The decisive expansion of democracy or the “Third Wave” has augmented western ideals around the world. Today, many countries initiated and succeed in their political reforms or so-called democratization. Here, democracy reflects an institution or the parcel of collective identity that stresses the idea of liberalism and capitalism. China, being one of the countries yet truly to begin the process of democratization, stands on a point that future progress will be important not only for the people in China but also for the people outside of China. Moreover, the upcoming steps of Chinese political and social reforms will be important to the theories of development and democracy. China, under Lenin’s ideal of communism, modernized its economy bringing the essential element of liberal democracy, capitalism however its politics remains as a fervent communist party. This paper will examine both pessimistic and optimistic views on the Chinese prospect of democratization yet it will ultimately suggest or justify that shortly China will not become democratic that holds Western ideals of liberalism and capitalism.
Communist China
However, it is true that “Democracy is a relatively recent historical phenomenon. Even in the United States and Europe it was only consolidated through universal suffrage in the last century”. (Ottaway & Carothers, 26) As a result, it would be a pessimistic approach to judge China on its current form of governance under a communistic party system. As it is, China is going through a huge wave of globalization and its effects are showing on its cultures. It can be well established that the traditional Chinese festival is declining. This is replaced by western festivals like Valentine’s Day and Christmas. The largely outstanding form of this is Westernization, but Sinicization of cultures has occurred over most parts of Asia for several centuries. Augmented intercontinental travel and tourism, greater than before immigration even though it may also pave the way for illegitimate immigrations, dispersal of local consumer merchandise such as food products to other countries over and over again making them acquainted to their culture, wide-reaching fashion and pop culture. Additionally, unlike other former communist states like Russia, “the consensus these days (in China) is that world order does not collapse over a weekend and that betting on America’s decline is a risky gamble” (Krastev, 50). Thus, it can be assumed that the future generation of china would fundamentally westernize and democracy would rule as a production of this westernization.
Distant dream
But on the current data, this appears to be a distant dream. “With its economy growing at double digits since the early 1990s, China has achieved its age-old aspiration of international greatness”. (Pei, p. 45). This has given the country an additional stronghold as a nationalistic approach. The story of China is literally about a rag to riches story, to its future in its relation to past, the huge population to potentially increasing world market share, Chinese immigrants, its effect on the world, depletion of its natural resources, the social aspect, political and economic policies and its relation of trust with the outside world. Thus, “They present a serious challenge to the liberal orthodoxy founded on the belief that democracy and free markets go together in the development of successful societies”. (Pei, p. 45).
Simultaneously, there is evidence of distrust, environmental malaise, rampant piracy, official corruption, and problems arising out of rapid industrialization. The situation attributes it to the intricacies arising out of differences between communism and capitalism. This mismatch of political and economic policies is creating problems for not only China but also other states engaged with it. It can be stated that that protectionist measures like subsidies over water, electricity, oil, and other state subsidies along with restricted capital flows have aggravated the further complicated situation. But the most serious blow against the pro-democratic movement of the 1980s (comprised of students and urban intelligentsia) came with the Tiananmen crackdown. The rest of the pro-democratic movement was handled by the Chinese authority with satanic efficiency. “The Party recruited large numbers of college students, professors, and social scientists and appointed many to government positions…At the same time, pay, benefits, perks, and professional privileges for the intelligentsia were significantly increased.” (Pei, p. 48). The price is simple and obvious. They are not allowed to act against the party. This ends the chance of democracy in China in near future.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be mentioned that the only thing growing faster than China is the publicity of China. China is one of the world’s ancient unremitting civilizations has always left-back the rest of the world with its intelligence and self-reliance. The record of China’s progress over the past two decades has demonstrated naysayers wrong and optimists not positive enough. Instead of all its backdrafts, China managed to pave its development path. The study shows these elements but at the same time, it manages to portray the darker side of this development and the difficulties of the local population within this changed scenario. But by Ottaway & Carothers, “Adepressingly large swath of East and Southeast Asia—from North Korea and China down through Vietnam, Laos, and Burma to Malaysia and Singapore—is a democracy-free zone that shows few signs of change. (Ottaway & Carothers, p. 22). Thus, it can well be stated that even though there are waves of changes, it is not towards the development of democracy and this holds at least shortly.
Works Cited
Krastev, Ivan. “What Russia Wants”. Foreign Policy 5-6 (2008): 48-51.
The socio-political and economic development experience of Latin America has been remarkably unique and unforgivable. While many countries in the region painstakingly continue to democratize and reform their institutions, others like Venezuela – under the leadership of its charismatic leader, President Hugo Chavez– are heading in the opposite direction (Weyland, 2001). This essay will critically evaluate Venezuela in different aspects –in the following order–: democratic principles and the constitution, political systems, economic policies and institutions, the media, and civil societies to show how Chavez is weakening democracy in the country.
Hugo Chavez assumed power in 1998 through the ballot box, after an earlier attempt to topple the government failed to materialize –through a coup d’état in 1992– (Class notes). Prior to his ascension to the highest office, Venezuela enjoyed a relatively functional constitutional order and growing support for democratic principles (Corrales, 2006). Indeed, the democratically battered nation was once hailed as a perfect model of consensual democracy in the region (Weyland, 2001). But being a cunning and charismatic firebrand, Chavez heavily relied on the failures of his predecessors to ignite the masses, particularly the poor majority, to rally behind him on the ballot.
The major political parties –Acción Democrática or AD and COPEI– were increasingly being blamed for mismanagement –in the oil industry– and corruption. The masses, especially the impoverished, attributed the nation’s sudden economic downturn to incompetence and graft. According to Weyland (2001), around 80 percent of the country’s population lived below the recognized poverty level despite the government’s oil revenues. Chavez easily convinced the angry masses to elect him to power after he promised a purge on all political elites that had contributed to the economic downturn. Other figures within the region, namely Carlos Menem of Argentina and Alberto Fujimori of Peru, had previously won power using the same strategies (Skidmore & Smith, 2005).
Parallels can be drawn between Hugo Chavez and several other leaders that assumed the same role throughout history –namely Hitler, Castro, and Mussolini–; However, Chavez’ ability to hoodwink the masses into believing that his government is founded on democratically constituted pillars can only be termed as ‘magical’, if not ‘supernatural’ (Weyland, 2001). Although reviled by western nations for his unprompted criticism of their democratic values and capitalistic leanings, President Chavez has cultivated a way to make his own authoritarian rule stylish, if not with the general population, with at least the number of voters required to win in the ballots (Corrales, 2006). Against a backdrop of valid accusations from democratic nations that Chavez is running an autocratic establishment in Venezuela, the leader has been able to counteract such contradictions by winning consecutive elections.
Hugo Chavez’s charismatic abilities to rally the impoverished masses and refashion his authoritarian rule to pass as a democracy has found favor in many quarters. The recently deposed Honduras President, Mr. Manuel Zelaya, is one of his students. Some of his ardent supporters feel that a complete revolution to a socialist state will definitely assist the impoverished masses to access the resources needed for development (Boudin, 2006). The president’s antics have enabled him to earn a generous crown from the masses as the man who has worked overboard to assist the country’s long-abandoned poor majority (Noriega, 2006). Some regional leaders are more than willing to support Hugo Chavez due to his generosity in spreading the country’s oil resources to rally support for his anti-American revolution. Due to his oratory prowess, Chavez has also been able to entrench a philosophy among the impoverished population that he is the only one capable of housecleaning the socio-political and economic scene, in the process bring sustained economic growth, create job opportunities, and overcome increasing social challenges (Weyland, 2001). To date, this remains a pipedream.
The challenges bedeviling Venezuela’s democratic systems and institutions are well disguised by Chavez’s administration. During his tenure, Venezuela has not experienced mass murders, concentration camps, state-sponsored terror, the disappearance of civil society, and other golly experiences shared by its neighbors. Indeed, elections in Venezuela are held more than it is legally necessary, and the opposition and civil society have not been overly repressed like in other dictatorships (Corrales, 2006). However, democracy is slowly sliding back to oblivion due to the excessive lack of accountability exhibited by Chavez’s government. The president has taken over all democratic institutions, including electoral authorities, effectively relying on his unlimited control of the legislative assembly to derail all initiatives that have any iota of democracy (Noriega, 2006). No single state institution is mandated to check his actions. In this perspective, the president is answerable to no one other than to his own ego.
Democratic institutions in Venezuela started the long road of being transformed into autocratic institutions when Chavez masterminded the 1999 constitutional amendment. This amendment heralded a new era of participatory democracy –instead of liberal democracy– (Class notes). However, this devalued representative democracy across Venezuela weakened the reputation of political parties as articulators of the country’s political will and converted the military and other cronies into crucial players with the ability to introduce themselves and their negative manipulations into any sphere of public life (Kornblith, 2005; McCoy, 2005).
Upon his ascending to power, many of Chavez’s cronies and former coup plotters were honored with plum positions in many state-run institutions charged with the responsibility of nurturing democracy in the country. Indeed, Chavez’s ideology was to develop a new model of increased military participation in a government that was being led by his own proxies. Chavez must have had an intricate obsession with the military since he went ahead to delegate civilian duties to inexperienced military personnel. Crucial institutions that are supposed to remain autonomous and democratic such as the National Election Commission (CNE) and the judicially have been politicized under Chavez’s watch. This can only serve to weaken democratic structures in the country (McCoy, 2005).
The Constitution of Venezuela has been changed numerous times to strengthen the incumbent president’s grip on power, as it weakens opposing voices. According to Crisp and Levine (1999), a constitution is often used to define a country’s formal sources of authority, including the obligation to initiate legislation, the power to hire and fire cabinet ministers, the percentage required to overrule a presidential veto, and other matters geared toward the smooth running of institutional structures of a country. However, President Chavez has, on several occasions, disrespected the country’s supreme legal document to bring about constitutional changes geared towards entrenching his tyrannical rule at the expense of democracy. His use of historical figures and symbolism –namely Simon Bolivar and the cross– to justify some of his actions and promote his desired changes legitimizes, to a certain extent, his actions in the eyes of his supporters (Class notes).
During his first year in office, the President tampered with the constitution with the express aim of strengthening his presidential powers (Weyland, 2001). The tampering saw Chavez reclaim absolute authority to call for elections in 2000 that were aimed at hoodwinking the world that he was running a democracy. He won the elections by 59 percent of the votes cast. Such gesticulations only serve to constrain democracy. In February 2009, Chavez was at it again when he amended the constitution to eradicate presidential term limits. 54 percent of the voters voted in favor of the new constitutional amendment (Carroll, 2009). This was abuse of democracy as the president can now be re-elected indefinitely.
President Chavez also dampened Venezuela’s democratic structures by changing the Constitution in 1999 to effectively abolish the senate and create a unicameral legislative assembly with no real powers to check on his decision-making (Weyland, 2001). This way, Chavez has been able to command allegiance by promoting the military and old cronies for political expediency rather than for the benefit of his subjects. Through Chavez’s advice, the roles of Congress were revised to ensure that he was able to pass important congressional laws using a simple majority as opposed to a two-thirds majority (Corrales, 2006). Chavez also amended the Constitution to affect a congressional approval seeking to expand the Supreme Court from 20 judges to 32. As usual, the created posts were filled up by his loyalists, further weakening democracy.
Although the media enjoyed significant freedom of expression during the early days of Chavez’s rule, the situation deteriorated later on. Media laws that mandate the state to supervise and control media content came into effect (Corrales, 2006). Journalists and private media houses are increasingly being subjected to harassment and sanctions due to their unequivocal demands for sanity to return to the county’s leadership. Chavez’s government has successfully learned the art of using the public airwaves to entrench its agenda and instill socialist ideologies on the masses. This week alone, the government has already shut down over a dozen privately-owned radio stations as part of Chavez’s aggressive attempts to continue his socialist revolution and implement policy changes (Morrison, 2009). Government agencies claim that closures of the radio stations were aimed at democratizing the airwaves. In reality, the opposite is true.
