Semiauthoritarianism Theory

Democracy and the challenges it is facing has been the main topic in the field of international politics since some Authoritarian regimes have raised again as a great power after a long time of absence. In this essay, we will look at some of the challenges facing the international democracy based on the work of Azar Gat “ The Return Of Authoritarian Great Powers”. The article is presenting the author view on the rise of authoritarian regimes as the main challenge of liberal democracy. The main part of my essay will be an illustration and reflection on a number of arguments that have been brought by the author. Additionally and before concluding my piece I will establish my own argument as a critical response to the article or more specifically to the Economic efficiency argument brought by Azar Gat.

The United States is perhaps the most well known examples of a democratic society in the modern world. In spite of this, it is largely flawed and rife with divergences from the true definition of democracy. First, the power is not in the hands of the people nearly as much as it is claimed to be. In contemporary America, “the influence of money undermines the one-man one-vote ideal. Gerrymandering renders most congressional elections utterly uncompetitive” (R.L.G. 1).

During the early developments of America, multiple states instituted the practice of owning African-Americans and using them as slaves. Surprisingly, this form of slavery was not only present in the Southern states, but also in the Northern too. Plantation owners from all over found their use in owning slaves, and were even shown taking advantage of the practice. By having ownership of slaves, it often contributed in farming production on plantations and also became useful when it came to voting. Unfortunately, though, the practice was abused by many plantation owners. When looking back at the many accounts written at the time, there seems to be a pattern of how the slaves were treated. Furthermore, the accounts additionally revealed problems that not only existed in the south, but also in the north too. Therefore, by using an account of a traveler visiting America and a plantation owner who owned slaves, it’s able to understood on how the slaves were actually treated within society. These two sources not only reveal a problem amongst the owners, but also reveal a side of the North that many did not know.

Democracy has become the most widespread political form of government during the past decade, after the fall of all its alternatives. During the second part of the 20th century, the 3 main enemies of democracy, namely communism, fascism and Nazism, lost most of their power and influence. However, democracy is still only to be found in less than half of this world's countries. China with a fifth of the total population "had never experienced a democratic government" and Russia still doesn't have a well established democracy. By adopting a democratic perspective, 3 types of governments emerge, non-democratic, new democracies, and old democracies, and all have a different challenge to overcome: either to become democratic, to "consolidate"

Despite the many crises that the United States has faced historically, democracy has persisted. However, this is not to say that the system is secure or deeply rooted. In fact, based on the events of recent decades, it has been weakening. In How Democracies Die, Levitsky and Ziblatt provide examples of how American democracy has exemplified the positive and negative aspects of other global democracies of the past and present. Although the US is exceptional in some ways, with its longstanding democratic institutions and diverse population, it is more similar to others than different. Thus, the idea that few parallels can be drawn to other nations is disproven. The process of comparing each state is analogous to that of differentiating between

Schedler argues that authoritarian regimes – particularly since the end of the Cold War era have been replaced by electoral authoritarian regimes that combine the façade of electoral democracy with systemic abuse of democratic procedures. They have reproduced institutional arrangements present in the democratic system, such as elections, the legislative and judicial powers, and independent local governments. However, these institution creations are never meant to become autonomous, rather manipulative in order to be instruments of pretentious delegation of power from the executive.

The author has been able to fulfill the target of the book, which is to test and answer the questions raised by critics through the provision of evidence of the reason no democracy exists at the present. The author presents the arguments in a chronological way that gives a better understanding of the past, today, and prospective future of democracy. The root of the present democracy is stated in the book and lays the basis of the other arguments in the book. Dahl argues that there are conditions that any state should attain in order for it to be considered as a democratic

Additionally, in more precarious democratic governments such as India’s, peoples right to power is still recognized. Ronojoy Sen remarks of India’s 2009 elections that, “a handful of successful professionals and entrepreneurs even ran”(cite). Despite implying that only successful peoples were exercising their liberties, elucidated in this article is the potential of any citizen to attain political power, demonstrating true liberal democracy in its purest form. Communism does not give its people these liberties, the party is the “agent for creating political development” (Janos, pg. 2) and there is little need for elections as the outcome is pre-determined. In the case of Nazism, while Hitler utilised democracy to attain power, once in control democracy was replaced with autocracy.

