The high level of income disparity in the United States and its depressing effect on prosperity and mobility needs to be tackled as soon as possible. The entrenchment of inequality and immobility and how they replicate in the country’s system are the critical concerns at the present time (Kelly and Enns 855-869).
It often happens in the United States through the political preferences of the rich, where the stream of the cash into politics continues rising (Page, Bartels, and Seawright 51-60). The high attention on economic wealth and improved contact of the resources from the wealthy with the political structure in the United States are the two aspects that increase this danger.
Rich Americans are more concerned about the national budget deficit compared to the rest of the United States residents. An economic survey of the political positions of rich Americans shows that one percent of the United States wealth-owners, those owning over $7 million in net worth, lay more emphasis on minimizing budget deficits and reducing prerogative spending compared to other Americans.
The majority of wealthy Americans claim that the budget deficit is a critical challenge encountering the United States, ranking deficits among the leading impending problems (Page, Bartels, and Seawright 51-54). Approximately thirty percent of the wealthy Americans declare deficit and extreme government spending as the major vital setbacks encountering the United States. On the contrary, just six percent of the common public state deficit and the federal debt are the most significant issue facing the United States while sixty percent mention the economy and employment.
Furthermore, the wealthy are inclined towards reducing instead of expanding the national government plans such as national security and healthcare that common residents want to enlarge or maintain. In my opinion, economic selfishness is the easiest justification for the wealthy to fight tax increases on high incomes and support minimizing the budget deficit by reducing the entitlement plans, whereas most Americans oppose. The entitlement plans are of modest personal benefit of the rich people. Nevertheless, because rich Americans pay high taxes, they are conscious of their expenditures.
The majority of Americans resist reductions in healthcare and support its expansion. Additionally, similar contrasts between the attitudes of the rich and those of the public surface in preferences concerning numerous certain programs, particularly employment and income projects such as the minimum payment, medical cover, and government prerequisite of employment for the unemployed.
Common citizens are better placed to sustain government aid with public schools and college fees, and support more governance of big companies and income taxes. The government intends to lessen income disparities and excessive taxes on the wealthy to restructure wealth (Page, Bartels, and Seawright 54-58). A keen examination of the reason why wealthy Americans move to politics is that, as facts progressively confirm, rich people exercise more political influence as opposed to the ordinary citizens.
Wealthy Americans in the highest rank of the income allocation are socially more open-minded, but economically more conformist compared to others with respect to essential policies pertaining to taxation, economic guidelines, and social well-being plans. However, there has been no methodical proof regarding the affluent, for instance, the top one percent of United States wealth-owners. I propose that these characteristic policy preferences assist in explaining the reason behind particular public strategies in the country seeming to diverge from what most of the American residents demand the government to do.
It is pleasing to observe that some other minor differences, particularly concerning necessities and a respectable living standard for the jobless have been emphasized by the wealthy. One explanation of these disparities is that the rich may be comfortable with assisting the poor and facing hardships, but reluctant to what they consider as tampering with a private sector task of job formation. For instance, most of the rich people are ready to give more taxes for early childhood education in pre-school institutions.
This is irrespective of the budget deficit proving to be a bigger concern to the rich compared to the public in general (presenting another instance of what is deforming the current discussions). However, the affluent unduly sway of policymakers in the United States (Page, Bartels, and Seawright 58-65). The broader issue is that the rich control the critical financial and economic matters. Their preferences indicate less enthusiasm to spend on public education, jobs, and social assurance.
In a nutshell, the majority of these preferences of the affluent will strengthen unfairness/immobility thus stimulating strategies and hampering answers, which make significant opinion study worth monitoring. Affluent Americans are more concerned about the national budget deficit compared to the rest of the United States residents (Page, Bartels, and Seawright 65-70).
I distrust the adjustment of the opinions of wealthy Americans as they are embedded in selfishness that is prevalent to human nature. Economic self-interest is the easiest justification for the wealthy to fight tax increases on high incomes and support decreasing the deficit by minimizing the entitlement plans. Therefore, the goal for democracy becomes their unbalanced impact, and that results in the huge flow of cash into politics and voting rights.
Works Cited
Kelly, Nathan, and Peter Enns. “Inequality and the dynamics of public opinion: The self‐reinforcing link between economic inequality and mass preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 54.4 (2010): 855-870.
Page, Benjamin, Larry Bartels, and Jason Seawright. “Democracy and the policy preferences of wealthy Americans.” Perspectives on Politics 11.1 (2013): 51-70.
Democracy is one of the most contentious issues facing the world today; its meaning has been interpreted dissimilarly by different people. In most cases, it relates to a system of government and how it is governed. Most of the global governments are said to be democratically governed, this may be the case but in some cases, they vary in their systems, though slightly. Nonetheless, in comparing Democracy with all the other systems of government, it is the least distorted and can be relied on since it involves the rule of the majority who at times may not be necessarily right in their choice.
However, what seems good to many seems to work better and much more acceptable, from this point of view it is fair to reiterate Churchill’s pronouncement that, the present democracy is the best of all the other systems of government. Democracy comes with agreements of many regarding certain beliefs or promises, in this regard these people always communicate, through media among other forms of communication.
News, which compliments communication, is vital in informing the public of their surrounding events and society. Since it plays a big role in adding to what people know, it has a big influence on their decision-making. However, sometimes news misleads them to make wrong ‘democratic’ decisions. This paper will try to compare and contrast Benjamin’s concept of democracy with Bennett’s propositions on links between news and democracy as well as show how they contrast (Bale, 2000, par. 1).
Democracy is an ancient word that was used by the Greeks and the Romans first in their ancient governments; they had wanted to fully liberate their citizen, thus arriving in this form of government. It can be defined as the form of a government system where political decisions are made by every citizen and this is ensured by the votes of the majority of the subjects. News is information that is conveyed from one person to another.
Democracy is divided into three main forms namely, Representative democracy, direct democracy, and constitutional democracy. Representative democracy is one in which the right to make political decisions are given to representatives of the citizens who are elected by them, Constitutional democracy is one in which the right of the citizens to make political decisions are contained in the constitution to ensure political responsibility. The other one, direct democracy involves every individual in the decision-making where the majority of the individuals take the judgment (Bale, 2000, par. 2-5).
Benjamin’s Concept of Democracy
Walter Benjamin, a philosopher who never considered himself so, but rather as a man of letters was born in Berlin to a mixed-race family, a German and a Jew, His career was very short, spanning just 10 years, but his writings are still dominant in the contemporary world. He had fled to Paris when the Nazis took power but continued his work as a writer with the Frankfurt-based institute for social research (Adorno, 1938, pp. 270-300).
It is here that he came into the limelight with some of the most influential essays on capitalism, history, arts among others. With the situation becoming tighter for him when the Nazis were closing on Paris, he tried to escape through Spain into the United States since his German citizenship had been revoked, and he now seemed stateless. Benjamin was later to be found dead, with reports suggesting he committed suicide after a drug overdose.
