21 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto Mississauga
Political Science
Justin Bumgardner

CHAPTER 1 UNIVERSALVALUE • Two views of liberty contested  revolutions expressed universal rights and vales (all men created equal)  if people are in some sense created equal, they are nevertheless not imbued with the same values and expectations of government • Freedom and democracy are not universal values, rather Western concepts • Culture limits how far freedom and democracy can travel • Example of this: Lee Kuan Yew – trumpetingAsian values • He believed imposing standards (different from that countries past) would not be possible – asking China to become a democracy after 5,000 years of ruling one way (chop off heads, not count)  stated he doesn’t believe it is wise or practical to ask other societies to follow another system of government, as they might not be ready for it • Lee’s skepticism is an example of how distinctAsian values do not fit well with Western liberal notions of democracy • Asian societies generally lack individualism and suspicion of authority that have made for successful democracy in the West (Asian societies stress loyalty to the family and group over individual freedom and needs– Lucian Pye • The West views the possibilities ofArab democracy as making fundamentalist decisions • There is nothing in the political traditions of theArab world that make familiar the organizing ideas of a constitutional or representative government, rather that tradition is centralized by a religious caliph over a community • Attempts at democracy in theArab world hard failed because these countries have been accustomed to autocracy and passive obedience • Those who do not recognize fundamental civilizational divides are doomed to be frustrated by them – Samuel P. Huntington’s • The west differs from other civilizations in the distinctive character of its values and institutions – its Christianity, pluralism, individualism and rule of law • Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. believed Europe was the source of the ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, rule of law, human rights, and cultural freedom • “Imperialism is the necessary logical consequence of universalism”, therefore the US and Europe should recognize that Western intervention in the affairs of other civilizations is a dangerous source of instability and potential global conflict in a multi-civilizational world • The purpose of this book is to answer: can the whole world become democratic? (Is it possible to build free and democratic societies throughout the world) • “Change of heart” – Gandhi; democratic structures will be facades unless people come to value the essential principles of democracy which are popular sovereignty, accountability of rules, freedom, and the rule of law  w/o these things in place democracies will eventually give way to tyranny, whether in civilian or military guise • Survey data supporting democracy (on a global scale) suggest that some universal values are beginning to emerge in the world, and two of them are liberty and democracy WHAT IS THE DEMOCRATIC VALUE? • What is necessary for a country to be termed a democracy? In a democracy people have the right to choose their leaders in free elections  elections must be openly competitive (allowing multiple parties to compete) • Acountry cannot be a democracy if there is no freedom of speech, and association and no rule of law • In a minimal sense: democracy is defined as theAustrian economist Joseph Schumpeter outlined: a system for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote • Modern terms: democracy is “free and fair” elections • On the thick side, a system is not a democracy unless it also ensures the following attributes:  freedom of belief, opinion, speech, etc.  Freedom of ethnic, religious groups  right of all adult citizens to vote and run for office  openness and competition in the electoral area  equality under the rule of law  an independent judiciary to apply the law and protect individual and group rights law and freedom of individuals from unjustified detention by the state  institutional checks on the power of elected officials by a court system  pluralism in sources of information and forms of organization independent of the state; “civil society”  control over the military and state security apparatus by civilians who are accountable to the people through elections • Larry diamond views democracy as a political system that varies in depth and may exist above two distinct thresholds  at the minimal level, if a people can choose and replace their leaders in regular, free and fair elections there is an electoral democracy  calling a political system a democracy doesn’t mean it is a good system, it simply means that if a majority of the people want a change in leaders and polices and are able to organize effectively within the rules, they can get change • Electoral democracies vary in their quality as competitive and uncertain elections can coexist with serious abuses of human rights, weak rule of law and widespread crime and violence  genuine competition to determine who rules does not ensure high levels of freedom, equality or liberal values  electoral democracy helps to make these other values more achievable but it does not by any means ensure them • When calling a system a liberal democracy the achievement of the ten “thick dimensions” must exist  to the extent that these are diminished, democracy if it exists at all, is illiberal • If there are regular institutions of democracy that the people are not able to vote their leaders out of power because the system is rigged, then the country has what Larry Diamond calls pseudodemocracy • An example for this would be in IRAN (where elections are not free and fair), is not considered a democracy because the ultimate power to decide rests with a religious “supreme leader” who is not accountable to the people • The