Koral Zazueta
PSCI 253 – Essay #3 There are several international factors that influence the transition of an authoritarian regime to a democratic one. Foreign aid and coercive democracy have been identified as influencing democratization. However, aid and coercive democracy has little to do with promoting democratization. Ultimately, local domestic groups, such as Otpor have been the most influential in promoting democratization thus far.
Beissinger describes certain external actors that helped precipitate democratic transitions. For example, Otpor played a significant role in the Bulldozer Revolution in Yugoslavia. The students in the resistance group are sometimes referred to as modern “mercenaries.” They travel to other
…show more content…
Whereas, democratization should be done through self-determination. Democracy requires citizenship participation, while coercive democratization does not respect the idea of political participation. Coercive democratization with military intervention disrupts the balance of power in a country. It is destined to fail because imposing democracy by force is contradictory to democracy itself. Beetham also argues that if foreign actors “liberated” a country, then the new government would not last without their support, especially if they have no prior experience with democracy. Citizens from an authoritarian regime will not be able to sustain a democratic one. Additionally, coercive democracy does not usually prioritize promoting democratization but focuses on removing a threat, such as weapons of mass destruction for personal gain, usually through regime change. The best way to do this is by changing the regime within a country. For example, the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a way of displaying U.S. power. It also exposed the corrupt, inadequately acknowledged side of democratic promotion that has always existed. The U.S. mainly wanted oil security and hoped the overthrow would stimulate democratization within the region. Another goal was to reduce the threat of terrorism and war in general, since democratic regimes tend to get along. However, since no weapons of mass destruction were found, the Iraq invasion was justified with democratization. If democracy does occur in a country, it is usually an indirect consequence of military intervention, such as in Bangladesh after the Indian invasion of East Pakistan. Coercive democracy could work if there are already pre-existing democratic conditions in a country. But in Iraq’s case, it did not lead to democratization.
The first reason some people claim the US should’ve been in the Vietnam War was because of their belief in trying to establish a democracy. The US had attempted this before. If other attempts did not work, then the US shouldn’t have been in the Vietnam War. An article called Vietnam and the Cold War said, “But...power,” (Document D). The article clearly argues that we were there to encourage a democracy, but it was the Soviet Union who ruined our try. But this is wrong. Today, ISIS, a terrorist group in Iraq, is one of the largest
They tend to make alliances with other democracies like themselves but those states are too weak. However, when they choose to work with those whose opinions who differ from their own meaning oligarchies, then they most often turn on them as did
Wars tear countries apart. During wartime, laws are often not followed as they should be and the legal system becomes lax. The military of a country may abuse the power of martial law granted to them during war. Laws may be created on the spot to serve a personal purpose to someone of power and people may be wrongfully punished. All of these things are warning signs that democracy is at risk
The Aristotelian view of democracy showed democracy as a supreme state of being, promoting equality more than anything. It allowed every person to have as much say in a government as any other person, and yet still allowed individuality to reign. To follow this path of "true" democracy is to follow the path to a perfect country. Yet America, which prides itself on being a truly democratic nation, is filled with corruption and extortion, nothing like the Utopia Aristotle portrayed.
Many countries have decided against having a totalitarian government system, but there still are countries that continue with running their country with authoritarianism. The Middle East persists on having an authoritarianism style government over having a democracy. Theories that prove to be true to Middle Eastern people of how a totalitarian government is better relate to economics, religion, and international involvement. People living in the Middle East want to avoid having political liberation because that can lead to a consistent and stable democratic government. Another reason keeping them from changing is that since their countries aren’t struggling economically, the citizens don’t see it necessary to elect new leaders. The countries in the Middle East region decide to continue with authoritarianism because the fear and pain is greater than the feeling of freedom.
... the recent past, the idea of global security has been used as a reason for war. For example, the USA engagement in war against Afghanistan and Iraq was based on the argument of promoting peace in the name of democracy. This is a perfect example of how the interpretation of democracy can lead to hostility among nations.
There are people who think the billions we spend in foreign aid should be used in the United States, helping out with the educational system, the homeless and the elderly. However, we are helping families in need overseas and countries that are developing. Foreign Aid helps build alliances with other countries because we lend economic and military assistance. Afghanistan receives the most foreign aid and it started receiving a lot after 9/11. The United States actually tripled the amount it was sending to help with the rising terrorism problem in Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s economy was also very poor. Another example is how we are helping Israel with their war against Palestine. Foreign aid is being used to help in developing countries. Providing foreign aid to these countries helps builds our allegiance with them. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, so it’s in our nature to help others in need, especially those who are affected by a natural disaster. The foreign aid helps out with humanitarian reasons. The United States wants other countries to lean towards democracy rather than communism so they “grease the wheels” by providing foreign aid to other countries. It helps the United States because we buy and sell with all these countries we provide foreign aid too. It also helps the global economy because we are injecting money into it. I think that the benefits we receive from providing foreign aid is worth it and we should keep providing foreign aid to other countries.