It is still unclear how he died as some suggest cardiac complications, but it remains a fact that this shortened his otherwise fabulous career. Much has been debated on his thoughts and philosophies have given how secretive he was, but has been difficult to clearly state his lines of thoughts and philosophies. Though short-lived, Benjamin’s philosophies have had relevance to contemporary society and have been of great influence in communication technology and arts among others. His theories that tried to draw from metaphysics raised rigorous debates on their relevance.
Benjamin believed in each individual having his own decision, in his theories he talks of each one having his history as opposed to one history setting for all, in this regard he implied that everyone has his right to decide, and was unique to his functions. In most of his writings, Benjamin used metaphors, to relate the stories in his theories to real-life situations. His interest was much related to the events of his period as well as the imagination of an afterlife. In one of his most influential essays, he talks of the move from the traditional ways of reproduction of arts like filming and photography which according to him would impact on great masses.
He believed that art produced in its original state was unique to its creator and further reproduction would distort its originality. Besides, the audience, in this case, is only participative and views the art in its presentability. He used this to refer to the political parties at the time like the fascists on stopping aestheticized politics since according to him it would have only led to war. He wrote about many democratic assertions on the mass media culture. In his famous sayings, he implied that opinions are private to each individual while the public would only be interested in judgment. This quote can give us his concepts on democracy which according to him depended on each individual’s instinct, in the case of the public then for a democratic society the majority would decide the judgment; this is more like, direct democracy, as explained earlier.
Where each individual is given his right to decide on an issue, then they share the collective repercussions from the results, since the majority win. In another quote, Benjamin clearly states that the media has an important role in the lives of the public. He says that the media deliberately generate public opinion to influence the public’s judgment on issues and insinuates them into irresponsible people and remote or uninformed (Brainy Quotes, 2010, pp. 1).
In this quote Benjamin conveys the media as an imposer in people’s attitude, their democratic rights are incapacitated, and decisions made by them are compromised based on the media. Even things that they know tend to change and with time come to depend on media wholly for every decision. This has a great effect on their independence and democratic right as a whole and thus does not portray a democratic society (Benjamin, 1935, pp. 211-244).
Bennett’s Propositions on News and Democracy
Bennett, a professor in political science, has had virtually the whole of his life in political science and communication. Being the founder of a center that deals with civic engagement and communication, he has had a vast knowledge in this area. In his center, he has been able to help the public relate more or understand their humanity and has also helped them to be engaged actively in the politics of their region, social life, and even the global interaction.
His focus has been on the impact of media in the lives of people, for example, the civil life of a person about the news and media. Among the research he has made on communication about the life of citizens include the digital media’s impact on the youth among others. In his life as a philosopher, he has authored many books among which are those on illusion by politics. It is here that he relates the link between the news and democracy (Department of communication, 2010, pp. 1).
Bennett argues that the mega–media corporations that are currently witnessed are posing a great impact on the governments; it does this in different ways: it may depend on the political, cultural, or economic status of the particular country. He continues that, for example in the United States, media has had a great influence on the political information that is given to the public and how they respond in exercising their democracy. The way news is given off to the public determines how they respond to their environment, like there, where most people are cynical of the society, and this is mainly because the media portrays the society in the negative aspect.
This is deemed to impact their decisions in making democratic political rights. In Bennett’s thoughts the freedom and democracy are compromised with time, and media is playing a major role in this, the stronger they grow, the more influential they become and the more imposing on both the government and the public. He thinks that it will reach a time when it will greatly negate democracy. In the end, democracy could be compromised as people will not be able to make informed decisions based on reliable sources, but on manipulations by the media, and even become more cynical of the society (Bennet, 2007, pp. 9).
Similarity
Benjamin and Bennett were both influential philosophers who dedicated their theories to their contemporary experiences. In their theories they suggest that the media has sufficient power over the public’s attitude. This is brought out when Benjamin claims, he media denies public the opportunity to stand for themselves, the same case is with Bennett who claims that media infiltrates the public thereby disillusioning their decision making ability.
Regarding democracy, like in Benjamin’s concept of democracy he believes that every individual should have an opportunity to decide, this is because as illustrated in his artistic example, every one is unique as his art, the producers may most likely misinterpret the artist’s message. This is similar with media production in which Bennett says it impacts negatively on the society as people are made cynical of it and therefore lives dependent on them and not really on the reality at hand. The theory is reiterated by Benjamin again when he implies in one of his numerous quotes that the media intentionally, using public opinion, denies the citizens an opportunity to decide on issues. The two philosophers share sentiments on that.
Contrast
As much as the two philosophers share sentiments, they greatly differ in many ways, some of which regards the setting, career, political climate, theories and relevance of their theories. While, Benjamin who is Bennett’s senior having been born in the early 1890s had to adhere with the prospect of death at the hands of German’s new Chancellor at the time, Bennett had a much more conducive and advanced level for his career. In these secretive and complex periods in Benjamin’s life, he made the most of it. The two philosopher’s careers are a disparity in themselves, one having celebrated long career with experience as a lecturer in the University of Washington for over 35 years, while the other, a very short time for his career.
Bennett also thinks that the future is very bleak for democracy with the mega-media corporations, edging closes and closer in defining the government in place. This conveys a form of dictatorship, through assimilation since the citizens are compromised without their clear knowledge.
Conclusion
Both Benjamin and Bennett have made great contributions to the understanding of the contemporary democracy and its relation to the media. They have both criticized the media for unfairly cling on the mind of the public by illusions and manipulations. In their worlds they imagine of having democracy where each individual has the right to decide the political and cultural decisions based on the majority, and bases the authenticity of such a democracy and the media playing a rather participatory role, in ensuring the public are not compromised by their impression which may not be true(Wheeler, 1995, pp. 23).
They do however contrast on the detailed issues on how can be achieved by the public, their philosophical principles on link between media and democracy. But one thing is certain, achieving their ideal democracy is a challenge, with Bennett proposing a change for he imagines the future is bleak for the world of democracy with media delineation.
Reference List
Adorno, T, W., [1938] “On the Fetish Character in Music and the Regression of Listening” in A. Arato and E. Gebhardt, (Eds) 1978, The Essential Frankfurt School Reader, BasilBlackwell: Oxford, pp. 270-300.
Bale R. 2000. Concepts of Democracy. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Web.
Benjamin, W., [1935], “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction in H. Arendt(Ed), 1992, Illuminations, Fontana: London, pp. 211-244.
Bennett, W.L., 2007, News: the politics of illusion, New York: Pearson Longman, Chapterr 1.
A country can be regarded as a democratic one when the authoritarian type of government is not used to rule the country and the people are not oppressed by an authoritarian government and their authorities are elected by the people. As long as the authorities in some Asian countries are elected, democracies in these countries still lack the characteristics which can be associated with democracy in other parts of the world. “In other words, if a country is said to be democratic all the people who are involved in politics-citizens, civil societies, politicians- usually accept the rules of the democratic game” (potter 356).
