Renowned for its “of the people” foundation, democracy has become the regime type to which we compare all other regime types- a gold standard of government structure. Because of this ideal, it is of comparative interest that we understand how to classify regimes as either democratic or dictatorial. The Polity IV Measure is a standard for democracy that scores a country (from -10 to +10) on how democratic or dictatorial their election processes and governmental procedures are. Post-independence Zimbabwe is a country that classifies itself as a parliamentary democracy, however due to a history of election scandals and Zimbabwe African National Union’s (ZANU, the current ruling party) maintenance of power for over thirty years, Polity IV granted them a “mixed regime type” score of -4. (Clark, Golder, and Golder 160) It is the purpose of this paper to argue that Zimbabwe does not have a mixed regime, but rather that it employs an authoritarian regime type. After outlining the controversial events resulting from the 2000 general election and surrounding the 2002 presidential election, I...
The essay under critical analysis is entitled, “Philadelphia’s Radical Caucus That Propelled Pennsylvania to Independence and Democracy,” written by Gary B. Nash. This analytical essay consumes the fourth chapter of the book Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, and Reformers in the Making of the Nation, edited by Alfred F. Young, Gary B. Nash, and Ray Raphael. His essay, along with the twenty-one other accounts in the book depicting lesser-known individuals, whose contributions in securing independence from Great Britain and creating a new government in America rival that of the nation’s more notorious and beloved founders, such as Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Dr. Nash focuses his efforts on Philadelphia’s Radical Caucus of the 1770’s and 80’s and the lasting influences of the 1776 constitution it created within American politics as well as several nations around the world. Within his analysis and interpretation of Pennsylvanian politics during the American Revolution, Dr. Nash utilizes a pro-whiggish, radically sympathetic stance to assert the Radical Caucus’ remarkable ability to gain support from and bestow power upon the common working man, take political power from conservatives within Pennsylvania’s public offices, and revolutionize democratic thought through their landmark reformations of the state’s constitution. Respecting the fact that Dr. Nash’s position on this subject required extensive research through first hand accounts, pamphlets, newspapers and the analysis of countless preserved records, indicates that the account he has given is very credible. Complying with his presentation of facts and the significance of the topic within early American history has prevented a well-rounded counter-argument ...
middle of paper ... ... t Democracy in a Neoliberal Order: Doctrines and Reality, Z online Magazine Iversen, T., (2006), Handbook of Political Science, 1st ed, Spi Publisher Services. Pp 614-615 Koelbe, T. and Lipuma, E. (2008), 'Democratizing Democracy: A PostcolonialCritique of Conventional Approaches to the 'Measurement of Democracy', Democratization , Vol.15, No.1, Pp. 16-18 Przeworski, A., 2004. Capitalism, Development and Democracy.
Debating which constitutional form of government best serves democratic nations is discussed by political scientist Juan Linz in his essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”. Linz compares parliamentary systems with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous. Linz points out the flaws as presidentialism as he sees them and sites rigidity of fixed terms, the zero-sum game and political legitimacy coupled with lack of incentive to form alliances as issues to support his theory that the parliamentary system is superior to presidentialism.
Within parliamentary systems, the government i.e. the legislature consist of the political party with the most popularly elected Members of Parliament (MPs) in the main legislative parliament e.g. the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister is appointed by the party to lead as the executive decision-maker, and the legislature work to support and carry out their will (Fish, 2006). In presidential systems, the President is directly elected with the support of their political party, with the legislative being separately elected and, in the case of the United States, being made up of representatives from different states (BIIP, 2004). This essay will provide examples to suggest that Presidents are generally more powerful than Prime Ministers. As two of the oldest forms of parliamentary and presidential governments (Mainwaring and Shugart, 1997), the United Kingdom and the United States will be the main focus of this essay, but other parliamentary and presidential countries will be mentioned.
Shapiro, Ian, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud, eds. Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. Cambridge ; Cambridge University Press, 2004.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is an example of a political transference to a democracy. However, this transference was not necessarily peaceful. Congo experienced decades of politics bolstered by Marxist-Leninist rhetoric. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Congolese moderated their economic and political views until in 1992 the Congo completed the transition to a multi-party democracy. However, the Congolese democracy faced several trials in the years 1993, 1994 and 1997. In November 1992, the President dissolved the National Assembly and called for new elections in May 1993. Unfortunately, the elections in May were disputed. This dispute touched of a violent civil unrest in June and again in November. In February 1994 the risk of large-scale insurrection subsided by the acceptance of the decisions of the international board of arbiters about the election. In 1997, as the presidential election approached tensions arose between the Lissouba and Sassou Nguesso camps. In May, a visit b...
Zakaria, F. (2007). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Revised Edition). New York: W. W. Norton.
Discussions of which constitutional form of government best serves the growing number of democratic nation’s are in constant debate all over the world. In the essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, political scientist, Juan Linz compares the parliamentary system with presidential democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous and sites fixed terms, the zero-sum game and legitimacy issues to support his theory. According to Linz, the parliamentary system is the superior form of democratic government because Prime Minister cannot appeal to the people without going through the Parliament creating a more cohesive form of government. By contrast, a
Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the presidential system, which would be a more desirable system for a democratic government.
In conclusion Nigeria has never been able to sustain a legitimate democracy. The legacies of British colonialism have created unstable political institutions that have been extremely susceptible to military coups. While ethnic tensions have lead to political party association and corruption, rent-seekers and continual economic decline have decreased support for the government. Although recently Nigeria has seen a shift away from military control as people have recognized its unsuccessfulness, questions still remain about the new democracy. Consider the last time this type of democracy was established, it only lasted four years. Given all these factors and the military history of OlusgunObasanjo, it is no wonder the new democracy is considered fragile.
In Africa, the interests of various individuals and groups have transformed the possession of power into nightmarish dimensions due to the flaws in the political structures of the societies. Although some of these degenerative weaknesses have been explained by historical experiences, there still remains the fact that the progressive development of any society depends on a conscious pruning of flawsin the organizational structure of the society by those with the power to provide guidance and direction. Moreover, this burden of leadership could elicit either patriotic parasitic tendencies in the utilization and exercise of power. (Ehling 23-25)
In his book International Politics on the World Stage John T. Rourke (2008) states that governments range from the strict authoritarian at one end of the spectrum to a completely unfettered democracy at the other end (p. 78). His definition of an authoritarian style government is a “political system that allows little or no participation in decision making by individuals and groups outside the upper reaches of the government” (p. G-1). Those of us who live in a country that has a democratic government may find it difficult to understand why people who live in countries with authoritarian governments do not revolt and change their system of government, but in fact a truly democratic system of government is a relatively new concept in the age of man.
The topic of this essay is „Presidential systems – strenghts and weaknesses.“ I chose this topic because I am very interested into the comparison of presidential and parliamentary systems. For quiet a long time, I have been trying to figure out which one is better for countries. This essay might be a good stepping stone for me to figure it out.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.
The link between democracy and human rights has been recognized by many scholars. For example O’Donnell (2004) summarized the quality of democracy as: Quality of Democracy = human rights + human development. This viewpoint indicates that democracy encapsulates human rights. Several research findings strongly support the idea that states with higher levels of democracy, regardless of their election rules, are more respectful of human rights (Davenport 1997; Poe, Tate, and Keith 1999).