Democracy and Its Recent Surges in the World

         A Democracy is a state in which all fully qualified citizens vote at regular intervals to choose, from among alternative candidates who are the future policy makers and diplomatic leaders of a country. States are formed by people that choose a leader in something called elections. Having elections is characteristic of democratic governments. Half of the world is divided into either a democracy or an autocratic government. Although only a small part of the world has a stable democracy. After certain event in the 20^th century it was then that democracy started to get popular. Yet if democracy is not the best and perfect form of government, it is now the most fair that we have. There have been three important waves that helped catapult democracy and spread it around the world.

         Democracy requires an implicit agreement by the conflicting groups in a state to accept the possibility that they will lose out in making of policy in effect, it requires an agreement on all the different sectors of society for a policy to be done and approved, this is a characteristic of democracy and how it works by voting and voicing out opinion. Each group accepts that it must abide by the end result and hopes that it will be able to get enough of what it wants out of a process. This is known as the democratic barging.

The Iron Curtain

         In 1989 the world imagination was seized when the Iron Curtain fell, and the Berlin Wall with it and most of the communist states of Eastern Europe threw off their old systems and established democracies of some sort. Southern Europe saw three shifts from right-wing dictatorships to democracies in the late 1970’s: in Greece, Portugal, and Spain. Later, a wave of democratization swept Latin America, making several military dictatorships become democratic governments. The same waves went on in the 1980’s in Eastern Europe and other countries around the world. Democracy was very fragile in most countries and some even lost it due to military regimes once again.

         There were 3 main waves that helped the spread of democracy around the world. The first wave of democratization came in the wake of WWI, as Germany became a democracy in 1918 and democracies were created in Easter Europe, at this same time several Latin States were turning into democracies. Although many of the democracies established at this time failed either under economic pressure of the Great Depression, or due to the violence of WWII. The second wave of democratization occurred after WWII when several communist countries turned into democracies and a large number of former European colonies in the South gained independence. The third wave is thought to have started in the late 1970’s with the successful reintroduction of democracy to Spain and Portugal.

         Democracies over the past fifty years have gained popularity, although the book “Power and Choice” from 2003 does not talk about the fourth wave. We can now see it happening. The fourth wave could be seen as the Arab Spring, the widespread of the democracies in the Arab countries of Africa and Middle East is an example of how democracies are being spread around the world. Democracy is like to a relative freedom which is a characteristic that democracies do posses and autocratic governments rarely posses. Fighting for democracies involves many times civil wars and many social movements that we now tend to see around the world. Although many people don’t agree with democracy, the majority does and it continues to spread. I predict that the next two waves will be in South Easter Asia, and then in Latin America in about 30 years from now.

The Berlin Wall

The Problems with Justice and Efficiency

To achieve justice and efficiency at the same time is a very hard task. The desire for justice, the harder it is have be efficiency in a government. At the same time a government desires to be more ore efficient, the harder it is to be just. The debate on being just and efficient at the same time is like adding a negative one to a one, it cancels out and ends in zero. Justice and efficiency are in a way a positive and a negative aspect in society. Both justice and efficiency are set as main goals in all governments. There are two characteristics that ordinary people desire in a state, they are the following: policies should be fair, people should be treated equal rights, and have efficient, and also produce the greatest good at the lowest price. Efficiency is fixed, one can predict how efficient something can turn out to be by observing, and the results don’t change, efficiency in a way is a constant. Justice on the other side can be observed through different perspectives, giving out different results, this can be seen as a variant on policies and the effectiveness of a government.

            Justice can be observed through two different perspectives. First, we may say that different members of society have contributed different amounts, and justice would seem to require that they be rewarded accordingly. The problem with this approach is that sometimes luck may influence as a factor. For instance, would it be just that a student worked very hard on a paper and that another student, who happened to have been born very intelligent, created a brilliant paper the night before it was due and be graded better than the other student? The second perspective takes into account needs. Sometimes justice means treating a person based on their needs. Justice involves a number of things that are often conflict, the contributions people have made, their varying needs, and even the idea that people should not be treated too unequally.

