During the Gettysburg address, President Lincoln declared that the government of the people by the people would not perish from the earth’s face. In brief, he implied that a democratic government constituted a regime that could guarantee shared prosperity among all classes of people. Idealists who developed and campaigned for a democratic government had a vision of a world in which the elected people would represent masses in a selfless manner to ensure collective development of societies. However, many nations now see democracy as a system that does not work well for the citizenry. They see it as a tool that favours the flourishing of those people in the top classes, especially the rulers and the leaders. These concerns lead to the question of whether or not to shift to other systems of governance such as autocracy. In this line, this paper discusses why the concerns about the health democracy are exaggerated by considering the argument that democracy is the most preferred system of governance. Nevertheless, despite the challenges, the paper concludes that democracy is the shortest route that can guarantee shared prosperity, accountability, and peaceful coexistence amongst all classes of people within a nation.
Concerns about Democracy
Considering the developments of democracy and the criticisms that revolve around power inequalities between the elected officials and the voters, questions emerge on whether the concerns of democracy are exaggerated. One would anticipate the falling of communists’ societies such as the Soviet Union to usher in a new era in which such societies would embrace democracy. Indeed, as Kabul (2010) reveals, the perception that ex-communist societies could humbly borrow democracy lessons from western nations is laughable. For example, the article confirms that pro-Kremlin United Russia movement held a meeting with the Communist Party of China towards the end of 2010 with the goal of seeking to understand how the Chinese political system that is dominated by only one party was possible to sustain. The article nullifies the assertion that Russians have any belief that they would emulate the Chinese model of governance. Does this observation mean that authoritarian regimes do not have anything to learn from democratic regimes due to the exaggeration of democratic health concerns?
A major argument in support of autocracy is that it ensures the flourishing of national stability that facilitates growth (Kabul 2010). However, this argument lacks any non-contestable evidence. For example, Crick (2013) observes the non-existence of evidence that autocratic nations are more established compared to autonomous countries. Democratic politicians engage in the exchange of words and arguments characterised by disagreements on the most effective course of action or policy that would deliver the best outcomes. While this claim may be challenged from an authoritarian perspective, it results in short-term stability by creating a podium under which different views, interests, and positions of the people can be listened to before an action is adopted. The State Fragility Index (SFI) developed by the University of Gorge Mason supports the position that democratic systems function in a more effective manner compared to autocratic models (Kabul 2010). Hence, the concerns about the health of democracy’s tenets such as political tolerance, mixed and capitalistic economy, and the theories on the property and promotion of the doctrine of equity are exaggerated.
Exaggerated Challenges of Democracy
Under the democratic system, people have the right to invest and accumulate wealth at an individual capacity. A major argument against this approach of wealth creation within a state is that democracy would foster the enrichment of some classes while making the underprivileged become poorer. However, this criticism is open to debate when compared with other forms of governance such as autocracy. However, the same claim may be valid for an evolving system of democracy. Democratic systems of governance have various arms, including the parliament. Elected people occupy these arms. Consequently, the power is not vested in a small group of individuals or even a personality as witnessed in the case of the authoritarian system of governance (Weiss & Thakur 2007). Consequently, democracy ensures power checks among people who are entrusted with leadership and public property.
According to Crick (2013), despite the balances and checks in democratic systems, power abuses are still commonplace. While this position is valid, especially in evolving democracies, a counter argument is that power abuses are not as rampant as compared to autocratic systems of government. This finding confirms that indeed the concerns of the health of democracies are exaggerated. Indeed, in an autocratic government, the state possesses all the property. Therefore, the citizenry has no incentives to make sacrifices necessary to generate wealth. Regardless of the hard work, people are not guaranteed they would eventually have full ownership of the generated wealth (Crick 2013). This situation is a direct contrast with democracy. A democratic governance system ensures that the wealth acquired through individual hard work only belongs to the industrious citizens. The outcome is the emergence of middle classes. Such classes neither have excess power nor lack it, thus making it possible for a system of democracy to create the shortest route to collective prosperity.
Democracy is about respect of fundamental individual freedoms of the citizenry. Its critics strongly criticise the capacity of democracy to fulfil its commitment to respecting people’s freedoms. For example, Kabul (2010) reveals that a Washington-based lobby group released an annual report in 2010 indicating that human rights coupled with liberty rights had reduced for the fourth year consecutively. The lobby group considered this finding the biggest decline since it was initiated 40 years ago. The findings of the group indicated that democracy had experienced a huge turnaround. Following the collapse of apartheid coupled with communism in the USSR, people were convinced that democracy was the outright system of governance that could guarantee common good for all. This conviction emerged from the belief that economic freedom supported political autonomy, which was then the most important phase in any societal development. However, amid such criticisms, apart from democracy, no other system of governance can embrace the vesting of power to create wealth through the promotion of individual independence, including economic freedom. Ultimately, this system of governance may be considered the shortest means to societal development.
Conclusion
Democracy has had its drawbacks, especially in terms of ensuring equity in power and voters’ voice. However, its concerns foster individual property ownership, which encourages hard work. Therefore, despite the decline in liberty and other forms of rights that are integral to the concerns of democracy, it does not imply that other forms of governance such as autocracy are superior to it. In a democratic system, economic prosperity is achieved through encouraging individuals’ participation in wealth creation, which underpins the political voice. Since democracy fosters the development and growth of middle classes, it allows the participation of many people in the political arena. Hence, democracy is vital for collective societal development. Compared to other systems, democracy stands as the shortest route to shared prosperity. This conclusive remark nullifies the arguments that seem to exaggerate or tarnish the image and heath of democracy.
Reference List
Crick, B 2013, Democracy: a very short introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kabul, B 2010, ‘Democracy’s decline: crying for freedom’, The Economist. Web.
Weiss, T & Thakur, R 2007, The UN and global governance: an Idea and its prospects, Indiana University Press, Indianapolis.
Democratization is a concept that has been studied widely by many political analysts, economists, and historians. In countries that have become partly or fully democratized, a significant number of upheavals have been recorded thus redefining their historical developments. The selected country for this comparative essay is Kenya. The nation is, without doubt, one of the African republics that have realized some fruits of democratization. In 2003, Kenyans overwhelmingly participated in a historic general election to overthrow an authoritarian regime that had remained in power for four decades (Crawford and Lynch 48). Specifically, this paper seeks to compare the pre-democracy and post-democracy periods in order to understand Kenya’s political gains.
Comparing and Contrasting the Pre-Democracy Period With the Post-Democracy Period
Pre-Democracy Period
The path towards democratization in Kenya cannot be clearly understood without analyzing the country’s historical developments. To begin with, Kenya was colonized by Britain whose legal institutions and political foundations framed specific political ideologies (Anders and Zenkel 21). The colonial government failed to establish a nation characterized by meaningful ideals, laws, and ideas that could serve the interests of the people. Political analysts argue that the concept of capitalism led to devastating impacts on the country. Unfortunately, leaders who took over after independence did not address the issues emerging from peripheral capitalism (Crawford and Lynch 62).
The first president of Kenya, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, presented notions of unity, peace, and love using his famous Harambee Philosophy. Crawford and Lynch go further to indicate that such populist concepts were mainly aimed at sugarcoating political insensitiveness and demagoguery (72). The leaders used inappropriate strategies to manage resources and establish new identities. Basically, the social interests and rights of the people were mostly taken for granted (Khaunya et al. 28). The established regime came up with various social strategies incapable of promoting development and cohesion. Effective initiatives could have fostered economic prosperity in Kenya.
Kenyatta’s successor, Daniel Moi, did not do much to leave the country better or transform the lives of the people. He polarized the country further and disoriented its political fabric. The independent nation found it hard to deal with most of its challenges such as ethnicity, economic imbalance, and vulnerability to international pressure (Anders and Zenkel 12). Most of the authoritarian propensities promoted by the colonialists were propagated even further by these leaders.
The first four decades after independence in Kenya were defined by authoritarianism. This leadership approach resulted in uneven development, intolerance, increased ethnic tensions, and political inadequacies. Consequently, the idea of democracy imagined by freedom fighters during the colonial period lost meaning after independence. President Kenyatta’s party, Kenya African National Union (KANU), applied inappropriate strategies to centralize the nation. This led to a powerful executive capable of controlling every aspect of the national government. The established wave of authoritarianism suppressed class struggles and equality (Crawford and Lynch 487). The material expectations and interests of the elites were safeguarded thus resulting in economic imbalances.
History indicates that Kenya remained a stable nation despite the existing challenges. The government managed to build infrastructure, schools, and promote economic development (Anders and Zenkel 93). However, more people had realized that social inequalities, economic imbalances, and poverty had already swelled by the year 1980.
Struggle to Democracy
Many historians agree that the journey to democracy in Kenya began in the 1970s. It was during the time when Kenyans realized that the country had been mismanaged. The unsuccessful coup of 1982 redefined the history of the country. After the attempt, the president instituted new mechanisms with the aim of strengthening the ruling party. The party became more powerful than ever before. The president used state resources to punish those who were opposed to his leadership. Resources during the time were misappropriated. The country was plunged into wider ethnic divisions and inequalities (Anders and Zenkel 19). Fortunately, a new era emerged on the continent towards the end of the century. The Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) era became an opportune moment for Kenya to begin its journey towards liberalization (Anders and Zenkel 42).
Kenya’s passage to democracy took a new trajectory in the 1990s when new civil societies emerged. Many non-governmental agencies began to tackle most of the social rots that affected the country’s citizens. These agencies were also supported by a number of religious bodies that wanted to establish a new order in the country. The number of vigilante groups, student activists, and politicians joined hands in order to oppose the ruling party. The age of multiparty democracy was born in 1992. The opposition managed to win a number of seats in parliament (Crawford and Lynch 49). The struggle continued throughout the decade. In 1997, Moi won the presidential election for the second time. However, his victory was questioned by many politicians and civil societies.
Although the wave of multiparty democracy failed to topple KANU from its position, the elections of 1992 and 1997 created a new path for a better future in the nation. The move strengthened many people and encouraged them to continue fighting for their civil rights and entitlement to the national resources. The pro-democracy struggle in Kenya failed to realize its goals in a timely manner due to the lack of clearly defined objectives, ineffective leadership, and lack of adequate resources (Crawford and Lynch 48). Additionally, issues such as ethnocentrism, factionalism, mistrust, and ineffective political policies affected the ambitions of the opposition.
From this analysis, it is quite clear that the democratic transition in Kenya was gradual in nature. Mass demonstrations were common throughout the 1990s in an attempt to force KANU to embrace the concept of multiparty politics (Hassid and Brass 5). Many people sacrificed their efforts, resources, and time in order to achieve these goals. Ethnic clashes were also witnessed in different regions such as the Coast and Rift Valley provinces. Such sacrifices paved the way for a democratic future in the nation. The spirit of a true democracy would be experienced after the fall of KANU.
