Category: Democracy

Introduction

Democracy is a form of government in which people make decision on how they are going to be ruled. It is a more participatory form of government elected by the people and working for the people. At the end of the last century, the world experienced a wave of growing democracy in most countries. This came with the collapse of communism in Russia. The end of cold war marked a new era of democratic government in most countries previously embracing communism and authoritarian rule.

Majority of the countries in Southeast Asia have remained communism states even with the fall of communism. Countries like China, Singapore, Philippines, and other in the same region have been experiencing growing dissidents among the citizens in clamor for a change to a democratic government. Democratic government have been praised for being more open to the public and giving the public a hand in deciding how they are to be ruled.

According to Chu (2003), majority of the countries that formed the communist Russia have experienced a hard time in shedding the legacy of authoritarian rule that governed them. Communism regimes as opposed to democratic regimes had more authoritarian government with centralized economic controls, abuse of human rights and most of them embraced the culture of corruption. It is worth noting that since the collapse of Russia and seeming the end of the communism empire, most countries in East Asia like China and Vietnam have been slowly moving to more democratic governments and have experienced a remarkable economic growth. The effects of a democratic government cannot be ignored.

A country like China experienced a remarkable growth in its economy when it embraced the policy of a free market without the control of the authoritarian government. It is argued that China cannot ignore the fact that there is a need from the citizens of a more transparent government to run its shoring economy and it is just a matter of time before the country becomes full democratic.

There has been a heated argument in the world concerning the necessity of democratic regimes in order to enhance the economic growth of a country. Many countries that have propelled their economies have been under democratic governments. The questions about whether we need democracy first to have economic growth or whether we need economic growth first to support the process of democracy have not been argued out due to differing circumstances and countries taken as examples or as study cases on this matter.

Many countries in Asia have experienced a remarkable economic growth even without democracy. It is also amazing that some countries in Africa have embraced democracy but have remained relatively poor with under-performing economies. But taking the example of China as our study case, we can see that the more people becomes economically well up, the more they realize their right to a democratic government. An authoritarian rule can only exist due to oppression of the public or in instances where people are so much occupied with their daily struggles that they have no time to think about their rulers. Hence the process of economic development and democratic government goes parallel with one another and cannot be ignored.

In this paper, the level of democracy in Singapore and Thailand shall be compared. The paper will implore the development of democracy in the two countries and compare and contrast the difference in the development. It will also look into the level of economic development of the two countries as a function of the governance and how both interact. It will also look into the factors that have to the difference in the development of full democracy in both states.

Democracy in Thailand

Thailand has evolved in its democratic government. It has evolved for the semi-democratic government and is moving towards a democratic regime. According to Santi (1995), since 1973, there have been activities aimed at instilling democracy in the government of Thailand. During the 1980, Thailand was ruled by Prem which was leaning more to a democratic government and is credited to have restored parliamentary politics.

However in 1991, the country experienced a military rule which remained in power till 1992. The process of democracy grew fast in Thailand and it is recorded that by the year 1992, Thailand had met the international required standards for democracy including citizen participation in the government, a transparent electoral process and observation of human rights. It is recorded that democracy has grown in the country since the bloodshed of 1992.

It was boosted in 2001 when the Populist Party Thai Rak Thai took over power led by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who embraced a more democratic space for the country. Since then, the country has been moving towards establishing a more democratic regime with strengthening of the democratic institutions. One of the most important factors that have helped the process of growth of democracy in Thailand has been the installation of the electoral system which has given people the power to rule themselves through a fairly elected government.

The growth of democratic space in Thailand has been marked by the recent events which have shown that the country has grown to a mature democratic regime. According to Albritton and Bureekul (2004), one of these events was the adoption of new constitution in 1997 that had structures that enhanced the growth of democracy. This constitution defined the electoral system and gave people the power to govern themselves.

The constitution has also given the country institutions that are necessary for good governance of the people including a constitutional court which allows for a fair trial of any suspect. The constitution has also created an independent election commission to oversee the electro process in the country. This has restored the confidence of the citizens in their participation in the electoral process.

A landmark achievement of the constitution has been the creation of a nation a counter corruption commission. This has been a great breakthrough in the fight against corruption. It is to be remembered that democracy is very vibrant in the country as was seen with the removal of Minister Thaksin Shinawatra over corruption allegation. The corruption commission has been given more power than in other democratic countries and can now charge, try and consequently remove from public office anybody that is convicted of corruption. The electoral commission has indeed been bestowed with powers of supervising an election and consequently can disqualify an elected candidate convicted of having committed an electoral offense including violation of electoral laws.

According to Muntarbhorn and Taylor (1994), Thailand has also moved swiftly to identify the role of civil society contribution to the democratic governance. As such, there has been hyperactivity in sensitizing the civil society in having a role to play in the democratic process. Civil society movements are perhaps some of the most important institution that supports democracy. As compared to other countries in Southeast Asia, Thailand has given the civil society a free spaced to criticize or support the regime in the process of governance. Although the civil society movement is still weak in Thailand compared to other democratic governments, it is growing at a remarkable pace.

Perhaps the remarkable event in the development of democracy in Thailand was a survey conducted in 2001 among the citizens of Thailand which showed an overwhelming support for democracy in the country. The survey showed that majority of the citizen’s preferred democracy as the most acceptable form of government and the form able to propel the country economic development. The survey showed a minority support for a military government.

There was an overwhelming support for a parliamentary government as compared to others. However, majority of the citizen cited economic development to be more important than creating parallel democratic institutions. This is one of the things that show that Thailand is not a semi democratic country but can be compared to full democratic country and what is remaining is just to strengthen the institutions that support democracy in the country. Support from majority of the citizens is perhaps the most important process in recognizing the level of democracy in a country.

The new constitution also gave space for more participation of people in the economic activities in the county. Thailand has experienced remarkable economic growth since the adoption of the new constitution in 1997. According to Morris (1998), the constitution emphasized individual liberty, gender equity in economic activities, environmental preservation, resource management, empowerment of the community and right to education and health services.

Democracy in Singapore

Singapore is yet to embrace the spirit of democracy as compared to Thailand. The country has a parliamentary framework of government in which it has the Prime Minister as the head of government. The parliament shares with the government the legislative powers while the government retains the executive power. Thy have a ceremonial president but has powers over judiciary appointments and some internal security issues.

Although seeming having a good political structure which can embrace democracy, the country has been under the rule of People Action Part from 1959 which Lee Kuan Yew was elected as a prime minister. Lee Kuan Yew has clang to power for that time although there are opposition parties in the country. The government has employed censorship and filing of suits in courts to intimidate the opposition. This has kept the opposition low and fearful of the powers amassed by the government.

Although considered democratic, it has been argued that governance of Singapore is more authoritarian than democratic. It has been considered illiberal democracy or procedural democracy. Indeed there are some democratic aspects in governance of Singapore. It partially involves people in the decision making process which has led many scholar to refer Singapore as a socialist democracy, a notion it rejects. It claims not to be a socialist state but the economy tells more. The economy of Singapore although, flourishing, is dominated by state owned corporations. The state controls the housing system and it employs a compulsory education policy. However Singapore is rated as one of the most corrupt free states in Asia and in the world.

The few democratic instances in Singapore are hampered by laws that counter the progress of democracy. Perhaps one of the laws that have retarded the growth of democracy in Singapore is the law that prohibits the freedom of speech. The government imposes this law arguing that it is intended to safeguard the interest of the multiracial nation. Singapore government has come under fierce criticism all over the world due to these laws which has led to violation of human rights.

Many people have been detained and executed on accounts of hate speech. Singapore has one of the highest executions in the world as it still practices capital punishment. Singapore still holds the Internal Security Act which gives the government the power to arbitrary arrest and prosecution of citizens and detains them without trial. One of the longest serving prisoners in the country is Mr. Chia Thye Poh who was detained without trial for 23 years. The judiciary is misused by the government and the prime minister has intimated, bankrupted and crippled the opposition in the law courts. The courts are mere puppets of the government and are no less than kangaroo courts for the citizens and especially those posing opposition to the government.

A democratic regime is based on the freedom of the people to access information that is unbiased and in a free manner. This calls for a free press and media houses. However in Singapore this has been hampered by fact that there are no private media houses in the country. All press and media houses are owned and controlled by the state. The government has been gone to an extent of curtailing even the foreign press in the country. The government has throttled all avenues of expression and it even controls the labor movement in the country.

It is amazing that the Nation Trade Union Congress is headed by a cabinet minister. This makes sure that there can not be strikes from workers. This is a form of oppression of the people because it denies them the freedom to express their views. The civil society has been crumbled by the authoritarian rule. With an oppressed and intimidated opposition and with a crumbled civil society, who can fight for the citizens and ensure that democratic principles are upheld?

Singapore has one of the most flawed electoral systems in the world. There is no an independent electoral commission to oversee the elections. The campaign period for election is set at 9 days. The electoral process is repeated after every four or five years. The election process is heightened by state corruption and intimidation. In the run up to the 2001 elections voters were promised to be given shares which were to be cashed in a day before the elections.

It was just an alternative scheme to direct corruption as practiced in other countries. In the 1997 elections it is reported that voters were told that if they did not vote for the PAP candidates, their houses would be confiscated or turned into slums. The government also interferes with the electoral boundaries which are announced a day before the election is held in order to confine the opposition to one region.

Perhaps in terms of the appreciation of the citizen of the country to the principle of democracy, Ser and Zhengxu (2007) argue that, majority of them says they are not interest in politics. Although voting in Singapore is compulsory and ballot papers come with personal identity card numbers, majority of the people in the country feel that they are obliged to participate in a process they are not interested in. The level of public awareness is quite low in Singapore with majority of the population expressing satisfaction in the way the government is run. They feel that the democratic space that prevails in the country is okay with them.

The same survey reveals that majority of the population are aware that the country is not democratically run with few people expressing satisfaction on the issues of governance, freedom of speech and transparency in the government.

Majority of the citizens in the country support a democratic government while still a good number supports an authoritarian government. This survey reveals that the citizens of the country are not very much aware of their rights. Perhaps this is due to fear that is instilled by the government over the citizens. Lack of the freedom of speech is perhaps one of the greatest hindrance and one factor that instill fear to the citizens. In a full democratic regime, the citizens should have a say in how the government is run. They should be the one electing a government to power and also have powers to remove the government. But in Singapore the process of oppressing the citizens perhaps begins with the use of court to intimidate the country.

Economically the country fairs very well but it ranks poorly when it comes to the issue of equality. There is a big gap between the rich and the poor with majority of the political elite amassing more wealth than the public.

Comparing democracy of the two countries

The difference in democracy between the two countries is very evident. While Thailand has embraced democracy and put in place institutions that enhance a democratic environment, Singapore has continued to oppress the citizens and the government is in control of all the institutions that can be used to build democratic space for a country. In deed compared to Thailand, Singapore cannot be ranked as a democratic government. It is an authoritarian government. The only sign of democracy in Singapore is perhaps its government system which has a parliamentary system of government. The two countries give us a good insight into the process of growth of democracy.

It shows us that for democracy to work there must be working institution which are protected by the constitution of the country. Democracy needs to separate the judiciary power from the government and enhance creation of free institutions. The two countries have parallel democratic institutions that support democracy but their effectiveness is different. It is good to point out here that democracy in Singapore is hampered by the fact that the government still has the power to arrest and prosecute and largely limits the freedom of expression.

While Thailand has efficient electoral commission that oversees the election and has powers to nullify results of a candidate though to malpractices in the electoral process, Singapore has the government in control of everything. The government sets the electoral date and also sets the electoral boundaries. There is no place for filing election petitions in Singapore since even the courts are controlled by the ruling regimes. This is one of the indicators that show us that Thailand should not be treated as a semi democratic country but rather a democratic country. The electoral institution is a crucial institution in a democratic process of any nation.

While Thailand has a free and impartial court system, Singapore has the government and the judiciary sharing powers. Democracy cannot happen in a process where there are no fair means of administering democracy. A law court is important in administration of justice in any for of government whether democratic or authoritarian. The process of democracy in Singapore is flawed by the judiciary system since instead of protecting the citizens, it is used to oppress them and intimidate those opposing the ruling regime.

The difference in the level of democracy in the two countries is perhaps contributed by the will of the citizens for change. In Thailand, citizens show a great desire to be democratically ruled and show a higher level of understanding of the need to have a working democracy. On the other hands, citizens of Singapore shows low level of interest in politics and seems satisfied with the war their country is run. It is good to point out here that democracy begins with people and ends with people. Even for an oppressive regime, it takes it a matter of time before citizen stage massive resistance to the regimes as recently witnessed in Burma.

References

Albritton, R. and Bureekul, T. (2004): Developing Democracy under a New Constitution in Thailand. University of Mississippi.

Chu, Y. (2003). Lessons from East Asia’s Struggling Democracies; Asian Barometer Survey, Working Paper Series.

Morris, G. (1998). The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implication. Institute for International Economics: Washington, DC. Policy Analysis in International Economics, No. 5.

Muntarbhorn, V. and Taylor, C. (1994): Roads to Democracy: Human Rights and Democratic Development in Thailand.

Santi, H. (1995). Thailand: They Buy Candidates, Not Votes. Inter press Services.

