POL 1031 (Introduction to Comparative Politics)

Democracy can take place in many different forms. For some, democracy is representative of the chocolate given to them by American soldiers following the Second World War. For others, democracy may be represented by an American flag waving in the wind. Many more people might say democracy is simply having the right to vote. All people have different notions of what democracy means to them, but what exactly is democracy? Why is it so popular? It is the form, or maybe better termed “philosophy”, of government that many developing countries strive for. It is something that seems to give hope to struggling peoples. The term democracy can be viewed as an institutional, as well as a cultural process.

Institutionally, democracy is founded on checks and balances. It is a system of government implemented with the intent that no one branch or department of government can ever gain too much power (McCormick 2007, 49). There are limitations of power placed on each part of the government, thus forcing each department to work together, ensuring that the best interest of the people is maintained. For example, the United States has three branches of government; the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judiciary branch (McCormick 2007, 50-58). These three branches must be in agreement in order to pass laws and bills. For example, the president alone cannot pass a law or bill unless he has the required support from the legislative and judiciary branches.

Democracy is also institutionalized through the voting process. Democracies are denoted by having free and fair elections (Linz and Stepan 1996, 15). This means that the voting process is for the most part untainted. Those running for offices are to run clean campaigns. No one person should have a monopoly of the media during their campaign. Each person should have the same ability to get there name and beliefs out there for the public to know. Those voting should feel free to vote for whomever they like. They should have private voting booths and make sure everybody who meets basic requirement set forth by the government has the same chance to partake in the electoral process. Also, those who are elected need to be honest people. They need to, for the most part, keep the promises made during campaigning and work to serve the people.

As it can be seen, there is clearly an institutional aspect to democracy. The government must have checks and balances to create limits on power and protect the best interest of the nation. Without check and balances, the government could be too easily become corrupted (Ottaway 2003, 28). Just a few corrupt officials with power could corrupt the whole democratic system, creating something that is not really a democracy. The voting process must also be implemented and it must be a free and fair process. Everyone should have the same right and ability to vote. If that was not the case, then whoever is elected would not necessarily be the favorite among the majority of the people. And finally, those being elected must keep their word and work towards the good of the people who elected them. Without this basic foundation, the institution of democracy would not be able to be conceived.

However, democracy can also be defined from a cultural standpoint. When most people think of democracy, the first thing that comes to mind is typically not the blueprint for the system of checks and balances or the technical aspects of the voting process. Many people think of democracy more as way of life. The word democracy entails the thought of freedom and opportunity for many people. Those living oppressed in dictatorships or authoritarian countries may view of democracy as new hope. Democracy can be viewed as a mindset for those people; as a new way of life. The democratic voting process is not just an institution, but also a culture. It means the people have a say in what happens in the government. People living in third world countries have no control over what decisions the leaders of their nation make. Democracy gives people a sense that their opinion matters, and that they have the opportunity to better their living conditions (Linz and Stepan 1996, 18).

People living in third world countries most likely associate the American flag or the “American Dream” with the idea of democracy, not the institutional from of government. Undoubtedly there is a cultural notion to the idea of democracy that coincides with its institutional aspect. From the outside, democracy appears to be a mindset; a way of life. People living in democracies have rights and protection that people in non-democratic settings are often missing. They are more able to freely express themselves and there is the belief that the people have at least some control on governmental decisions. From an internal point of view, democracy is an intricately devised system built to create an even and fair form of government. The question still remains, what makes democracy work?

Because democracy is the form of government which most struggling nations hope to achieve, there are obviously some benefits of this specific form of government. One of the main reasons democracy succeeds, or is favored over other forms of government, is because other forms of government do not work. When looking at countries with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes, it is easy to see why they suffer from many problems. One of the biggest troubles those regimes often suffer from is the problem of unjust leaders (Ottaway 2003, 28). The elected officials may say they are for the people, but then abuse their power. The people of the nation have no way to really voice their opinions for fear of punishment. This is evidenced in the case of a country such as North Korea. The peoples are oppressed and have no way real chances to improve their lives. The government has a vice-grip on society. The peoples in positions of power are also pretty much guaranteed to stay in office because they create rules favoring their stay in office.

