: Domestic Sources of Dispute Initiation in Authoritarian Regimes, 1950–1992”. American Journal of Political Science 50.1 (2006): 113-119. Print.
Ray, James Lee. “Does Democracy Cause Peace?” Annual Review of Political Science 1.1 (2007): 27–46. Print.
Rosato, Sebastian. “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory.” American Political Science Review 97.1 (2003): 585–602. Print.
Spiro, David. “Give Democratic Peace a Chance? The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace.” International Security 19.2 (2004): 41-53. Print.
Republics are often linked with equality, which seems custom if one acknowledges the denotation of the appearance from which the word “republic” originates (from Latin: res publica – for people). This involvement between “republic” and “democracy” is nevertheless far from a broad realization, even if acknowledging that there are several forms of democracy. This section tries to give an outline of which concepts of democracy are associated with which natures of republics.
As a basing remark, the concept of “one equal vote per adult” did not become a generically-conventional principle in democracies until around the middle of the 20th century: before that in all democracies the right to vote depended on one’s financial position, sex, race, or an amalgamation of these and other factors. Lots forms of government in previous times termed “democracy “, including for occurrence the Athenian democracy, would, when transplanted to the early 21st century be described as plutocracy or a broad oligarchy, because of the rules on how votes were counted.
Democracy within the realm of a republic
The phrase “democratic republic” may be correct semantically, however, the two schemes of government are quite dissimilar in their origin. The two systems have been in conflict since antique times, and are of special evidence in the actual and in the philosophic histories of antique Greece, particularly in the writings of Plato and Aristotle.
Western forms of government come from the Middle East – the Egyptians, Persians, and the later Romans and Greeks. The results were the Renaissance; and, the Republican movements – attempted in Germany, France, England, brought to momentary fruition in America, and resident for 700 years in Switzerland.
Unluckily, several of the major powers upon the creation of current civic structures all declined, or were not powered by the Filioque doctrine.
The term “Democratic Republic“ has formed official names of several states. In spite of the term’s semantic value, lots of “Democratic Republics” are not regarded liberal democracies; lots of republics that are regarded democratic do not use the title of “Democratic Republic” in their official names.
Both present-day and obsolete Democratic Republics have comprised states that had little or nothing in general with each other. This reasons why states call themselves Democratic Republics are also very dissimilar from case to case, but the ordinary denominator seems to be that all these states were originated as a result of a revolution or war of independence against a domestic or foreign government that was widely noted as oppressive, repressive and undemocratic. Thus the new state gave itself the title of “Democratic Republic” in order to replicate the idea that a dictatorial regime had been defeated and a new, democratic one was put in its place.
This may be the reason why Democratic Republics tend to be either ex-colonies (Congo, Sri Lanka, Algeria, etc.) who achieved independence after breaking away from an imperialist power, or communist states that were created after the overthrow of a capitalist regime (since communists regard capitalism as inherently undemocratic). In particular, the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) gave themselves the title of “Democratic Republics” as a way of implying that their rivals – West Germany, South Vietnam and South Korea as not democratic.
While these communist states are widely regarded as being dictatorships themselves, their use of democratic rhetoric and the term “Democratic Republic” are often cited as proof that democracy forms an integral part of communist ideology, and that even a dictatorship must claim to be democratic if it wants to call itself communist.
Conclusion
Usually, political researchers try to analyze underlying realities, not the names by which they go: whether a political leader calls himself “king” or “president”, and the state he governs a “monarchy” or a “republic” is not the essential features, whether he exercises power as a dictator is. In this sense political analysts may say that the First World War was, in many respects, the death knell for monarchy, and the organization of republicanism, whether de facto and/or de jure, as being necessary for a modern state. The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire were both eliminated by the terms of the peace treaty after the war, the Russian Empire overthrown by the Russian Revolution of 1917. Even within the victorious states, emperors were slowly being stripped of their authorities and privileges, and more and more the direction was in the hands of elected bodies whose majority party headed the executive. Nonetheless post-World War I Germany, a de jure republic, would develop into a de facto autocracy by the mid 1930s: the new peace treaty, after the Second World War, took more precaution in making the terms thus that also de facto (the Western part of) Germany would remain a republic.
References
Wilhelm Herzog From Dreyfus to Petain “The Struggle of a Republie” Creative Age Press, New York. 1947
Miguel Ángel Centeno Democracy within reason Technocratic Revolution in Mexico Pennsylvania State University Press. University Park, PA. 1997
Derek Shaffer Answering Justice Thomas in Saenz: Granting the Privileges or Immunities Clause Full Citizenship within the Fourteenth Amendment. Stanford Law Review. Vol, 52. Issue: 3. 2000.
