Furthermore, would creating one authoritarian organisation enable democracy or rather destroy it? Would reducing the political actors be a democratization practice after all? We can see where the argument of not desirability enters along with non-feasibility. Last but not least as Archibugi (1998) reasons in the book ‘Re-Imagining Political Community: Studies In Cosmopolitan Democracy’ “there is no actual guarantee that the greater coordination in world politics will be informed by the values of
Conclusively, this country has changed drastically since 1776, and Thomas Jefferson would be very critical of how its democracy has changed. However, not everything has changed for the worse, many things have improved such as technological advances. But in terms of democracy, this country has taken a dark turn. People are monitored out of their own will, lied to over media, and given a president with no control. Thomas Jefferson’s version of Democracy would definitely contradict todays, but without change in the world nothing interesting would ever happen.
Distributional concerns could be taken care of in the political process; more moderate advocates of Washington consensus policies deny the charge. The policies pursued by the international financial institutions which came to be called the Washington consensus policies or neo liberalism entailed a much more circumscribed role for the state than were embraced by most of the East Asian countries, a set of policies which came to be called the development state. Some economists have argued that free trade is not necessarily the best option for developing economies. It can cause the economies to primarily only produce low income growth and their primary products. If the countries promotes new industries, it may require both selective tariffs on cheap imports and as well as government
Nietzsche even pointed out that liberalism, like religion, can be used as a form of legitimation (Cristi, 2010). A modern liberal state is founded on “consent” of the people (ibid). The problem with this is that it cannot guarantee the compliance of every individual (i.e. if they do not feel obligated to obey the laws) and this would eventually lead the state to its downfall (ibid). Likewise, Weber argues that because of the democratic ideas brought in by the French Revolution, “people are reluctant to accept that anyone is entitled to rule except the people themselves” (Shaw, 2008).
For Confucius, revolutionary change may occur, as in his belief, the Mandate of Heaven is not permanent to any ruler or society. To defend this, Confucius notes the ancient nature of the state of Chou yet the presence of a renewed Mandate of Heaven (Chan p. 87). Revolutionary change may occur, as the Mandate is not the same as the one before, but rather a new one which is renewed each day. For Confucius, leadership in the state and the loyalty of the people can only exist if the leaders themselves value virtue, particularly altruism (Chan p. 91). Without this valuing of altruism, rulers do not have, and have not earned, the will of their people.
Obviously the electoral systems adopted in many former colonies were not always appropriate to meet the needs of the particular country, as the colonial power was usually very different socially and culturally from the society colonized (European Parliament, 2011). This highlights the main objective of SMP. Plurality elections serve the purpose of creating a “manufactured majority”. As one can imagine, this means that the number of seats for the leading party is artificially boosted while simultaneously penalizing minor parties. The subsequent “winner-take-all” system enhances the leading party’s legislative base, thus focusing on effective governance as opposed to representation of the general public (Norris,
When talking about empires, a negative connotation of being oppressed is usually present. Living in the modern age, we tend to consider democracy as the “rightest form of government”. However, democracy is not simply “freedom for all” or “the will of the people” for ancient empires. It was a complex, delicate system that sometime people overlook its inherent fragility. Many democratic states, such as ancient Athens, the Roman Republic, failed to keep the promise of freedom for all and ended up in failure.
In reality, United States did take up the shape of a liberal hegemon and utilized its soft power to spread the ideas of liberalisms across the globe. However, Nye (2004) had argued that despite of doing this, this had negative impact on the global stability as instead of fostering peace, it brought conflict, war and violence. In the aftermath of 9/11, American was under attack from Al-Qaeda, the worldly hegemon transformed into an imperial one and adopted an aggressive approach towards those who did not conform to the liberal view of the world. This failed policy lead to the wars in Iraq, Iran and North Korea who America termed as the axis of evil. Iraq was invaded by America in 2004 because of the security threat, North Korea declared itself as a Nuclear power, whereas suspicions arise that Iran is also trying to reach nuclear capability as well.
Democracy and Market Liberalization Name : Institution : Date : Democracy and Market Liberalization The theoretical and empirical literature devoted to the relationship between economic market systems and democracy remains rather inconclusive. Although democracy makes the task of reformers more difficult, with the risk of impeding market liberalization, democracy increases the subjective support to the market. Even if individual income increases democracy, market liberalization is not sufficient to trigger the demand for democracy. Democracy cannot naturally emerge as a by-product of market liberalization but democracy may generate influential support for market liberalization.
Government sovereignty; the rule of law and the separation of powers govern the public law and with it, the relationship between the state and the individuals that comprise it. According to AV Dicey, the rule of law can be subsumed into three pillars. Firstly everyone, regardless of status, race or heritage, is equal in the eyes of the law and hence should be treated the same with respect to criminal law. Secondly, that the principles of British law come from ordinary, judge-made law, which bind individuals with certain rights and obligations. Finally, the law must be preferred to an arbitrary power, which forms its opinions on a subjective standpoint alone.