As the most widely adopted form of democratic government there are many strengths associated with a parliamentary government. The parliamentary system is often praised for the fast and efficient way in which it is able to pass legislation. The reason this is possible is because unlike a presidential system the legislative and executive power in a parliamentary system are merged together. Due to this fusion of power legislation does not have to undergo a lengthy process and therefore laws can be formulated and put into place much quicker(Bates, 1986: 114-5). Another advantage of a parliamentary system is that the majority of the power is not held by one individual head of state but rather is more evenly divided among a single party or coalition. One of the main benefits of this is that as there is more of a division of power a parliamentary government is less prone to authoritarianism than a presidential system. Juan Linz argues that a presidential system is more dangerous due to the fact that; “Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate”(Linz, 1990: 56), this sharp line between winners and losers increases tension between these two groups and allows the winner to isolate themselves from other political parties (Linz, 1990: 56). Due to this tension and isolation a presidential system is at a higher risk of turning into an authoritarian regime than a parliamentary system.

Abraham Lincoln’s statement from the Gettysburg Address described a democracy as “the Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from Earth” (“The Gettysburg Address”). To completely see how a democracy works, one must know the importance of it. A democratic government can be clarified in four diverse ways: protected, substantive, procedural, and process-situated. In this particular circumstance, an ideal approach to take a gander at a majority rules system is from the substantive point of view. “Substantive approaches focus on the conditions of life and politics given regime promotes: Does this regime promote human welfare individual freedom, security, equity, public deliberation, and peaceful conflict resolution?” (Tilly 7). Various nations all over the world, for example, Great Britain, Denmark, Germany, India, and Japan all have or had a democratic based government. Nations are liable to pick a vote based government in light of the fact that in a way it truly represents the general population, however, it has its constraints.

Moreover, instating the right to choose also facilitates the incentive for people to speak out against an unruly leader. When a large mass of civilians disagrees or is concerned with a party’s implementation of policies, they can extract their title from them. Just because a party is elected, does not mean that they will remain in power for the entire duration originally allotted to them. The presence of foreseeable change is crucial to a societies degree of satisfaction associated with their current governmental system. Alteration gives democracy the upper hand. For example, in Spain in 1982, when Prime Minister Leopolodo Calvo Sotelo completely terminated the party that supported what the people wanted, the people in office forcibly made him resign.

The authors’ studies are not based on legitimate democratic countries, but on two standards, first,

This paper puts in practice a series of academic perspectives about constitutional frameworks, which I apply to the case of Eaglestan, a country which recently transformed into a democratic rule after twenty years of authoritarianism. My overall framework for Eaglestan is based on consensus political systems. I provide strong evidence that unicameral legislature elected through mixed-member proportional representation system (MMP), and semi-presidentialism, with both the president and the prime minister being responsible for the governance, should be constitutional structures through which Eaglestan strengthens its democratic framework. Yet, I discuss possible flaws which this structure might bring. I choose these systems because of the

Democracies that deliver tangible legislative results have high governability. However, to have such results, a majority must exist to prevent

The remarkable progress for democracy is being witnessed for the past two decades. The number of democratic political systems has climbed from 44 to 107 since 1972. Over half of the 187 countries in the world today, 58 percent have adopted democratic government. To start with, when exactly did modern democracy emerge? Political scientist, Samuel Huntington argues today’s democracies emerged in a series of distinct waves of democratization between 1828 and 1991. Meanwhile, one of the most extensive and influential linkages between political systems and social environment is the statistically significant positive relationship flanked by democracy and the state of economic development in classic modernization theory. In other words, the more wealthy a country becomes, the greater the opportunities that its political regime will lead to democracy. This observation was first advanced in 1959 by Lipset, who generated a huge body of research data in the studies of comparative politics. Yet, controversy among the field roots not only from the use of different definitions, but also from variations in methodology to measure the extent of transitions. Therefore, it is necessary to define democracy in order to discuss the related phenomenon accurately. For the purposes of this paper, democracy refers to the extent that political power is evenly distributed in a society with the aim of supplying regular constitutional chances for changing the governing officials in a