Rhetorical Analysis

In his argument on the universal value of democracy Amartya Sen discusses the relationship between democracy and economic development. He notes that it is often claimed that nondemocratic systems are better at bringing about economic development than democratic ones. Sen disagrees with this claim. He asserts that this hypothesis is based on "very selective and limited information" (3). He admits that it is true that some disciplinarian states, like South Korea, Singapore, and postreform China, have had faster rates of economic growth than many less authoritarian ones, like India, Jamaica, and Costa Rica (3). However, he points out that this very selective evidence cannot be used to establish the general hypothesis that nondemocratic systems are better at bringing about economic development (3). "There is no convincing evidence that authoritarian governance and the suppression of political and civil rights are

From a negative standpoint, some businesses became so powerful that they tried to influence the government of the US, making for the argument that big business does not promote democracy. How could people be free with such power hungry industries that take

In a much more recent analysis, Christian Houle’s research Inequality in Democracy which tests Boix’s conclusions finds that while inequality may not after all effect the ability of a country to democratize in the first place, it can drive the breakdown of democracy (Houle 2009). He also states that “Furthermore, not only does inequality promote coups, it also leads to the erosion of the quality of democratic institutions. When inequality is high the elites have more incentives to buy off politicians or to limit participation, and more generally to bias the political institutions toward themselves” (Houle

Since the Cold War era, the spread of democracy and its implications have been highly debated across the world. As more states adopt this method of government, the question of how to interact with opposing states has taken the spotlight in the context of international relations. Some scholars, like Robert Kaplan, believe that democratic elections do not help with social and economic stability in developing countries. Others, particularly supporters of the United States idea of democracy such as Sean Jones, believe that democracy benefits the inhabitants of newly democratizing states, promotes peace in the international system, and advances U.S. interests. This paper will explore the support and opposition of the claim that spreading

The kingdom of Gulephistan is a country that sits atop vast quantities of oil, but it has numerous religious and ethnic divides. There is also a troublesome rebellion going on in the east. The country is in urgent need of political and economic development and I take charge of the kingdom of Gulephistan today. This country thereby becomes a non democratic and an authoritarian regime. This decision is based on the issues going in the country and it needs high degree of capacity and autonomy. Authoritarian, non-democratic regimes are capable of producing economic growth higher than that of democratic countries and able to sustain this growth (Arsenault, 2008, pg. v). They have several unique institutional traits, which encourage economic growth (Arsenault, 2008, pg. v). This will make it easy for major policies to be carried out and fulfill basic tasks to solve these issues without public intervention. Huntington said that if the political system is opened first, it is likely to complicate economic reform. The oil in the country will be exploited but won’t be depended on in order not to suffer from resource curse. Oil serves as a source of revenue and it will also be used to support this regime. The oil revenue will result into taxing the citizens lightly or not at all so that the regime will not be accountable to the public. There will be a tradeoff between economic benefits and political rights. While authoritarianism deprives people of their political rights, it also serves

Once wealthy, the population would always choose a democracy over a dictatorship. In fact, the authors find the survival of a democracy is easy to predict based on the economic development of the country. As I will further demonstrate, economic development and democracy do not have a causal relationship.

For example Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Singapore are all successful capitalist countries but none are fully democratic states. Even China has started to become a global economic power as it has become more accepting of capitalism. When considering the impacts of capitalism on a country’s regime type it is important to look at the historical context of how democracies have or have not emerged from nations’ increased capitalist tendencies in the past.

Governments are able to circumvent if not entirely ignore traditional checks on political authority simply because their economic gains have made them stronger than other social forces, (Tetreault, 2013.pg 259-60). In addition to keeping the general public on the low end of the socioeconomic scale, oil money allows regimes to build incredibly strong, impressive security states. Governments can afford various forms of surveillance, such as secret police, as well as coercion, control of the media and any other measures they deem necessary to help keep them in power. (Diamond, 2010. pg 98). These mechanisms provide them with the ability to enforce their rigid and controlling policies that prevent citizens from effectively taking steps toward democracy.

In Why Nations Fail, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson show that economic development is about more than just economics. Through a wide variety of natural experiments ranging from Latin America, to Sub Saharan Africa, to East Asia, they argue that it is institutions, both political and economic, that differentiate a country’s economic success. Specifically, they separate institutions into inclusive and extractive. Inclusive political institutions engage the entire population, while extractive political institutions are ruled by an elite minority. Similarly, inclusive economic institutions promote property rights and competitive markets, while extractive economic institutions create monopolies and funnel wealth to the elite minority. The novel part of their thesis is the idea in order to have sustainable inclusive economic institutions, a country must first have inclusive political institutions. It is only when a country has inclusive economic and political

There are two types of regimes: democracies and dictatorships. As political scientist, Samuel P. Huntington describes it, “a country is democratic to the extent that its most powerful collective-decision makers are selected through fair, honest, and periodic elections in which candidates freely compete for votes and in which virtually all the adult population is eligible to vote.” This definition has since become one of the most widely accepted definitions of democracy among political scientists. A dictatorship, on the other hand, is any other type of regime. Although this may not have been the case a century ago, democracy tends to have a positive connotation attached to it, most likely due to the positive effects associated with it, such as higher levels of wealth and civic engagement. However, this paper will prove that wealth and civic engagement are the products of the underlying causes of democracy, not the democracy itself.

Democracy has rapidly become the premier form of government in the world. The growth was rapid and sudden. This increase is intriguing for the fact of how quick it was. There were many different proposed forms of government, but viewing how democracy became that fundamental idea gives us an insight into the cultures that formed from it. The subjugation of other systems is at the root of democracy (Zinn 17). It pushes out conflicting ideas and propagates itself.

Perhaps the most important piece of information of which the article is based on states the difference between a democracy as a political definition and one as values. Democracy first begins its definition during the time of the Herodotus democracy. It has grown to become associated as a liberal democracy, although originally it is a form of ruling by the people. According to Samuel P. Huntington, “Democracy is one public virtue, not the only one, and the relation of democracy to other public virtues and vices can only be understood if democracy is clearly distinguished rom other characteristics of political systems” (Zakaria 25). The concept of an illiberal democracy can be seen in many different countries, especially with the spread of democratic countries. Illiberal democracies exhibit executive powers that overrun politics or the constitutional liberalism of the country.

Nowadays, there are countless structures of government in the world, some of which are just on paper, others are functioning, but between all the forms of government structures, the best of all, which has been verified and trusted for eras, is democracy just as Ronald Reagan said; ‘it is the most deeply honourable form of government ever

Some scholars have argued that democracy hinders growth as a result of a collective action problem, while others argue it is the democratic institutions constraining government, and providing individual property rights which allows for economic growth (Montesquieu, 1748; Smith, 1776; Buchanan and Tullock, 1962; North and Thomas, 1973; North, 1981, 1990; Hall and Jones, 1999; Easterly and Levine, 2003; Rodrik, 2007). The former approach focuses on the role of leadership in a nondemocratic regime, specifically in how a good leader can affect the economic development in a region. The latter approach focuses on how investor risk aversion that results from the lack of property rights, corruption, inefficiencies, and political instability in a

In the book, “The spirit of democracy,” Larry Diamond defines democracy as, obtainable in every culture, state or society. Diamond states that non-democratic rule has been largely discredited in the past decades and that democratic rule has become more widely accepted in society as the only