In 2002, different opposition leaders and parties came together and formed a formidable alliance by the name the National Rainbow Coalition (NARC). Led by Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki, the new party eventually managed to dislodge KANU from power. Many people in the country were happy because a new period had come (Crawford and Lynch 109). The era presented numerous opportunities and possibilities. It was a new beginning for Kenyans to establish a new state defined by democracy.
Post-Democracy Period
Since 2003, the history of Kenya has been reshaped by numerous events that have tested the validity of its democratic transition. Although the year offered numerous promises to the people, the leaders who took over after the fall of KANU did very little to deal with social inequalities affecting the people (Hassid and Brass 3). The new economic blueprint adopted by the NARC government did not address the issue of wealth inequality. Consequently, the issue of historical injustices emerged whereby many leaders wanted the government to address such imbalances.
The hope experienced in the country would be short-lived since most of the issues affecting the people were ignored by the new government. The question of land gained much attention in 2007. Although most of the conflicts experienced in the country took place before elections, things changed in 2007. Kenya’s post-election of 2007-2008 was a wakeup call for politicians to reflect on the major issues that affected the people. Failure to reform the constitution was seen as the main reason behind such problems (Hassid and Brass 8). The people were also yearning for a new system characterized by powerful institutions capable of delivering transparent elections.
The post-election violence forced the leader of the opposition, Raila Odinga, to share power with President Mwai Kibaki (Crawford and Lynch 56). However, the move would not have fruited without the efforts played by the African Panel of Eminent African Personalities (APEAP). The agreement eventually led to a new constitution aimed at addressing most of the issues that were affecting the people since independence. The new constitution also recognized the rights of the people. The powers (and limitations) of the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive were also redefined. The concept of devolution was also adopted to ensure resources were delivered to Kenyans proportionately (Khaunya et al. 31).
The new constitution is believed to have led to the birth of a “Second Republic” characterized by equitable development, inclusivity, and devolution (Anders and Zenkel 109). The elections of 2013 would put this constitution into the test. Polity IV standard focuses on three key attributes. The first one is the presence of processes through which the people of a particular country can express their views or preferences. The second aspect is the institutionalized limits of the executive’s powers. The final one is the provision of civil liberties to every person in the nation. The effectiveness of different institutions in Kenya was displayed after the elections. Uhuru Kenyatta became the fourth president after the Supreme Court affirmed his victory following a petition filed by his competitor, Raila Odinga. In 2017, the reelection of Uhuru Kenyatta was nullified by the same Supreme Court established in accordance with the Kenyan constitution.
Political leadership in this county can, therefore, be described as more democratic. This is the case because more efforts and developments have been recorded from 2010. Based on the Freedom House standard measure of democracy, it is indisputable that Kenya has managed to develop a democratic system. This is the case because the government supports and obeys the rule of law, promotes people’s rights, and allows them to voice their opinions. Although there have been cases of economic and social injustices, the government has continued “to respect the constitution and the rule of law” (Hassid and Brass 16).
Concluding Remarks
The governments that have been in place since 2003 have implemented adequate measures to improve the lives of the people. Devolution has led to better infrastructure, equal distribution of resources, and improvement in healthcare delivery (Khaunya et al. 35). The nation has therefore also recorded significant economic gains and human development goals. In conclusion, democratization in Kenya is still an ongoing process that must be supported in order to foster consolidation.
Works Cited
Anders, Gerhard, and Olaf Zenkel. Transition and Justice: Negotiating the Terms of New Beginnings in Africa. Wiley, 2014.
Crawford, Gordon, and Gabrielle Lynch. Democratization in Africa: Challenges and Prospects. Routledge, 2013.
Hassid, Jonathan, and Jennifer Brass. “Scandals, Media and Good Governance in China and Kenya.” Journal of Asian and African Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, 2014, pp. 1-18.
Khaunya, Mukabi, et al. “Devolved Governance in Kenya: Is it a False Start in Democratic Decentralization for Development?” International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management, vol. 4, no. 1, 2015, pp. 27-37.
There exist many various definitions that describe the process of democracy. However, though similar to some extent, the definition depends on the teachings and principles of the subject in a particular context. The notion of democracy is applicable in many situations, especially where it involves handling a large number of people. It thus has come to be agreed that a broad definition of democracy is the rule of the majority through a system of representation of all by a smaller group, the power of which has been vested upon those whose possession and use is periodical. Change in the composition of the group and possession power is brought about by mutually agreed free and fair elections. The teachings of democracy in these modern times have been more reflected in elections where the level of fairness is used as a measure of democracy.
Governance as the rule of the people by the people has been more subjected to the teachings of democracy that have been adopted as a form of governance. Democracy in general faces many challenges and threats. But as a political system and form of governance, the threats are more amplified. In Australia, for example, various challenges and threats that are common the world over and others are unique to the country. Democracy as a political system makes some people question its actual presence. (Alexander, 2005, p.162) This paper is thus dedicated to identifying the various threats and discussing them in deep to have a better understanding of the issues at hand that face democracy in Australia.
Principles of democracy
Many writers have come to agree on the main principles of democracy. Castor (2006, pp.34) lists the following as the main categories.
Majority rule and respect of the minority’s rights the l rule of law.
Freedom of press and communication.
Free and fair elections in electing of an executive power.
Independence of the judicial system.
Education and literacy for all.
Threats to democracy
Democracy has been a word utilized in many places that even do not recognize the real meaning of the word and its teachings/principles. In naming Australia as a fully democratic country, we overlook some of the issues that the political system has not addressed in attaining the full description of a democratic country (Adams, 2002, p. 118).
Economic democracy is one of the most affected types of democracies not in Australia alone but in the world all over. Economic democracy calls for the equitable distribution of all life’s necessities without discrimination whatsoever. (Mulgan, 2003, p.160) However, modern market conditions and economic instability plus deficiency of effective demand tend to contribute substantially to preventing the society from earning enough wages and salaries to enable the citizens to make purchases corresponding to their necessities. Inflation that is biting the country at the moment has made the affordability of these necessities a challenge to some extent. The necessary purchases in these modern times should include not only the basic wants but also the moderate luxuries common in life. This type of democracy, when threatened, will spill over to other kinds of democracies and hinder the implementation of the principles of democracy. Simply put, we see that this kind of situation where some are not able to afford basic necessities that others can afford in life adds up to poverty as a threat to democracy. (Emy, 2004, p. 78) Economic democracy calls for proper and equal distribution of purchasing power where the citizens of the country are given the chances to seek and increase their purchasing power through by means of providing job opportunities and a favorable environment to the citizens in order to create and gather wealth. Though employment rates in Australia have been very good, they have overshot the recommended level as per economists’ advice. The excessively high levels of employment are causing inflation as general prices are headed upwards and thereby depriving the poor in the society of their democratic rights in an economic sense. How these will affect the democratic aspect of the country’s political system may not be directly related though it adds up to weakening it. As it has been the trend in history, people attribute their economic problems to the political regime in power, blaming it on its inadequateness in improving the common man’s life and welfare (Colebatch, 2006, p. 156).
Shortcomings of Australian Democracy
The Australian political system can be considered democratic only in some ways. On the one hand, the interrelation between the electorate, Prime Minister, and Parliament can be considered democratic. On the other hand, there are some features which are undemocratic, such as federalism and bicameralism.
But democracy is not an absolute political value. It cannot ensure that all decision-making will guarantee justice for all the minorities, for example. Democracy cannot guarantee to produce wise decisions in the sphere of relations with other countries, establishing wise war and trade policies. It cannot ensure solving such burning problems like environmental questions and other aspects which will affect the interest of the next generations of Australians.
In the Australian Political system, there is one feature that cannot be considered democratic, that is, the division into numerous electorates. It presupposes that to make a decision, a majority of the most of majorities is needed. Every party may obtain the majority during the popular vote and at the same time may fail to get it in Parliament. It cannot be considered democratic, but still, we should not be pessimistic about this fact. As for subdivision into many electorates, it presents an obstacle for some self-interested coalitions. For instance, it prevents people who live in the biggest cities from voting themselves blatant favors. If this was not under control, finally everybody would move to one large population center, and after that, the older city areas which are in the center would unite against the newcomers who are on the fringes.
But on the other part, it impedes all possible changes, and some of these might be effective. This would mean that any group which is campaigning for a change must campaign in the greater part of the country. These groups cannot win by means of persuading the people nearest to them; their task is to gain a geographically dispersed majority. This causes more expense.
With the adoption of democracy as a political process in Australia, it becomes clear that as a country, Australia does not abide by the principles advocated for by real democrats. For example, the case of electing a Prime Minister is not delegated to the citizenry of the country but rather the parliamentarians. As someone to serve the common citizens in accordance with democratic principles, he should be directly elected by the people for a definite period of time as his actions affect the citizens themselves. The system’s failure and perpetual weakness is that Parliament is mandated to electing the Prime Minister who happens to serve the whole country and not the parliamentarians alone. In case of his failure, the citizens do not have the democratic right to push the Prime Minister in question out of office but remain as long as the parliamentarians have confidence in his occupancy of the seat. At the moment, our political system is labeled as democratic it allows the sitting Prime Minister to leave office quietly without Parliament necessarily holding an election. (Moyers, 2008, p.34) Though this does not happen frequently, it is legally recognized by the Constitution. As a nation, then our democratic right of electing our representative in the form of a prime minister is threatened and hindered by the Constitution, which governs us and ironically is the one responsible for protecting our democratic rights and of choosing our leaders.
Another front the senate features is one of the most undemocratic aspects of Australia’s political system, which is a violation of democratic principles. The government, in its service to the people, is supposed to protect its citizens from bad governance in that it’s handed the authority to govern by mutual trust. It, however, happens that the Senate can block any government decisions that might be intended in making life easier for the citizens in case the decision does not auger well with the senators. The only alternative the Prime Minister has in reiterating the refusal by Parliament to approve a bill is by dissolving it. As for the Prime Minister, the situation has much in common with Greek democracy: he/she implements policies that are supported by a majority of electors. (Hirst, 2002, p.116).
Common sense tells us that Parliamentarians never obstruct the Prime Minister who is supported by the majority of electors and, as a return to the ballot box, might see them thrown out of Parliament. If there is anything preventing the Prime Minister from appealing to the parliamentary electorate against the opposition of Parliament, it can be considered a deviation from democracy toward parliamentary oligarch where Parliament is used as a rubber stamp to the Prime Minister’s decisions. (Castor, 2006 pp. 289).
