According to Lipset’s modernization theory the more economically developed a country is, the more likely that democratization will occur as Lipset’s theory states that “Democracy is secreted out of dictatorship by economic development” (Prezweorski & Limongi, 1997:157). This is explained by the thought that economic development brings complexity to social structures making them harder to control; in addition, technological advancement has allowed autonomy and privacy when information is concerned and the role played by (Prezweorski &Limongi, 1997:157). When there is room for autonomy varies groups whether their elitists or not begin to feel like they can challenge autocratic rule thus prompting political reform (Prezweorski &Limongi, 1997:157). This theory ultimately insinuates that authoritarian regimes that have endured have done so because of the lack of development in that particular state. Written during the second wave of democracy, Lipset’s modernization theory is not a phenomenon that would adequately explain what causes democratization nor would it explain why authoritarian regimes endure in contemporary politics. States such as Russia and Egypt exhibit characteristics and traits associated with economic development yet it autocracy is still deeply entrenched in those nationms. Jason Brownlee’s book Authoritarianism in an Age of Democracy aims to explain why and how regimes in countries like Russia and Egypt have managed to retain autocratic rule in an era where information, ideas and philosophies of liberation have led to great political reform over the past 25 years. This review will be using concepts by various authors that try to explain why authoritarian regimes endure in light of Brownlee’s book. Findings will concl...
... middle of paper ...
... Democratization. 20(1): 13–38. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.738860 [accessed 10 April 2014].
Hauslohner, A. 2014. Egypt's 'Military Inc' Expands its Control of the Economy. The Guardian. 18 March. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/18/egypt-military-economy-power-elections [accessed 15 April 2014].
Hague, R. & Harrop, M. 2013. An Introduction: Comparative Government and Politics, 9thedn. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. 58-75.Available: http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGcQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.palgrave.com%2Fpolitics%2Fhague%2Fabout%2F9780230_368156_05_Ch04.pdf&ei=-TZMU_-GGeic0AX3koGADg&usg=AFQjCNH8dAKyWrX0I4G9MP1gW9xiowhHtg&bvm=bv.64542518,d.d2k [accessed 13 April 2014].
Przeworski,A & Limongi,F. 1997. Modernization: Theories and Facts. World Politics. 49(2): 155-183.
During the 20th century, the rise of communism sparked rage in people throughout the world. More towards the end of the 1900's the fall of communism and dictatorships was just the beginning of what would eventually be a large democratic change for several countries. 1989: Democratic Revolutions at the Cold War's End, speaks about the change brought to several different countries from the 1980's-1990's and plans to show "the global transformations that marked the end of the cold war and shaped the era in which we live"(Pg V). During the cold war, communist had power and control over a large area and spread communism throughout several continents. This book specifically hits on six different studies of where communism and dictatorship affected these areas and what they did to stop it. Poland, Philippines, Chile, South Africa, Ukraine, and China throughout the end of the 20th century created revolutionary movements which brought them all one step closer to freeing themselves and creating democratic change.
Malcolmson, P., & Myers, R. (2009). The Canadian Regime: An Introduction to Parliamentary Government in Canada (4th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Stevenson, Garth. "Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations." Canadian Politics in the 21st Century. Ed. Michael S. Whittington and Glen Williams. Scarborough, Ont.: Nelson Thomson Learning, 2000. 85-1
The Collapse of the Autocracy The collapse of the autocracy in February 1917 signified the end
Many countries have decided against having a totalitarian government system, but there still are countries that continue with running their country with authoritarianism. The Middle East persists on having an authoritarianism style government over having a democracy. Theories that prove to be true to Middle Eastern people of how a totalitarian government is better relate to economics, religion, and international involvement. People living in the Middle East want to avoid having political liberation because that can lead to a consistent and stable democratic government. Another reason keeping them from changing is that since their countries aren’t struggling economically, the citizens don’t see it necessary to elect new leaders. The countries in the Middle East region decide to continue with authoritarianism because the fear and pain is greater than the feeling of freedom.
The authoritarian regimes of the Middles cycled through a pattern of anti-western policy until the globalization effects of economics and information demanded reform. As conservative Arab states try to maintain the autocracy they relied on after gaining independence, their citizens, affected by information and education expansion, challenge their resistant governments as typified by Syria’s unwillingness to capitulate. The proliferation of information and education underscored the protest movements of the Arab Spring because citizens’ contempt for their obstinate governments grew to large under economic pressures, as the current situation in Syria demonstrates.
Lijphart, Arend. "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method." American Political Science Review. 65 (1971): 682-693.
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.
In Egypt, the political system was based on a one man dictator, Hosni Mubarak, who held his regime for 30 years. He governed the citizens of Egypt, a...
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?”
Zakaria, F. (2007). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Revised Edition). New York: W. W. Norton.
...trong groups loyal to former regimes. By clearly manipulating the US benevolent actions and the overall disappointment that usually comes shortly after revolutions because of unrealized expectations (the Arab Spring did not lead to major overhaul of the system in economic and social terms), they could remobilize support for them and regain power. Yet these debatable points could be somehow justified due to the limitations of his work only being the introduction to the book. Ultimately, even the author himself admitted that the research on the Arab Spring was still inconclusive and might require years to truly experience all of its influences (Pollack 2011, p. 01).
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.
7th edition. London: Pearson Longman, ed. Garner, R., Ferdinand, P. and Lawson, S. (2009) Introduction to Politics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Hague, R. & M. Harrop (2010). Comparative Government and Politics. 8th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 64.