“There are two broad types of democratization in Asia countries i.e. the have and the have-not type of democracy and this has been influenced by various things, including “culture and ethnic cleavage that has greatly contribute in democratization not occurring in Asian countries” (potter 354).
Social and Economic
“The countries in Asia have many things in common, from natural resources to geographical locations, they all have almost similar populations and they have undergone same historical experiences but one thing which is independent of each country is culture” (Potter 240)
Values but not institutions have been the determinant factor in democratic transitions from the authoritarian type of government to a democratic type of government. Market-oriented economies and political institutions in these countries have been put in place after they got their independence, but some still fear embracing these values because of the communist ideology which their leaders still have, for example, Japan and China. “They have not embraced open market policies and little has to be put in place in terms of political institutions because their culture cannot accommodate these values” (Huntington 240).
Democracy
“China and Soviet Union have a culture in their countries, where the powers in the government are centralized placed, Fang Linzhi once said at least due to lack of democracy as a result of a culture which has impacted negatively to the nation, but culture cannot be blamed squarely for those 40 years which have passed” (Cotton 239). Fang Linzhi was saying this because the culture in China cannot accommodate any type of democracy.
Historically in Japanese culture, it was made up of a class of different people depending on what you own in the country. These classes in the nation are the ones used to determine the democracy in that nation because each class pursues its own interest in the country. The dominant class has always been anti-democracy in Japanese society and they are the likes of landowners who have been exploiting cheap labor from the lower class i.e. the workers. Due to democracy in parts of Japan social welfare of its workers in rural areas has improved and this was happening in areas where the landowners were weak and didn’t have much influence on the government.
The workers in the urban centers and peasants in the rural areas were grouped as middle and lower class respectively; they were the ones who had an interest in democracy in Japan so as to improve their own welfares and to prevent oppression from the upper class. The bourgeoisies-they fall between the upper class and the workers- most of the time they have not been against democracy in Japan as you compared them with the landowners but in recent times they have been seen to push for substantive democracy in Japan. “Other times they have been seen to be anti-democracy in areas where their interests were not being addressed” (Potter 245)
“The influence of classes and the role of the government have been fundamental to the success and failure of democratization in Asia countries” (Potter 358). “These Asian traditions, it cultures did not allow democracy and this led to dictatorship in various sectors of the country” (Huntington 241)
Works Cited
Cotton, James.The limits to liberalization in industrializing Asia.New York; Pacific Affairs, 1991. Print.
Huntington, Samuel. The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. Print.
A country can be regarded as a democratic one when the authoritarian type of government is not used to rule the country and the people are not oppressed by an authoritarian government and their authorities are elected by the people. As long as the authorities in some of the Asian countries are elected, democracies in these countries still lack the characteristics which can be associated with democracy in other parts of the world. “In other words, if a country is said to be democratic all the people who are involved in politics-citizens, civil societies, politicians – usually accept the rules of the democratic game” (potter 356).
“There are two broad types of democratization in Asia countries i.e. the have and the have-not type of democracy and this has been influenced by various things, including “culture and ethnic cleavage that has greatly contribute in democratization not occurring in Asian countries” (potter 354).
Social and Economic
“The countries in Asia have many things in common, from natural resources to geographical locations, they all have almost similar populations and they have undergone same historical experiences but one thing which is independent of each country is culture” (Potter 240)
Values but not institutions have been the determinant factor in democratic transitions from the authoritarian type of government to a democratic type of government. Market-oriented economies and political institutions in these countries have been put in place after they got their independence, but some still fear to embrace these values because of the communist ideology which their leaders still have, for example, Japan and China. “They have not embraced open market policies and little has to be put in place in terms of political institutions because their culture cannot accommodate these values” (Huntington 240).
Democracy
“China and Soviet Union have a culture in their countries, where the powers in the government are centralized placed, Fang Linzhi once said at least due to lack of democracy as a result of a culture which has impacted negatively to the nation, but culture cannot be blamed squarely for those 40 years which have passed” (Cotton 239). Fang Linzhi was saying this because the culture in China cannot accommodate any type of democracy.
Historically in Japanese culture, it was made up of a class of different people depending on what you own in the country. These classes in the nation are the ones used to determine the democracy in that nation because each class pursues its own interest in the country. The dominant class has always been anti-democracy in Japanese society and they are the likes of landowners who have been exploiting cheap labor from the lower class i.e. the workers. Due to democracy in parts of Japan social welfare of its workers in rural areas has improved and this was happening in areas where the landowners were weak and didn’t have much influence on the government.
The workers in the urban centers and peasants in the rural areas were grouped as middle and lower class respectively; they were the ones who had an interest in democracy in Japan so as to improve their own welfares and to prevent oppression from the upper class. The bourgeoisies-they fall between the upper class and the workers- most of the time they have not been against democracy in Japan as you compared them with the landowners but in recent times they have been seen to push for substantive democracy in Japan. “Other times they have been seen to be anti-democracy in areas where their interests were not being addressed” (Potter 245)
“The influence of classes and the role of the government have been fundamental to the success and failure of democratization in Asia countries” (Potter 358). “These Asian traditions, its cultures did not allow democracy and this led to dictatorship in various sectors of the country” (Huntington 241)
Works Cited
Cotton, James.The limits to liberalization in industrializing Asia.New York; Pacific Affairs, 1991. Print.
Huntington, Samuel. The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. Print.
The term constitution refers to a set of rules and regulations which are used to run a country. Each state or nation has its constitutional document which has been uniquely crafted to address and suit the situation of its residents. Even though constitutional documents differ from one country to the other, there is usually a common feature of all constitutions in the sense that is a legal document whose provisions cannot be overridden by any other law. Additionally, one of the dominant elements in most constitutions is the principle of democracy which refers to the government by the people for the people themselves. Democratic governments allow their citizens to choose their leadership through a free and fair electoral process. This paper attempts to examine whether constitution supports the modern democratic ideals or not.
Constitution and democracy
Constitution and democracy are very close applications in modern forms of political leadership and it is often difficult to discuss or embrace one without a clear mention of the other. In so doing, the term constitutional democracy becomes of great importance. However, it should be noted that not all governments with stable constitutional documents may end up supporting and applying democracy in their day-to-day leadership especially if the authentic principles of democracy are not put into use. Good governance requires that these principles be applied. From one of the principles, the wishes of the majority should be put into account. In other words, democracy is so much concerned about the power of the majority vote which should always take the centre stage in political governance (Mautner, p. 213). Moreover, this principle equally requires that the very wish of the majority be respected and upheld by the constitution.
Nevertheless, this principle is often not in agreement with the principles governing most constitutions. The modern constitutions are quite sensitive to the principles of democracy although its full and pragmatic application in day-to-day governance is still elusive so to speak. Besides, one of the constitutional principles has it that certain rights are entitled to individuals and other less dominant groups which may go against the will of the majority. It is therefore imperative to give a critical examination of these principles to establish whether the constitution upholds democracy in any way (Sunstein, p. 73).