It is stated that federalism can be considered more democratic because it decentralizes power and makes it closer to the citizens. As for geographical closeness, it is not comparable to political integration and closeness both horizontally and vertically where the passing of information and consultation in passing and enacting of policies. The interest of the citizens in government doings depends on the power of government. Power is usually scrutinized when it is concentrated. On the other hand, decentralization may take some functions of government out of public view to lower levels where misappropriation of power and other vices can be perpetuated away from the public eye. (Patapan, 2000, p.78) Federalism is considered to be an undemocratic feature of any government system for some reason. Firstly, politics is made more difficult to follow, and in addition, it becomes difficult for voters to elect politicians fully accountable for their actions as they blame one another for any wrongdoings. (McGarvie 1999 pp. 58-65).
Again, to control the relations on different levels, the government needs a constitution which is not subject to the usual political process where duplication of processes and roles is probable. The Constitution then must be interpreted by a court. Against it, there is no appeal at the highest level. The Constitution just means whatever the court says. Such a court cannot be considered a democratic institution. Moreover, judges do not bear responses to electors. Actually, legal training expenses make courts conservative. What is more, legal costs are expensive. So the courts are usually in the long run; they interpret the Constitution in favor of those with money, thereby losing another teaching of democracy (Janda, 2006, 256).
There are undemocratic institutions in Australia, such as the Senate, which is an oligarchy to the staff. The staff are dominant in relation to their students. The similar situation can be seen in other educational establishments. And it cannot be viewed as democracy.
Conclusion
In conclusion I would like to say that in Australia there exists a kind of compromise between democracy and liberalism. It comprises an independent legal system and some independent institutions of higher learning.
The existing system can be controlled in many ways. It is important to improve the level of citizens’ intellectual culture; there should be more communication between representative panels and citizens (Cuff, 1998, p.112).
Australian democracy has long been dependent on the political ideas of different countries. But nowadays, it is stated that the glory days of Australian democracy are over and that the voters gradually become disillusioned with its concept. We may observe numerous criticisms of the existing state of democracy. In more general sense disrespect for parties and politicians is growing. I don’t think that we should be optimistic about the prospects of deepening democracy; too many factors need to be improved.
References
Adams, B. and Sydie, R., (2002) Classical Sociological Theory, (California Pine Forge, Thousand Oak, pp. 112, 120).
Alexander, D. (2005), Democracy: Choosing Australia’s Republic, (Melbourne, Clifford, pp. 125, 160).
Castor, Brian (2006), Limiting Democracy: The Erosion of Electoral Rights in Australia, (Sydney, Allen & Unwin, pp. 34- 289).
Colebatch, H. (2006), Beyond the policy cycle: The policy process in Australia, (Sydney, Allen & Unwin, pp. 145-150).
Cuff, E.C., and Francis, D. (1998) Perspectives in Sociology, (London, Routledge, pp. 112).
Emy, H.,(2004), Australian Politics: Realities in Conflict, (Adelaide, Winans, pp. 78, 98).
Hirst, John, (2002), Australia’s Democracy: A Short History, (Basingstoke, McMillan, pp. 110-116).
Janda, Kenneth (2006), The challenge of democracy, (London, OUP, pp. 256-285).
Mc Garvie Richard (1999), Democracy: Australia’s Republic, (Adelaide, Winans, pp. 44-67).
Moyers, Bill (2008), Moyers on democracy 1st ed, (Chicago, Doubleday, pg 34).
Mulgan, R., (2003), Holding Power to Account: Accountability in Modern Democracies, (Basingstoke McMillan, pg 129-136, 160-166).
Patapan, Haig (2000), Judging Democracy: The New Politics of the High Court of Australia, (London, Cambridge UP, pg 77, 208).
The role of Education in Democracy can be traced back to the period during and after the World War I (WWI). At the start of the war, many people gave their support to the declaration of war, but still, a significant number opposed the war as a viable solution to contentious issues.
Propaganda was the tool of choice for many governments in a bid to win public support for the war. Public Information Committees led by top government official were set up to carry out the propaganda war. Much of the propaganda was aimed at creating emotional effects on the citizens rather than win factual support. The Information committee was able to manipulate the media by limiting the information accessed by the general public. This way, the public didn’t have much choice, but to believe the propaganda from the Public information committee.
Propaganda is in itself an aspect of education where the Public Information Committee provided some knowledge on the certain issues surrounding the war in order to win public support. This form of education raises the question of which is the best educational model that citizen should adopt and develop the underlying capacities in order to become a functional citizen, who contributes to the political sustainability of a nation.
According to Edward Bernay, through his book, Propaganda, the traditional education, propagated through old ideas, would help in creating democratic stability of a nation as each citizen would only learn only sufficient knowledge, which will make him or her not to form diverse opinions that are a threat to the stability of democracy. This idea is also supported by Walter Lippmann in his work Image of Democracy.
However, the idea of traditional education seems to be out of favor with John Dewey, through his work titled Experience. In His work, Dewey argues that Progressive Education is the education model that can guarantee democratic stability as the citizens of a nation will be equipped with the ability to judge leaders and their justifications on policies that they introduce and implement. The idea of progressive education is also supported by Mill, in the power Elite and also by Condit in the Rhetorical Limits of Polysemy. Given such divergent view which seems varied, a combination of both model of education would be necessary for stability in democracy.
The participation of people in politics is associated with democracy. As follows from the translation of this term from the Greek language, democracy is the power of people. In one of the speeches for the European Parliament, Barroso, the 11th President of the European Commission, claimed that globalization requires more European unity that needs greater integration. In its turn, more integration requires more democracy.1 The problem of the deficit of democracy in the European Union (EU) is discussed widely for several years. Many arguments are given both to support the thesis of its existence such as a lack of legitimacy and transparency as well as its refutation including powers given to citizens, although the number of supporters of the deficit prevails.
Issue Identification
The concept of democracy deficit is used while stating that the European Union and its bodies are not democratic enough, and their complicated mode of functioning cannot sufficiently take into account the interests of citizens. In theory, the foundation of democracy is to be composed of the political equality of citizens and the control of the population in the process of making decisions.2 To promote democracy, the EU uses such tools that are similar to those applied to protect human rights: political conditioning, election observation and counseling, financial assistance, civilian and military missions, and diplomatic instruments.
The views on the extent to which the elements of the principle of democracy are embodied in the European Union are divided. Some believe that the EU manages institutions able to provide legitimacy, transparency, and control of the functioning of its authorities. Others emphasize a growing deficit of democracy speaking of a deficit of democratic institutions, and the lack of democracy in society. The first is connected with a growing bureaucracy and a distance between the institutions and the citizens, the second – with the observed signs of difficulty in the formation of the category of the EU civil society.3 At the same time, it remains that the processes taking place within the EU are not different from those related to globalization. First of all, there is an insignificant sphere of the public control over the work of the EU’s structures. For example, the only institution elected by the EU members is the European Parliament, which has public legitimacy and fulfills all the requirements for considering it a public body.
The European Union has become such an abstract concept for the average Europeans since some questions arise: who leads the organization, and who makes decisions in Europe? For the public perception, the system of the EU is broadly described as follows: on the one hand, the dominant role is played by a body that simultaneously has legislative and executive powers (the Council of the European Union); on the other hand, the European Commission is a body lacking a genuine democratic legitimacy. The questions are quite legal as the EU institutions, in which more than 75,000 people work, are completely inaccessible to the citizens because of their too complicated functioning. In fact, there is the European Parliament, which includes 754 deputies representing more than 500 million EU citizens; the EU Council, which plays the role of the Council of Ministers of the various member countries; the European Commission, an executive body comprising 28 commissioners responsible for the legislative proposals, and several other bodies and agencies.4 Such a structure creates difficulties in understanding what exactly is being discussed under such topics as “this is demanded by Europe” or “people should do this for the EU”.
All this contributes to the emergence of some mistrust associated with the complex decision-making processes in the EU. More and more decisions are made in the European Councils through the intergovernmental method, and not within the framework of a pan-European system.5 In addition, the EU is based on a multifaceted system of treaties that arose both within the organization and as a result of the intergovernmental agreements.6 Among the latter, one may note the Schengen Agreement or the Budget Pact. The mentioned bureaucratic difficulties can become an insuperable obstacle for any person trying to understand the mechanism of the functioning of the EU.
Does the EU Suffer From Such a Democratic Deficit?
In fact, EU’s capabilities are important not only in terms of authority. The concept of the European Parliament has a systemic error as its idea overtakes the ongoing social processes and does not correspond to reality. Despite many years of the EU existence, there is no mentioned European Union society united by a sense of the European identities. In this regard, it is impossible to find a consensus based on the collective consciousness of belonging to the community, which should be perceived as “we” and for the benefit of people should work regardless of national and state possession. In other words, there is no joint orientation. Consequently, it is difficult to recognize that there is European legitimacy.
A recent yet popular concept of deliberative democracy, which, in theory, should prevent the growing bureaucratization of the European Union, is suggested as a potential solution to the identified problem. The idea of a deliberative democracy that refers to giving citizens the opportunity to participate in the development of decisions, but not only in their adoption such as a referendum should be provided. Follesdal and Hix emphasize the role of communication processes by pointing out that in modern society the law stabilizes expectations only when it has an internal connection with the integrating force of actions.7
The policy of the democracy unites democratic freedom in the formation of will and in the informal arrangement of opinions. The two forces such as weak private associations, expressing their will to address the authorities and interests, and the state authorities may be distinguished. The interests of the former do not oblige the latter, but both of them are to be taken them into account. The Article 10.3 of the Treaty on the European Union states that every citizen has the right to take part in the democratic life of the EU as far as possible, and the decision-making process should be transparent.8 The goal of the deliberative democracy is to engage citizens in the process of making decisions, thus increasing the confidence in allied solutions and collaboration in general.
The deliberative democracy implies a new type of legitimacy that is to be technocratic to ensure the connection between the effectiveness of the board of the EU politicians and the public legitimacy of decisions taken. There is the opinion that the Internet should be the main tool of this democracy during the development of modern technologies. Its universal access prevents the control over the disseminated information, identification of a sender, and aggregation of information. Thus, it has all the properties necessary for engaging the society in the process of developing solutions, leading to the formation of European civil society.
Reviewing the current situation with democracy deficit in the EU, it is possible to state that this organization suffers from it. Among the reasons causing such a deficit, there are several aspects. Namely, the ways to approve bills in the EU are too diverse and complex. At present, there are several procedures for drafting and approving them, in which the functions and powers of the European Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament are changing. This significantly complicates the position of citizens as it requires them to discuss the issue not only to know the essence of the problem but also to understand the methodological subtleties of the EU organization. In addition, the process of the European integration, despite its length, which takes decades and contradictory nature, represents a long-term trend based on progress towards united Europe.
Conclusion
To conclude, one may state that the long period of prosperity and the dividends of the integration gave a sense of well-being in the EU. It seems that in Europe, there are no problems with either democracy or legitimacy as the basis for the legitimacy of the EU actually became the economic effectiveness of its activities. However, the evidence shows that the legitimization of institutions based on efficiency is quite limited and not transparent. In many European countries, the integration processes change the institutional environment necessary for the vital activity of national parties, infringing the space of their internal freedom and deteriorating the functional complexity. The above issues contribute to the emergence of a deficit of democracy.
