Recent Post

Searching...
July 30, 2012

A Word on Democracy


For optimists, the victory of the West on the Soviet system would allow democracy to become the dominant form of world government. In fact, under pressure from popular movements, many countries in East and South have adopted democratic constitutions, and despite countless contradictions inherent in these emerging democracies, political autonomy was gradually extended and consolidatedBut another equally important development that should have accompanied the victories of liberal states has not occurred: the expansion of democracy as a form of global governance. 

One might expect that globalization - but unfortunate term diffcult to prevent - affects not only production, finance, technology, media and fashion, but also the international political system, and thus lead to globalization of democracy. The concept of "global democracy" can mean simply a phenomenon that affects the internal regimes of different states, but it may also indicate a new way of understanding and controlling the political world. Once the nuclear threat removed, many thinkers have urged Western states to progressively apply the principles of the rule of law and collective participation in international affairs. It is the idea which is the source of cosmopolitan democracy: globalize democracy while democratizing globalization [1]. The governments of major Western liberal states have not responded to these calls. With the sole exception of the International Criminal Court, there were no major institutional reforms since the end of the Cold War. The war continued to be used as a means of settling conflicts, international law has been repeatedly violated, and economic aid to developing countries has declined instead of increasing. Large parts of Northern public opinion were against the foreign policies of their governments, but they justified their behavior by relying on a questionable syllogism: "since we were elected democratically, we cannot be guilty of crimes.” These governments may have actually been elected democratically, they may well have respected the principles of the rule of law at home, but can we say the same for their conduct on foreign policy issues? The intellectual debate itself seems to observe a double standard. The most ardent defenders of democracy within states become skeptical, even cynical, given the assumption of a global democracy. Dahrendorf [2] quickly scans the question by saying that advocating global democracy amounts to "bark at the moon, and Dahl [3] more elegantly concludes that" the international system will fail to reach a reasonable threshold democratic. " And yet cosmopolitan democracy continues to take the risk to call for the establishment of democracy within, between and above states. The purpose of this paper is twofold: to resume the main guiding principles of cosmopolitan democracy, and identify and address the major critical reactions it has aroused. Seven theses for cosmopolitan democracy  The logic that bases the idea of ​​political democracy based on seven theses that we will examine in turn: 
1) Democracy must be understood as a process rather than as a set of standards and procedures. 2) The hostility between states hinders the realization of democracy within states. 3) Democracy within States favors peace, but does not necessarily virtuous foreign policy. 4) Global democracy is not limited to the achievement of democracy in each state. 5) Globalization blunts the political autonomy of states, which reduces the effciency of democracy state. 6) On an increasing number of specific issues, all concerned do not necessarily coincide with territorial boundaries of states. 7) Globalization engenders new social movements relating to matters that affect other individuals and communities, even if they are geographically and culturally distant from their own political community. 
Democracy must be understood as a process rather than as a set of standards and procedures 
Democracy cannot be understood in static terms. It is easily seen on the example of these States, with the best democratic tradition rooted, and yet constantly bring democracy to the test by venturing on new ground. For example, the number of persons with rights in the most developed democracies steadily increasing: minorities, immigrants and future generations, animals themselves, have now been granted specific rights. The decision-making procedures are further discussed, as shown in the debate on deliberative democracy [4], and the problem of aggregation of political preferences, initially raised by Condorcet, is once again at heart of the controversy. On the one hand, it stresses that democracy can not be expressed only by the majority principle [5]. On the other, it often invites not only take into account the arithmetic sum of individual preferences, but also how different individuals are affected by a given decision. 
The theoretical debate on democracy has never been as lively as during the last decade of the twentieth century, the very one who saw the supposed victory of democracy. What are the implications? First, the idea that the democratic process is incomplete and far from being over [6]. More broadly, democracy must be seen as an endless process, so that we can not predict today the direction in which future generations will develop forms of protest, participation and management. These arguments can include democracy not only in historical context, but also an evolution in community-specific policy. How to judge the political system becomes crucial: each singular democratic system must be judged first by a ladder on his own development, rather than a simplistic dichotomy between democracy and no democracy. To assess the political system of a state, we must consider not only the level of democracy but also the path that leads to [7]. 
The hostility between states hinders the realization of democracy within states 
The absence of a peaceful international environment to impair the expression of dissent, opposition to change and limit freedom within states. Citizens' rights are reduced and the civil and political freedoms are undermined to meet a safety requirement. This is nothing new. In the sixteenth century, Erasmus had already noted: "I do not wish to appear here only speculate what proved to be true, alas, all too often: it takes the guise of a rumor of war against the Turks to the Christian people and despoil bring, once pressed and broken in every way, to support more slavishly tyranny of princes secular and religious [8]. In the eighteenth century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau elucidates the relationship between interior and exterior recalling that war, or threat of war is nothing but a method used by tyrants to control their subjects' one side of war and conquest and the progress of despotism other mutual support (...) Finally everyone sees enough that the Princes conquerors are at least as much the war to their subjects than their enemies and that the condition of the winners is no better than that of the vanquished "[9]. These remarks have taken on new meaning during the Cold War - the foreign threat was used in the East to stifle democracy in the West to limit its possibilities [10]. At the same time, leaders - democratic or not - fueled confrontation to maintain their power within. 
The Cold War is over, but the need to find scapegoats has not ceased. The extremists - even in democratic countries - continue to strengthen the power by fanning the flames of international conflict. So both the absence of favorable external conditions and lack of will to create that limits the development of democracy. Even today, the dangers of terrorism lead to limit civil rights in many states. It is therefore quite significant that for the first time without a doubt, the recent project of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance [11] assesses the degree of internal democracy of a state also drawing on how citizens judge the foreign policy of their government and the international political environment overall: it is a way to recognize an international order based on peace and the principles of the rule of law is a necessary condition the Progression of democracy within states. 
Democracy within States favors peace, but does not necessarily allows for a virtuous foreign policy 
The existence of democratic institutions limit the tendency of governments to engage in senseless wars that endanger the lives and well-being of citizens. A venerable liberal tradition recalls that autocrats are more prone to conflict, where governments must be accountable to the public tend to avoid them. Jeremy Bentham, in his Principles of International Law 1786-1789), argues that to reduce the likelihood of war, we must abolish the practice of secrecy in foreign policy, and enable citizens to confirm the adequacy of international politics with their own interests. James Madison in 1792 argues that to prevent conflicts, governments must be subject to the will of the people. Immanuel Kant said that if a state adopts a republican constitution, the chances of going to war will be low because "if the consent of citizens (and can not be otherwise in the republican constitution) is required to decide whether or not to war, it is natural that, as long as they would call upon themselves the evils of war [...] they think carefully before taking part too dangerous "[12]. 
The debate around the idea that "democracies do not war with each other" [13] suggests a link, and precise causal, between the interior systems of States and international peace. The syllogism is implied that the persistence of war is due to the presence of non-democratic states. This means we can guarantee a peaceful international community by working only on the political system within states. Yet, democratic states do not necessarily foreign policy the same principles and values ​​that those who base their internal system. Thucydides noted already disillusioned with realistic enthusiasm with which the citizens of the Athenian polis had voted, "among other resolutions unreasonable" [14] for the campaign against Sicily, without even knowing the location of island or its size. Analogies between the foreign policy of Athens and those of the United States are numerous [15]. 
Realists do not expect of course that it is sufficient that a State has the punch it has a democratic foreign policy virtuous and cosmopolitan democracy takes this lesson realistic about the lack of necessary coherence between policy domestic and foreign policy. But it highlights two hidden virtues of democratic regimes that may yet make the connection between the "real" and "ideals" of their foreign policies. The first of these virtues is the interest of states to establish and participate in international organizations [16], and to encourage transnational associations. The second virtue is the tendency of states to feed a greater respect for the rules that are shared by communities that recognize each other as similar [17]. 
Global democracy is not limited to the achievement of democracy in each state 
That the contemporary world already has 120 states whose governments are elected is certainly an encouraging development. This compares with 41 democratic states from 1974, and 76 of 1990 shows how democracy, albeit often imperfect forms, has spread worldwide. A thinker as influential as Larry Diamond [18] has been claimed that within a generation, democratic governments will be at the forefront of all states in the world. Diamond and the group of academics gathered around the Journal of Democracy have developed a program very fruitful to establish conditions that promote or hinder the development and consolidation of democracy. But they did not consider the parallel program established by the cosmopolitan democracy, that is to say, the democratization of the international system as well as individual states. 
Even if the establishment of democracy in a larger number of states can actually strengthen the principles of rule of law internationally and reduce the opportunities of war, I do not think this is a sufficient condition, which to base a democratic reform of international relations [19]. A greater number of democratic states is certainly an asset in the struggle for global democracy, but it is not an absolute guarantee for the same. Global democracy, which can be understood simply as the "absence of war", also requires expansion of democracy worldwide. It is therefore crucial to identify the tools that legitimate democratic states could use to extend democracy to autocratic states - to use undemocratic means in clear contradiction between the purpose.
1 - has an equal vote ("Equality in voting)
2 - Citizen Participation ('effective participation ')
3 - the political wisdom ("enlightened understanding ")
4 - the principle of control ('control over-the final agenda)
5 - the principle of inclusion ("inclusion")