Richard C. Reuben Democracy and Dispute Resolution: The Problem of Arbitration. Law and Contemporary Problems. Vol., 67 Issue: 1. 2004
What causes a democratic breakdown? Alternatively, what was the role of leadership and political choice in causing the breakdown of the democratic regime in Latin America? The two question forms the backbone to my research. This research paper is based on comparative politics research on democratic backslide. Essentially, this research project examines factors that surround the transition of Latin American countries from being a democratic government to a weak non-democratic regime. According to Podems, a democracy is the system of government in which everyone is entitled to the same number of rights and freedoms and is treated equally (10). The provided definition is rather broad since there are several interpretations of the concept of democracy, some scholars leaning to defining it as social justice and equity (Podems 11). However, the situation observed in Latin America does not align with any of the described notions and could be defined as dictatorship for the most part (Frantz and Geddes 5). The phenomenon of dictatorship is, in turn, defined as the absolute authority of the government that cannot be changed with contested elections (LeVan 142).
Democratic breakdown defines the state of gradual decline of a country’s quality of democracy. Alternatively, democratic breakdown is a term that characterize the phenomenon of democratic degradation (Prillaman 37). Precisely, democratic breakdown, democratic failure, democratic collapse, democratic backsliding, and democratic decay, while having different shades of meaning, lead to the same loss of democracy and introduction of an authoritarian regime (Huq and Ginsburg 80). In order to fully understand the scope of democratic breakdown, it would be essential to master the source of a stable democracy. Within theoretical literature of democratizations, there are various factors that forms dictate the existence of a stable democracy in a state.
Notably, scholars have a general agreement that none of the factors is sufficient by itself. In other words, combination of favorable factors ensures there is a stable democracy in a state (Foa and Mounk 7). Most studies on democratic success are based within socioeconomic, or political-institution theories (Huq and Ginsburg 83). In contrary, democratic failure is as a result of combination of unfavorable factors. In most cases, the gradual decline of the quality of democracy is associated with weakening of political institutions (Foa and Mounk 9). In addition, democratically elected leaders have a bigger role in causing democratic backsliding. Leaders who tend to utilize incremental tactics, instead of revolutionary ends up causing democratic backsliding. Economic scholars have also associated democratic breakdown with economic inequalities (Foa and Mounk 12).
Speaking of democratic backsliding, the Latin American community has been experiencing stress and experiencing serious challenges that have resulted to democratic decline (Frantz and Geddes 5). Lately, members of the public have little confidence in the government and the political regime (Debs 76). Since the beginning of the decade, there have been a reduction in the general support for democratic regime (Menaldo 544). In addition, people in Latin American are dissatisfied with their political institutions. They obviously have a reason for their anger. The kind of poverty in the Latin America is beyond explanation. Since 1980, there have been a period of economic decline. There is also bad quality of education; students in Latin America perform poorly, compared to their peers (Arias 2). Corruption has been a typical plague in most public institutions. The people of Latin America have no recognition of political vision. In spite of all these gaps, the Latin American government insists that it is a democratic regime. Like many scholars insists, the success or fall of a democratic regime is highly depends on the political leaders, political parties, social movements and most importantly political institutions in the country.
Importance
The described topic is crucial to political science since, by scrutinizing the threat of dictatorship in Latin America, it will help to develop strategies for managing similar threats to equality and mitigate the probability of authoritarian rule in Latin America. Thus, the analysis of the factors that may lead to the establishment of dictatorships across Latin America will provide an insightful analysis of dictatorship as a notion. Studying economic, political, and social factors that may incite the phenomenon will inform one about the methods of addressing it and minimizing the probability of its reappearance in the future.
Literature Review
In order to analyze the breakdown of democracy in Latin America, one will need to scrutinize the causes and factors that incite deviations from equity principles in the environment of Latin America. Although the political experience of each Latin American country is unique and defined by a set of specific factors that pertain to a particular setting, general tendencies in the problems with democracy can be outlined across Latin America (Myers 231). By studying the factors that have led to the political changes in the designated area, one will infer the strategies that can be utilized to prevent similar situations from occurring , as well as manage the problems within the said Latin American states.
Current Situation
Maintaining democracy within a particular state always represents a continuous effort of the community and the authorities that represent it. Therefore, with the lack of focus on the enhancement of the basic ideas of equality and the idea of egalitarian relationships within the Latin American community, a range of Latin American countries are currently on the verge of a democratic breakdown (“Democracy in Latin America”).
Key Factors
When addressing the main causes for democracies to collapse, one should mention economic and communication problems. Due to the rise in poverty and the aggravation of the financial situation within a state, the opportunity for it to be seized by an authoritarian party rises exponentially (Arias 2). In a vast majority of Latin American countries, the proverbial lack of economic stability, including gigantic inflation rates and plummeting levels of well-being among citizens, creates the consistent threat of a dictatorship (Prillaman 11). As soon as a leader that represents themselves as a volunteer in the cause of people emerges, general audiences are most likely to support the person or party in question, thus creating premises for a revolt (Ferguson 14). Thus, due to the specifics of a dictatorship and the management of information in it, a vast range of people remain oblivious to the subject matter. In addition, poverty and economic challenges obstruct the way toward promoting democratic changes in Latin American states (Arias 3). Still, with the rise in the strength of the opposition, alterations in the system of state management have been observed.