Bibliography
Barroso, José Manuel Durão. “President Barroso’s Speech on the European Semester.” Parliamentary Week of the European Semester, European Parliament, Brussels, 2014.
“EU Institutions and Other Bodies.” European Union. 2016. Web.
Follesdal, Andreas, and Simon Hix. “Why is There a Democratic Deficit in the EU? A Response to Majone and Moravcsik.” Journal of Common Market Studies 44, no. 33 (2006): 533-562.
Jensen, Thomas. “The Democratic Deficit of the European Union.” Living Reviews in Democracy. 2018. Web.
Moravcsik, Andrew. “Is There a ‘Democratic Deficit’ in World Politics? A Framework for Analysis.” Government and Opposition 39, no. 2 (2004): 336-363.
Sieberson, Stephen. “The Treaty of Lisbon and Its Impact on the European Union’s Democratic Deficit.” Hein Online 14, no. 1 (2007): 446-465.
Footnotes
José Manuel Durão Barroso, ““President Barroso’s Speech on the European Semester” (Parliamentary Week of the European Semester, European Parliament, Brussels, 2014).
Thomas Jensen, “The Democratic Deficit of the European Union,” Living Reviews in Democracy, Web.
Andrew Moravcsik, “Is There a ‘Democratic Deficit’ in World Politics? A Framework for Analysis,” Government and Opposition 39, no. 2 (2004): 349.
“EU Institutions and Other Bodies,” European Union. Web.
Stephen Sieberson, “The treaty of Lisbon and Its Impact on the European Union’s Democratic Deficit,” Hein Online 14, no. 1 (2007): 447.
Thomas Jensen, “The Democratic Deficit of the European Union,” Living Reviews in Democracy, Web.
Andreas Follesdal and Simon Hix, “Why is There a Democratic Deficit in the EU? A Response to Majone and Moravcsik,” Journal of Common Market Studies 44, no. 33 (2006): 542.
In this analysis, the rational choice theory and sociological theory have been used to evaluate the democratic institutions. Under, the sociological theory, the focus would be centered on the corporatism1. Democracy refers to a set of principles that are considered to be very fundamental to the continuity of humanity2.
Although the actual concept of democracy varies from one democratic institution to another, the bottom line is that its main motive is to ensure that there is sovereignty of the populace. In addition, the concept of democracy makes sure that the elements such as civil liberty, political pluralism, and equality before in the civil societies should be allowed to operate outside the governments.
Democratic institutions always tend to be characterized by a sense of majority rule, though in some cases there have been incidences of the majority decisions, which oppress the minority groups. Importantly, the people should not allow the minority to control or hold hostage the entire country because of their own personal interest3.
The Rational Choice Theory
This theory is centered on the assumption that the behaviors of individuals are reflected in the society. That is what is evidenced at the societal level as a reflection of basically what people see and can enjoy fully while incurring the least cost.
People will always compare what they have to spend and what they get in return. Therefore, individuals can judge the state of particular societies and conclude that it is their desire to derive the greatest satisfaction without having to spend a lot of resources4.
In the political theory, the rational choice is what moulds voters, politicians, bureaucrats, autocrats, and others to behave in a particular manner. In most cases, the dictators prefer to undermine the value of education in the states that they govern so that the civilians continue to suffer from apathy, thus allowing them to cling to power for long5.
In fact, it is common knowledge that the implication of such actions would lead to increased levels of crime and weak economy, which cannot be easily avoided in the long run. This theory also explains why in some countries, the citizens are more concerned in participating in the political processes than in other matters.
For example, countries where people are enlightened with the fact that their daily lives are centered around politics. In fact, their economy will depend on the policies of the people they elect in leadership positions. Besides, they will tend to highly participate in electoral processes more than those from the society where people do not understand the significance of good governance.
For instance, when a state is taken a democratic institution, it is very easy to understand the extent of democracy based on the awareness and information that the citizens of that country have on their rights, freedom, and how they engage their elected leaders towards the new birth of democracy6.
Indeed, the rational choice theory helps in understanding the types of democracies that exist in the social and political system, as analyzed in the following discussion.
The rational choice theory postulates that, what many democratic institutions tend to concentrate on as the signs of democracy are certain ideal functions such as political expression freedoms, right to vote, right to freedom of expression, and right to be voted for among others.
Indeed, the most important issues about these are the fact that in the various forms of democracies, the people can either participate directly to make up a policy or participate indirectly through the votes cast by their representatives. Moreover, between these two issues, one could be regarded as more democratic than the other7.
The rational choice theory is linked to the direct democratic system, in the sense that it provides rational opportunity to the voters who are engaged in direct participation in decision making as opposed to when the citizens have the important participatory roles in the process, hanging on the mercies of intermediaries who make the most strategic decisions on their behalf.
Therefore, direct democracy is considered the most appealing of them all. These systems often affect the citizens since they are given the sole right to make decisions such as revoking elected members before their terms in office have ended.
Consequently, this will result in the failure to deliver, make amendments on the constitution or adopt of the entire constitutional documents. In addition, the members fail to propose bills through referendums, and in some cases they do not approve the financial year budgets in time8.
In spite of its appealing appearance, direct democracy has its social and economic implications that can either be positive or negative. First, focusing on a social dimension, it gives the citizens a sense of patriotism and pride as they will take credit of any positive impact of the decision made.
For example, if they pass a constitution that later brings massive reforms in the bill of rights and freedoms, they will always remember that it was their hard work and commitment.
Second, the citizens may be able to enjoy good governance as anyone who appears not to be respecting human rights will be revoked from office and a better person elected. The budget will also reflect what the people feel should be given priority in order for them to move forward9.
The negative implication of direct democracy is that it may bring disgrace, especially when critical processes such as the budgets are left to the people to make approvals. This can be very detrimental, especially in the communities where the levels of illiteracy are high, and then the budgets may reflect the wishes of the people who are very unrealistic to the implementation processes.
In fact, such activities should be left to the professionals. It can also be very costly incase a particular democratic institution will opt to use a direct system as that requires a lot of money to organize and carry out referendums. It also takes a lot of time to make a decision. Therefore, it will not be ideal when the decision to be made is urgent10.
Indeed, the rational choice theory has given the politicians the leeway to control and even misuse political institutions. Some other politicians can use this opportunity to try and sabotage their opponents with the aim of making them become unpopular by carrying out campaigns on wrong ideas and propaganda.
Direct democracy may also not be logical to adopt, especially in institutions where the voters have highly torn apart along their ethnic lines. This means that decision making in most cases will not be guided by reasoning, but by emotions. It will be very difficult to come up with the consensus that will please everyone.
Therefore, those who are defeated in the elections will always feel that they have been betrayed. Therefore, it is important to note that incase any institution is to adopt the direct system of democracy, and then it should clearly distinguish the kind of decisions that will need the direct involvement of the citizens and the urgency of the matter. This is to try and avoid a situation when the people are often called upon to carry out the referendum.
Before subjecting any decision to the public domain for approval, it is very important that the electorates are accorded valuable civic education that will include educating the people on the benefits and dangers of making certain decisions. The objective of this is to ensure that the citizens know of the impact of their decisions and to prepare them for tasks to be carried out and the responsibility involved11.
Focusing on the direct democracy, which some theorists call it the discursive theory. In this system, deliberation is the key aspect of the decision-making process, that is, both the majority rule and consensus decision-making are the main elements. It also includes authentic deliberation and not only simple voting to make a decision so as to legitimize the lawmaking process.
Despite the fact that it is not so different from direct democracy, one key aspect that tends to distinguish it from the former is that there are bodies, which come up to deliberate on the issues and make decisions based on the discussed findings and recommendations.
Historically, such phenomena had been witnessed in other parts of the world. For example, the ancient Greece, especially in the Athenian democracy of about sixth century BC, both the deliberations and direct democracy were practiced.
This meant that the deliberative democracy is to some extent, more complex than the direct democracy and can be practiced frequently and successfully by the elite decision making organs of the society. These organs can include the courts and legislative structures of the government12.
This theory allows that the deliberative system can be used in two institutions. For instance, in the populist-deliberate democracy that is comprised of the ordinary citizen groups who are responsible of making decisions directly on behalf of the people after having deliberations on the particular subject matter.
It is important to note that this system is introduced to try and curb the problem of varying public opinion on matters that affect the society. However, it does not concentrate on creating permanent laws.
The other institution where deliberative system can be used is the representative democracy, which is a body of elected persons who make decisions on behalf of the people13. This has been witnessed in the countries that have adopted this method for a long time, such as the United Kingdom and Germany.
Since these representatives are mandated to make critical decisions that will affect the future of the country, then it is important that deliberations are used to ensure that the adopted decision should not negatively impact on the democratic development of the country. This system has also its social and economic impacts14.
Focusing on the social aspect of the rational choice theory, this system denies the citizens the direct opportunity to decide on their own destiny through direct voting. In short, it creates a phenomenon that tends to overlook at the citizen’s solidarity.
Though, in some cases there is prior direct voting by the people, deliberations by the appointed bodies may see that the decisions made by the people are over-turned, thus making the role of the citizens irrelevant in the decision-making process15. Deliberation can also see that there is the continued perpetuation of the status quo by those who have been given the responsibility to make decision on behalf of the other people.
This problem happens because some political leaders may just be interested to defend the interest of groups that they belong to or those groups that they benefit from in one way or another. Therefore, it forces the aspect of division on what is rational deliberation and what is just.
Economically, this system may have a positive impact since the deliberation is done by a small percentage of the people. Thus the institution will not have to incur costs that are endured to organize a referendum. The other advantage about using the deliberation approach is that it is less time consuming and this makes it very ideal when it comes to making the decisions that require urgent responses16.
James Fishkin, in his book “Democracy and Deliberation,” had disapproved this theory on the ground that it did not clearly solve the problem of voting17. He disagreed with the whole concept of using opinion polls as a reflection of the reality of people’s views on the ground that only a small fraction of the people in the society are approached and interviewed.
According to Fishkin, this is not comprehensive. Therefore, most of the political theorists have agreed on the fact that the deliberative system should be adopted alongside other systems such as the direct democracy system so as to come up with the system that will solve the weaknesses that are witnessed in the deliberative system18.
Corporatism Theory (Sociological Theory) Analyzed
This is a theoretical based system of social, economic, and political institutions. This sociological theory attempts to create corporate groups of individuals in the society, who are capable of making independent and rational choices in the democratic institutions. In addition, it categorizes people in associations based on profession and common interest.
For example, ethnic groupings, patronage scientific affiliations, business, and labor among others. This theory is very unique in the sense that its interpretation is derived from an organic body.
It was in 1884 that a commission of social thinkers and theologians presented a report that summarized corporatism to be a social institution with a base of people groupings as per their social and natural interests. In short, it portrayed the image of men and women of certain common interest coming up to advance their motives.