President Hugo Chavez has actively pursued an agenda of weakening political institutions in the country to entrench his rule (Weyland, 2001). He derives his power from pursuing strategies that leave opposition political parties more divided and confused. The president is well known for concentrating political authority within the executive branch at the expense of the other branches. Due to weak political institutions, Chavez has invented a way of appealing to the masses by inciting hyper-nationalist outrage against countries seen as critical of Venezuela’s political institutions. Due to his insatiable appetite for power, Chavez dislikes any institutionalized party arrangement and instead opts for loose movements like the MVR-led ruling coalition. Again, this has served to weaken democracy in Venezuela (Millet, Holmes, & Perez, 2008).
Some of the President’s actions can be considered benevolent, but they are a double-edged sword because they superficially help the poor, but they really exist because of Chavez’s need to maintain electoral support from those who are benefited from the programs. For instance, in 2004 Chavez implemented a number of social programs that included: Bolivarian Missions –Mission Robinson– and the creation of Bolivarian Circles –to ‘distribute government information’–, health care services –accessible to the common citizen–, and Mercales or Mercados –discount supermarkets subsidized by the government–. It is also important to notice that the Bolivarian Circles significantly supported Chavez in the short-lived coup that took place in 2002. This illustration demonstrates that the purpose of these social programs is not to benefit the people but to maintain the government and the president’s electoral support (Class notes).
The political machinations of the autocratic president have also penetrated the economic front in Venezuela. Through the culture of cronyism, the government has continued to spend its resources irresponsibly by coming up with ill-hatched programs. Many of the economic development projects implemented by Chavez’s military friends and cronies have no real value to the long-term development of the country (Weyland, 2001). In the same vein, many investors are shunning the country due to poor policy decisions, inept fiscal policies, and Chavez’s populist demeanor. This is not good for a democracy worth it’s salt. The president is also firmly in control of PDVSA –the institution designated with the mandate of collecting oil revenues–. More often than not, an economic decline brings about a political crisis. As such, the democratic institutions in Venezuela have continued to be weakened by an impoverished population. Chavez knows too well how to influence and manipulate an impoverished population to gain political (Vanden, 2004).
Finally, the country’s civil society has been penetrated by populist politics to deny it its rightful duty of checking against the excesses of government. The president has actively debilitated, marginalized, and controlled major interest groups that could have given the president some sleepless nights (Corrales, 2006). Major trade unions, church organizations, non-governmental organizations, and business associations have been silenced. According to Vanden (2004), civil societies are important in any democratic process as they bring about more egalitarian values and principles. In addition, they act as vehicles through which individuals can be actively recruited into the political scene. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Venezuela due to government crackdowns on civil society (Millet, Holmes, & Perez, 2008). This is not healthy for democracy.
Through the analysis of the following factors: democratic principles and the constitution, political systems, economic policies and institutions, the media, and civil societies, it has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that the administration of Chavez has weakened democracy in Venezuela. Undemocratic leadership has occasioned great polarization and divisions among citizens. It is up to the opposition to come up with strategies and solutions that will enable the state to return to a democratic rule, for the sake of healing and reuniting the nation. This can only be achievable through the combination of understanding, compromise, and negotiation (McCoy, 2005).
Works Cited
Boudin, C. “Letter from Venezuela: The Land of Chavismo.” The Nation 2006.
Corrales, J. “Hugo Boss” Foreign Policy. (2006): 32-40.
Crisp, B.F., & Levine, D.H. Venezuela: The Character, Crisis, and Possible Future for Democracy. 1999.
McCoy, J. “One Act in an Unjustified Drama.” Journal of Democracy Vol. 16 (2005): 109-123.
Millet, R., Holmes, J.S., & Perez, O.J. Latin American Democracy; Emerging Reality or Endangered Species, Taylor and Francis. 2008. ISBN: 0415990483
Morrison, V. “Venezuela shuts down Radio Stations.” Reuters, 2009.
Noriega, R.F. Venezuela under Chavez. 2006.
Skidmore, T.E., & Smith, P.H. Modern Latin America (6th ed). Oxford University Press. 2005. ISBN: 13-978-0195170139.
Weyland, K. “With Chavez loose his Luster.” Council of Foreign Relations, Vol. 80 Issue 6 (2001): 73.
Vanden, H.E. “New Political Movements and Governance in Latin America.” International Journal of Public Administration Vol. 2, Issue 13 (2004): 1129-1149
The belief that the United States of America is a democratic country automatically create the assumption that it is a government by the people, for the people, and of the people as laid down by Abraham Lincoln (Brien, 71). Nevertheless, it is a grave mistake to believe that this happens automatically after conducting free and honest elections. It will be revealed later that even if the majority has voted this does not mean that democracy has prevailed. The ideal form of democracy according to Brien is one where deliberative democracy is at work, a form of democracy where citizens engage in public deliberations so that only laws that can benefit the community will be ratified and not the self-interest of a particular group. The only problem is that America does not really practice deliberative democracy and it can even be argued that a small number of people are pulling the strings that in turn control the minds of the public. The best way to counter this is to promote deliberative democracy but the challenge is how to encourage people to participate in this manner and not rely on what spin-doctors and pressure groups tell them what to do.
Deliberative Democracy
One of the theorists who contributed much to the construction of deliberative democracy is Adam Smith who coined the phrase “invisible hand” – it is the belief that individuals acting on their own self-interest and acts rationally at the same will create a spontaneous ordering of society, the result of which is better than those engineered by laws, policies, regulations, decisions of individuals or governments (Brien, 78). Adam Smith’s idea provided a contrast allowing for a clear understanding of what deliberative democracy should be. In other words deliberative democracy must run counter to what Smith proposed, that people simply make judgments based on their self-interest alone and that is the locomotive that drives a democracy forward.
In order to encourage people’s participation in political decision, the government has to educate the people and make them realise that they are important in the democratic process. The most important goal of the whole process is to contribute in the creation of a solution such as a bill or law that can help protect their self-interest. This can be achieved by making it convenient for them to communicate their needs and aspirations. They have to access to the mechanisms that comprise the process of deliberative democracy. In the short term the government can help provide “e-political continuum” and in the long term the general public must be educated to be able to think independently. It would also be helpful to establish moral institutions that will help create limits on the power of political leaders, especially those who are abusive and prone to be a dictator.
In the social rationality theory, Brien suggested that one of the advantages of the deliberative approach is to attract citizens to participate in political events and provide them the opportunity to make rational decisions through social discussion. In this way, the deliberative process, marked by true discussion involving everyone, would make more opportunities for people to express their thoughts regarding a political issue. Rationality would be helpful to negotiate the reality and relevance of each issue. Rationality would also help the participants to weigh each idea in order to come up with the most reasonable solution to the problems in their community and society.
It must also be pointed out that it is not enough to stage a public deliberation of issues, those who will go up on stage to make their views known must make sure that they are “embedded in a web of social relationships” in other words those who will participate must genuinely love their community, known by the members of the said group (Brien, 79). The author made an emphatic statement regarding the qualifications of those who will engage in deliberations and he wrote, “Embeddedness underlies rational action; and the rationality of each citizen is then a product of that citizen’s embeddedness in the civic culture” (Brien, 80). This leads to the idea that if the individual is embedded in a particular culture then he can counter human nature which easily gravitates towards self-interest. In other words the author is saying that this is the only way that a citizen can make self-sacrifice in order to make deliberative democracy effective.
Problems with the Ideal
In order for deliberative democracy to work it must have sound fundamentals. It must first rest on ideal democracy and one of the major requirements is that the citizens alone can shape or establish a government that they desire to govern them. This is in response to an elitist form of government wherein the process of selection is limited to a “people drawn from a restricted group” (Brien, 73). But in a real-life situation, this principle is difficult to apply. It can also be argued that although there is universal suffrage in highly-industrialized countries like the U.S. the ability of the average citizen to occupy high places in government is easier said than done. It can even be said that an ordinary American may find it impossible to be elected as a senator or President of the United States unless he or she has some certain qualification, of which the average citizen could not achieve in this lifetime. For instance, membership to the dominant party, the Democratic or Republican Party entails certain requirements. This is only the beginning if a citizen would like to engage others in the highest levels of government, he or she cannot easily earn a seat in the Senate or the U.S. Congress.
It will not require an astute political analyst to realize that those who are included in the roster of Senators and those who are nominated as the standard-bearer in the next presidential elections is someone who is either rich or a graduate of some prestigious university. Is this not elitism or another variation of elitism? It is hard to refute the claim that as a democratic country progresses, then so too is the electoral process. Looking at the qualifications needed to be considered as the next presidential candidate makes one realize that many are barred from entry. Thus, inadvertently the system has taken life of its own and has created a sub-system that allows the elite members of society to rule. This is a problematic aspect of American democracy that an adherent of deliberative democracy has to address first in order to move to the next level.
This leads to another pathway in this discussion, which is the idea that universal suffrage could be limited by distance. In other words, the ideal of democracy can work in the confines of a community where the members know each other and knows the candidates so well that they can have an informed consent. However, if the distance covered is so great, e.g. U.S. presidential elections universal suffrage is not enough, there is a need to trust a dominant political party to help the people make the decision. The Republican and Democratic Party of the U.S. can now be considered as the backbone of a new form of elitism. This new form of elitism is strengthened by the fact that the U.S. Congress, if controlled by a major political party can also ensure that the directives of the incumbent president – who also happens to be from the same party – can push through unimpeded.
The examples given are the establishment of congress that will check on the power of the president and an independent legal and court system that can settle disputes in a fair manner. Aside from that there is also the need for programs that help educate people as well as engender in them civic pride. All of these will helpfully produce citizens that will defend and honor the ideals of deliberative democracy (Brien, 88). It is easy to understand the ideals of democracy, especially those that can help establish a higher form of democracy. The only problem is that the author forgot to address two issues related to his thesis. First of all the creation of a parliament or congress does not automatically create a system where impartiality is observed. Secondly, the author failed to address the impact of having two dominant political parties that can easily control the destiny of America. Their size and influence is not the major concern here but the realization that the ability to rise to the upper echelons of power within these two parties is reserved only to a few. Finally, the author failed to focus on the impact of power hungry politicians who will prevent deliberative democracy from taking place in this country. They can be a powerful force that could easily frustrate ideal democracy from operating.
In my view, deliberate democracy is such a good idea because it provides an impartial environment where people are free to vote. They can share their views and each opinion is of equal value to others. Deliberative democracy can prevent the elitists from abusing their power by allowing the people to scrutinise their actions. Moreover, a careful study of deliberative democracy will allow us to see the necessity and close connection between democracy and rationality. It is understood as a “coherent pattern of life that is appropriate to a person, as a person, in specific circumstances” (Brien, 92). Social rationality confirms the effects of deliberative approach by providing more information, knowledge, and understanding based mainly on public participation. Finally, yet importantly, deliberate democracy creates the correct standard for decision-making based on social rationality. In this way, the public is well informed about the different facets of a particular political issue or government policy. The author, Brien himself, asserted that the relationship between two of the key elements: democracy and rationality is valid and crucially tenable because it would develop a non-corporatist and non-elitist society.
Conclusion
The belief that the United States is a democratic country, automatically generate the assumption that it is indeed a nation created by the governed. If citizens of this country will remain ignorant to the flaws of democracy then pressure groups and unscrupulous individuals will continue to manipulate the masses. The solutions listed by the author are only good on paper. Something has to be done to make it applicable to real-life settings. A close inspection of the discussion will reveal that one of the best ways to solve the specter of elitism in this country is to provide decent education to all citizens and train them to think independently. This does not guarantee success but it is a good starting point.
References
Brien, A. (n.d.). Rationality and Democracy. From Philosophy in a Democratic Society.
Article “Earth Democracy: Beyond Dead Democracy and Killing Economies” discussed a conflict that exists between considerations of economic growth and sustainability (Shiva). While the author contended that democracy was supposed to be the rule for the people by people, the globalized society had forgotten that environmental sustainability should matter. With the establishment of international treaties related to many aspects of external relations (Agriculture, Intellectual Property, Phytosanitary Measures, etc.), the industrialization moved the society to the practice of biopiracy.