However, the presence of bureaucracy and the development of nepotism in the political context are just as likely to cause the creation of dictatorship and the decay of democracy. As the Venezuelan scenario showed, the increase in the levels of corruption within a state along with a rise in social polarization leads effectively to the establishment of a totalitarian regime (Myers 218). Specifically, when considering the circumstances under which Nicolas Maduro came into power in Venezuela, one will realize that manipulations with oil prices and access to economy-related data have contributed to his political success (Myers 221). Therefore, the observed scenario aligns with the assumption that the lack of democratic principles leads to intrinsic tensions within a society.
Another important factor that may lead to the development of dictatorship in Latin American countries is the lack of tolerance toward people and parties that express opinions opposing those that are voiced by the ruling class. The refusal to acknowledge opposing views is central to the development of anti-democratic sentiments within a society and creating the breeding ground for authoritarian principles of social interactions (Puddington 31). Arguably, the concept of giving voice to every single participant of a political discussion could be rendered as dubious given the possibility of providing potential dictators with a platform to promote their ideas (Arias 5).
However, by denying the idea of people voiding their opinions as the foundational principle of a democratic society, one creates the premise for destroying democracy and ultimately replacing it with a totalitarian government, as Levitsky and Ziblatt warn (15). The specified problem could be observed in the Venezuelan conflict described above, where people were prohibited from voicing their concerns and demanding a fair system (Arias 2). The refusal to present the political opposition with a voice can also be observed in a range of other Latin American states, including Nicaragua and Venezuela (Myers 223). The foundation for the social discontent has been provided in a vast majority of Latin American states, with the constant control of the ruling party over political activeness of citizens and the extent to which the opposing views can be heard.
In addition, with the lack of economic stability, the increase in poverty, and the absence of access to verifiable and credible information, people are very likely to follow the lead of radical actors within the political system of a state. For example, the collapse of democracy in Chile in 1973 as Augusto Pinochet used the tactic of a military coup deserves a mentioning (Myers 225). The situation in question is a clear example of the lack of understanding of the effects that the revolution will entail for Chilean citizens. In turn, the moderation of the state policies in regard to the representation of key political ideas and trends is likely to minimize the probability of a revolt and the following establishment of a dictatorship within a state.
At present, the situation within Latin America remains consistently unstable. Citizens are facing the consistent threat of democratic values being overthrown due to the rise in the number of agents that increase the levels of political polarization within the Latin American society (Prillaman 18). Facilitating a smooth transition to democracy is currently one of the primary goals for Latin American states. Due to the long-lasting propensity toward dictatorship in many Latin American states, it is critical to shape people’s attitudes toward the notion of democracy and the values that it upholds. The described step will allow reducing a significant amount of pressure under which Latin American citizens live, as well as bring down the rates of the political tension observed at the international level (Lust and Waldner 3). The described changes are critical to the successful establishment of democratic principles as the cornerstone of the state legislation and political decisions.
Probable Outcomes
Changes in people’s perception of social and political interactions requires significant time, which is why it is important to wait until the necessary changes are firmly integrated into the political systems of the states and institutionalized at tall levels. The main challenge that South American states are currently facing involves shaping the environments that were created as democratic yet gradually became authoritarian. Changing the perspectives of their citizens is also an essential task since it will set the platform for change at all levels, including the social, political, economic, and cultural ones (Tumin 146). For instance, there seems to have been a significant shift in general perception of regimes in numerous states, the case of Venezuela being the most widely spoken currently (Prillaman 13). With the acceptance of the opportunities that democracy offers, citizens of Latin American countries will be able to shape their future.
Prevention Measures
Due to the lingering presence of the political crisis in a range of states in Latin America, it is critical to pay attention to the source of people’s current insecurities. According to Myers, most Latin American citizens show the drastic drop in confidence and certainty about political, economic, and social institutions that are expected to protect their rights (218). Thus, the combination of political, economic, and cultural concerns needs to be seen as the root cause of the current disturbances in the political landscape of Latin American states (Myers 219). Consequently, introducing tools for citizens to receive support from should be deemed as the most urgent measure that needs to be taken.