Indeed, it can be compared with social functionalism, and it is based on the fact that both human beings and some animals show the signs of very strong corporate social structures19.
Kinship has played a great role towards explaining corporatism; that is, a democratic institution can adopt such a system as a basic unit for decision making. For example, in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the family, ethnic, and clan identities are very common phenomena.
The Islamic and Chinese societies have also strongly upheld their clan corporatism. Importantly, in the ancient Greece, Plato came up with the ideas of communitarian and totalitarian, which were guided by natural-based hierarchy that could be organized based on classes. Individual interest was strongly condemned for the sake of communal interest since this theory is centered on the definition of democracy as the benefit of all the people.
It also strongly emphasizes on equality among the people, and the development should benefit the whole community rather than the individual20. Ancient Rome also adopted corporatism, that is, the people were divided into their religious groups. In fact, these groupings were neither based on profession nor military. This became the basis of political representation and participation.
In France, corporatism has been considered as a major contributor of the 1789 French revolution21. However, to some extent, many people have disputed such social classes as they deny the other less wealthy individuals in the society to have the opportunity to rise to certain social, political or even economic classes. Democracy advocates for equality, but socially it may lead to discrimination which is not justified22.
After the 1789 French revolution, corporatism collapsed across Europe as the new regimes were more concerned with the individual rights rather than the group rights. However, this did not last long because around 1850 corporatism emerged due to the activities of Marxism and classical liberalists who had started to advocate for the rights of both the working and middle classes.
They were fighting against class divisions, and with time Europe saw the emergence of trade union movements that took up the roles of negotiating for the rights of the workers23.
Focusing on another sociological perspective by Emile Durkheim’s theory on solidarity24, he believed strongly that there was no clear procedure or norm that could solve conflict between the trade unions and the employer. He did not support the way labor was divided in industrial capitalism since this was responsible for the great misery and anomie.
Therefore, this issue was to be addressed; that is, the workers needed the democratic avenues by which they could have their rights and privileges protected. This kind of democracy advocates for a more procedural manner of dispute resolution so that both the employees and the workers can be satisfied in the process25.
The corporatism is more concerned with the political outcome that is even or create a kind of democratic system, which wants the control of the economy to be both the private and government responsibility. Therefore, none of the two should at any point act as a monopoly26.
This theory assumes that there will be great harmony of the duty to represent matters and grievances affecting the professionals.
For example, matters to do with contracts of the works and other related aspects are left to the trade unions and employer corporations. According to the Italian fascism, the main intention of adopting this method in Italy was that it could easily accommodate divergent interests within the larger national economy27.
Moreover, neo-corporatism emerged from the post Second World War across Europe, and some of the proponents included both the social democrats and national conservatives. Though, it had almost collapsed in the 1970s, after the widespread inflation and rescission, it favored the economic tripartism that had very strong employer’s unions, labor unions, and government structures.
All these sectors came together to manage the economy, which was a good initiative because it was a clear sign of democracy to be adopted28. However, its major weakness is that it becomes very difficult to draw the boundary up to which either the government will manage or the extent to which the employers and even the workers will manage to reach without conflicts.
The other weakness is that many of those who own factors of production (employers) are the ones who succeed politically and find positions in the government. In some cases, where the government wants to come in and control the economy, it tends to scare away investors, and this may have negative effects on the economy.
Moreover, the adoption of corporatism theory caused many failures, especially when it was reported that all the political powers interfered with the whole process, and the most important were the controls of national assets. These were former state officers who mismanaged the entire system, thus it was destined to fail29.
This is because it was going to create a class of very wealthy individuals and these people would eventually abuse the rights and freedom of the other citizens. Indeed, the siloviks had seized the control of the most strategic elements of the state such as the media, administrative, and financial resources among others.
This was then followed by widespread human rights abuse and restricted democratic freedom. Socially, the values of human beings in Russia at that time were lost since the majority of the citizens turned to slavery due to oppression and mistreatments by the rich owners of capital30.
Conclusion
In sum, from the analysis of both the social choice theory and sociological theory on corporatism, it is evidenced that there is a clear relationship in the democratic governance, social, and the economic progress of a given state. Under this model, a particular institution may adopt a system of democracy that can either positively affect or negatively impact on the economic and social aspects of that society.
Therefore, it is prudent to urge all political institutions that intend to adopt democratic systems to do so objectively so as to survive in the long run, as evidenced from the rational choice theory and corporatism theory.
Bibliography
Almond, Gabriel. Separate Tables: Schools and Sects in Political Science. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1990.
Bessette, Joseph. The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Birch, Anthony. The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy. London: Routledge, 1993.
Blattberg, Charles. “Patriotic, Not Deliberative, Democracy”. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 6, no. 1 (2003):pp. 155–74.
Cammack, Paul. The New Institutionalism: Predatory Rule, Institutional Persistence, and Macro-Social Change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Caputo, Nicholas. America’s Bible of Democracy: Returning to the Constitution. New York, NY: Sterling House Publisher Inc, 2005.
Castiglione, Dario. “Republicanism and its Legacy.” European Journal of Political Theory, (2005): 453–65.
Cohen, Joshua. Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.
Copp, David, Jean Hampton, and John Roemer. The Idea of Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Dahl, Robert. Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991.
Davenport, Christian. State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Dryzek, John. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Elster, Jon. Deliberative Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Fishkin, James. When the People Speak. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Granovetter, Mark. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness”. American Journal of Sociology 91 no.3 (1985): 481-510
Hall, Peter, and Rosemary Taylor. Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1996.
Katzenstein, Peter. Small States in World Markets: industrial policy in Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985.
Koelble, Thomas. The New Institutionalism in Political Science and Sociology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.
Leibj, Ethan. “Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?” Buffalo Law Review, 54, 2006.
March, James, and Olsen Johan. The New Institutionalism: Institutional Factors in Political Life. New York, NY: University of Bergen, 1995.
Moe, Terry. Power and Political Institutions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Nino, Carlos. The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.
North, Douglas. Institutions and A Transaction-Cost Theory of Exchange: In Perspectives on Positive Political Economy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
North, Douglass. Structure and Change In Economic History. New York, NY: Norton Publishers, 1981.
Olson, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Schmitter, Philippe and Lehmbruch Gerhard. Trends towards Corporatist Intermediation. London: Sage Publishers, 1979.
Shepsle, Kenneth. “Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice Approach”. Journal of Theoretical Politics 1 (1989): 131-149.
Talisse, Robert. Democracy after Liberalism. London: Routledge, 2004.
Tilley, Charles. Of essences and bonds in Durable. California: University of California Press, 1998.
Footnotes
1 Peter Hall and Rosemary Taylor, Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1996), 23
2 CharlesTilley, Of essences and bonds in Durable (California: University of California Press, 1998), 24
3 Thomas Koelble, The New Institutionalism in Political Science and Sociology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 47.
4 Terry Moe, Power and Political Institutions (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 63.
5 Robert Dahl. Democracy and its Critics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), 83.
6 Paul Cammack, The New Institutionalism: Predatory Rule, Institutional Persistence, and Macro-Social Change, (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 78.
7 Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups( Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), 63.
8 Peter Katzenstein, Small States in World Markets: industrial policy in Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985), 16.
9 Carlos Nino, The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 23.
10 Joseph Bessette,The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 67.
11 Robert Talisse, Democracy after Liberalism ( London: Routledge, 2004), 94.
12 Anthony Birch, The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy ( London: Routledge, 1993), 45.
14 Kenneth Shepsle,“Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice Approach”, Journal of Theoretical Politics 1 (1989): 139.
15 Jon Elster, Deliberative Democracy (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 97.
16 Philippe Schmitter and Lehmbruch Gerhard, Trends towards Corporatist Intermediation, (London: Sage Publishers, 1979), 29.
17 James Fishkin, When the People Speak ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 96.
18 Douglas North, Institutions and a Transaction-Cost Theory of Exchange: In Perspectives on Positive Political Economy (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 62.
19 Ethan Leibj, “Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?” Buffalo Law Review 54, (2006) 12.
20 Cario Castiglione, “Republicanism and its Legacy,” European Journal of Political Theory, (2005): 457.
21 Mark Granovetter, “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness”, American Journal of Sociology 91 no.3 (1985): 504
In his work, Michael Parenti considered the way media presents information under the influences of corporations. The professional underlined that in the framework of a capitalist “democracy,” the dominant class ideology both in their reportage is mainly described in the news. He explains it by the fact that corporate news media usually have the same views as their owners. Thus, the opportunity to influence the information revealed by media and perceived by the general public was received as currently, corporations have an opportunity to “own up to six radio and two television stations in any one area” (Parenti 163).
Corporations exercise their power over the media in different ways, for example, with the help of corporate advertisers and sponsors. In the case of CBS Frank Stanton, a consumer reporter was not allowed to perform because of the advisers’ complaints. Another advertising account was canceled as the former producer left a “liberal” drift, claiming that the new ones can hardly cope with their duties. In the same framework, the advertisement critical of Samuel Alito and a Democratic candidate’s ad was not aired because they were considered to be disrespectful by the corporations (Parenti 164).
In order to consolidate their control over the information that is provided to the representatives of the general public, corporations also started to influence the context of the advertisements. They abuse their powers and try to make the journalists discuss things and events in the way they want. For example, Fox television tried to reveal a positive report about bovine growth hormone usage, which led to the trial, and New York Times editor never received a new assignment after he made a true report on the nuclear power plant (Parenti 165).
President of Capitalism
Parenti emphasizes that corporations turned into the main political donors, and presidents tend to rely on their advice when dealing with specific issues. He argues that the president of the USA is made “a promoter and guardian of corporate capitalism” in this way, as one is targeted at the expansion of the country’s global interests (215). As democracy spreads, the USA follows the areas full of resources one by one, trying to turn them into the states where people are willing to get more freedom and ready to pay for it with their votes.
In this way, the general public seems to obtain control over its future. The country pays much attention to the cooperation of the leader. Taking it into account, it can either promote such leadership or disregard it, putting emphasis on democracy. For example, such events happened to Saddam Hussein, who was promoted and then ousted (Parenti 149). In the framework of foreign affairs, such actions can cause wars, unnecessary destruction, and death of civilians, which results in contracts awarded to corporations that deal with military bases, logistical support, rebuilding and reconstruction of housing, etc.
Personally, I totally support Parenti’s view. For example, when the war with Iraq started and the rumor of it having nuclear weapons spread, the real situation was not taken into consideration. People followed the government as they believed it, but now numerous veterans live with injuries and fail to receive required and promised medical care. Rather often, CEOs and executives are turned into politicians, which provides them with the opportunity to alter regulations and give more profit to corporations. For example, is Vice President Dick Cheney awarded several contracts to the company where he used to be CEO, which allowed the company to increase profits greatly (Parenti 226).