Ser, T. E. and Zhengxu, W. (2007): Second Wave of Asian Barometer: A comparative survey of democracy, governance and development. Singapore Country Report, National University of Singapore.

The wave of upheavals known as the Arab Spring overwhelmed Arab countries at the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011. Tunisia could not help but fall under the influence of the neighboring countries striving for decent living conditions, protection of human life and rights, and the opportunity to become a democratic society. However, unlike other Arab states, the democratic experiment in Tunisia turned out to be successful, and the revolt itself was not long and did not lead to excessive bloodshed.

This paper aims to investigate the specificities of the Arab Spring in Tunisia, especially the determinants of its short duration, its positive implications on the system, and transformations in the society. Another objective of the research is to identify the components of the efficient transition to democracy focusing on the internal and external forces driving the revolution and keeping its ideals alive.

Specific attention will be paid to current concerns related to societal and governmental views on the established democratic regime with the emphasis on their significance in avoiding the second wave of intolerance and turmoil. Finally, the paper will conclude in speculations on the future of democracy in Tunisia and some ways to preserve it.

The Arab Spring in Tunisia: Specificities and Challenges

The Arab Spring in Tunisia began with the self-immolation of the unemployed Mohamed Bouazizi in response to the cessation of his small business by the police officer as he sold vegetables in the streets to make his living (“Arab Uprising: Country by Country – Tunisia” par. 2). This protest movement is similar to the outburst of revolts in other Arab countries because they also began with the citizens setting themselves on fire in the streets.

This action brought other people to streets, encapsulating the resentment of everyone who had become suffocated by lawlessness, economic stagnation, and disrespect for human rights and freedoms accompanied with corruption, police abuse, and the absence of opportunities for personal and financial growth and development (Malsin par. 1).

The revolt was not durable, especially if compared to the cases of other Arab states. Lasting for only three weeks, it had a perfect ending as the dictatorship of President Ben Ali was overthrown. Even though the number of killed was around 300 people, this figure is significantly lower than in other countries swept by the unrest of the Arab Spring (“Arab Uprising: Country by Country – Tunisia” par. 2).

There were several reasons for the rise of intolerance and the launch of the revolution in Tunisia. First of all, Tunisians were dissatisfied with the standard of living, employment opportunities, working conditions, development of infrastructure, quality of social services such as education and healthcare, and, of course, the freedom of expressing themselves represented in excessive government control and interference in personal lives and affairs (“Tunisia: Analyzing the Dawn of the Arab Spring” par. 2). Moreover, they grew tired of poverty and seeing no prospects for a better future.

Regardless of the three hundred civilians who fell victim to the regime and revolution, the Arab Spring has become the source of numerous positive outcomes and the transformation of society. First and foremost, the President gave up his positions, helping to avoid thousands of deaths and years of unrest. Second, the country witnessed democratic and transparent parliamentary elections, where they had an opportunity to vote for a leader based on their personal and political convictions (Feuer par. 3). Furthermore, Tunisians received the chance to adopt a new Constitution, guaranteeing rights and freedoms and protecting them (Al-Ali and Romdhane par. 1).

Speaking of the Arab Spring in Tunisia, it is paramount to keep in mind its similarities and differences from the rest of the Arab countries covered by the revolt. Even though the underlying causes in each case were identical and related to the corrupt systems, Tunisia has become the only country reflecting the success of the ideals promoted by the rioters, turning it into an exception by avoiding the tragic turmoil witnessed in rest of the region.

For example, Syria was slaughtered by the civil war and has been forced to defend its citizens from the Islamic State, Libya fell victim to unrelieved chaos, Yemen was overcome by military actions, and Egypt returned to military authoritarianism (“The Guardian Views on Tunisia’s Transition: A Success Story” par. 2). Because neighboring states sank in unrest and its consequences are dreadful, it could serve as the motivation for finding ways to preserve the democratic regime in Tunisia and make it last, stimulating positive changes in society and altering the corrupt system to better avoid, at the same time, instances of repetitive unrest.

The Role of Religion in the Government and Protection Against Jihadists

One of the current concerns in modern Tunisia is the polarization between religion and secularism (Welsh par. 6-7). However, at the same time, it points to the establishment of democracy and strengthens it because democracy implies the coexistence of different religious views. Still, it is imperative to avoid the open collision of interests because it might lead to negative outcomes and tragic consequences. For now, Tunisia is highly polarized, and the secular party has withdrawn most of its representatives from the parliament, leaving the majority to the Islamists (Welsh 8).

Nevertheless, there are still secularists in the parliament, who work together with Islamists when developing the plans for further reforms to better the country (“Tunisia’s Volatile Transition to Democracy” 10). This coexistence and cooperation of two parties point to the possibility of respecting the interests and addressing the needs of people living in different regions of Tunisia and adapting the programs of change to benefit them. This feature of the Tunisian regime proves that it is a democracy.

Still, there is a significant risk to preserving the achievements of the new government because not all representatives of religions are willing to cooperate to benefit the citizens and eradicate the elements of the corrupt system by replacing them with more perfect mechanisms of running the state (i.e., democratic leverages). Jihadist attacks, for example, were a critical matter of concern long before 2011 and the transition toward the democratic regime. However, as democracy has been established, the problem has become even more severe.

Because there is a high possibility of change in the whole region evoked by the positive experience of Tunisia, the local government should protect the interests of its citizens and their safety. Existing military regimes feel endangered because there is a risk of being overthrown. That is why they meet the institutionalization of democracy in Tunisia as a threat—because it could become the foundation for changing the dictatorial face of the region and removing the traditional regimes.

Because the activities of jihadist groups jeopardize the stability in society, the government should develop the frameworks for separating radical organizations from peaceful ones and should integrate the latter into the political and societal systems (Abdessalem par. 13). Designing such frameworks might become the strategy for strengthening the regime in the country because democracy relates to the freedom of choice as well as the safety of society.

The Role of Civil Society Organizations in the Transition to Democracy

The role of civil society organizations in the transition to democracy should not be underestimated, because they are the drivers of positive change. In this case, it is paramount to note that there are two types of organizations involved: internal and external ones. Still, without regard to the type of institution, their central role is in financing the change and injecting funds for promoting it.

One of the examples of domestic civil society organizations is the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for fostering the establishment of the democratic regime in Tunisia. The key to its success is the ability to reach a compromise between the sides of the religious parties represented in the parliament and the Tunisian society as a whole. The most significant achievement of this organization is achieving such spectacular outcomes without involving military force and through peaceful dialogue (“Tunisia’s Volatile Transition to Democracy” 4).

Even though the National Dialogue has demonstrated its efficiency in enhancing democracy, there are still other significant missions to be accomplished since reaching unity among the members of parliament and in society is still distant. It can be explained by the fact that the democratic regime has been installed recently and that launching similar civil society organizations might help preserve it and change the whole region.

As for the international civil society organizations having an interest in establishing democracy in Tunisia, they include USAID, the European Union, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, among others (“Tunisia: Analyzing the Dawn of the Arab Spring” par. 22, 29). The link between the operation of international organizations and enhancing democracy in Tunisia lies in making the country open to the outer world. In this case, it becomes easier to hint to effective strategies for guaranteeing and protecting human rights as well as decreasing the instability in the region by being able to monitor the situation from the inside and having an influence on it.

The role of USAID and the European Union in the establishment of the democratic regime in Tunisia comes down to developing the plans for the further development of the region, such as finding sources for developing infrastructure or fostering social change and stimulating reforms (“Tunisia: Analyzing the Dawn of the Arab Spring” par. 22).

As for the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, they intend to analyze the economic situation in the country and identify ways for improving it by investing in creating new jobs, increasing standards of living, and combating corruption as well as designing the strategies for continuous and inclusive economic growth (“Tunisia: Analyzing the Dawn of the Arab Spring” par. 29). To sum up, the role of civil society organizations is to support and drive change, whether it is financial or organizational.

Foreign Implications on the Transition to Democracy

When speaking of foreign implications on change, specific attention is paid to the allocation of foreign investment. However, this case is different from the instance of civil society organizations because only separate countries and their roles in the development of territory are estimated. In the case of Tunisia, the significant share in the transition to democracy belongs to the United States of America due to their continuous injection of investment in the region. For example, in 2016 Congress plans to allocate $142 million to developing Tunisia’s potential (Feuer par. 10).

There are numerous reasons for allocating the funds in this country, which vary from economic drive to humane motives. However, the most significant motivation is the United States’ desire to demonstrate the benefits of democracy not only to Tunisia but also to the rest of the Arab countries willing to get on the path of democratic development. The investment can be used for both enhancing the economic situation in the country and protecting against jihadists as well as solving some currently existing concerns.

Still, the primary challenge in the case of Tunisia is the existence of numerous restrictions for allocating the funds. It can be explained by the peculiarities of the previous autocratic regime designed to benefit the chosen groups of society and limit the influence of foreign economic actors on the national development (“Tunisia’s Volatile Transition to Democracy” 23). If the government takes steps to eliminate these restrictions, it will prove Tunisia’s desire to develop democracy and integrate it into the global network of cooperation.

Current Concerns

Regardless of the numerous positive shifts and transformations in Tunisian society, there are some significant concerns related to the current state of affairs, which should not be ignored. First and foremost, more than 80 percent of Tunisians believe that the outcomes of the Arab Spring should have been more spectacular to justify the losses and lives shifted away during the revolt.

That said, the dissatisfaction with the current government is constantly growing as citizens claim that not enough effort has been put toward restoring the domestic economy, granting and protecting fundamental human rights, and investing in changing the face of the Tunisian society by injecting funds into education and reforms aimed at improving living standards and creating jobs (Bishai and Mastic par. 2).

The most troubling issue is the fact that high-quality education is not synonymous with better workplace conditions or employment in Tunisia because the unemployment rates remain high, and no prospect of positive change can be seen. Also, the economic environment in the country is unstable due to the collapse of the entrepreneurial sector and persistence of inequality in access to work and pay (“Tunisia’s Volatile Transition to Democracy” 6).

What is even more significant is the fact that more than 70 percent of Tunisians feel that the current government is no better than the overthrown dictatorship due to the low level of transparency of political decisions and poor information about the involvement of Tunisia in regional and foreign affairs. That said, people have become disillusioned with the breakthroughs and ideals of the Arab Spring, and they believe that the situation in the country is most likely to worsen soon (Bishai and Mastic par. 7-8). This issue is closely related to the slowdown in the pace of governmental reform as the repetitive formation of new parliament has become a common trend in Tunisia (Feuer par. 8).

Other significant matters of concern drawing the attention of society are security and safety. The central issue is a higher rate of terrorism (“Tunisia’s Volatile Transition to Democracy” 19). Even though the Tunisians are not limited in their rights, the problem of terrorism is alarming as almost 50 percent of citizens believe it is the central current problem due to the increased terrorist attacks on public places, such as restaurants, museums, and beach resorts.

Recall, for example, the massacre in the Sousse Beach taking 38 lives and 22 killed by the jihadists in the National Museum (Bennet-Jones par. 4). The latter is the most troubling because Tunisia is attractive to tourists and tourism is one of the sources of revenue to the state budget (Bishai and Mastic par. 6). The problem of terrorism is significantly aggravated with the involvement of young Tunisians in regional civil conflicts. As they start returning to their homeland, the risks of increased terrorism or higher crime rates are substantial (Feuer par. 9).

To sum up, the central current concern in Tunisia is the sense of mutual mistrust hovering over the Tunisian society like a black cloud. Neither citizens nor the elite can trust the government or each other because they feel they are being misinformed and, as a result, endangered. For example, citizens cannot trust the old elite because they feel that these groups benefited from the overthrown regime, while the elite cannot cooperate with the new government due to the fear of being punished for their past connections (Bennet-Jones par. 11-12). Altogether, it feeds the atmosphere of strain on society and undermines not only the ideals of the Arab Spring but also of democracy as such.

Conclusion: Speculations on the Future of Democracy in Tunisia

Tunisia is the only country in the Arab world that has had an opportunity to witness the benefits of democratic development preached by the rioters involved in the Arab Spring. One of the specificities of the transition process is its swiftness because the revolution was over in three weeks. Since the beginning of 2011, Tunisia has witnessed numerous positive transformations in their society, such as free parliamentary elections, adoption of the new constitution, and the coexistence and cooperation of the representatives of both Islamist and secularist parties in the parliament.

Regardless of the benefits mentioned above, there are still significant challenges that might threaten the future of democracy in Tunisia, such as continuous jihadist attacks, the atmosphere of mistrust in the country, and the danger of terrorism. The government should address them to avoid wasting the already achieved progress. Otherwise, there is no democratic future for Tunisia.

Some strategies can be deployed by the government to preserve the achieved progress and guarantee that the ideals of the Arab Spring are kept alive. First of all, getting involved in constructive dialogue with the members of parliament as the representatives of citizens and elite might help create the necessary environment of trust and openness because both the common people and the elite are interested in personal safety and protection of their rights.

In this case, it is paramount to demonstrate that the motivation of the elite is to enhance positive shifts in society instead of finding ways to derive enrichment illegally. Moreover, this strategy should be supplemented with launching efficient sources for communicating governmental decisions and actions so that people are informed of the latest news and do not underestimate the significance of victims of the Arab Spring.

