The Quality Of Contemporary Chilean Democracy

People act different in certain situations some coward and run away while others stand strong and be courageous. In to kill a mockingbird almost every character shows acts of courage in dangerous situations. Atticus shows great amount of courage against the mob that was threaten to hurt him if he didn’t move out of the way and let them get Tom Robinson out of the upstairs of the jail house. He just sits there with not a worry in the world standing up and protecting Tom Robinson from the angry crowd.

During 1973, Chilean Congress and Judiciary took a stand against Allende and it was claimed that Allende’s governmental rule broke the Chilean constitution. After the battle with congress, the military stormed Allende’s palace and killed Allende while armed. In modern times, millions of people were inspired by Allende’s road to socialism and believers found it necessary to argue on the lesson but, furthermore on Allende’s behalf. On the other hand, the Chilean Communist Party thought the presidential rule of

When it became apparent that Chile might soon have a Socialist President the fear of a communist domino effect caused Kissinger’s feeling of order in the Western Hemisphere to be broken. Therefore he supported Pinochet, who despite his terror driven domestic policy, created stability systemically by eradicating communism (Starr 477).

Outside of tax incentives (Dewitte, 2013), there are many benefits to hiring veterans in your workforce. From first hand experience, I have seen the dedication to mission, unwavering focus, drive, initiative, motivation, and standards of excellence that many veterans practice. As the daughter of a 23-year, twice deployed, disabled Army veteran and now a wife to a twice-deployed, career Army husband, I can attest to these characteristics and believe they make most veterans extremely valuable assets for an organization. Other important quality veterans bring to the table is their leadership capabilities, practical on-the-job training and experience (Dewitte, 2013), the ability to collaborate and work in teams, ability to work in stressful environments, and experience with workforce diversity.

Using the men and women he had at his disposal to eliminate all opposition. “He used his military and government prowess to enforce his laws...they would kidnap and arrest anyone, they would be taken to camps and centers where they were beaten and forced to confess to crimes that they did not commit.” (Long) The people that knew the truth about Pinochet were either killed outright or they were threatened into secrecy. This also ripped entire families apart and created rampant amounts of chaos by the end of his reign.

Contrary to the articles mentioned above, in Chile's moves to reconcile its tortured past A court ordered Augusto Pinochet's arrest on Friday, but now the judge is being pursued by foes, Vandenack analyzed how the Chilean masses both left and right affiliates felt about the detention of Augusto Pinochet. “Pinochet led Chile with an iron fist after ousting Marxist President Salvador Allende in a Sept. 11, 1973, coup. Supporters point to the economic order and growth he brought the nation. But human rights officials say his regime unjustly pursued thousands of leftist foes. In all, some 3,200 people died or disappeared owing to political violence during Pinochet's 17 years in power.” (Vandenack 2000). Even though Pinochet did comit inhumane acts,

world made the people realize even a prosperous dictatorship in Chile had to be relieved in our

The rule of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet Ugarte is one of much controversy. After leading a military coup backed by the United States of America to usurp democratically elected socialist president Salvador Allende, Pinochet served as dictator from 1973 to 1990. Once in power, the Junta, or joint military commission that was tasked with running new Chile and headed by Pinochet, banned all left-leaning political parties (don Quijote), and reversed Allende’s leftist policies, lowering inflation and causing an economic boom (Britannica). Under his regime, Pinochet is responsible for at least 35,000 human rights violations, including 28,000 tortures, 2,279 executions, and 1,248 missing people, as well as 200,000 citizens (about 2 percent of

Once the new millennium hit, Chile once ruled by a dictator, was now s democratic nation. Now Chileans had the ability to choose what party to support and had no obligation to pick the same party as other individuals because the choice was free. "As with party competition, this ideological distance is not an artifact of national totals, it is a reflection of politically homogenous geographical areas expressing different political preferences leading to a sharply different national totals. In any given election the degree of polarization is obviously due to the extent to which both Left and Right found support, and the extent to which the center party managed to hold their own" (Valenzuela). The era of terror was demolished and an era of freedom was constituted. The people themselves created their own type of gerrymandering and their own definition, of what it meant to be either from the left or the right party.

However, a regime is no longer democratic the moment it violates at least one of the norms that make elections democratic, hence the name electoral authoritarianism. Furthermore, there are intrinsic powers of representative institutions in driving the dynamic of stability and change in such regimes. Thus, there is motivation for rulers to manipulate them and gain electoral legitimacy without bearing the risks of democratic uncertainty. The manipulative tactics used by authoritarians to repress are assumed to render electoral authoritarian regimes more resilient. The article also assumes the manipulation of representative institutions to create imperfectly informed citizens are identified as more authoritarian than

The role of the executive has always remained a controversial issue. In some countries, the executive may champion conservative beliefs, pushing his country towards free-market economies, privatization and military spending. In another country, the executive might have been a populist leader who came to power by mobilizing the masses, championing labor rights and engaging in land redistribution. As Fukyuyama references to in his piece, “Do Institutions Really Matter”, nevertheless, in developed democracies, the role of institutions, such as low levels of corruption and accountable government, have ensured these executives will exercise their power within limit. Another institution such as regular elections provides the people with a “fair” process of choosing representation. Consequently, it is assumed that institutions are of the utmost importance to a society, as they often dictate the political, economic and social ramifications for that country. Therefore, if institutions do indeed matter, is executive leadership helpful or detrimental to their role and effectiveness? We will examine presidential democracies, in particular the United States, a prime example where the Chief of State has much more executive influence than in any other form of democracy, to determine whether this leadership strengthens or mitigates the effects of institutions. It is important to understand that not only does the president have significant power in this system, but also that this nation

150). Democracy is supposed to be about equal opportunity but when bribery is brought into the balance it disrupts the scale to tip the scales into the favor of the politicians which goes against the principle of democracy (“Rise of Democracy”, para. 1). In the majority of Latin American countries there is a system called “compulsory voting” which makes it illegal not to vote. Although it is illegal not to vote, in Brazil’s case, only 78.90% of eligible voters voted for the presidential campaign in 2014 (“Voter Turnout”, para. 3). While there is a huge amount of corruption in Latin America, it can be overcome. In September of 2015, a crowd of Guatemalans chanted at President Otto Perez Molina, “Resign, now.” Their voice was heard as the ex-Guatemalan president stood down from office and is now in prison awaiting trial over an alleged corruption scandal (Watson, p.1, para. 1-3). This is just a glimpse of the power the people can hold. If the voters can get a current president out of office than imagine what can happen if everyone were to vote for who they truly believe is worthy of representing and governing the country.

Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the

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.

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.