Communist and post-communist countries like China and Russia suffer from similar problems. They act like they have implemented a fair electoral system, but in reality the same people stay in power and are never at odds to lose their power (Ottaway 2003, 28). These leaders control almost every aspect of what goes on in the country. A monumental aspect of every day life that is controlled by the government is the media. The government controls what the people read and hear. People of these countries do not enjoy freedom of speech or freedom of the press. They do not have the privilege to voice their opinions without worrying about backlash from the government. This can create somewhat of a tense atmosphere, and a feeling of discomfort among the peoples of those nations.

Many non-democratic countries may also suffer from instability. People who are oppressed or do not have the same inalienable rights that peoples of democratic countries have are usually unhappy. They do not have the power to change what is going on in their country. When the peoples of a nation are unhappy, they have a tendency to start conflict with each other and against governmental officials or policies. Those governments may then take drastic measures to quash these possible uprisings or the rebellious peoples. Instability among the people leads to instability of the government. This shows that the governmental institution in place has an effect on the culture of the nation, and vice-versa.

One of the biggest reasons that democracy works is because of its system of checks and balances. The system of checks and balances ensures that no one person or persons will ever control too much governmental power (McCormick 2007, 49). This system also forces all parts of the government to work together. Stability of the government is maintained because the power is divided. This protects the people of a nation from worrying about the government abusing its power. It also means that the protection of the peoples will always be a concern of the government. A democratic government should work for the people and not for themselves. Checks and balances of power make sure that the best decision is made with the people in mind. When a nation looks out for its citizens, that usually means the people are happy and at ease. They know that their rights and best interests are being protected. This creates social stability. There is a low chance of people conspiring against each other or against the government. The democratic culture is shaped by the democratic institution. This is one factor in the success of democracy.

Another reason that democracy works is because everyone has the opportunity to have a say in governmental decisions. In the purest form of democracy, each person residing in the nation would be asked their opinion every time the government was making a decision (McCormick 2007, 24). This is known as direct democracy. However, in most democratic countries the population is too high to do this, so people are elected to represent the views of a group of people. This is known as representative democracy (McCormick 2007, 24). Unless the country has an extremely low population, the country will employ some form of representative democracy.

The fact that the people directly or indirectly have control of governmental decision is a big factor to the success of democracy. They know that that at least have some say in what goes on, opposed to communist or authoritarian governments where the people have almost no say in decisions. This again helps to create stability within society. It is up to the people to make sure that they voice their feelings to their representatives, so there is no one to blame except themselves if bills or laws are passed that they do not agree within. Everyone has the same right to express their opinions. The fact that the common folk can feel like their thoughts and opinions are heard by people directly involved by the government is an important factor that makes democracy work.

The electoral process used in a democracy is also important in the success of the democracy. Elections held in democratic areas need to be free and fair (Linz and Stepan 1996, 15). Everyone residing in the nation should be able to vote, as long as they meet the basic requirements presented by the government. The elections should also be held at places and during days and times that are convenient and accessible for the voters. There should also be no pressure surrounding the elections, so that there is a high turnout and people do not feel pressured to vote one way or another. The election need to be as inclusive as possible.

The campaign tactics used by the candidates also need to be fair (Linz and Stepan 1996, 15). If one candidate has connections with the media and can control what information is put out there by all the potential candidates, then that is not fair. All the candidates would not be playing in the same court. Each candidate needs to have an equal opportunity to put themselves out there for the public to see. The voters should be able to decide who they want to vote for; the candidates should not control who wins the election. It almost needs to be culturally accepted that everyone should get the same opportunity to win the election, along with the technical aspects of campaigning being fair and competitive.

Democracy can also be considered successful only when it behaviorally, attitudinally, and constitutionally is thought of as “the only game in town” (Linz and Stephan 1996, 15). Democracies often have trouble meeting these three criteria. When they do not have the support of their people, they neither behaviorally nor attitudinally can become the only game in town. When the leaders do not follow the constitution and established rules or the nation, it also makes it impossible for democracy to become consolidated. Democracy will work only when everyone works together and sets for the effort to make it work. This inherently shows the why democracy works; because people come together for a greater good.