To begin with, the term democracy which broadly embodies governance by the people is vividly differentiated from the outright rule by the minority or few individuals as in the case of totalitarian governance or dictatorship. In other words, democracy guarantees free and fair participation of all community members in an elective process which requires one to decide on which type of leadership to go for. In contrast, most nations that classify themselves as democratic have failed to meet these minimum standards as can be judged by significant disparities in terms of wealth accumulation and access to basic facilities like housing and infrastructure. These material differences directly transcend into political inequalities and thereby acting as an active ingredient towards bad and unpopular leadership void of democracy. Further, the democratic aspirations still embrace ordinary citizens as being politically equal due to the power to vote. The majority will is inherent in theories surrounding democracy. It is a common practice that those who keenly defend democracy may simultaneously limit the horizons of majority rule. The baseline here is the ability of the citizens to have equal power in making decisions. It is against this backdrop that the will of the majority will always prevail (Mautner, p. 163). Democratic ideals rely on the nod of the majority and which may sometimes go against the principles of applied constitutions. To this end, political decisions are left to the control of democracy.
What about constitutional ideals? Do the pieces of legislation in a constitutional document supportive of the will of the majority? This inquiry may not have a definite answer bearing in mind that there are often associated constraints in the constitutional documents regarding the will of the majority. The main constraint that tends to limit the harmony between democracy and constitutionalism is the presence of underlying latent legislation which attempts to be restrictive to the principles of democracy. In any case, those who draft constitutions are usually politically heavyweights with vested interests in the entire legal document. The succinct review of both the constitution and democracy reveals a rather unpalatable match which primarily results from the obvious suspicion created between the two by the rule of the few or dictatorship. This is the reason why some governments have been unable to meet the democratic sanctity of their citizens. The zeal to remain in political leadership without the approval of the majority rule is a real catalyst that inhibits the extent to which the constitution would support democracy (Banting & Simeon, p. 159).
Moreover, a critical analysis of constitutionalism in its real context allays fears which are associated with the impacts of the majority power (Sunstein, p. 126). Some governments interpret majoritarian rule and instinct as pathways to revolutions that may supersede constitutional provisions. In essence, a constitution will often demarcate clear borders between individualistic freedom and the limits of majority rule. In so doing, a constitution does not allow certain practices and pursuits of democracy beyond certain borders. Consequently, the end product of this myriad of limitations is the crafted ceiling beyond which democracy cannot prevail. In simple terms, any piece of constitutional document will always be endowed with clauses that demean or alienate certain practices of the majority rule which the political leadership may perceive as counterproductive. The drafting of such clauses is usually tagged on the argument that protection of legitimate human rights is paramount in the constitution. In any case, the majoritarian rule will often be considered against the law in the event it overruns the privacy of individuals who are protected and governed by the constitution (Banting & Simeon, p. 159). Any form of interference arising from majority power is not acceptable and especially if such interruptions are deemed unconstitutional. This is largely enshrined in the principles within any given constitution which underscores the protection of individuals’ autonomy.
Conclusion
In summing up this argument, it is imperative to note that the extent to which the constitution supports modern democracy is limited in the application concerning the type and nature of governance concerned. For instance, whereas democracy upholds the rule of the majority, totalitarian regimes are void of any democratic ideals. In such cases, constitutional documents are not supportive of democracy at all. Further, the practice of democracy may not go beyond certain borders especially when they are deemed unconstitutional even in elaborate democratic regimes. Usually, the very constitutions have protective clauses which limit certain express rights of democracy. Lastly, whether a constitution will support the ideals of democracy or not in contemporary governance is largely dependant on the political goodwill of the ruling class. They may deter the due process of a free and fair process of democratic practices.
Works Cited
Banting, G. Keith and Simeon Richard. And no one cheered: federalism, democracy, and the Constitution Act. Ontario: Methuen Publications, 1983. Print.
Mautner, Noah Michael. A Constitution of direct democracy (2nd ed.). Christchurch: Legacy Books Ltd, 2000. Print.
Sunstein, R. Cass. Designing democracy: what constitutions do. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.Print.
To many people, the US is one of the most democratic countries in the world. Additionally, it is one of the most decentralized governments in the world. However, some people believe that the US is more of a democratic republic than a true democracy. Nevertheless, some states practice pure democracy through various referendums on issues affecting their citizens. This essay provides and insight into the features of the US’s democracy.
In a democratic country, citizens decide on policy matters directly through voting or other methods. Therefore, the US is not a pure democracy but a democratic republic. The explanation to this is that people vote for representatives who, on behalf of them, vote on various issues in the US’s parliament.
Nonetheless, in layman’s terms, a democratic government derives its powers from the people. Also, a democratic government accounts to the people on the usage of this power. In this regard, the US can be referred to as a democracy. Additionally, there are instances of pure democracy in the US. For instance, states conduct referendums to vote on various issues affecting their citizens.
The law prevents the executive from interfering with civil liberties in a limited government. For that reason, a limited government cannot interfere with individual rights and freedoms. These restrictions are usually documented in a written constitution. The US’s constitution greatly limits executive powers through delegation. For that reason, the US is a good example of a limited government. A limited government ensures that there is a separation of power and more than one level of government.
For instance, the US has three arms of government. The three arms include the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Also, each arm has specific duties and responsibilities. Therefore, it is unlikely for any arm to abuse its powers. To give the electorate and the elected leaders more powers in decision-making, the US has decentralized power to the states and local governments. The US has a federal system of government made up of the central government, states, and the local government. In a federal government, the central government devolves some of the governing powers to lower levels. Also, these levels of government are limited by checks and balances.
Consequently, no policies are implemented without the three levels coming into an agreement. For that reason, state and local governments enjoy autonomy to a certain degree in the US. Moreover, states and local governments have political and administrative powers.
In political terms, credit claiming occurs when a politician tries to generate a belief that he is responsible for the success of something. A credit claim is, therefore, an accomplishment that a politician uses to gain more recognition.
For instance, during the 2012 presidential campaigns, President Obama kept on reminding Americans that his administration killed Osama bin Laden. Romney, on the other hand, claimed that his record shows that he is bipartisan. Therefore, credit claiming is a means of convincing the electorate that a leader is capable or has been tested. Moreover, a leader can explain to the electorates why he is better than his competitors through credit claims.
Image is one of the most important aspects of the US’s politics. To many people, the appearance of a leader matters. In 1960, Richard Nixon won the presidential debate against John F. Kennedy on Radio. However, John F. Kennedy won the next debate, which was broadcasted live on television. This victory was attributed to John F. Kennedy’s general appearance. For that reason, political parties spend a lot of money on their candidate’s looks. For instance, John McCain spent $5,500 on a Hollywood makeup artist to enhance his image. Therefore, adopting a signature look is a plus for any politician.
