Political Science

It is no doubt that an overwhelming majority of political observers recommend democracy as the best system of political governance in the modern world. This support is based on the fact that in the ideal case, democracy is fully representative of all citizens in a nation and its operational framework guards the masses against abuse by the governing authorities. Furthermore, democracy sets an environment conducive for the promotion of domestic and international peace and economic development (Carothers, Berman, 29). There has been a radical shift in momentum at present as compared to much of the twentieth century where most of the focus was on proving the political and economic viability of democratic systems, now most of the attention in the international political arena concerns the promotion and nurturing of democratic regimes and institutions.

However, there contention has continued to increase as to what really defines a stable democracy. On one side, Universalist proponents of democracy have argued that a democracy can emerge under any socio-political and economic conditions and still prevail while on the other hand, preconditionist theorists have a firm belief that a particular set of supportive circumstances and conditions must already be existing for a democracy to emerge and then thrive.

Recent events have undermined the effort of global policy makers to universally endorse the establishment of democratic orders in the world. The post cold war era and the subsequent disintegration of the USSR had set a foundation for the spread of democracy as the leading system of governance. Many institutions emerged particularly from the west to fund a wide range of nations from all corners of the globe with the sole aim of promoting democracy and good governance (Carothers, Berman, 32). Unfortunately, towards the turn of the millennium, rampant corruption in many countries undermined democratic governance, and in some cases, long-running cultural and religious orders clashed sharply with democratic principles. The disappointing result was that as the effort to reinforce democracy was being overdriven, many of the pre-established democratic regimes were stalling or had already failed (Mansfield, Synders, 39). The need thus arise to re-examine the viability of democracy as a system of governance, and possible negative effects on the background of specific underlying circumstances.

The Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle had pointed centuries ago of the need for cyclic alternations in governance systems as a means of ensuring political and economic stability. Honestly, observing recent developments in the world, it is true that the liberties provided for in democratic principles has been abused and brought more problems than solutions. There has been an increase in the number of states where political power has become concentrated in the hands of a few powerful individuals whose sole aim is to protect their interests and amass political and material worth. In other words, democracy has become a camouflage for oligarchies.

The corruption of institutions of democracy and the running of state affairs by a handful of powerful individuals or the ruling class has brought a lot of conflict between the holders of political office and the governed masses. In a capitalist setting, greed for property and affluence has driven those wielding the power to cleverly devise within the framework of democracy schemes aimed at maintaining their status(Mansfield, Synders, 3). Worse still, cases exist where a nation is comprised of diverse ethnic entities. In such a scenario, there could arise a certain ethnic community or a coalition of ethnic communities that has the numbers to continually manipulate the provision that the majority rules to completely marginalize the minorities from policy issues, economic participation and wealth distribution. This will breed a lot of animosity and violence, even genocide.

Historically and presently, the process of democratization, often a transition from authoritarian or dictatorial rule, is very difficult. It often stimulates the emergence of revolutionary nationalism and there is imminent clash between the state loyalists (the ideal democrats) and the territorial control enthusiasts (Mansfield, Synders, 41). The result is rivalry between those elements keen to protect their interests and those ready to embrace the idealness of democracy, and the rules and processes guiding the formulation and implementation of politics become undefined. There is then an attempt based on might and affluence to manipulate policy making so that the determinant factor is compromise, coercion, oppression and patronage rather that the principles of democracy.

Militant nationalism and the inherent inclination of politics among ethnic lines are prevalent in many young democracies (Carothers, Berman, 37). Even though democracy is supposed to forge domestic and international harmony and tranquility, these factors create an imbalance that tentatively promotes civil war at home and inter-state war. The ending of the cold war saw the emergence of unstable democracies that led to many wars and abuse of human rights. Infamous examples are the bloody wars leading to the splitting of Yugoslavia into two warring nations just six months after a democratic election and the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In the Yugoslavia case, ethnic animosity between the Serb and Albanian ethnic groups was the cause of conflict, while militant nationalism and the disputed claim over the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh was the cause of the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Even though some young democracies like South Korea, Brazil, Taiwan and South Africa have had smooth transitions into democracy, the realization is that nations need to have in place competent and impartial institutions of state before they can be pressed externally to go the democracy way. This calls for the need to limit the degree of liberty exhibited in institutions, or at least first put in place the necessary prerequisites so that the democratization process dose not go haywire. This puts authoritarianism as the suitable mode of governance so that there can be economic liberalism and sufficient institutional control by a government wielding enough power to enforce standards, mobilize its human resource towards the meeting of national and socio-economic objectives.

Basically, the situation arising is that there is a conflict between the ideals of democracy and the power of constitutional liberalism. A liberal authoritarian regime is likely to gain legitimacy on account of them offering a reasonable degree of individual liberty to their citizens. In a world where civil groups and the media are increasingly influential in matters of policy, non-liberalization of the ideal democratic order is likely to be characterized by little corruption, stronger institutions and increased inclusiveness of the masses in policy and economic matters. Whereas liberal democracies have as a characteristic economic oligopolies and wage exploitation, extortive state capitalism and economic regulation even in the minor industries, authoritarianism does not support resource accumulation (Mansfield, Synder, 44). Therefore, the state does not need to supersede economic markets as the main strategy of determining the trajectories of the social and economic orders and creating a system in which the welfare certain classes of citizens will not be compromised. Through this, monopolies and oligopolies will be discouraged as the affluence of enterprise will not exceed that of the state.