Another factor that makes democracy work is the high quality of life that people of democratic countries live at (McCormick 2007, 27). People living in democratic nations typically have a “…high standard of living when measured by the availability of jobs, education, health care, consumer choice, and basic services” (McCormick 2007, 27). Because of all the preceding factors discussed, democratic peoples usually have a better life compared to peoples who live in non-democratic regimes. The stable government and society resulting from factors like checks and balances and a fair election process leads to superior lives for democratic peoples. This high aptitude also gives democratic countries influence on global happenings (McCormick 2007, 28). They are among the most respected countries in the world, and thus have more say in global issues than a third-world country would have.

The listed factors that make democracy work are important for various. As stated, democratic regimes typically do not suffer from the problems that non-democratic regimes suffer from. Problems of instability and corruption are addressed by democracies. The system of checks and balances does an adequate job of preventing an accumulation of power, and thus internal corruption. The ability of people to participate in the democratic process is also a very important factor because it gives people the sense that they have a say in governmental decisions. Free and fair elections have importance because without them, elections would be corrupted and the best candidates would not necessarily win.

However, quite possibly the most important factor to the success of democracy is that it becomes “the only game in town” (Linz and Stepan 1996, 15). Without universal support of a nation, democracy will not succeed. All the democratic institutions can be put into place, but there needs to be a sense of urgency among the people to make democracy work. This is evident in developing democracies that have trouble actually making democracy succeed. They have elections and checks and balances of power, but for whatever reason they do not succeed. This is because democracy is not the only game in town in those regimes. People may still support previous regimes. After universal support for democracy, I do not believe that the remaining factors can be ranked in any certain order. They are all equally important. Checks and balances and fair elections run hand in hand, and stability of the country as a culture overshadows all the other factors.

The discussed factors should be pretty much universal among all democracies. In countries where democracy works, the discussed factors are all implemented. Check and balances, free and fair elections, support of the people, and stability are all found in those regimes. The success of democracy is dependent among all these factors. New democracies may not have the high standard of living and global influence that established democracies have, but they should eventually achieve those things or at least be on a lower level of achievement. That would be the only factor that could be considered different from democracy to democracy. Overall, democracies depend on several factors in order to be successful. Without addressing all the discussed factors, a democracy will not work.

Bibliography

Linz, J. Juan, and Alfred Stepan. 1996. “Toward Consolidated Democracies.” Journal of Democracy 7(2): 14-33.

McCormick, John.Comparative Politics in Transition. United States: Thomson Wadworth, 2007.

Ottaway, Marina. 2003. “Facing the Challenge of Semi-Authoritarian States.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (February 7, 2003): 412-416.

Being the prime minister in Great Britain is a valiant duty. The prime minister in Great Britain is essentially the head of the government and thus has a great deal of power. He or she plays an integral part in the politics of the country and are widely known around the world. The prime minister of Japan on the other hand plays a much reduced role in the Japanese government does not garnish nearly as much power. They are not nearly as well known as British prime ministers, party due to the fact that they are merely “keepers of the helm” and only stay in power for an average of 18 months (McCormick 2007, 140). While Great Britain and Japan have similar forms of parliamentary democracy, their prime ministers have differing amounts of power and support.

The British and Japanese prime ministers have the same basic powers. They both oversee government policies, have the power of appointment, and have the power to hold elections (McCormick 2007, 143). The British prime minister specifically uses this power to call the House of Commons and to appoint his or her cabinet, which are both very important towards bolstering their support and power (McCormick 2007, 95). The Japanese prime minister is also able to elect their own cabinet, but their cabinet does not play nearly as strong of a part in the government as the British cabinet, thus they do not have as much power backing them.

One of the foundations behind the British prime minister’s power is that they are the leader of their political party (McCormick 2007, 95). The prime minister is elected based upon being the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons. The House of Commons is a fairly important part of the British government, and thus having a majority of the members favoring the prime minister naturally gives him or her a good deal of power. The prime minister must call elections of the House of Commons at least once every five years, but they are allowed to call them at any point during those five years. This means he or she can call the elections at a time when it seems favorable to his or her party, basically ensuring their party wins the most seats and they stay in power. The prime minister also has support of the cabinet, which they are allowed to elect without any restrictions, so this adds to the foundation of support behind them. The cabinet intrinsically also owes their loyalty to the prime minister (McCormick 2007, 98).