The author explains this phenomenon as the intent to patent biodiversity and genetic resources for financial gain. For example, the Indian products of agriculture such as Darjeeling tea, turmeric, and tamarind were patented by foreign companies for profit. Shiva stated that such a use of Earth resources is unacceptable; the planet’s biodiversity should not have been turned into property. In this context, Earth Democracy means that that the selfish corporations should not over-utilize the natural resources for their gain and allow those who have rights to such resources decide the most appropriate way of utilization.
Analysis
The author’s key idea is that there is a constant degradation in humanity, which is just “shopping in the global marketplace” (Shiva “Earth Democracy: Beyond Dead Democracy” 93). In my opinion, globalization may be a potentially beneficial thing for bringing global communities together and banishing social and economic boundaries. However, on the other end of the spectrum, there is constant damage and destruction of natural resources that are now not the way the used to be before industrialization. There is an arising dilemma that our generation should resolve: should we preserve nature and significantly slow down the technological progress, or should we continue our biopiracy and the destruction of resources for economic growth.
Article “Earth Democracy: Creating Living economies, Living Democracies, Living Cultures” also focused on the long-term effects of globalization as well as the treatment of the practices and policies established by the multinational corporations. While many divide globalization and terrorism as the defining terms of modern life, the author put forward the opinion that globalization can be a type of economic terrorism.
In this context, terrorism occurs through the exhaustion of vital natural resources such as water and biodiversity. The author then goes on to argue that globalization is genocidal to the Earth’s resources as well as suicidal for many multinational corporations (Shiva “Earth Democracy: Creating Living Economies”). The second argument is associated with globalization alienating the poor by forcing upon them a climate of economic exclusion and insecurity.
When exploring this perspective, Shiva argued that modern democracy that does not take into account the ecological and economic freedom can potentially impact the spread of terrorism and fundamentalism; stating that “impoverished democracy breeds fundamentalism of all kinds” (“Earth Democracy: Creating Living Economies” 6).
Therefore, instead of integrating people into the process of development, globalization led by corporations tears the communities apart. For example, the 9/11 disaster did not serve as an ending point for the World Trade Organization; on the contrary, the WTO resurrected, broadened its power, and brought economic benefit to the global industrialized societies.
Conclusion
When exploring the impact of globalization, it is crucial to remember that every member of the globalized society uses the resources of the Earth; so there is a duty to guard the rights of all species and all people. Natural and cultural diversity should remain a value that brings benefit to cultural and material wealth without the destruction of valuable resources that the Earth offers.
Works Cited
Shiva, Vandana. “Earth Democracy: Beyond Dead Democracy and Killing Economies.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 21.1 (2010): 83-95. Print.
—. “Earth Democracy: Creating Living Economies, Living Democracies, Living Cultures.” South Asian Popular Culture 2.1 (2004): 5-18. Print.
Egypt is considered to be one of the Middle Eastern intellectual and cultural leaders. This became a reality due to the country’s relationship with the West and Napoleon’s invasion. In 1979, Anwar Sadat decided to make peace with Israel (Albrecht & Bishara 2011). This arrangement ended up in Arab League banishing Egypt until the late 1980s. Moreover, in 1981, Sadat was murdered by Islamic radicals because he was too active trying to curb their actions. Hosni Mubarak, the new President of Egypt, employed a pacifying tactic, but Islamic extremists went on with their campaigns (Tessler, Jamal & Robbins 2012). They chose tourists and resort areas as the targets of their attacks and started to pursue the Christians of Egypt enthusiastically. Even though Mubarak’s rule was signified by economic growth and overall stability, his reign is considered to be suppressive (Schlumberger & Matzke 2012). Egypt’s law enforcement agency became well-known for its violence, and acts of bribery were common.
The current paper is designed to define if there is democracy in Egypt and what are the key factors that undermine its quality. The main objective of this study is to review relevant literature and single out the premises of the collapse of democracy in Egypt. The paper is divided into three parts. The first part concentrates on the theoretical background of democracy and explains the key principles and its advantages and disadvantages for the government. The second part revolves around the historical background of democracy in Egypt. The third part analyses the factors that undermine the quality of democracy in Egypt and is followed by a conclusion based on the studied evidence.
Theoretical framework
The current section of the paper is intended to provide the reader with an in-depth analysis of the notion of democracy. This step is necessary to address the issues connected to democracy in Egypt in a thorough manner. The author reviews the key principles, advantages, and disadvantages of democracy with the intention of applying those principles to Egypt and evaluating the probable outcomes.
Democracy: definition and implications
The concept of democracy is rooted in the distant past as it originated in ancient Greece almost 2,500 years ago. While the definition of democracy states that it is up to the citizens when it comes to leading the country, it overlooks important ideas inherent in the democratic state in other countries worldwide (Jones-Parry et al. 2011). Basically, people believe in the proficiency of a democratic government because they are looking for protection and advancement of their civil rights, safeties, and wellbeing. The key demand for democracy is the participation of every citizen in the creation of a political community’s autonomy. Therefore, the concept of democracy is based on the political freedom of the country’s residents. The modern democracy framework consists of three major parts – liberalism, constitutionalism, and democracy. These three elements are crucial for the creation of a genuinely democratic state (Elstub 2012).
Democracy: key principles
The key principle that is at the origin of democracy is citizen participation. It is the main indicator of democracy in a country. Moreover, the participation of citizens in the creation and maintenance of democracy is their duty and not just a civil right. Citizen participation means being involved in numerous activities including voting in elections, discussing issues, becoming members of various associations, and even participating in demonstrations and protests (Holden 2013). It is obvious that democracy depends on the citizens’ participation in the life of the state. Another important principle of democracy is equality. In other words, this means that citizens of any given democratic country are equal. This basically means that every citizen has the right to be valued appropriately and the right to live in freedom. The idea of equality states that there should be no discrimination on the basis of the citizen’s race, religious conviction, cultural group, sex, or sexual orientation (Ishiyama 2012). The right to have different personalities and various freedoms is the ultimate representation of democracy in a country. Another principle that should be inherent in a democratic state is political tolerance. This means that even the majority habitually rules the society, the rights and freedoms of the minority should be respected and protected. The minorities should be able to speak up and not be afraid of being rejected. Nonetheless, in most cases, they are seen as antagonists because of the ideas that might be dissimilar to the ideas of the majority.
When it comes to the officials, one of the most important principles of democracy is accountability. They should be responsible for the decisions they make and the people they were elected by. This means that the decisions should be made in favor of the citizens. The next principle which is directly connected to accountability is transparency. The idea of this principle is that citizens should know what goes on in the country. Citizens should have the right to attend administrative meetings, and the government should be transparent in terms of explaining why certain decisions are made (El Medni 2012). Another clear of democracy is the act of systematic, unrestricted, and impartial elections. It is up to the citizens to choose the officials that would represent the country. Democracy claims that these designated representatives should be dealt with in a free and reasonable way (E.g., choosing them or removing them from the office). Pressure and dishonesty are not consistent with the ideology of democracy (Almond & Verba 2013). Moreover, there should be no artificially created obstacles that would interfere with the voting process. Another key principle of democracy is that people must have economic freedom. This means that the citizens are allowed to run their own businesses or choose where they want to work without any obstacles. The role of the government in the economy is controversial, but it is a common statement that the government should not be in full control of the economy (Schumpeter 2013). Nonetheless, there is an opinion among the experts that the economy should be controlled in the countries that suffered from past discrimination and unfair wealth allocation. Another principle that is worth mentioning is respect for human rights. The democratic state should guarantee the safety of the citizens’ rights. Primarily, democracy should accentuate the value of a human being to the country.
Democracy: upsides and downsides
The main upsides of democracy include protection of the citizens’ interests, promotion of equality, administrational responsibility, cultivation of great citizens, and openness to change. The protection that the government provides for the country’s citizens is reflected in their freedom of speech, ability to participate in elections, and the decision-making process that has an impact on the society and country (Agrama 2012). The protection of interests is a safety measure intended to keep out of trouble those citizens who do not agree with common decisions. As has been stated earlier, the whole definition of democracy is based on equality. Therefore, the advantage of the promotion of equality consists in the fact that citizens are free to choose who to side with and the law guarantees that they will not be judged on the basis of their choices (unless those choices are illegal). When we speak about the stability and accountability of the government, democracy should be praised for its effectiveness, steadfastness, and constancy (Sakbani 2011). In a democratic state, the government leads the country in an unprejudiced manner which presupposes the necessary stability and gives the citizens sense of confidence. In this case, the key advantage of democracy is that citizens are able to impact the way that the decisions are made. Moreover, democracy is one of the best instruments that help to create a perfect setting for personal improvement, development of good habits, and cultivation of character (Jamal 2012). If the country is looking for good citizenship, democracy should be the very first choice. Democracy is one of the best instruments available to the government that might help to address the issue of what is good and what is bad. Another important aspect is the ability to implement changes without aggression or compulsion. This is the main reason why citizens of democratic countries are involved in the process of implementing changes and maintaining the current state of affairs.
Even though there are numerous advantages, democracy is not a flawless representation of a country and its citizens. On the contrary, it might cause several adverse outcomes that would affect both the government and citizens. First of all, democracy may lead to the mismanagement of monetary resources and time (Lust 2011). This includes the process of elaborating and passing laws and major expenditures that the government spends throughout the election process. Moreover, it may happen that the government is led by irresponsible leaders who spend the resources of the government in order to achieve their own objectives instead of helping the country grow. Sometimes, even citizens themselves cause major damage to the country by making the wrong choice (Jamshidi 2014). In this case, the issue lies in the fact that not all citizens are aware of the political situation in the country. This may end up in inaccurate and unreasonable conclusions. Another drawback of democracy is that it pays more attention to quantity instead of quality when it comes to the services it provides to citizens (Abdelrahman 2013). Moreover, there is a perception that no equality exists under this political system despite its numerous advantages that have been proven in theory.
Historical background
It is obvious that Egypt is not a democratic country despite the removal of Hosni Mubarak, who had ruled the country for more than thirty years (Stein 2012). For most of the world, Egypt tends to be seen as a country impacted by the military dictatorship, but the military states that it will return authority to non-combatant political figures at the moment when the country is stable enough. In 2011, Mubarak’s rule ended (Dalacoura 2012). This happened due to the growing tension among the population of Egypt which turned into numerous protests. On a slightly bigger scale, those protests were a reflection of the situation in Tunisia. The hopes of the protesters to achieve democracy in Egypt were perceived as ambiguous (Martini & Taylor 2011). This happened because the post-revolutionary government was split by the influence of Islamic extremists on the one hand and the conciliatory/ liberal forces on the other (nonetheless, in this case, one should also consider military forces as well). As a result, the stability of the situation in Egypt was shaken by continuing aggressive rebellions (Bush 2011). Then there was a period of short-term military rule. In 2012, Mohammed Morsi, a member of Muslim brotherhood, won the elections. But then Egypt was taken over by another wave of protests (Wickham 2011). Numerous Egyptian liberals and Christian leaders were anxious about the events that were triggered by the government’s decisions. The military supported the demonstrators and expelled Morsi. In turn, they also aggressively suppressed the protest rallies held by the Muslim brotherhood (Tadros 2012). The military administration has suspended the provocative Constitution passed in 2012 by a popular vote (Masoud 2011). They also managed to disband the last governmental organization in Egypt – the parliament. The authority is now possessed by the short-term cabinet, but all important decisions are indisputably made by the army (led by Abdul Fattah al-Sisi), representatives that stayed after Mubarak left, and security chiefs (Rutherford 2012). Therefore, the current situation proves that Sisi became the ruler of Egypt. The state-run mass media has supported Sisi in a way similar to what could have been witnessed during Mubarak’s rule. The criticism of the new ruler has been hushed all over the country. Even though Sisi’s followers believe that the militant approach alienates Egypt from the Islamist tyranny, the country’s future appears to be quite ambiguous (similar to what happened in 2011 after Mubarak). The state apparatus of Egypt has been filled with military members since the 1950s (Brown 2011). Before 2012, all three presidents – Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak – came from the military and were able to build successive authoritarian governments. Consequently, the military was always at the forefront of the political and financial life of Egypt. It was not surprising that even ordinary Egyptians respected the military. Taking this into consideration after Mubarak’s takeover, the regime took the reins and initiated the changeover process, becoming the pursuivants of the 2011 revolt (Tadros 2013).
