Blog Discussion Group Four
Please answer one question from the following list. Blog "post" due at 11:55pm on October 15 and "comment" due at 11:55pm on October 18.
Nondemocratic Rule
1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
2. What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
Political Parties and Party Systems
3. Is the United States dominated by a “power elite”? If so, who constitutes it? If not, are there any groups or individuals who have exceptional influence? Do the masses matter at all? Are perhaps all democracies dominated by some power elite?
4. Are political parties an adequate or inadequate vehicle for channeling political opinions and actions? Is it better to be an independent voter rather than one who identifies with a party?
5. Are political parties important to the functioning of a democracy?
Nondemocratic Rule
1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
2. What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
Political Parties and Party Systems
3. Is the United States dominated by a “power elite”? If so, who constitutes it? If not, are there any groups or individuals who have exceptional influence? Do the masses matter at all? Are perhaps all democracies dominated by some power elite?
4. Are political parties an adequate or inadequate vehicle for channeling political opinions and actions? Is it better to be an independent voter rather than one who identifies with a party?
5. Are political parties important to the functioning of a democracy?
The main difference between the authoritarian government and democracy is that in authoritarianism the focus is not on the individual or on the people, it is about being submissive to the authority figure while in a democracy the focus is more on the people. One of the main differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes is that the power that the government has is limited by the constitution, and the people that have power in the government are elected officials chosen by a ballot. In authoritarianism the government is seeking a total concentration of political power, where the power is held by an individual or a small group. Individual rights is another aspect where the two differ. In a democracy individual rights are laid out in the constitution and are guaranteed. In an authoritarian system there are not guaranteed rights and the rights of the collective group are more important than those of the individual. In authoritarianism, there is a single party system and opposition to the party in rule is not tolerated. The last main difference is related to the rule of law. In a democracy the people and government fall under the rule of law, which is based on documents such as constitutions that protect rights and the power of the branches are limited through checks and balances. In authoritarianism the government relies on ideology or religion and the ruling authorities are the final political, legal and moral authority.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your differences between authoritarian and democracy government. I really liked how you explained in detail the relationship both parties have with their citizens and the rights they may or may not have. I also like how you included how authoritarianism relies on ideology and religion for moral authority.
Delete1)
ReplyDeleteAuthoritarian regimes tend to have all power over their constituents. Some countries populaces see their leaders as godly and these persons are afraid of having any ideals of their own. Reason being of backlash and repercussions of any image or way of life that differs from the ideology already set in place by the regime. There are many countries that follow this type of process and these are just the top ten:
1. North Korea
2. Syria
3. Chad
4. Central African Republic
5. Democratic Republic of Congo
6. Turkmenistan
7. Equatorial Guinea
8. Tajikistan
9. Saudi Arabia
10. Uzbekistan…
Furthermore, these types of regimes according to our text Essentials of Comparative Politics by Patrick H. O’Neil states that non democratic regimes deny their citizens: participation, competition, and liberty. Who would want to be part of a society that operates in that capacity?
Next, democratic regimes are controlled by a small group of persons who exercise power over the state without being constitutionally liable. The most democratic countries are listed as:
1. USA
2. UK
3. Germany
4. Denmark
5. Finland
6. Canada
7. Sweden
8. Ireland
9. Spain
10. Netherlands
Yes I agree that one of the biggest characteristics of an authoritarian regime is power over their constituents another quality is limited political freedom. They limit the political freedom that those in their government have. Using your example of North Korea they have very high censorship where they limit access to the internet for both citizens and visitors. Only a few people in high government positions have access to the internet. Compared to the United States, a democratic state we see how there are no limits on internet access and how readily available it is to anyone.
DeleteI agree there are blackout periods where power and internet is intermittent, so its hard for North Koreans to keep up with media and other outlets especially since there are many things that are forbidden or banned in that country. Cable television is on the banned list and that would be the easiest next to the internet to see the outside world. Wi-Fi and international calls are also on the banned list. So, its pretty evident that the populous is under strict control and they don't have their own ideals or freedoms.
DeleteJameson,
DeleteI'm linking an article that I read not too long ago about the United States and it's ranking as compared to other democracies. I think you'd enjoy it based on your initial comment that lists examples of different types of regimes.
