From Greek polis to French absolutism to Italian fascism, political system has varied across both spatial domain and temporal range. The dynamism with which the zeitgeist sways from one political system to other raises an essential question: Is there a final form of government? The dynamism, which has propagated other forms of governance in the past, now seems to favour liberal democracy, and many have posited the argument that liberal democracy is the final form of government. However, to establish such a case, three conditions need to be met. This essay will discuss what the three conditions are, how the three conditions are not met, or in cases they are met, the reasons for their insufficiency for the end of history with liberal democracy, and other shortcomings within the current political framework that suggest otherwise.
First condition is that liberal democracy is the best form of government. This is because I interpret political system as being analogous to consumer goods where consumers (citizens for forms of government) are gravitated towards the best product. It has to be best on two levels of analysis: by being compatible with human nature, and with the current social zeitgeist. Regarding human nature, the liberals posits that humans tend to prioritize the idea of individuals over communities, and that the human nature is not malleable. However, given that no empirical evidence systematically and rigorously supports such a claim, and there are plethora of other claims, like those of conservatives’ and Marxists’, and equally valid empirical evidence (as those that support the liberal’s) support the non-congruent claims, it is difficult to determine whether human nature is compatible with liberal democracy. Furthermore,...
... middle of paper ...
...d of liberal democracy, e.g. Islamic fundamentalism). For example, radical Islamism in Iran initially spearheaded by Ayatollah Khoemeni
Even if such radical Islamism may fade, it is hard to envision other moderate Islamic countries forgoing their religious ideals and giving up Sharia law
The second argument is that although all countries may appear to be de jure liberal democracies, and thus putting history to an end, they may in fact be de facto authoritarian regimes or illiberal democracies. For example, rise of one-party system as is viewed by Russia and
For example,
Although the trend towards liberal democracy after 1816 Westphalia Treaty is rather clear and supported by empirical evidence – as shown by democratic indices such as Freedom House and Polity IV – the argument that liberal democracy is the final form of human government seems rather contentious.
Characterized by constitutionally-limited government, an emphasis on (and a wide-spread popular ideological enshrinement of) individual civil rights and liberties, and economic policy exhibiting strong laissez-faire overtones, the American political system certainly warrants the designation liberal democracy. This designation distinguishes the United States from similar advanced industrial democracies whose political systems lend themselves to preserving the public welfare rather than individual rights. With their government bound to precepts established in a constitution drafted and revised by a group of tyranny-fearing individuals, the American populace enjoys one of the most liberal, unrestrictive governments
For quite some time, a considerable discussion and debate has been going on whether or not there is compatibility between democracy and Islam. After the birth of Islam, the extensive spread of the Muslim population make this monotheistic, Abrahamic religion is the second largest in the world with over a billion followers. Throughout the passage of time, many have come to opinionate that liberal democracy can exist in the Muslim world as it has all the necessary elements that a modern democratic state and society requires. However, many still oppose to the compatibility of the two solely due to the belief that democratic principles desecrate and condemn the values of the religion of Islam.
Kinsella, David. "No Rest for the Democratic Peace." American Political Science Review 99.03 (2005): n. pag. Print.
The world has lost over twenty democracies with in the past twenty years and it seems like it is failing in many more countries. In the books “Fate of the west” by Bill Emmott, “The retreat of western liberalism” by Edward Luce, and “The post american world” by Fareed Zakaria, they try to explain why this is happening.
Currently, liberalism is a political ideology that explains foreign policy by interpretation of individual thoughts and how these thoughts are espoused (Doyle, 2012) According to this approach spread of democratic institutions worldwide is seen as inseparable action to promote peace internationally. The implementation of peaceful tough and an isolated peace have been achieved by the liberal states. So...
The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in major shift in United States foreign policy. For years, the United States supported tyrannical dictators in return for stable anti-communist government receptive to United States interests. The Cold War resulted in a new world order with the United States as the lone global hegemonic power. In Eastern Europe in particular, the end of the Cold War ushered in an era of economic growth and a large increase in the number of liberal democracies. Although the world saw a large increase in liberal democracies, a new regime type referred to as competitive authoritarianism began to emerge. According to Levitsky and Way, “In competitive authoritarian regimes, formal democratic institutions are widely viewed as the principal means of obtaining and exercising political authority. Incumbents violate those rules so often and to such an extent, however, that the regime fails to meet conventional minimum standards for democracy” . In labeling these regimes as authoritarian and not democratic, Levitsky and Way place emphasis on the importance of differentiating these questionable regimes from prototypical democracies. In their definition they argue that all democracies have four inherent traits; “Executives and legislatures are chosen through Elections that are open, free, and fair, virtually all adults possess the right to vote, political rights and civil liberties, including freedom of the press, association, to criticize the government are protected and elected authorities possess real authority to govern, in that they are not subject to the tutelary control of military or clerical leaders” . These, Levitsky and Way argue are fundamental for the prospects of democracy. ...