Analysis
As it soon became evident, the democratic experiment in Egypt was not successful. It happened due to the fact that the military did not want to give up on the authority. Parliamentary elections won by Morsi and Muslim brotherhood ended up in a deal with the military (Saikal 2011). It was stated that the generals should have been taken out from daily government dealings in return for keeping a critical say in security policy and all events connected to state safety. But Morsi seemed to bring volatility to the country. He almost unleashed a hazardous civil conflict between nonspiritual and Islamist community layers. This situation made the military think that civilian officials spoiled the changeover process (Snider & Faris 2011). The military took away the authority in 2013, by removing Morsi from the rule in a community-supported rebellion. The military arrested the important figures of the President’s political party and removed provocateurs from power. The majority of the Egyptian community supported the military. This happened due to the fact that they were drained by uncertainty and fiscal breakdown. Moreover, Egyptian citizens were discontented by the ineffectiveness of the current regime (Hamid 2011).
After reviewing the literature and all the premises and consequences of the implementation of democracy in Egypt, the author pointed out several factors which, to their mind, were the most influential disruptors of this political regime. First, there is a myriad of practical allegations that would have to be reckoned with even before Egypt could run repeat elections (Reynaert 2015). These allegations include the registration of parties and the formation of a reliable, autonomous group of individuals to supervise the election procedure. Previously, the Egyptian judges were responsible for it, but ultimately the registration and formation duties were given to the Interior Ministry. This is not enough to make progress. The citizens of Egypt – as well as the military and any antagonist frontrunners who actively participate in the debates concerning the new government – will be required to proceed in compliance with the legal norms as well (Kedourie 2012). Another factor undermining the democratic regime in Egypt is the inability to hold fair presidential elections. Even though reforming it would be expensive, overlooking it would generate even more risks.
Another factor is the disagreement between the rival political parties. In order to get rid of this, the major Egyptian political parties and shareholders should negotiate and find the middle ground. In this case, the Turkish governmental model would be one of the models that the Egyptian government would want to implement. Turkey suffered from nonstop riots for more than 50 years but now has a strong democratic organization running the country. For Egypt, the transition to democracy from a military government should not take a lot of time. But there are also some indisputable advantages that do not find reflection in other Islamic countries (Drevon 2014). For instance, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the transfer to democracy is unequivocally home-based and is not the outcome of the military raid. Egypt will be able to build up its democratic regime in a different way. The risk in democratic changeovers is that the country would eventually collapse, but that is not going to occur in Egypt due to a high level of national identity (Petras 2012). The fact is, Egypt may come through numerous core dissections, but it would not be an appropriate territory for the sectarianism that has flooded Iraq. After the era of Mubarak, Egypt came under the influence of religious political parties due to the fact that the Muslim brotherhood had been the main political rival for Mubarak’s regime for several decades (Moghadam 2013). But it is turned out to be impossible to estimate how robust political sustenance for Islamist political parties like the Muslim brotherhood will be. From the looks of things, impartial elections are the one event that will support the citizens of Egypt and trigger the beginning of the next era.
It is interesting that nowadays both conventional Islamists and their nonspiritual rivals commonly come to an agreement that Egypt should be ruled by a democratic, politically-aware regime, with a government chosen by means of unrestricted and impartial elections. But there is little hope that Egypt would be able to repeat what has been done in Tunisia, where an analogous revolt against tyranny ended up in the union of Islamist and nonspiritual politicians (Lynch 2011). Quite on the contrary, Egyptian politicians could not come to a consensus, making politics a vicious act of despotism instead of being a unifying event. Morsi tended to respond to disapproval and political dissents in an old-fashioned way which presupposed suppressive methods usually seen in the previous government. It is safe to say that these undesirable outcomes made many of the Egyptian citizens believe that it would be better to commit to an indeterminate period of partially authoritarian government, choosing a reliable strongman over the qualms of governmental politics. Sisi became extremely popular among the Egyptians. The citizens of Egypt now believe that the military is the only effective method available to stop religious strife. Generally speaking, self-sufficient democracy in Egypt should not be expected anytime soon.
During Morsi’s rule, the key factor undermining the democracy consisted in the fact that he believed that he got carte blanche to govern the country. Nonetheless, it turned out that his rule was nothing but an act of abuse of power. Even though it ended in his voluntary resignation, this did not do justice to the democratic regime in Egypt. The only reasonable decision was to overthrow the current ruler of the country, establish a new government, and elect the President.
The new government started outlining a new constitution, banned the Muslim brotherhood, and limited media autonomy (Feuille 2012). In 2014, Abdul Fattah al-Sisi won the elections and became the new President of Egypt. Even though his win hinted at the comeback of the military rule, the majority of residents concentrated on the aggressive campaign conducted in Sinai by Ansar Beit al-Maqdis (Balfour 2012). Nowadays, the financial state of the country depends heavily on agronomy, leisure industry, and monetary transfers from Egyptians working in a foreign country (predominantly in the Gulf countries). Nonetheless, there are issues such as swift populace growth that are draining the country’s resources and budget (Zakaria 2011). This led to the current political disorder which has had an adverse impact on the attempts to address the complications inherent in the country’s organization and economy.
Conclusion
To conclude, Egypt is currently located at the political crossroads. Mubarak’s withdrawal from the rule, which has been caused by the gravity of explosive civil protests, generated eclectic consequences across all the Arab countries. It launched the democratic change in the area at a higher speed and gave the electoral democracy an opportunity to arise in one of the most influential Arab countries. Considering the fact that Mubarak has been tempted to leave relatively peaceably, there is still hope for unrestricted and unbiased elections in Egypt. The latter also hints at the decline of the severe exceptionalism of the Arab countries.
Counterfeiting the directions and formal arrangements of the interim period is not going to be a trivial task. Political permanency will encompass a wide-ranging course of discussions that would consider the opinions of the chief political shareholders. That would result in a political agreement that guarantees the allegiance of the military apparatus and security organizations while steadily establishing the non-combatant democratic rule. It is evident that numerous entities will ask for retroactive fairness with the intention of inspecting endless cases of human rights abuse throughout Mubarak’s rule. Nonetheless, democratic transformations of other countries supposedly hint at the fact that the transfer should be thoroughly discussed and performed thoughtfully. This means that the remnants of the old political regime should not interfere with the current regime so as not to turn into a representation of struggle and disruption.
Bibliography
Abdelrahman, M 2013, ‘In praise of organization: Egypt between activism and revolution’, Development and Change, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 569-585.
Agrama, H 2012, ‘Reflections on secularism, democracy, and politics in Egypt’, American Ethnologist, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 26-31.
Albrecht, H & Bishara, D 2011, ‘Back on Horseback: The Military and Political Transformation in Egypt’, Middle East Law and Governance, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 13-23.
Almond, G & Verba, S 2013, The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Balfour, R 2012, Human rights and democracy in EU foreign policy: The cases of Ukraine and Egypt, Routledge, London.
Brown, L 2011, ‘When the Nile runs dry’, New York Times, vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 2-35.
Bush, R 2011, ‘Egypt: A permanent revolution?’, Review of African Political Economy, vol. 38, no. 128, pp. 303-307.
Dalacoura, K 2012, ‘The 2011 uprisings in the Arab Middle East: Political change and geopolitical implications’, International Affairs, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 63-79.
Drevon, J 2014, ‘Democracy and Islamist violence: Lessons from post-Mubarak Egypt’, Digest of Middle East Studies, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1-14.
El Medni, B 2012, Civil society and democratic transformation in contemporary Egypt: Premises and promises, University of Delaware Press, Newark, DE.
Elstub, S 2012, Democracy in theory and practice, Routledge, London.
Feuille, J 2012, ‘Reforming Egypt’s constitution: Hope for Egyptian democracy’, Tex Int’l Journal, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 231-256.
Hamid, S 2011, ‘The struggle for Middle East democracy’, Cairo Review of Global Affairs, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 18-29.
Holden, B 2013, Global democracy: Key debates, Routledge, London.
Ishiyama, J 2012, Comparative politics: Principles of democracy and democratization, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex.
Jamal, A 2012, Of empires and citizens: Pro-American democracy or no democracy at all?, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Jamshidi, M 2014, ‘A short history of the Arab world and the Arab spring’, The Future of the Arab Spring, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 5-22.
Jones-Parry, R, Robertson, A, Koranteng, R & Green, R 2011, Democracy, development and public administration, Nexus, Cambridge, UK.
Kedourie, E 2012, Democracy and Arab political culture, F. Cass, London.
Lust, E 2011, ‘Missing the third wave: Islam, institutions, and democracy in the Middle East’, Studies in Comparative International Development, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 163-190.
Lynch, M 2011, ‘America and Egypt after the uprisings’, Survival, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 31-42.
Martini, J & Taylor, J 2011, ‘Commanding democracy in Egypt: The military’s attempt to manage the future’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 127-137.
Masoud, T 2011, ‘Liberty, democracy, and discord in Egypt’, The Washington Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 117-129.
Moghadam, V 2013, ‘What is democracy? Promises and perils of the Arab Spring’, Current Sociology, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 393-408.
Petras, J 2012, The Arab revolt and the imperialist counterattack, Clarity Press, Atlanta, GA.
Reynaert, V 2015, ‘Democracy through the invisible hand? Egypt and Tunisia’, The Substance of EU Democracy Promotion, vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 149-161.
Rutherford, B 2012, Egypt after Mubarak: Liberalism, Islam, and democracy in the Arab world, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Saikal, A 2011, ‘Authoritarianism, revolution and democracy: Egypt and beyond’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 530-544.
Sakbani, M 2011, ‘The revolutions of the Arab Spring: Are democracy, development and modernity at the gates?’, Contemporary Arab Affairs, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 127-147.
Schlumberger, O & Matzke, T 2012, ‘Path toward democracy? The role of economic development’, Swiss Political Science Review, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 105-109.
Schumpeter, J 2013, Capitalism, socialism, and democracy, Harper, New York, NY.
Snider, E & Faris, D 2011, ‘The Arab Spring: U.S. Democracy Promotion in Egypt’, Middle East Policy, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 49-62.
Stein, E 2012, ‘After the Arab Spring: Power shift in the Middle East? Revolutionary Egypt: Promises and perils’, Journal of Economics and Political Science, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 3-12.
Tadros, M 2012, The Muslim Brotherhood in contemporary Egypt: Democracy redefined or confined?, Routledge, London.
Tadros, M 2013, ‘The copts of Egypt’, The Challenges of Building Inclusive Democracy in Egypt Copts at the Crossroads, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 23-44.
Tessler, M, Jamal, A & Robbins, M 2012, ‘New findings on Arabs and Democracy’, Journal of Democracy, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 89-103.
Wickham, C 2011, ‘The Muslim Brotherhood and democratic transition in Egypt’, Middle East Law and Governance, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 204-223.
Zakaria, F 2011, ‘How democracy can work in the Middle East’, TIME Magazine, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 13-21.
The establishment of democracy in Sudan is the main prerequisite for the development of peace across the nation. Ever since the nation split into South and North Sudan, there have been calls from the international community for the two resultant nations to develop democratic approaches toward running the respective states. However, despite the many negotiations between the respective governments, Sudan has been faced by numerous ethnic conflicts between the societies from either side of the nation.
The main reason for the conflict is the quest for ownership of the oil mines in Sudan between the two sides. Sudan has been traditionally characterized by military conflict and conflicts between militia groups trying to govern different regions of the state.
For instance, the war in Darfur has claimed more than 300,000 lives, and it is influenced by the presence of militia groups that fight the government. This has forced millions of Sudanese people to flee from the nation into the neighboring states like Kenya. After the partition of South and North Sudan, the two sides assumed a peaceful negotiation to assume democratic ruling, but they ended up in a conflict that is currently claiming many lives. One of the underlying issues in the conflict is the lack of strong governance to tap the resources of the nation and lead the people into a democratic nation.