It is also essential to manage the issue of education in Latin America. As the overview of the key contributors to the current problem has shown, the lack of awareness among citizens coupled with the absence of political knowledge causes the levels of their activity to drop (Waqas and Muqaddas 11). The resulting lack in initiative among people causes the extent of dictatorship to increase and impose even greater restrictions on citizens, causing them more suffering and experiencing increasingly deteriorating living conditions (Mainwaring and Pérez-Liñán 126). Therefore, alterations to the availability of education and the quality thereof, as well as the opportunities that it provides for employment and increased quality of life need to be studied further. With the sufficient amount of knowledge and information, residents of South American states that are currently lingering between democracy and dictatorship will be able to make a joined effort to oppose the authorities at the helm in case the political situation becomes critical and the government starts abusing power.
The management of political pluralism is another essential step that has to be taken in order to integrate the principles of democracy into the Latin American society. It should be noted that the described stage requires particular caution since its mismanagement may entail vastly negative consequences for Latin American citizens. Although opponents may voice the ideas that are in direct opposition to the needs of society, it is crucial to create the setting where these ideas can be discussed. At the same time, creating the setting in which the state is governed by a single political system that does not allow for any deviations from democratic principles is essential. As the study by Waqas and Muqaddas states, “Democracy is a system of rule by laws, and for the proper functioning of the rule of law, the unity of law is very important” (10). With the analysis of the proposed solutions, the absurdity of obviously dangerous ideas that threaten the political well-being, democratic ideas, and economic stability of the Latin American population will become obvious. When silencing the opposition, one, in turn, will create the breeding ground for a possible development of a totalitarian regime and the shaping of a dictatorship.
Introducing order into the political culture of Latin American countries is another step of implementing democratic philosophies and principles in the target setting. Currently, a range of Latin American states are facing disruptions in the performance of their political systems. The levels of corruption are spiraling out of control in countries such as Colombia (Myers 226). As a result, regulations and legal restrictions do not serve their purposes, whereas legal services fail to protect people from organized crime (Mainwaring and Pérez-Liñán 128). Therefore, restructuring the current political culture, reinforcing legal standards for citizens, and introducing new tools for managing crime more effectively should be seen as the essential stages of reducing the threat of dictatorship being integrated into the Latin American political system.
Exploring the factors that have defined the downfall of democracy in the context of Latin American society is critical to the management of the current situation in a range of states, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Colombia. In addition, it is imperative to introduce tools for monitoring alterations in the attitudes toward democratic principles and laws in other states in order to locate an emergent threat to democracy and offer people support in managing it. As the form of the questions indicate, they are mostly qualitative, with the focus on dissecting the nature of the phenomenon of dictatorship, as well as the study of changes in people’s attitudes toward the existing regime.
The study under analysis is expected to shed substantial light on the problem of faltering democracies in Latin America and the methods of introducing the notions of equality and equity into their governments. However, the research also includes several key limitations. The main obstacle on the way to discovering the approaches for subverting the current regime concerns the issues associated with the selection of the research method. Due to the use of the qualitative method and, specifically, the application of case study to the research, the outcomes of the analysis may be slightly biased due to the inevitable introduction of a personal perspective into the interpretation of observations and retrieved information (Tumin 151). Therefore, the research will be limited by the extent of its objectivity. Moreover, time constraints will have to be mentioned since the research strives to embrace the context of entire Latin America within a considerably small amount of time. Thus, generalizations and possible omission of less significant factors may occur.
Nevertheless, by selecting reputable and credible sources of information, one is likely to build a comprehensive analysis of the situation with democracy in Latin America. By considering the similarities and differences between the issues and threats that democratic regimes in different states of Latin America face, one will develop a general idea of the essential factors that lead to the disruption of democratic principles within a state. Moreover, the analysis will lead to the reassessment of the measures that can be utilized in order to inhibit the progression of dictatorship in the selected states. By studying the key factors that set boundaries to the effective practice of democracy principles, one will learn to address the described limitations on a global scale and intervene timely in order to assist people in keeping their basic rights intact.
Deconstructing the issues that residents of South America are currently facing is essential both from the local and global perspectives. Supporting people that have found themselves in the clutches of dictatorship is the short—term objective in the case under analysis, while understanding how democracies are destroyed is a long-term one. By examining the problem at hand, one will create a paradigm for avoiding the scenarios that involve subversion of democratic values and their replacement with dictatorship rhetoric.
Research Questions
Thus, the key questions to be answered in the course of this research are as follows:
What political, economic, social, and cultural factors have contributed to the failure of democracy in Latin America?
The connection between some of the social and economic aspects pf people’s lives and the development of dictatorship tendencies in the government has already been established, yet they require further scrutiny. For instance, the lack of economic stability coupled with the development of a political party that promises economic and cultural resurgence once some democratic concepts are sacrificed inevitably leads to the creation of a totalitarian regime. However, a more profound analysis of the issue is needed.
What similarities does the threat of democracy loss shares across the specified Latin American states?
