Threat To Democracy - Free Samples - Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: It is not military coups but democratically elected leaders that pose the greatest threat to democracy today. Discuss Answer: Introduction In the 20th century, democracy was touted as the best and the most popular political idea ever conceived. The fundamental desire for rules-based democracy has been a great motivation to many people around the world to stand up against corrupt and autocratic regimes. According to Ottaway (2013), democracies in most parts of the world are relatively more developed compared to non-democracies, more peaceful and less corrupt. This is because in most democratic states, citizens have more rights to freely speak their minds and shape their own futures and that of their childrens. This clearly explain why most people admire democracy and are prepared to risk everything to ensure that only democratic institutions prevail. As Hyslop-Margison and Thayer (2009), the will of the people should form the basis of authority of any regime in a democratic system. Military coups were perceived to be the greatest threat to democracy. However, democracy is currently facing a new form of threat, and is slowly dwindling in most parts of the world. According to Kaltwasser (2012), the rise of elected autocrats who are crushing political freedoms threatens the very principles that defines democracy. Take for instance the former administration of President Viktor Yanukovych who transformed Ukraine into an autocracy with his kleptomaniac leadership style, but was again re-elected in 2010 (Haran, 2011). According to Zhao (2010), setting up a democratic regime is not as easy as toppling an autocrat. Perhaps the rise of communist China that is relatively tyrannical can be attributed to the ailing global democracy. Yet just a few decades ago, democracy had assumed so much control of the world dominating the very precept of governance. Therefore, this essay analytically explores how democratically elected leaders threatens the existence of democracy. Moreover, different case study examples of countries such as Rwanda, Ukraine, Kenya, U.S and Egypt are sparingly provided. Understanding the concept of democracy According to John Stuart Mill, democracy emanates from the society and is a form of governance that is basically centred on the governed (Hamburger, 2001). Mill further argue that nourishing democracy can be challenging due to the existence of self-serving leaders who are mostly elected by the people. Undeniably, producing a sustainable democracy is increasingly becoming an overwhelming task. According to Ottaway (2013), the global advance of democracy is on serious decline with many republics sliding towards autocracy while maintaining a public perception of democracy through holding elections. For example, in Uganda, elections are used to sustain the countrys global appearance of democracy, however, the people and institutions have suppressed rights (Narayan, Narayan and Smyth, 2011). Undoubtedly, the fragility of democracy is becoming more paramount given the dwindling faith in this system of governance. Critics of democracy gives various reasons why it is losing its forward momentum. Key among the reasons is the rise of democratically elected autocrats who do not subscribe to the principles that governs a functioning democratic system (Medvic, 2013). The rise of China and the influence on democratically elected leaders In addition, according to Bell (2016), the rise of China is encouraging democratically elected leaders to implement the Chinese model of governance that stresses on tight control to attain economic progress. Critics of democracy point that the Chinese communist model is more efficient and is slowly breaking the monopoly of democracy. Most democratically elected autocrats borrow heavily from the Chinese system, and argue that democracy is institutionalizing gridlocks and trivializing decision-making. According to Zhao (2010), most democratically elected leaders are taking the Chinese model seriously. They are slowly dismissing the Western values and political systems as disorderly and chaotic. For example, in Rwanda, the regime, though democratically elected, is obsessed with strict public control. The Rwandese government occasionally imprison dissidents and censor internet discussions. However, most Rwandese are very satisfied with the direction their nation is taking as long as it b rings economic and social progress. The research by Ottaway (2013) describes democracy as exaggeratedly complicated and frivolous resulting into second-rate administrations. The research supports the Chinese alternative model of governance that is taking root in many nations in Africa and Asia. In Rwanda, the substance of democracy has been destroyed, but the president Paul Kagame has preserved the show of democracy where everyone is allowed to vote as long as the president wins (Narayan, Narayan and Smyth, 2011). These democratically elected leaders do not want to do away with democracy, but are propagating a debauched similarity to this system of governance. Correspondingly, in Egypt, after the downfall of the Hosni Mubaraks government in 2011, the country elected its first democratically elected president Muhammad Morsi. The country had high hopes of democracy spreading in its institutions. However, the elected president perceived democracy differently leading to his ultimate ouster (Narayan, Narayan and Smyth, 2011). Muhammad Morsi, in liaison with his Muslim Brotherhood party granted himself unlimited powers and was on the verge of creating an Islamic system of governance. Morsi was ultimately ousted out of power by the Egyptian army along with some of his influential Muslim Brotherhood cohorts. Indeed, the fall of Morsi dwindled the potential blossoming of democracy in the Middle East. The coup problem and democratization According to George (2014), military coups are still the most viable threat to democracy given that coup leaders suppress checks and balances on political leaderships and tolerates impunity. The executive authority are not constrained and transition to democracy is always welcome. However, just like military coups, some democratically elected governments are eroding every remaining facet of democracy. For instance, after the election of Mohammad Morsi in n Egypt, numerous individual protection laws were brought down. Moreover, the national courts in Egypt were replaced with extra-judicial mediation panels that were established by president Morsi. As such, the subsequent military coup led by General Al Sisi was seen as a step towards revitalizing the long-desired democratic governance in the country. Critics of democracy point that coups are becoming more desirable compared to the elected autocratic leaderships that are so repressive. These designated autocrats are manipulating the popular sovereignty of the people and failing to honour the very promises and obligations that got them elected into office. The Egyptian situation revealed that coups can sometimes be used to reject tyrants that are elected into government. Therefore, if democracy is to survive in the 21st