Another way to preserve democracy is to design frameworks for detecting dangerous as well as peaceful organizations uniting religious minorities and finding resources and mechanisms for integrating them into society, working together to combat terrorism and diminish its risks. The extension of this strategy is involving the representatives of religious minorities in parliament so that they can address the specific needs of all citizens and enhance their development. Finally, it is imperative to focus on gaining international support, either financial or organizational, because foreign experience in building a democratic society might be feasible for detecting the currently existing gaps and filling them.

To sum up, several determinants are making Tunisia’s democratic transformation possible. First and foremost, the wise decision of President Ben Ali to give up his position and resign before the riot turned into a civil war was the initial step in the transition. Second is the readiness of citizens to embrace change and follow the path of democracy that drove the process. Moreover, it is the homogeneity of the population as well as the coexistence and cooperation of Islamists and secularists that made it efficient. Finally, the involvement of civil society organizations and the United States has also been instrumental.

Works Cited

Abdessalem, Rafik. “Tunisia Is Where the Arab Spring Worked – And Why.” The World Post. 2014. Web.

Al-Ali, Zaid, and Donia Ben Romdhane. Tunisia’s New Constitution: Progress and Challenges to Come. 2014. Web.

“Arab Uprising: Country by Country – Tunisia.” BBC News. 2013. Web.

Bennet-Jones, Owen. “How Tunisia Is Keeping Arab Spring Ideals Alive.” BBC News. 2015. Web.

Bishai, Linda, and Scott Mastic. “5 Years After the Spring.” US News. 2016. Web.

Feuer, Sarah. “The Tunisian Democratic Experiment Five Years in.” Washington Post, 2016. Web.

“The Guardian Views on Tunisia’s Transition: A Success Story.” The Guardian. 2014. Web.

Malsin, Jared. “Why the Arab Spring Has Not Led to Disaster in Tunisia.” Time. 2015. Web.

Tunisia’s Volatile Transition to Democracy. 2015. PDF File. Web.

Tunisia: Analyzing the Dawn of the Arab Spring. n.d. Web.

Welsh, Teresa. “Tunisia’s Wobbly Democracy.” US News. 2015. Web.

Introduction

Syria is situated in the Western Asia. Its neighbouring countries are Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. The country is home to diverse cultural and religious communities. Currently, the country is experiencing conflicts between the government soldiers and the rebels (Habeeb 2012).

The conflicts began in the year 2011. It is alleged that the conflicts were initiated by the Arab Spring demonstrations in the Middle East (Fortna & Huang 2012). The continuing conflict does not offer an opportunity for future democratisation.

From the start, the protests were met with resistances from Bashar al-Assad’s administration (Fortna & Huang 2012). To stop the demonstrations, the government reacted with fierce suppressions.

The fight progressively transformed from prominent demonstrations to a fortified uprising after years of military blockades. The fortified opposition is comprised of a number of groups, which were established during the Arab Uprising. The groups include Free Syrian Army, Islamic Front, Hezbollah, and the Islamic State of Iraq.

By August 2013, Bashar al-Assad’s administration was in command of around 35% of the nation’s territory and 61% of the Syrian populace (Olimat 2013). As of March 2015, it was estimated that the conflict had led to the death of up to 300,000 individuals. International organisations have blamed Bashar al-Assad’s administration, ISIS, and other antagonistic groups of extreme human rights abuses (Romano & Gurses 2014).

As such, chemicals weapons have been used severally in the war. Bashar al-Assad’s administration is reported to be accountable for the bulk of civilian fatalities. Similarly, tens of thousands of opposition members and demonstrators have been taken captive by the government law enforcers. There are intelligences of torture in government penitentiaries.

Literature review

Heydemann asserts that as the fourth anniversary of Syrian conflict draws nearer, the promises of future democratisation that fuelled the war have regressed (Heydemann 2013). According to Heydemann, a number of Arab nations experienced momentous mass demonstration movements starting from the year 2011.

Heydemann believes that among the countries involved in the conflict Tunisia alone appears likely to yield a joined democracy in the predictable future. In Syria, the conflicts have exposed the troubles of overpowering the persistent institutional and communal legacies of dictatorial rule. Similarly, the conflicts have exposed the unexpected extents to which dictatorial governments will go to endure their leadership.

Dabashi believes that in Syria any likelihood that the demonstrators might oust the Assad’s administration and start a shift to democracy was snuffed at the start of the conflicts (Dabashi 2012). The opportunity for future democratisation was extinguished by the government’s fierce suppression and then by the nation’s decline into a ruthless and progressive religious civil conflict.

By April this year, it was estimated that the conflict had led to the death of up to 310,000 individuals. International organisations have blamed Bashar al-Assad’s administration, ISIS, and other antagonistic groups of extreme human rights abuses. UN officials believe that the conflict in Syria has led to foulest humanitarian catastrophe ever since the Rwanda conflict in the year1994.

Joshi 2013 suggests that the democratic ambitions of the activists who demonstrated on roads and public squares throughout the country at the start of the conflict were among the war’s first victims (Joshi 2013). Joshi asserts that if democracy being a result of the revolution was always indeterminate, democratic forecasts have been ruthlessly crippled by the damage of civil war and the progressive disintegration of the Syrian people.

Joshi indicates that studies illustrate that nations evolving from ethno-sectarian conflicts are likely to be among the least probable to democratise when war ends. During such situations, post-conflict democratisation miscarries far more regularly than it prospers. According to him, more than half of all nations that undergo through conflicts decline into war after a period of intervening ceasefire.

McCaffrey suggests that in Syria democratic projections seem unwelcoming because of the damaging impacts of civil war (McCaffrey 2012). The war has reduced the potentials for democratic transformation. The war has also offered the drive for a process of dictatorial reformation, which has enhanced Assad government’s capability to endure demonstrations, suppress a fortified rebellion, and counterattack international sanctions.

Despite the collapse of a number of government organisations due to fortified battle, it should be noted that the war has obligated the Assad government to restructure its social base, stiffen its reliance on international dictatorial networks, get used to its styles of financial governance, and reform its army and security apparatus (McCaffrey 2012).

Though the product of the present war cannot be foretold with certainty, these adaptations are probable to affect how the country will be managed when the conflict ends.

Jarstad asserts that the Assad’s regime has strengthened its political affiliations with Russia and China since the start of the conflict (Jarstad 2014). Because Russia and China have authoritarian regimes, their relationship with Assad’s administration offers the Syrian government with sources of direct martial and monetary sustenance.

Their relationship also offers a set of law and diplomatic experts who will side with the government in international institutions. The two countries are trying to shield the Assad regime from the impact of United Nations backed sanctions (Jarstad 2014).

The sanctions had the ability to obstruct the capability of its major dictatorial allies to offer the government with vital aid. Based on the emerging alliances, it is apparent that an opportunity for future democratisation in Syria is bleak.

Haerens and Zott indicate that as the Assad government extents its dependency on dictatorial associates, it continues to be secluded by Western countries and international administrations that embrace democracy (Haerens & Zott 2013). Through this, the country will continue to be further entrenched in relations that lessen the chances to moderate its dictatorial acts.

The adaptations represent a postponement of previous approaches of dictatorial advancement, but with a denser, armed, religious, exclusionary, and oppressive core. If the current government survives the conflict, the war will offer a chance to authoritarian allies like Russia and China to have an influence over the standings of an ultimate political settlement.

Through this, the chances of democratising Syria will be diminished. Generally, the conflict in the Middle East will enhance the interdependence of dictatorial governments in the region reducing the prospects of democracy in the region.

Conceptual approach

With respect to democratic theories, Lipset’s thesis asserts that certain conditions must be met for democracy to thrive (Stepan & Linz 2013). The conditions are economic growths illustrated by urbanisation, prosperity, and education. In this regard, for a democratic government to survive it must meet the above conditions. The conditions can only be met through progressive economic developments.

The conditions foster fairness with respect to socio-political relations and economic relations. As such, the difference between the rich and the poor is wider in poorer countries. Similarly, the income difference between skilled and semi-skilled labourers is wider in such countries.

In this respect, poor nations are less likely to be democratic compared to developed nations. Therefore, through modernisation the above social conditions can be addressed. By doing so, conditions that boost democracy are created.

Currently, the conflict in Syria has led to a decline in economic growth. The conflict has also affected education and health services. Therefore, the conditions necessary for the establishment of democracy are absent in the present day Syria.

If the war stops in the near future, the government in control will be required to first track economic developments if it needs to establish a democratic society. If the government fails to initiate development progress, the country’s prospects for a democratic society will be lost.

Equally, other democratic theories suggest that in some ways religion plays a role in suppressing democracy (Wucherpfennig & Deutsch 2009). The above has been witnessed in countries with religious conflicts.

Therefore, because the Syrian society has been divided into religious groups by the conflict the possibility for a democratic society in the near future has been reduced (Fortna & Huang 2012). When the conflicts end, a government that respects all religions should be established. Similarly, the state should be separated from religion for democracy to thrive.

Personal view

According to me, the on-going conflicts in the country do not offer an opportunity for future democratisation. I believe that the chance for future democratisation was stubbed out by the Assad administration’s fierce suppression and by the nation’s decline into a ruthless and progressive religious civil conflict.

If the demonstrators had succeeded in removing Assad from power at the start of the Arab Spring, the country could have been in a better place to institutionalise democracy. However, I believe the conflict has offered the drive for a development of dictatorial reformation, which has enhanced Assad government’s capability to endure demonstrations, suppress a fortified rebellion, and counterattack international sanctions.

As indicated earlier, I also believe that as the Assad government extents its dependency on dictatorial associates, it continues to be secluded by Western countries and international administrations that embrace democracy. The western countries had a better chance of enhancing democracy in Syria if they had assisted the rebels in removing Assad from power.

I believe that the failure of the western nations has enabled Assad to seek financial and military support from China and Russia. Because of this, the country will continue to be further entrenched in relations that lessen the chances to moderate its dictatorial acts.

If the Assad’s government survives the conflict, the war will offer a chance to authoritarian allies like Russia and China to have an influence over the standings of an ultimate political settlement.

Similarly, I believe that Syria will not achieve a democratic society in the near future because the conflicts have reduced the conditions necessary for democracy to thrive. The conditions foster fairness with respect to socio-political relations and economic relations.

When the war stops in the future, the government in control should enhance economic developments for it to boost a democratic society. In this respect, the continuing conflict does not offer an opportunity for future democratisation.

References

Dabashi, H 2012, The Arab spring, Zed Books, London.

Fortna, V. and Huang, R 2012, ‘Democratisation after Civil War: A Brush-Clearing Exercise 1’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 4, pp.801-808.

Habeeb, W 2012, The Middle East in turmoil, Greenwood, Santa Barbara, Calif.

Haerens, M. and Zott, L 2013, The Arab Spring, Greenhaven Press, Detroit.

Heydemann, S 2013, ‘Syria and the Future of Authoritarianism.’ Journal of Democracy, vol. 24, no. 4, pp.59-73.

Jarstad, A 2014, ‘Costly democracy: peacebuilding and democratisation after war’, Democratisation, vol. 21, no. 7, pp.1351-1352.

Joshi, M 2013. ‘Inclusive institutions and stability of transition toward democracy in post-civil war states’. Democratisation, vol. 20, no. 4, pp.743-770.

McCaffrey, P 2012, The Arab Spring. H.W. Wilson, Ipswich, Mass.

Olimat, M 2013, Arab Spring and Arab Women. Taylor and Francis Pub, Hoboken.

Romano, D. and Gurses, M 2014, Conflict, democratisation, and the Kurds in the Middle East, Taylor and Francis Pub, Hoboken

Stepan, A. and Linz, J 2013, ‘Democratisation theory and the Arab Spring’. Journal of Democracy, vol. 24, no. 4, pp.15-30.

Wucherpfennig, J. and Deutsch, F 2009. ‘Modernization and Democracy: Theories and Evidence Revisited’. Living Reviews in Democracy, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1-8.

Aims of the research

This paper aims to assert the reasons for the problematic transition into democracy in Middle Eastern countries. It will give a brief introduction to the political history of the region and better assessment of the system that Syria currently uses.

Secondly, it will address the attempts made by the United States in expanding democracy and heavily emphasizing it in this region. The analysis of the Arab Spring, its evolution and its outcomes, will be vital in understanding the challenges that introduction of a new ideology has created.

Ultimately, this paper will demonstrate why the current structure of the Middle East politically, socially, and structurally, will not sustain a democracy in the near future taking Syria as an example.

Research Background

Several countries in the Middle East such as Syria, Yemen, and Iraq experienced conflicts that have lasted for more than a decade. These conflicts are a result of weak democratic institutions or a complete degeneration of these structures.

For instance, in Syria, the democratic institution has been abused by different regimes due to the dynamic nature of that society (Akerlof & Chaney 2012).

In fact, the current president is in power for more than two decades and has never adopted an election system that can be described as free and fair since those who are supposed to implement control and supervision are executed, deported, or intimidated by the state machinery (Akerlof & Chaney 2012).

Therefore, there is need to explore the possibility of attaining democracy and its challenges in Syria to design policies that can reverse the trend mentioned above.

