Democracy versus authoritarian regimes essay
This paper will thus use a broad and bottom-up definition of legitimacy which emphasizes the reciprocal pathways that allow institutions to shape public orientations and takes into consideration how public opinion influences the operation of institutional process .
The result can be a toxic and unstable mixture: dependency on government on the one hand, and disdain for it on the other. In democratic states, all citizens have the right to cast their vote and no one is deprived of this right regardless to their race, status or background.
Authoritarian government definition
But many more such experiments are needed—combining technocracy with direct democracy, and upward and downward delegation—if democracy is to zigzag its way back to health. Its system of direct democracy allowed its citizens to vote for contradictory policies, such as higher spending and lower taxes, while closed primaries and gerrymandered districts institutionalised extremism. One reason why so many democratic experiments have failed recently is that they put too much emphasis on elections and too little on the other essential features of democracy. Furthermore, these situations rarely affect the legitimacy and maintenance of a state without a change in diffuse support. Presidents or Prime Ministers are indirectly elected by the population and are subject to a 4-year term, after which they have to fight again to be elected. But stand farther back and the triumph of democracy looks rather less inevitable. Power must be delegated sparingly, in a few big areas such as monetary policy and entitlement reform, and the process must be open and transparent. But today, particularly in the West, the big dangers to democracy are harder to spot.
A project designed to tame the beast of European populism is instead poking it back into life. Privately many communist sympathizers were being monitored for internment, yet in the public sphere the veneer of democracy tended to pervade the mass consciousness.
The political leadership changes every decade or so, and there is a constant supply of fresh talent as party cadres are promoted based on their ability to hit targets. If they vote, the candidate they choose must actually take office.
The presence of elections alone is not enough to call a country a democracy. The idea that political institutions can at least partially determine legitimating methods must also be considered.
based on 99 review