Thesis
Sudan has been in internal war for over half a century and the main issue is the war between the government and the militia groups in the nation. The recent partitioning of the state saw the development of a northern side that is characterized by the presence of Islamic extremists in the government, whereas the southern part is characterized by leadership by the militia groups.
Since there is no clear boundary set between the two sides, the northern part has been claiming the parts of the land that are associated with large deposits of oil, whereas the southern people believe that the oil deposits lie on their side. This has led to a conflict that has seen children being recruited by the militia groups to fight against the army from Khartoum. It is apparent that the competition for resources, particularly the oil in the south, is the main barrier for democracy in Sudan.
List of Objectives
This paper will reveal the factors that have led to the recurrent violent conflicts in Sudan, with a close focus on the role that oil has played in influencing the lack of democracy in the nation. It is clear that even after partitioning the nation into the southern and northern region in the quest for peace and democracy, the militia groups and the government in Khartoum are still fighting. The war has led to the killing of children and soldiers, and many civilians in the southern part have been displaced.
Theoretical Overview
Sudan traded in crude oil for the first time in 1999, and this changed the focus of the war in the nation to the quest for control of the oil fields in the south. Over the years, the military has taken over the governance of the nation, and it has negotiated peaceful deals with the militia, which led to the partitioning of Sudan, but oil has continually become a major obstacle to peace and the development of democracy in the nation.
It is apparent that the government and the militia groups have had a good share of the crude oil trade over the past, and the associated revenues have been channeled to the attainment of weapons and the recruitment of more personnel to strengthen each side (Youngs 2008). This has enabled the intensification of the violence, with many children in the militia groups and soldiers on the government side dying on the battlefields. Additionally, the continued expansion of the oil mining process in the nation has led to the displacement of the local communities living in the southern region. This has particularly been instigated by the militia groups as they seek to control the mines (Scheffran, Ide & Schilling 2014).
The resistance from the affected communities has also led to the killing and exiling of innocent civilians trying to protect their property. The militiamen continue to kill the owners of the lands in the oil fields, burning their crops and property to displace them, and this has been the greatest threat to democracy and peace in the south. The figure below shows the oil mines region in Sudan.
While one would expect the government to be in the limelight of developing measures to protect the civilians in the nation, it has actively played the role of displacing the communities living around the oil fields. This has been particularly done to protect the state and foreign oil mining companies in the region (Switzer 2002). According to the government in the north, the presence of the communities in the oil fields is a threat to the companies that have been contracted to mine the crude oil, and since the pastoralists in the region support the militia in pushing the military from the lands, the government has been actively involved in violating human rights by killing the civilians (Jur 2002).
It is quite a pity that despite the partitioning of the nation, the government in the north has continued pressuring for an expansion of its ability to mine oil in the south. It is more worrying that the people in the south and in the north have not benefited from the oil business because the government uses the resources to increase the strength of the military. The government continues to use brute force to control the civilians and silence their demands.
Historical Overview
Sudan is a multi-cultured nation with Islamic people living in the north and the Africans living in the south. Most of the people live along the Nile and other areas associated with reliable rainfall as the main source of water for people and livestock. However, the Africans in the south developed conflicts with the central government that was developed after independence in 1956. It is apparent that the people in the south have always loathed the application of sharia laws by the Islamic leaders in the North (Jok 2015).
This led to the development of militia groups opposing the laws in the south, and for some time the central government allowed the south to practice the autonomy they required in governance to influence peace (Development in Sudan 2016). However, when oil was discovered in the nation, the conflict between the government and the militia groups reignited, and it has continually led to the lack of peace and democracy in the nation (Arbetman-Rabonowitz & Johnson 2008).
The government of Sudan started exploring oil fields in the Western Upper Nile region in the 1980s, and once the discovery of the viable oil fields in the nation was made, it embarked on a plan to displace the communities living in the region. In the 1990s, the government played a major role in the development of conflicts between the communities in the region (Omeje 2010). This was strategically planned through the provision of arms to the conflicting communities, which led to most of the people taking refuge in other parts of the nation and the neighboring states.
This cleared the way for foreign companies to start developing mining stations in the region. Asian companies and Western companies started developing the required infrastructure to mine and transport crude oil from Sudan, including the pipeline and roads.
The human cost of oil in Sudan has been extremely high since 1999 when the nation started producing crude oil commercially. The government has channeled all the revenues to purchasing military hardware and enhancing its power against the militia groups (Salopek 2003). While it has managed to control some of the oil blocks in the south, the militia has mounted a sizeable resistance in most of the viable expansion areas (Patey 2012, p. 563).
The focus on the oil business by the authorities in both the north and the south has seen both administrations ignoring their responsibilities to provide the needs of the civilians (Wesselink & Weller 2006). There are a low number of schools, hospitals, and housing units in both parts of the nation because the authorities spend too much on arming their troops to protect and fight for the oil mines.
Since 2000, the Sudanese government enhanced its ability to meet the needs of the oil mining companies as it looked to increase the volume of oil drilled on a daily basis. The government troops operating around the mines provided the support required for the companies to develop roads to get to the various blocks, and this meant that people living in the blocks would be driven off to the west and the north (Volman 2003, p. 3). Surprisingly, the troops would use violence to chase the civilians away from the region without any compensation.
The UN and other non-governmental organizations compelled the foreign companies operating in Sudan to become ambassadors of peace by influencing the government to protect the human rights of the civilians, but most of the companies claimed that they were not aware of any violations of human rights in Sudan (Sorbo 2010). This highlights the fact that the government of Sudan has actively failed to consider the needs of the civilians while ensuring that the foreign oil mining companies are protected from the hostility of the militia groups and the civilians.
In 2001-2005, the militia groups in Sudan developed new strength through the partnership with some military men from the previous regime and they mounted a resistance against the government to take control of some of the oil mines. The war that ensued saw the government using helicopters to bomb villages and killing civilians indiscriminately (Johnson 2003). This forced most of the people to flee to the neighboring countries for safety as the militia and the government continued to fight for controlling rights in the oil blocks (Straus 2005). It is also apparent the most of the displaced individuals have failed to get back to their homes because the militia groups and the military develop camping sites and garrisons, respectively, in the conquered areas.
In 2011, South Sudan split from the northern side of the nation and it declared independence from the central governance. Many states believed that the move would finally translate into the development of peace in both sides of the nation because it would be associated with the embracement of democratic principles that would influence the protection of human rights (Prendergast & Winter 2008). However, the two sides were still in tension because the government in the north claimed that it had the right to control the oil fields that are currently controlled by the militia groups. In 2013, the President of the southern region claimed that his vice president was organizing a cue on the government (Dufresne 2003).
This led to a split in the political party, which was influenced by propaganda by the politicians who did not agree with the decisions made by the president regarding the resources of South Sudan. Key among the issues was the government’s plans on the oil business. The figure below highlights the reported incidences of violence and death tolls in Sudan.
Reported incidences of violence and death tolls in Sudan.
The divergence of ideologies between the political leaders and their followers led to violent conflicts between the people, and the war is still going on. Many Sudanese people have been displaced from the war-torn regions in the south, and this has destabilized the development of democracy in the nation (Patey 2014). The government is still focusing on getting a hold of the national resources while ignoring the fact that many people are dying of hunger in Sudan (Large 2008).
On the Northern side of the nation, the government is still strategizing on the best ways to take over the control of the oil mines, which might result in a war between the two parts of Sudan. However, efforts from the African Union and the United Nations have seen the deployment of military troops from the organizations to protect the displaced individuals and to provide platforms for the political leaders to negotiate (Goldsmith, Abura & Switzer 2002).
The UN is particularly interested in ensuring that democracy prevails in the nation, but the control of oil and other resources in the nation still poses a major threat to peace and democracy in Sudan. The figure below highlights the displacement of the people in South Sudan (Quick Facts: What you need to know about the South Sudan crisis 2016).
The displacement of the people in South Sudan.
Analysis
The oil business has been associated with the development of autocratic states because it needs a ruler with the absolute power to decide the allocation of revenue generated from the business (Brown et al. 2002). This has been seen in states like Libya and Algeria in Africa. Sudan, on the other hand, has always looked to assume democratic governance, but various issues have led to the development of a crisis since the declaration of independence in 1956.
Initially, the southern people in the nation rebelled against the central government because of the religious differences (Obi 2007, p. 17). The central government was applying the Islamic Laws to the pagans and Christians in the south, which led to protests and violent conflicts (Woodward 2008). However, the main threat to the development of peace and the growth of democracy in Sudan was the discovery of oil in the 1980s (Rone 2003).
If there was no oil on the southern side, the government would not have provided arms to the conflicting tribes to reduce the population in the region. The militia in the nation would also have ended their quests by gaining autonomy in the governance of the southern side (Patey 2010). However, the presence of oil changed the focus of both the militia groups and the central government.
Oil is to blame for the lack of peace in Sudan because it provided conflicting groups with sufficient funds to purchase ammunition and to recruit troops to fight against each other. The control of the oil fields has always been the goal of the conflicting sides, but the consequences are dire for the civilians living in the land along with the oil blocks. Most of the land in Sudan is barren because of the extensive desertification of the region (Patey 2007, p. 998).
This implies that most civilians have been forced to live along the rivers. Sadly, the oil blocks are located on some of the most reliable grazing fields in the nation, which implies that pastoralist communities have been the worst affected by the violent excavation by the government and the militia groups (Pantuliano 2010, p. 7).
It is also apparent that despite the current efforts by the United Nations and other international organizations to foster peace and democracy in the nation through military intervention, Khartoum and South Sudan are likely to go to war over the oil mines in the south. This is because the nations did not set a clear boundary in 2011 when they split into Khartoum and South Sudan (McEvoy & LeBrun 2010).
The revenue generated by the oil business is currently benefiting both partitions of the nation, but it is likely that the south will start claiming the mines because they are located in the southern half of Sudan, and they are mainly controlled by the authorities in the south (Carmody 2009). The current political conflict between the leaders in the south is also a major obstacle to democracy because the leaders are jeopardizing the efforts placed by the international community and the internal leaders to grant South Sudan independence from the central government in Khartoum. There is little doubt that the conflict is based on the allocation of resources, particularly the oil in the south, and it is clear that the leaders do not care about the displacement of the civilians because it is a tradition in the nation.
Conclusion
Sudan has the potential to become a very productive nation because it has the proverbial black gold. However, the oil in the nation and the interplay between the political and social issues in the nation has led to a long-term lack of peace among the citizens. The fact that the government has played a major role in the enhancement of suffering and the deterioration of democracy in the nation is quite unfortunate.
Prior to the separation of the state into Khartoum and South Sudan, Sudan saw the government using violence to displace the people living in the lands along with the oil blocks, and this led to many people fleeing to the neighboring countries. This was particularly escalated by the development of a strong militia group that fought against the government.
After the split of the nation into two parts, the world expected the two nations to finally attain the peace required for democracy to blossom, but this has not been forthcoming, especially in the south, where war has recently broken out. There is also high tension between South Sudan and Khartoum as the two sides claim the oil fields. As long as the oil conflict in Sudan remains unsettled, peace and democracy will be difficult to attain.
Reference List
Arbetman-Rabinowitz, M & Johnson, K 2008, ‘Power distribution and oil in the Sudan: Will the comprehensive peace agreement turn the oil curse into a blessing?’, International Interactions, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 382-401.
Brown, V, Caron, P, Ford, N, Cabrol, JC, Tremblay, JP & Lepec, R 2002, ‘Violence in southern Sudan’, The Lancet, vol. 356, no. 9301, pp. 161.
Carmody, P 2009, ‘Cruciform sovereignty, matrix governance and the scramble for Africa’s oil: Insights from Chad and Sudan’, Political Geography, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 353-361.
Development in Sudan. 2016. Web.
Dufresne, R 2003, ‘Opacity of oil: Oil corporations, internal violence, and international Law’, NYUJ Int’l. L. & Pol., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 331.
Goldsmith, P, Abura, LA & Switzer, J 2002, ‘Oil and water in Sudan’, Scarcity and surfeit. The Ecology of Africa’s Conflicts, vol.26, no. 1, pp. 187-242.
