Constitutional Democracy Presidential or Parliamentary System

Constitutional Democracy / Presidential or Parliamentary System

Social and Economic Sources of Democracy

For the successful development of a democracy, two major factors come into play regarding the sources of said democracy. Of course, some of the factors are also indications of other regimes -- fascist and communist -- though as argued by the various papers, there is a distinct difference in the political structures that determine democracies over fascist and communist regimes. Because of the major results created by such factors, the most important sources of democracy would have to be the economic, industrialized, and educational values within the nation.

"The level of economic development, as measured by per capita income, is by far the best predictor of political regimes" (Przeworski). While there appears to be a similarity between the development of economic countries in dictatorships and democracies, Przeworski maintains that a dictatorship eventually dies and paves the way to an inevitable democracy. In poorer countries, the chances of a democracy or a dictatorship developing are low; the per capita income directly relates to the development of capitalistic structure. Commercialization and the presence of a market structure allowed for the growth of a more modern environment. This "market commercialization" provided the distinction of a "strong bourgeoisie" that eventually developed in England and the United States (Skocpol). It goes to show, then, that economic wealth itself becomes a major factor of a successful democracy. Lipset's observations and data have shown that the mere difference in per capita income is huge between democratic and "less democratic" countries.

Tied closely to economic development is the prospect of industrialization. Without a doubt, industrialization paves the way to a more developed economy. A more developed economy eventually leads to a wealthier one. And a wealthier economy indicates the probable presence of a democracy. Measurements through the "percentage of employed males in agriculture and the per capita commercially produced 'energy' being used in the country" (Lipset) were used to determine the trends of democracies within different nations. In the data gathered, the average of employed males in agrarian establishments was much less in democratic countries (Lipset). Likewise, Skocpol claims this lessening of agrarian work allows the development of a democracy over a dictatorship, because in a more agrarian society, the farmers tended to gravitate toward a dictatorial government.

Democracy's main source, however, lies in the education of the nation's citizens. The absence of education inhibits the chances of rational electoral votes (Lipset). The absence of education also has the potential of preventing the progress of industrialization. This gradual decrease of industrialization eventually leads to a lower income per capita source, and the nation becomes less wealthy. Education "broadens man's outlook, enables him to understand the need for norms of tolerance, [and] restrains him from adhering to extremist doctrines" (Lipset). Thus, the comparative data in Lipset's studies indicate that in democratic countries, education and literacy is at a high: the lowest literacy rate in democratic European countries is at a 96%, an 11-point difference in less democratic nations. While the quality of the education does not necessarily mean a higher or lower form of democracy, it is evident that the presence of education is a necessity within the government of democracy. Thus with all three sources combined -- wealth, industrialization, and education -- democracy develops as a successful government.

Resources

Lipset, Seymour Martin. "Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics."

Przeworksi, Adam, et. al. "Economic Development and Political Regimes."

Skocpol, Theda. "Social Revolutions in the Modern World."

Essay 2: Democracy as the Best Form of Government

While not necessarily the perfect form of government, it can be arguably given that democracy maintains the best form of government, particularly if that government wants to continue to expand and develop into the distant future. This is due to the factors that enable the gains of the common citizen of the particular nation. In democracy, natural rights are in play, and productivity is at its highest efficiency when the citizen finds that he or she is gaining some profit from his or her efforts.

Compared to the states of government mentioned in the readings, it is clear that of the governments mentioned, there are distinct differences between the dictatorship and democracy. While dictatorship tends to lead to a semblance of efficiency -- one cannot just ignore historical evidence in the existence of kingdoms and empires (Olson) -- it still does not replace the overall positives gained through a democratic government. On the one hand, the monarch or autocrat tends to protect his or her investments. Through the promise of collected tax, the autocrat "successfully monopolizes the theft in his domain," (Olson), in which case those being taxed "do not need to worry about theft by others" (Olson). Through the autocrat's self-interest about maintaining his or her established government, the autocrat provides his or her people accordingly. In exchange for the autocrat's magnanimous protection, the autocrat takes this chance to collect a percentage of the civilians' products; he or she grants titles to family members and descendants; and he or she justifies his or her rule through the idea of divine right.

This is where the problems in dictatorship lie. Though Olson does point out that dictatorship is not as inefficient as many would like to proclaim it, it holds some limitations and lacks the necessary elements of development. Worker productivity is, of course, present, but there is no additional incentive. The autocrat has a full monopoly in businesses rendered in the dictator country, and even human labor is taxed and monopolized by the autocrat. The monarch, for example, controls a blacksmith's business, and if the monarch says to stop said business so his own blacksmith can be elevated, the monarch tends to get what he wishes. Thus, it stands, that democracy is the better alternative for this government. The monarch might have an ulterior motive in keeping his country efficient, but the democracy allows an increase in productivity. Through majority elections, democratic governments provide the majority a "significant share of market income of the society" (Olson).

Furthermore, a democracy leads to a government that respects the individuals' rights. Private property does not exist without government; enforcement of laws as written through government constitutions does not exist in a dictatorship; and free speech is completely nonexistent in autocracy. "A government responds to intense needs and sufferings may well depend on how much pressure is put on it…will depend on the exercise of political rights such as voting, criticizing and protesting" (Sen). While Sen speaks specifically of famine as a comparison between democracies vs. non-democracies, there is a distinct focus in the ability with which democracies enable free press. Because of the rights given through free speech, the press can "[contribute] greatly to bringing out information" that has "enormous impact on policies" (Sen). Failing government policies -- such as healthcare, education, and civil systems -- can be remedied through political activism and criticisms, a prospect deliberately missing in dictatorships. Therefore, democracy consists of elements that ultimately make it the best form of government.