Comparative Politics Within Nations

¶ … new leaders of Iraq have just read Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy and have decided to adopt a majoritarian form of government. What are the advantages of this form of government? Are there any drawbacks? Would you advise them to adopt the majoritarian form? Note 1: You should mention basic details about Iraq's situation, but this question is not testing your knowledge of Iraqi politics. Note 2: Don't spend too much time on describing individual institutions and their effects. This is a big picture question.

In his text, Patterns of Democracy Arend Lijphart states that consensual as opposed to majoritarian democracies ultimately create more responsive and democratic governmental institutions, even though consensual democracies are not run on a strictly 'majority rules' system of decision-making.

Lijphart believes that consensual democracies are better able to address such concerns as the need for social welfare, environmental destruction caused by unethical practices such as over-drilling of oil fields, the need for an impartial criminal justice system in a once near-lawless society, as well as addressing foreign aid issues and appeals to international authorities.

While the majoritarian model concentrates political power in the hands of a bare majority, in a consensus democracy, the objective is that as many people as possible take part in the governing process and come to an agreement amicable to all involved. Simple majority rule is less important than achieving a broad, civic participation in government and broad agreement on the policies that the government should pursue.

(Lijphart, p.2) For instance it is not enough that the majority of the Iraqi population might believe that further oil drilling would be necessary to secure its immediate economic future. Rather, all groups -- including environmentalist groups and groups living near the areas to be drilled -- must decide collectively what would be better for Iraq as a nation. Thus, civic responsibility, a value much enthused about in Robert Putman's text on America, Bowling Alone, is the key to the creation of a modern, functioning consensual democracy.

In the scenario presented above, the new leaders of Iraq may feel attracted to the majoritarian form of government, given the perceived ability of majoritarian rule to foster individual independence and autonomy within the citizenry, independence apart from the control of the government. It may seem that a majoritarian system would better able to facilitate economic development at a quick pace, as well. Also, the totalitarian regime Iraq has just cast off might makes such values of autonomy additionally attractive to its new leadership.

But the new leadership must also take into consideration Iraq's particular configuration of ethnic and religious tensions. The nation's pluralistic ethnic and religious structure makes such a majoritarian system inherently unwise for the government to adopt. Ethnic or minority factions that are excluded from government might adopt violent means to make themselves heard, contrary to the establishment of a stable system of government or a free and fair discourse in the media. Or, conversely, the majority will might oppress important minority voices.

Lijphart states that consensual systems such as Switzerland and Israel are able to stimulate economic growth, control inflation and unemployment, and limit budget deficits at least equally well as majority systems. However, even if this were not the case, the example of Israel is particularly instructive, and ironically an apt parallel for Iraq, because Israel too is a state with many competing interpretations about its civic mission. These interpretations come from both religious and secular factions. Israel is also highly pluralistic in ethnic composition.

In truth, the notion of a majority will means little in any nation, both Iraq or Israel, that is really made up of many minority factions and desires rather than one popular will. In contrast, the consensus model of a democracy is characterized by a lack of concentration of power in the hands of any one faction, and thus there is a sharing of power and division of power.

(Lijphart, p.153) Because of this sharing of power, Lijphart states that consensual systems foster political equality, women's representation, citizen participation in elections, and proximity between government policies and voter preferences -- all challenges Iraq must meet if it is to succeed in the future.

Furthermore, its fostering of civic responsibility to all citizens is especially critical if Iraq is to create a nation of people who feel a sense of obligation to one another, rather than merely feel an obligation to their particular religious or ethnic fashion, or to the mere brute ethic of survival at all costs, as was typical under Hussein. Question 2 What are the most important forces promoting and hindering democracy in the contemporary world? Choose 2-3 in both categories (aids and obstacles) and explain how they affect democracy.

Focus on the causal mechanisms. Then tell me what the U.S. government and U.S. citizens can do to promote democracy around the world. Again, give 2-3 specific recommendations. Your recommendations should be related to the theories you discuss. In your conclusion tell me whether you think democracy will continue to spread or that more history awaits us. What factors do you think will prevail in the future? The book The Global Resurgence of Democracy, by Larry Diamond and Marc F.

Plattner was published in 1993 and thus focuses on the then-new Post-Cold War era's challenges of fostering democracy in formerly communist nations. One great aid to this fostering of democracy in Eastern Europe was the predominance of America's then quite positive world, public relations and the ubiquity of American popular as well as political culture. This important factor was combined with a second, important positive factor, namely the globalization of the national economy.

This second factor of globalization was evidenced in China's teetering between totalitarianism and democracy during this time period, all the while it attempted to engage in capitalist expansion. Despite the positive perceptions of democratic culture, and the benefits of economic globalization through democracy, at the time, it was feared that the nations of Eastern Europe, because of the personal lack of initiative fostered by communism in their worker would not be able to make the shift from command to capitalist economies.

However, because of the willingness of outside companies from democratic nations to take risks and invest in the infrastructure of these once-decaying nations, democracy of a kind took hold in many nations, if not all nations. Even China, while hardly a paragon of human rights, could not turn its back upon the world, as was feared after the pro-democracy demonstrations were quashed in the capital of Beijing in 1989, and the presence of American culture as well as China's global role remains strong.

Globalization and the desire for economic betterment fuels democratic development. However, as was also seen in the nations of Eastern Europe, and in today's fundamentalist struggles over Islam, nationalism and the fear of United States control stifles democratic development. Sovereignty, especially in nations without strong democratic traditions but which have been oppressed from outside, is extremely important, as are religious, national, and kinship ties that divert loyalty away from a national government.

Thus the pushes towards democratic development may be tarred and feathered with the demonizing cast of 'westernization' as opposed.