Research Question

In order to understand the underlying facts of the research paper, the research question will be:

1. Can democracy be practiced efficiently in the Middle East, especially in Syria?

Research objectives

The research objectives are summarised as:

1. To establish the perceptions of the Syrians on the current stage of democracy in Syria
2. To make recommendations and suggestions on how the current stage of democracy can be improved to make it more inclusive and people oriented.

Research Design and Data

Research Approach

For the purposes of this paper, I will use several types of sources ranging from the Internet to articles and personal interviews. For the history and background on the Middle Eastern governments, I will rely mostly on written material.

In analysing a more recent history, mainly the Arab Spring, I will use both written material and personal accounts that will be gathered through the interviews. Lastly, my focus on the challenges connected with democracy establishment in the region will be taken from mostly written sources.

Think-tanks and other institutions have various reports that provide analysis of the aspects of Middle Eastern countries which are deemed problematic to western values; these reports will assist me in developing my argument.

Appropriateness of using the method for study

The mixture of questionnaire and direct interview will present a number of pre-specified competencies and best practices based on the research topic. The researcher chose the qualitative approach because the scope of the research is focused, subjective, dynamic, and discovery oriented.

Moreover, this approach will create room for further analysis using different and divergent tools for checking the degree of error and assumption limits (Groves, Fowler, Coper, Lepkowski, Singer, & Tourangeau 2009).

Data collection and stages of research

This research will target 50 online respondents for Syria to establish the common perception towards the reasons for the current undemocratic system in Syria. The sampling criterion that will be used in the initial sampling plan represents the true picture of the activities on the ground.

The collected qualitative data will be coded and tested with the help of appropriate analysis tools. In the process, cross tabulation will be used to compare and contrast impressions held by the respondents on the state of democracy in Syria.

In order to quantify the relationship between the independent and dependent variables, analysis besides figures, charts, and tabular representation of correlation analysis will be implemented (De-Rada 2005).

Validity, reliability, and generalization of results

The sample of 50 respondents was chosen for the survey to present a clear, scientific, and verifiable criterion for systematic analysis. Reflectively, this enables to hold a comparative research, especially when qualitative design is adopted to give room for testing accuracy and degree of bias (Groves et al. 2009).

The online interviews will be conducted by the researcher because of common characteristics of culture, age, and country (George & Bennet 2005).

The researcher will email the questionnaires to the targeted participants and schedule Skype interview with those who are flexible and can afford a fifteen minutes break to answer the interview questions.

Importance of studying the topic

Understanding geo-political, social, and economic dynamics in the Middle East, especially in Syria, is important in relating to the perceived ideology that has become an impediment to democratic governance. This research is be significant in establishing the contribution of the non-democratic ideology in the current conflict in Syria.

Through social imagination, behaviour change is easy to understand and forces are easy to identify: positive or negative, it facilitates non-democratic tendencies in order to create alternative approaches to possible democratic governance in Syria and other countries in the Middle East that are currently controlled by undemocratic governments.

Literature Review

Many obstacles stand in the way between the current ideological stand of the Middle East and the attainment of democracy that reflects 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” are forbidden, is a concept that the United States attempts to disseminate on the Middle East for the past couple of decades (Hamid 2011, p. 46).

Through vast amounts of money and assistance, referred to as “democracy aid” (Toensing 2009, p. 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 and for hindering the abilities of the region to harbour terrorism (Stewart 2005).

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 2002, p. 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 2013).

After the attacks, foreign policy strategies shifted and targeted the cruelty and unjust practices that were occurring throughout the region under oppressive dictatorships.

Later, with the United States’ presence in Iraq, surrounding countries witnessed the assistance that America provided countries that relied on foreign powers in transition to democracy; although the effects of this transformation proved to be brutal, promises of a western ideology had never been more appealing (Chaney 2012).

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 (Lea 2011).

People rose in favour of a new government that would reflect their newfound realizations of electing their leaders and ultimately governing themselves. Demonstrations took place throughout the region and the most successful proved to be held in Tunisia and the key countries like Egypt, Libya, and Syria (Calabresi 2011).

The oil-rich countries generally stayed out of the conflicts, and some demonstrations were quieted after the ruling elite promised more state jobs and government assistance (Lea 2011). The remaining countries were either left in a continuing turmoil that is still going on or was suppressed by the relentless rulers.

This movement has left many questions about the extent to which democracy could be practiced in the region, especially in Syria, where this new system lasted less than a year. This is a clear example of the wariness to further promote a democracy in the Middle East (Carapico 2002).

The structure of basic societal norms and customs in Syria greatly inhibits the extent to which the system promoting freedom and equality as its main pillars can be practiced (Calabresi 2011).

The Middle Eastern societies inhibit particular groups of people from sharing the same privileges as others, reduce the importance of education to a secondary level, and have intertwined Islam with their governments, which create preference for one religion over the others.

Although 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 (Akerlof & Chaney 2012). When such practices are essential in the Middle Eastern culture, democracy will not function.

Statement of significance

In the years following the incidents of September 11^th, it seemed that the only outlet for preventing another terrorist attack would be to target the regime of the provokers. This method would alter the region and ultimately de-radicalise extremists, since their theories did not correspond with the proposed structure of democracy.

It is important to understand rationality behind this argument as well as recognize that restructuring of a system synonymous with Islam, could not be done simply by adding democracy.

By detailing the consequences of this wasted effort, foreign powers can alter the course of action to a more sensible approach which will become a rational one and can persevere realities of the country.

Ethical considerations

In the data collection phase of this study, the researcher will strive to uphold ethics appertaining to scientific research. This will be pursued by including an informed consent form in the interview and questionnaire, which units are being studied.

The interviewee will be required to read and consent to terms before the study is commenced (Miller, Mauthner, Birch, & Jessop 2012).

The researcher will ensure the confidentiality of the subjects by insisting on their anonymity, where each subject will be identified using a unique code as opposed to use of names (Blaxter, Hughes, & Malcolm 2005).

Reference List

Akerlof, A, & Chaney, E 2012, “Democratic Change in the Arab World, Past and Present, ” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 363-414.

Blaxter, L, Hughes, C, & Malcolm, T 2005, How to research, Open University Press, Berkshire, UK.

Calabresi, M 2011, “Is the Arab World Ready for Democracy?” Middle East Journal, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 363-414.

Carapico, S 2002, “Foreign Aid for Promoting Democracy in the Arab World.” Middle East Journal, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 379-395.

Chaney, E 2012, “Democratic Change in the Arab World, Past and Present.” Harvard Review, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 363-414.

De-Rada, V 2005, “Influences of questionnaire design on response to mail surveys.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 61-78.

George, A, & Bennet, A 2005, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences: How to Do Case Studies, MIT Press, Massachusetts.

Grappo, G 2013, Rethinking Democracy and Conflict in the Middle East, Europa Publications, London, United Kingdom.

Groves, M, Fowler, J, Coper, P, Lepkowski, M, Singer, E, & Tourangeau, R 2009, Survey Methodology, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Hamid, S 2011, “The Struggle For Middle East Democracy,” The American Univeristy in Cairo: School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 39-95.

Lea, D 2011, A Political Chronology of the Middle East, Europa Publications, London, United Kingdom.

Miller, T, Mauthner, M, Birch, M, & Jessop, J 2012, Ethics in qualitative research, SAGE Publications Limited, London, UK.

Stewart, J 2005, “The Greater Middle East and Reform in the Bush Administration’s Ideological Imagination.” American Geographical Review, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 400-424.

Tessler, M 2002, “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, pp. 35-56.

Toensing, C 2009, “The Democracy Agenda in the Arab World.” Middle East Journal, vol. 6, no. 13, pp. 79-95.

Introduction

Democracy is just a philosophy that exists in writings in most countries and has never been implemented. Democracy is very essential in any country to presume progress. Most countries are still struggling on the issue of democracy in politics. Many arguments have been put forward supporting democratic regimes against dictatorial regimes and vice versa. Democracy is highly resisted by leaders who wish to retain power.

Haiti is a Republic in Latin America which obtained independence in 19^th century. Haiti, however, has suffered dictatorship leadership for many years. From the survey conducted on Haiti concerning presidency leadership and elections, its clear that by 2002, Haiti was still struggling to be democratic. The then president, Aristide eliminated any possibility of opposition through use of force to threaten his opponents. The political misrule that had a lot of misery had attracted the international community intervention. Haiti is poor and underdeveloped and this can be attributed to the poor governance and ineffective democracy. During Aristide’s rule in the Haiti Republic from 2001, it was noted that there was undermined democracy and low economic development. Aristide had been elected democratically but instead of strengthening democracy had undermined it through his misrule.

Aristotle had mitigated political violence and intermediation of his opponents through unfair and fraudulent government elections since 1998 and this challenged Haiti’s democracy. In September 2001, U.S and other American states including Haiti signed inter-American Democratic charter that aimed to restore democracy in the states where elected governments had undermined democracy. However, it was not until 2003, Aristide’s government committed itself to mitigate democracy through promotion of security and confidence leading to free and fair elections. However, the government never implemented Aristide’s failure to strengthen democracy led to rampant increase in corruption and drug trafficking among those in his circle. Aristide recruited arm gangs to attack his opponents which robbed the country high revenue hence leading to further poverty.

Cape Verde on the other hand is seen to have developed democratically as compared to Haiti Republic. Democracy of cape Verde Republic is manifested by the elections fairness. From the electoral results from the previous elections in the last four electoral results years, there have equal chances of winning elections between the governing parties and opposition parties. Cape Verde is among the few African states where democracy has been achieved through with a lot of struggle. However, currently is described as democratically stable.

Literature Review

Scholar are seen to differ in their definition of democracy while some emphasise political features of the regime while others define democracy in terms of characteristics of society and economy. Some scholars argue that economy and society characteristic are causes of democracy but not attributes of democracy itself. Democracy presence involves equality in income and right to participate in free and fair elections. Democracy can be said to be achieved in a country when the opposition has equal chances of winning in an election. Democracy is closely related to economic development. Democracy is seen when dictatorship dies when a country becomes economically stable. With economic development, there is change in social structure into complexity and labour processes require cooperation of employees and thus new groups emerge and organize the complex structures. To ensure effective coordination, democracy becomes inevitable.

Lipset argues that when countries become developed then it is highly probable that they will become political democracies. In such, democracy is indigenous and results from development under authoritarianism. Dictatorships hardly succeed in developed nations for long. Countries like Italy, Germany, France and Netherlands which enjoyed incomes above $5000 did have dictatorship by 1950.

Transition from authoritarian rule in a country ensures free and fair competitive elections. The democrats’ actors are then required to push for structural changes which ensure stability of the democracy. Dictatorships are less likely to generate economic growth than democracies. Once a country becomes economically stable, its chances for democracy survival increase. However, from research, democracy can survive in poorer countries if they generate economic growth with a moderate rate of inflation. It has been noted that democracies in poor countries have higher probability of dying if income falls.

Research Design

The dependent variable in this study is democracy survival. Democracy is dependent on many factors for it to be attained and sustained. The independent variables therefore include wealth, economic performance, income inequality and international climate, political. Democracy is defined as regime where opposition is equal opportunity of winning. In democracy there is uncertainty as to which party will assume office since the elections are free and fair.

A country that is endowed with numerous wealth is more likely to be able to sustain democracy than poor economies. However, economic development continues up to a point of stagnation after which democracy will hardly survive.

Democracy is dependent on economic performance which is considered a sufficient condition for democracy if they generate economic growth with moderate rate of inflation. It’s argued that the faster the economy grows the more likely democracy is to survive. Inflation has been noted to threaten democratic stability. Economic performance is vital for the survival of democracy in less developed nations.

Democracy survival is dependent on income inequality in countries where income inequality is declining; democracy is more likely to survive as compared to countries high income inequality.

Democracy survival is highly dependent on international conditions. The larger proportion of democracies on the globe and in the regions in a particular year, the greater the likelihood for the survival of democracy in a particular country. Cape Verde has good international relations. Cape Verde pursues a non aligned foreign policy and seeks cooperation with all states. The international relations enhance the survival of Cape Verde’s democracy survival. Cape Verde is moderately poor as indicated by the presence of few resources and poor rainfall but the country’s control over inflation actually assist in ensuring democracy survival.

Discussion

Democracy is said to be present when there is equal chance for the opposition and the ruling party to occupy government offices through free and fair election contestation. It has been found from research that there are important factors that determine democracy survival. Both Haiti and Cape Verde have government regimes where the president is elected. From the research that is done by looking at the country’s inflation, economic growth, international relations, and country’s wealth, it’s possible to argue about the present state of democracy in the two countries.

From the study done in 224 regimes which included 101 democracies and 123 dictatorships, observing 40 transitions to dictatorship and 50 to democracy, it has been argued that economic development is very crucial for democracy to survive. Haiti has higher GDP of $R.85 billion as compared to Cape Verde $ 983 million. It has also been argued that good economic performance that is characterized by low inflation is conducive for democratic survival. From the government data obtained from both states, it’s clear that Haiti has higher GDP but the inflation rate is very high. From empirical research, economies with higher economic growth are more likely to sustain democracy.