The Japanese prime minister is not necessarily the leader of their party, which already shows a discrepancy in the support behind the British and Japanese prime ministers. Instead of becoming prime minister through a majority seating the House of Commons, the Japanese prime minister is elected by popular vote through the Liberal Democratic Party (McCormick 2007, 141). Whoever wins the most support out of all the factions becomes the prime minister. This person could be from any faction, which means they may not necessarily be from the most represented faction. Coupled with the fact that the elected person may not even be the president of their own faction, this means the prime minister can be under much scrutiny, and their terms are often terminated prematurely. The prime minister does have the power to appoint their own cabinet much like the British prime minister, but the Japanese cabinet is smaller and has less power (McCormick 2007, 143). There are also limits placed on the Japanese prime minister’s power by “the bureaucracy, factions within political parties, party leaders, and the consensus style of Japanese politics” (McCormick 2007, 140). These variables contribute to the discrepancy in power between British and Japanese prime ministers.

Armed with overwhelming power and support, the British prime minister is better able to concentrate on working for towards betterment of the state and govnerment. The British prime minister takes part in numerous endeavors, such as setting the national political agenda, appointing ambassadors, managing crises, and being an overseas representative of Britain (McCormick 2007, 95). It is much easier for them to pursue these types of things when they have the backing of both the House of Commons and the cabinet. The Japanese prime minister on the contrary must be slightly more concerned for themselves than a British prime minister would because they have less stability (McCormick 2007, 143). This means they are not able to achieve as much as a British prime minister, and they typically do not leave a notable mark on the government. Often times they are not even able to have their own individual policies. The Japanese prime minister does serve a role in helping to create policies and elect new officials, but they simply do not have as much influence as the British prime minister does.

Newly founded democracies face many challenges. It is unreasonable to think that a democratic institution, such as the one found in the United States, could promptly and smoothly be implemented in another country. After all, the United States has taken over 200 years to develop and consolidate its government. All countries that now have deep democratic roots have gone through many hardships over the years. Just as Rome was not built in a day, neither was democracy. The tough times that those countries have gone through are currently being experienced by new democracies.

Linz and Stepan describe three minimal characteristics for democracy to exist. They say there must first be a defined state, a democratic transition, and dignified leaders (Linz and Stephan 1996, 14-15). Many young democratic regimes have problems fulfilling even these most fundamental requirements for democracy. Without defined borders and boundaries of the state, it is not possible to enforce legitimate rule. The inhabitants of the country do not have a sense that they are enclosed in and belong to a nation, thus they are not obliged to abide by those at rule. Also, the government cannot know who is included in the nation in order to serve and protect them. A democratic transition is needed to implement free, fair, and competitive elections (Linz and Stephan 1996, 15). New democracies usually do not have problems implementing elections, but do often have trouble making sure they are clean elections. Lastly, even if fair elections are implemented, those who are being elected must be honest and working towards the good of the people. All too often in democratizing countries, the people who are elected will violate the constitutions set before them, neglecting individuals, and thus in actuality not enforcing democracy.

Aside from the minimal values needed for democracy, those democracies should then want to consolidate, or better organize and improve their conditions. A democracy can be considered consolidated only if it behaviorally, attitudinally, and constitutionally becomes the “only game in town” (Linz and Stephan 1996, 15). New democracies often have trouble meeting these three criteria. When they do not have the support of their people, they neither behaviorally nor attitudinally can become the only game in town. When the leaders do not follow the constitution and established rules, it also makes it impossible for democracy to become consolidated.

It can be difficult for young democracies to gain the support of their peoples, for various reasons. One of the biggest reasons is because democracy itself does not fix economic and social problems (Carothers 2004, 25-26). Democracy simply provides political values, choices, and processes. It is up to those in charge to improve life for their peoples. The implementation of democracy typically entails an economic downswing. During this time, it can be difficult for a new democracy to keep the support of its people. It is only human nature to want to immediate gratification as a result of the switch to democracy. Economic crisis can lead to political instability. In the long run, the economy will straighten out, but it is difficult for the people to keep faith in democracy during early growing pains. Authoritarian rule on the other hand is typically effective at increasing economic development (Carothers 2004, 26). Over the long run, the peoples will suffer in almost all aspects of life, but in the short term they may favor authoritarian rule simply for the economic benefits. This makes it difficult for previously authoritarian countries to implement democracy.

