How Can Genuine Democracy Emerge from Authoritarian Regimes free essay sample

Tensions between an expanding global consciousness and old structures that limit freedom are giving birth to new experiments in governance. Although the perception and implementation of democracy differ globally, it is generally accepted that democracy is a relationship between a responsible citizenry and a responsive government that encourages participation in the political process and guarantees basic rights. Social revolutions in 2011 are not yet reflected in Freedom Houses 2010 ratings, which showed political and civil liberties declined for the fifth consecutive year, the longest decline since 1972, when the annual analysis began. Freedom declined in 25 countries and improved in 11. Those living in 87 free countries constituted 43% of world population, while 20% live in 60 partly free countries, and 35% (over 2. 5 billion people) live in 47 countries listed as not free. There were 115 electoral democracies in 2010, compared with 123 in 2005. Press freedoms have declined for nine consecutive years; 15% of the world lives in the 68 countries with a free press, 42% in 65 countries with a partly free press, and 43% live in 63 countries without free media. 1] Predominantly young and increasingly educated populations are using the Internet to organize around common ideals, independent of conventional institutional controls and regardless of nationality or languages. These new forms of Internet-augmented democracy are beginning to wield unparalleled social power, often bypassing conventional news media, as happened in the Arab Spring Awakening, where 60% of the population is below the age of 30. 1. What is authoritarianism? Authoritarianism is a historically generated phenomenon in response to state crises of political order. Its main characteristic has been elitist dictatorship, with the occasional cult of personality. It is a response to democratic failure, social polarization, economic stagnation, and international instability. [2] It generally exercises sovereign power through single-party rule, and may depend upon military forces to maintain order. In its extreme control over society, it may become a totalitarian monopoly. Authoritarian regimes often offer trade-offs between economic development and political democracy, and have been the historical gateway to democratic systems when political order is well-established, and long-term economic progress is anticipated. Authoritarianism is a theory and a system of government customarily linked with dictatorship, in contrast to democracy. It is a principle based on obedience to authority, and opposes autonomy of individuals in thought and action. As a form of government, authoritarianism concentrates power in a leader or in a small elite not constitutionally accountable to the people. Unlike totalitarian systems, authoritarian governments usually lack a highly developed ideology. Also, the latter tends to tolerate a degree of pluralism in social organization, usually lacks the power to mobilize the nation for collective goals, and exercises its power within limits. Leaders in authoritarian systems often exercise their power arbitrarily and consider themselves above existing law. Modern authoritarian systems usually operate through single, dominant parties, which control government and other key parts of society, including the economy, media, and education. They usually do not hold free elections, which could replace them with a competing party. It is either difficult or impossible for citizens to create opposition groups or parties. 2. What is Democracy? Democracy  is a  form of government  in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of  laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of  political self-determination. [3] The term originates from the  Greek   (demokratia) rule of the people,   which was coined from (demos) people and (kratos) power or rule in the 5th century BCE to denote the  political systems  then existing in  Greek city-states, notably  Athens; the term is an antonym to   (aristocratie) rule of an elite. While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically. The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to an elite class of free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older  Middle French  and  Middle Latin  equivalents. [4] A democratic government contrasts to forms of government where power is either held by one, as in a  monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an  oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,  are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper  defined democracy in contrast to  dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a  revolution. Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is  direct democracy, in which all eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of all eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the  European Middle Ages, the Reformation, the  Age of Enlightenment, and the  American  and  French Revolutions. . Democratization. 3. 1. Definition of democratization. Democratization  (or  democratisation) is the transition to a more democratic  political regime. It may be the transition from an  authoritarian  regime to a full democracy, a transition from an authoritarian political system to a semi-democracy or transition from a  semi-authoritarian  political system to a  democratic  pol itical system. The outcome may be  consolidated  (as it was for example in the  United Kingdom) or democratization may face frequent reversals (as it has faced for example in  Argentina). Different patterns of democratization are often used to explain other political phenomena, such as whether a country goes to a war or whether its economy grows. Democratization itself is influenced by various factors, including economic development, history, and civil society. 