same could be said for Morocco or Jordan, where the ultimate power remains with the monarchy, when the ultimate power rests within the military, despite elections • Pseudodemocracies are also known as electoral authoritarian regimes • Elections are free when competing candidates and their supporters are free to campaign and when people can vote for whom they want without fear and intimidation CHAPTER 2 In the second Chapter of his book, The Spirit of Democracy, Larry Diamond describes the chaos that erupted in Portugal in April 1974. This nearly bloodless military coup resulted in a struggle for control of the Portuguese government.Although this military coup brought down a dictatorship it was not thought Portugal would turn to democracy, for a while it seemed as if communists might take control the government. Eventually through Western aid to democratic parties a democratic government was elected in 1976. Diamond uses the situation in Portugal as a starting point for his theory that a “third wave of democratization had begun’. Diamond’s idea of this third wave is divided into two separate phases, marked by the year 1989. Following the events in Portugal there was no indication that there would be a worldwide leap to democracy; it was merely a gradual trend at this time. In 1975, Portugal’s neighbor Spain began the journey to democracy.After the King died, pressure from citizens to usher in democracy increased.After both Spain and Portugal had transitioned to democracy, the effects crossed the ocean and added to the mounting pressure on Latin America to transition to democracy as well. 10 years into the third wave of democracy most of the world’s nations were still authoritarian. Democracy had begun to spreadAsia and despite triumphs and failures it was clear many countries in the region longed for democracy. Diamond puts great emphasis on the year 1989, citing it as the second push of the third wave. In 1989 there was a massive and widespread move towards democracy, across a traditionally communist Eastern Europe. The majority of these countries had resisted these communist regimes and had been ready for a democratic regime for a long time. By 1991 Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria were moving towards democracy while Poland had elected it’s first democratic head of state in over 60 years. On the heels of these changes and the fall of the Berlin wall there was a movement to dissolve the power of the Soviet Union’s central government. In December of 1991 President Gorbachev of the Soviet Union resigned leaving the Union with many problems to address and many of the republics began to emerge as democracies with nationalist identities. These massive changes in the Soviet Union and Europe deeply affected Africa. Due to heavy pressure from international donors, and from the society in the nations, manyAfrican countries had to create greater freedoms for it’s people and legalize opposition parties. Diamond claims, “ by the end of 1991 roughly twenty-six countries, or about half of all states in the continent could be ‘classified as either democratic or moderately or strongly committed to democratic change’” (pg.50).Although these changes had occurred in a legal sense, it was in many cases purely for show, and there was widespread corruption and repression. Diamond notes that each democratic change had characteristics in common. Citizen participation was key.Afinal push for changes towards democracy in this post communist world was characterized by the organizing of society to defeat the current party in power, and when the current party refuted the claim that the opposition had won, hundreds of thousands of citizens peacefully protested these claims. In several countries the incumbent government committed vote fraud, but the citizens mobilized to change this corruption. These revolutions occurred in Serbia, Georgia and the Ukraine. The similarities between these revolutions can be easily spotted as these revolutions harnessed independent media to report voting fraud, used well trained citizens to monitor votes, these revolutions also were able to organize massive protests against these corrupt regimes. In the beginning of the third wave early transitions were triggered by events, these transitions also shared the fact that they attempted to negotiate an equality of power. Civil society played a very important role in the organization of these revolutions and the electoral process was crucial to the changes seen in nations globally. The author Larry Diamond argues that the third wave of democracy began in Portugal and slowly spread globally. I agree with this, as it appears that the success of the revolution in Portugal spread a social desire for the freedom that follows democracy. Diamond then presents historical events in a chronological order that perhaps were sparked by revolution in Portugal and demonstrates, the way democracy swept the world. Diamond chooses to categorize this third wave into two separate phases choosing the year 1989 as the marker. I agree with the author that the events before 1989 and after are very different and deserve to be separated. Yet, as Diamond points out some people believe this to be the fourth wave and I agree with that sentiment. The fall of communism in Eastern Europe was a massive change that it needs to be categorized in its own wave. The democratization of Eastern Europe and the fall of the Soviet Union lead to major changes inAfrican nations, and the way these changes were completed were very unique. It was interesting that manyAfrican incumbent governments merely accepted the democratization of their nations in order to keep up appearances yet reject the results of democracy itself. It is also remarkable that the people of these nations were able to peacefully combat this corruption and continue the fight for democracy. Another difference between some of the revolutions that occurred after 1989; is that as