Another difficulty in gaining the support of the people is when a country is socially divided (Zakaria 1997, 14). Many times a country will be comprised of ethnic groups with different values and interests. This creates conflict when implementing democracy because people will instinctly be in disagreement about values the government preaches. This leads to unjust officials that run for leadership roles on the behalf of their respective ethnic groups, rather than for the country itself. Violence is often the result of this competition for power. Zakaria mentions that two scholars in the 1960’s concluded that democracy “is simply not viable in an environment of intense ethnic preferences” (Zakaria 1997, 15). This problem has been evidenced in the case of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, where a split of countries was inevitable.

Even when civil and political society are organized and in harmony, there is still the lingering problem of possible unjust leaders (Ottaway 2003, 28). These new democracies are actually semi-authoritarian in nature. The elected officials will campaign saying they are for the people, but then abuse their power. Often former communist or authoritarian leaders are the ones running for the new “democratic” offices, but their techniques of ruling do not change. Those leaders are also pretty much guaranteed to stay in office, because although multiparty elections are run, the same party wins every election. This façade built around “free” elections, makes it seem like democracy is in place when it really is not.

Once all those previous factors are addressed, there is still the problem of simply maintaining a high level of democracy (Schedler 1998, 91). It is said that sustaining democracy is just as hard as establishing it. After democracy is set up, there must be a sense of urge to keep it in place. Democracy can be undermined by small groups of people, such as guerrillas, violent street protestors, and corrupt officials (Schedler 1998, 95-96). It is necessary for young democracies to stay on top of these possibly troublesome peoples to prevent a breakdown of all that has been accomplished. These peoples’ negative views can be swayed in a positive direction if the country is succeeding. Economic progress and political stability will typically lead towards nation and state building, and ultimately, the legitimacy of democracy among the peoples (Schedler 1998, 100-101). This task of consolidating democracy is much easier said than done and is a continual process, even for established democracies.

Overall, trying to establish democracy in often former authoritarian and communist states is a very daunting task. There are overwhelming odds against these new regimes. The former governments must typically be uprooted and started anew, which usually brings a time of despair and uncertainty among the peoples. This critical time in the birth of a democracy can be an indicator of how successful it will become. Simply implementing democracy is not enough; there must be a common mindset between a majority of the people that want democracy to succeed. The building of democracy must be a joined effort, and all too often the movement does not come to fabrication.

The political, economic, and social situations in countries can be assessed using a variety of methods. The most basic way to determine how a country is functioning would be to directly ask the peoples of the country how they feel about their current situation. A problem with this method is that one would encounter opinion and bias from the indigenous peoples, which would not reveal a definitive picture as to how the country is doing. Another method would be to simply observe the country at hand and gather data to determine how they are faring. Using specific criteria and mathematical formulas, this is what companies such as Freedom House have to done to create indices such as the “Economist Index of Democracy”, and the “Failed States Index”. While this method of assessing a country’s current political, economic, and social situations is more precise and accurate than simply asking the inhabitants of a country for their thoughts, there is no perfect way to determine a country’s condition, and obviously there are problems with these indices.

Freedom House has three indices, dealing with political freedom, civil liberties, and electoral democracy (Kekic 2007, 6). The indices are based on a 1-7 scale, which divide countries into three groups; free, partly free, and not free (McCormick 2007, 7). Countries which score a 1 to 3 are considered free, countries which score 4-5 are considered partly free, and countries which score a 6-7 are considered not free. There are 10 indicators of political freedom, which deal with the ability of the people to participate in the political process, and 15 indicators of civil liberties, which deal with freedom of expression, personal autonomy, and economic rights (Kekic 2007, 6). These two factors are the primary components which determine how democratic a country is according to Freedom House. The electoral democracy index is also used to an extent for this purpose. However, it is highly specified and deals mainly with the process of actually electing officials.

Problems with these indices lie mainly within the scoring system. First of all, ranking how free a country is on a scale of 1 to 7 seems fairly arbitrary. I would think that there would have to be an “ideal” democracy from which all other countries are compared to, but according to this system I do not think that is the case. Whatever country best represents democracy receives the highest score of a 1, even if they may not be perfect. Another problem is that the indicators don’t carry any weight to my knowledge, meaning that all indicators are treated equal. In my opinion, there should be certain indicators which carry more value than others. Finally, the electoral democracy index is too specific, and doesn’t take into account any other factors besides the actual voting process.