century, it must be diligently fostered when still young and sustained when fully-fledged. What is ailing successful democratic governance? The world can still get democracy right through its democratically elected leaders. This sentiment is supported by George (2014) who argued that democracy is undeniably a powerful form of governance but can sometimes be flawed. One of the classical advocate of democracy is John Stuart Mill, he argued that establishing a bourgeoning democracy requires patient and goodwill from the democratically elected leaders (Hamburger, 2001). Moreover, according to Mudde and Kaltwasser (2012), too much attention is given to the election of government leaders and too little attention to the very features and doctrines of democracy. This has allowed these democratically elected leaders to deliberately suppress democracy and become more totalitarian. Most of these elected leaders are not subjected to necessary checks and balances allowing them to exercise their powers with utmost impunity. According to George (2014), there is an inherent need to constantly check human obstinacy to ensure that they subscribe to the stipulated order and if possible adjust to the principles that governs democratic control. The people have failed to check the power of the state to ensure that their freedom is guaranteed and democracy protected. As Mudde and Kaltwasser (2012) stipulates, successful democratically elected leaders have managed to avoid applying the concept of majoritarianism. According to this concept, after winning elections in a democratic state, the party that gained majority can do whatever it pleases with the power. In Kenya, for example, the reigning government uses its tyranny of numbers to unilaterally control the nation resulting into a disgruntled minority. As a result, the struggle against corruption in the country has been suppressed and individual human rights not guaranteed (Brown, S. and Raddatz, 2014). The incumbent, President Uhuru Kenyatta, while democratically elected, has constantly tried to erode the stipulated constraints on his powers often citing the tyranny of numbers (majority rules). Similarly, in Ukraine, the then President Viktor Yanukovych who was also democratically elected reduced the powers of the countrys parliament in the name of subscribing to the principle of majority rule (Haran, 2011). Therefore, according to Tomz and Weeks (2013), it is impossible to establish a robust democracy without relevant checks and balances on the powers of the executives. This is likely to prevent these democratically elected leaders from accumulating so much power at the expense of their fellow citizen. So, how can democratically elected leaders get it right? According to Baradaran (2015), most successful elected leaders in democracies have managed to avoid the notion of majoritarianism that stresses that the winner should take it all. Similarly, the amount of favours that democratic governments can offer should also be limited for the survival of a healthier democracy. Limited government influence can seriously curtail the rise of tyrants that are increasingly becoming a danger to democracy. The research by Kaltwasser (2012) support this sentiment and argue that democratically elected leaders must be persuaded to accept the specified restraints on their powers. These leaders can exercise self-restraint by being non-partisan in the development of governance reforms rather than interfering and undermining democracy. A stout constitutional system can also promote the long-term stability and survival of a democracy. Enshrining individuals rights in the constitution can reduce the likelihood of democratically elected leaders violating the same. According to Tomz and Weeks (2013), avoiding democratic whitewash and sustaining the legitimacy of associated systems will help governments to avoid possible political turmoil. Conclusion Indisputably, many democratically elected leaders have made democracy to lose its lustre. The once-popular notion of democracy as a universal aspiration is slowly being dispelled. In countries such as Rwanda, democracy is being used to propagate autocracy and a progressively self-serving leadership (Medvic, 2013). Egypt too is descending into corruption and totalitarianism after the ouster of its first democratically elected president. Certainly, everyone cherishes the ideas of individual rights and independent judicial systems. Yet the very individuals tasked with upholding the democracy tenets are seriously violating them resulting into dysfunctional systems. There is a great possibility that the rise of communist China has had great influence on the deteriorating democracies around the world (Bell, 2016). According to Tomz and Weeks (2013), democracy encourages extremism given that the democratically elected leaders must appeal only to their support bases. For example, in the United States, Donald Trump is trying to remain relevant to his party ideals and supporters, and this has disenfranchised majority of American voters who did not support his election. This has transformed the U.S which was once seen as the paragon of democracy into an equally dysfunctional state. These are some typical examples where democracy has taken serious battering supported by democratically elected leaders. References Baradaran, M. (2015) How the other half banks: Exclusion, exploitation, and the threat to democracy. Harvard University Press. Bell, D.A. (2016) The China model: Political meritocracy and the limits of democracy. Princeton University Press. Brown, S. and Raddatz, R. (2014) Dire consequences or empty threats? Western pressure for peace, justice and democracy in Kenya, Journal of Eastern African Studies,8(1), pp.43-62.-378. George, S. (2014) State of corporations: The rise of illegitimate power and the threat to democracy, Transnational Institute and Occupy. com. State of Power,204. Hamburger, J. (2001) John Stuart Mill on liberty and control. Princeton University Press. Haran, O. (2011) From Viktor to Viktor: democracy and authoritarianism in Ukraine, Demokratizatsiya,19(2), p.93. Hyslop-Margison, E.J. and Thayer, J. (2009) Teaching democracy: Citizenship education as critical pedagogy(Vol. 42). Sense. Kaltwasser, C.R. (2012) The ambivalence of populism: threat and corrective for democracy, Democratization,19(2), pp.184-208. Medvic, S.K. (2013) In defense of politicians: The expectations trap and its threat to democracy. Routledge. Mudde, C. and Kaltwasser, C.R. eds. (2012) Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat or corrective for democracy?. Cambridge University Press. Narayan, P.K., Narayan, S. and Smyth, R. (2011) Does democracy facilitate economic growth or does economic growth facilitate democracy? An empirical study of Sub-Saharan Africa, Economic Modelling,28(3), pp.900-910. Ottaway, M. (2013) Democracy challenged: The rise of semi-authoritarianism. Carnegie Endowment. Tomz, M.R. and Weeks, J.L. (2013) Public opinion and the democratic peace, American political science review,107(4), pp.849-865. Zhao, S. (2010) The China Model: can it replace the Western model of modernization? Journal of contemporary China,19(65), pp.419-436.