democracy has spread globally there was more social pressure form other countries. Perhaps if the people of China had revolted post-1989 there would have been a global push from western nations for the Chinese government to yield to the will of people. Instead the attempt at revolution in China in 1989 may have sparked the desire for other people to try and succeed where the people of China had been struck down. Due to these factors I agree that perhaps there should be a fourth wave of democracy started in 1989, as opposed to merely a second push of the third wave, as Diamond has argued. Larry Diamond does an excellent job in this chapter of presenting the reader with a chronological and well-organized history of events that back up the ideas he presents. I believe that Diamond is right to argue the way these events progressed and that geographically many regions leaned towards democratization around roughly the same time. It presented the reader with clear facts to back up the claims Diamond makes. Diamond argues that active citizen participation through protest, monitoring, observation and mobilization is integral to the success of any democratic change. I also thought the connections and commonalities of democratic change were well laid out. I appreciated the detail with which the author explained the Portuguese Revolution.As this event is marked as the beginning of the third wave, it was very helpful to get a good idea of the political conditions and societal conditions that made this event possible. It gave me a firm starting point for this chapter, and for the third wave as a whole to have so much information. I believe that because so much information was provided it was helpful to understand how the third wave truly began. CHAPTER 3 In “The Spirit of Democracy”, Larry Diamond discusses the different forms of democracy currently in practice around the world, focusing on the democratic recession, and the third wave which began in 1974. Diamond believes that the “defining feature of the third wave was the small number of breakdowns of democracy”(59). That was not the only problem occurring at the time, “there were many countries, which were democracies but were functioning very poorly and were on the verge of breakdown.” TheArab world was breaking out in civil war, and corrupt governments were running other democratic countries, it was scandal after scandal. “Countries like China, Belarus, Uzbekistan and Egypt were stopping other governments from becoming democracies”(61), they do not believe in the principles of democracy for a country to function. “The three most important reversals of democracy in recent years have been in Russia, Venezuela and Nigeria”(64). “In 1994 Vladmir Putin went from being a KGB agent to deputy mayor of St. Petersburg”(64) and he slowly worked his way up to becoming the prime minister of Russia. While Boris Yelstin was head of the country, “Russian democracy was creating chaos, and the people were no longer as supportive of the democracy”(64). When Yelstin was coming to the end of his second term he appointed Putin as prime minister, giving Putin the opportunity to run for president of Russia. During the time of elections there were some “mysterious apartment building explosions in Moscow and Volgodonsk – which the government attributed to the Chechen terrorists”(65) and there was also a Russian war occurring in Chechnya, due to these events Putin won the election by 53% and the Communist Party who were running against him only won 29% of the votes, Putin won by a landslide. “With his position secured, Putin right away started working on centralizing the power in the Kremlin”(65), he replaced every person in the government who had a position of significant power with one of his own supporters, “through these people he had access to all kinds of resources”(65). He then went on to destroying all of the “business oligarchs who would not bow down before the new party of power, through politicized corruption investigations and tax assessments”(66), these men were publically humiliated and stripped of their status in society and forced to go into exile. In October 2006 Anna Politkovskaya was murdered, “she had reported on the atrocities in the Chechen War”(68), after thatAlexander Litvinenko was poisoned while investigatingAnna’s death. These people were creating obstacles in Putin’s path to complete dominance, which is why he had to get rid of them. During the 2004 election, Putin had won by 71% of the vote, and even then that was not a fair victory. Russia was no longer pretending to be a democracy it was a complete autocracy. Venezuela and Russia were similar in the way that they were both democratic countries that were being ruled by autocratic leaders. Venezuela is a country whose economy depends on its oil, “when oil prices weakened, the economy went down and living standards declined while public corruption continued at high levels and crime soared”(67). In 1992 Hugo Chavez tried to take over the country by overthrowing the democratic system. December 1998 Chavez was elected president, “he wasted no time in delivering his revolution”(68), and with his countless supporters and with the Supreme Court on his side he created a new constitution for the country. The people of Venezuela were not happy with Chavez, so inAugust 2004 there was a recall vote, but out of the twenty-three state governments Chavez won twenty-one of them and he had more than 90% of the municipalities. New laws started to come in which gave Chavez more power and control over the radio and television, “he wanted the Venezuelan people ‘to free themselves from…the dictatorship of the private media’”(70). December 2005, when the parliamentary elections took place, Chavez won all of the seats because “the opposition boycotted the election, no more than a quarter of the electorate had voted”(70), they showed that there were more votes casted than there were people who were