Johnson, DH 2003, The root causes of Sudan’s civil wars (Vol. 5), Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Large, D 2008, ‘China & the contradictions of ‘non-interference’ in Sudan’, Review of African Political Economy, vol. 35, no. 115, pp. 93-106.
McEvoy, C & LeBrun, E 2010, Uncertain future: armed violence in Southern Sudan, Small Arms Survey, Geneva.
Obi, C 2007, ‘Oil and development in Africa: some lessons from the oil factor in Nigeria for the Sudan’, Oil Development in Africa: Lessons for Sudan after the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies Report, vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 9-34.
Omeje, K 2010, ‘Markets or oligopolies of violence? The case of Sudan’, African Security, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 168-189.
Pantuliano, S 2010, ‘Oil, land and conflict: the decline of Misseriyya pastoralism in Sudan 1’, Review of African Political Economy, vol. 37, no. 123, pp. 7-23.
Patey, L 2014, The new kings of crude: China, India, and the global struggle for oil in Sudan and South Sudan, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Patey, LA 2007, ‘State rules: Oil companies and armed conflict in Sudan’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 997-1016.
Patey, LA 2010, ‘Crude days ahead? Oil and the resource curse in Sudan’, African Affairs, vol. 109, vol. 437, pp. 617-636.
Patey, LA 2012, ‘Lurking beneath the surface: Oil, environmental degradation, and armed conflict in Sudan’, High-Value Natural Resources and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 563-570.
Rone, J 2003, ‘Sudan: Oil & war’, Review of African political economy, vol. 30, no. 97, pp. 478-510.
Salopek, P 2003, ‘Shattered Sudan’, National Geographic, vol. 203, no. 2, pp. 56.
Scheffran, J, Ide, T & Schilling, J 2014, ‘Violent climate or climate of violence? Concepts and relations with focus on Kenya and Sudan’, The International Journal of Human Rights, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 369-390.
Sorbo, GM 2010, ‘Local violence and international intervention in Sudan’, Review of African Political Economy, vol. 37, no. 124, pp. 173-186.
Straus, S 2005, ‘Darfur and the genocide debate’, Foreign Aff., vol. 1, no. 84, pp. 123.
Switzer, J 2002, Oil and violence in Sudan. Web.
Volman, D 2003, ‘Oil, arms and violence in Africa’, ACAS Bulletin, vol. 64. no. 1, pp. 1-5.
Wesselink, E & Weller, E 2006, ‘Oil and Violence in Sudan’, Multinational Monitor, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 44.
Woodward, P 2008, ‘Politics and oil in Sudan’, Extractive Economies and Conflicts in the Global South: Multi-regional Perspectives on Rentier Politic, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 107-119.
Youngs, R 2008, Energy: a reinforced obstacle to democracy?, CEPS, London.
Democracy is what many individuals yearn for and it has created more conflict between those who ask for it and those who with their own reasons deny others this opportunity. It can be defined as a government that is run by the people who live under it. Abraham Lincoln defined it as a government of the people, for the people and by the people. It is said that he also defined democracy as the capability of the people to govern themselves.
It involves engaging the people in the decision-making process of the nation. Of course, not the whole population of a state or nation can be included in the decision-making process. The populous therefore elects or appoints people who will represent them and address their views and issues at a national level (Archibunghu; 132). Democracy involves several features; universal suffrage is one of them.
Every individual is entitled to his/her vote as long as the person is eligible to vote. Regular elections are another feature. A state should conduct elections periodically to ensure that the people get to elect the people they desire. Free and fair elections are another key element of democracy. The elections conducted regularly should be in a free and fair manner without impartiality. In a democratic state, there is general freedom of expression and observation of other human rights.
Having defined what democracy is and looked at its elements briefly, it is important to look at case studies and examples of democracies in the world. This paper seeks to address this issue. The paper will look at two critical nations and compare them as far as democracy is concerned. Mali and the United States of America will be the main points of discussion. The paper will compare and contrast the similarities and differences in democracy in America and Mali.
This will be done by first looking at democracy in Mali and later in America. Later, the comparison will be done in the conclusion where an unbiased opinion will be given on which country is more democratic having looked at the features of democracy.
Democracy in Mali
The concepts of legal status, democracy, good governance, human rights as well as human safety have been the key issues of strategic development and policies for fifteen good years. Mali has witnessed a tough and long route in achieving the democracy it has today. It has experienced many years of war and ethnic violence. The conflict between the nomadic Tuaregs and the Malian army was just but one of them.
For a long time, the people of Mali have lived under the fear of attacks from neighboring communities and the lack of a stable government to address this predicament. This was Mali almost a decade ago. Today, Mali boasts of one of the most democratic states in Africa. The embracing of democracy in Mali was one of the ways of achieving a fifteen-year development strategic plan. Since 1992, Mali has been an independent, sovereign, indivisible, democratic, secular and social republic (Anderson; 342).
The most important word on the list is “democratic”. One factor has made enabled Mali to embrace and enforce democracy; the separation of power through the different arms of government has brought in some level of accountability and responsibility in the government. The different arms are the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
The judicial arm of government in Mali is supported by their constitution. Under Article 85 of the Mali constitution, the judicial branch of government is independent of the other two arms of government i.e. the executive and the legislature. The main function of the judiciary in Mali is the protection and guard of human rights and freedoms. Amongst the elements of a democratic state is that where the nation advocates for and embraces the rights and freedoms of all the individuals in the nation. It works through the highest Court and other courts of the nation, as well as the board, and is in control of relating laws in the relevant field. The observance of the law by the people and the administration of justice by the judiciary in Mali have ensured that democracy is attained to some level.
The executive branch of government has also played a major role in the democratization of Mali. The political regime in Mali is based on a two-headed executive branch. This is where the dissolution of power is witnessed to a great extent. There is the president of the country, who is the head of the state, and the prime minister who is the head of government. Unlike other African nations and other nations in the world where the president is the head of state and government, Mali has adopted the two-headed system of governance. It is not up to the President alone to make all the calls that pertain to matters of the state and government neither is it up to the Prime Minister to do so.
One thing that is not clear is who therefore chairs the cabinet meetings as both the heads are in the cabinet. The Prime Minister is thus accountable to the state assembly and not to the President. Democracy as defined as a government-run by the people. The members of the national assembly are elected by the people of the republic. While the Prime Minister is accountable to the state assembly, it means that he is accountable to the citizens as the state assembly stands for the opinion of the citizens. Democracy is also depicted in this situation. Checks and balances are also accounted for since it is up to the people to decide.
The legislature in Mali has depicted the highest level of democracy in the country. This all begins in the election of the legislators serving in the National Assembly. At a state level, Mali votes for the leader of a state, who is the president, and the governing body. The president serves for five years before another election is held by the citizens of the country. The state Assembly has 160 affiliate members who are also voted for 5 years in a term.
The representation is what has impressed many historians and political scientists, 147 of the members are elected in single-seat constituencies while the remaining 13 are elected by the Malians in Diaspora. Two elements of democracy are brought out and depicted here; one is that of regular elections as the members are elected for a five-year term each and the other is the element of universal suffrage as even citizens abroad are allowed to vote.
Whether or not the elections are free and fair is up to the Malian authorities to report. No incidences have been reported since 1992 of rigged elections. Another feature of the Malian National Assembly that has put it on the list of democratic nations is in its composition. The Malian legislature is made up of the majority and the opposition. This implies that Mali has a multi-party system, with quite some parties. No one party has had the chance of gaining power alone, which is dangerous, but they have learned to work with each other under coalition governments hence the position of a Prime Minister. The multi-party system is another important aspect and feature of democracies.
The civil societies in Mali have had a great influence in promoting and consolidating democracy. Since the advent of multi-party politics in Mali, civil societies have played a great role in ensuring that human rights and freedoms are observed and respected (Anderson; 213). Was it not for these societies, multi-party democracy would not exist in the first place? Through the voice of the civil activists, democracy has been attained and Malians are enjoying the fruits of their labor.
Democracy in the USA
Tocqueville, a great historian and political scientist of the earlier times, termed democracy in the Americas as the most advanced form of democracy and he even looked at it as their strength. It is almost impossible to argue with this. However, democracy then is not the same kind of democracy experienced today. Tocqueville had actually seen this and showed some relentlessness and fear of democracy becoming a tyranny. According to Tocqueville, “extreme democracy forestalls the dangers of democracy” (Copp; 2).
He was of the view that with the freedom of the people of the Americas, majority rule could actually end up being majority tyranny. The framers of the US constitution agreed with this school of thought. They, therefore, opposed direct democracy and opted for representative democracy. The difference came in the governance.
Tocqueville distinguished between democracy in the sense of democratic political system, or a set of institutions through which rulers are held responsible to electoral majorities, and democracy in the sense of social system in which there is an absence “of legally maintained class hierarchies” (Rawls; 365). This was done solely for the reason or purpose of protecting the individual from the will of the majority. This is what creates the difference between democracy in the US and democracy in other parts of the world, specifically Mali.
Compared to the system in Mali, the US is more or less the same in as far as the offices put up to promulgate democracy are concerned i.e. the arms of government. Their roles are also almost similar. There is the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. All these arms are independent of each other and no decisions taken by each branch are influenced by another arm unless the circumstances force it to be so (Schumpeter; 312). The executive comprises the President and his Ministers some of whom are referred to as secretaries. They are charged with the responsibility of implementing government policies. Unlike Mali, the position of the Prime Minister is non-existent in the US.
This can be looked at in two ways with regards to democracy; one of them is that the democratic levels in the US are low because there is no form of accountability and dissolution of power. The president is the head of state and head of government, the decisions he makes will be final and he can choose not to consult others in the decision-making process. Another way of looking at it is that it portrays high levels of democracy in the US. The main reason why an office of the Prime Minister is created in many countries, and this includes Mali, is because of some cases of irregularities in the elections. There being no clear winner, a coalition government is formed where the supreme power has to be shared. The office of the Prime Minister is therefore created to address this issue (Douglas; page 153).
The legislature is made up of the legislators who are elected by the people and the President. Each serves a four-year term. The house is also made up of the majority who form the government and the minority who form the opposition. According to the elements of a democracy, the US automatically qualifies as a democratic state as a result of this. Regular elections and the presence of multi-party democracy confirm that the US upholds democracy. The legislators represent the people and this brings out the element of universal suffrage.
The judiciary also plays a vital role in as far as democracy is concerned in the US. The Supreme Court is the highest upholds the law and ensures that all citizens abide by it. It also protects the human rights and the freedoms of individuals. Without the judicial system in the US, which is credited as one of the most transparent and effective in the world, democracy in the country would crumble. The independence of the judiciary is the most important feature of any democracy as it is the judiciary that ensures the democracy of its citizens. The judicial system in the US is independent of the other arms of government and it does its work effectively.
The civil societies in the US indeed played a major role in advocating for democracy. Since the early years when the US was still fighting some forms of discrimination, civil societies were there to help curb the situation. They helped bring about the idea of change and freedom for all. Today, the work of civil societies is being seen in the US when it comes to the issue of democracy. The framers of the constitution had the best interest of the nation when they framed the constitution.
However, some issues are not clearly spelled out as far as democracy is concerned. The implementation of direct democracy and representative democracy has its flaws. This is where civil societies have come into place in assisting the US as a nation. They have pushed for amendments in certain parts of the constitution that are not clearly spelled out. This has meant that they have had to revisit the constitution and find a mechanism of aligning the works of the framers with the status quo. Other areas where democracy is not being observed especially instances involving human rights have also and are being addressed by the civil societies in the US. Efforts, however, to make the US are fully democratic state are also proving to go in vain as this is a very difficult task. Some people hold different positions in various issues that involve democracy and would not want to go against their beliefs.
Conclusion
The two nations discussed above, Mali and the US, have made several strides in their fight for the advocacy of democracy. They have come from far and have actually persevered a lot towards achieving and practicing it. The difference is in the implementation and possibly the choice of words used. As far as the US is concerned, its practices are aligned to those of Mali when it comes to the elements of democracy. Mali has come from far in implementing and upholding the democracy of their country.