Authoritarian regimes are defined, at their core, by having all the power in the hands of one leader or a small elite where rights of citizens are not protected. Other characterisations, according to Headley, including having no rule of law, a lack of independent civil society, ambiguous mechanisms of succession, military control, and populist nationalism (lecture 5). Authoritarianism is categorised into types: dictatorship, one-party rule, military rule, theocracy and hybrid. Liberal democracies are the opposite to authoritarian regimes, with focuses on the education, liberalism and equality of their
Democracy and its critics was published in 1989, before the fall of the Berlin Wall, at a time when liberal democracy was on the verge to ‘defeat’ alternate forms of political regime. Using an empirical and normative perspective, Dahl assesses the strengths and superiority of the democratic process throughout its various ‘great transformations’, defending it against its main critics: anarchism and guardianship. Exploring the history and different interpretations of democracy, Dahl specifically engages with the following question: how does the size of a demos change the nature of the democratic process? In order to answer this question, he develops the concept of ‘polyarchy’: a political order characterised by competition and inclusion, dimensions vital to establish the democratic process in large modern nation-states. Indeed, Dahl perceives the ideal Athenian model of direct democracy, as a utopian political regime, which he deems unachievable beyond the small city-state. Polyarchy on the contrary is the real-world approximation of true democracy on a large-scale as it analyses real institutions. Dahl’s contribution to the contested debate on democracy, although very flawed if we consider today’s political spectrum, still remains important. This why one can ask if Dahl's conception of ‘polyarchy’ is the best way of thinking about the contested concept of democracy. This essay will argue that Dahl’s theoretical model of polyarchy is a good way of thinking about the contested concept of democracy. First, I will argue that polyarchy is a better way of thinking about the concept of democracy, in comparison to the Athenian model of democracy. Nonetheless, I will still point out that polyarchy does no longer answer the demands of today...
... infrequent to deliver an empirical foundation for his conclusion. Likewise, the limitations placed upon the categories of war and democracy ignore that liberal states have disregarded mutual respect for democratic institutions and norms and authorized the use of force against another likeminded state. Doyle is cognizant of the limitations of his Democratic Peace Theory, stressing that protection of liberalism’s heritage of democratization may in fact ensure the adverse consequence of stimulating illiberal practices (Doyle, 1983). The significance of a peace theory which concludes its own underlying principles may actually engender belligerent behavior is questionable. Doyle’s Democratic Peace Theory offers an interesting starting point in the study of the relationship between democratic nations and conflict; however, his suppositions should not to be valued as law.
Democracy, during 1918-1945, showed to be ridged and inflexible. The idea of democracy was attempted by many countries that were fighting for their rights, but the leaders put in power showed the idea of democracy’s weakness at this time. Both world wars played a huge part in democracy’s decline at this time and rise in fascism, Nazism, and communism. World War 1 was intended to save democracy, but by the end of the war democracy was squashed. The after effects of the war caused a rise in nationalism and a desire for revenge.
Winston Churchill, a prominent British politician, once said in the 1940s: “The democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried”. At first sight, the statement seems to epitomize the satirical personality of Winston Churchill and the expert way he could master any political debates both within and outside the governmental apparatus; that the phrase was coined ironically with little significance and nevertheless was accepted as a part of mankind’s legacy. But, if looked at carefully, it provokes a variety of questions. What was democracy for Churchill? Which other types of government did he talk about? Finally, how supportive was that Churchill’s quote of democracy in general? As a matter of fact, the answers could not be provided by the character himself, and therefore the realm of speculation had to be entered by many political scientists to interpret Churchill as thoroughly as possible.
Liberalism is the dominant ideology of the industrialized countries, in regards that all other ideologies have accepte...
Although many countries may label themselves a democracy, by either title such as “The Democratic Peoples Republic Of North Korea” or by their actions like Norway, the authenticity of the term is dependent on the actions taken by a regime. Democratization and the democratic political structure are more recent concepts in terms of world history. Even the inspirations for modern democracies like the ancient Greeks or Roman Republic, are democracies in symbol, as these democracies functioned little like the modern concept. Charles Tilly writes in “Democracy” how one can define the title term, but also judge the quality of said democratic structure. Tilly’s classifications of democracy and the capacity in which a state can implement democratic
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have
Are you perfectly at peace with the way democracies function in modern society? If you were quick to answer yes, reading The Malaise of Modernity, by Charles Taylor, and Democracy on Trial, by Jean Bethke Elshtain, would likely make you give your answer more thought. Both Taylor and Elshtain are political philosophers who gave speeches at the CBC Massey Lectures in 1991 and 1993 correspondingly. The Massey Lectures are an annual five-part series of lectures on a political, cultural or philosophical topic given in Canada by a well-known scholar. Their lectures were then transcribed into the books this report will examine. Charles Taylor is a noted Canadian philosopher whose goal is to “bridge the gap between philosophical theories and political