eligible to vote and they got away with it. Chavez, in 2006 claimed that he planned on ruling the country until 2030, and that constitution was once again going to be changed so that this could happen. Nigeria is another country whose economy depends oil, and “oil wealth was what spoiled democracy in Nigeria”(70). During the early 2000’s, President Olusegun Obasanjo and the people who supported him were trying to change the constitution so that he would be allowed to run for a third term. “Nigeria has a bad history of political corruption, fraud, and violence”(70). There was the 1983 election where people who were voting for the opposition were denied the right to vote, people got attacked in front of voting stations, and there were ballots being stuffed into the boxes in front of people.As elections came closer hundreds of Nigerians were dying because either they were a part of the opposition or even the leader of the party, or you supported the opposition. During his second term Obasanjo made sure that he had influential people on his side so that he could be reelected for a third term, he bribed, or some would say threatened the media to vote for the constitution to be amended so that he would be able to become president again. The Senate did not allow him to return to power, but his successor was someone who he himself picked out, unfortunately for him the elections were cancelled due to electoral fraud. Democracy in Nigeria survived, in its own way. We as Canadians believe that democracy is the right path to choose, and that every country should have a democratic government, but then there are countries like China, Belarus, Uzbekistan and Egypt that are not democratic countries. These countries are functioning without having to become a democracy. Of course currently Egypt had their revolution, but it seems to have so far replaced oneAutocrat, with another type of tyranny, their path to a proper democracy still is to be determined. China has a communist government, but it is one of the world’s fastest growing economies and has been advancing so much. The people of these countries have freedom, and their level of freedom is expanding, so there could also be the possibility that these countries are on the right track and democracy is not the right way to go. When looking at Russia, Venezuela and Nigeria, there is a sort of pattern that seems to be occurring, the process was similar. The three leaders of these countries were all autocratic leaders who just claimed to be running a democratic government. The same sort of frauds and scandals happened in all three countries. Electoral fraud took place every single time, the opposition was minimized immediately along with anyone who came in the way of their path to complete domination, and the media was always controlled by the government. The seeming differences between the countries path to autocracy is in the style of the implementation of their respective plans. Vladmir Putin who had his KGB training took over the country in a very secretive way, everything that he did was covered up with a story and hidden very well, and nothing was done in plain site. Hugo Chavez was also one who made sure that his footsteps were not traceable, every electoral fraud and scandal was covered up, but he did not do as good of a job as Putin did. Then there was the president of Nigeria, and there was nothing discreet about the frauds that occurred during the elections there, government did not fear anyone and did not feel the need to hide anything at all. Diamond makes one very disturbing observation. He notes that of the 23 countries whose economy is dominated by oil exportation, not one of them is a democracy. Canada is aggressively pursuing the technology to tap into our vast oil reserves in the north. Does this mean that Canada will potentially change its form of democracy, or rid itself of its veneer completely? When the internationals examples are at 100%, it is not an unlikely scenario. CHAPTER 4 Chapter 4 of Larry Diamonds the Spirit of Democracy focuses on the internal factors that drive democracy. Diamond starts this chapter by immediately stating that a regime can only be legitimate if it's the most suitable type of government for a country where it can meet the society’s needs. If these needs aren't met the government has to forfeit the moral title to rule which could lead to a democratic transition.Ademocratic breakdown can also happen through the loss of public faith. In countries that were once already democratic such as Pakistan, a failure to build legitimacy among the government and its people could lead to a democratic breakdown. Diamond also points the importance in fractures in authoritarian regimes when looking at democratic transition meaning that when there are divisions in the support base of a regime, it causes a democratic transition.According to Diamond, some leaders believe that the regime must liberalize and then surrender their power because authoritarian regimes lose democratic legitimacy when they fulfill their missions or when they fail to so. Either of these situation leads to a democratic transition. In fact this is what lead to a democratic transition in countries like Greece,Argentina, and Indonesia. Diamond further asserts that the democratic transition in some countries has been delivered through authoritarian success as well as economic success in producing economic development. Countries like Taiwan have doubled their per capita.All these countries such as Brazil, Chile, Taiwan and Korea are identified by Huntington as a developmental zone of transition. Not only did authoritarian rule improve economic success it also raised the level of personal income and education in other parts of the world in a way that jump started democratization. Social science theorists have in fact theorized that there is a strong correlation between a countries level of economic development and its likelihood of