Final Essay - Grade: 92 PDF

Preview

Summary

What distinguishes democracies from authoritarian regimes?...

Description

201918456 L2107 Word count (excluding bibliography): 1,394

What distinguishes democracies from authoritarian regimes? Democracy and authoritarianism are two fundamentally different ways of running a country, one pays attention to and is built on the beliefs and decisions of the people whilst the other controls and oppresses them. According to Robert Dahl (2005) elected officials, free, fair and frequent elections, freedom of speech, alternative sources of information, associational autonomy and inclusive citizenship are the main characteristics which constitute a democracy. In an authoritarian state there is one leader or central committee, there is no elections- except, perhaps, state-controlled ones, the citizens are subordinates of the regime, and the leadership is not answerable to opposition or the people. So, democracies are distinguishable from authoritarian regimes on many levels, however, it is most noticeable in the institutions and the structure of its government compared to that of a dictatorship. Elected representatives lie at the core of a good, functioning democracy, whereas an authoritarian regime is unlikely to have any form of representation for its citizens. In the UK, the Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament are the people’s representatives. They are elected by the people, to represent the people. This distinguishes democracies from authoritarian regimes as it allows citizens views and beliefs to be upheld within parliament. In his work Robert Dahl (2005) points out that direct democracies do not work on a large scale as there would be too much disagreement and nothing would ever be decided upon. Because of this, officials where created to make the big decisions and where held accountable through frequent elections in which the public could dismiss them. Thus, elected representative became a pillar which upheld large scale, modern democracy. Schmitter and Karl (1991) agree with Dahl on this, however, they extend on this institution 1

201918456 L2107 Word count (excluding bibliography): 1,394 and say that elected officials should be able act without being overridden by a higher, unelected official. For example, the House of Lords in Britain used to be able to veto laws created and passed in the elected House of Commons. There have been limitations applied on the powers of the House of Lords, however, and they no longer hold such dominance over the UKs elected officials. This gives an even larger difference to democracies and authoritarian regimes as it allows the publics opinions to be represented at parliamentary level and they can hold elected officials accountable. The existence of free, fair and frequent elections is yet another institution which distinguishes democracies from authoritarian regimes. According to Dahl (2005), this procedure ensures voters are not punished for their views, that all votes have the same value and elections are frequent enough that one party does not hold power for too long. This is upheld in most, if not all, democratic countries; for example, in the UK, General Elections are held every four years. This distinguishes democracies from authoritarian regimes as it protects the public from a corrupt government. Elkit and Svensson (1997) discuss what criteria which developing countries, such as Haiti, Cambodia, Malawi and Mongolia, should follow to have ‘free and fair’ elections. According to them Dahl does not consider the fact that a country can have this structure but not everyone will have the opportunity to vote or run for office, making it undemocratic. Democracies are incredibly different to authoritarian regimes as they have to follow strict guidelines to be considered acceptably democratic. Authoritarian regimes have a complete lack of freedom of speech, whereas in democratic countries it is considered a basic human right. Freedom of speech is the ability of people to freely express their views without intentionally causing offence or harm to another. Dahl (2005) explains that this right is crucial to democracy as it increases the publics political 2

201918456 L2107 Word count (excluding bibliography): 1,394 participation. This will improve democracy by allowing and encouraging criticism of parliament and/or government. This is a massive difference between authoritarian regimes and democracies as in dictatorships people can be severely punished for speaking out against the ruling body in society. For example, in China, there is mass oppression of the Uighur population due to their religion. A BBC report claimed that one million citizens are being held in political camps with poor conditions for ‘re-education’ (BBC, 2018). This highlights the already stark difference between democracies and authoritarian regimes, whilst democracies thrive off freedom of speech, dictatorships have drastic repercussions for those who have conflicting views with the ruling body. Alternative sources of information are also key to upholding a democracy; in contrast, authoritarian regimes have censored media. This structure within democracy is similar to freedom of speech as it encourages and allows criticism of how the country is ran, thus holding the government to account. It is a platform for ideologies and opinions to be shared through the TV, newspapers and social media creating a diverse and passionate society. Once again, whilst a democracy relies on an open media, authoritarian regimes oppress it and controls what information is available to the public. Dr. Peng Hwa Ang and Ms. Berlinda Nadarajan (1996) defend censored media within Singapore by claiming that the media can have a detrimental effect on the public and insight violence, they use the 1950 Maria Hertogh riots, the later riots over Prophet Muhammad's birthday in 1964, and the spillover from the Malaysian riots in 1969 as examples. Protests are common place in democracies, so this creates yet another different between democracies and authoritarian regimes: whilst dictatorships dislike any sort of resistance and seek to suppress it before it even begins, democracies use it to ensure the government is keeping in line and taking into consideration

