Leader Selection in Liberal Democratic Minimalism

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Different Models of Democracy
Importance of Understanding Models of Democracy and Dissent in Political Science
Alternative Theories/Approaches
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

Leader selection procedures are very important in the success of every nation. While several countries practice different models of democracy, several countries have adopted liberal democratic minimalism. The liberal democracy gives the citizens the autonomy to choose their leaders through votes or authentic deliberation and express their dissent in the advent of dissatisfactions. Unlike several types of historic leadership, liberalism minimalism gives freedom to individuals and only limits the freedom if it infringes on the rights of other individuals. Remarkably, the leader selection procedures of liberalism democratic minimalism are among the best as it ensures that the citizens duly elect their leaders.

By giving the citizens the right to select their leaders, issues regarding dissent diminish, as they feel appreciated and valued. The essence of liberty transpires because industrial societies are a composition of individuals, who have different cultures, religions, and languages. Therefore, the essay discusses the different democratic models, dissent, and alternative approaches to liberalism to examine whether leader-selection procedures of liberal democratic minimalism is the only practical way to govern advanced industrial societies with multiple cultures, religions, and languages.

Different Models of Democracy

Developmental and Deliberative Models

A developmental model of democracy is one that advocates for the sovereignty of the people in a nation. Fundamentally, the model champions for equal treatment of individuals and protects them from unfair leadership. The model also protects leaders and cushions their activities from the sovereign and autonomous citizens. One of the major features that are evident in the developmental model of democracy is the decentralization of powers.

Schudson (2008) asserts that in an attempt to improve the livelihoods of citizens, the model states that countries need to decentralize powers and give the people the ultimate power to manage their resources. The focus of the developmental model is on the improvement of human livelihoods through aspects such as decentralization of government institutions, a factor that brings leadership closer to all the citizens.

On the other hand, the deliberative model of democracy is one that promotes the importance of consensus and authentic agreements among individuals living in a particular state. In the perspective of Keane (2011), the deliberative model points out the importance of agreement among a set of citizens empowered with the requisite information about leadership and governance. Unlike other models, which rely on voting as the cornerstone of citizen power, the deliberative model promotes the concept of authentic agreement or deliberation. In the explanation of Schudson (2008), voting is a universal consensus that limits the practicability of authentic agreement. As such, individuals need to discuss and come to a consensus. The emphasis accorded to the issue of deliberation is one of the elements that differentiate the deliberative model of democracy from other models currently practiced by various societies in the modern world.

Procedural and Plebiscitary Models

Fundamentally, the procedural model of democracy is one that utilizes citizen voting as the ultimate component, which defines sovereignty. The model, however, limits the participation of citizens and only accords them the power to vote and choose individuals, who represent them in various institutions of government such as the legislature. As opposed to other models, which have improved participation of citizens through decentralization or authentic deliberation, the model limits citizen participation and only allows them to vote. In effect, after the election, some of the leaders in nations that practice the procedural model of democracy devise strategies that see them enjoy long periods of leadership and fail to focus on the challenges experienced by citizens. It is important to explain that the model focuses on the procedures of elections and ensures that the election process abides by these procedures.

Plebiscitary model of democracy is another model that proposes a unique set of requirements that modern societies can apply in the selection of leaders. One of the notable features that the model presents is the inclusion of horizontal and simplified forms of communication between leaders and citizens.

Also, the model outlines the essence of power and autonomy of the citizens in a state. By advocating for the use of simple and modern communication systems, the model tries to ensure that all the citizens understand the various decisions made by leaders and equally voice their opinions promptly. According to Hacker and Dijk (2000), a plebiscitary model of democracy highlights that the state should apply modern technologies and use them to air the various decisions enacted by the leaders. Conversely, the aspect of citizen autonomy centers on the fact that by allowing them to voice their grievances, the state becomes vulnerable to their criticism. In actual sense, several governments in contemporary societies have become victims of improved ICT where social media and other modern media of communication subject them to criticism in the advent of a shortcoming.

Understanding Dissent

In modern societies, individuals can voice their grievances and disagreement with the leadership freely and without state coercion. The freedom associated with expression of disagreement or divergent opinions is unlike historic times when leaders punished individuals, who held conflicting opinions with the state provisions. Remarkably, dissent implies the expressions of disagreement or dissatisfaction in relation to the laws and provisions of the individuals in leadership positions. When citizens in a given state are not happy with the style of leadership or with how the leaders manage state resources, they can express their dissatisfaction.

In the assertion of Keane (2011) the expressions of dissatisfaction are usually an attempt to try to persuade the leaders to comply with a certain set of issues. Among the issues that persuasion focuses on include change of leadership or paving way for other leaders deemed by the society as competent and well qualified.