            Substantive justice is any conception of justice that declare what people are receiving what they need, and deserve. Procedural Justice falls under this category. Procedural justice however, focuses less on the fairness of distribution but rather in the procedures by which decisions are reached about people. The main issues of procedural justice are three: whether governmental action is arbitrary, whether basic rights are dismissed, and whether overriding needs are present.

            When a policy is being decided it is important to determine how just it is. However, it is equally important to determine its efficiency. An efficient policy is one that gives the state the greatest benefits at the least cost. It is always difficult to predict how efficient a policy will turn out to be. Nevertheless policies are dearly important in order to create a more equal society.

            Decision makers, when creating policies, can take on of two approaches, the incremental or the radical approach. An incremental decision is one that occurs gradually with small changes. A person who is worried about the possibility of making a big, costly mistake will tend to be an incrementalist. A radical decision maker, on the other hand, is more concerned about lost opportunities than about the possibility of costly mistakes. Sometimes impulsive action may accomplish something that could have never been done in a precautious manner.

            Justice tends to be an abstract concept. It changes depending on the person observing it. What may be just to one person may not be for another. It’s a complicated term and abstract concept to define. Making a policy efficient, and just is like trying to put back together a broken lamp, you might be able but it will never workout fine. Justice is complicated, and something complicated is often difficult to manage in an efficient way. Justice varies depending on a person and changes even from country to country. Justice is never fair, if you do not get what you wanted and someone else does, that is not fair for you but fair for him or her, but if you get what you desire it is just for you, maybe nor for the other person, in a way this is an example of human grittiness. Although our modern law systems have approached the complications and have created an efficient justice system that works for the majority. It’s not perfect, and it has a many flaws, yet it works in somewhat level. This might be small steps for governments but in the long run they become the changes of tomorrow. 
Justice

Dictatorships & Autocratic Governments

            When we think about autocratic governments what comes to our minds? Yes, dictatorships, one of the cruelest ways to govern a country and live. There are about 1/10 of the governments around the world with these characteristics of autocratic governments. The military regimens or coups are the most dramatic and drastic when it is compared to a democracy. The autocratic governments are becoming more scares although half of the world is autocratic. Yet in that 50 percent not all are dictatorships. Some of the countries where we find many dictatorships are in Africa, Middle East, and the history of Latin America and its present.

Only government decides on what happens

            Some of the nations that have adopted this type of governments are the following; Conservative Saudi Arabia, Bureaucratic Soviet Union, Pakistan, and finally Congo.

            Saudi Arabia was an absolute monarchy for the past century. The Saud family was the ones who had the power over the people. This family is conservative in religious aspects and enforces strict Muslim standards of behavior. They have been enthusiastic about economic modernization. Even if the events caused by the Gulf War left the economic system unchangeable.

            After Joseph Stalin’s rule over the Soviet Union, the nation experienced some orderly transitions of leadership. Decisions were made wisely within the party with strong leadership and a strong influence by the army.

            Pakistan reached its independence in 1947 alongside with India. These two countries don’t have the best relationship in the world, it is very tense. This country has alternated its types of governments from a democracy to a military government.

            Congo reached it’s independence from Belgium in 1960, back then it was known as Zaire. In many attempts to reach democracy, there was a period of chaos and death along the way. Colonel Mobutu took control of Congo by forming a one-party state. He was acused to be a corrupt leader, however, he proved to be a powerful leader by controling his country despite the chaos that was going on in the meantime.

            The countries listed above are examples of atocratic systems.

            As mentioned previously, a military government is the most severe alternative to a democratic system. This happens when the military forces take over the government of the country. This is called a coup. In some states, coups have been so common that they have almost been institutionalized as the normal method of governmental change.

            1/10 of the world’s states have military governments. The military control more weaponry and fire power than anyone else in a state. No one dares to chalenge them, meaning that they are basically unstoppable.

            Military governments vary greatly in their role. For instance; in Paraguay Stroessner secured his position as ruler using torture and repression. This stopped until he was deposed by a military coup. In Nigeria there was a considerable civilian support for the military regime. In Greece, harsh repressive measures were experienced by the people. In Turkey, the government has been so unstable that the military has taken over it three times since World War II.

            Military governments vary in their political direction. How so? Well, whether the coup is from the right, left, or neither it totally depends on the leaders of the coup.