It essentially talks about the work of Seymour Lipset, who theorized how democracies could fail in the face of "factionalization," or mob rule. Despite the planning in the constitution to provide checks and balances against this event in a democracy, Lipset argued that economic inequality on an extreme level will see the rise of these mobs anyway. This has influenced modern economic thought in the ranking process of world democracies. The United States has now been downgraded in its ranking. Canada and Australia are now ranked higher.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts after reading the article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/05/why-is-american-democracy-danger/
1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteSome essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes could be determined in numerous of ways. Under a democratic government, the citizens have the right to vote for government officials. Elections are constructed of candidates with differing ideas, usually in a two- or multi- party system. Under a authoritarian government, the citizens of the nation has little voice when it come to elections. Unlike the United States where the rule of law is based on the constitution. Authoritarian governments rely on ideology, religion, or personal charisma as a source of moral authority.
1) The main differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes lies in the power distribution of the government and the means in which the government controls their system. One difference between democracies and authoritarian regimes is the participation of ordinary people in politics. In a democratic government, public participation is highly encouraged; the system itself is built in a way that people can participate and influence decisions made by the government. Whereas, for an authoritarian government, the power of the state lies in the hands of the few, meaning that the influence of the public is limited. In fact, Essentials of Comparative Politics mentions that “many authoritarian systems are characterized by the absence of civil society” (p. 170)-- which is the opposite of a democratic system.
ReplyDeleteAnother difference is the strategies used by the two systems to maintain control. For democracies, it is important that the government respect the civil liberties of their people. The people are allowed to protest and express disappointment with the government and it is a right that is guaranteed through the law. There is a huge emphasis on civil liberty and individuality. A democratic government resorts to force mainly to restrain disorder. Whereas, for authoritarian regimes, there is a need to resort to force to maintain power and peace. The common justification for relying on force- in an authoritarian system- is that force helps with social stability. In this system, it is typical to see the persecution and punishment of individuals who speak out against the state.
5) Political parties are important to the functioning of a democracy. Political parties give citizens options to choose from and allows them the ability to better utilize their civic duties and rights. According to Hague and Harrop, “all democracies must allow space for political opinion to form and to receive expression through political parties” (48). Opinions can be formed and expressed by the system of political parties.
ReplyDeleteIn order for a political party to gain supporters and win office, the party members or officers will have to make sure that they are listening to the voices of the citizens and are representing their interests. When there are more than one political party, there is a wide range of party stances in which the people can become further involved in, so that their voices continue to be heard. Once individuals have chosen the party that they most identify with- they are likely to participate for the party to win office- by volunteering and donating to the party. The involvement of the public in politics helps serve the system of democracy.
I agree that political parties are most effective when they listen to the interest of their voters. However, I question if they can realistically do this. Why do you think having a party system is better than not having one? Wouldn't electing representatives from a wider ideological pool not tied to party help break partisanship and ineffective legislation. Do you think that parties force our system towards an impasse point, or is there anything parties can do to stop this?
DeleteI agree with you that political parties are important to the function of a democracy. Political opinion is what has shaped this country from the very beginning when the colonist decided they wanted to separate from the British and start their own country where liberty and freedom were emphasized. Today we see how the democratic party and the republican party are sharing the attention of America with new emerging parties that share very different and modern political ideas. The libertarian party, the green party, and constitution party are all examples of how these political parties are changing and evolving as the voices and opinions of the public are changing.
Delete1. Some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes would be that in a democracy, the power is given to the people. The citizens are able to form their laws, and the elected government is serving the people. An authoritarian regime is when the government has complete control over everything; for example, North Korea today. Under Democracies, the people are able to elect their government, while under authoritarian the government has all the power and will not change. Under authoritarian regimes, the power is usually shared by few, but they have total control over what occurs in the country. While in democracies, the power tends to be spread more equally in order to prevent conflicts.
ReplyDelete1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteAuthoritarian regimes come in two forms.
Traditional:
These authoritarian regimes’ goal is to control the people with the goal of staying in power. They give enough freedoms as is necessary to their people, to ensure they are not overthrown. An example would be a monarchy or religious government.
Contemporary:
This style of regime changes the people to believe in those in power. Propaganda is often used as well as other physical and psychological stratagems for corrupting the minds of people. An example of this is the Nazi party. In this system as well, an illusion of options is sometimes given to people but there is often one monopoly of political parties.
Both types of authoritarian regimes are focused on collective interests over individual rights. When elections take place, there is often not a choice of candidates. A single party system is used. Government seeks total concentration of political power. The government is ruled by either a small group of elites or an ideology that binds people together. Sometimes a charismatic leader will rule the government.
Democracy:
In a democratic system both the government and people are subject to the rule of law. There is a choice often of candidates with different ideologies usually belonging to a two party system or a multi party system. Free elections are held periodically and are consistent. There is a formal constitution that protect citizen’s rights. The law in this system is created by restricted, and ideally neutral government that is established through a social contract. Liberties and rights are guaranteed by the constitution. Power is exercised by elected or selected officials by the people.