Despite significant differences in the specifics of political, economic, and cultural lives of residents of Latin American states, the general trend in abandoning democratic principles for the sake of ostensible economic stability that is expected to occur (Huq and Ginsburg 91). In addition, in a range of cases, the transition from dictatorship to democracy is often slackened in the Latin American environment due to economic, financial, and political constraints, causing the creation of a hybrid entity that does not allow the principles of equality and equity to blossom.
How have people’s attitudes toward the idea of democracy have changed in Latin American countries over the past few years?
The difficulties in helping people to shift the perspective from living under the authoritarian system to the life in a democratic state is also one of the essential constituents of the problem. Due to significant challenges faced by citizens of Latin American states on a regular basis, encouraging them to accept the idea of democratic values as the foundation for their future becomes problematic.
What are the main reasons for the identified changes to have occurred?
The role of media cannot possibly be overestimated in promoting democracy-related ideas in Latin American countries. With the rise in the availability of information, including the opposing views regarding political regimes in South America and the available alternatives to these political structures, particularly, democracy, the perception of authoritarian regimes seems to have been changing toward highly negative one (Arias 2).
What strategies could have been used to prevent the problems with democracy from taking place?
Introducing the notion of equity and democratic ideas would have helped to avoid the crisis.
What approaches can be applied to manage the existing situation in Latin America and minimize the threat of democracy failure in the future?
To manage the situation, one will need to change the relationship between the political authority and the state citizens. The government will have to represent the needs of its people and focus on addressing key economic, financial, and sociocultural issues within the state.
Works Cited
Arias, Oscas. “Democracy in Latin America: Success and Challenges.” ReVista, 2002, Web.
Debs, Alexandre. “Living by the Sword and Dying by the Sword? Leadership Transitions in and out of Dictatorships.” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 1, 2016, pp. 73-84.
Foa, Roberto Stefan, and Yascha Mounk. “The Danger of Deconsolidation: The Democratic Disconnect.” Journal of Democracy, vol. 27, no. 3, 2016, pp. 5-17.
Frantz, Erica, and Barbara Geddes. “The Legacy of Dictatorship for Democratic Parties in Latin America.” Journal of Politics in Latin America, vol. 8, no. 1, 2016, pp. 3-32.
Huq, Aziz, and Tom Ginsburg. “How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy.” UCLA Law Review, vol. 65, 2018, pp. 78-169.
LeVan, Carl A. Dictators and Democracy in African Development: The Political Economy of Good Governance in Nigeria. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future. Crown, 2018.
Lust, Ellen, and David Waldner. “Theories of Democratic Change.” Institution of International Education, 2015, Web.
Mainwaring, Scott, and Aníbal Pérez-Liñán. “Democratic Breakdown and Survival.” Journal of Democracy, vol. 24, no. 2, 2013, pp. 123-37.
Menaldo, Victor. “Democracy, Elite Bias, and Redistribution in Latin America.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 131, no. 3, 2016, pp. 541-569.
Myers, David J. “Venezuela: Political Decay amid the Struggle for Regime Legitimacy.” Latin American Politics and Development, edited by Harvey F. Kline, Christine J. Wade and Howard J. Wiarda, Routledge, 2018, pp. 217-244.
Podems, Donna. Democratic Evaluation and Democracy: Exploring the Reality. Information Age Publishing, 2017.
Prillaman, William C. The Judiciary and Democratic Decay in Latin America: Declining Confidence in the Rule of Law. Praeger, 2000.
Tumin, Jonathan. “The Theory of Democratic Development.” Theory and Society, vol. 11, no. 2, 1982, pp. 143-64.
Waqas, Muhammad, and Muqaddas Khattak. “Democracy in Pakistan: Problems and Prospects in Making Informed Choices.” International Journal of Social Sciences and Management, vol. 4, no. 1, 2017, pp. 9-11.
Historical Background of the Political System of Kuwait
The political system in Kuwait is older than two centuries. In the late 18th century, the Kuwaitis nominated Sabar as their leader (Akerlof and Chaney 372). The family is still controlling the political system in the present Kuwait. However, the powers of the Sabar family remained limited until the middle of the twentieth century. Better system was then introduced in the late 20th century with a political structure taking the form of an overall Shaikh (Alnajjar 247).
Despite the influence of external forces in this new arrangement, there was an established structure to act as controls against abuse of power. For instance, in the year 1921, the Kuwaitis established a Shura Council followed by a Legislative Council in the late 1938. Due to the high influence of the oil economy in Kuwait, the need for a balanced power approach was initiated as the political ruler assumed full management of the economy in the 1950s. Besides, the ruler established several election initiatives in the 1950s characterized by liberalization of the press, creation of political posts, and liberalization of the society (Basham and Preble 148).