            It is surprising that more countries are not governed by the military. There are not many coups and most military governments stay in power only for a few years. There are some problems that a military government has to face, problems that make some officers reluctant to take and hold power.

            Legitimacy is another of these problems. There is no process of selection that legitimizes the military government. It is always concerned with justifying its existence.

            As a result to these problems; they add civilians into the government, set future dates for return of democracy, they rally people through wars and have appeals to nationalism. 

            Most autocracies are one party state. It is a government that is based only on one political party and it is the only one allowed in the state. It offers a more stable and responsive form of government compared to military governments.

            Taking the alternative of an autocratic government or dictatorship tends to be unstable most of the time because the people who take the power are not prepared in several of the cases to be Politian’s. Although in some cases autocratic governments tend to be somewhat more stable than democracies. From personal experiences some times to have an autocratic government for some time can be a positive aspect because it stabilizes society, although if it becomes prolong it becomes negative. Autocratic governments can be positive depending on your political view.

See the words that are found in a dictatorship

The State and The Citizen

           When authority gains power and control over its people by using the military or forces this is a terrible image, instead governments prefer to achieve power by legitimacy. The way in which a State may function adequately shifts around by the efficiency of a State’s authority to conduct and lead the ways in which people live there lives. When governments fail, it’s possible that is the governments organize efficiently its followers using coercion and persuasion methods. Although this would mean at a high cost that there seeking for control would not be sustainable over a long period of time. When you have a case in which you encounter tyranny, in which there is no level of authority but totalitarian one this is predictable to happen over a certain time course depending on the efficiency of a tyrant and most likely I would not last long. It’s important for a government that its people believe that the government has authority, without this power it would simply no function correctly, due to the simple fact that a government consists on the propaganda that they retain authority. Legitimacy must be a government’s main focus to guarantee its consistency. Achieving a consistency can be achieved by a government in many ways. Legitimacy by habits, by results, by procedure, or by historical reasons, all of these becomes possible resources to achieve legitimacy.

We believe this

            The one most important relation between a democratic state and its citizens is that democracy needs citizens who will do more than obey and follow the government. Some nondemocratic state take a step further and try to generate enthusiastic support for the government. Hitler tried to generate enthusiastic support for Nazism that would help him build a powerful German military force more rapidly. Democracy goes yet a step further than this. In a democracy, it is hoped not only that people will obey the laws and be enthusiastic citizens but that they will also and at the same time be critical citizens. Democratic citizens are expected to be sufficiently enthusiastic but at the same time critical enough of those leaders that they might readily vote them out of office at the next election.

            Robert Putman and his co-authors, in a study of what makes democratic government effective in Italy, concluded that the necessary ingredient is what they called “social capital”, voluntary involvement in organizations that bind people together and give them the political resources and mutual trust that are needed to make any form of government work. “Social capital” is a pattern of community interaction that produces desirable attitudes of efficacy and trust, and that gives people practical experience in persuasion.

            Political culture, a name given by political scientists consists of all attitudes and beliefs held communally by people, which form the basis for their political behavior. It is clear that political culture varies a good deal from one state to another and that it is responsible for major differences in how politics is conducted. Differences in culture are easily detected by looking as popular behaviors and sayings.        

The values and assumptions people hold about politics are acquired in a process called political socialization, which simply means the learning of political values and factual assumptions about politics. The importance of political socialization is evident, the fact that without it any political culture would disappear after one generation. All the cultural political values are learned by children and other new citizens through political socialization. It is political socialization that allowed the United States to absorb so many people and yet maintain political continuity.

Many governments get power by force, a clear example are dictatorship. During a dictatorship it becomes a totalitarian power. The people beneath the dictator are forced to do whatever they are ordered to do, if not consequences will be applied to the ones who rebel. Although a dictatorship is not an example of government that achieves legitimacy, dictatorships lose reputation and are not wanted anywhere in the world due to the terrific measures they take against their own people. Authority is vague illusion; authority only exists because we the people believe it exists. Perfect authority is achieved through the art of dialogue, through persuasion, propaganda, and well-focused goal. I’m not telling you to go and start a rebellion against your government but to realize that in somewhat level we are capable of choosing some ways to live.

 Authority