3. 2. What can facilitate transition to democracy? There is considerable debate about the factors which affect or ultimately limit democratization. A great many things, including economics, culture, and history, have been cited as impacting on the process. Some of the more frequently mentioned factors are: Wealth. A higher  GDP/capita  correlates with democracy and while some claim the wealthiest democracies have never been observed to fall into authoritarianism, Hitler would be an obvious counter-example that would render the claim a  truism. There is also the general observation that democracy was very rare before the industrial revolution. Empirical research thus lead many to believe that economic development either increases chances for a transition to democracy (modernization theory), or helps newly established democracies consolidate. Some campaigners for democracy even believe that as economic development progresses, democratization will become inevitable. However, the debate about whether democracy is a consequence of wealth, a cause of it, or both processes are unrelated, is far from conclusion. Education. Wealth also correlates with education, though their effects on democratic consolidation seem to be independent. A poorly educated and illiterate population may elect  populist  politicians who soon abandon democracy and become dictators even if there have been free elections. The  resource curse  theory  suggests that countries with abundant natural resources, such as  oil, often fail to democratize because the elite can live off the natural resources rather than depend on popular support for tax revenues. On the other hand, elites who invested in the physical capital rather than in land or oil, fear that their investment can be easily damaged in case of a revolution. Consequently, they would rather make concessions and democratize than risk a violent clash with the opposition. Market economy. Some claim that democracy and market economy are intrinsically linked. This belief generally centers on the idea that democracy and market economy are simply two different aspects of freedom. A widespread market economy culture may encourage norms such as individualism, negotiations, compromise, respect for the law, and equality before the law. These are seen as supportive for democratization. Social equality. Acemoglu and Robinson argued that the relationship between social equality and democratic transition is complicated: People have less incentive to revolt in an egalitarian society (for example,  Singapore), so the likelihood of democratization is lower. In a highly unequal society (for example,  South Africa  under  Apartheid), the redistribution of wealth and power in a democracy would be so harmful to elites that these would do everything to prevent democratization. Democratization is more likely to emerge somewhere in the middle, in the countries, whose elites offer concessions because (1) they consider the threat of a revolution credible and (2) the cost of the concessions is not too high. This expectation is in line with the empirical research showing that democracy is more stable in egalitarian societies. Middle class. According to some models,  the existence of a substantial body of citizens who are of intermediate wealth can exert a stabilizing influence, allowing democracy to flourish. This is usually explained by saying that while the upper classes may want political power to preserve their position, and the lower classes may want it to lift themselves up, the middle class balances these extreme positions. Civil society. A healthy  civil society  (NGOs,  unions,  academia,  human rights  organizations) are considered by some theorists to be important for democratization, as they give people a unity and a common purpose, and a  social network  through which to  organize  and challenge the power of the  state  hierarchy. Involvement in civic associations also prepares citizens for their future political participation in a democratic regime. Finally, horizontally organized social networks build trust among people and trust is essential for functioning of democratic institutions. Civic culture. In  The Civic Culture  and  The Civic Culture Revisited,  Gabriel A. Almond  and  Sidney Verba  (editors) conducted a comprehensive study of civic cultures. The main findings is that a certain civic culture is necessary for the survival of democracy. This study truly challenged the common thought that cultures can preserve their uniqueness and practices and still remain democratic. Culture. It is claimed by some that certain cultures are simply more conductive to democratic values than others. This view is likely to be  ethnocentric. Typically, it is  Western culture  which is cited as best suited to democracy, with other cultures portrayed as containing values which make democracy difficult or undesirable. This argument is sometimes used by undemocratic regimes to justify their failure to implement democratic reforms. Today, however, there are many non-Western democracies. Examples include  India,  Japan,  Indonesia,  Namibia,  Botswana,  Taiwan, and  South Korea. Human Empowerment and Emancipative Values. In  Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy,  Ronald Inlgehart and Christian Welzel