Description
Choose one only:
I. Explain the “sovereign paradox” and its solution (sources: lectures)
II. Explain the Bates explanation of state failure (sources: lectures, Bates)
III. Describe the “Paradox of Democratic Exuberance” (sources: lectures, either Mann or Kurlantzick)
IV. Explain the institutional comparative advantages of territorial rulers; use the public/joint products/private goods distinction to frame your answer (source: Bates)
V. Explain the role of law in state-building (sources: lectures)
- Please finish on time
-Similarity less than 10%
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer
Hey, please let me know if you need any edits
Running Header: PARADOX OF DEMOCRATIC EXUBERANCE
Paradox of Democratic Exuberance
Institutional Affiliation
Date
1
PARADOX OF DEMOCRATIC EXUBERANCE
Paradox of Democratic Exuberance
The paradox of democracy relies on the inner variance that is found inside modern
democracy which has been formed by the joining of conventional liberalism and democratic
theory. This formation brings about the liberal democracy institution. Modern democracy is
highly focused on two characteristics that not all only define it, but can provide the problems
that may face modern democracy. This type of democracy has also evolved all through time
and has subsisted since the 1700s. An institution of modern democracy has to have these two
characteristics which are very essential (Dahrendorf, 2000).
Democracy is a decision rule which means the institution under this has to be
informative and if not, it would prove an occurrence of a paradox. In addition, any outcome
of election may be faced under this institution. The other characteristics involves the modern
democracy is that it has a dichotomous variable meaning, an institution under the modern
democracy cannot be authoritarian or autocratic, and if so, it will cause a paradox.
The minimum institutional criteria under modern democracy are; the system of
competitive alternating elites, the electoral mechanism, rule of inclusion and political rights
which are enforceable.
The establishment of competitive alternating elites through the alternation of elections
ensures the society of a non-autocratic rule from the wealthy and also gives chances to others
who are not wealthy to embrace power therefore promoting equality. To those who seize
power, democracy is viewed as a threat and the parties must plead with the voters in order to
gain votes by using short term objectives. Under this criterion, a paradox may stem from the
public’s fear and the elites’ disdain of democracy during their governance (Kurlantzick,
2013).
2
PARADOX OF DEMOCRATIC EXUBERANCE
This was provided by James Moore who brought on that Karl Rove who was an
influential and a key person to former president George W. Bush who acted as his advisor as
well as a strategist for the president and who also had campaigned to achieve the spiritual
right when he himself was not religious at all.
In some cases, an inconsistency of democracy may be experience when the nondemocratic forces are voted in. A good example of this contradiction is when Hitler and his
party were chosen in which brought about the end of democracy leading his institution to
commit violation of human rights and campaigns that promoted genocide which viewed him
as a dictator.
Another good example of this contradiction is when Hamas who was regarded by
Western countries as a terrorist associate, was voted in which brought about a lack of aid and
also brought about the worst economy (Dahrendorf, 2000).
One contradiction that faces a democratic institution is the preferences of majority
votes versus the minority votes which may not be of immense value. Countries which may
have a selection of races and an assortment of religion may lead to a preference of some
policies by the dominant group that may very well end up undermining the others. A good
example is that of Nigeria which has both a great population of people belonging to the
Muslim faith and the Christian faith, with some Muslim wanting the supremacy of the Sharia
law while some Muslims and other people of other faith do not want that. The situation
would cause a paradox if the there was a slight majority to overrule the minority policies.
3
PARADOX OF DEMOCRATIC EXUBERANCE
Similar problems have occurred in France, which faces a problem in the integration of
foreign population, Spain with the Basque populace wanting sovereignty and the US where
there is a struggle in the integration of immigrants. To prevent the majorities policies
overriding the minorities, the democratic institution must ensure there is openness in the
society to prevent insecurity among the people by using media, schools, and institutions as
outlets. The economic conditions of that country will also play a important role in this since
countries who are more economically established, the inequality gap will be much less and
hence people are less probable to form policies that override/undermine others (Mann,
1938).
In a democratic institution, the populace usually question the government on the
promises that was issued to them during the electoral period and also on the policies that are
being legislated by the same government. Although this is regard as healthy cynicism, in
some countries, this questioning has brought about contempt at the promises being made by
the government official. These furthe...