This is an interesting argument about the global decline of democracy in the world. They argue the important distinction between operating elections and functioning democracies. The piece shares different perspectives, sometimes taking the idealist position about how effective democracies create peace and prosperity between nations, and sometimes sharing a perspective in contrast to that. This article is immediately moralistic about how democracies are good, and non-democracies (whoever they are) are bad. What I take from this piece is the questions about the traditional ‘non-democracies’ as those in power label - do any exist that are functioning and relatively peaceful states? Are the classical symptoms of non-democracies really a consequence of that non-democracy, or just a correlation?
Hey Sam,
ReplyDeleteYou make some important points in your blog article on the worldwide demise of democracy. As the piece points out, it's important to distinguish between having elections and really having a functional democracy. There is a worrying trend of democratic decline, according to Freedom House and Economist Intelligence Unit measurements.
The relationship between democracy and wealth is an intriguing one. Nonetheless, several non-democratic governments—such as Singapore—achieve stability and economic expansion, indicating alternate routes to comparable results. This raises an essential question: are the signs of non-democracies a result of their political structures, or are they the result of outside influences? Dr. Maria Armoudian brought up the example of Chile in the 1970s to show how outside meddling may have a big influence on a nation's political course.
Overall, this is an awesome piece that encourages readers to critically consider the nature and advantages of democracy, particularly in light of the difficult global environment we live in today.