Universal suffrage is observed by both countries, the regular elections are held in both countries, free and fair elections are also evident, protection of human rights and finally multi-party democracy. All these elements are observed by both countries. The difference comes in the “wording”. Whereas the US chooses to call it a representative democracy, Mali calls it direct democracy.
In my view, the features are the same and therefore the differences are slight. An example is that Mali is mainly comprised of the Muslim population. In some instances, they would apply some Sharia laws which many may consider as undemocratic. The stoning to death of an adulterous wife or husband is provided for in Sharia law. This is against the human right to life. Some people in the country practice it. Man would consider this as being undemocratic.
The question, therefore, is what should be done in this case? The Muslim population in the country has practiced Sharia laws for centuries. Besides they are entitled to the freedom of worship which is another human right. Another example is that of abortion which is legal in man states in the US. There is the question of the right of the mother and her choice, but what about the right of the child which is the right to life. By going against these rights are these people undemocratic? This is what is referred to as “Democracy and Preferences”. In this situation, we have public choice versus democracy and social choice versus democracy.
Russell Hardin and Thomas Christiano in the idea of democracy argue that “Even though every individual may have a clear preference ranking of all alternatives before him, the society may not be able to convert these individual rankings into a collective ranking”. They further argued that individual motives for action may not fit collective preferences for outcomes even when the latter are well defined.
My take is that just as the definition defines democracy as a government of the people, for the people, and by the people; we should not complicate the issue by bringing in other factors. In as far as governance and people representation is concerned, both countries are democratic.
Work cited
Anderson, L. Transitions to Democracy. (ed). New York: Cambridge University Press. 1999.
Archibughu ,D. Re-Imagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1998.
Copp,D. The Idea of Democracy: Could Political Truth be a Hazard for Democracy. 2nd edition. New York. Cambridge University Press.
Douglas W. Promoting Democracy: Opportunities and Issues. New York: Praeger. 1988.
Hardin, R. Does Might Make Right? Authority revisited. Oxford. Basil Blackwell. 1989.
Schumpeter, J. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper Torchbooks. 1947.
The China’s democracy movement denotes the various slackly planned political movements in the People’s Republic of China. The movements were targeted at diluting and consequently end the single-party rule by the Communist Party. Among these movements was the Beijing Spring in 1978.
The Beijing Spring was succeeded by various democratic movements aimed at the same government despite the Democracy Wall movement reaching its climax in 1979. Currently, Chinese people experiences considerable democracy albeit with, Chinese characteristics.
Main Body
Beginning of Chinese Democracy
Prior to the erection of the sculpture at Tiananmen Square, democracy in China had begun a century earlier. The democracy was then presented by insurgences, arrests, expulsions, and unending debates on the most appropriate methods of understanding and implementing such a compound type of social organization.
Democracy in China was lead nearly solely by a banished writer known as Liang Qichao. Qichao was involved in demonstrations in Beijing in 1895. He was calling for augmented contribution in governing by the Chinese people. It was actually the first recognized demonstration in the history of China and marked the China’s beginning of democratic eras (Paltemaa 601).
New Democratic Revolution
In 1919, Mao Zedong and the Chinese communists accepted democracy. They also accepted embracing the perspectives of Qichao. The day was 4th May 1919. They named it the inauguration of the ‘New Democratic Revolution’. The day belonged to the Chinese Communist Party.
However, the sole resemblance between the Zedong and Qichao’s democracies was the idea of national accord and personal considerations. Zedong held that the state ought to draw on the energies of the people to emerge stronger. He believed that national laws implemented from the top would never realize the backing of the citizens (Dao 41).
The Cultural Revolution
The Cultural Revolution took place between 1966 and 1976. It was, partially, a fundamental effort to realize Zedong’s ‘Great Democracy’ irreversibly. He had recognized that the application of authority had generated a novel advantaged class; the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy was the largest hurdle to the attainment of his model of democracy.
He attacked specific party members yet maintained that the party had legitimacy to leadership. He got close to entirely dent the validation for party backing. Another political heavyweight, Deng Xiaoping, swiftly reversed the situation. He had initially been expelled during the Cultural Revolution. Once he rose to the reigns in the late 1970s, he pushed for a rhetorical type of democracy.
The democracy appeared to be more of a pastime. He wanted the political competition to be conducted in a space restricted by four lines. The limiting lines were socialism, the totalitarianism of the public, the blending of Marxism-Leninism, and the party control (Dao 41).
The main hurdle to democracy was not encompassed in the party. The medieval culture of the Chinese was to blame during the era. The culture was so solid that revolution would not bend it let alone revolutionize it. Revolution would only be achieved through piecemeal education of the populace. This was to be under the leadership of a powerful authority.
Having recognized the specifics, Deng headed to reverse the deep-seated extremes of the Gang of Four era. He sought a variety of political, social and monetary policy restructurings. The changes would allow the country to draw near to the West. They would facilitate the transformation the country had strived for from Qichao’s time (Goldman 2).
Democracy Wall Movement
The beginning of modern Chinese Democracy Movement is typically associated with the Democracy Wall Movement that exploded in mid-November 1978. It was the first indication of political revolution. The participants sought to condemn the Tiananmen Incident of 1976. The political detainees were cleared of all the allegations. The move generated a pro-democracy crusade that swiftly got past the confines of what Deng conceived as gradual.
There was rapid and heightened nonparty-led re-education. The Democracy Wall Movement was a straight test to party totalitarianism. Posters were mounted on the tall wall bordering Tiananmen. The protesters sought various kinds of social and political change. Initially, the residents gathered to read and deliberate on the posters. The deliberations eventually generated into study groups. Secretive journals started being printed.
They included the ‘Beijing Spring,’ ‘Enlightenment’ and the ‘April 5th’. They called for everything from monetary transformation to establishing a multi-party political system. The leaders of the movement argued that they did not seek the toppling of particular officials. Instead, they insisted on the destruction of the ancient state apparatus (Goldman 3).
During this period, among the brashest and most deep-seated activist was Wei Jingsheng. He was an electrician and son to prominent party bureaucrats. He was outrageously unswerving and non-Marxist in his spasm. He focused on both Deng and the party. He was the sole campaigner of democracy after Qichao. He asserted that the right of the citizens was not a favor extended by the state. Instead, it was a natural right.
Additional, he asserted that personal rights were detached from those of the state. However, he was not enthusiastic about admitting that democracy involved struggle and chaos. Also, he could not articulate how the tussle of persons in the protection of their rights would result in the prevalence of harmony (Goldman 4).
Political Persecution
In March 1979, the government mobilized its machinery leading to the arrest of Wei and several non-Marxists. Their journal publications were shut down. The movement was labeled as the renaissance of the deep-seated Gang of Four. Consequently, Wei was sentenced to serve 15 years in incarceration. The charges were inflated. He was accused of leaking classified information to foreigners.
They were charged with the publication of counter-revolutionary reports. The period was marked by the admiration of Wei by many democracy activists for his courage.
However, he was not venerated for what he said. The methods he used to attain his objective were not only contrary to Marxism and the communist party, but also of the whole Chinese scholarly custom. The movement lasted until 1981. Currently, the leadership does not violently resist pro-democracy advocates (Einhorn 43).
Contemporary Democracy
During the last three decades, China has undergone political reform and opening that has led to unexpected economic and social modifications. The remarkable democratic development is closely associated with the progressive and increasing changes at the grassroots level as well as the Communist Party (Taylor and Calvillo 136).
Borrowing from Deng, the citizens in recent years have been conducting competitive elections for local leadership. His ideology continues to guide the perception of the citizens and the party members.
Conclusion
The Chinese democratic model has been marked with a non-violent approach to ensuring changes in the state machinery and the removal of particular Communist Party leaders. Many pro-democracy activists have been expelled from the party and some exiled for their radical position about the party bureaucracy.
However, in recent years, the country has experienced renewed efforts to democratization. The democracy taking root in China has Chinese characteristics as opposed to Western democracy. Democracy takes place only within the confines of the Communist Party. Multi-party democracy remains a pipedream.
Works Cited
Dao, Bei. “The Birth of Today, a Literary Magazine,” Civil Rights Forum 2.2 (1998): 40-41. Print.
Einhorn, Bruce. “Hong Kong may be Starting a Long March Toward Democracy.” Business Week 1.1 (2004): 42-43. Print.
Goldman, Merle. “The Twentieth Anniversary of the Democracy Wall Movement.” Harvard Asia Quarterly 2.1 (1999): 1-5.
Paltemaa, Lauri. “The Democracy Wall Movement, Marxist Revisionism, and the Variations on Socialist Democracy.” Journal of Contemporary China 16.53 (2007): 601-625. Print.
Taylor, Jon and Carolina Calvillo. “Crossing the River by Feeling the Sones: Grassroots Democracy with Chinese Characteristics.” Journal of Chinese Political Science 15.1 (2010): 135-151. Print.
Democracy is a form of government that involves collaboration between the ruling class and the citizens in matters that affect the public. All citizens have equal rights and opportunities of expressing their views. 1The notion of democracy was promoted by the United States of America. Democracy, an important component of US foreign policy, aims at promoting America’s basic values like human rights in order to create a stable, prosperous, and peaceful global environment that would enable it to pursue its national interests.
America believes that when all nations are governed democratically, they will be able to fight international terrorism, secure peace, deter aggression, promote economic development, uphold human rights, and expand open market. Although democracy may be considered as a fair form of governance, its application may not yield positive results in all countries.
2The perception of democracy varies basing on political, cultural, and religious aspects of each country. For instance, the perception of democracy in America is different from the Syria’s perspective. According to Professor Alexander Tyler, there are eight stages of democracy.3 “These are rescue of the masses from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, and eventually from dependence back to bondage”. 4In nature, democracy is dynamic and its application does not necessarily result in good life but returns people to the manacles of bondage that it purports to deliver them from. 5People have different political, religious, and cultural backgrounds and their understanding of democracy may differ.
As such, it may either promote stability or threaten the existing peace. In Western Europe countries, democracy enhances peace and stability because it enables people to air their opinion in a liberalized manner. In contrast, democracy in some countries such as Saudi Arabia may cause instability.6
Since democracy involves garnering majority of the votes in order to ascend to the position of political leadership, minority groups that cannot manage to get enough votes to propel them to influential political positions may resort to other means of attaining power, which may result in instability. For instance, terrorist groups such as Al-Qaida long for political power so that they can impose their religious ideologies on the masses but because they are unpopular with the masses, they may engage in violence in order to achieve their goals.
7Although some countries such as U.S.A may consider democracy as the best way of governance, democratic reforms in some countries may be detrimental to their national interests. For example, America may not support full democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia because influential Islamic groups may ascend to power and establish anti American policies. In addition, these groups may advance extreme religious ideologies that may transform the democratic process that propelled them into power to a dictatorial form of governance.
8Democracy cannot be achieved immediately. This is because of cultural and political variations among Nations. To attain democratic reforms, there should be a consensus among different political groups in order to reach an agreement on politics and leadership. For instance, in Middle East, democracy can be achieved if Islamist, secular groups, and the ruling elites agree on the means of sharing power and how they can impose their ideologies on the masses. To achieve this, a slow progress is needed in to ensure that each group is represented and catered for in the democratization process.
In conclusion, application of democracy cannot be achieved effectively because of political and cultural background of different countries. Global Democracy can only be attained if there is a consensus among different political groups.
Bibliography
Davenport, Christian. State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. Cambridge :Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Dunn,John. Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC – 1993 AD, Oxford University Press, 1994.
Elster, Jon. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Hook, Steven. U.S. Foreign Policy: The Paradoxnof World Power.New York:CQ Press, 2006.