3

201918456 L2107 Word count (excluding bibliography): 1,394 the publics views. These two regimes are highly distinguishable through their reaction to the media and its effects on the people. Associational autonomy is yet another aspect of democracy pointed out by Dahl (2005) which cannot be found in an authoritarian regime. This is the right for the public to form independent organizations, for example, pressure groups such as Greenpeace or CND. In his work Wyn Grant (1995) discussed how pressure groups encourage political awareness and claims that more people are members of pressure groups than political parties. This suggests organizations independent from the government can still stimulate political action and give a greater understanding to some political issues. This distinguishes democracies from authoritarian regimes as it encourages the public to be more knowledgeable about the country and world they live in, whereas as in dictatorships the public is discouraged and often punished for forming groups which question the ruling body within society. Another difference between the two regimes is that democracies need to have inclusive citizenship, whilst in authoritarian regimes the people are all treated differently. According to Dahl (2005) inclusive citizenship means that every law-abiding citizen should receive equal treatment and rights, this includes all the aforementioned aspects of democracy. This is massively different from an authoritarian state as citizens there would be subjected to an unjust system in which they are discriminated or merited as the ruling body sees fit. Cornwall, Romano and Shankland (2008) look at Brazils experience in its shift from dictatorship to democracy and claim that democracy is much more than an institutional structure as it also relies on citizens ‘right to have rights’ and equity within society in order to be considered a democratic. This shows that as a country develops into a democracy it begins to recognize the importance of inclusive citizenship, whereas as an authoritarian regime does not value this right. 4

201918456 L2107 Word count (excluding bibliography): 1,394 To conclude, democracies and authoritarian regimes differ at every point and there is many, many things which distinguish the two regimes from each-other. Each aspect I have discussed is just as important as the next as without elected officials, free, fair and frequent elections, freedom of speech, alternative sources of information, associational autonomy and inclusive citizenship a country could never be fully considered as democratic. It can be said, however, that in the transition from dictatorship to democracy institutions do tend to appear in that order. By looking closer into the differences between these two regimes, we can see the massive differences in how the citizens are treated in each. Democracies empower the public and aim for high levels of political engagement and activity as they want the government to be held accountable for its actions. Authoritarian regimes oppress the people who live under their rule and dislike them forming opinions outside, let alone against, that of the ruling body.

5

201918456 L2107 Word count (excluding bibliography): 1,394

Bibliography BBC (2018) ‘China Uighurs: One million held in political camps, UN told’ 10th August

Cornwall, Romano and Shankland (2008) Brazilian Experiences of Participation and Citizenship: A Critical Look University of Sussex: Institute of Development Studies

Dr. Peng Hwa Ang and Ms. Berlinda Nadarajan (1996) Censorship and Internet: a Singapore Perspective Communications of the ACM:

Elkit and Svensson (1997) ‘The Rise of Election Monitoring: What Makes Elections Free and Fair?’ Journal of Democracy Vol 8(3) pp32-45

Kabeer, N. (2005). Inclusive citizenship: The search of inclusive citizenship: meanings and expression in an interconnected world. London: Zed Books

Philippe Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl. (1991) “What Democracy Is ... and Is Not.” Journal of Democracy. Vol 5.1: pg55-69

Robert Dahl (2005) “What Institutions Does Large-Scale Democracy Require?” Political Science Quarterly. Vol 120.2: pg187-97

Wyn Grant (1995) Pressure Groups, Politics and Democracy in Britain London: Palgrave

6...