The Economist Index of Democracy describes how democratic a country is. The index is based on five categories including electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, the functioning of government, political participation, and political culture (Kekic 2007, 10). Electoral process and pluralism first define whether or not fair elections are being held. Civil liberty deals with the protection of basic human rights. Functioning of the government entails how democracy is implemented into the government. Political participation measures how free people are to vote. Finally, political culture analyzes if competitive, yet gracious elections are held. The index is calculated based on an average score from 60 indicators in the 5 categories (Kekic 2007, 11). Adjustments are made to the scores if they do not score at least a 1 in certain categories. Point values of most of the questions are based on a 0-1 scale (including 0.5).

This index is not as flawed as the Freedom House indices, but it does have its share of problems. It is difficult to tell how democratic a country is using a limited set of requirements for democracy. I would think that more than 60 indicators would be needed for accuracy. The scoring system again seems flawed. A 0-1 scale seems like it makes requirements too black and white. Since there are only 3 choices to pick from in this scale, it seems like that would increase error. I would think 5 choices for each requirement would increase the validity of the test. I do think that adjusting scores if one category is low is a good idea. The Freedom House indices did not give any weight to their questions, and it seems like there is value added to questions here.

Lastly, the Failed States Index determines how unstable and volatile countries are. It is based on 12 indicators which deal with social, economic, political, and military factors (Foreign Policy 2007, 18-19). Among the 12 indicators are demographic pressures, human flight, factionalized elites, and external intervention. The index is compiled by first basing each indicator on a 10 point scale, and then combining the scores from each indicator for a total score. The higher the score, the less stable the country is. Differences in score from year to year for each country are noted, which can tell if a country is improving or becoming worse (Foreign Policy 2007, 20).

The problem with this index is that it doesn’t list the positives about the countries at hand; it only deals with the negatives. This exploits the problems of the countries.. This index also suffers from the problem of a point system, which assigns arbitrary values to the indicators. There is no exact definition of a failed country which the scale is based off of, so only whichever countries are performing the worst are considered failing. Lastly, when assigning point values, it can be difficult to compare one country to another. In a sense, it is like comparing apples and oranges; there are different factors which account for what is going on in each country. Overall, I feel the described indices have flaws, but they are still probably the best indicators of the world political stances available at the moment.

There are numerous views on how the world is shaped. People interpret different reasons for why the world is functioning the way it currently is. The current economic, political, and social situations have arisen from a plethora of different factors, which writers such as Huntingdon, Barber, Katzenstein and Keohane, and Fukuyama have pursued the undertaking of explaining. Each of these writers views vary greatly, even though they all have lived through the same world events. It can not necessarily be inferred that one writer’s view is right and that another’s is wrong because all of them are merely stating their opinions. I, however, believe that Barber is most correct on his view of the current world status.

Barber sees the world as “McWorld” vs. “Jihad”, or rather globalization versus Lebanonization. While these two factors are nearly polar opposites, he sees them both as threats to democracy. Barber’s view of globalization deals with the MTV’s, the Nike’s, the Macintosh and the McDonalds which are commercially forming all nations into a homogenous global network, for the better or for the worse (Barber 1992, 226). He says, “The planet is falling apart and coming together at the same time” (Barber 1992, 226). Western ideas are spreading everywhere and the world is becoming more and more similar no matter where you go. Barber discusses four main imperatives of globalization, including market, resource, information-technology, and ecological. These imperatives deal with subjects like how countries are becoming dependent on each other and how there is a loss of nationalism.

On the flip-side, Barber views “Jihad” as specific cultures who are at war with not just globalization, but with the traditional nation-state (Barber 1992, 226). These people that were brought together through nationalism, but now want to become separate entities and try to escape and bring down “McWorld”. Both are a threat to democracy, for different reasons. Lebanonization is simply against everything democracy and Western culture stands for. Globalization on the other hand really has no care for the rights of the people as long as money is being made and ideas are spreading (Barber 1992, 229). I agree with Barber on most of his points, except that I don’t think globalization is undemocratic. I think many democratic ideals are what make globalization work. The main players in globalization are democratic countries, and the recipients of globalization are typically the ones that aren’t necessarily democratic and would like to become democratic in nature. I do agree with his ideas that globalization and Lebanonization are driving the world.

