Democracy and its Recent Surge in the World

A democracy is a state in which citizens have the right to vote for their own leaders. Democracy is "government of the people." Democracy requires an implicit agreement by the conflicting groups in a state to accept the possibility that they will lose out in the making of a policy. This is the democratic bargain. Democracy is fragile. Minute inconveniences are enough to make it collapse. After the 1980s and 1990s a wave of democratization swept across the globe. Three consecutive waves of democratization took place. The third one is explained through four possible reasons. These growing fondness of democracy has given way to the rise of a dubious belief about having reached the end of history. Through the study of comparative politics, political scientists have learned 5 things.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall most of the Eastern European countries that used to be communist, threw off their old systems and established democracies. Three waves of democratization took place. The first occurred in Eastern Europe and Latin America. The second one occurred in Germany and Italy and the third one is considered to have started in the late 1970s with the successful reintroduction of democracy to Spain and Portugal. Political scientist justify this last wave with four reasons; fatigue of some authoritarian regimes, international pressures, people's desires for security against arbitrary abuse, and people's desire for economic development. Based on the preceding events, an author declared that capitalist democracy had won the great ideological debate of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and that history, as we have known it, had ended because there was nothing left to fight about.

Through comparative politics scientist have learned 5 key concepts. The first one is the importance of pacts. It is important for successful democratization that the democratizers form pacts with those whom they are ousting to ensure a smooth transitions and to lay a good base of support for the future democracy. The second observation is sudden changes. Many of the recent shifts to democracy have taken observers by surprise. a year before the Eastern European countries became democratic, nobody predicted it would happen. The third observation that has been made is that the results of a transition to democracy differ if the transition takes place while the state is undergoing a crisis or not. Politics that follow a crisis tend to be problematic, whereas politics that follow times of stability, remain stable themselves. The third observation is related to democracy and freedom. Democracy and freedom are related but not identical. Moving toward one means moving toward the other but there is not an automatic correspondence between them. Finally the fifth observation is about democracy and capitalism. Most democracies of the world have market based economies, however there is no automatic connection between democracy and capitalism.

The amount of democratic countries has increased impressively in the last years. The waves of democratization that have swept across the globe have been drastic. The third wave might have been triggered by a series of factors. These rapid changes have led certain authors to believe that history as we know it has ended because there is nothing left to fight for. Through comparative politics scientists have made prominent conclusions on pacts, sudden changes, crisis or non crisis, democracy and freedom, and democracy and capitalism.




Democracy

Autocratic Government

Democracy is fragile. Out of the 97 states that were independent for the last forty years, only 24 have had an uninterrupted electoral democracy. However autocracy is fragile as well. Most autocratic countries do not stay autocratic for long, or they oscillate between autocracy and democracy. The most dramatic alternative to democracy is military government, in which the current government of a state is overthrown and overtaken by the military. A minute amount of countries in the world are ran by military governments, however. Several reasons account for this fact. The most common types of autocratic systems are one party states. One party states have a government in which there is a single party allowed in the state. "Court" Politics are a characteristic of many autocracies.

Conservative Saudi Arabia, bureaucratic Soviet Union, Zaire personal dictatorship, and Pakistan's alternating government between autocracy and democracy are all rough representations of autocracies. They're quite varied politically. Ultimately, they are not fully autocratic. Most parts of the Soviet Union are moving toward democracy, the dictator of Zaire did not ultimately retain power, Pakistan continually alternates between forms of government, finally Saudi Arabia does appear to have a rather stable system. The royal family in power has been in control for several years now.

The most dramatic alternative to democracy is military government. They vary greatly in their political role. In Paraguay the regime was repressive and implemented torture. In Greece the government took harsh repressive measures as well. In Nigeria, on the other hand, there was considerable civilian support for the government. People tend to believe that military coups are of the right. However military coups can be of either the right or left, or neither one, it all depends on the officials leading the coup. Their inclination dictates whether the coup is of either, or neither side. Another erroneous belief is that military governments are bad at guiding economies. Studies have shown that military governments are neither good nor bad at guiding economies.

There is a surprisingly small amount of military governments in the world. Less than 1/10 of the world's states are military governments. Why aren't there more military governments? Partly, it is because states devote time and effort to keep military officers from politically intervening. Once the military takes power they face problems with legitimacy. There is no process of selection legitimizing the military government. They are therefore always concerned with justifying their existence. As a result they add civilians to government, set future date for return of democracy, or they rally people through wars and appeals to nationalism. Another problem is that it is unlikely that the military government leaders are skilled politically. Military governments, in addition, are shaky alliances, united primarily by their opposition to the regime. They are therefore likely to fall apart when new issues emerge.

