Modern Democracies - Research Paper Example

?Main issues in approaching democracy from countries with bipartisan structure and multi partisan structure: Brazil (multi partisan), the United s of America (Bipartisan) Introduction: Democracy, as the predominant political ideology, has been practiced since early 20th century and materialization of the democratic ideals became conspicuous since the World War II aftermath. As a political philosophy, democracy can be defined as the “form of government in which the ruling power of a State is legally vested not in any particular class or classes, but in the members of the community as a whole. This means, in communities that act by voting, that rule belongs to the majority, as no other method has been found for determining peaceably and legally what is to be deemed the will of a community which is not unanimous” (Bryce, and Bryce 20). Keeping in accord to this definition if the modern systems of governance are followed, mainly two types of approaches towards democracy can be found, namely: multi partisan and bipartisan. In a democratic system as the common people have the sole authority to select the government by their voting power, thus, depending on their political ideology, creed, and dependence on political system parties are formed and they aim at functioning as the representatives of common people in the context of conveying their requirements to the government. In a bipartisan political structure as that of the United States the nature of democracy is determined by two major parties. The incidents of fraud in election had a major role to play in leading the United States political scenario to adopt the bipartisan structure. It was opined that the bipartisan structure would not only minimize the possibility of electoral fraud but would also help each party to “check and balance the other and thereby ensure a fair process” (Hayduk, and Mattson 33). The political history of the United States clearly shows that the bipartisan political structure has always been encouraged in the nation, more specifically in the modernist scenario. On the other hand, since 1985 onwards Brazil’s transition towards democracy received a new impetus. Brazil encountered tremendous economic crisis for consecutive five decades (1930-80) and this prolonged economic crisis was one of the main impediments against its emergence as a democratic nation. However, since mid 1980s several neo-liberal reforms were implemented quite in accordance with multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-cultural demography of Brazil. The multi-cultural demography of the nation played one of the most important roles in the genesis of multi-partisan political structure and consequently provided the common people of the nation with freedom of choice so that urgent reforms can be introduced in different domains of the democratic existence within the Brazilian political context (Lemanski-Valente 89-90). Thesis Statement: The approach towards democracy in both bipartisan and multi-partisan system is to a great extent dependent on political culture of the respective nations. However, in respective system, approach towards democracy generates certain issues that will be focused with adequate attention on the structure of the United States of America (bipartisan) and Brazil (multi-partisan). The issues in approaching democracy from countries with bipartisan structure (such as the United States): The bipartisan structure of the United States received greatest challenge in late 1980s in approaching democracy once the Cold War was over. Ensuring democracy to the U.S. citizens became highly difficult during this time as the Cold War aftermath period was jeopardized by three major factors, namely wide spread of the liberal economic principles due to capitulation of the Soviet Union as well as of the communism; increasing economic interdependence among nations that was considered to be incompatible with traditional ideals of national sovereignty; and finally, the challenge over national sovereignty within the national itself due to negative impacts of globalization, especially in the forms of ethnic and religious conflict (Alessandri 78-79). In order to deal with the situation it was highly required that the American system of governance emphasized over educating common people regarding benefits of the universalism: “The idea that the democratic principle has universal value and that the advancement of democracy is a yardstick for gauging the progress of human societies is not only a central element of Western rhetoric, but has also entered Western political culture to become a popular and appealing concept in the public opinion” (Alessandri 80). The bipartisan system of governance in the United States not only failed to cater the benefits of new democratic ideals to the citizens but also sticking to the bipartisan structure also restrained common people from exercising their voting rights to select a new form of government that could have provided a possible as positive solution to the critical situation. Lisa Jane Disch in this context has quite rightly observed that “By prevailing in a state where participatory reforms have (unintentionally) created a hospitable environment for third-party efforts … it is not the “logic” of winner-take-all elections that dooms third-party candidacies to failure but rather the politics of the two-party system …. It revealed the extent to which “the two-party system” is just another a “regulatory system”, one “made possible and constituted through laws,” administrative practices, and voters expectations” (Disch 4). The bipartisan structure has become so deeply weaved with that of the American political culture that it has become a legislative contrivance, which is dynamic, contestable yet the voters always feel the inclination to shore up the limitations of the structure; rather than taking adequate initiative that could have helped in the germination of a new system: “And shore it up we do: every time we invoke “the two-party system” as a rationale for the way we vote, every time we accept “bipartisan” as a synonym for political impartiality, and every time we succumb without protest to the “logic” that deems a third-party vote to be a vote wasted” (Disch 4). Though an attempt can be made to justify the support for bipartisan structure in approaching democracy: “… traditional multiparty systems are becoming an endangered species as voting is transformed from an expression of solidarity with one’s group and its allied ideology, institutions, and political party to an expression of opinion” (Swanson, and Mancini 257), however, the main problem exists with attitude of people towards interpreting the ideals of democracy and the politics of the bipartisan structure. Conjointly these two factors prohibit common citizens of the United States to adopt any drastic approach that could have altered the existing structure. The