Huntingdon’s view on the world is one that predicates on a “clash of civilizations”. He thinks that great divisions among humankind, and that the dominating source of conflict will be culture (Huntingdon 1993, 22). He thinks that all global conflicts will be based on differences between different civilizations. Huntingdon also says the important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another, for example in the Middle East (Huntingdon 1993, 22). A catalyst to conflict is that as the world is become a smaller place due to technology, it means that interactions between peoples of different civilization are increasing, which leads to an increased possibility of conflict and war (Huntingdon 1993, 25). I do not really agree with Huntingdon because peoples within civilizations argue with each other all the time. It is really just people that do not agree with each other, not civilizations or cultures. Countries nowadays are made up of people from all different backgrounds. There are a few select groups of people who do have an “us” versus “them” mentality, including religious based cultures such as Islam, but for the most people I feel that people don’t clash, which is apparent due to globalization, where most people seem to agree on similar ideas and values, which is what makes globalization work.

Fukuyama’s world view on the other hand, is one that the world ended development after the French Revolution and democratic ideas started to take hold (Fukuyama 1989, 3-4). He thinks that democracy is the highest form of organization, and that once it started to take hold, no real big development have taken place. Fukuyama borrows many of his these views from the thinkers Hegel and Kojeve. Fukuyama also thinks that all human behavior in the material world, and hence history, is rooted in a prior state of consciousness (Fukuyama 1989, 5). Consciousness can be described in terms of religion, cultural, or moral habits. Fukuyama says “…the roots of economic behavior lie in the realm of consciousness and culture…” (Fukuyama 1989, 8). He then goes on to discuss how ideology can not truly be achieved in the world. Finally, he says only nationalism could possibly challenge liberalism, as fascism and communism have both failed (Fukuyama 1989, 10). I disagree with Fukuyama because there are still being advancements in politics today. There may have been some key ideas set forth after the French Revolution, but ideas are constantly being changed and molded. There is still a lot going on in the world.

Finally, Katzenstein and Keohane discuss the anti-American view of the world. They basically think that all world views are predicated on the rest of the world’s dislike for America (Katzenstein 2006, 205). There are ranging degrees of anti-Americanism, beginning with liberal anti-Americanism and ending with radical anti-Americanism (Katzenstein 2006, 206). The different types of anti-Americanists do not like American for varying reasons, such as because America is hands down the most powerful country; their expansion and capitalism; and their cultural and religious values (Katzenstein 2006, 208-209). I disagree with these views because I do not think that much of the world is anti-American. There are obviously some people that don’t like America, but that doesn’t mean all the world views and actions are predicated on a dislike for America. The number of allies America has far outweighs the number of enemies, and though it is the most powerful country, it does not control the rest of the world.

Russia, China, and Nigeria face several underlying democratic challenges. The Federal Security Service, or FSB, is one of the biggest institutions implemented in Russia that challenges the foundation of democratic ways (“The Making of a Neo-KGB State” 2007, 1). The FSB is the successor to the KGB, which was a powerful governmental organization that “provided a crucial service of surveillance and suppression”, and reinforced communist ways among the people. The FSB continues this tradition, with possibly even more oppression. It is said that “Apart from Mr. Putin, ‘There is nobody today that can say no to the FSB,’” (“The Making of a Neo-KGB State” 2007, 1). The FSB has a good deal of money and influence backed by high government officials. They are a ruthless organization that destroys the democratic values of free speech and press by taking aim against those who oppose the government. Writers and journalists have been jailed and killed for simply stating that they are against the Kremlin (“The Making of a Neo-KGB State” 2007, 4).

Another democratic challenge Russia faces is their unstable economy. Their economy is nearly solely based on energy providing natural resources (Skidelsky 2007, 1). The state of Russia’s economy is dependent on the price of energy. As energy prices go up, so does Russia’s economy. In the short run, this may seem like a stable way to grow an economy, but in the long run it can lead to instability. Prices of commodities are typically more volatile than that of industrial prices, which makes Russia vulnerable to sudden drops in the prices of resources (Skidelsky 2007, 1-2). Authoritarianism is promoted as democratic representation becomes less important due to the fact that states do not rely on income tax as much. They receive money from exporting resources. Fighting from can result from disputes over distribution of the resources within Russia. There are more problems from dependence of natural resources, but all seem to lead towards instability of the state. Democracy cannot be instituted when the state is not stable.