being a democracy. This theory hasn’t been that accurate in recent years because many poor countries have adapted democracy. There are only some countries like Kuwait and Singapore that have had economic development but aren’t democracies because of the sole reason of these places being oil-rich states. Diamonds says that countries could transition to democracy regardless of their region and history. Huntington also asserts the strong correlation between economic development and freedom within all except one major grouping of countries he calls civilizations, this being the Islamic civilization. This leads to two possibilities, one that development makes transition to democracy more likely, the other being that development supports democracy whenever it emerges. Lipset argues that economic development helps those in the lower strata to develop a more complex and informed view of politics through education. Economic development not only helps stabilize a countries economy but increases the level of education among the public. As a country develops income becomes more equally distributed which diminishes class conflict. Economic development also creates a middle class who may appreciate what Daniel Lerner calls psychic mobility referring to peoples change in political attitudes and beliefs as they leave the countryside and move to cities. Furthermore Through the use of technology we are able to promote political beliefs and attitudes through Radio, Television, news sources etc.As a state gets richer, people become more informed about these political issues and are more interested in participating in it. Through these changes people are able to form or join organizations to promote their interests. They eventually become assertive and grow in number resulting in a power shift from the state to the society, thus the higher the level of education, income, mass media, the stronger the support for democracy. Ronald Inglehard who observes global trends found through Maslow’s theory of hierarchy and needs that people who grow up in economic prosperity and security tend have post materialist values where as people growing up in economic insecurity and stress tend to have materialist values. With economic development there is a shift from materialist to post materialist.Acountry that has tolerance and trust increasingly demands not only democracy, but institutions to protect democracy. Through the economic development people are more financially stable and more socially independent to form protests if needs aren’t met. Furthermore, structuralisms are democratic scholars who identify broad changes in social structure caused by economic development and social change. The elite centered argument doesn’t adequately explain the democratic trend throughout the world. Diamond criticizes that they don’t present a proper image of civil society in new democracies but rather other places like Europe and they don’t focus on the contribution society makes after authoritarian regime has split. Thus democracy doesn’t just depend on the state but rather the ability of civil society to unite through the form of one government. Diamond argues that that a regime must liberalize and ultimately even surrender power when the regime fulfill their self-proclaimed missions or completely fail to so, but I Disagree with this. Even if a regime has accomplished its goals, a regime can look to expand on its ideas and continue to develop the nation. The concept of being redundant after reaching the goal seems unrealistic because nations, specifically developing nations are always looking to expand their efforts for the better. Even if a regime fails in its goals doesn’t make the regime socially obligated to surrender their power. When looking at Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf came into power through military force. It’s not a secret that Musharraf abused his position of power and weakened the constitution however he initiated many laws regarding women’s rights. Musharaf continued to have a strong support group despite his mistakes, thus I feel Diamond only focuses on a few countries like Greece and Argentina rather than countries like Pakistan. Therefore I feel Diamonds statement isn’t accurate when looking at the world globally. Diamond asserts that the higher the level of income, education, mass media exposure etc., the stronger the support there is for democracy. He claims that only an educated society can have democratic values. I feel as if Diamond doesn’t give other government styles the credit they deserve. It’s no surprise that Diamond supports democracy but many nations who are highly educated have prevailed without democracy, such as the authoritarian regime in Taiwan where the Per capita has tripled since 2007. In one sense it’s fair to say that only educated people can think in a democratic way because after all this form of government stands for freedom and equality which I agree with, however It’s not fair to underestimate other regimes which he does. Even in other countries such as India where an absolute monarchy prevails, its economy has flourished in the past few years, thus democracy isn’t the only type of government involving high levels of education, income for it to prevail I like how Diamond specifies that any country can transform into a democracy regardless of the region or history. In the past 30 years about 60% of the countries have turned into a democracy thus showing that democracy can flourish anywhere as long as there is a majority support for the government. However I do feel the history of a country could affect this process. History could put barriers to a democratic transition, for example in Islamic civilizations democracy is not highly pushed because democracy advocates freedom and women’s rights rather than following the Sharia law, thus putting a barrier towards democratic transition. In other nations like Taiwan where the economy is doing well without