Principally, citizens express political dissent in some ways. The ways are diverse and range from less influential to those that are widespread and violence oriented. The ways of expressing dissent include the use of flyers, burning of effigies, peaceful demonstrations, strikes, and riots. According to Stokes (2002), riots and revolutions are the most violent and force related ways of expressing political dissent. Evidently, several governments in modern times are victims of the dissent occasioned by their form of governance. Notably, factors like recessions, terrorism, and increased freedom of expression have catalyzed the challenges that leaders experience about political dissent. In modern times, some countries are grappling with the challenges. While some governments opt to remain unchanged by the expressions of dissatisfaction, others decide to comply and adopt some of the suggestions advanced by the citizens, a factor which has a close relationship with liberal democracies.

Importance of Understanding Models of Democracy and Dissent in Political Science

The different models of liberal democracy and dissent are core concepts in the field of political science. By studying them, one acquires the insights on the need to have a comprehensive and practical understanding of the concepts. It is paramount to elucidate that enhanced understanding of the different models of democracy as well as dissent leads to a range of benefits on a particular government. Some of the benefits associated with an enhanced understanding of democratic models and dissent include improved quality of governance, fostered development, and peaceful coexistence.

From the perspective of Andrews and Chapman (2005), when a state allows its citizens to voice their opinions and provides a platform where they deal with the opinions in a deliberative manner, the quality of leadership, development, and peace improves. Improved quality of leadership, development, and peace takes effect because the citizens feel appreciated and valued by their leaders.

Consequently, when governments involve their citizen in a democratic manner and attend to their dissatisfactions, some rewarding opinions become attainable. Realization of rewarding opinions leads to an overall improvement in the quality of leadership. Notably, dissent emanates from feelings of poor governance, and the absence of certain services deemed as necessary by the citizens. Therefore, by listening to the advanced expressions, a government can make changes that boost the quality of leadership. Peaceful development and coexistence prevail in a nation when the citizens feel appreciated and valued by their leaders. In the words of Gumede (2005), when the feelings thrive, the leaders enjoy robust development and peace that a number of developed countries enjoy in modern times. Therefore, an enhanced understanding of the different models of liberal democracy and dissent is instrumental in advancing the overall development of a particular country.

Alternative Theories/Approaches

Although liberalism is one of the best leader selection systems, several alternative approaches have emerged. The emergence of alternative approaches is due to the need to amplify the outcomes yielded by liberalism. Some of the alternative approaches that scholars have proposed in the quest to boost the practicability and efficiency of the model of liberalism include capitalism and socialism democratic models.

Hacker and Dijk (2000), outlines the fact that capitalism and socialism serve as alternative approaches that augment the performance of liberalism and its models in leader selection. The perspective of Hacker and Dijk (2000), is an evident reflection of the solutions that can transpire when leaders complement liberal democratic minimalism with capitalistic or socialistic ideals. To foster the efficiency of alternative approaches, leaders need to capitalize on the strengths demonstrated by the approaches and minimize the effects related to their weaknesses. Notably, the approaches have significant influence in the democracy of particular countries and their application leads to a range of productive results.

Conclusion

Leadership selection procedures in several countries of the world are voter oriented. Apparently, several liberalist democracies give their citizens the right to vote and select leaders based on the people that they believe are qualified and suited for the leadership position. As such, leaders do not impose themselves but instead are chosen and put into office but the citizens. Evidently, the democracies give their citizens the ultimate power to make their choice using their votes or deliberations. In the aftermath of a shortcoming in the leadership, citizens in liberal democracies have the freedom to express their dissatisfaction, also known as, dissent. Enhanced understanding of the models and dissent is core in attaining the success and development of a particular nation. It is imperative to explain that several countries of the world are enjoying the rewards accrued from an augmented understanding of the concepts linked to liberal democratic minimalism and dissent.

Reference List

Andrews, G & Chapman, E 2005, The Social Construction Of Democracies 1870-1990, New York: Macmillan.

Gumede, W 2005, Democracy and the Importance of Criticism, Dissent and Public Dialogue, Durban: University Of KwaZulu-Natal.

Hacker, K & Dijk, J 2000, Models Of Democracy and Concepts of Communication digital Democracy, Issues of Theory and Practice, New York: Sage Publications.

Keane, J 201, Monitory Democracy, Cambridge: University Of Cambridge.

Schudson, M 2008, Changing Concepts of Democracy, New York: MIT.

Stokes, G 2002, ‘Democracy and Citizenship,’ Democracy and Citizenship, Vol.1, no.1, pp. 24-51.

Click Here To Order Now!