Most autocracies are not straight military governments, but one party states. In one party states the government is based on a political party that is the only one allowed in the states. Compared with military rule the one party state offers a more stable, and responsive form of government. One party states, in addition, provide links between the government and the population, as well as they provide an arena in which varied political positions can develop into factions. Conflicts may develop within the system rather than forming outside and representing a threat. Finally, one party states provide a set of arrangements by which a transitions of leadership can be accomplished.

A characteristic of many autocracies, both military governments and one party states, are court politics. In autocracies the trend tends to be that a single person may hold almost all power in the system and politics revolve around that single person. This is called court politics after the royal courts of the great European monarchs. This is a quite common characteristic but it is not true of all autocracies, it is quite frequent though. Court politics is usually marked by less emphasis on the rule of the law and more on the arbitrary whim of the ruler. Heavy competition by other figure for access to the leader, unusual importance of nonpolitical figures that have access to the leader, flattery and attempts to shield the leader from unpleasant reality.

Autocratic systems are quite diverse and uncommonly stable. Saudi Arabia, the Soviet Union, Zaire, and Pakistan are epitomes of this statement. Several autocratic states have set up institutions of politics, especially through single parties, that allow for politics to be conducted over the long haul, straight military governments, however, have not. One party states are an alternative to military government that provide many things that military governments lack. Military governments face problems with legitimacy, their leaders are unlikely skilled politically, and their very nature makes them likely to fall apart. One party states, on the other hand, offer an overall more stable and responsive form of government. Military governments, and one party states are similar in that there frequently is a single person holding nearly all the power, and politics revolves around that person. This is not true of all autocracies, however it is quite frequent that that is indeed the case.


Hitler: Military Government

Authority and Legitimacy: the State and the Citizen

Authority is power based on a general agreement that a person or group have a right to issue certain types of commands and that those commands should be obeyed. A government is unique in society in that all of its power involves authority and at least potentially there is no limit to the range of activities over which it may exercise authority. Authority is a type of power, but a uniquely efficient one. Ultimately it may be backed up by the use of either coercion or persuasion. The feeling of large numbers of people that the government has the authority, and should have the authority, is called legitimacy of the government. Legitimacy is crucial, and it may be achieved in four ways. One important aspect of democracy is the relationship between the citizen and the state. A democratic citizen should possess the following characteristics: tolerance, active participation, high level of interest and information, and support for the state. A key part in making people function well in a democracy is social capital. The basis for the political behavior of the people is conformed by the political culture of a society. Political culture consists of all attitudes and believes held communally by a people. The values and assumptions people hold about politics are acquired in a process called political socialization.

Four sources of legitimacy exist. Legitimacy by results is the first one. A government may gain and retain legitimacy from its people by providing for them the things they most want: security against physical assault, security of their country's borders against invasion, pride in their nation, and economic security. Another way a government can acquire legitimacy is by habit. Once a government has been around for a while people get accustomed to obeying its laws. There is also legitimacy by historical, religious or ethnic identity. Many governments enhance their legitimacy by the ties that exist between themselves and the people because of the governments' leaders past accomplishments or because of the religious and or ethnic similarity between the government leaders and the people. Finally a state my strengthen the legitimacy of its government by following certain procedures in setting itself up.

A democracy requires citizens that will do more than obey and follow the government. It requires citizens that will have tolerance for diversity. Citizens that will vote in elections, and maintain frequent contact with the government. Citizens that will not only stay active, but also keep themselves informed. Finally a democracy requires its citizens to support the state.

According to Robert Putnam, the necessary ingredient for making democratic governments effective is social capital. Social capital are intricate webs of voluntary involvement in organizations that bind people together and give them the political resources and mutual trust that are needed to make any form of cooperative government work. It is a pattern of community interactions that produces desirable attitudes of efficacy and trust, and that gives people practical experience in persuasion and collective action.

Political culture, or the attitudes and beliefs held communally by a people, is responsible for major differences on how politics is conducted. Political culture is important, but it is hard to evaluate it. It easily falls into stereotyping and generalization. However political culture is too important to ignore. One striking characteristic of political cultures is that they usually change slowly. State and society may change greatly, but the underlying culture stays recognizably the same.

The learning of political values and factual assumptions about politics is called political socialization. The importance of political socialization is that without it political culture would disappear after one generation. The sources by which knowledge on political culture is acquired are called agents of socialization. We learn about politics from many different agents but a few particular important ones are our families, schools, and peer groups.