explain democratization as the result of a broader process of human development,  which empowers ordinary people in a three-step sequence. First, modernization gives more resources into the hands of people, which empowers capability-wise, enabling people to practice freedom. This tends to give rise to  emancipative values  that emphasize freedom of expression and equality of opportunities. These values empower people motivation-wise in making them willing to practice freedom. Democratization occurs as the third stage of empowerment: it empowers people legally in entitling them to practice freedom. In this context, the rise of emancipative values has been shown to be the strongest factor of all in both giving rise to new democracies and sustaining old democracies. Specifically, it has been shown that the effects of modernization and other structural factors on democratization are mediated by these factors tendencies to promote or hinder the rise of emancipative values. Further evidence suggests that emancipative values motivate people to engage in elite-challenging collective actions that aim at democratic achievements, either to sustain and improve democracy when it is granted or to establish it when it is denied. Homogeneous population. Some believe that a country which is deeply divided, whether by ethnic group, religion, or language, have difficulty establishing a working democracy. The basis of this theory is that the different components of the country will be more interested in advancing their own position than in sharing power with each other. India is one prominent example of a nation being democratic despite its great heterogeneity. Previous experience with democracy. According to some theorists, the presence or absence of democracy in a countrys past can have a significant effect on its later dealings with democracy. Some argue, for example, that it is very difficult (or even impossible) for democracy to be implemented immediately in a country that has no prior experience with it. Instead, they say, democracy must evolve gradually. Others, however, say that past experiences with democracy can actually be bad for democratization — a country, such as  Pakistan, in which democracy has previously failed may be less willing or able to go down the same path again. Foreign intervention. Democracies have often been imposed by military intervention, for example in Japan and Germany after WWII. In other cases,  decolonization  sometimes facilitated the establishment of democracies that were soon replaced by authoritarian regimes. For example, in the United States South after the  Civil War, former slaves were disenfranchised by  Jim  Crow laws  after the Reconstruction Era of the United States; after many decades, U. S. democracy was re-established by civic associations (the  African American civil rights movement) and an outside military (the U. S. military). Age distribution. Countries which have a higher degree of elderly people seems to be able to maintain democracy, when it has evolved once, according to a thesis brought forward by Richard P. Concotta in this article in Foreign Policy. When the young population (defined as people aged 29 and under) is less than 40%, a democracy is more safe, according to this research. 3. 3. Historical cases Democracy development has often been slow, violent, and marked by frequent reversals. In Great Britain, the  English Civil War  (1642–1651) was fought between the King and an oligarchic but elected Parliament. The Protectorate  and the  English Restoration  restored more autocratic rule. The  Glorious Revolution  (1688) established a strong Parliament. Only with the  Representation of the People Act 1884  did a majority of the males get the vote. [5] The  American Revolutionary War  (1775–1783) created the United States. In many fields, it was a success ideologically in the sense that a relatively true republic was established that never had a single dictator, but slavery was only abolished with the  American Civil War  (1861–1865), and  Civil Rights  given to African-Americans became achieved in the 1960s. [6] The  French Revolution  (1789) briefly allowed a wide franchise. The  French Revolutionary Wars  and the  Napoleonic Wars  lasted for more than twenty years. The  French Directory  was more oligarchic. The  First French Empire  and the  Bourbon Restoration  restored more autocratic rule. The  Second French Republic  had universal male suffrage but was followed by the  Second French Empire. The  Franco-Prussian War(1870–71) resulted in the  French Third Republic. The  German Empire  was created in 1871. It was followed by the  Weimar Republic  after  World War I. Nazi Germany  restored autocratic rule before the defeat in  World War II  . The  Kingdom of Italy, after the unification of Italy in 1861, was a  constitutional monarchy  with the King having considerable powers. Italian fascism  created a dictatorship after the World War I. World War II resulted in the  Italian Republic. The  Meiji period, after 1868, started the modernization of Japan. Limited democratic reforms were introduced. The  Taisho period  (1912–1926) saw more reforms. The beginning of the  Showa period  reversed this until the end of the World War II. 3. 