From the James Tilly's 'Democracy' reading, i came across the term low-capacity democracy and was fairly intrigued by it; in my opinion, i came to the conclusion that it did not constitute a 'proper democracy' especially in the text example of Jamaica who has a lot of violence and corruption in the political sector but was functional nonetheless. Personally I believe that if a government is corrupt then that particular state cannot be fully democratic; therefore the term low-capacity democracy isn't something I agree with. Tilly defines the term further however, stating that there is;
"...less effective state monitoring, higher involvement of semi-legal and illegal actors in public politics and substantially higher levels of lethal violence in public politics"
This goes against many democratic principles; i do not think that just because a state functions, it can be termed a democracy (even if it is a "low-capacity democracy") it should be seen as one of the many in-between states; neither entirely democratic nor authoritarian.
Lastly I attempted to figure out how Belgium is an example of a low capacity democracy but couldn't quite grasp it; if anyone knows, let me know.
No comments:
Post a Comment