Authority and legitimacy are two crucial characteristics that a government must possess in order to exist. It is not enough for a government to hold power, its people have to believe that that power pertains to them and that it is legitimate. Authority exists because people believe it exists, and legitimacy exists because it has have been acquired through either results, habit, historical, religious or ethnic identity, or procedures. Aside from obeying and following the government, the citizens of a democracy have to be tolerant, simultaneously informed and active participators, and supportive of the state. The government requires an amalgam of factors to function in order for it to work efficiently, however according to Robert Putnam the necessary ingredient is social capital. All the attitudes and beliefs held communally by a people conform the political culture of a society. In order for the political culture of a society to subsist, political socialization has to take place. New generations must learn the political attitudes and beliefs held by their society, if their political culture is to remain existent.

Chapter 6: Political Choices: The Problems of Justice and Efficiency

What is justice? It is really hard to determine what is just due to its subjectivity. An ongoing debate orbits around whether should justice be based on weight of contributions or on need. Should rewards and benefits be granted to the most productive or to the ones that need it the most? Another important aspect of justice are the procedures through which decisions are reached about people. This is called procedural justice and it involves 3 important issues; arbitrariness, the violation of special basic rights, and whether special overriding social needs are present. Another significant aspect to take into consideration regarding policies is their efficiency. An efficient policy grants the greatest benefit to the people and the state at the lowest cost. A government is in charge of deciding the policies of the state and must take into account the factors of justice and efficiency. There are 4 different modes through which a government reaches a decision; incremental, radical, authority, and market.

When determining what is just and what is not, a number of factors come into play. However they can be narrowed down to two main opposing ones; should justice be based on need, or should it be based on the weight of contributions. The problem with relying on weight of contributions in order to dictate how to distribute rewards is that quite often luck is more participative than virtue. Since contribution involves this element of luck it makes it uncertain how much should be rewarded, as well as it ignores the questions of need. As a consequence, justice cannot be based solely on a single one of these factors, because they are mutually exclusive.

Just like there are issues when determining what exactly is just, there are issues with the procedures of justice through which decisions are reached about people. Three issues that are often linked with procedural justice are: whether governmental action is arbitrary, whether special basic rights are violated, and whether special overriding needs are present. Government action is arbitrary if the people do not know what to expect before the decision is made and on what grounds it was made. Decisions that single out particular individuals for punishment or reward are arbitrary. The second issue that arises when looking at procedural justice is the violation of certain rights that are considered absolute. These include rights such as the right to survive, the right of free speech and the right to privacy. Most people agree that these rights are not indeed absolute. Regulations and exceptions, exist, and sometimes ought to exist. However those rights are categorized by society as being of top priority, so that it would take something unusual for them to be compromised. Finally there is the idea that in order for justice to prevail over most of the people, the state has to be less just to some people. That is, there may be overriding social needs that enter into considerations of justice.

A factor that is equally as important as justice when determining a policy, is efficiency. An efficient policy brings the greatest benefit at the least cost. The problem is that usually neither the benefits nor the costs of a policy are easy to calculate. The effects of a policy are difficult to measure and compare. The costs and benefits of a policy are not always clear, a variety of effects exist called unanticipated consequences. Any judgement of the efficiency of a policy must take into account all its costs and benefits, not just the intended costs and benefits. Many of the consequences of a policy are difficult to foresee. As a result, it is equally as complicated to determine the efficiency of a policy as it is to determine how just the policy is.

Once the state is ready to implement a policy it can do so in one of four ways. The decision making mode is incremental when changes in policy are exerted little by little. A small change in policy is carried out at one time, the state waits to observe the results. Subsequently another small change is made. There is caution in the face of uncertainty and complexity. A radical mode of decision making is implemented when there is more concern on losing an opportunity than on costly errors. When the mode of decision making is governmental authority the policy is made by the government telling people what they may or may not do. There are two main problems with authority based policy. It does not get things to the people that will value them the most, and there is a lack of incentives to encourage the optimum usage of resources. When the market mechanism carries out the policy, the government leaves choice up to the people. It largely relies on supply and demand. The problems with market based policy is that wealth and income are distributed unequally, it is not very effective in producing collective goods, and it does not take into account externalities of individual transactions.

Justice is a complex issue. It involves a number of factors that are often in conflict and need to be balanced. The government reaches decisions about people through processes, but these processes are often coined as arbitrary or raise the question about the violation of special basic rights, and the presence of overriding social needs. Regarding a policy, the role that justice plays is crucial, as well as the role that efficiency plays. The essence and the purpose of a policy is directly linked to both justice and efficiency. When concocting a policy governments have to take both of these factors into account, and once they have reached a decision and enforce it, they may do so in one of four modes; incremental, radical, authority, or market.