Most of the aspects discussed above confirm that the US is a model democracy. For instance, decentralization has enabled the US to strengthen and enhance the stability of its democracy. Also, each group, in the US, has the opportunity to control its affairs since decentralization has brought power closer to people. Leaders who occupy offices in a lower government tend to understand people’s problems. For instance, a mayor is closer to his people than a governor or a president.
Therefore, he is more responsive to people’s needs. Local governments also enable citizens to be more active in public affairs. Therefore, they have an opportunity to question and monitor their leaders. For that reason, leaders are forced to account for their successes and failures. Accordingly, leaders are less likely to abuse powers. Moreover, other arms of the US’s government, such as an independent judiciary ensure that they are more checks against the abuse of executive power.
It is very difficult to gauge how democratic the US is. However, it can be concluded that the US is one of the most democratic countries in the world. Additionally, decentralization of power enables all the US citizens to take part in decision-making. Furthermore, the different arms of the US government ensure that office holders do not abuse their powers.
Egypt’s process of democratization has, for many years, been influenced by certain factors. While many achievements have been made in Egypt in an attempt to achieve full democratization, it can be said that several challenges still face this vital process. Politics, economic environment, and the political history of Egypt are vital variables that have continued to shape democratic space in the Egyptian state.
Economic environment
Ineffective government policies, high illiteracy levels, very low employment opportunities in the country, high population growth rate and the minimal employment opportunities are some of the major aspects of the Egyptian economy that have continued to define and effectively influence the country’s democratization process. Egypt’s main economic sectors include the agricultural and industrial sectors. The industrial sector includes the automobile, chemical, electronics, textile, clothing, steel industries, and construction subsectors. The service sector is another major sector of the Egyptian economy (Abdel-Hameed, 2005).
With a more than $3 billion debt, Egypt has continued to remain uncertain concerning prospects of enhancing its political or economic wellbeing. Overreliance on states such as China, the United States and the European Union for financial support has made it difficult for the country as most of its policies and democratic processes are shaped by the views and demands of external parties. Consequently, political interference derails the country’s efforts to practice freedom of expression and to have an in-depth and streamlined process of boosting the country’s economy.
With a population of 83 million people, Egypt’s economy continues to improve despite economic challenges. Reviving the country’s plummeting economy has been a major struggle. The political struggle has been influenced by the belief that economic powers and democratic processes play a vital role in enhancing democracy. Huge gaps in the country’s budget, a sudden drop in its currency reserves, high unemployment rate and the unequal economic opportunities between the rich and the poor in the country have continued to affect the country’s economy negatively.
As a result, Caryle (2002) believes that economic inequality has continued to make democracy and politics to be a preserve of the rich. Worst still, a wide economic disparity has increasingly made the political class to “own” the electorate and manipulate the electoral process, thus derailing the efforts being made to achieve full democracy.
Faced with the recent negative impact of the global financial crisis, Egypt’s economic environment has increasingly become dynamic, challenging, and unpredictable. Revolutionary movements in Egypt, especially in the year 2011, have not only focused on realizing economic growth but also on enhancing political stability, tranquillity, and equity. Rather than help in fostering acceptable democratic space over the years, the government has continued to engage in unethical business practices such as corruption, ethnicity, racism, and nepotism.
The mentioned vices infiltrate the country’s political system because the political class focuses on economic activities that are likely to bring its benefits. The economic environment is therefore used as a means of achieving selfish political goals, vengeance and putting in place biased political structures that derail the full democratization of Egypt’s political system. While the economic environment may not have a direct impact on the political policies and development strategies, it helps to shape the democratic space of a nation and also influence the political direction
Egypt’s political history
Islamic religion has continued to play an essential role in the democratization of Egypt. Though dynamic, the Islamic religion highly influences how the political class makes varied decisions that influence the country’s democratic process. The existence of a constitutionally recognized monarchy in the country has continued to have a great impact on the democratization process of the country.
Other than the 1952 revolution and the Nasser rule period related to Arab socialism, United Arab Republic, Sada era, various regional interventions, and Muslim brotherhood conflicts, Egypt has continued to experience many conflicts in its political developments that have increasingly complicated the country’s democratization process (Caryle, 2002). Egypt’s political system has a lot of similarities with the traditional Indonesian system.
While the current Egyptian political system has little similarities with the political development in the country, the Indonesian political developments after the post-1998 circumstances highly influence social, economic and political developments in the country (Boix, 2003). Despite attempts to involve all people in the country’s leadership structure, the existence of selfish political forces, desire to implement and mandatorily impose stringent Islamic laws, efforts to maintain the “status quo” by the political class have remained major issues of concern.
Democratization has not been fully successful. Mubarak’s policies which were inclined to Islamic religion proved to be a major challenge in the democratization process. The oppressive governance of Hosni Mubarak and his ultimate ousting from office were vital circumstances that best defined the degree to which Egypt had tried to achieve an effective, dynamic, and stable democratic process.
The unending quest for peaceful democratic process compelled people to defy government sponsored curfew, police brutality, pervasive electoral process, forged election and formulation of dictatorial and retrogressive policies that were aimed at maintaining the status quo. Between 2000 and 2010, the slow yet steady rise of President Hosni’s son, Gamal, in the then ruling party, NDP, acted as a major setback for enhancing the rule of law and realization of full democracy. The seven days peaceful revolution that took place in Egypt proved that dictatorship had no place in modern Egyptian society.
The peaceful revolution also paved the way for an effective democratic process and a democratic electoral process that had been desired for a long time. The tense and very rigid autocratic leadership of Hosni Mubarak proved that autocratic leadership was a major hindrance to the democratization of a nation. Having held a constitutional referendum in 2011and a subsequent parliamentary election, Egypt has managed to steer its democracy towards its full realization.
The electoral process has become more transparent with minor incidences of post-election violence, voter bribery, corruption and nepotism being reported in the country after the 2011 elections in which Mohamed Mursi was democratically elected to the presidency. With the background of the past incidences of unrest, political instability, and conflicts and many other past revolutions, the 2011 revolution, through the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, has put in place many crucial legal and democratic institutions.
Even though Egypt has managed to slowly move into a market-oriented political and economic nation, full democratization of the country has continued to be elusive. The situation is made worse by the existence of a legitimate electoral process either at the national or county level. In the recent ties, the country’s political system has been unstable with no clear government structures (Carlyle, 2002; Boix, (2003).
External Issues
Several economic, social, technological, and political external issues highly influence the democratization process in Egypt. External issues such as the use of financial aid as an economic stimulus are sure indicators that economic development in the country is undertaken by various external policies. For instance, in offering a $1 billion debt relief and providing $375 million in loan guarantees and financial assistance for major American financial institutions and companies, the U.S government has managed to successfully influence the Egyptian electoral process.
Rather than act as a motivating factor towards the practice of democracy, political relations among countries and over-reliance on foreign aid are major impediments to the success of Egypt’ political reform and expansion of the democratic space in the country.