4. Views on democratization. Francis Fukuyama  wrote another classic in democratization studies entitled  Ã¢â‚¬Å"The End of History and the Last Man†Ã‚  [7]which spoke of the rise of  liberal democracy  as the final form of human government. However it has been argued that the expansion of liberal economic reforms has had mixed effects on democratization. In many ways, it is argued, democratic institutions have been constrained or disciplined in order to satisfy international capital markets or to facilitate the global flow of trade. Samuel P. Huntington  wrote  Ã¢â‚¬Å"The Third Wave†[8], partly as response to Fukuyama, defining a global democratization trend in the world post WWII. Huntington defined three waves of democratization that have taken place in history. The first one brought democracy to Western Europe and Northern America in the 19th century. It was followed by a rise of dictatorships during the  Interwar period. The second wave began after World War II, but lost steam between 1962 and the mid-1970s. The latest wave began in 1974 and is still ongoing. Democratization of  Latin America  and the former  Eastern Bloc  is part of this  third wave. A very good example of a region which passed through all the three waves of democratization is the Middle East. During the 15th century it was a part of the Ottoman empire. In the 19th century, when the empire finally collapsed [ ] towards the end of the First World War, the Western armies finally moved in and occupied the region[9]. This was an act of both European expansion and state-building in order to democratize the region. However, what Posusney and Angrist argue is that, the ethnic divisions [ ] are [those that are] complicating the U. S. effort to democratize Iraq. This raises interesting questions about the role of combined foreign and domestic factors in the process of democratization. In addition, Edward Said labels as orientalist the predominantly Western perception of intrinsic incompatibility between democratic values and Islam. Moreover, he states that the Middle East and North Africa lack the prerequisites of democratization. 10] Fareed Zakaria  has examined the security interests benefited from democracy promotion, pointing out the link between levels of democracy in a country and of terrorist activity. Though it is accepted that poverty in the Muslim world has been a leading contributor to the rise of terrorism, Zakaria has noted that the primary terrorists involved in the  9/11  attacks were among the upper and upper-middle classes. Zakaria has suggested that the society in which  Al-Qaeda  terrorists lived provided easy money, and therefore there existed little incentive to modernize economically or politically. With little opportunity to express themselves in the political sphere, scores of young Arab men were invited to participate[11]  through another avenue: the culture of  Islamic fundamentalism. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism and its violent expression on September 11, 2001 illustrates an inherent need to express oneself politically, and a democratic government or one with democratic aspects (such as political openness) is quite necessary to provide a forum for political expression. Conclusion. The transition to stable democracies will be difficult. New democracies must address previous abuses of power to earn citizens loyalties without increasing social discord and slowing the reconciliation process. Some global trends nurturing the emergence of democracy include increasing literacy, interdependence, Internet access, e-government systems, international standards and treaties, multipolarity and multilateralism in decisionmaking, developments that force global cooperation, improved quality of governance assessment systems, transparent judicial systems, and the growing number and power of NGOs. It is critical to establish legitimate tamper-proof election systems with internationally accepted standards for election observers. Some 20 countries offer legally binding Internet voting. Direct voting on issues via the Internet could be next to augment representative democracy. Since an educated and informed public is critical to democracy, it is important to learn how to counter and prevent disinformation, cyberwarfare, politically motivated government censorship, reporters self-censorship, and interest-group control over the Internet and other media. Organized crime, corruption, concentration of media ownership, corporate monopolies, increased lobbying, and impunity threaten democracy. Old ideological, political, ethnic, and nationalistic legacies also have to be addressed to maintain the long-range trend toward democracy. Fortunately, injustices in different parts of the world become the concern of others around the world, who then pressure governing systems to address the issue. Despite restrictions and intimidations, independent journalists, intellectuals, and concerned citizens are increasing global transparency via digital media. Although making development assistance dependent on good governance has helped in some countries, genuine democracy will be achieved when local people—not external actors—demand government accountability. Since democracies tend not to fight each other and since humanitarian crises are far more likely under authoritarian than democratic regimes, expanding democracy should help build a peaceful and just future for all. Meanwhile, international procedures are needed to assist failed states or regions within states, and intervention strategies need to be designed for when a state constitutes a significant threat to its citizens or others. Challenge 4 will be addressed seriously when strategies to address threats to democracy are in place, when less than 10% of the world lives in nondemocratic countries, when Internet and media freedom protection is internationally enforced, and when voter participation exceeds 60% in most democratic elections.