Cape Verde which mostly depends on service industry for its revenue which accounts for 70% in the GDP has stable democratic regime. Stable democracy of Cape Verde can be attributed to the low inflation rate which is 0.4% according to 2005 government data. Cape Verde has moderate wealth as indicated by 2004 GDP per capita of $2, 091. Cape Verde has favourable annual real GDP growth rate of 6.6% according to 2005 government data which may have contributed greatly to the democracy survival and stability. The higher economic growth is accompanied by low inflation of 0.4% which has contributed to the sustained democracy. Cape Verde is relatively poor but the government has managed to control inflation rate which has promoted democracy survival.

Gallie has defined democracy as situation where politicians assume government offices through contested elections which are free of fraud combined with effective guarantees of civil liberties which include freedom of speech, assembly and association. It has been noted that there is no consensus in democracy definition. Classical definition of democracy is considered as root definition of democracy. Parliamentary democracy, multiparty democracy and federal democracy are all considered definitely democratic.

Cape Verde and Haiti are seen to practice parliamentary democracy, and both have multiparty. Haiti however seen to be having declining parliamentary democracy during Aristide who had been seen to be driver of democracy as an end of long period dictatorship. Aristide however, instead of cultivating democracy contributed to its decline. Haiti is characterised by low economic growth. Low economic growth may be attributed to the collapse of the tourism industry which created high unemployment.

Collapse of tourism industry due to AIDS pandemic declared in 1986 led to greater economic crisis characterised by high inflation. Currently, Haiti still has high inflation of 15.2 which threatens democracy survival especially with the low economic growth. Haiti is ported to have highest rates of AIDS, malnutrition, and infant mortality in the American state. These adversely affect the Haiti’s economy. Haiti is noted to have poor international relations which further contribute to the challenge of democracy sustainability. Democracy was established 1990 in Haiti which highly supported by international community. The government however faced many challenges which threatened democracy survival as indicated above. At the time when Aristide assumed leadership, tourism industry had collapsed due to AIDS pandemic and this affected the economy adversely. Aristide however, engaged in dictatorial leadership by recruiting arm gang to threaten his opponents and this declined democracy in the Haiti economy. The economy’s high inflation has not been checked.

Haiti country is poor with low income and this may have attributed to death of democracy when Aristide took over power yet he had been elected through free and fair elections. Poor governance in Haiti led to corruption increase which in turn led to greater income inequality and this limited survival of democracy. Use of violence to intimidate opponents actually contributed to death of democracy until US and other American states pressed for democracy cultivation. Haiti’s decline of democracy can also be attributed to the poor international relations. Violation of democracy of Haiti has attracted a lot of criticism from other American states. Dictatorial leadership by Aristide had received a lot of disapproval from other American states that enjoyed democracy. Haiti’s poor international relations that were mitigated by the long period dictatorship hamper democracy survival. Haiti has had dictatorial leadership until 1990 and this may have contributed to the poor economic growth.

Cape Verde on the contrary enjoys a stable democracy. Cape Verde is characterized by high economic growth and low inflation of 0.4 which may have contributed to the survival. Cape Verde which mainly depend on the service industry particularly transport has a policy that promote international relations with other countries. The good international relations is seen as main contribution to the democracy survival since most of the countries enjoy democratic regimes. Cape Verde enjoys parliamentary democracy and presidential democracy. The income disparity between the poor and the rich is high but this does not seem to affect the democracy much. Cape Verde is seen to have low unemployment which contributes to high economic growth and hence democracy survival.

Conclusion

There has been no consensus concerning neither democracy definition nor the process of democratization as many scholars have diverse views.¹³ It has been argued that affluence is a determinant of democracy and this has fit well in the Haiti and Cape Verde study of government regimes. It has been argued that in some inequality hamper democracy survival yet in Cape Verde there is a stable democracy even with the presence of big income discrepancy between rural people and urban people economic performance and international relations has been major determinants of democracy survival

Bibliography

1. Conteh-Morgan, Earl Democratization in Africa: The Theory and Dynamics of Political Transitions. Westport, CT Praeger.1997.
2. Richard, Joseph. Ed. State, Conflict and Democracy in Africa Boulder, CO Lynne Rienner. 1999.
3. Rosenberg, Robin and Johnpoll, Bernard. ed. Spain and Central America: Democracy and Foreign Policy. New York Greenwood Press. 1992.
4. Schaffer, Frederic. Democracy in Translation: Understanding Politics in an Unfamiliar Culture Ithaca, NY Cornell University Press. 1998.
5. Wesson, Robert. ed. Democracy: A Worldwide Survey. New York Praeger Publishers. 1987.
6. Whitehead, Laurence Democratization: Theory and Experience Oxford Oxford University Press. 2002.
7. Zielonka, Jan and Pravda, Alex Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe. Oxford Oxford University Press. 1999.
8. Zehra, Arat Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries Boulder, CO Lynne Rienner. 1991

Democracy has a long history, and its definition and perception changed many times. However, the core values have remained unchanged. Even though today democracy is understood differently from what Athenians thought about it, everybody agrees that democracy is about equality among people, liberty, respect for the law, and justice. Athenian democracy has protected the liberties and rights of the wealthy people in the first person, while modern democracy is about the fair treatment of people from all social levels. Recalling the speech of Thucydides, democracy is when the power is in the hands of not a minority but of the whole people when all are equal before the law when political life is free and open, when people are free and tolerant in their lives when citizens are obedient to the one they put in the position of authority when each individual is interested not only in his affairs but also in the affairs of the state. This was the Athenian democracy, and unfortunately, modern democracy is very different from the one practiced by ancient Greeks.

Athenian democracy was marked by the dedication to the republican state and by the subordination of the private life to public affairs and good for all. As Pericles noted, “the virtue of the individual is the same as the virtue of the citizen” (Held, p. 17). For many centuries to follow, democracy has become the rule of the game, and the role of every individual in the democratization process has been forgotten. Pure democracy can be established only when all citizens can and should participate in political life when they do not face the obstacles to involvement in public affairs based on wealth or rank.

Plato defined democracy as the form of society that treats all men as equal, whether they are equal or not, and ensures that every individual is free to do as he likes (Held, p. 29). This definition, which is easily understood by modern society, has not always been the rule of the game for many countries. Some nations praised it, while others degraded it. Democratization has been the strong impulse in some states, while at the same time, it has been very weak in others. The long history of democratization gave birth to the five distinct democratic politics: liberal, partial, authoritarianism, direct, and participatory democracy (Potter, p. 3). Britain in the 1980s is identified as a liberal democracy (evidence of accountable government, fair elections, civil-political rights, and plethora of organizations). Iraq in the 1990s is identified as an authoritarian state (no competitive elections, insecure civil rights, and non-existent independent organizations). Mexico in 1975 is characterized as partial democracy (absence of free elections and restrictions on the right to freedom of expression). Thus, throughout history, some of the nations saw democracy as the ideal form of politics, while other nations adopted only some elements of democratic government.

The period of 1760 – 1919 is known as the long nineteenth century and is marked as the era when democracy has been rediscovered. In the early 1760s, not a single state was democratic in the current understanding of it. Within one hundred years, democratic regimes were established in Britain, the United States of American, British colonies, and Western and Northern Europe. The industrial revolution was the driving force of rapid democratization because it transformed the nature of economic power and social stratification in societies of the whole world (Potter, p. 46). Industrialization has led to the emergence of industrial capitalism, industrialized welfare, and mass literacy. Thus, people gained increasing power and political and economic mobility. Ruling authorities felt the pressure for power-sharing and control of the state from previously not active social levels.

19^th-century democratization did not occur equally in different parts of the world, and not all states have adopted truly democratic principles. For example, despite the numerous democratic advancements in the United States, women, blacks, Native Americans, and immigrants were excluded from the democratic process. The literacy tests were introduced as part of the voter registration process (Potter, p. 48), and taking into account that the vast majority of the American population was illiterate in the 19^th century, very few were granted the right to vote. Britain, in contrast, was more responsive to the needs and rights of the poorer population and it is justifiable referred to as the earliest modern democracy. As the result of the massive protests, suffrage was expanded to working-class representatives, and by 1885, the first equitable distribution of parliamentary constituencies was established.

Even though democratic politics was different in all parts of the 19^th-century world, democratization was the result of some form of revolutionary activity. As Barrington Moore described in his book, “some societies achieve a form of democracy through a bourgeois revolution (France and Britain), others experience a reactionary revolution from above (creation of authoritarian dictatorships in Germany and Japan), some societies achieve democracy through peasant revolutions from below (socialism in China and Russia)” (Potter, p. 54). Therefore, 19^th-century democratization occurred because people of all social levels were not satisfied with the existing political regimes and fought to improve their political and economic life.

Greek democracy emergence was not the result of the single event as well, nor was it embedded in the Athenian culture. It was the result of the emergence of economically and independent military citizens in the context of small communities, which nurtured the democratic way of life. Communities were small, communication was easy, and news spread quickly, political participation of all members was unavoidable because the impact of social or political changes was immediate. In addition, there were no obstacles posed by large societies to political participation (Held, p. 15). Because of this, the idea was equality and participation were part of early Athenian community culture.

Direct participation was not the principle of government for Athenians; it was the form of life. The government was based on the proper discussions when everybody was guaranteed an equal and unrestricted right to speak in the sovereign assembly. Athenians were much influenced by the writings of classic philosophers. For example, Aristotle wrote that liberty was about ruling and being ruled in turn and about living as one chooses. “Equality is an equal share of the practice of ruling” (Held, p. 20). Thus, equality is the practical basis for liberty. At the same time, Athenian democracy was marked by the principle of exclusivity. Only Athenian men over the age of 20 were eligible for active citizenship, women had no political rights, and their civil rights were much limited.

In summary, the Athenian democracy was based on the principle that citizens should enjoy political equality in order that they are free to rule and be ruled in turn. Key features included direct participation in legislative and judicial activities, multiple methods of candidate selection, no distinction of privilege to differentiate ordinary citizens and public officials, payment for public service, and short terms of office for all. Even though citizenship was restricted to a small group of people, excluding women and foreigners, Athenian democracy has laid the foundation of democratic government prevailing in the world today.

The rebirth of democracy as understood by modern people was celebrated by Machiavelli, who wrote that people are more prudent and stable and have better judgment than a prince (the ruler); that the popular opinion enables to see foresee the good and the evil (Machiavelli, p. 28). Adams expanded the idea of Machiavelli to include the primary definition of democracy: the form of government that communicates ease, comfort, security, and happiness to the greatest number of persons and to the greatest degree (Adams, p. 31). Similar to Athenian, modern democracy is founded on the principles of introducing knowledge among people, inspiring them to become free men with dignity and interest in political life.

John Mill, the English philosopher, living in the 19^th century, has stressed the superiority of democracy over other forms of government and noted that it enables individuals to speak up for their own interests and it educates and improves the citizens by providing them with experience of self-rule. Walzer, the modern political philosopher, introduced the concept of private life in liberal societies and noted that it has to be subject to public control. His writings are still debated by democrats, and public opinion is divided on the issue of whether their private life is subject to public control.

Democracy has survived a long history, and even though the life of people has much changed since the time of Athenian democracy, many elements have remained valuable for modern societies. Citizenship is no longer framed based on sex, ethnic origin, or race; liberties are equally granted to all society representatives despite their social level; the main law protects private life and property. Every state has its own democracy adjusted to the country’s history and national culture. Nevertheless, democracy is understood as freedom for all, equality, and protection by law. Democracy is the rule of people by people when every person has the opportunity to govern his own life and decide on governmental issues.

Works Cited

1. Classical democracy Athens by David Held Potter, David, David Goldblatt, Margaret Kiloh and Paul Lewis. 1997. Democratization
2. Adams (reading six) from reading pack
3. Machiavelli (reading five) from reading pack

The nation’s paths to democracy are discussed here, with reference to the term “transition.” Nations must overcome significant changes in politics and ideology, and these aspects can prolong the process and bring many associated challenges. The problem is that those nations that did not start the transition to democracy during the twentieth century can potentially face many barriers to success in the process because of a long history of developing through dictatorship (Masoud 76). Libya is one such nation, where dictator rule damaged any possible premise of democracy.

Muammar Qaddafi was killed in 2011, the dramatic outcome of the armed conflict that went on for several months (Blanchard 3). While the killing of Qaddafi was perceived as the end of decades of dictatorship and the beginning of a new political era (Boduszyński and Pickard 87), the expected political changes were not observed in the country. Currently, Libya is only still transitioning to democracy, and its path is more complicated than the trajectory taken by countries like Tunisia, Egypt, and Pakistan.

The important question is why Libya’s transition to democracy is associated with more barriers than was the case of these nations, who won their democracy as a result of similar political conflicts. It is important to discuss how Libya’s struggle against dictatorship prevented the country from quick political changes and how this nation’s transition to democracy is different from the experiences of Tunisia, Egypt, and Pakistan.

The Issue of Transitioning to Democracy

The transition to democracy is viewed by researchers as a process during which leaders need to realize certain changes in political, legislative, and social systems in order to guarantee the democratic development of the state (Heydemann 195; Ishay 374). Thus, just because a dictator is removed does not mean the situation can immediately lead to democracy; certain concerted efforts must be made. The state must pass through the problematic period of transitioning to a new political order, an idea that is practical in nature.