democracy wouldn’t have a reason to advocate this idea either. Furthermore I would add a short critic of democracy explaining how it has failed to develop in some nations or broken down in other nations, because after all democracy hasn’t always lead a nation to economic prosperity but rather hidden corruption and corrupt government leading to breakouts and wars. CHAPTER 5 In chapter five of Larry Diamond’s The Spirit of Democracy, he brings attention to the external factors that can drive democracy and its fundamental principles onto many countries. Diamond begins with referring to a particular feature that has “distinguished the third wave of democratic change,” that being pressure from the international community to transform authoritative regime’s into democratic ones. Diamond refers to an “isolated event” that allows for readers to understand how democracy has had a ‘snowballing’effect, in which case travelling vastly, both “culturally and geographically” (107). In June of 1999, there was an “Emerging Democracies Forum” that was established by the National Democratic Institute that arranged an international meeting of leaders from the more neglected democracies to learn from one and other. The ‘snowball’effect is exemplified when the President of Mali,Alpha Oumar Konare was introduced to the idea of statutes – that allow for the challenging of constructional order – curtsey of his LatinAmerican collogues. This, in turn, became the policy for the Organization ofAfrican Unity. The largest snowballing effect, according to Diamond, was within Africa “after seminal shifts in South Africa and Benin in 1990” (109). Africans began exposing the demanding liberties in SouthAfrica that had been neglected elsewhere as they were aware of the wave of democracy going through Eastern Europe that made them want a liberal democracy. Diamond goes on to talk about how peaceful pressures can be used to democratize countries and the three intentional forms it requires: diplomacy, the conditioning of aid, and sanctions. Diplomacy is often effective when it offers to sustain positi`ve aids in exchange for democratic reforms and when it threatens to impose sanctions for authoritarian defiance.An example of such was with president Carter’s campaign against human right abuses in LatinAmerica. Publically denouncing abuses in countries likeArgentina and compelling them to reductions in aids as well as voting against most of their international loans, made the policy successful in limiting direct human right abuses. By reducing help both symbolically and materialistically, it isolated the military regimes from a ‘traditional ally’, which in turn “undermined their legitimacy and strengthened soft liners” (115). Diamond then introduces Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way who show an example of how leverage and linkage can determine the potential for an effective democratic change. It all boils down to the leverage the Western democracies have on the autocratic states and the degree to which they are linked through social, cultural and economic elements. The links that make the authoritarian states more susceptible to change is through their vulnerability with the West for various reasons: trade, investments, treaties, immigration, tourism etc. This was seen when pressure was placed on the Clinton administration to make a move against the Haitian military dictatorship in 1994. International linkages can have impact on authoritarian governments as well, as criticism of their regime’s cause these countries to feel isolated and in turn, yearn for acceptance and respect. Diamond provides an example of this: when Chile prepared for a referendum in 1988 deciding whether or not to “extend Pinochet’s dictatorship” (112). Leverage is reduced when other policies interfere with the promotion of democracy, as for example, the ClintonAdministration balked at applying sanctions on Nigeria after the regime “aborted a democratic transition in 1993 …” (113). The United States were worried that too much pressure on Nigeria would cause the Nigerian military to take awayAmerican oil companies and hand them over to the French and other European countries. Given our understanding of linkage and leverage, its is obvious as to why economic sanctions are not always successful, as in Cuba or North Korea for example, the West has a few links and small leverage that in turn did not bring about change to the regimes. Sanctions essentially will fail if there lacks significant leverage over the authoritative regime. The concept of aid as a means of driving a democratic transformation is another external factor that lies particularly in 2002, the Millennium ChallengeAccount (MCA), established by the Bush administration as a new vehicle for possible change. The MCAprovides awards to countries that demonstrate democratic principles and governance: health care, education, economic freedom and entrepreneurship. These elements rank countries within the ‘sixteen indicators’, which in turn, make them eligible for grants of aid (118). While critiques of sanctions were common, Diamond says that it was “much more complicated,” in SouthAfrica’s case, critics were certain that the sanctions were of no significance, until F. W. de Klerk launched a transition in 1990 (120). Serbia is another example, as their dictator, Milosevic; due to the economic sanctions was unable to impose full dictatorship that may have sustained his power. Diamond brings attention to another external factor, the idea of ‘democracy assistance’, in which case he means efforts to assist democratic development: “reform governance, empower civil society, monitor elections, and in worse cases, working for [entire] democratic change” (120). It was not until 1983 when a new program, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), was established with more flexibility to support democratic movements and many transitions at a larger base. The