It should be understood that the people’s consent runs to the very core of a government being able to rule over them. Essentially, this is to show that no form government can be in power if the particular people haven’t agreed to it. The common exception however, is in the case of tyranny and dictatorial rule, where citizens are subdued to obey as commanded, which in most cases lead to revolutions. Evidently, democracy is the best way through which a people can be governed, owing to the fact that it gives them a chance and a voice in the larger government and undertakings of the country as a whole (Ndou, 2004, p 18). Historical data can attest to this fact, as there have been numerous rebellions against dictatorial heads, all in such for democracy.
The current plight of poor democracy in various developing countries has however raised concerns in regards to just how effective the form of governance may be. Many developing worlds are in this day faced with numerous challenges as far as their democratic governance is concerned. True to this statement, other nations such as Chile has even been taken aback to forms of democracy that are greatly oppressive, begging the question as to whether there really is any democracy in such a state. Municipal and global entities alike, have taken initiative in an attempt to grasp a better understanding of what exactly are the key impediments to democratization in developing worlds, as discussed in this paper.
This will therefore be an insight into the factors that challenge the existence of proper democracy in developing countries, giving effect to the explanations through use of different examples of actual nations.
Though there are numerous factors actually contribute to impeding of proper go...
... middle of paper ...
...ng them being the state of democratic development. The impending factors range from social ones, to those of economic orientation. The media, public information and selfish-interest groups are seen as the most critical aspects that bring about a challenge to the growth of democracy in developing countries. Nevertheless, all hope is not lost, as many countries that are currently having proper democracy were at one point in such situations. All the discussed impediments to democratization are those that can be reversed and changed to make the situation much better. It however would be a lie to casually state that the change will come easily. Much effort has to be put into, seeing to it that all affected areas or potential areas are dealt with promptly. As a result, such developing countries will at least be at par with other developed countries in terms of democracy.
The Constitution gave our country a frame work in which we have built into a great nation. Their idea is that the purpose of our system, meaning our democracy, is to protect an individual’s liberty. William Hudson tries to convince us that there should be a connection between the government we have today and the government in other countries, Parliamentary System. In chapter 1 of the textbook, Democracy in Peril, starts off by giving the reader background knowledge of the found fathers, signers of the Declaration of Independence and the drafters of the Constitution, which reflect as “democracy models” or “protective democrats.” What the founding fathers did not want to happen is for there to be a corrupt government which ignored the rights
Peter H. Smith. , & , (2012). Democracy in Latin America. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Many Americans are proud to live in a country that claims to be a democracy. They are enlightened to know that “the people” have the power to actively participate in the decision making process of the government. They constantly show pride and faith on the principles of democracy everywhere they go. Yet, there are many who also seem to disapprove of the process that others so claim to be the best form of rule of government.
The majority of Americans when asked what type of government their country practices, will answer with a strong and proud, “Democracy!” but the reality is vastly different. The Unites States is not strictly a democracy. Democracy as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is, “a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity… are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly,” (Oxford English Dictionary) and if you observe our practices including gerrymandering, the electoral college, the intentions of the founding fathers, our history of racism and discrimination, and a republic vs. a democracy, you will see that the U.S. is in fact, not
Special attention must be given to the claim that weak institutions are to blame for this decrease in democracy rather than resource wealth in itself (Lam et al., 2002). I concede that this is partially true, however, weak institutions and the resource curse are by no means mutually exclusive. By definition, undeveloped countries have weak institutions; likewise, countries with weak institutions are generally undeveloped. Since this paper focuses particularly on developing resource rich states, this criticism is not detrimental- but rather complimentary to my argument.
A representative democracy is a government system in which the citizens vote for someone to pass laws for them. In order for representative democracy to work there must be someone who is equally capable or highly more capable then the position they are attaining. If they are below the requirement of the job and they win, it could be seen that they rigid the elections. Also, there must be freedom of speech and press for both the candidate and the press. And finally the voters must believe that there is a wide difference between the candidates and what they stand for.
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?”
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...
difficult for the views and opinions of the people to be heard. For these reasons democracy is the
Human history is pock-marked with innumerable wars and revolutions. The cause for most of the revolutions has been the choice of freedom. The opportunity to live a life without physical, mental or emotional restrictions has been and still is of supreme importance to man. This has resulted in the most widely followed discipline of political governance: Democracy.
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...
Democracy is robust, widely accepted and highly anticipated around the world. It is the triumphant form of government; dominantly used in Europe, North and South and America and becoming reformed and taking new roots in Africa and Asia. Although the term democracy is based on its Greek origin, demos kratos, meaning people rule, the term cannot be simply understood as such. Due to vast coverage, the adaptation of democracy has varied greatly, whether regionally, nationally, by state or through different branches of government. Perhaps this can be advantageous when the different categorizations listed above can use democracy to rule and suit themselves best, but other factors, such as globalization and neoliberalism, has caused the need for
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.
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).