In the wake of the Cold War political scientists have tried to figure out what it takes for a State to turn democratic. The answer is that the foundation of Structuralist theory is sufficient for a successful transition to a democratic government but it is not necessary because while education, urbanization and industrialization are aspects that help aid the transition there are nations that have not possessed these qualities and still made a democratic transition and I will show this by examining the contrast between the democratization paths between South Africa and El Salvador.
To effectively understand why the structuralist theory is sufficient but not necessary for successful democracies we need to understand how each theory is differentiable from the other. The Structuralist theory breaks off into three separate branches: the Modernization theory, the Neo Modernization theory and the Marxist theory. The first of which is Seymour Martin Lipset’s 1968 theory of Modernization. This theory presses the idea that development and modernization of a country will ultimately lead to democracy. Lipset believes that industrialization and urbanization will help the people to be able to communicate with others because of a closer proximity to their neighbor and therefore be able to rally together and demand a democratic government that serves the people and not only the elites in the country. The second branch of the structuralist theory is Adam Pzwroski’s Neo Modernization theory. This theory states that the decision to democratize is more focused on the economic conditions in the country. This theory states that the wealthier countries are more likely to democratize. Also, that countries that are more wealthy are at a lesser risk of “...
... middle of paper ...
.... This does not mean that the elements of the structuralist theory are irrelevant. Education and urbanization does help aid the transition to democracy by opening up the lines of communication between the people however when the powers of the government repress the people far enough, far enough where they cannot feed their families and fear for their well being, then people will react despite their education levels.
In conclusion, while the aspects outlined by the by the structural theory are sufficient for a successful transition to a democratic society they are not absolutely necessary. A country can make the transition without having these aspects. While the structuralist theory can be correctly applied to the transition of most countries it is still insufficient because there a countries that do not follow the model, however few and far inbetween they may be.
Almost 100 years ago, Chicago saw its population double in a short span of time - the majority of the newcomers being foreign-born. There were also many Americans that were migrating into the city at this time. With large amounts of foreigners bringing with them their own set of beliefs and norms, ideological clashes and a lack of conformity was inevitable. Merton’s Modes of Adaptation comes into play here with foreigners coming to a new land and having to re-adapt. This can lead to increased rates of ritualism, retreatism, rebellion and innovation and this means an increase in crime rates.
To begin democracy simply is defined as being for the people, but Zakaria explains how western countries governments version of democracy has meant liberal democracy, a system that has the qualities where there is not only fair and free election, but also constitutional limitation of power that the government has, separation of powers and protection of basic rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, religion and property. Liberal Democracy avoided civil war by providing protection of its citizens and their rights. This form of democracy differs from the historical and theoretical form of democracy. There are many different forms of government besides liberal democracy, in fact, many countries goes through many types of government before becoming a liberal democracy. Countries tend to start of with self-elected ruler that do not protect its people rights, this form of government is an Illiberal Autocracy, then they go on to become a Liberal Autocracy, still self elected but protects its peoples rights, and then finally become Liberal Democracy. Another form of government is illiberal democracy; this government is not free and fair.
In conclusion, the theory of perpetual democracy is based on tangible pillar but upon analysis, relativity, uncertainty and vagueness present themselves hence the criticism. It lacks uniformity in defining the key principles of democracy and liberalism despite being in line with the modern world where countries want inclusion in efforts to become globalized. To end my argument, the theory can be said to be a double-edged sword whereby it can lead to peace or justify war. With more succinct and clear definitions, the theory is okay in a modern world.