Congress and Corporate Lobbyists
The government of the USA pays much attention to environmental issues and designs various policies, trying to prevent and solve them. In this framework, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was created. Its implementation is maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that cooperates with numerous private organizations with the attempt to protect the environment. EPA has much influence on various industries.
For example, it made the automotive and petroleum industries cooperate and share their research information to create clean fuels (“Private-Sector and Private-Public Partnership” 66). Such intentions are mainly perceived by the representatives of the general public as positive ones, as they are likely to improve the condition of the environment and enhance the quality of life in this way, making it safer. However, ordinary people do not really receive any advantage.
For example, diesel and hybrid entered the market as those that are environmentally friendly. Such positioning encourages people to buy them. Still, the price of such cars is higher, so the majority of individuals are not able to afford them. In this way, they are made for the population with high income. In this way, ordinary citizens fail to benefit from new technologies even though the money they spent on taxes was used for their development.
However, particular companies at the same time increase their income and establish the brand. For instance, producing such kinds of cars in the USA, Chevrolet improved its performance. Such events are encouraged by Congress and the President, as they promote the alternative fuel tax credit, making the price for diesel and gas decrease (Johnston and Kritzer para. 1). In this way, they tend to support and represent the interests of the wealthy “few” instead of American citizens.
Most observers and political scholars have often attributed the lack of democratization in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to poor leadership. Nevertheless, there are various underlying issues in DRC’s quest for absolute democratization. There is a lot of evidence indicating that the presence of authoritarian regimes in DRC has served as the major impediment to the achievement of democracy (Nzongola-Ntalaja 23).
When the country’s leadership was in the hands of Mobutu Sese Seko and Laurent-Desire Kabila Kabila, there was little semblance of democracy in the DRC. From the 1980s to the early 2000s, the DRC was the scene of intense strife as Mobutu and the Kabilas did all they could to hold on to power. On the other hand, the opposition also failed to steer or inspire the country towards an institutionally solid path of democracy. This report is a critical discussion how Mobutu, the Kabilas, and the opposition failed to implement a democratic political system in the DRC.
Democracy is not a concept that can be implemented from the surface, but it requires to be deeply cultivated from the grassroots. Consequently, “the security and productivity of counties, cantons, or villages constitutes the starting point of a strong state…whereas the general tendency to use these entities only as electoral constituencies, and isolate them immediately after election campaigns” (Anstey 37).
This approach was heavily used by all political stakeholders in DRC including the opposition. Both Mobutu and the senior Kabila were the power unto themselves. The two individuals wielded power on behalf of all other institutions in the country (Koko 34). For instance, Mobutu had the power to issue currency while Kabila banned all other political parties within the DRC. With all their powers, Kabila and Mobutu could use political and state appointments to sanitize all elements of a democratic system in the country.
The opposition’s response to Mobutu and Kabila’s regimes was to use strife to obtain power at any cost. Instead of agitating for institutional systems such as electoral units, the opposition sought to wield power through wars and coup de tats. Consequently, the opposition movements acted as competitors for power with the authoritarian rulers as opposed to being a checking their extravagances (Reno 18). For instance, “the opposition’s armed rebellion led by the Rally for Congolese Democracy (RCD) to topple Laurent Kabila clearly demonstrated that its armed opposition was unpopular, clouded with hidden agendas, counter-productive, opportunistic and prone to self-destruction” (Freedman 54).
The nepotism and patrimony that was exhibited by the ruling elite was detrimental to any chances that the opposition had of agitating for democracy. All the major personalities who were at the helm of DRC’s leadership were not accommodative of the country’s quest for democracy (Jaggers and Gurr 472). For example, Mobutu was interested in using the country’s wealth for his personal gain while the Kabila’s were mainly preoccupied with sectarian politics.
Overall, the possibility of a democratic system in the DRC never relied on any single factor but various factors had to align in order for this goal to be achieved. Each of the prevailing leaders considered democracy a threat to their other agendas such as the pursuit for power and their personal agendas. On the other hand, the opposition response to tyranny was to marshal their own instruments of power and obtain leadership by force from Mobutu and the Kabilas. In the end, undemocratic systems became the order of the day as a result of lack of a genuine push for democracy.
Works Cited
Anstey, Mark. “Can a Fledgling Democracy Take Flight in the Democratic Republic of Congo?.” African Journal on Conflict Resolution 6.2 (2007): 35-67. Print.
Freedman, Jane. Gender, Violence and Politics in the Democratic Republic of Congo, London: Ashgate Publishing, 2015. Print.
Jaggers, Keith, and Ted Robert Gurr. “Tracking Democracy’s Third Wave with the Polity III Data.” Journal of Peace Research 32.4 (1995): 469-482. Print.
Koko, Sadiki. “The ‘One-Plus-Four’ formula and Transition in the Democratic Republic of Congo.” African Security Studies 16.1 (2007): 33-47. Print.
Nzongola-Ntalaja, Georges. The Congo: From Leopold to Kabila: A People’s History, London: Zed Books, 2002. Print.
During the cold war era, the United States of America and the United Social Soviet Union embarked on an arms race that put the entire world in a state of dilemma.
Although the era came to an end without the death of any individual as a result of direct confrontation of the two powers, its after-effects left the involved nations to have adverse deficits on their budgets amongst other technicalities. However, one thing that became clear after the end of the cold war is the fact that the United States of America remained to be the worlds strongest single force (Maguire, 2009).
Since the end of the cold war, USA has had a number of political interests on several regions of the world. To be particular, USA has had a huge interest in the Middle East.
From the political interest that the worlds superpower has on the world the region coupled by the policies that the nation has developed towards its actions in the region and the natives, it is evident that the fact that a nation has supreme powers may have huge impacts on other nations whether positive or negative.
However, the aim is to determine the view of those individuals who are for the rules and policies that the United States has formulated towards the Middle East and its impacts on the region and those individuals who are against US policies and activities on the region.
To determine this, this paper shall focus on the reign of Bill Clinton and the impacts of the Clinton government in the Middle East and compare the same activities during George W. Bush administration. This analysis shall provide a clear platform as to the factors that determine the foreign relation policies that the US comes develops with regards to US foreign policy interests.
US Interests in the Middle East
After the end of the cold war, USA has come up with a number of foreign policies that affect the Middle East in one way or the other. It is due to this fact that several debates with regards to the US foreign policies have always emerged.
One of the main foreign policies that the US has advanced to support its activities in the Middle East is to encourage and fight for democracy in the region (Maguire, 2009). This may seem as a genuine political move that aims at improving the political, social, cultural and economic status of the region. However, the above initiative can be viewed from a different perspective.
The Neo-Isolationist approach is the first perspective that can be used to view the situation. According to the people who support this ideology, the conflict that arose between Israel and its Arab neighbors is a regional affair.
Such matters fall under the jurisdiction of regional bodies that have the power and mandate to come up with mediation to calm down the situation and formulate long-lasting solutions to the conflict. Thus, according to the people who are in favor of this approach, USA did not have the mandate or the jurisdiction to be involved in such issues (Maguire, 2009).
However, since the US involved itself in the issue political critics have always stated that the United States foreign policies on the issue are in favor of the Israeli government. This is the very same strategy that Islamist terrorist recruiters exploit while integrating new followers into their armies.
Thus, the people who believe in this school of thought advocate for the US government to cease getting involved in the issues of the Middle East. According to them, the involvement of USA in the Middle East has brought about animosity from a few influential people in the region who use the shortcomings of US foreign policies to their advantage.
Such people normally do not look at the efforts to the United States in bringing peace and advocating for democracy in the region but look at the policies that the US has for the region and use it against USA and its initiatives in the region (Maguire, 2009).
According to Neo-Isolationists, this has been the main factor that has encouraged anti-Americanism among local communities in the Middle East despite the fact that the United States is in most cases engaged in peaceful negotiations of peace and democracy in the region.
Another perspective that can be used to describe the engagement of the United States of America in the Middle East and its resultant foreign policies is the national interest perspective. According to the people who believe in this theory, the United States is involved with the Middle East in order to sustain its political, economic, diplomatic and military interests (Maguire, 2009).
According to this theory, the United States develops stable relationships with bodies that play a critical role in the international system. Once this is achieved, the United States shall only be involved in regional conflicts such as the one in the Middle East only if such an issue affects other the United States or its interest. This includes the world economy and the status of its allies.
This will ensure that the world economy is maintained and at the same time, USA shall still be able to access and secure its oil interest in the Persian Gulf (Maguire, 2009). This doctrine has been put into practice with Theodore Roosevelt and George H. W. Bush who, during their reign as the presidents of the United States, ensured that the interest of the United States of America have been kept first in all matters.
Thus, in accordance to this belief, the United States is involved in the conflicts of the Middle East for economic and military reasons. The nation has developed foreign policies that will ensure that their oil interests are kept intact. In addition, the department of defence is particularly interested with the Middle East. Due to this fact, the department of defence has formed alliance with local governments in the region.
In the process, the military is normally engaged in local mission within the gulf region. In addition, the military also gets access to ample resources that are essential in reducing the cost of development of warfare weaponry. The vast lands that are available in the region also provide a serine environment for testing these weapons and training the US military.
In the course of these actions, the United States involvement in the Middle East also strives to ensure that Israel remains as a sovereign state. Thus, the need to secure its national interests thus plays a critical role in shaping the foreign policies of USA, especially with regards to the Middle East.
The Clinton Administration
During the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton came up with a strategic plan that managed him to attract majority of the US voters. In his campaign, Bill Clinton focused on democratic development; a strategy that made his campaign to take a different approach as compared to his rival, George W. H. Bush. His new strategy and ideas were against the realism ideas that Bush was advocating for.
In the process, Clinton managed to have more supporters, a move that made him to win the presidential elections of 1992 (Maguire, 2009). As a result of his democratic ideas, Clinton managed to gather the support of individuals from different cultures, backgrounds and political ideologies. For instance, Clinton managed to gather the support of neoconservatives Joshua Muravchik being one of them.
Muravchik had developed to be an influential conservative, and in the process, he had gathered the support of many individuals who wanted to end the reign of Saddam Hussein (Maguire, 2009).
The neoconservatives, however, felt that George H. W. Bush had let them down since he failed to deliver a New World Order, a promise that he had made to the American people. As a result, neoconservatives turned to Clinton for hope. However, Clinton would also disappoint the neoconservatives.
The reign of President Clinton was marked with a remarkable accord in a bid to fight for peace in the Middle East. In September 1993, the Oslo Declaration of Principles was signed in Washington DC in the presence of Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat who was the chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister.
The Oslo Declaration of Principles was the framework which the two parties in the Israel-Arab conflict would base their negotiations on in the process of trying to achieve peace between the two parties. The Oslo Declaration of Principles was signed in the United States. However, USA had not been involved in its initial developments.
