Democracy and Dictatorship Essay

October 14, 2020 by Essay Writer

Democracy and dictatorship play a role in paths that lead to political development. While democracy in itself provides a variety of friendliness amongst the people, dictatorship, on the other hand, bestows all power of a community or a country upon a single individual.

This creates a lot of tension and unfairness between the rulers and the ruled. As opposed to democracy, dictatorship results in an unstable economy of a country. The way Daron and James (2006) outline, there are different political paths that different political institutions take over a certain period. Amongst the paths, just a few of them result in democracy.

Albert makes a clear observation that is of a lot of importance. He notices that a more established democracy results in an enormous distribution of coalitions.

After these same coalitions have formed, economic landscape is flooded with incompetent laws, regulation and other practices. Because of these practices, a country or a community ultimately excels little in terms of development or growth.

In an attempt to understand democracy and dictatorship in length, Acemoglu and Robinson (2006) come out vividly to take us through these. According to them, determinants of democratization are substantially reduced to various levels that explain it better.

The levels include economy structure and inequality that exists in a community or society. Additional levels that they discuss incorporate the degree of globalization and the kind of skills that elites bear as will be subsequently explained.

Dictatorship and democracy trace their origins in the ancient of time. For instance, there are the already mentioned paths that led to their creation in different manners. Apparently, the paths make us familiarize ourselves with the difficulties in the universe owing to the fast changing real- world comparisons, Daron and James (2006).

As a matter of fact, the paths above show some means that connect political and economic composition of a community to a political institution. Talking about the paths of political development, there exist four of them in number.

They all result in different democracy through diverse means as is discussed below noticed that democracy is now never endangered. It simply tolerates all other forces that may hit it from side to side and consolidates to a stable state. This means that this first path that leads to democracy may take a little time to stabilize, but after that, it stands out effectively on its own.

The second path is the one that leads to a democracy that is quickly created. It does not end at the creation but has its immediate other side that does away with the created democracy.

In other words, the established democracy quickly crumples as Daron and James (2006) observes. Again, the collapsed democracy uses the forces that made it stand initially to stabilize. After this, once more the re-established democracy falls again and the cycle recurs.

A third path of democracy is one in which a community or a country stays put in no democracy. In case democracy exists, then it is that which is totally delayed to appoint of not realizing their existence. This third path of may be divided into two nondemocratic paths.

In the first place, democracy is never created because of community’s wealthy and prosperous status. This is an assurance of a stable status of the society’s political quo. It appears that this system is never challenged simply because individuals found in the society are well satisfied under the on hand political institutions, Daron and James (2006).

Another situation arises still in the nondemocratic paths. As opposed to the above, this type entails a community that is unequal but very exploitative. The panorama of the existing democracy in this path is weak and posses a threat to elites.

In response, the elites use any means possible to totally avoid it. For example, the elites resolve in using war and repression to put the impending threats at bay. A typical example of a country that used a similar path to this is South Africa before the fall of apartheid rule.

As Jorge Heine argues, it is impractical in the absence of political participation to have political scientist. As a clear fact, political science develops with expansion of political participation. Huntington further explains this in his central proposition which identifies that political science is strong where democracy is strong, and the reverse is also true.

According to him, surfacing of democracy promotes establishment of political science. Furthermore, development of political science results in the creation and maintenance of democracy.

Democracy and dictatorship have had a bit-by bit progress amongst different people of diverse classes. Dictatorship, which is also known as autocracy, is a government system in which there is an authority to control all the activities of a state or a community. This authority, however, is concentrated in the hands of one individual.

Talking about progress of democracy in Britain, for example, there was a wide gap that separated the rich from the poor as Robinson and Acemoglu (2003) observed. Initially, only the rich elites were allowed to vote; whereas, the poor had many complications that hindered them from voting.

For instance, illiteracy was a major bane to them that had them left out of the entire voting process as the rich in their own class took it upon themselves to vote.

As was earlier mentioned, there was a path of democracy existed gradually. This became a reality in Europe where democratic system emerged more progressively. Precisely, Britain issued I the first place uncertain reforms in 1832 that included the relatively wealthy middle class, Robinson and Acemoglu (2003).

As time progressed, rights to vote were broadened in 1867 and 1884, then again in 1919 when worldwide male suffrage was initiated. In addition to this, all women in Britain were finally allowed to vote in the year 1928. This is for sure a series of gradual extensions of franchise that a thee-class model analyses and the details are as below.

When an alliance between the middle class and the poor pressurizes revolution disenfranchised, the rich devises a way to curb it all. The rich elites break the coalition through one sure way of lengthening permission to middle class.

Presumably, this middle class is considerably richer than the poor individuals and so it is easier to persuade them against revolution, Robinson and Acemoglu (2003).

Taking the Great Britain as an example, democracy traces its origins upon formation of ordinary parliaments. These were a forum for upper classes to agree about taxes while discussing policies with the king of the Great Britain as Daron and James (2006) explain. Voting became unopposed in the 18th century all though to the mid of 19th century in Britain.

This means that governance by then ceased being dictatorial because efficient voting system was adapted. Future democracy of Britain was shaped through reforms that were made in the constitution after Civil War, which took place in 1642-1651.

Alongside that, Glorious Revolution of 1668 resulted to a remarkable transformation in both economic and political institutions, Daron and James (2006). The changes have had significant insinuations for the future democracy of the Great Britain.

Autocracy, on the other hand, also reveals it intensions. That a dictator comes to power, and lead a group of people in a society is a reality. However, when the autocrat has a short period horizon, it is always in their interest to seize the property of their subjects.

It is also in their minds to abrogate any contracts that they might have signed with an intension of borrowing money from them. After getting money, they suit themselves while and neglecting the long-term economic consequences of their choices. According to Mancur (1993), dictatorship carried out within a short time horizon decreases assurance in enforcement of long-run contacts and investments.

Owing to these facts, there is a remedy that should be advocated for and supported in totality. Individuals just need to secure a government that regards with respect the rights of individuals. These rights are objects of a unique set of the governmental body (Mancur, 1993).

In conclusion, autocracies are appalling but successful because autocrats rely on major groups to stay in power. On the other hand, in political economy, there exists a long- standing theme which is making political leaders accountable as we make their office survival dependant on their policy performance, Masa (2007). In addition, success always follows autocrats who administer and exercise discipline for those who perform poorly.

References

Daron, A R & James, A R 2006, Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Cambridge University Press, USA.

Daron, A R & James, A R 2006, Political Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: The Role of the Middle Class, Cambridge University Press, USA.

Jorge, H 2002, Democracy, Dictatorship, and the Making of Modern Political Science: Huntington’s Thesis and Pinochet’s Chile. Web.

Mancur, O 1993, Dictatorship, Democracy and Development, the American Political Science review, vol. 87, no. 3.

Masa, K 2007, What Can We Learn From Successful Autocracies? Web.

Read more
Leave a comment
Order Creative Sample Now
Choose type of discipline
Choose academic level
  • High school
  • College
  • University
  • Masters
  • PhD
Deadline

Page count
1 pages
$ 10

Price