existence of bipartisan system within the political culture of the United States as a regulatory system clearly restricts the capacity of liberal interpretation of a responsible citizen and consequently the possibility to exercise voting right that could have helped in the emergence of a third party remains unfulfilled. The issues in approaching democracy from countries with multi-partisan structure (such as Brazil): Prior to get deeper within the discussion of multi-partisan system in approaching democracy it is important to focus on the major differences between bipartisan and multi-partisan structure. David L. Swanson and Paolo Mancini have attempted to encompass the major traits of differences between these two systems in the following passage: “A system of bipartisan competition dominated by two or three competitive parties encourages party appeals of the catch-all sort and favors the use of sophisticated communication strategies to create temporary aggregations of widely differing interests in order to win elections. In contrast, multiparty systems in which there are many competitive parties require that each party differentiate itself from others on distinctive ideological and programmatic grounds, creating the basis for more stable political representation that is perhaps less dependent on the modern model of campaigning for its success” (Swanson, and Mancini 257). While the bipartisan structure followed by the United States political system receives its “regulatory system” status under the disguise of sophisticated communication strategies and internal politics of the limited number of parties, on the other hand, the multi-partisan structure of Brazil actually provides the scope for regulation to the citizens due to its vastness of possibilities, political diversities and possibility of creating a stable political foundation through distinctive ideological as well as programmatic grounds. The political process of addressing democracy in Brazilian context commenced during mid 1980s and one of the major reasons behind such development was the prevailing economic crisis that the nation encountered for a period of fifty years. However, this politico-cultural urge to initiate transition towards democracy resulted in the emergence of “a dynamic multi-party system, where more than three dozen new political parties were formed, giving voice and empowerment to members of the political community” (Lemanski-Valente 90). Evolution of the left-wing Workers’ Party or PT can be regarded as an explicit example in this context. Irrespective of different losses and increasing internal turmoil, the PT has remained one of the major opposition parties in the history of Brazil’s politics. During the time of Brazil’s transition towards democracy the PT not only played a crucial role in inciting the democratic movement but also developed the sincere urge among mass for further changes within the system by igniting “political thinking throughout the country” (Lemanski-Valente 90). Irrespective of the changes occurred in modern political scenario of the United States, however, instances of such radicalization cannot be found as that of the Brazilian context. Another significant change that the multi-partisan system, quite unlike that of the bipartisan one, can introduce is the “renovation of leadership” (Lemanski-Valente 90). The bipartisan structure like that of the United States definitely changes leaders but it never leads to the ‘renovation of leadership.’ The term bears a deep deconstructionist connotation and suggests that multi-partisan system is capable of producing such leadership trends that are quite different from the earlier ones. In the bipartisan system, compared to the multi-partisan one, though the regulation occurs but the possibility of renovation in leadership quality is extremely low. A comparison between two leaders, Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Luis Ignacio ‘Lula’ da Silva makes it clear that the idea of renovation of leadership is actually associated with implementation of “new dynamics to political practices and thinking. These dynamics, in turn, are helping to move the country through an important, although often painful, learning process” (Lemanski-Valente 90). Conclusion: Democracy is such a political ideology that instead of providing the power of governance in hands of a particular class or section of people actually depends on choice of common people. In a democratic structure parties are actually representatives of common people and by depriving legislative power from them they govern the society, keeping into consideration the expectations of citizens. The democratic form of governance, however, by depending on nature of the parties can be classified into two parts, bipartisan and multi-partisan. While in a bipartisan structure the competition between parties is limited to only two or three groups and voters also lack the freedom of choice in the context of initiating a radical change, on the other hand, in a multi-partisan structure presence of many competitors not only provide voters with freedom of choice but also opens up the possibility of stronger political representation compared to the bipartisan counterpart. A comparative study between the United States of America (bipartisan) and multi-partisan structure (Brazil) attempts to show that the main issues in approaching democracy are limitation of choice, political criticism, renovation of political leadership qualities, and lack of political awareness to develop a third party system. There is no doubt about the fact that transition towards democracy through multi-partisan structure is a painful process but the politics of bipartisan structure introduces such a notion of stability that inhabitants of the system feel regulation of the parties are best option to ensure democracy, rather than undertaking radical and rigorous paths to initiate such changes. Works Cited Alessandri, Emiliano. “World Order Re-founded: The Idea of a Concert of Democracies”. The International Spectator, Vol. 43, No. 1. Brunetti: Istituto Affari Internazionali. 2008. p. 73–90. Bryce, Viscount. and Bryce, James. Modern Democracies, Part 1. Montana: Kessinger Publishing. 2004. Disch, Lisa Jane. The tyranny of the two-party system. Columbia: Columbia University Press. 2002. Lemanski-Valente, Karla. “The Cardoso Administration and Brazil’s Transition to the Third Millennium”. Miraculous metamorphoses: the neoliberalization of Latin American populism. London: Zed Books. 2001. Mancini, Paolo. and Swanson, David L. Politics, media, and modern democracy: an international study of innovations in electoral campaigning and their consequences. California: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996. Mattson, Kevin. and  Hayduk, Ronald. Democracy's moment: reforming the American political system for the 21st century. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 2002. Read More