These initiatives spurred the underlying democratization reform efforts, which climaxed in the year 1961 following independence of Kuwait from the colonial master. Besides, the brief confrontation with Iraq over territorial integrity spurred the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Kuwait. The constitutional political system consisted of a constitution, elected legislature, and a comprehensive power separation plan. The first election under the new political system was held in 1962 with the full support of the then ruler Abdallah al-Salim Al Sabar, followed by a parliamentary election the following year (Calabresi 33). By the year 1999, Kuwait had experienced 38 parliamentary sessions.
The main challenges to democracy in Kuwait are political and structural. Apparently, the political scene in Kuwait is characterized by social movements/mobility and frequent uprisings (street demonstrations, rallies, protests). However, these political movements have not been effective in demanding for serious democratization because of conflicts of interests and weak organization structures (Carapico 384). Specifically, by process tracing of the discourse of the main and frequent political social movements, their demands is to have the political rights that are revoked by the monarchy or manipulated (like changing the voting system).
Although these demands are within the current constitution, they are revoked for political interests from the monarchy/system. The political struggle in Kuwait is still within the rights of its constitution and most of the social uprisings stop their activities and demands once their political current constitutional rights are given back (Calabresi 31). This means circling into a loophole that never seems to end, despite an imbalance of power within the constitution for the monarchy that is being manipulated (Zaaiter par. 9). From the brief background, it is apparent that the Kuwait democracy is facing challenges since the precarious democratic model is not fully functional.
Research Problem/Puzzle
From the above review of the democratization process in Kuwait, political and structure challenges have been identified. This paper aims to assert the reasons for the problematic transition into democracy in Kuwait. It will review the political history of Kuwait and better assess the political system that the country currently uses. Secondly, it will address the attempts made by Kuwait in expanding democracy and heavily emphasizing it in this region. The analysis of the Arab political environment, its evolution and its outcome, will be vital in understanding the challenges of democratization in Syria. Ultimately, this paper will demonstrate why the current structure of government, in terms of political, social, and structural systems in Kuwait, will not sustain a democracy in the near future. Specifically, the paper will narrow down on the weighing down on social movements as a main hindrance to democratization in Kuwait.
Research Aim and Goal
Understanding geo-political, social, and economic dynamics in Kuwait is important in relating to the perceived ideology that has become an impediment to democratic governance. This research will be significant in establishing the contribution of the non-democratic ideology on the current democratic challenges in Kuwait. Through sociological imagination, it is easy to understand behavior change and identify forces: positive or negative, that facilitate the non-democratic tendencies in order to create alternative approaches for possible democratic governance in Kuwait. The goals are summarized as;
To establish the perceptions of the Kuwaitis on the current state of democracy in Kuwait, with reference to the social movements.
To make recommendations and suggestions on how the current state of democracy can be improved to make it more inclusive and people drive.
Research Question
In order to understand the underlying facts of the research paper, the research question will be;
How has the weighing down on social movements hindered democratization in Kuwait?
Data and Methodology
For the purpose of this paper, the researcher used several types of sources ranging from the internet to articles. For the history and background on the Kuwait governments, the researcher relied mostly on written material. In analyzing the more recent history, the researcher used both written material and personal accounts. Lastly, the focus was on the challenges that establishing a democracy in the region will face was taken from mostly written sources (Saunders 23). Think-tanks and other institutions have various reports analyzing the aspects of Kuwait deemed problematic democratic challenges. The mixture of journals and internet presented a number of pre-specified competencies and best practices based on the research topic. The researcher chose the qualitative because the scope of the research is focused, subjective, dynamic, and discovery oriented (Saunders 29).
The collected qualitative data was coded and passed through appropriate analysis tool. In the process, critical analysis was used to compare and contrast the impressions on the state of democracy in Kuwait, with reference to social movements. In order to quantify the relationship between the independent and dependent variable, analysis was essential besides figurative representation of the findings. The secondary approach for the survey presented a clear, scientific, and verifiable criterion for systematic analysis. Reflectively, this permitted comparative research especially when qualitative design is adopted to give room for testing accuracy and degree of biasness (Saunders 42).
Literature Review: Theoretical Framework
Many obstacles stand in the way between where Kuwait ideologically stands now and the attainment of a democracy that coheres to the values of a free society. The idea of a social order in which infringements on the inherent rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Chaney 346) are forbidden is a concept that the United States has attempted to disseminate on the Middle East for the past couple of decades. Through vast amounts of money and assistance, referred to as “democracy aid” (Hamid 79), the United States attempted to use the funding as a means to establish and sustain institutions that promote democracy, both as a way of spreading the values prominent to the American ideal.
The fall of communism and the successes thereafter that assisted the nation’s growth and development led America to become a prominent world power. They began to see democracy as “the final form of human government” (Tessler 38). This premise became the perpetual reformation of their foreign policy, focused on the proliferation of democracy to the rest of the world. During the years leading to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, it was clear that the Middle East’s ideologies were adjacent to American values and could become threatening (Grappo 146). After the attacks, foreign policy strategies shifted in order to target the cruelty and unjust practices that were occurring throughout the region under oppressive dictatorships. Later, with the United States’ presence in Iraq, surrounding countries saw the assistance that America provided a country that relied on foreign powers to transition it into democracy; although the effects of this transformation proved brutal, the promise of a western ideology had never been more appealing (Chaney 345). This ultimately led to the first spark of the Arab Spring.
