Homeworks academic service


An argument in favor of the united states favoring dictatorship over democracy

Democracy, with all its problems, also has its paradoxes. Regular elections lead to short government life-time.

On this page:

This seems to result in more emphasis on short term goals and safer issues that appeal to populist issues. It also diverts precious time toward re-election campaigns Anti-democratic forces may use the democratic process to get voted in or get policies enacted in their favor. Communism economic preferences, and liberal vs authoritarian political preferences may allow for non-democratic policies under the guise of democracy Democracies may, ironically perhaps, create a more effective military as people chose to willingly support their democratic ideals and are not forced to fight.

Some of these are discussed further, here: Voting in non-democratic forces Two examples of this paradox are the following: Hitler and his party were voted in.

Pagination

He then got rid of democracy and started his gross human rights violations and genocidal campaigns as a dictator. Hamas was also recently voted in by Palestinians. The lack of aid, upon which the Palestinians have been quite dependent contributed to friction amongst Palestinians who support Hamas and those that do not and this has been amplified by the worsening economic situation there.

The Hitler example highlights the importance media and propaganda play and the need for continued open self-criticism to guard against these tendencies. Minorities losing out to majorities Another criticism of democracy is that sometimes what the majority votes for or prefers, may not necessarily be good for everyone.

A common example plaguing many countries which have diversity in race and religion is that a dominant group may prefer policies that undermine others. Some quick examples include Nigeria which has large Christian and Muslim populations; some Muslims there, and in other countries, want Sharia Law, which not all Muslim necessarily want, let alone people of other faiths.

If only a very slight majority can override a very large minority on such an important issue as how one should live, then there is a real chance for tension and conflict. Another example is India, often help us an example of pluralism throughput the ages, despite all manner of challenges. Yet, unfortunately an Indian government report finds that its claims to religious integration and harmony are on far shakier grounds than previously believed.

This can come through various outlets, including, a diverse mainstream media, institutions such as religious and legal ones, schooling, family upbringings, etc Equally important are the underlying economic conditions and situations of a country.

Generally, it seems, where economically people are generally doing well, where the inequality gap is not excessive, people have less of a reason to opt for more defensive, reactionary or aggressive policies that undermine others.

The fear of the public and disdain of democracy from elites while publicly claiming to supporting it People often see democracy as an equalizing factor that should not allow the elite or wealthy in a society to rule in an autocratic, despotic, unaccountable manner. Instead they have to respond to the will of the people, and ultimately be accountable to them. Furthermore and ideally, it should not only be the wealthy or elite that hold the power. There should be some form of equality when representing the nation.

However, this has also meant at least two accompanying phenomena: Interestingly, leading up to the US mid-term elections, amidst all sorts of allegations of corruption coming to light, in an interview by Democracy Now! Karl Rove, the influential, but controversial, advisor and strategist for President George W. What people do not realize about [Karl Rove] is that everything about him is political utility.

When he looked at what was going on with the megachurches Karl decided he was going to take these gigantic churches on the Christian right and to turn them into a gigantic vote delivery system.

This is not a man who has deeply held religious faith. This is just one example, where parties have simply targeted people to get votes for power. And yet, many in the religious right believe that Bush represents them and some even see him as an instrument of Godshowing just how effective political utility and manipulation has been.

Noting that different people refer to, and think of democracy in different ways, even some despots have called themselves democratic! For such volatile ingredients can at times be unstable unless in carefully measured and monitored combinations.

  • And the theorem only works on independent trials;
  • Today, the politics of the United States and Great Britain become more and more populist;
  • But these claims to dictatorship cannot all hold up, the argument goes;
  • After the coup, news channels that actively supported the coup in 2002 to oust Chavez, were still allowed to remain in operation which many democracies would not usually tolerate.

John Stuart Mill whose Essay on Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government are two of the great books of the modern world, came to believe that every adult yes, women too should have the vote, but only after compulsory secondary education had been instituted and had time to take effect.