According to Diamond, et al., “The so-called concept of transitions to democracy is not really a concept, and it certainly wasn’t a paradigm; it was just a category or a set of ideas about how democracy might happen” (89). Therefore, a series of democratic transitions should include concrete practical steps, including “expansion of the middle class,” stabilization of “new democratic institutions,” a focus on economic development and accentuation of social values and human rights, as well as the development of “higher standards of education” (Abdelali 200). To succeed and build a democratic state, countries such as Libya should rely on the experience of states that have completed the process of transitioning to a new order and then analyze what patterns might work and what steps to take.

The Case of Libya

Qaddafi spent nearly forty years building his authoritarian regime, and during that time the country seemed to not change significantly in terms of economic and social progress. Boose assumes that Qaddafi’s dictatorship was based on developing the scenario when people “were focused on their survival and not concerned with government” (313). As a result, the country had no strong political and social leaders to oppose Qaddafi. Therefore, the failure to achieve democratic progress in Libya was a result of the absence of “sustained opposition or pro-democracy movements that lead to a meaningful transition to democracy” (Boose 313).

After Qaddafi’s death, society faced new problems of developing new governmental institutions and rebuilding the structure of the state, because the transition to democracy would be impossible with remaining references to the political legacy of the dictator (Boduszyński and Pickard 87). Heydemann agrees with other researchers that the problems Libya had with transitioning to democracy were based on the fact that the country has no developed state apparatus (197). In addition, the country has no developed civil society to continue reforms that were initiated after Qaddafi’s death.

Currently, Libya has installed a system known as an electoral democracy, but this type of democracy cannot be regarded as liberal. The problem is that in Libya, military force is still influential, and military rule can impact elections in the country (Dalacoura 67). Instead of focusing on the development of rule of law in Libya, political parties concentrate on the fight for certain spheres of impact in the country (Darwisheh 12). However, the problem is that Libya has no developed tradition of an effective political competition based on a system of fair elections (Omar 68).

As a result, involved parties cannot collaborate in their work on the constitution, and they demonstrate the presence of “persisting problems in political culture” while discussing political issues that need to be resolved (Omar 77). While explaining challenges experienced by Libya on its path to developing a civil society and an effective system of elections, Omar notes that “most of the public do not understand the relative benefits of elected and appointed bodies, and it seems short-sighted to bind the prospects of the democratic transition to the shifting opinion of an uninformed electorate” (78). Therefore, it is important to note that the Libya’s problem also rests in the lack of the population’s education and experience which are necessary to adequately assess and compare the current political order with the desired democratic system and then to draw relative conclusions.

It is possible to conclude that the population in Libya could not win its struggle against Qaddafi without the support of international forces and various active interventions. It is thus important to refer to Boose’s words, who stated that the revolution in Libya “was more of a domino effect from Tunisia and Egypt” (314). The reason is that Libya had no adequate basis to initiate and conduct such a democratic revolution by means of civilians or to focus on achieving further future outcomes.

As a result, the current achievements of this country, on its path to democracy, are not many in comparison to Tunisia or to other countries like Egypt and Pakistan (Blanchard 8). The absence of strong opposition to authoritarian powers explains why Libya’s path to democracy is so riddled with barriers. There exist no civil society organizations in the country. There are no strong democratic leaders who can direct the nation to democracy while referring to and relying on previous experiences because, in contrast to Tunisia and Egypt, Libya has no such examples in either its immediate or distant past (Boduszyński and Pickard 88).

From this perspective, it is important to compare the milestones and barriers that were overcome by Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Pakistan when they turned toward democracy. In order to understand the nature and background of both similarities and differences in these states’ paths, it is necessary to discuss each case separately.

The Path to Democracy in Tunisia

The Arab Spring had its start in Tunisia where the transition to democracy was based on developing the revolution in order to overthrow the regime of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. The story of Tunisia’s struggle against its dictator is viewed as a successful one because this state demonstrated solid progress toward democracy (Lesch 63). Furthermore, Boose notes that “the Tunisian state was among the most progressive among the Arab world” (314). Other researchers also support this vision. According to Bellin, “Tunisia appears to be going in a more promising direction, making real progress toward building the foundations of democracy” (2).

In spite of the fact that Ben Ali’s regime was based on the elites, government institutions in the country were not corrupted as significantly as they were in other states living under similar authoritarian regimes (Darwisheh 3). According to Bellin, the elite can play a key role when it is time to rebuild governmental institutions.

The researcher states that “at critical junctures when long-standing political institutions have broken down (such as right after the overthrow of an authoritarian regime), there is a moment when human agency plays a pivotal role in determining a country’s political trajectory” (Bellin 2). From this perspective, the elite in Tunisia can be perceived as a support system for the further implementation of democratic improvements in the political system of the country.

In reference to the above ideas, it is also important to note that the work of government entities in Tunisia was challenged after the collapse of Ben Ali’s regime, but these institutions could “easily be shaped democratically, rather than having to build and create democratic institutions out of nothing” (Boose 313). Researchers also state that the success of the revolution in Tunisia is anchored in the fact that the military took a neutral position—and that the opposing forces did not significantly influence the process (Darwisheh 3; Lesch 65).

Thus, according to Lesch, “The small Tunisian military remained outside of politics and developed a reputation for integrity” (Lesch 65). In this context, the leaders who took power in Tunisia were able to build the groundwork for the development of a democratic state. In addition, success in establishing the new government was also based on valuable dialogue between parties (Bellin 24). Consequently, the determined position of the military and dialogue between political parties contributed critical momentum to the Tunisian transition to democracy.

The Experience of Egypt

In Egypt, the majority of the population supported the Arab Spring ideals, and Hosni Mubarak ultimately chose to resign under the impact of mass protests. It was expected that the developed civil society in the country would influence further progress toward democracy (Masoud 82). However, after February 2011, political groups had significant differences in their visions of the state’s democratic path. The social division also affected development of the country’s new political order (Stepan and Linz 23). Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the Egyptian’s transition to democracy was more complicated compared to the Tunisian scenario, certain critical results were achieved.

Egyptians demonstrated their interest in the establishment of a democratic government even by way of significant changes that could be associated not only with political changes but also with religious and social alterations (Masoud 83). As a result, in 2013, a new wave of challenge and struggle against the ruling regime was observed, and the military combined efforts to oppose the Muslim Brotherhood. Consequently, Mohammed Mursi, regarded by the international community as a democratic leader, was arrested.

In his turn, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi took the position of president of the country (Lesch 63). On one hand, the transformational outcomes of the revolution were negative because the current regime in Egypt was achieved as a result of a military coup (Heydemann 198). On the other hand, Islamists’ principles proclaimed by representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood were deemed by society to be radical and accused of preventing the country from following the path to democratic reforms (Ishay 375). Therefore, at the current time, it is still too early to draw stark conclusions regarding democratic achievements in Egypt.

Although democratic development in Egypt is associated with many challenges, it is possible to also point out and concentrate on remarkable positive changes in the country. The democratic reform here was focused on achieving “political contestation, freedom of speech, and police accountability” among other tasks (Dalacoura 73).

Furthermore, political leaders in Egypt focused on strengthening security in order to guarantee the stabilization of powers in the country. Still, the process was affected by a new uprising and coup; as a result, it is almost impossible to forecast true stability in Egypt in the near future, even though Abdel Fatah al-Sisi has emphasized the country’s focus on continuing democratic reforms. It will be critical to observe going forward how this Egyptian leader will balance the army’s strong position with the development of a fresh democratic course for the country.

Pakistan on the Way to Democracy

The process of transitioning to democracy is also important to discuss in regards to the experiences of Pakistan. The country’s path to this dramatic change was long because the first democratic principles were proclaimed in the 1940s, but the realization of these edicts became possible only in 2013 (Shah 1009). Of course, the military played a critical role in the country’s development, and from 1999 to 2007, Pakistan was headed by the authoritarian leader General Pervez Musharraf. A critical change in regime was achieved finally in 2008, the result of the Pakistan People’s Party’s activities.

What is more important is that the military coup led to the destabilization of the government, and it became impossible to expect development of a democratic leadership for the country (Shah 1008). In spite of the fact that the regime leaded by the Pakistan People’s Party changed out the Musharraf regime, the population still did not observe any real differences in terms of democracy.

The true transition to democracy was realized only in 2013 when the new government, oriented to democratization, proclaimed the beginning of its first reforms. Currently, state leaders work to overcome problems with corruption, to strengthen the governance, to address economic shortages and social problems, and to increase public trust in their democratic government (Shah 1010). These steps are important in order to finish the process of successfully transitioning to democracy.

Comparing Transition to Democracy in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Pakistan

The full-scale civil war in Libya prevented the country from rapidly achieving democracy and also added to the further destruction of state institutions (Heydemann 193; Omar 77). The development of violent conflict in Libya demonstrated that the state did not follow the scenario that was observed in Tunisia or in Egypt. In comparison to Libya, Tunisia had a background solid enough to order quick change to the prevailing political order in the country’s move to a democratic platform.

According to Boose, the advantages for Tunisia lie in the fact that it “has the Arab world’s best education system, a large middle class, and very robust civil society rooted in a strong labor movement” (314). In her work, Bellin added more factors to this list, stating that the fact that Tunisian society “is ethnically homogeneous, and the country is closely linked economically to Europe” also contributed to the state’s progress (1). Libya can also be cited as boasting a homogeneous society, but this fact did not prevent the population from being involved in the violent civil war.

Differences that are typical of Libya’s and Tunisia’s paths to democracy can also be found in the first steps that were taken in both states post-revolution. Although military conflicts preceded the change to democracy in both nations, more attention should be paid to the discussion of initial efforts that were made to maintain order and achieve success (Boose 313).

In Tunisia, the first elections to the National Constitutional Assembly that were conducted after the revolution were comparably “free and fair” (Bellin 5). On the contrary, in Libya, two free elections did not produce any results that served to “erect a functioning state amid the ruins of Qaddafi’s regime” (Masoud 76). The problem is in the fact that the last parliamentary elections were conducted in Libya in the 1960s (Blanchard 12; Omar 77). The state’s political structure was not prepared for such significant changes in the political order, and there was no background to support dramatic transitions to the new rule.

One more difference is the approach to developing the civil society in these states. In their work, Stepan and Linz pay attention to the fact that Tunisia achieved better results while transitioning to democracy because the idea of the civil society or state was actively developed across the country (19). This idea stood in opposition to the vision of the religious state. On the contrary, after the Egyptian revolution, the principles of the religious state began to play more vital roles in the country in comparison to the ideas of the civil state.

However, Stepan and Linz also note that although the civil society “can play a vital role in the destruction of an authoritarian regime … for the construction of a democracy, one needs a political society” (23). The religious forces remained powerful even after deposing Qaddafi, and Libya became the arena for a struggle between Islamists and anti-Islamists despite the fact that society there is rather homogenous.

Following the pattern of Egypt in developing conflicts based on religious principles, fighting between the representatives of opposing political camps developed into a civil war (Dalacoura 65); as a result, while evaluating the current rule in the country, Masoud states that “Libya seems not to include anything resembling a functioning democracy” (76). State leaders should overcome the consequences of civil war and then propose rules based on democratic principles in order to stabilize the situation in the country.

It is also important to note that in Tunisia, the parties and new political leaders demonstrated an ability to collaborate while making decisions regarding the state’s political structure and development of its constitution (Boose 314). In 2013, the parties agreed that the country would develop according to the principles of the presidential-parliamentary system. They also achieved a working consensus regarding the development of the constitutional process (Bellin 5).

In Libya, the consequences of the revolution were opposite because the collapse of the dictatorship revealed the impossibility of getting political actors to collaborate or to achieve any consensus in their work. Lesch notes that Libya “had to start virtually from zero to create political structures and parties” because, during the years of dictatorship, the parties could not develop appropriately (67). As a result, Libya needs more time to complete its transition to democracy and to restructure toward a political system model that is working well for both Tunisia and Egypt.

It is possible to explain the prolonged transitional period observed in Libya via references to its past and to the absence of specific skills in political leaders which are necessary to promote radical change in the state. Boduszyński and Pickard pay attention to the fact that in contrast to “the less sweeping turnovers that occurred in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen, Libya has experienced a nearly complete rejection of all things past” (87). From this point, numerous perspectives became open to Libya, but currently, state leaders do not have the required capabilities to achieve any remarkable results, and more efforts should be made in order to change the situation.

In comparing the outcomes of revolution in Libya and Egypt, it is possible to state that Egypt succeeded in conducting legislative and presidential elections during the first months after the 2011 revolt. Then, in 2012, a draft of the new constitution was adopted (Lesch 67). In spite of the fact that the new regime proposed another draft of the constitution in 2014, it is possible to focus on efforts made by political leaders who came after Mubarak in order to assure the legislature in the country.

Nevertheless, the problem lies in the “extreme polarization” of social and political forces in Egypt (Lesch 68). The innate conflict between Islamists and liberals requires seeking deeper solutions, and in this case, it is possible to expect a successful transition to democracy. Libya can refer to the experiences of Egypt while regulating social and religious conflicts in the country. It is also possible to refer to the experience of Pakistan while continuing in the transitional process in Libya, because the risks of retaining democracy as the core target even without achieving it for many years can become a reality for the country, as it was in the case of Pakistan.

