INTRODUCTION
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...
... middle of paper ...
... Lebanon: University Press of New England [for] Middlebury College Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Democracy as a Universal Value. Journal of Democracy, 10.
Sen, A. (2011). Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
Transparency International-TI (2012), Corruption Perception Index-2012. Transparency
International, London.
United Nations Development Programme-UNDP (2013), Human Development Report 2013.
United Nations Development Program, New York.
Aavailable at: hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2013_EN_complete.pdf [accessed 1
November 2013]
World Bank (2005). Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Aavailable at: http://www1.worldbank.org/prem/lessons1990s/ [accessed 5
October 2013]
Zakaria, F. (2007). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Revised Edition). New York: W. W. Norton.
1. Janda, Kenneth. The Challenge of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 1999. (Chapter 3 & 4).
Janda, Kenneth. Berry, Jeffrey. Goldman, Jerry (2008). The Challenge of Democracy (9th ed.). Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Janda, K., Berry, J., Golman, J., & Hula, K. (2009). The Challenge of Democracy: American
Janda, Kenneth, Jeffrey M. Berry and Jerry Goldman. The Challenge of Democracy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004.
Wealth and Democracy. By Kevin Phillips. (New York: Broadway Books, c. 2002. Pp. vii, 422. ISBN 0-7679-0533-4.)
Dye, T. R., Zeigler, H., & Schubert, L. (2012). The Irony of Democracy (15th ed.).
Democracy’s major focus is on the freedom and representation of the people, along with the promotion of a the fluid free market system. “One man, one vote” being one of the inspirational quotes used to demonstrate the democratic outlook on the liberty within the government; and its ability to establish and make decisions based upon the will of the people. However, like our textbook, “Introduction to Comparative Politics,” points out, “No country fully satisfies all these criteria for democracy. Even in long established democratic states, there remains a gap—often a substantial one—between the aspirations and ideals of democracy and the practice and results of any actually existing democracy.” Furthermore, despite efforts to amplify this political system as a proper means for representation and freedom in other countries, various authoritarian regimes now present themselves under the guise of democratic political ideology in order to gain power.
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...
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.
South America is a land of different cultures and has a history of as many different types of government, mostly dictatorships. Most of South America won independence from Spain and Portugal between 1810 and 1824. In 1823, President James Monroe enunciated the first US policy on Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine warned European nations against interfering in the affairs of independent nations in the Western Hemisphere. In 1904, Roosevelt's Corollary said the US would act as a "policeman", intervening militarily when US interests were at risk.
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...
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
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).
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 foundation of the modern political system was laid in the times when the world was strangled in slavery. In those moments, enlightened minds in Greek came up with the new system that was there to remain for the next thousands of years. This system, now known as democracy, is a form of government in which supreme power is vested to the people themselves. People have the right to elect their leaders directly or indirectly through a scheme of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. A new democratic government is usually established after every 4-5 years, and it is trusted with the responsibility to cater to the needs of all the people irrespective of the fact that they voted for them or not. Although the minorities may not be very pleased with the idea of democracy, however, a democratic government is certainly the best because it establishes social equality among people, reduces the conflicts in the state to a minimum, gives the chance to vote repeatedly, and creates patriotism.