Russia does however have a great deal of stability in their political system. President Putin has an extremely high approval rating and seems to face no challenge for succession (Skidelsky 2007, 3). While many people are loyal to Putin, he garnishes too much power for Russia to be considered democratic. Putin has control over the KGB and FSB, which are loyal to him and make sure that opposing views are never heard or at the least controlled. Putin has employed systems where he basically controls everything that is going on; the people do not really have a say (Skidelsky 2007, 3). He has made it possible so that he is able to stay in office longer than intended by the constitution. In a democracy, that president should never have that much power or control. Russia obviously does not have the correct check and balances in place to limit Putin’s authority.

China faces similar democratic challenges. While China is economically stable, it suffers from other problems. In order to achieve their economic success, China had to make sacrifices in other areas. Human rights, for example, are somewhat lost in the mix when discussing economic reform. Illnesses and injuries often result from poor environmental and working conditions (Lee 2007, 1). While working conditions have improved over what they were in the past, they could be better. People often work long hours for minimal pay in less than desirable working conditions. This was a sacrifice that had to be made in order for China’s economy to improve so quickly.

Inflation is also a growing problem (Lee 2007, 2). Beginning with food shortages and a higher demand for nourishment, the prices of food have risen. Prices of other things, such as textiles, education, and medical care have also risen, contributing to inflation. Inflation can lead to problems such as poverty and a weak value of the yuan compared to other currencies. These problems are atypical of established democratic countries. While some nations do suffer from those problems, they have ways to deal with them. It will be seen whether or not China can control those issues.

China, like Russia, places a great deal of effort into censorship of people and ideas that could thwart the government. “Tank Man” is an excellent example of the censorship the Chinese government places on the media. Tank Man was a student or common citizen who blocked the path of a tank following the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989. This man forced the brigade of tanks to stop and would not let them pass. The Chinese government did all they could to destroy any evidence of this protest, but some pictures and footage squeaked by their grasp. In order to prevent the Chinese people from seeing the media, the government controls internet web searches, so that pictures of Tank Man will not appear. Most people living in China do not know of Tank Man. The government restricts the knowledge of other protests and tries to ban certain books from being read. Democratic nations protect the rights of their people and do not do these sorts of things.

Nigeria, a sparsely developed country, also suffers from democratic challenges. While Nigeria has an abundance of natural resources, most of its citizens are living in poverty (“Will Africa Ever Get it Right” 2007, 1). Those in positions of power believe that they are the ones that should reap the benefits of their resources. This leaves nearly everyone else high and dry. Nigeria has become known as an “every-man-for-himself nation” (Polgreen 1996, 1). Living conditions are horrible for most people, and it is a struggle just to stay fed. Democratic nations need to make sure their people have high standards of living, and Nigerian peoples obvious do not have this.

Another problem Nigeria suffers from is a lack of infrastructure (Polgreen 1996, 2). The government does not supply electricity and running water to a vast majority of the nation. This forces people to use generators and pumps in order to have electricity and water. A textile manufacturer was forced to shut down simply because it was too costly to supply light, power, and water to his factory (Polgreen 1996, 2). This lack of infrastructure makes it nearly impossible for industrialization, which is needed in order to advance to economy and become a stable country. Unless Nigeria develops and infrastructure, it will never be able to become a democracy.

One last issue Nigerians have to deal with is corrupt elections. According to the Afrobarometer survey, “African voters are losing patience with faulty elections that often exclude popular candidates and are marred by serious irregularities” (Polgreen 1996, 1). Free and fair elections are a necessity in order for democracy to take hold (Linz and Stephan 1996, 15). Elections in Nigeria have been overshadowed by violence and corruption, which means that their elections are not legitimate (Polgreen 1996, 1). Those taking place in the electoral process should not have to deal with pressures like that. Nigerians also believe that elections will not help remove unjust leaders from their positions. This is often the case with corrupt leaders; they are not easily extricated (Ottaway 2003, 28).

All three of these countries face daunting challenges in order to develop and establish democracy. All three countries face the problem of either corrupted official in office or the governmental controlling too many aspects of their lives. Russia and Nigeria both suffer from economic instability in spite of their cornucopia of natural resources. China and Russia have stability in certain aspects, economy and political systems respectively, but overall they suffer instability. Nigeria seems to suffer from instability in all aspects. These democratic challenges must be address in order for Russia, China, and Nigeria to become more stable and democratic nations.