Perspectives of Libya’s Development as a Democratic State

While referring to the progress of Tunisia, Egypt, and Pakistan as states that continue to build their democracies, it is possible to apply certain recommendations to the case of Libya in its quest to become a democratic state. The success of Tunisia in achieving initial results on its road to democracy demonstrates the importance of education and of the formation of civil society for the country’s progress.

Therefore, the experience of Tunisia in its transition indicates that the population of Libya requires the civic education in order to avoid the situation when the government substitutes the principles of liberal democracy with false norms that are oriented to guaranteeing and providing power only to certain political actors (Omar 69).

From this perspective, the largest percentage of citizens in the country should have access to general education, and moreover, the public should be educated regarding consequences of a variety of political courses. The focus should be on increasing the public’s awareness regarding their social positions and regarding the many benefits of democracy (Masoud 76). These changes are important in order to prepare the population of Libya to participate in what should be competitive and transparent democratic elections.

However, in order to guarantee that succeeding elections will be fair and credible, it is necessary to pay more attention to institutionalization in Libya. This practice is important to achieving success in realizing the constitutional process and in stabilizing the situation across the country. The newly developed regime in Libya should be institutionalized in order to accentuate the role of governmental institutions in the state’s progress. The problem again lies in the fact that Libya does not so far have stable governmental institutions installed and in the fact that the country cannot follow the patterns of Egypt and Pakistan where institutionalization is only just developing (Heydemann 193).

The political leaders’ task is to build new institutions in a timely manner since this factor is fundamental for the successful transition to democracy. According to Boduszyński and Pickard, “Libya lacks the legal and political frameworks that could support elections and public engagement in the constitution-making process” (89). As a result, institutionalization and the building of a strong political framework are the first important steps that should be taken in order to succeed in conducting democratic elections and in adopting the constitution.

The next step that Libya should take is to conduct elections according to the principles of liberal democracy. The elections that followed the military conflict post-2011 did not help to realize the main goal of achieving democracy in the state, and that caused the transitional period to be prolonged (Darwisheh 14). It is important to note that in Tunisia, elections provided the public with an opportunity to test how democratic rules could work in practice.

In Egypt, elections indicated faults and problems in the existing political system; therefore, the current goal for the country is to revise the approach in play in order to elect presidents to the General National Congress (Boduszyński and Pickard 88). Libya should also focus on the fact that society in the country is comparably homogeneous, and it is possible to expect positive changes on the path to democracy while involving civilians in the process of electing government representatives.

The other step is a focus on development of the constitution. In spite of the fact that Tunisia, Egypt, and Pakistan did not succeed in adopting a new constitution, that only drafts were approved, the constitution-building process should be discussed as important for any transition to democracy. Libya should concentrate on leading this process to its logical end. In addition, state leaders need to focus on maintaining security in the country in order to create a strong foundation for further change (Blanchard 4). The examples of Tunisia, Egypt, and Pakistan also emphasize the importance of gaining international support and of the development of economic relations; therefore, Libya needs to gain benefits by developing stable governmental institutions and by focusing on building connections with foreign countries.

Conclusion

The transition to democracy is a process that brings with it many obstacles; however, it seems that Libya faced even more significant challenges than did other Arab states and Pakistan during its move toward democracy. The problem is in the fact that in contrast to Tunisia and Egypt, the revolution in Libya quickly transformed into a violent military conflict. The army was also an important force in Pakistan, but in Libya, the conflict developed into civil war, which in turn resulted in devastation and crisis.

As a result of the war, it was found that Libya had no real pattern in place toward developing as a liberal or a democratic state. In this context, the country’s path is similar to Pakistan’s, but the actual situation in the country was even more complicated. In Tunisia, the institutional base was prepared for change, and there were in Egypt and Pakistan the building blocks for democratic development.

In Libya, however, the rule of Qaddafi destroyed the political system, as well as the governmental system, and the transition to democracy remained a question for further debates. In order to overcome the current barriers and to achieve positive results in developing a new political order, Libya needs to refer to the experiences of Tunisia, Egypt, and Pakistan. Thus, attention must be paid to institutionalization, to the development of civil society, and to the completion of the constitution-building process.

Works Cited

Abdelali, Abdelkader. “Wave of Change in the Arab World and Chances for a Transition to Democracy.” Contemporary Arab Affairs 6.2 (2013): 198-210. Print.

Bellin, Eva. “Drivers of Democracy: Lessons from Tunisia.” Middle East Brief 75.1 (2013): 1-11. Print.

Blanchard, Christopher. “Libya: Transition and US policy.” Current Politics and Economics of Africa 7.1 (2014): 1-19. Print.

Boduszyński, Mieczystaw, and Duncan Pickard. “Libya Starts from Scratch.” Journal of Democracy 24.4 (2013): 86-96. Print.

Boose, Jason William. “Democratization and Civil Society: Libya, Tunisia and the Arab Spring.” International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 2.4 (2012): 310-321. Print.

Dalacoura, Katerina. “The 2011 Uprisings in the Arab Middle East: Political Change and Geopolitical Implications.” International Affairs 88.1 (2012): 63-79. Print.

Darwisheh, Housam. “Trajectories and Outcomes of the ‘Arab Spring’: Comparing Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria.” IDE Publications 12.56 (2014): 1-22. Print.

Diamond, Larry, Francis Fukuyama, Donald Horowitz, and Marc Plattner. “Reconsidering the Transition Paradigm.” Journal of Democracy 25.1 (2014): 86-100. Print.

Heydemann, Steven. “Explaining the Arab Uprisings: Transformations in Comparative Perspective.” Mediterranean Politics 21.1 (2016): 192-204. Print.

Ishay, Micheline. “The Spring of Arab Nations? Paths toward Democratic Transition.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 39.5 (2013): 373-383. Print.

Lesch, Ann. “Troubled Political Transitions: Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.” Middle East Policy 21.1 (2014): 62-74. Print.

Masoud, Tarek. “Has the Door Closed on Arab Democracy?” Journal of Democracy 26.1 (2015): 74-87. Print.

Omar, Manal. “Libya: Legacy of Dictatorship and the Long Path to Democracy.” Elections and Democratization in the Middle East. Ed. Mahmoud Hamad and Khalil al-Anani. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. 67-87. Print.

Shah, Aqil. “Constraining Consolidation: Military Politics and Democracy in Pakistan (2007–2013).” Democratization 21.6 (2014): 1007-1033. Print.

Stepan, Alfred, and Juan Linz. “Democratization Theory and the ‘Arab Spring’.” Journal of Democracy 24.2 (2013): 15-30. Print.

Introduction

An article titled “The United States Should Promote Democracy in Africa” provides a transcript of the speech given to the US Senate by Feingold Russ in which he argues that the United States should actively promote the process of building democracy in numerous African countries that are currently struggling because of the erosion of freedoms. According to Feingold’s website, he represented the State of Wisconsin in the US Senate for eighteen years (Russ for Wisconsin par. 2).

In his capacity as a senator, he has visited 72 counties of the state providing support for Wisconsinites and promoting their rights (Russ for Wisconsin par. 4). Taking into consideration the fact that Feingold has served as Special Envoy of the United States for the Great Lakes Region of Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo at the State Department, it could be argued that he has enough authority to speak about the state of democracy in Africa (Russ for Wisconsin par. 7).

Analysis

The senator notes that both previous and current administrations have been committed to the task of assisting every nation that is moving towards sustainable democracy. He stressed that even though many African nations have achieved significant democratic strides, there is still a serious threat to the existence of the representative government of the continent (Feingold 38). Taking into consideration that elections are an essential part of democracy, it is necessary to monitor the election process in numerous African countries in order to minimize the harmful influence of wealthy interests on voting outcomes.

Feingold expresses his concern over the state of democracy in Darfur which has not held multiparty elections in 24 years (Feingold 38). The senator also highlights the political situation in Ethiopia which is notorious for reducing democratic space since 2005 (Feingold 38). He is especially worried about a law called the Charities and Societies Proclamation that has been passed by the Ethiopian Parliament.

The law imposes restrictions on the funding of civil society groups acting within the country and makes it illegal to receive more than ten percent of subsidy that comes from abroad. Another law that is of particular concern to the senator is the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation that uses the extremely broad definition of terrorism making it possible to include illegitimate all forms of protest against the autocratic regime (Feingold 39).

Taking into consideration that the United States spends hundreds of millions of dollars on the promotion of democratic process in Ethiopia, it is vitally important to convince the country’s leaders to release political prisoners and revoke restrictive measures on human rights. Feingold also argues that Burundi is on its way to becoming a functioning democracy. The country has been able to achieve significant progress in moving towards the representative government after the devastating events of the1990s related to political violence that took the lives of more than 100, 000 people (Feingold 40). However, the peace process in Burundi might be held back because of the illegal actions of the National Intelligence Service that tries to suppress political opposition.

Conclusion

The United States should actively promote the process of building democracy in numerous African countries that are currently struggling because of the erosion of freedoms. It is obvious to me that without American support of the institutions promoting democratic values and opposing existing autocratic and oligarchic regimes in Africa, many countries on the continent would not be able to determine their own destiny in a fair manner.

Works Cited

Feingold, Russ. “The United States Should Promote Democracy in Africa.” Africa 22.1 (2012): 37-41. Print.

Russ for Wisconsin. About Russ. n.d. Web.

Introduction

The following essay tries to answer the question that whether or not Economic and political liberalism can lead to democracy, but not the other way around. The essay also examines the importance of the concept of economic and political liberalism and the relationship between liberalism and democracy.

However it is important to define the terms liberalism, economic liberalism, political liberalism as well as democracy so as to have an understanding of what they entails. Liberalism encompasses the concept of equal rights as well as individual liberty. Liberalism was as a result of the classical liberalism as well as the social liberalism which existed in the eighteenth century and ninetieth century respectively.

Economic liberalism refers to the economic philosophy which supports the concept of private ownership of property. Political liberalism on the other hand entails the freedom that the people are given to be involved with the decisions in society and so the individuals are thus allowed to exercise their constitutional rights.

Democracy refers to a concept that is applied by the government and in which case power is indirectly held by citizens usually in a free and independent electoral system.

Importance of democracy and liberalism

Liberal International which is a world wide alliance of liberal institutions as well as political parties was formed in 1947 and its main aim is to establish the cross-cultural connections across the globe. The federation has with time managed to ensure liberty of the individuals.

For instance, the federation’s establishment of a judiciary that is independent and free, freedom of speech and association among others are some of its achievements. Liberalism has changed the political environment in that it has translated it from dictatorship to a constitutional one. The other achievement is boosting of free markets through promotion and geographical expansion.

Liberalism is also associated with globalization and many scholars believe that globalization is a by product of liberalism that was introduced in 18^th century. Democracy on the other hand is being viewed by scholars around the world to be the ideal form of political governance.

This is due to the fact that the people’s rights are usually safeguards as a result of democracy. It ensures that there is peaceful coexistence among the individuals and this in turn enhances the economic development (Berman 139).

Relationship between liberalism and democracy

Charles Boix who was a scholar argued that economic liberalism is created with democracy and usually leads to productive processes, wealth generation and most importantly it enhances the propensity and well being of the society.

He argues that most successful countries around the world practices democracy in their governance. These countries which practices democracy have their per capita income of over $7,000 which is in contrast with those who are governed by dictators (Boix 178).

The position of liberals and democrats

Liberalism is concerned with the assignment of freedom as well as maintenance of human dignity as much as possible in any social situation. Liberalism means freedom for all without any form of discrimination to individuals of any given race, color, religion group etc. Both liberty and equality complements one another and they do not conflict one another at all.

One’s freedom limits the freedom of another and this implies that liberalism as a theory in political science is ideal for study. Abundance of life is only achievable where there is freedom and therefore life and freedom are reasonably inseparable. Therefore, liberalism discourages any act of violence as much as possible and it thus offers justice to the innocent.

Liberals also recognizes that life and society in general are subject to changes from time to time and therefore they try to come up with new concepts regarding liberalism each and every time so as to keep in track with the changing dynamism.

Though conflicts exist between liberalism on one hand and democracy on the other hand, the two are usually complementary. Democracy which is a type of government involves the majority rule. Democracy could be perceived as oppressive especially where the minority groups are oppressed by the majority where majority groups dominate.

Contradictions between Economic liberalism and democracy

The concept that ‘economic and political liberalism can lead to democracy, but not the other way around’ is not true. Many countries around the world started practicing democracy in their governance recently after observing the United States and European nations practice it.

The concept of democracy has thus led to violence and instability particularly in Middle East and the main cause of instability and violence is the fact that when democracy arises before the preconditions for economic liberalism are met, then the rule of law will be violated and hence democracy will not be attained. The political institutions that enhance democracy are deemed to be necessary before democracy can occur.

Such institutions include organized parties, professional news media and the rule of law. Farid and Robert emphasizes that the economic as well political liberalism are not the main factors that must be present for democracy to exist and so, there is need to consider other factors such as electing good leaders instead of dictators(Berman 141).