Liberal democracy is also referred to as constitutional democracy and is the leading form of democratic governance in the world today. During the era of the Cold War, this type of democracy was feted against Communism because these two ideologies had differences in the form of governance and the two countries that were behind the Cold War were the United States which sought to promote liberal democracy, and United Socialist Soviet Union which promoted Communism. Eventually, the United States emerged victorious in the Cold War, and this was after the Soviet Union collapsed. Both countries strove to influence the kind of leadership in the world, and this led to several wars, the most notable being the Vietnam War. After the United States won the Cold War, it assumed the status of the world’s only Super Power and with it came to the responsibility of ensuring that the country was the world perfect. This meant the United States had the responsibility of ensuring that there was world order and also promoting democracy throughout the world. This has brought some benefits and also some problems to both the United States and also the world at large (David, 2005).
In the modern world, the word liberal means that the government conforms to the ideologies of liberalism, especially politically, and this means that the government affords the citizens to have individual freedoms from such things as internal control and government power. These ideologies were first highlighted at the age of enlightenment, and this was done by theorists who conformed to the social contract (David, 2006).
Structure of liberal democracies
In the world today, many of the countries that use the ideologies of liberal democracies have put in place a basis on which all adults of the country vote their leaders. This is done without any discrimination of any sort, especially discrimination that is related to sex, race, or religion. In this kind of state, the people choose their own leaders and the leaders they would like to be represented by. This means that the country has a voting system and that voters who have qualified to vote according to the legislation laid down by the country vote their own leaders. Some of the legislation in these countries requires that a qualified voter has attained a number of years, and most of the countries require that a registered voter must have attained the age of eighteen years and above. A registered voter must also be a citizen of a particular country, and this is enhanced by the fact that the voters must have documents that confirm that he or she is a citizen of that particular country or state (Anthony, 2007).
Another issue that arises is that the elections must be free and fair, and this has led to a number of controversies in the world. This is because, in a free and fair election, the most favorite candidate to the voters is supposed to win the election. However, in many countries, elections have been marred by irregularities, and there have been a raised number of rigged elections in the world. This has led to unstable governments, which have been marked by violence and civil wars, and also have led to coups and government overthrows. In the true sense of liberal democracy, the government is chosen by the voters, and in this sense, the government should answer to the people. This is means that the voters have the power to vote in an administration and also vote an administration out (Fareed, 2007).
In a liberal democracy, there should be many political parties in which the electorate chooses which one will form the government. This is referred to as pluralism, and it facilitates a country with a choice of the parties that govern the country. This means that pluralism gives the electorate a basis in which they can choose the most desirable administration from vast parties. This is very beneficial for a country because the electorate has the power to choose a combination of the best leaders which are given by a particular party and also have the element in which an electorate can choose a combination of leaders from various parties to form a government (David, 2006).
Another important structure of the liberal democracy is that the country must have a constitution, and this constitution lays a basis on which the rights and freedoms of the people are safeguarded against being exploited by the government. This means that the constitution lays a basis on which the powers of the government are controlled to the benefit of the citizens. The traditional setting of the constitution in America and Britain was that the powers of the government had to be separated. Many of the countries in the world have adopted this system, and this ensures that the countries authority is mainly split into three arms which include the Judiciary, Executive, and the Legislature. It is important for any country to have a free and independent judiciary that is not influenced by the other arms of the government. There is also a provision in which there is formed a system which affords checks and balances within the various branches of the government. Most of the countries that follow the ideology of liberal democracy also follow the rule of law, and this is mainly in the European countries. They also use federalism, and this is seen in democracies such as the United States and United Kingdom, and this lays a basis in which the power is distributed to avert abuse of power from a central government. The power is divided between various jurisdictions like provinces, municipals, and national governments (Robert, 1989).
Advantages of liberal democracy
When it is well run by an administration of a country, it is very beneficial to the country because the power is distributed to various government levels which ensure that the people are well served by the powers of the country. This means that in a liberal democracy, leadership reaches the electorate in very favorable conditions, and this means that the people get to have a voice in the way they are being ruled (David, 2005).
One of the advantages of liberal democracy is that the people choose their own leaders, and this is very beneficial to the people because they get to choose the leaders that they feel will deliver. This means that the people have the right to vote someone in office and this is because they feel that he or she is the best candidate for a post. This is exercised in most of the countries around the world, and this means that most of the countries exercise democracy. This is also beneficial to the people because when one of the elected officials has been deemed not performing or delivering, the electorate can vote him out in the next elections. Elections are held after a specified period, and most of the countries hold them after a number of years. In the United States of America, the elections are held after every four years. This gives the electorate a chance to elect new leaders if the current ones are not performing or delivering. Every leaders is given a number of years to prove his worth but when he cannot he is elected out of the office and a new leader is elected into the office (Anthony, 2007).
The electorate also is given the chance to air their views on various issues that concerns the nation, and one of these is done through the government coming up with programs that enable them to get their views from various quarters of the population. This means that the government will have to come up with good policies, or otherwise the public will air the negative perception of the policies. This has happened in a number of countries and a good example is the Bush administration’s war efforts against Iraq and Afghanistan and the people aired their views about their negative perception of the war efforts. This was done using media and even though the war was not deterred, the world was aware that the government did not have the support of the citizens in its war efforts against the two Arabic countries. The administration has the right to make policies which may not be desirable to the electorate but in so doing, it bleaches the contract with the people who voted it in. This have been seen in many countries and this have led to violence spells especially in the developing countries (Robert, 2003).
A liberal democracy also is very beneficial to the economy of the country, and this is because the people of the country have the freedom to choose any type of economic activity to engage in. In economic terms, the people are given the right to engage in various economic activities, and there is no control on the prices. This is one of the conditions of the liberal democracies, and many of the governments have had problems with this. But in the real sense, this has helped very much in ensuring that the economy is doing very. A good example is the United States where there is no internal control of the prices, and the economy has been doing very well for a number of years up to last year when there was a financial crisis. This means that the government has to play the role of ensuring that country is doing economically well, and this can be enhanced by a liberal democracy in terms of free market and no control from the government. This ensures that the investors in the country are free to engage in any type of legal business and this is very helpful to the overall economy of the country (Sanford, 1996).
In a liberal democracy, the media is not monitored, and it has its freedom to ensure that the people are informed in various issues which concern and interest them. Censuring of media is very destructive to a country because the government can implement policies which the people are not aware of and also which the people will not approve of. Media is a very important tool in the world today because it is seen as if it puts a check on various issues in the world. Media has played a very important role in history because it has been used to criticize governments when they have made policies which are not for the benefit of the people. This is one reason why in countries which are dictatorial and tyrannical, media is owned by the government and is used as a tool to rule the people in bad policies. In many countries, press freedom has been granted, and this means that many countries are adopting or have already adopted the new liberal democratic ideologies which is championed by the United States and the European continent (David, 2006).
In a liberal democracy, the resources are equally distributed, but there is a check on how the resources are distributed to the poor and the rich. Everybody in such a country has access to resources, although in many countries, this has led to great inequalities levels. This is because many countries have adopted bad policies of distributing the resources, and this has led to a situation where people are subjected to great poverty and this has led to the fact that the richer are getting richer and the poor are finding it hard to catch up with the rich people. The advantage related to the resources in a liberal democracy is that the government does not control the resources as many countries which are not democratic have been subjected to. In fact, the government allows the people to have access to all the resources they can and how they use them to benefit themselves is also free. However, the government may move in to control the use of resources where the government finds it that the resources are being wasted or not used in the proper means (David, 2005).
The people of such a country are also afforded a lot of rights, and this is very good for any type of leadership. The people are given a lot of rights, and these rights are protected by the constitution, and the government is limited on the authority in which it can limit these rights. One of the benefits of these is that the government cannot be able to limit the rights of the people to do a particular thing like owning property or the right of speech. The fact that the rights are protected by the constitution of these countries gives the people an edge to exercise their rights and can sue the government if it limits the exercise of these rights. The government is responsible for ensuring that the rights of the people are protected and if any entity or anybody tries to limit one’s right he is liable to be prosecuted in a court of law and this will help in ensuring that the country is living in harmony (Anthony, 2007).
There is also a lot of freedom that the people of that country enjoy, and this is because the constitution of those countries also have put clauses to that effect. This means that the country affords its citizens a lot of freedoms, and this is also a positive outlook of a government. The government uses various means to ensure that the people have their freedom protected and this ensures that the government will protect the freedoms of its citizens. This also means that the government will also employ some agencies in ensuring that the people’s freedoms are not limited by any entity (David, 1998).
Benefits to the government
Governments in the world which are formed on the basis of the liberal democracy have a number of benefits, and this can be accrued to the fact that it is easier to run such a government than the dictatorial government. One of the benefits of the government is that it has the support of the people. Any government that exercises democratic ideologies is seen as a government that is for the people, and hence the people will support it. People will support any government that allows people to exercise their own rights and also gives them the freedom that they deserve. This can be seen to the extent that many governments in the world which are supported by the people are liberal democratic governments, and this means that the government can rely on the support of the people. However, the government will need to deliver so that the people can have faith in it. Once the government has delivered, then the people will find that it good and hence they will support the government (Robert, 1989).
The government will also benefit in that it will find governing easier rather because the government will be able to delegate duties to various branches of the government. This is done through the government coming up with various branches level of government and also various levels of government. This is very beneficial to the government because governing the citizens is very easy, and this ensures that the government has its reach to the people in all levels. This is also very beneficial to the government because its quality of governance is of high standard and this means that the government is able to reach the entire population (Sanford, 1996).
The splitting of the government into three arms is also very helpful because it means that the government will perform its duties more efficiently than when it is controlling all the governance is one entity. The government establishing an independent judicial system means that the judiciary will efficiently handle all matters concerning the law and how justice is meted on to the people. The government will also ensure that the legislature performs its work of making laws and formulating policies while the executive will handle its work of administrating. This specialization is very beneficial to the government as well as to the people because they can address the right arm of the government when they are having problems (Ricardo).
Problems of liberal democracy
There is also a bad side of the liberal democracy, and this can be said to be the key to why some of the countries have adopted other forms of government. One of the problems is that the government affords too many rights and freedom to the people, and this means that the people can abuse these freedoms and rights. In so doing, they are jeopardizing the rights and freedoms of other entities and people as well. This means that the governments are having a lot of problems because many people are abusing these rights and in so doing, sometimes endanger the lives of other people. The government has to make adjustments to ensure that the people who are abusing their rights and freedoms are taken care of. This has necessitated the use of police force, but in some countries, their efficiency has been reduced because the people are claiming too many rights (Fareed, 2007).
It has also brought about the issue of inequality whereby the government is seen to be favoring the rich and not caring about the poor. When the government does not enforce price control, it is very dangerous for the people because the rich who owns the companies can dictate the prices and this will lead to exploitation of the people. This has brought a lot of controversies in the world and because when the rich dictate the prices with which to sell some very basic commodities to the people, the poor gets poorer and the rich get richer. This have led to some social problems, and the economy of the world is deteriorating because of this trend. Many people have also had to do without some basic things, and this has brought about a lot of problems both socially and economically (David, 2006).
This system of leadership is also giving some people a lot of power which they can use in negative things. A good example is George W. Bush’s war against the Arab countries citing the fight against terrorism, and this has led to many problems to both the countries and also the United States. This is because the United States has been criticized very much by the international community for the attacks. The Arab countries have never been stable after the attacks and many people died during the war (Anthony, 2007).
Conclusion
Liberal democracy is a good form of leadership, but it also needs to be controlled because the people have the freedom and rights protected by the government and, most importantly, by the constitution. However, the government also needs to know the limits at which the freedoms are exercised because it may harm the country if the rights are over emphasized.
Bibliography
Anthony H. Birch, The Concepts And Theories Of Modern Democracy, 3rd Edn. (London: Routledge, 2007).
David Beetham, Democracy: A Beginner’s Guide (Oxford: Oneworld, 2005).
David Held, Models Of Democracy, 3rd Edn. (Cambridge: Polity, 2006).
Fareed Zakaria, The Future Of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy At Home And Abroad, 2nd Edn. (New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton, 2007).
Ricardo Blaug And John Schwarzmantel, Eds. Democracy: A Reader (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, [N.D.]).
Robert A. Dahl, Democracy And Its Critics (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1989).
Robert A. Dahl, Ian Shapiro And Jose Antonio Cheibub, Eds., The Democracy Sourcebook (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003).
Robert A. Dahl, On Democracy (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998).