In some countries, healthy cynicism has given way to outright contempt or excessive cynicism at anything a government official promises!

The Internet and Democratic Debate

What this does mean, however, is that those with ambitions of power and ulterior agendas have to therefore resort to even more propaganda and media savvy manipulation, as Crick notes: For both autocrats and despots depend in the main on a passive population; they had no need to mobilize en masse Napoleon was to say: Long before the Soviet Union broke up, a group of Russian writers touring the United States were astonished to find, after reading the newspapers and watching television, that almost all the opinions on all the vital issues were the same.

We tear out their fingernails. Here you have none of that. How do you do it? The buildup to the Iraq invasion is also an example of the lengths that governments of two democracies, the US and UK, would go to to gain support for their cause.

Limited time in power means going for short term policies Many democracies have rules that elections must be held regularly, say every 4 or 5 years. The short life span of governments is there for an important reason: Yet, at the same time, the short-termism that results has its problems too. Today, the politics of the United States and Great Britain become more and more populist: Some governments find this opposition has foreign support, or, because of their own failures has created a vacuum either a power vacuum, participation vacuum or some other failure that has allowed people to consider alternatives seriously.

When a legitimate government is then deliberating, or taking, stronger actions, that government can easily be criticized for rolling back democracy, acting dictatorially or in some way undermining the rights of their people.

This can then strengthen the non-democratic opposition further. There are unfortunately countless examples of such foreign and domestic interference with potential and actual democracies to be listed here. It is common for example, to hear of say the former Soviet Union doing this. Unfortunately, while less common to hear about it in the mainstream, western governments have also been complicit in overthrowing and undermining democracies in other parts of the world in favor of puppet regimes, be they dictatorships or pseudo democracies.

Two useful resources to read more about these include J. One recent example worth highlighting here is Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez managed to reverse a coup against him.

This coup was aggressively supported by many in the Venezuelan elite media and also by the US.

  1. Here is the argument for the transition from equal concern for interests to equal concern for judgment.
  2. Surely these latter phenomena must be incompatible with equality and even with public equality.
  3. In Ukraine government corruption is widespread as well, and bribery a way of getting or preventing government action.

After the coup, news channels that actively supported the coup in to oust Chavez, were still allowed to remain in operation which many democracies would not usually tolerate. The main media outlet, RCTV, aggressively anti Chavez, was denied a renewal license innot because it was critical of Chavez policies, but because a pre-Chavez government law did not look too kindly on broadcasters encouraging coups after all, what government would!

RCTV and their supporters tried to insist otherwise; that this was an issue of free speech. The US mainstream media has generally been hostile to Chavez as has been the Bush administration itselfand this was therefore added to the other mis-characterizations often presentedlending credence to the view that Chavez is a dictator.

In essence a law enacted during the previous dictatorial regime backed by the US and others is now being turned around and used against Chavez as another example of power-grabbing. Chavez is not helping his own cause by his often vocal and inflammatory antics, but it should not be forgotten how much foreign influence may be contributing to the undermining of democracy tendencies.

  • As to its nature, Aristotle defined democracy as rule by the people Greek demokratia;
  • On the other hand, citizens do have first hand and daily experience with thinking about the values and aims they pursue;
  • Voting in a democracy is based on the assumption of a free and informed decision;
  • Although we are accustomed to hear about Muslim extremists pushing for relgious-based states in various Middle East countries, this example is one in a democracy where despite the principle of a separation of Church and State, Christian religious extremists push forward with their agenda, anyway;
  • Democracy, with all its problems, also has its paradoxes.

Venezuela has been through a succession of dictatorships and many supporters of the previous regimes are in the anti-Chavez groups. Regardless of whether one is pro- or anti- Chavez, it certainly seems that democratic participation has increased during his tenure, given all the increased political activity, both pro- and anti-Chavez. On this particular issue, the point is not to ban stories on Creationism; they are better taught in religious classes, not science classes.

Yet, often missed from that is that scientific theories are usually based on a well-substantiated explanation that gets tested whenever possible, whereas religious ideas usually are required to be accepted on faith.