Problems are bound to arise once a country practices democracy for the first time. There are those countries which do not have history as far as liberalism is concerned and therefore, experimenting democracy implies that those leaders who get into power illegally will tend to counter democracy at the expense of their power.

The leaders can thus decide to cause political tensions in an effort to resist democracy as they view democracy as a tool to deprive them the powers they have been enjoying (Zakaria 95).

Many developing nations around the world such as Philipines,Venezuela,Kazakhstan among others have indeed experienced problems as a result of experiencing democracy. The citizens are the ones who are greatly affected as the leaders’ battle with the inception of democracy (Kagan 118).

Zakaria in his analysis of the modernization theory held the view that those governments who are ruled by dictators are much better as compared to the ones that are governed by democracies. He also viewed that democracy has been as a result of the industrialization and economic growth as well and the two must exist if democracy is to be attained.

He argues that the period between 1950s and 1960s saw many governments faced with the problems of budgetary deficits, inflation and low economic growth when they encompassed democracy in their governance.

This thus made many people to prefer for dictatorship instead of democracy following the adverse effects that were associated with democracy the progress to democracy therefore is marathon implying that the economic wealth must be present for the democracy to be attained effectively. Thus, no democracy can exist where there is no economic growth (Kagan 120).

Political scientists among them Adam Prezeworski argued that economic development thrived well in those countries that have dictatorship system of government. According to him, democracy is a by-product of the economic development that is realized as a result of dictatorship.

Most developing nations across the world have preferred dictatorship to democracy due to the economic success that is associated with dictatorship form of governance (Kagan 120).

Zakaria used the anti-democratic views that were drawn by Huntington in late 1960’s.Huntington in his analysis held the view that order must indeed precede liberty as far as developing nations are concerned. Authoritarian countries sometimes push for the economic reforms in order to modernize their countries as Japan did in 19^th century.

In an attempt to modernize their countries, Huntington held the view that legitimate public order is the main concern rather than mere liberty.

In this remarks, Huntington argued that developed nations such as the United States considered their governance system first before democracy and therefore the developing countries needs to follow suit if they are to be successful. A country should first pay attention to its citizens before it can decide on how it should operate. Order must therefore precede liberty and democracy (Kagan 121).

Once a country adopts democracy when it is not ready for it, the democracy tends to become destructive for the people. This is in contrary with the expectations because democracy is vested with the role of liberating citizens and not subjecting them to terrible situations. This problem of immature democracy has been deemed as the greatest challenge in the world and many people have opted tyranny instead (Kagan 121-122).

In his narrative of the modernization paradigm, Zakaria argued that past dictatorships of some governments helped to liberalize people by improving their lives. The dictators actually came up with decisions that helped the economies to grow.

The also liberalized the legal system of the economy as well as travel and worship rights. This was important because democracies would not have been possible if the dictatorships had not laid the groundwork. Dictatorship could be portrayed in the regime of some rulers in places like Taiwan and South Korea around 1950s among other places (Kagan 124).

However, Zakaria view that dictatorship promotes development and the development in turn leads to democracy were contested by Adam Prezeworski in his Harvard International Review. Adam Prezeworski argued that dictatorship and democracies do not affect the economic growth of a nation. This is due to the fact that a country may remain poor despite the type of regime it decides to adopt.

He further argued that some countries like Japan and Ireland have managed to fight poverty through democracy and economic growth. Dictatorial leaders in Malaysia and Singapore have also managed to fight poverty through dictatorship in their ruling.

This indicates that there may be no direct relationship between democracy and economic growth in most of the cases. Also, only a few people have ever claimed to have enjoyed liberty as a result of elections. Liberal governance therefore that is concerned with protecting the rights of individuals may not always linked with choosing leaders through democracy (Kagan 126-127).

Conclusion

To conclude the discussion entailing the correlation that exists between liberalism and democracy and the relationship between democracy and economic development, it is worth to note that the government responsiveness with regards to the needs of its citizens is paramount for the democracy to be attained.

Citizens on the other hand must also take the initiative and formulate their preferences so that the government can have a clue on what they actually needs and thus come up with solutions (Dahl 85-86).

Those countries that encompass dictatorship are deemed to do better economically as compared to those that practice democracy. According to Zakaria, liberal democracy in the world has not been achieved by many countries and he noted that nearly half of the nations are experiencing dictatorship. Autocracy on the other hand, conflicts with state building and the rule of law.

Those nations that shift to practice democracy usually encounter many difficulties as far as the rule of law is concerned. Therefore, in order for countries top advance economically and in turn raise the living standards of their citizens, they must strengthen the rule of law.

However, the progress towards strengthening rule of law is not easy or nor is it inevitable as far as democracy is concerned. Those countries that are democratizing usually struggles hard in developing the rule of law and the various aspects of democratization that exists usually contribute problems to the rule of law (Carothers 155-159).

The efforts by the government of the United States should be directed towards promoting democracy in the entire world in order to ensure peaceful coexistence and economic and political stability.

However, the democracy have been criticized in recent years with the negative effects of autocratic regimes that have been brought down and introduction of the electoral democratic system in Palestine, Iraq as well as Africa. The democracy has led to political tensions, massive killings.

Also, democracy should thus not to be considered as good governance and should also be differentiated with liberalism.

Works Cited

Berman, Sheri. How Democracies Emerge: Lessons form Europe. Journal of Democracy. London: Frank Cass, 2007

Boix, Carles. Democracy and redistribution. London: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Carothers, Thomas. How democracies Emerge. London: Taylor & Francis, 2007

Dahl, Robert et.al.The democracy sourcebook. Massachusset: MIT Press, 2003.

Kagan, Richard.Taiwans’ statesman: Lee Teng-Hui and democracy in Asia. Pennslavania: Naval Institute Press, 2007.

Zakaria, Fareed.The Rise of Illiberal Democracy. Indiana: Indiana University Press.1997

Introduction

Take any dictionary, encyclopedia, or search the web for the word democracy. There are hundreds of definitions and explanations of the term. But the common thread that runs through all of them is a form of governance of the people and by the people. The government should be elected using some form of the public franchise and should not be one that is inherited (monarchy) or one taken by force. The core point is governance of the people and for the people.

Even if a nation is governed by a monarch or a dictator or even by minority rule, they are expected to work for the common good of their subjects. When the common man feels oppressed or threatened, or when he or she feels that his basic rights are being denied the natural reaction is to protest against this injustice. In some instances, the population may feel helpless to protest and remain a mute victim until a chance to do so happens. But in most instances, they do react either peacefully or violently. One form of protest that is being increasingly common is street protest (peaceful or otherwise). In a democracy (or elsewhere) public violence and destruction of property cannot be justified.

But peaceful street protests are seen to be perfectly justified and even seen as a right to express feelings and opinions. In 1999, a street protest was organized in Seattle to protest against the policies of the World Trade Organization. Four dramatic days of protests, violence, and clashes with the police happened. What was meant to be a peaceful protest ultimately resulted in a debate over the right to hold such forms of protests? This paper attempts to analyze and form an opinion on whether street protests, of the kind that took place in Seattle, can legitimately be understood as an aspect of democracy.

The story of the Seattle protests

The Seattle Convention Centre in the city was the setting of the final session of the World Trade Organization of the millennium. The WTO was seen as highly influenced by the large corporations of the world and perceived to be anti-democratic. “Out of the Uruguay Round of negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the profoundly anti-democratic World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995”. (Molly Morgan, Virginia Rasmussen & Mary Zepernick, GENDER, AND GLOBAL CORPORATIZATION, The PROGRAM ON CORPORATIONS, LAW & DEMOCRACY).

As in Seattle and elsewhere it became a common practice to show public protests against the organization wherever it held its meetings. This particular meeting was seen as a move to appease corporations which could result in laws that were detrimental to the environment, the workers, and the society in general, which if true can be honestly termed as anti-democratic. The Seattle protest was on an unprecedented scale and an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 protesters from all over the world participated. It also lasted for nearly four days from September 30th to December 4th, 1999. According to media reports, the genuine protesters held only peaceful demonstrations.

But among the group were some vandals, intent on making trouble and indulge in acts of violence and looting. This was perceived by city officials and law enforcement agencies as part of the action of the protest itself. Violence and denial of justice reminiscent of the 1960s began to take place on the part of the government. This action was also in part fuelled by the WTO itself which was intent on carrying out its meeting. “Seattle also saw free speech cracked down on in the name of free trade.” (Anup Shah, WTO Protests in Seattle, 1999, Global Issues – Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues That Affect Us All).

It was also an instance where police-grade OC spray (concentrated pepper) was used on civil rights protesters in the United States. The dramatic footage of innocent and peaceful protesters being sprayed in the face at close quarters can be seen in the compelling documentary titled ‘This is What Democracy Looks Like’. The documentary is a shocking collage of visuals compiled from footage taken by many photographers who recorded the events. The situation got to such an extent that the mayor ordered a ‘no protest zone’ in the city and brought in the National Guards to assist the police. A saddening fact of the whole issue was that the media largely reported the event as violent and justified the actions of the police and the National Guards.

This was an anti-democratic action on the part of the city officials and law enforcement agencies. This brings up the issue of justification of street protests itself. Was the violence (by vandals) which became to be seen as the acts of the protestors themselves preventable? If not, will the same thing repeat itself in another setting also? Is even a peaceful street protest anti-democratic? The question that now remains to be answered is “are street protests for the demand of civil rights justified in a democratic setting’. This will be done in the remaining sections of the paper.

History of street protests

History is replete with instances of many forms of street protests, some violent and some peaceful. One of the most famous of these was the Boston Tea Party where colonists in America dumped cases of tea into the sea as a protest against British taxes on the product. The root cause behind the above incident and most street protests was freedom. It is also for demanding equal rights as in the case of the protests led by Martin Luther King Jr. for the cause of the colored people in the USA. But the most celebrated of all peaceful protests are the ones led or called for by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi of India, commonly referred to as the Mahatma or Great Soul.

His form of non-violent street protests and strikes were followed by other famous leaders like King Jr. Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Street protests continue to be a popular form of protest the world over and will continue also. (Mahatma Gandhi, Page 2, Peter Townsend, Human Rights Day Balloon Debate: who is the greatest of the 20th century? Old Theatre, LSE, 8 December 2005).

Peaceful protest is a fundamental right

A review of literature from many (democratic) countries indicates the citizens of those countries have the right to peacefully protest against any grievances. These might be personal, political, racial, religious, or social. The following lines from the United States will make the matter clear. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article I. Daniel Newby, “Permitting” Peaceful Protests, The Helmsman Society).

The key part in the above phrase is ‘the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to show their protest to the concerned authority. The article adds that some states prefer to request with the police before resorting to such a protest. The US Government had also said that peaceful protests against Chinese policies during the Olympic Torch relay in the United States were within the law of the country. Greenpeace lawyers have also expressed this view defending a suit against their protest policies in the United States. Australian law also states that peaceful protest and assembly is a fundamental right. “You do not have to tell police that you are organizing a rally, but CCL recommends that you do.” (Do you want to organize a protest? Stand up for our rights, NSWCCL – New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties).

In the UK too, the right to protest is protected by law. “The Lords have confirmed that freedom to protest is something that should be treasured in this country and police don’t have the right to take it away.” (Right to protest for UK anti-war demonstrators, UK News, Ekklesia, 2006). Protesting peacefully is a fundamental right in India also, though the right to strike is not one. The US and Australia are well-established democracies and the UK is a functional democracy. India is the largest democratic nation in the world in terms of population size.

These four examples are strong arguments that peaceful protests including street protests are a democratic way of expressing grievances by anyone from the public. A democratic government statute saying that peaceful protest is democratic is enough to establish the above-mentioned statement. Some countries may require informing relevant agencies before organizing a street protest, but none will bar it. Some conditions like not causing inconvenience to the public, blocking off traffic, and non-destruction of private and public property may rightfully be incorporated. All such acts can be considered to be anti-democratic.

The counterargument is the example of the Seattle protests itself. There were acts of violence and looting that came about because of the demonstration. Even though it is apparent that the anti-democratic acts were not carried out by the protestors themselves, violence resulted and caused damage, injury, and tension to the citizens, city officials, and law enforcement agencies. The argument is that violence is bound to erupt in such circumstances.

It might come from the protestors themselves or from antisocial elements trying to take advantage of the situation. Moreover, the corporate world will want violence to happen during such demonstrations so that public sympathy towards protestors will become less. They may even purposefully encourage such acts in secret. Hence street protests are too risky to be taken lightly. It is better to term them as unlawful and undemocratic.

It is true to a certain extent what has been said in the counter above. But such instances are rare and do not happen every time. To ban protests in the light of the above factor alone is not enough. It must also be noted that in the famous protests (by Gandhi, Mandela, and King) there were very strong and powerful leaders who led (or ordered) the protests. The Seattle protest was not done in the same way and did not have strong leadership. But even in that case, none of the genuine protestors did any violence.

Conclusion

The only justification for banning street protests is when violence occurs in all such protests. That does not happen in the majority of the cases. Street protests are a strong and effective way to register protests. The clinching argument is that it should be done peacefully and without inconvenience to the public (including violence blocking traffic etc). The violence in Seattle was a stray case and is not representative of all street protests. Hence peaceful street protests are legal and a fundamental right in any democratic country.