NED has support from Republicans, Democrats and NGO’s to make their success possible. These programs assisted countries development by looking at elections as they can observe the authoritarian governments electoral conduct to avoid any fraud. However, the monitoring of elections was not always successful as there was a “lack of adequate engagement” that created a ‘zoo-like atmosphere’as seen specifically in the 1996 Nicaragua elections. It has been proven that the most successful cases of democratic assistance were the level of USAID expenditures on democracy and governance in a country. On average, each country receives 3.7 million a year as per 2003 and every additional million dollars of “democracy assistance” notably increases the ‘normal’rate of democratic improvement to 50 percent (133). When all else fails, the international community results in using threat of force to impose democracy. This tactic was successful when US forces invaded Grenada in October 1983 after the government body appealed for help in restoring a parliamentary democracy that was previously toppled by a left- wing insurgency four years previously. While the threat of military intervention can restore an elected president as seen in Haiti, it does not ensure that he governs democratically. Haiti went back to its previous ways, political forces fought while elections were marred by fraud not too long after the United Nations and OAS interfered. Diamond shows how using threat of force could result either positively or negatively. Larry Diamond argues that there are four external factors that ‘drives democracy’around different areas of the world: diffusion, peaceful pressure, democracy assistance, and democratization by force. Given the ample amount of examples Diamond has provided for his readers, it leads me to believe that every factor he outlined, such as diffusion or democracy assistance, is significant and viable to the success of democracy. I would like to pull attention to Diamond’s writing style as it intrigued me most.As Diamond is in fact an advocate for democracy and it’s defining principles, within the text he provides cases where the external factors he focused on were unsuccessful. His writing ultimately becomes objective as he is not ‘telling’his readers that this factor contributes this particular way – as an economic sanction will place enough pressure on a country to transform into a democracy – but rather, these factors may proceed to a democratic government. This allows his readers to make a logical decision regarding whether or not they believe that the international community and in particular the West, can place pressures on countries to transform. To begin, Diamond brings attention to the concept of ‘snowballing’, which is the idea that democratic ideas are passed through political leaders. His main example was when the President of Mali, Alpha Oumar Konare was introduced to the idea of statutes curtsey of his Latin American collogues, this idea then became the policy for the Organization ofAfrican Unity. I agree with the idea of a snowballing effect as it is known that cultures themselves are fostered from previous ideas and rituals, so there leaves no doubt that even some of the democratic principles that focus on individual rights and freedoms would not entice other leaders to govern in similar ways. The two particular factors that I strongly agree with are: peaceful pressure – in which case the international community and the West applies pressure through linkage and leverage on a country to democratize, and democracy assistance – whereas the West provides aids to eligible countries who govern democratically. Linkage is the connection that exists between the West and specific country, example: tourism, immigration, trade etc., and leverage is the cultural, social and economic ties with another country. I believe that both these factors can successfully push for a democratic transformation for two reasons: in regards to pressure, it all comes down to how close knit a country is with the West, as they will have the power to place economic sanctions that in turn will force a change. In regards to aid administrations, in particular the Bush administration – uses money as a form of bribery to see an adjustment in the country’s governance, making countries more susceptible to change as they are being paid. I agree with the external factors that Diamond presented, as his analysis was thought provoking and objective. CHAPTER 6 = NO ONE CHAPTER 7 Through Larry Diamond’s The Spirit of Democracy, he proceeds to talk about democracy within India, well the demolition and uprising of it. Beginning in 1947, democracy was established by Jawaharal Nehu in India, and later, his daughter Indira Gandhi had taken over. However in 1975, she was removed from parliament and banned from office for six years. Because of this, she had claimed conspiracy and received emergency powers in return (June 16, 1975). India being under the rule of Gandhi had lost their sight of democracy, and because India is such a large country, there was not a colossal amount of uproar for the return for democracy.Adding to the fact that democracy was not a large political standpoint, there was no need for anyone to step in and fix what was once eradicated. Though no other countries cared for this, the citizens of India took a stand and tried to get their rule of order back in play, however this had only resulted in numerous arrests, torture, and intimidation against these democratic activists. Gandhi felt that the people had loved her, and called for a parliamentary debate in 1977, and reluctantly lost. India was able to sustain democracy because from the start its political and societal elites, including the population at large believed in it. Their culture alone proves this readiness for democracy through the value of
More Less

Related notes for POL112H5

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.