This external issue also relates to the fact that political unrest in the Arab and Middle East regions have increasingly made it difficult for political leaders to implement clear democratic strategies, development plans and dynamic economic and political development approaches (Caryle, 2002). The situation has continued to be worsened by the fact that foreign countries that have vested interests often opt to fund and influence political parties and movements.
Though financial stimuli is a crucial aspect of enhancing economic growth, it plays a fundamental role in ensuring that the U.S influences decisions in the political system and policy formulation by the Egyptian government. Like the United States of America, China’s recent signing of a financial stimulus deal with Egypt, which aims at revamping the country’s agricultural system.
It also focuses on enhancing environmental growth and development and streamlining the telecommunication system. Egypt’s political system offers a suitable investment environment for Chinese investors. Unfortunately, rather than concentrate on enhancing the political goodwill, the economic developments brought about by Egypt’s major economic partners interfere with political values and thus weakened its democratic strategies.
The International Criminal Court’s indictment of President Albashir of Sudan and the criminal cases in progress at the court against several African political leaders has continued to cause a lot of distress about the court’s role in enhancing democracy in Africa. The court has continued to be a major threat to the democratization process of several countries in Africa. Rather than encouraging political leaders to uphold the rule of law, the inception of ICC on July 1, 2002, has continued to make Egyptian leaders disregard democracy and instead opt for retrogressive strategies of retaining economic and political power.
As an external issue of concern, it is evident that the emergence of the International Criminal Court has been a hindrance to the democratization efforts being made in the country. Religion, terrorism, and Islamist challenges are issues that have continued to affect domestic political development in Egypt. Egypt, being an Arab state, has continued to be perceived to be in support of Islamic terrorism activities. While it may not be possible to substantiate the claims, the perceptions often make it difficult for political leaders in the country to establish effective international relationships with other states (Boix, 2003)
As a result; the country does not get the international support needed to improve political development, justice, and adherence to the rule of law. On the other hand, some of the Islamic region’s values that enhance cooperation seem to demand the upholding of unpopular political ideals that are not democratically popular. Weak political ideals derived from Egypt’s neighbors who are politically unstable, often derail Egypt’s process of achieving full democratization due to the lack of moral and political support (Newton, Van &Jan, 2005).
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that the democratization process in Egypt has faced several challenges. The challenges of democratization faced varying based on religious issues, the involvement of the private sector, political instability, failure to respect political differences, unfair representation, and increased political tension.
References
Abdel-Hameed, N. (2005). The Emerging Landscape of the Natural Gas in Egypt. Cairo, Egypt: University of Cairo.
Boix, C. (2003). Democracy and Redistribution. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Caryle, M. (2002). Passion for Islam: Shaping the Modern Middle East: the Egyptian Experience. Cairo, Egypt: Simon and Schuster.
Newton, K., Van, D., &Jan, W. (2005). Foundations of Comparative Politics. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
The general objective of every political system is to rationalize several evident imperfections in most governments. Every single undertaking by the human race is comparative. A comparison of different forms of government is, therefore, significant in judging and testing the diverse set of organizations.
In regards to this, the best form of government should consider the well-being of any state that subsists in the regime. The best form of government ought to protect the nation’s welfare and display little defectiveness because almost all organizations are imperfect (CCH Australia 30).
Further, the best institution gives improved affinities to the nature of the human race. These include the utmost and continuous stimulus as well as occupied political scope that reduces the inferior tendencies and opportunities of malice. Given the above, charging democracy aright requires its comparison to the other systems of government. The other forms may provide a better substitute to democracy as was evident in the primeval and the contemporary world (Duignan 100).
Monarchy and Oligarchy as compared to Democracy
The monarchial form of government at times seems to be easier to follow and is stable. It offers a reliable and incessant policy to overseas relations like the democratic systems (Pitney and Bassette 4). Besides, both monarchial and democratic forms ponder a well-organized domestic organization. This emanates from the verge of austere responsibility and free rein in the choice of skilled bureaucrats.
The citizens submit to a solitary ruling head in monarchial forms of government, thus enabling the entire national services to be equally fixed to each other just like in democracies. Monarchial forms of government more or less cloud with democracies as it creates for integrity between the social orders.
The form is unprejudiced and perhaps compassionate to the citizens whose interests are shared with their leaders. However, all these merits claimed by the monarchies are not sustained by history. The monarchies are on the complete more inclined to hostility and conflict despite having variables as those of democratic forms.
The lethal objection to the monarchial system is that it may lead the nation into poverties due to autocracy. This is counter to the democratic government where leaders develop strongly to rule democratically. On the other hand, dictatorial forms of government merit both the other alternative forms. In comparison with democracies, oligarchies agonize in the hands of the traditional principle.
The different types of oligarchies include partial administration by the military, and the reverence sensed for birth, like in the case of feudal plutocrats of the medieval European nations. The democracies are however ruled by the elected leaders but not by the feudal tycoons whose tenant vassals are concerned with rendering the country-dwellers weaker. The administration and aristocracy of Prussia, as well as the 18th Century’s French and British nobilities, provide the best comparison in this case (Ulrich 36).
Conversely, the oligarchy has some patent advantages as compared to democracies. The form has demonstrated that it can create an extremely steady government like that of a democratic state. Similar to the democratic nations, oligarchies are capable of fielding tenacious foreign concerns and hunt for dependable policy while respecting the ethical values. Nonetheless, the morals of skillfulness and knowledge are best assumed in the oligarchy that in democratic forms of government hence noble organization.
Dictatorship sometimes keeps the democratic notion of caring for the substantial welfare of citizens (Duignan 105). The problems of oligarchy, however, outweigh its merits as compared to democracy whose benefits overshadow its demerits. As opposed to democracy, the class rule is audacious, arrogant, and egocentric in the other forms. Consequently, the statute is disgraced, and the government suffers from the disunion of groups formed due to distrust and contentions from the ruling races.
The democracies experience little violence as compared to authoritarianism and monarchial forms of government. The other forms of government enable conspiracies that distract and weaken the government by forfeiting mixed interests, distorting admin, and delaying legislation. They also encourage corruption owing to the prevalent soul of self-interest, lack logical accountability, and mystery of governance. The democratic government has certain flaws, like any other forms of government.
For instance, democracy sluggishly recognizes the economy in regards to finance administration and governmental skills. The other systems of government draw out considerable dimensions like the democratic forms even though not openly. The diverse forms of governments might face several restrictions, and public disapproval augmenting from fear of social censure (Ulrich 28). For this reason, the different forms of governments differ with only little similarities noticed while comparing.
The democratic system as the best form of government
In a personal view, the democratic form of government is the best system that can meet the criteria of peoples’ rule. Indeed, this system means the rule of people from one nation destined for the very people and by the people themselves. The democratic form of government allows for equal participation of all the entitled inhabitants to take part in government functions. The participation can take place openly through the elected legislative body.
