Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Democracy vs aristocracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Democracy vs aristocracy
The thesis of Scott Burchill’s article, Liberalism, is that “the prospects for the elimination of war lay with the preference for democracy over aristocracy and free trade over autarky.” He adds that liberalism is contingent upon the state to uphold the rule of law and respect for human rights. The key ideas in the article support his thesis by explaining that democracies promote peace by sharing mutual democratic principles and institutions, that free trade breaks down barriers between individuals and states – uniting them into one community, and the promotion of human rights by states decreases the chance of inter-state conflict and international insecurity.
Since around 1990, the number of democracies worldwide has increase exponentially compared to autocracies within just less than 1000 globally (Appendix A). This increase in the democratic ideals and governance shows the importance democracy plays in the liberalist view of international relations and politics. Burchill outlines that democratic governance and the institutions it exhibits causes the power of the ruling parties t...
Topic #2: How would you construct a narrative of liberalism in the twentieth century? What were its benchmark achievements and how did it change over time?
In this essay, I posit that despite the harsh clashes between liberalism and republicanism, both elements play important roles in American politics, and their marriage has given birth to a unique America. I will begin by giving brief explanations about liberalism and republicanism, before showing how their dynamic interaction has given rise to American exceptionalism. It is also important to note that the slight emphasis on liberalism more than republicanism that is also evident in the US Constitution.
Since the inception of a democratic government in the United States’ early history, many have held that a liberal democracy should be the standard to which all other governments should attempt to emulate (CNN.com, 1). As the world’s leading super power, the United States sets an exampl...
The Modern and Classical strands of liberalism share similar principles – indeed if they did not, it would be wrong to classify them as two strands of the same ideology. It seems the fundamental differences between them rely on the ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ views, which define them and which lead on to the fundamental opposition inherent in liberalism: the role of the state.
The democratic peace theory postulates that liberal democracies are hesitant and unlikely to engage in armed conflict with other democracies. This idea dates back centuries to German philosopher Immanuel Kant and other 18th-century Enlightenment thinkers. By examining the political similarities, economic system, geographical location, and other factors of generic democracies, proponents of the democratic peace theory argue that democracies have a vested interest not to war with one another. However, other forms of government are exempt from these principles unique to democracies. Autocracies, a system of government which assigns one individual absolute power and control, violate all facets of the democratic peace theory. Autocracies lack the
Liberalism-derived from the Latin word ‘liber’ which means “free and not enslaved”- is seen as the dominant ideology of the western civilisation. During the European history before the modern society, it was characterised by absolutism and feudalism. That time was also called ‘the age of absolutism’.... ... middle of paper ... ...
I am a liberal. Modern liberalism in the United States is associated with the ideas of liberty and political equality; its advocates favor change in the social, political, and economic realms to better protect the well-being of individuals and to produce equality within society. My liberal views align with the Democratic Party on almost every single issue.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
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.
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).
To define any perspective in International Relations, one must understand its’ origin and primary authors, including the context in which they were writing in. Liberalism is one of the more loosely defined perspectives as it has had a number of authors throughout history. Primarily, liberalism relies on the positive aspects of human nature. One of the most prominent liberal authors was Kant- who often wrote of the anarchical nature of international relations- referring to it as “the lawless state of savagery.” He also wrote of three primary routes to obtaining peace within this system, namely treating all aspects of human life with humanity, allowing for a federation of states and most importantly republican constitutionalism.
One of the most appealing sides of democratic peace theory is its simplicity. This is favored both by the public and the academic, because it gives a clear explanation of the statement that democracies don’t fight each other. In the world of politics and international relations having a clear cut idea is valuable and that is why this theory gains a large number of popularity in this field. This may be considered as the first strength of democratic ...
Liberalism and democracy are closely tied together in international politics. They have a central bond which brings out the notion of democratic peace. Today much of Latin America and the European Union practices democracy. The chances of these nations getting into an armed conflict are very scarce in today’s standards. Liberalism promotes the idea of human security and equality and democracy reinforces that idea into the political framework of governing bodies and their higher authorities. Liberalism leads to democracy which promotes democratic peace preventing conflict between nations. This article will look at how liberalism leads to democratic peace through the process of creating democracy.
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...
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