Therefore, the fact that USA was involved in the last minute in this peace initiative developed negative attitudes from Israeli-Palestinian veto players. In addition, this move led to the development of Islamist terror groups that posed a danger both to the United States and to its regional partners.
Therefore, policymakers in Washington DC had the challenge of coping with the short-term effect development of resistance from Islamist terror groups and long-term effect of political reformation in the affected states.
Although at that time it was not visible, the role played by regional actors in the efforts to bring peace between Israel and Palestine provided a conducive environment for the development of conflicts between the parties involved. In addition, the fact that the United States spearheaded the Oslo Declaration of Principles would have adverse effects, especially from regional actors.
It is due to this fact that Laura Drake asserted that these two issues that seem to be so apart from one another would intersect in the process of mediation (Maguire, 2009). In addition, Drake asserted that the fact that USA supports undemocratic states in its efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East would definitely undermine all its diplomatic efforts in the region.
The Senate committee that was in charge of foreign affairs saw the authenticity of these allegations and published a report on the same. In this report, the main question that was posed was whether local Islamist movements played a critical role in the peace process in the Middle East.
However, this issue was not considered given the fact that the United States foreign policy to such issues normally focused on its national interests. In such a process, therefore, the initiatives of USA in the region normally undermine the political activities of local groups and put a lot of its emphasis on its national interests.
Therefore, with regards to this, USA pressed on with its efforts to solve the Israel-Arab conflict without neglecting the Arab democratic wave that had developed during the Eastern Europe revolutions after the end of the cold war.
The outcomes of this issue led to the release of the National Security Strategy of 1996. According to this strategy, the US government had developed a foreign policy based on the concept of engagement and enlargement (Maguire, 2009).
However, political analysts and critics suggested that this strategy ignored the interest of influential stakeholders and most importantly, it lacked direction.
They viewed this strategy and the policies that supported it as a means of encouraging democracy in the Middle East to ensure that these regimes are based on a market economy that will provide a serine environment for the US government to benefit from its Middle East interest. Therefore, in the eyes of many analysts, this strategy mainly focused on the United States domestic agendas (Maguire, 2009).
However, as the USA continued with its efforts of democratizing the Middle East, it experienced a huge obstacle. This was a clash of civilization that was brought about by a huge conflict between Islam and the influence from the West.
This thus led to the development of extremist and radical regimes in the Middle East. These acts came true as per Laura Drakes prediction.
As a result of the intense conflicts between the two groups, Clinton declared a state of emergency as a result of the increased violence that aimed to disrupt the peace process between Israel and Palestine. In addition, he froze all the assets of individuals who were linked to any terror group that supported these acts of violence in the region.
The Bush Administration
George W. Bush became the president of the United States in the year 2000. A year later, on September 11th 2001, USA experienced the most lethal terror attacks that have ever been witnessed in the history of the nation.
A day later on CNN, Abdullah II, the King of Jordan, in his statement, asserts that these attacks would not have occurred if Israel and Palestine have come into a consensus at the camp David summit that was held on the summer of the year 2000 (Maguire, 2009).
However, Dennis Ross, who was the special envoy to the Middle East during the Clintons administration, stated that the two incidences were completely unrelated.
He believed that Osama bin Laden had used the situation to his advantage to ensure that his propagandistic ideas are realized. Thus, the prevailing political reformation process in the Middle East gave local politicians within the region to bring out their differences that in most cases did not have the interests of Palestinians at hand.
However, the debate that was at hand at this time was the responsibilities of the United States on the attacks. Many scholars believed its involvement in the democratization of the region played a critical role in the development of Islamic threats. As Martin Kramer asserted, the United States would have suspected of such attacks and that the nation should be prepared for even tougher times ahead (Maguire, 2009).
This was due to the huge growth of anti-Americanism in the region. Daniel Brumberg presented a different strategy that would solve the issue. He stated that time had come of the United States government to differential between Islamists and national ideologues.
To ensure this strategy was successful, the public in the Middle East was not to be involved in the prevailing politics. This brought about the suspicion of whether USA wanted to push for political reforms in the Middle East honestly.
Thus, at this time, the national interest perspective of the United States had failed. According to an article that was published in the Foreign Affairs, Martin Indyk admitted that the United States had seen a window of opportunity in the Israel-Palestine negotiations (Maguire, 2009).
This made them to push back the democratic demands of the region. However, as a result of their actions, adverse consequences have occurred and this time, it was in US soil. These acts were regarded to as a threat to the national security of the United States. This, therefore, made the political reformation process in the Middle East to be a matter of national interest to the United States.
This view was supported by most policymakers in Washington DC. There were also anti-Israeli and anti-America protests in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These protestors viewed Americans as infidels, while the Arab nationalists viewed them as imperialists. This division of interest provided a serine environment for terrorists such as Osama bin Laden to have an easy time to support their activities.
These issues made it necessary for the United States to reconsider the Oslo process. However, the United States felt that Israel did not have a willing partner (Palestine) to ensure that the goals and objectives of the initiative were arrived at.
To make matters worse, the Israeli navy managed to capture a Palestine vessel that was with over 50 tonnes of weaponry that had originated from Iran (Maguire, 2009). This clearly showed that Arafat supported the political war over the peace process. This made Ariel Sharon to ask President Bush not to welcome Yasser Arafat to the White House.
This acts made President Bush to talk about the issue in his famous Rose Garden speech. In the speech, he advocated for a peaceful process to mediate the Israeli-Arab conflict. To ensure that this is achieved, Bush supported the idea an independent Palestine state to push in for the renewal of Palestinian leadership.
In addition, he also supported the UN reform of land for peace and urged for the end of the ongoing political war in the region. Thus, according to this speech, Bush viewed that it was essential for the region to have democracy as a tool that will push towards the development of peace between Israel and Palestine and the larger Middle East region.
Conclusion
Since the end of the cold war, the United States has focused its attention to the Middle East. The main aim of their interest in the region is to push for a political change in the region by bringing in the idea of democracy in the region. However, the actions of the nation in the region can be viewed on two different perspectives; the Neo-Isolationist and the national interest.
Given these views, the United States involvement in the middle east has led to the development of several foreign policies during the Clintons and Bushs administrations in order to support their activities in the region. These policies have been formulated to safeguard the national securities and interest of USA within and outside of the country and to ensure that its democratic mission in the region is achieved.
Works Cited
Maguire, Lori. The Foreign Policy Discourse in the United Kingdom and the United States in the “New World Order.” Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009. Print.
Today, democracy is discussed by many people as the most appropriate form of government to meet citizens’ needs and interests. As a result, much attention is paid to the idea of democratization. Democracy and global peace are presented as the main goals set by people to achieve them during the world’s progress and social evolution (Inglehart and Welzel 2005).
The process of democratization leads to democracy, and to understand the current interest of the public to democratization, it is important to focus on the historical roots of the concept’s evolution. From this point, it is necessary to refer to Niccolo Machiavelli’s theory on politics, democracy, and democratization.
Thus, the paper aims to discuss the Machiavellian views on democratization while applying them to the current political situation and strategies used by modern governments.
Although there are many differences between Machiavelli’s views and modern understanding of democracy, the Machiavellian theory can be related to modern politics and democratization processes, basing on the concept of civil freedom and the role of elites to form effective governments.
To explain the roots of the modern tendencies to democratize and modernize society, it is necessary to refer to Machiavelli’s ideas presented in his works The Prince and The Discourses. In spite of the fact modern states can be characterized differently about political regimes, there is a global tendency to build a society based on the Western democratic pattern.
The only way to democratize and modernize a society is to concentrate on changes in governments and international politics. This opinion is also reflected in Machiavelli’s works. In spite of the fact, Machiavelli did not use the term ‘democracy’ in the works, his vision of a republic and its characteristics can be correlated with the modern understanding of democracy (Tilly 2007).
That is why it is possible to use Machiavelli’s views on democratization to explain modern tendencies in politics and the current evolution of governments. Thus, Machiavelli’s ideas, used as the root of the democratic theories, can be referred to discuss modern governments. The purpose of the paper is to analyze Machiavelli’s writings from the point of their appropriateness to the specific features of modern politics.
This paper also aims to provoke discussion based on Machiavelli’s views on democratization and leadership by applying them to current political situations and approaches to governing, with references to the general appropriateness of the Machiavellian theory.
To apply the Machiavellian vision of democratization to the modern understanding of democracy, it is necessary to concentrate on the theories of democratization discussed by modern researchers, and on methods and approaches helpful for the political science research on the topic.
According to the theory of democratization, it is impossible to discuss the process of democratizing the society without reference to the end goal which is the building of a stable democracy within this society. Political scientists and sociologists are inclined to state that democracy is based on the equal rights of citizens to participate in elections and to influence the development of the government within the state (Acemoglu and Robinson 2006).
Thus, citizens share the power and have the right to control the state’s progress with the help of their representatives (Acemoglu and Robinson 2006; Hawkins 2001). Furthermore, democracy depends upon providing citizens with definite rights and liberties and on following the rule of law (West 2004).
From this perspective, democratization is the process of changing the current regime, with references to the mentioned points, to develop a new democratic society.
To discuss the theory of democratization, it is important to refer to the example of the USA. According to Moller and Skaaning, the USA is the most vivid model of a democratic society which has overcome all the issues of democratization (Moller and Skaaning 2012).
Moreover, democratization within the country can be discussed as the on-going process because of the necessity to develop new approaches to making the life of citizens more comfortable about their democratic rights and freedoms. Thus, there are several approaches to discuss modern trends in democratization.
Today, the public speaks about democracy concerning the problem of freedom of expression and issues connected with the media. Democracy operates the idea of openness (Stiglitz 2003). Thus, democratization is the process to provide more openness within society.
The other approach is in the fact that the necessities to democratize the society are traditionally affected by definite social and political issues and challenges. The demands for democratization become the public’s reaction to some problematic points within society.
To build democracy, it is necessary to overcome certain social protests based on violence and different types of challenges (Samuels 2005). That is why democratization is associated with definite social movements.
Welzel provides his vision of the theory of democratization basing on the concept of the ‘balance of powers’ (Welzel 2008). According to Welzel, democratic society depends on the balance between powers and balanced freedoms.
Welzel states that “people power is institutionalized through civic freedoms that entitle people to govern their lives, allowing them to follow their personal preferences in governing their private lives and to make their political preferences count in governing public life” (Welzel 2008, 75).
The balance is necessary to build the democracy because “there is a natural resistance among elites to grant civic freedoms to the wider public because such freedoms limit elite power” (Welzel 2008, 75). Thus, the balance in relations between elites and masses is accentuated.
The above-mentioned aspects determined with references to the theory of democratization are correlated with the modern vision of the issue, and they are significant to understand the current situation in politics. However, it is important to focus on the Machiavellian views on the issue of democratization and try to apply them to modern political realities.