Similarly, democracy proves to be the best form as it works better than the other known system of government. In spite of democracy working extremely gracefully, it has particular faults. Therefore, democracy comes with countless benefits for the organizations employing it (Duignan 52).
The democratic form of government encourages free will and social equality. Social equality embodies the notions and opinions of every populace in whichever nation state regardless of their interest group and differences. Moreover, democracy provides for a healthier mode of solving the problems emanating from squabbles or skirmishes. Democracy, make the self-worth of citizens available in any country. As a result, it permits several individuals to rule the nation through representation.
It consents individuals to express their grievances liberally and openly without any intimidation besides promoting and respecting human rights ((Pitney and Bassette 3). All the folks are equally represented before the law in this system of government given that the citizens are entitled to the free will of voicing their outlooks. Hence, democratic system of government provides for a better form as compared to the other forms like oligarchy and monarchy.
Conclusion
Several republics claim to have embraced democracy in the contemporary world. Nevertheless, the federations’ remains in the same state as in the other forms of government once the inhabitants are sidelined in political or governmental functions. It is important for the governments to meet the standards for democracy to balance the powers.
Accordingly, democracy is the preferred and best form of government in the present world. Thus, democracy tends to carry the day provided that it speedily grasps the belief that it is present for the entire populaces and renders its bureaucrats rightly answerable to the citizens all-inclusive.
Works Cited
CCH Australia. Introducing the Law. North Ryde, NSW: CCH Australia Limited, 2011. Print.
Duignan, Brian. Forms of Government and the Rise of Democracy. London, UK: Britannica Educational Publishing, 2012. Print.
Pitney, John and J. Bassette. American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.
Ulrich, Bartow. A Comparison between the Forms of Government of the Representative Democracy, Or Republic of the United States, and Those of Other Nationalities: Show. Charleston, South Carolina: BiblioBazaar, 2010. Print.
One of the characteristics to which a military conflict should adhere in order to be considered a just war is the ‘chances of success’ (Coady 2002). This principle implies that the possibility of succeeding and winning war should be high enough for the nation to engage in the conflict. Otherwise, if a fight is too difficult for the county to win, the war is unjustified because it can bring necessity losses and damages, while not changing the situation for the better (Fabre 2008). In this case, the limited and expansive views of the just war theory present different arguments for and against such interventions.
According to the limited view, military intervention in general results in bringing many adverse outcomes for all engaged sides of the conflict. For instance, concern for unintended consequences should be considered. While the notion that democracy promotion brings exclusively positive results due to the good intentions of the intervening side may exist, it is necessary to assess all possible damages of military conflicts. The country or a group of countries intending to bring democracy to a state uses resources both tangible and intangible and engages people in order to achieve the desired outcome (United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect: about n.d.). As any military conflict results in substantial losses of human life and destruction of property and land, it is unclear whether the cause of democracy promotion is a sufficient reason to endanger the country’s own resources. Therefore, an unintended consequence of severe losses undermines the legitimacy of such a cause for humanitarian intervention.
Secondly, the possible consequences for the country of intended intervention should also be investigated. While a successful change of the regime may produce such positive effects as the increased level of freedoms and a better holistic approach to the nation’s development, it can also destabilise the economy and bring problems that cross the national borders, endangering the stability of other countries, both economic and political (Lefkowitz 2006). Thus, a conflict with an intention to promote democracy may escalate the country’s condition further, if it was unstable before, or create a situation that results in changing attitudes towards democracy. Furthermore, an unsuccessful attempt at installing democracy may result in even more significant adverse outcomes. These may include a harsh military response leading to devastating damages and the worsening situation for the civilians of the affected countries.
It is also vital to note that a force initiating the intervention may not fully understand the situation of the target location. For example, the misunderstanding of the regime’s rules or traditions may result in it miscalculating the rates of success, which, in turn, may lead to some critically adverse results (Nardin 2005). Moreover, the inability to adequately grasp cultural differences may also limit the side’s perception of the problem, resulting in a conflict with unclear intentions and vague determinants of success. Thus, a limited view supports the limits for military interventions to be strict – only situations where a terrible wrong (such as genocide) will be certainly prevented as a result of interference can be considered just.
The expansive view agrees that interventions should only be justified in cases with reasonable rates for success. However, its definition of success differs from that of the limited view. Here, for instance, a quick military action that results in destroying an oppressive or authoritarian regime is considered successful (Walzer 1980). The end of the intervention is perceived as the end of such military action, and the force promoting democracy is satisfied with eliminating the threat of the old regime (Oberman 2015). This concept, while possible, undermines the fact that such a rash decision does not acknowledge the situation in the affected country after the end of the intervention.
The war in Iraq started in 2003 can be taken as an example for the arguments presented in the limited view. The move to overthrow the government led by Saddam Hussein can be viewed as a movement to promote democracy as the better regime for the country (Roth 2006). Thus, the invasion’s success can be evaluated to support the presented points of the expansive view (Fabre 2007; Tesón 2005). However, while one may argue that the ending of the war, connected to the falling of the local government, can be considered a successful outcome, the events that followed these military actions cannot be viewed as strictly positive. The country was unstable and the political power vacuum resulted in violence between the country’s nations (Roth 2006). Moreover, the insurgency developed as a response to the actions of the United States and the supporting forces also increased the amount of violent activity in the country. Thus, Iraq, while being freed from the tyrannical government, suffered from chaotic outcomes of the intervention.
Here, the limited view of the ‘chances of success’ is more reasonable to apply as it recognises both short and long-term outcomes of such interventions. While short-term results may seem as satisfactory for the war to be considered just, the long-term issues reveal the unfortunate consequence of the interference. Thus, it is possible to assume that the limited view is more reliable in its assessment of the factor of success. Consequently, the idea that democracy promotion is a just cause in itself is unsupported because of the high possibility of adverse outcomes and the lack of understanding of cultural, traditional and political differences between sides.
Reference List
Coady, CAJ 2002, Peaceworks: the ethics of armed humanitarian intervention, vol. 45. United States Institute of Peace, Washington, D.C.
Fabre, C 2007, ‘Mandatory rescue killings’, Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 363-384.
Fabre, C 2008, ‘Cosmopolitanism, just war theory and legitimate authority’, International Affairs, vol. 84, 5, pp. 963-976.
Lefkowitz, D 2006, ‘On moral arguments against a legal right to unilateral humanitarian intervention’, Public Affairs Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 115-134.
Nardin, T 2005, ‘Humanitarian imperialism’, Ethics & International Affairs, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 21-26.
Oberman, K 2015, ‘The myth of the optional war: why states are required to wage the wars they are permitted to wage’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 255-286.
Roth, K 2006, ‘Was the Iraq war a humanitarian intervention?’, Journal of Military Ethics, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 84-92.
Tesón, FR 2005, ‘Ending tyranny in Iraq’, Ethics & International Affairs, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1-20.