The Arab Spring instigated a movement that promised a better and more egalitarian future for Arab citizens in their respective countries (Stewart 34). People rose in favor of a new government that would reflect their newfound realizations of electing their leaders and ultimately governing themselves. Demonstrations took place throughout the region with the most successful being in Tunisia and the key countries being Egypt, Libya, and Syria (Calabresi 34). The oil-rich countries such as Kuwait generally stayed out of the conflicts after some demonstrations were quieted by the ruling elite’s promise of more state jobs and government assistance (Stewart 34). The remaining countries were either left in a continuing turmoil that still persists or silenced by relentless rulers. This movement has left many questions about the extent to which democracy could be practiced in the region (Carapico 381).
The structure of basic societal norms and customs in Kuwait greatly inhibits the extent to which a system that promotes freedom and equality as its main pillars can be practiced (Calabresi 39). Kuwait inhibits particular groups of people from sharing the same privileges, reduces the importance of education to a secondary level, and has intertwined Islam with the government, which creates a preference for one religion over others. Although the types of democracy vary around the world, no existing democratic institution excludes members of their citizenry or uses other means to hinder them from participating in government as is the case in Kuwait (Akerlof and Chaney 369). When such practices are essential in the Kuwait political culture, democracy does not function.
Several countries in the Middle East such as Yemen and Kuwait have experienced conflicts due to weak democratic structures. The conflicts are as a result of weak democratic institutions or complete degeneration of these structures. For instance, in Kuwait, the democratic institution has been abuse by different regimes due to the dynamic nature of that society (Akerlof and Chaney 372). In fact, the current ruler has been in power for more than two decades and has never passed through an election system that can be described as free and fair since those who are suppose to implement checks and balances are executed, deported, or intimidated by the state machinery (Akerlof and Chaney 378). Therefore, there is need to explore the possibility of attaining democracy and its challenges in Kuwait to design policies that can reverse the above trend.
Findings: Weighing Social Movements as a Main Hinder for Democratization
Despite these successful elections, there are no political parties in Kuwait. Rather, there are more than five political groupings with the Islamic Constitutional Movement (ICM) and Kuwaiti Democratic Forum (KDF) dominating (Torki and Al-Sharah 59). After the 1999 election, it was apparent that the pro-government candidates faced a hard time with just a handful making it back to the parliament. The election results indicated reducing level of confidence that the public had on the government probably because of the close-nit control approach that it has on all aspects of Kuwait. Besides, the social movements and political mobilization in Kuwait have created political unrests that demands political rights.
But despite all the historical social uprisings and movements, democratization in Kuwait did not happen (Salem 11). Specifically, these movements demand better political representation, inclusion of women in the elections, and reduction of the voting age from twenty one years to eighteen years. Besides, the social and political movements have been in the forefront in demanding for inclusive government that integrates the interests of all regions and tribes in Kuwait (Torki and Al-Sharah 67). In addition, the social movements have always petitioned the parliaments to pass laws that would not allow the supreme ruler to dissolve parliament at will due to internal challenges that can be solve through other means.
The strategy of the governments of the day to weigh down on social movements has created structural and political challenges towards full democratization of Kuwait’s political and social system. Under the structural challenges, Kuwait’s democratic space is grappling with the imbalance in power separation due to the nature of its non-partisan parliamentary system (Salem 14). For instance, the law does not permit existence of political parties that might build space for better political democracy model. As a result, there is always an imbalance in the functions of the parliament since the ex officio members drawn from government ministries tend to influence most of the debates (Torki and Al-Sharah 69). The second structural challenge is the strict electoral base, which only permit persons above twenty one years to cast their vote.
Besides, the women population is are still disenfranchised, especially in terms of political equality rights. At present, women, the armed forces, and naturalized citizens are not eligible to vote. Due to the strict electoral base, less than 20% of the general population participates in the democratic elections (Gause 12). The low percentage of public participation in the poll raises concerns on the ability of the parliament to represent the will of the people, since the political movements are not allowed to operate independently. The third structural challenge is the short transition period in the formation of the government after an election. The process lasts for less than two weeks. In case there is dissatisfaction with a new government by the majority members of parliament, the transition period might be insufficient for reappointments and vetting without creating a constitutional crisis. Sadly, the social movements are only allowed to exist during elections.
