[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Democracy vs. Non-Democracy

Introduction

A relatively narrow definition of democracy has been offered by Joseph Schumpeter (1950), who viewed democracy as simply a method for choosing political leadership: “The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote” (p. 260). Another, more exclusive definition is offered by David Held, who argued that “democracy entails a political community in which there is some form of political equality among the people” (Held, 1996, pp. 1). The existence of equal rights (and, accordingly, equal obligations) is the principal feature of political democracy.

Between the rather inclusive conception of political democracy offered by Schumpeter and the exclusive definition offered by Held is that offered by Robert Dahl (1989). For Dahl, democracy was an ideal type of political system in which citizens have the opportunity to (a) formulate their preferences, (b) signify their preferences to their fellow citizens and the government, and (c) have their preferences weighed equally in the conduct of government. However, since no system can fully embody democracy as an ideal type, Dahl prefers to use the term polyarchies to refer to existing “nonideal” democracies. Polyarchies exhibit the following characteristics:

1. Control over government decisions is constitutionally vested in elected officials.

2. Elected officials are chosen in free, fair, and frequent elections.

3. Practically all adults have the right to vote in elections.

4. Practically all adults have the right to run for elective offices.

5. Citizens have the right to express themselves freely on political matters.

6. Alternative sources of information are freely and legally available.

7. Everyone has the right to form parties, pressure groups, and other associations independent of the state. (Dahl, pp. 1- 14)

One of the common goals of democracy is to limit arbitrariness and abuse of power. This goal is often not possible to reach there, where human rights and other democratic values ??were not recognized or they had no effective protection from the legal system. In many countries, democracy is identified with liberal democracy , which, along with honest, periodic and universal elections vested supreme authority of those in which candidates freely compete for the votes of the electorate includes the rule of law , separation of powers and the constitutional limits on the power of the majority by ensuring certain personal or group freedoms. On the other hand, some left-wing movement believes that the realization of the right political decision-making requires the provision of social rights and the low level of socio-economic inequalities (Barbar, pp. 1-92).

A number of authoritarian regimes have outward signs of democratic government, but they had the power only one party, and the policies do not depend on the preferences of the voters. Over the last quarter century, the world was characterized by a tendency to spread democracy. Among the relatively new challenges it faces include separatism, terrorism, migration. International organizations such as the UN, OSCE and EU, suggest that control over the internal affairs of the state, ...