In “Democracy’s Third Wave”, Samuel P. Huntington examines the creation of democracies during the third wave and questions whether they were part of a continuing “global democratic revolution” or simply a limited expansion only meant for countries that had already experienced democracy (Huntington, 1991). He does this through research based empirical study by tracing the series of events leading to democratization. There are both quantitative (in regards to economic growth and the amount/percentage of countries that democratized during all three waves) and qualitative (through historical evidence in regards to snowballing) research methods. Huntington’s examination is based on having democratization as his dependent variable and his five factors,
In a country full of conflict, uneven distribution of wealth, and a corrupt system of government, there comes a time when the people have had enough. The people of El Salvador had been dealing with living conditions far less than adequate. Some would say the working conditions of these people is closer to slavery than it is to a job. The labor force of El Salvador rotates around the giant coffee industry that is controlled by the lucky few dozen families with all of the money. These families control a major part of the economy of El Salvador. The people moved to expand the distribution of wealth out of the elite causing a civil war. The route to freedom for the people of El Salvador was a route of constant failure and violence. I believe that the path to democracy needs to start with modernization of the country before making the shift to a democratic society because it is necessary to have a country that is relatively stable, a society that is progressive with education, infrastructure, and an economy that will promote the benefits of an economy. You cannot pursue democracy when your country is in the midst of a war against itself. It is also necessary to change the mindset of the elite to see the benefits of a democracy so power can then be distributed more
Now days democracy has been establish in every Latin America country except Cuba, which is still a socialist state. It seemed that every other alternative form of government such as Marxism or Leninism has failed and been replaced by democracy. Furthermore it looks like people in Latin American really enjoy democracy and its’ benefits, as they also consider it to be the best form of government. After the failure of authoritarian leaders and the military intervene their lives, Latin American citizens wanted to change their system into a more fair and honest system, democracy. Democracy is usually defined as a system of honesty, equality, freedom of rights, though for Latin America countries it means gains, welfare and patronage. Latin American did not work the democratic system properly as it should be and different obstacles keep the system away from being consolidated. Democracy in Latin America still face serious problems in matters as grinding poverty, huge social gaps, corruption, drug dealing, inefficient governments and most importantly governments who promote and use military. The real question is why democracy actually failed even though democracy is what people want. Paraguay is a case of failure in transition democracy because of the corruption and other things that will be argued in this essay. Paraguay and Ecuador are considered to be the only countries that democratization did not achieve consolidation, in differ from Chilli and Central American.
Focusing attention on the elements of macrostructure of narrative production may best minimize the paradoxical disparity between speakers of AAE and African American narrative styles with the formal style of narrativization (Champion, 2003; Labov, 1972). Macrostructure refers to the general organization of the narrative with respect to themes, topic maintenance and thematic coherence (Glosser & Deser, 1992). Macrostructure encompasses all elements of microstructure, including story length in words, phrases and sentences; lexical diversity, and thematic cohesion (Glosser & Deser, 1992; Justice, et al., 2006). Ulatowska and Chapman (1994) noted that quantitity and distribution of information can be useful in the assessment of African American narrative
Talcott Parson and Robert Merton are the central tenets of structural-functionalist. According to Calhoun “Functionalism (sometime called “structural –functionalism’) refers to the body of theory first developed in the 1930s and 1940s that treats society as a set of interdependent system. Theory rest on an organic analogy that likens a social system to a physical body, in which each subsystem is necessary to maintain the proper functioning of the entire organism. From a functionalist point of view, the key to understanding a social subsystem is thus to trace its function in the working of the whole.”(calhoun489) Structural functional theory describes society to be a complex system with various interdependent parts that work together to maintain stability. Each part of society has each of which have their own functions and work hand in hand to maintain social stability in the world.
Emile Durkheim’s Functionalist Theory is predicated on the ideologies that society is composed of components that are dependent on each other. Auguste Comte developed functionalism; Durkheim compared society to the human body. The body consists of different, interrelated organs that support it to survive; society consists of different workings that enable it to survive. There is a state of stability within society and if any component of that society alters it will reorganize itself to maintain stability. Functionalism will interpret the components of society in terms of contributions to the stability of the whole society. Social accord, direction and integration are paramount views of functionalism; society will endure and grow due to the shared norms and values; all individuals have a goal and vested interest to conformity and thus conflict is minimized (Pope, 1975).
This does lead to the conclusion, that for this theory to apply, countries considered to be democracies must really be democratic.
In the second section, I will explain why cleavage theory can help us understand what has happened in the new democracies and some contemporary uses of the concept of cleavage in new democracies with the examples of Western European countries. At the end of the dissertation, I will examine the spatial scope of the model taking into account the recent evolutions as well as various aspects and the durability of the model.
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 protective model is a great theory of a model of democracy because its worth od democracy, also many theorist agree that “democratic institutions are thought to provide the best protection for individual liberties, particularly economic ones such as the right to individual control of property” (18). Another interesting form of democracy is developmental democracy. What is so interesting about this model of democracy is that many theorist of democracy agree that every citizen would need knowledge and civic virtue as well. The pluralist model of democracy is great because its theorist believe that “social diversity and system stability” (18) encourages changes within democratic institutions. My personal favorite model of democracy is the participatory democracy. Why this form of democracy is my favorite is because it allows citizens of the country to vote on issues that directly affect their daily
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
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...