The main political challenges facing democracy in Kuwait include power imbalance, government intervention in electoral processes, weakening culture of democratic politics, weakened civil society movement, and regional imbalances. Since the Kuwait government has monopolistic control of the major resources in the economy, there is always some level of competing interest between different stakeholders, especially in the important resources such as land, employment, and oil (Salem 18). Many Kuwaitis agree that monopolistic control of these important resources might not serve their interests, especially when the reigning government commits economic atrocities.
The second political challenge is the electoral process interference by the government since Kuwait government always has its list of candidates to support in any election. For instance, ministers are often instructed to facilitate financing and logistical support of candidates that are pro-government to the disadvantage of others. In the local dialect, the favors are referred to as wasta, which is bypasses several integrity and electoral fairness laws (Torki and Al-Sharah 71). The third political challenge is the weakening political democratic culture due to constant dissolution of parliament and lack of political parties. For instance, an Amiri can decree dissolution of a parliament, which can seriously weaken the democratic culture (Gause 21).
Besides, the civil society movements operate in an enclosed democratic space and must seek for approval from the government before organizing any democratic civil education camp. The approval of such activities is only preserved for the current government. The last political challenge is the regional imbalance in the democratic systems, which is indirectly and directly affecting the democratic space in Kuwait (Torki and Al-Sharah 75). For instance, in Saudi Arabia, the Shura Council has monopoly in public participate in governance. The political instability in Iran is threatening to overturn the decades of democratic gains due to reactionary measures by the Saudi government to prevent a similar occurrence. The Kuwait government has made it difficult for social movements to influence the policy or political direction due to pretense of possible violence (Torki and Al-Sharah 67).
Conclusion
Despite having gotten independence more than five decades ago, Kuwait is still grappling with very serious democracy challenges in its political system. The democratic governance system consisting of the parliament and executive units remain relatively immature, in terms of the level of public participation in governance. Specifically, the democratic governance in Kuwait has continued to face structural and political challenges due to weak social movements as a result of government interference, outlaw of political parties, and competing regional interests. The excessive control of the electoral system by the government, isolation of almost 70% of the population from voting, and lack of political good will from the government has undermined democratization initiatives.
In the recent past, imbalance in power to favor the government threatens to reverse the democratic gains that have been realized through the activities of different social movements. These pro-democracy movements have experienced difficulties in fair play in election, especially whenever the government has some political interests in a region. Since there are no political parties, legislators who make it to parliament through these coalitions become powerless since the ministers appointed by the government have unprecedented influence over the outcome of any debate. Besides, once in parliament, members of these social movements are treated as individuals and not as groups with common interest.
Works Cited
Akerlof, George, and Eric Chaney. “Democratic Change in the Arab World, Past and Present.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, vol. 1, no. 3, 2012, pp. 363-414.
Alnajjar, Ghanim. “The Challenges Facing Kuwait Democracy.” Middle East Journal, vol. 54, no. 2, 2000, pp. 242-258.
Basham, Patrick, and Christopher Preble. “The Trouble With Democracy in the Middle East.” Middle East Journal, vol. 82, no. 3, 2013, pp. 123-181.
Calabresi, Massimo. “Is the Arab World Ready for Democracy?” Time, vol. 27, no. 4, 2011, pp. 34-41.
Carapico, Sheila. “Foreign Aid for Promoting Democracy in the Arab World.” Middle East Journal, vol. 56, no. 3, 2002, pp. 379-395.
Chaney, Eric. “Democratic Change in the Arab World, Past and Present.” Harvard Review , vol. 23, no. 1, 2012, pp. 363-414.
Gause, Gregory. “Arab Uprising: Kuwait Moment of Truth.” Middle East Political Science Journal, vol. 1, no. 3, 2012, pp. 1-29.
Grappo, Gary. “Rethinking Democracy and Conflict in the Middle East .” Harvard Review, vol. 2, no. 4, 2012, pp. 123-141.
Hamid, Shadi. “The Struggle For Middle East Democracy.” The American Univeristy in Cairo: School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 3, 2013, pp. 145-164.
Salem, Paul. “Kuwait: Politics in a Participatory Emirate”. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, vol. 3, no. 5, 2012, pp. 2-28.
Saunders, Mark. Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson Education, 2011.
Stewart, Dona. “The Greater Middle East and Reform in the Bush Administration’s Ideological Imagination.” American Geographical Review, vol. 95, no. 3, 2005, pp. 400-424.
Tessler, Mark. “Islam and Democracy in the Middle East: The Impact of Religious Orientations on Attitudes toward Democracy in Four Arab Countries.” Comparative Politics, vol. 34, no. 3, 2002, pp. 23-78.
Torki, Mohammad and Mohammad Al-Sharah. “Kuwait’s Democratic Experiment: Roots, Reality, Characteristics, Challenges, and the Prospects for the Future”. Arab Studies Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 4, 2013, pp. 57-81.
Zaaiter, Haifa. Did Kuwait Protest Show a Real Threat to the Regime? Al-Monitor, Web.