That is why the main method to discuss the appropriateness of such an approach is the qualitative political science research based on analyzing the Machiavellian ideas presented in his two main works The Prince and The Discourses.
According to Thomas, qualitative research can be defined as the process of organizing the qualitative or textual data into definite categories to analyze them and find the relationships between these categories (Thomas 2005). Qualitative research methods are effective to analyze the problem of the paper’s purpose.
The appropriate methods to conduct qualitative research on the topic are the analysis and interpretation of Machiavelli’s writings and the modern researchers’ investigations (Bennett, and Elman 2006).
To analyze Machiavelli’s writings about their appropriateness to the aspects of modern politics and regimes with determining the possible similarities and differences in visions and interpretations, it is necessary to refer to such Machiavelli’s works like The Prince and The Discourses. These works present rather opposite visions on the governor who can be the embodiment of power within the state.
In The Discourses, Machiavelli concentrates on the figure of a Republican, and his views on a republic are important to analyze the modern model of a democratic society. In The Prince, the author focuses on the figure of a monarch and discusses monarchy as the absolute form of rule which can be appropriate to provide the definite level of security and welfare for citizens.
In spite of differences in topics and ideas discussed in these works, The Prince and The Discourses can be considered as the presentation of the Machiavellian theory of democratization with references to the concepts of elite, citizens, the public’s security, social stability, international relations, military, social structure, liberty, and political culture (McCormick 2011).
Thus, this paper adopts and interprets the views of Machiavelli presented in The Prince and The Discourses from the point of their relevance to modern governments and trends in politics. That is why the visions of Machiavelli about the concepts mentioned above are applied to examine the current progression of governments.
Thus, the qualitative research methods used in the paper to discuss the problematic questions depend on the interpretation of the Machiavellian theory.
Analyzing Machiavelli’s theory and vision of democratization in relation to the modern politics, it is necessary to pay attention to such important questions as the ways to create the stable democracy, the methods to preserve liberty used by the authorities, the ways to unify nations with the focus on the international relations, the approaches to improve economy as the fundament of the state’s development, and the ways to modernize the society.
These problematic questions are discussed by many modern politicians, political scientists, sociologists, and economists to explain the contemporary situation associated with governments, political regimes, and tendencies in international relations (Bernard 2009).
The evolution of modern governments accentuates the expansion of different democratic forms. Democratization can be discussed as the process which leads to democracy. Thus, the accents are made on less authoritarian regimes and societies. Democratization can be developed within a non-democratic society or in a democratic society to maintain necessary improvements (Bernard 2009).
It is possible to concentrate on Machiavelli’s views on democratization and democracy from the perspective of their relevance to the modern world. Applying the author’s ideas to the specifics of developing international relations and politics, it is important to pay attention to the obvious similarities and differences in the processes and approaches.
Thus, definite ideas presented in Machiavelli’s works on the progress of governments and states can be discussed as analogous to the situations in contemporary politics (McCormick 2001).
Niccolo Machiavelli’s views on democracy and democratization which can be associated with the modern visions of a democratic state and society support the idea of the ‘well-governed Patria’ (Machiavelli 2007). From this point, the methods of control and governing can be different and even rather violent about citizens.
In spite of the fact, there are different approaches to the discussion of the power in The Prince and The Discourses, Machiavelli is rather stable in his views on democratization which can be discerned with references to these works.
In The Prince, Machiavelli states that the main task of the authority is to provide the conditions of security for citizens and their rights to control the political situation within the state and regulate the activities of the government (Machiavelli 2007).
Thus, the role of the prince as a monarch is to take the necessary responsibility for regulating any problematic situations within the society and prevent the creation of any conditions for the development of any forms of corruption. The impact of effective rule is not always positive and nonviolent.
The development of contemporary democratic society is closely associated with the crisis about the notion of political accountability and the issue of corruption. In spite of the fact modern democracies are electoral, masses or citizens are inclined to support indirectly the intentions of elites to increase their influence and properties depending on the issue of corruption.
The elections are not as free as they should be in the democratic society, and the public’s influence and liberties decrease. Citizens in many modern states cannot control their authorities, and these democracies cannot be discussed as complete. According to Machiavelli’s vision of democracy, the power of the government should be based on effective elections and political trials where the word of citizens matters.
McCormick states that the mentioned factors can be discussed as the extra-electoral means (McCormick 2011). Machiavelli uses the idea of the best constitution as the ideal regime. According to Machiavelli, “the best constitutions balanced the three elements – prince, aristocracy, and people – under a common constitution” (Tilly 2007, 28).
Although it is rather difficult to correlate the principles of democracy with the authoritarian regime, the author supports his vision of the ideal regime basing on the discussion of aspects many of which are typical not only for classical democracies but also for the modern democratic societies.
Thus, the rule of elites is correlated with the rule of a monarch in The Prince, but this rule is also reflected as the variant of democracy according to Machiavelli’s idea of a republic. It is important to note that if today people are inclined to discuss democratic states as the most powerful ones, Machiavelli refers to the factors of the authoritarian regime as an ideal.
The main feature, which can be used to accentuate the association between Machiavelli’s vision of an ideal regime and the modern vision of democracy, is liberty. The discussion of the citizens’ freedom and liberties is characteristic in association with the modern understanding of democracy. From this point, the concept of liberty is important to be examined with references to the process of democratization (Machiavelli 2009).
In The Discourses, the concept of the citizens’ liberty about the republic is discussed with much detail. Moller states that “for Machiavelli, republican liberty should be understood as the absence of arbitrary domination, a notion that has obvious affinities with negative liberty. However, protective republicanism also calls for a high degree of political participation” (Moller 2012, 25).
Discussing republicanism as the form associated with democracy in the modern world, it is important to state that the intentions of politicians to influence the social life significantly remain to be relevant about the modern progress of politics. Thus, according to Tilly, it is possible to refer to the “great analyses of politics” presented in Machiavelli’s Discourses “that still make his work required reading today.
His Discourses ostensibly consider the constitutions of classical Rome but range widely over the Italian politics of his own time” (Tilly 2007, 27). The patterns of constitutions depicted in work can be effectively used to analyze modern governments and their role in society.
That is why it is impossible to speak about an effective democracy when the influence of elites grows, and the role of citizens decreases. Machiavelli “pointed directly to Athens as an example of a democracy which degenerated because of its inability to protect itself from ‘the arrogance of the upper class’ and ‘the licentiousness of the general public’” (Held 2006, 41).
The absence of a balance leads to the conflict, and the necessity of democratization is often proclaimed. These aspects are characteristic for the modern governments, and these ideas are also presented in Machiavelli’s works (Kocis 1998).
Nevertheless, only definite modern democracies are correlated with Machiavelli’s vision of a republic. Machiavelli “argued that what he termed republics would be more war-prone – and more capable of waging war – than were non-democracies.
These republics may be interpreted as what today we would call semi-democracies” (Moller 2012, 177). As a result, semi-democracies are inclined to provide the additional democratization because of inability to build an effective democratic society basing on all its classical principles.
However, the question of the appropriateness of Machiavelli’s ideas on democracy to the modern vision of democracy is rather controversial because researchers agree that the modern variant of a democratic society has few similarities with the model discussed by Machiavelli about a republic (Cooper 2003). Welzel also states that the modern type of democracy was formed only after industrialization.
According to Welzel, “no democracy in pre-industrial history would qualify as a democracy under today’s standards because one is defining an element of mature democracies, universal suffrage, was unknown” (Welzel 2008, 75). That is why Machiavelli’s ideas can be used appropriately to discuss current situations in politics and modern governments appropriately, but partially.
There is a lot of critiques provided by Machiavelli in his works regarding different aspects of a republic or democracy. Bernard states that “persuaded by the ‘myth of Rome’ that he [Machiavelli] developed during those years, he devised a powerful critique of Florence and the failed Florentine Republic” (Bernard 2009, 127).
From this perspective, democracy cannot be ideally balanced, and changes in the democratic societies can lead to the transformation of a regime into more authoritarian. Today, many societies develop democratization processes to avoid the effects of the authoritarian regimes (Hubbard 2004).
However, according to Machiavelli, the results can be rather the opposite. The possible justification for the idea applicable to the current situation is the increase of the elites’ power and the corrosion of the typical democratic institutions.
Democratization along with capitalism as a result of industrialization is the new approach to transform the ineffective democratic regimes into more powerful. However, the problem is in the fact that even the accents of the public on the necessity to democratize the social and political institutions have no observable effects because of the corrosion of the modern democratic institutions.
From this perspective, the Machiavellian theory of democratization is rather appropriate to discuss the modern processes within the political arena. Furthermore, it is possible to discuss the problem of the influence and dominance of elites and the issues of liberty and civic freedoms connected with modern society about Machiavelli’s ideas.
Machiavelli’s views are also effective to discuss the question of creating the stable democracy, but modern democratic forms differ significantly from the models described by Machiavelli, and this fact should be taken into consideration while discussing the theory’s relevance.
References
Acemoglu, David, and John Robinson. 2006. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Bennett, Andrew, and Colin Elman. 2006. “Qualitative Research: Recent Developments in Case Study Methods”. Annual Review of Political Science 9(6): 455-476.
Bernard, John. 2009. Why Machiavelli Matters: A Guide to Citizenship in a Democracy. USA: ABC-CLIO.
Cooper, Ray. 2003. The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century. NY: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Hawkins, Darren. 2001. “Democratization Theory and Nontransitions: Insights from Cuba”. Comparative Politics 33(4): 441-461.
Held, David. 2006. Models of Democracy. USA: Stanford University Press.
Hubbard, Ben. 2004. “Deep Democracy”. Web.
Inglehart, Ronald, and Christian Welzel. 2005. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Kocis, Robert. 1998. Machiavelli Redeemed: Retrieving His Humanist Perspectives on Equality, Power, and Glory. USA: Lehigh University Press.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 2007. The Prince. USA: Arc Manor LLC.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 2009. Discourses on Livy. USA: University of Chicago Press.
McCormick, John. 2001. “Machiavellian Democracy: Controlling Elites with Ferocious Populism”. American Political Science Review 95(2): 297-314.
McCormick, John. 2011. Machiavellian Democracy. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Moller, Jorgen, and Svend-Erik Skaaning. 2012. Democracy and Democratization in Comparative Perspective: Conceptions, Conjunctures, Causes, and Consequences. USA: Routledge.
Samuels, Richard. 2005. Machiavelli’s Children: Leaders and Their Legacies in Italy And Japan. USA: Cornell University Press.
Stiglitz, Joseph. 2003. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.
Thomas, George. 2005. “The Qualitative Foundations of Political Science Methodology”. Perspectives on Politics 3(4): 855-866.
Tilly, Charles. 2007. Democracy. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Welzel, Christian. 2008. “Theories of Democratization”. Web.
West, Cornel. 2004. Democracy Matters: Winning the fight Against Imperialism. NY: Penguin Press.