When a country strikes oil, or some other valuable natural resource, they may take it as a blessing; however, this discovery is often very destructive. Recent studies in social sciences suggest that developing countries with resource wealth tend to have political crises. This paradox is called the resource curse- the political counterpart of the infamous Dutch disease (Lam et al., 2002)*. In this paper I will argue how this phenomenon not only impedes the development of liberal democracies in non-democratic regimes, but also how it actively destroys liberal values in developing democracies. In specific, I will discuss how political instability, socio-economic disparities and political appeasement produced by resource wealth tend undermine the values of liberal democracy in the developing world.
"Democracy" means, to many Americans, a system in which they choose their own leaders, voice their opinions to representatives in government, and human rights and freedoms are respected by the state. But in practice, "democracy," when applied abroad by the United States, means subjugating native peoples to the will of American corporations, and in the process, the destruction...
Around the 20th century, the end of the First World War cleared the way for the formation of democratic regimes. Why they had not been successful, why the people didn't use the opportunity to establish a democratic political system and why did the dictatorships appear, is still unclear, but it is a very discussible subject. The decisive role in these processes was the human being. It was the object of the cause, but on the other hand he was also the subject - executor of all the problems as well.
There have been enormous efforts to spread democracy as a political system throughout the world by the developed democratic countries and the international development organizations including the World Bank. By the late 1990s the United States alone spent over a half billion dollars to promote democratic expansion throughout the world (Diamond, 2003). These were done considering that the democratic system leads towards development. As a result in the late 20th century we saw a huge political transformation towards democracy. During the last few decades a huge number of countries adopted democracy as their political system. However, it retain a big question how far democracy is successful in bringing development of a country? At this stage, some people also criticizes the effort of democratization arguing that it is done without considering the context of a country, sometimes democracy is not ideal for all countries and it is an effort to extinct diversity of political system. In studying the literature regarding the debate, we found a paradoxical relationship between democracy and development. Some argue that democracy has failed to ensure expected outcomes in terms of development. While others confronted that democracy has a considerable impact on development. Another group of people argue that form of political system actually does not have any impact on development process. On the verge of these debates, some development institutions and academics throw light on why democracy is not working properly, and what measure should be taken to make it more successful in bringing effective development of developing countries. Consequently, this writing is an effort of revisiting the different views about impact of democra...
Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations.” The democratic peace proposition encourages hope for a new age of international peace. Over the years since Michael Doyle’s essay a lot of literature has been written about “democratic peace theory”. A lot of analysis has focused on the claim- that liberal democracies do not fight each one another. There is a lot of action- reaction sequence in the academic arguments. As an idea catches on it accumulates adherents. The more popular an idea, there is more likehood of a critical reaction that raises serious and strong reservations about the validity of the new idea. In this essay, I would like to examine the claim- that democratic states are more peaceful as democracy causes peace. In this essay I draw on the writings of John M. Owen, Michael Doyle, Christopher Layne, Mansfield and Snyder, Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin for their views on why democracies do not fight one another and then deduce my own conclusions.
Democracy is “...the word that resonates in people’s minds and springs from their lips as they struggle for freedom and a better way of life...” (Schmitter and Karl, 1991:75). However, the word democracy has many different means depending on the country and context it is used in. “Every country has is own culture and comes by its political system through its own history” (Greenberg, 2007:101, cited in Li, 2008:4). Li, (2008) states that because of China’s political structure the usual road to democracy may be difficult for it to achieve. The western idea ...
Firstly, K. Isbester mentions that democracy has a different meaning for everyone, as some can define democracy as a good aspect for development, on the contrary other believe that it is nothing more than voting after several years. Although, Latin America see democratic g...
The democratic peace theory stems from the generally optimistic liberal tradition which advocates that something can be done rectify the effects of an anarchical system, especially when it comes to war or conflict. For democratic peace theorists, the international system should be one in which there is cooperation and mutual benefits of the states are taken into consideration. The theory depends on liberal ideologies of civil liberties, democratic institutions and fairly elected governments and claims that liberal democracies are different from other systems of government as they do not conflict with other democracies due to the very nature of the liberal thinking and the pacifying role that democracy itself plays. According to the theory, the thought process behind democracies abstaining from war is that...