More generally in the United States, there is however, a growing concern at the rise in an extreme religious right that wants to replace the democratic system with a Christian State. Although we are accustomed to hear about Muslim extremists pushing for relgious-based states in various Middle East countries, this example is one in a democracy where despite the principle of a separation of Church and State, Christian religious extremists push forward with their agenda, anyway.

Those with money are more likely to be candidates It is a common concern in many democratic countries that those with sufficient funds, or fund-raising capability are the ones who will become the final candidates that voters choose from.

Others, who may be more democratic, but are either poor, or lack the finances of the leading contenders, or will not likely support policies that influential mega donors support, will often lose out. Yet, one would think in a democracy, time should be afforded to make all popular voices hear, not just the leading four from the two main parties, as that just results in the leading four becoming unfairly popular at the expense of the rest, and makes the concern they raise into a self-serving argument.

  • The reason for this is that democracy merely extends their activity of self-determination to the political realm;
  • Establishes accountability of political and governmental decision-making through the standard of collective interest;
  • Not long ago, governments that were called democratic excluded from the franchise all slaves and women, as did the United States through much of its history former American black, male slaves got the right to vote after the Civil War; women did not get this right until 1920, when Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment , as well as all non-slave males who did not meet certain property or literacy requirements.

Understandably, finding time for all candidates might not be practical if there are many, but always limiting it to the four from the two leading parties results in the same choices people have to chose from each time, limiting diversity especially when many feel the two leading parties are quite similar on many issues. Attempts to suggest caps on finances of any sort to address this undue influence are met with support from those who have little, but ferocious resistance from those who stand to lose out.

Newspapers and other media outlets are often less than impartial in election campaigns. The high concentrated ownership of major media outlets does not always bode well for democracies as it puts a lot of influence into a handful of owners. In the US, it can be argued that the differences between some Democrats and Republicans are quite small in the larger context, and the media owners come from the same elite pool, thus reinforcing the impression of vast differences and debate on major issues.

The result is that many get put off and the remaining who do want to vote have access to just a few voices from which to make any notion of informed decisions. In summary, democracy does not automatically require free markets and free markets does not automatically require democracy.

Leading up to World War II, a number of European nations saw their power determined by fascists, often via a democratic process. Today, many European democracies attempt a social model of economic development ranging from socialist to somewhat managed markets. In the Indian state of Kerala, for example, a party was voted in that has put communist practices in place with some reasonable success.

Of course, many communist regimes in reality have also been accompanied by dictatorships and despots in an attempt to enforce that economic ideology. And during the beginnings of free markets, the major European powers promoting it were themselves hardly democratic.

Instead they were dominated by imperialist, racist, colonialist and aristocratic views and systems. The an argument in favor of the united states favoring dictatorship over democracy here is that by not making this distinction, policies can often be highlighted that appear democratic, or even could undermine democracy depending on how it is carried out as many African countries have experienced, for example.

As a recent example, as South Africa came out of apartheid, it was praised for its move to democracy, its truth and reconciliation approach and other political moves. Less discussed however, were the economic policies and conditions that followed. A report describing a conference celebrating 10 years of South African independence from Apartheid noted how difficult a democratic system is to establish when combined with factors like regional and international economics i.

The question of how the international world relates to and indeed is responsible for some of the problems was also deliberated at the conference. While the consensus was on Africans Indeed, some of the economic problems of the countries in the region can be traced back to their relationships with former colonial masters. More recently, the structural adjustment programmes of the s continue to affect the economic stability of SADC countries The link between globalisation and democratisation was further debated in the economic session of the conference.

Suffice to say, democracy is threatened when a state cannot determine its own budget. The conditionality cripples the development of a socially transformative democracy. A number of the debt rescheduling agreements have fostered cutbacks on social spending, and have created conditions of further economic marginalisation and social exclusion of the poor.

In the long term, the consolidation of democracy is threatened because the conditions have the effect of fostering social unrest.