2. What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
In their rule, Authoritarian leaders are most concerned about maintaining their control of political power. Whether it is traditional or contemporary, the goal is to maintain power. They employ different strategies to do so, however, and also have differing government structures. In short, the power that is held by this form of government encourages a question less existence from its people and is not responsible to those people.
Some examples of this form of government are in the military dictatorships of Latin America, that primarily had control in the last century.
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Authoritarianism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism (October 15, 2019).
That was Ethan^
Delete
DeleteI agree. Authoritarian leaders are mostly concerned about maintaining their political power. An authoritarian government is controlled by the few and the system itself supports the leaders' motive of maintaining political control. It is common to see an authoritarian goverment resort to coercion, co-optation, surveillance, and propaganda for the maintenance of the regime. And with the tactics used by the leaders, there is little opportunities for ordinary people to be involved in changing the system.
The essential differences between democracies and authoritarian' regimes is between the power of government democracy has a government that is limited by the constitution and has elected officials by a ballot; meanwhile authoritarians are held by an individual or small group of individuals that seek political power. The civil liberties and rights constructed by the democratic party consist of individualism and social contract. The rights of the people are guaranteed by the constitution. The collective interests for authoritarians outweigh the individual rights on the basis of the civil liberties and rights. As far as elections go with the democratic parties consist of free elections and offers different candidates supporting different ideas in a multi-party system; authoritarianism involves the single party system with elections that are symbolic for the ruling class to show the solidarity of the regimes.
ReplyDelete3) Yes, the United States is dominated by a "power elite." In this case the "power elite" is made up of the capitalist class. Billionaires and millionaires and other business owners have control over the state that most do not have. One way we can see this is in the representatives that make up Congress. In October of 2018, a Vox study (link below) found that only 2% (!) of representatives in Congress were Working Class. The rest are semi-professionals, middle class, and the wealthy. The President is a millionaire the majority of those in his cabinet have net worths of over a million dollars. Lenin defined current liberal democracy as "bourgeoise democracy" and we can clearly see this connection. The rich in both parties, seek to maintain capitalism and imperialism as the status quo. The rich in both major parties benefit from the status quo that preserves their social standing in the first place. The Democratic Party is seen as the more progressive party but even in this party only a small group (Bernie, Warren, AOC, Ilhan Oman) advocate anything close to social democracy. In fact most American liberals would seem conservative if placed into other countries.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the masses still have a role to play. Politicians only have legitimacy through the power systems they create. The working class can vote these people out of office but often they end up replacing one capitalist elite with another capitalist elite. This is why I think it is necessary for workers to build power and take political action outside of the state. Workers should strike and shut down production until demands are met. Corporations should crumble and be replaced with worker owned co-ops. In the short term, essential services should be made public. By these means, the masses can gain some power back from the ruling class in economic and cultural spheres.
Nothing in the act of governance inherently creates a ruling class. However this is very common. Liberal democracies are often dominated by the wealthy. Authoritarian regimes are dominated by autocrats and military leaders. "Workers" governments are often run by corrupt vanguards that enrich themselves with the spoils of the workers in the same way capitalists do. Here, we can see that reaching a society without a ruling class will be hard but there are feasible ways we can protect government from these things happening. First, we can ban big money from politics. Second, we can create shorter term limits, and shorter elections. We can decentralize governmental bodies and create local workers councils based on direct democracy. Finally, we can switch the representative system to a delegate system that could use practices such as sortition and liquid democracy. These are just a few suggestions that would help to make power in government more evenly distributed.
-Cade Wooten
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/24/18009856/working-class-income-inequality-randy-bryce-alexandria-ocasio-cortez
I agree with what you sad about how the working class should vote and build up power. I think that many times the power elite makes the working class feel so inferior and powerless that there is no sense of hope for change, so I appreciate how you pointed out that this class does have power, especially in numbers. I also appreciate how you incorporated ways that it would be possible to eliminate the power elite. I think that banning big money from politics is a very important idea, that is very present in the current political spectrum right now.
ReplyDelete1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteAuthoritarianism, by definition, is a nondemocratic regime in which all the political power is held by one person or a small group of people. Political governments such as fascism or dictatorship primarily practice authoritarianism where the citizens under this kind of rule are subservient and denied a say or a vote. The only opinion that matters in this kind of system is the leader(s). Democracy, however, is nearly the opposite. Or at least it is intended to be. Democracy is powered directly or indirectly by the citizens of their country, and the power lies within the voting system. Elected officials are chosen by citizens to represent their interests and protect their liberty. There is a focus on widespread participation to keep this kind of regime running smoothly.