Political Science

Toward More Effective Peace Building
The topic of the first article is about looking at peace building in a different light using a different approach and focusing on what the author describes as Institution Before Liberalization (IBL) and the criticisms of both the alternatives to Wilsonianism and the IBL. The author first provides alternatives to Wilsonianism and what are the problems associated with them which render them ineffective. The first alternative is for the state to select a leader only after military and financial aid are stable. The problem with this is that self-sustaining peace is bleak because factions of the previously in conflict sides might grow because of the restriction that they are experiencing. The solution for this is to create mechanisms that can solve societal demands of all the parties involved while being fair to all of them. The second alternative is to separate the conflicting tribes altogether, like what happened in some conflicting states recently. The problem with this is that international intervention would almost surely use deadly force on groups who are unwilling to move, and this method is only effective when warring states are already divided. The setbacks of this two methods make them ineffective and therefore the birth of the Institution Before Liberation (IBL) concept. It is simple, really it has the same goal of attaining peace in war-countries, but it has been especially modified to minimize the negative effects of a  quick and dirty  method.

The authors arguments are fairly consistent and does not seem to contradict his own views. The article is also easy to understand even for someone who is not particularly aware of the conflicts mentioned, and he uses a lot of facts to strengthen his point. Based on the explanation provided by the author, it appears that he is right with the method he chose because of the problems associated with the alternatives. The authors approach is best compared to the alternatives he mentioned because it offers the best possible solution without the setbacks of the two alternatives. The author has also successfully defended criticisms in IBL by answering the criticisms. Through his arguments, the author was able to make important points, that why should a war-torn country be rushed into independence when the consequence of it would lead to violence again This is an important question to ask because it makes IBL method more appealing. I liked this text better than the next article because it is easier to understand and I am also able to follow what the author is saying a lot easier than the next article.

On Democratization and Peace Building
The topic is the relationship between democratization and peace building. The author points out that democratization and peace building have changed dramatically over the years and that the  Democratic Reconstruction Model  is no longer an effective way in dealing with war-torn states.

Despite requiring a slightly broader knowledge on vocabulary and world affairs, I am able to tell that the authors arguments are consistent and do not have any contradiction. I am certain that the text makes sense it is just that I have read a previous text that is a lot easier to comprehend. The word literature appears a lot which makes the piece look like a very academic text, hence the difficulty. I think the author has used the right kind of approach since he admits that the democratic reconstruction model in peace building has some flaws despite improving over the years. Important questions asked by the author include the following are the difficulties in the model a sign of failure Are insufficient funding and poor choices made to blame for peace building missions to fail .