We therefore see: Dahl puts political parties at the heart of democratic pluralism. These allow the seizure of power throughelections and protect democracy against the monarchical drift.To consolidate the hallmark of democracy, pluralism is a process of institutionalization of political competition and choice of partisan elites.
1 - has an equal vote ("Equality in voting)
2 - Citizen Participation ('effective participation ')
3 - the political wisdom ("enlightened understanding ")
4 - the principle of control ('control over-the final agenda)
5 - the principle of inclusion ("inclusion")
We therefore see: Dahl puts political parties at the heart of democratic pluralism. These allow the seizure of power throughelections and protect democracy against the monarchical drift.To consolidate the hallmark of democracy, pluralism is a process of institutionalization of political competition and choice of partisan elites.
We therefore see: Dahl puts political parties at the heart of democratic pluralism. These allow the seizure of power throughelections and protect democracy against the monarchical drift.To consolidate the hallmark of democracy, pluralism is a process of institutionalization of political competition and choice of partisan elites.


According to this vision Dahlien pluralist democracy or of democratic pluralism, the terms "pluralism"and "pluralistic"refers to the existence of a plurality of relatively autonomous and independent organizations in the state sphere. It is therefore unorganized pluralism, institutionalized ("organizational Pluralism")whose pluralism of political parties. Five (5) criteria that define democratic ideal:








0 comments:

Post a Comment