United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect: about n.d., Web.
Walzer, M 1980, ‘The moral standing of states: a response to four critics’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 209-229.
During the last three decades, the American government has made numerous attempts to promote democracy in various regions of the world. For instance, one can mention such countries as Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and so forth. Very often, these attempts resulted in the complete failure because new democracies proved to be unsustainable. This paper is aimed at determining what types of democracies can be most suitable for countries that experienced different forms of totalitarianism in the past.
Moreover, one should determine the extent to which these new states can be made sustainable. It is possible to say that liberal democracy can be the most efficient approach for such states because it reduces the risks of discrimination and violations of human rights. However, the sustainability of such states is dependent on a variety of factors such as the efficiency of the government and economic development of a country; to a great extent, the future of these democracies cannot be easily predicted. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify the conditions which can contribute to the success of such countries. These are the main questions that should be discussed more closely.
Choosing the most appropriate type of democracy
Overall, political scientists distinguish various types of democracies that differ in terms of how people’s will is represented or how the rights of citizens are protected by the state. It seems that the main concern for the policy-makers should be the tyranny of the majority (Cunningham 53). In other words, there is always a risk that a group of people representing the majority of the population can adopt laws that can marginalize or even dehumanize minority groups (Cunningham 53). These minorities can be marked by such characteristics as religion, race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, political convictions, and so forth. This is one of the risks that attract the attention of many political scientists and lawyers. Therefore, the main task is to implement a system of checks and balances that minimize this threat. It seems that liberal democracy can be the most suitable approach in this case. This approach implies that the power of policy-makers is limited by several important documents, such as the constitution or the bill of rights. These documents should provide various guarantees, such as the right to free speech or freedom of religion.
Moreover, it is important to eliminate every form of discrimination, at least at the official level. This provision can also be included in the constitution of the country. One should bear in mind that many of these states are ridden with internal conflicts. For instance, one can mention the confrontation between different religious groups (Cohen 3). This argument is particularly relevant to countries like Iraq or Afghanistan. In turn, liberal democracy is supposed to ensure that the newly-formed government does not oppress various groups. This approach is important for reconciling the interests of different stakeholders who can often be opposed to one another.
It is important to remember that many of these states could have gained independence relatively late. Many of them could be colonial territories in the past. For example, Iraq was controlled by the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain. As a rule, these communities are profoundly affected by many internal hostilities. In turn, liberal democracy can be an important precaution against various pitfalls. Provided that the United States intends to support such countries, American policy-makers should take into account the socio-cultural peculiarities of a particular country; otherwise, their strategies can be based on flawed assumptions that may eventually prove disastrous.
Moreover, one can say that this liberal democracy should be representative, which means that a group of people should be elected to promote the interests of the community. This method can be particularly useful in countries with a large population. However, representative democracy can be efficient if the elections are organized properly. These are the main points that can be made.
Sustainability
Still, legal provisions may not be sufficient for the sustainability of these democracies. Their survival can depend on many external and internal circumstances that cannot be easily measured or predicted. In particular, it is possible to speak about the efficiency of the democratic government and its ability to promote entrepreneurship and curb corruption. So, it is critical to implement and enforce laws which facilitate the growth of private businesses.
Furthermore, policy-makers and public administrators should consider the interests of various social groups. Overall, the democratic government should demonstrate that it is more efficient than a totalitarian regime. Much attention should also be paid to the efficiency of law-enforcement agencies that should act impartially and efficiently. Thus, the main task of the democratic government is to show that it can bring improvements into the lives of people; otherwise, they may believe that democracy as a form of government is not applicable to their country. Provided that this goal is not achieved, the country is at a greater risk of transforming into a totalitarian regime once again. Additionally, it is important to remember that totalitarian politicians can rise to power if democratic governments are affected by significant internal conflicts or power struggles. This is one of the main issues that should be taken into consideration by the policy-makers who should keep in mind that their interests or political ambitions should be set aside, especially at the time of crisis.
Furthermore, much attention should be paid to the role played by civil society. A newly-formed democracy is more likely to be sustainable if citizens closely monitor the activities of the government and identify their mistakes. In many cases, journalists and various representatives of mass media can significantly contribute to the improvement in the work of governmental institutions. In turn, the government should be open to the critique offered by the civic society; otherwise, such a government may not be able to retain the trust of the public for a long time. This is one of the main pitfalls that should be avoided by the leaders of a new democracy.
Apart from that, one should not forget about the influence of external factors. For instance, much attention should be paid to the availability of foreign direct investment, which can be crucial for the economic development of the community (Rotberg 10). Similarly, a country, which is integrated into the global economy, is more likely to become a sustainable democracy. The most eloquent example of such a state is South Korea, which became more democratic due to its rapid economic growth. Therefore, the sustainability of such countries can depend on the policies of other states that should provide support to new democracies.
Furthermore, the country should have an efficient army that can cope with external threats. For instance, it is possible to refer to such a country as Iraq that could not cope with the threat of terrorism. One should keep in mind that successful democracies such as South Korea or Japan did not have to face such risks as terrorism, religious feud, or ethnic hostilities. This is one of the things that distinguishes them from states like Afghanistan or Iraq. These are some of the main details that should not be overlooked.
Thus, it is possible to say that the sustainability of a democracy is dependent on the decisions of separate policy-makers, the functioning of social institutions, and the strategies of other states. Moreover, it is important to remember about the attitudes of citizens who should actively monitor the work of government, especially the ability of policy-makers to contribute to the social and economic progress. These are some of the main factors that should be taken into account because they shape how such societies can evolve in the future.
Discussion
The attempts to bring to democracy have been debated by many political scientists and historians. Admittedly, one can provide examples of countries that profoundly benefited from democratization. It is possible to distinguish such countries as South Korea, Japan, or Germany. Nevertheless, there are many examples of failed or failing democracies. Iraq. Libya and Afghanistan are probably the most notorious cases. Thus, it is important to identify the most important risk factors that can undermine a newly-formed democracy.
Furthermore, one should single out the strengths can mitigate both internal and external risks. By looking at this issue from this perspective, legislators and policy-makers can develop better strategies. These are some of the points that can be made.
Conclusion
This discussion shows that the transformation of a country into democracy is a time-consuming and unpredictable process. It seems that liberal democracy can be the most suitable approach for the countries that were totalitarian in the past. This form of government is an important safeguard against the violations of human rights. However, this approach does not guarantee the long-term sustainability of democracy. Much attention should be paid to a variety of factors such as economic development of the state, the participation of citizens in the political life, the efficiency of the government, and the work of law-enforcement agencies. These are the main arguments that can be advanced.
Works Cited
Cohen, Saul. Geopolitics: The Geography of International Relations, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008. Print.
Cunningham, Frank. Theories of Democracy: A Critical Introduction, New York: Psychology Press, 2002. Print.
Rotberg, Robert. Crafting the New Nigeria: Confronting the Challenges, New York: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004. Print.