Is Democracy Culture Specific or Universal - Essay Example

Is democracy culture specific or universal? Name Professor Institution Course Date Is democracy culture specific or universal? Democracy is one the most talked about and discussed topic today. It remains a contentious issue among History scholars and political scientist. While others believe that democracy works only in a specific culture, others hold that it works universally (Shin 2012). In fact, the United Nations regards democracy as one of its indivisible and universal principles and core values. However, some great philosophers like Winston Churchill claimed that, "democracy can be argued as worst styles of governance save for those other styles which have been attempted from time to time” (Coppedge, Alvarez & Maldonado 2008, p.23). This is because it does not actually represent everybody as purported. In some quarters democracy is actually forces on nations. Based on the topic, this essay argues that democracy is culture specific and not universal. The paper will define the word “democracy “and the word “universal”. Some of the issues that will be discussed include exclusion, inequality, Chinese culture and skepticism, revolution and coup de tat, free and fair elections, and religious disintegration, and how they justify why democracy is not universal. Blokker (2009) defines democracy as a government system where power is distributed to the public who are the electorate or every eligible citizen of a nation, normally through representatives who are elected. On the other hand, universal means an occurrence which is experienced by everyone of the society and by the society in general. Therefore, the question is whether democracy is experienced by every member of the society and all the cultures. Another question asked is whether the democracy is just found in a specific culture. The answer is; democracy is practiced in specific culture and is not universal. Exclusion From the definition, many loopholes can be noticed in the term variation and the real meaning to those who practice it. Dissecting the definition, one will realize that in a direct form of democracy, the people decide their political issues collectively. Carothers (2009, p.103) argues that, democracy expressed through representatives, the citizens elect their representatives to help them in deciding the political matters. In the context of eligibility, democracy only allows people who have attained the age of 18 or in some cases 21 to elect their leaders (Carothers 2009, p.112). Many countries do this by claiming that the remaining group is children. However, even at the age of ten, some children know what they want. In other cases, democracy talked about only allowing men to elect their representatives. Inequality Because every human being in a democratic nation is presumed to be inherently equal with one another, hence they ought to be offered equal chances to express their views and take part in political matters (Shin 2012, p.116). Additionally, their inclinations and interests must be equally measured in that political course. Many people would ask the reason of purporting of “electoral” democracy yet the minorities, poor and women’s rights are widely violated and elected representatives turn and plunders the state treasury and abuse authority, as it took place just before the Pakistan coup of 1999 (Diamond 2003). While it is true that the percentages and the number of countries claiming to be democratic globally has gone up gradually after 1974 after its spread first in Greece and Spain, it has been felt even by everybody (Diamond 2003). Even though, elections are considered a critical component of democracy, the elections alone do not create democracy (Clark 2002, p.57). Lack of fair and free elections normally has a heavy meaning that a nation is not fully democratic. In a nutshell, holding elections and swearing new leaders does not automatically imply that a nation is democratic. Some of the elected representatives bribe voters who are poor to vote for them during elections; hence money can be used to determine who win elections. Such case is one of the reasons why Chinese people were skeptical of democracy as spread by the west. Chinese culture is known to promote the common good of everyone (Yu 2009, p.116). Liberal democracy of today focuses on self-interest of every voter. Voters tend to choose a representative who encourages their individual interests. Elected leaders will serve for the benefits of their personal constituents. In such democracies, the voting process is not often followed by defending of individual self-expression and freedom in the political platform (McFaul 2004, p.45). In numerous states, leaders who are democratically elected rule with threat, decrees, tolerate human rights abuse and enforce restrictions on the right to assembly and speech. In some cases, they totally neglect a region within their constituent which they believe voted for the opponents. South Sudan is a case point which Omar Albashir is accused of neglecting over the years he has been in power (Gettleman 2011). The situation led to the secession of South Sudan from Sudan in 2011 to become independent. One of the places known as the first to promote democracy was Athens. Bratton, Mattes & Gimah-Boadi (2005) maintain that in this Greek city, women and slaves were never allowed to take part in the election of their representatives who will take part in deciding political matters. As such, it can be concluded that the majority of the citizens were excluded from democracy. Hence democracy is not universal in cultures. United States of America which today is referred as one of the most democratic may not be total democratic as people think. Looking at the democracy of the US closely, research reveals that the country has come a long way. Diamond (1999) claims that for the democracy which the majority claims to enjoy today to be achieved, US underwent a civil war between 1861 and 1865. It is argued that it is the slavery issues that was the major basis of rising political tensions in 1850s. In these years, Republican Party members were aiming at preventing spread of the slavery, and several leaders from Southern part threatened of secession if Lincoln who was then Republican candidate won election following election in 1860 (Diamond 1999). After he won, numerous Southern whites considered that disunion would be their remaining option. The win meant that they felt lost representation that hindered capacity to encourage pro-slavery policies and practices (Merkel & Croissant 2004). Even after that, democracy was not fully achieved, so the struggle continued in the 20th century. This is the democracy the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were fighting for. Such struggle led to the 19th amendment of Civil Rights Legislation in the 1960’s together with other amendments such the 24th and 26th give them adult suffrage (Merkel & Croissant 2004). Chinese culture and skepticism Political culture of different countries also proves that democracy is not universal but culture specific. While others are still fighting to achieve that culture, others are already claiming that they are a democratic country. This is the case of Chinese skepticism on democratic culture from the west. Yu (2009, p.119) pines that beginning in the middle of the 18th century, politicians and researchers of Chinese origin discussed in depth how to handle the Western culture which was ever-encroaching into their cultures. Although, Chinese Confucians had primarily opposed the Western thinking codes, it turned out to be clear that components of the Western democratic culture were much more attractive. Industrialization granted Western countries military and economic edge (Yu 2009, p.115). The demoralizing trounces of the Opium Wars force a section of Chinese intellectuals and elected leaders to reevaluate their stand of political and cultural superiority. Chinese perceived democracy as good because of having thrived in the West and potentially contributed to economic, military and industrial improvements (Chae-bong 2012, p.94). A section of Chinese politicians and academicians were convinced that industrialization and democratization were vital for creating a competitive country. Chae-bong (2012, p.96) contends several intellectuals turned down the idea, claiming Westernization and democracy was not welcome in conventional culture of Chinese people. What majority of the people agreed with was the opinion by Liang Shuming that conventional Chinese society and democracy were totally mismatched, and the only choice for China was either completely accept West democracy or completely reject it (Yu 2009, p.120). The discussion was focused on the idealistic compatibility of the established Chinese cultural beliefs and the Western technologies. The skepticism about traditional Chinese culture to reject the democratic culture was to uphold social harmony (Chae-bong 2012, p. 97). It appears adversely upon anybody who endeavors to disrupt this state of peace. The process of election which happens in contemporary liberal democracy openly counters this principle. At the times of election campaigns, issues often debated are politically and emotionally charged. Chae-bong (2012, p.101) posits that in modern elections of the United States of America, divisive topics such as gay marriage, abortion, and universal health care and military engagement more so in the Middle East take the center stage of the campaigns. In a culture where democracy is highly regarded as a positive value and principle, citizens are given the chance to give their opinions in public forums (Chu, Diamond, Nathan & Shin 2008). At the same time, the elected representatives help them make decisions in political fields. However, that does not mean everybody is given an opportunity to speak their mind, neither does their elected leader listen to them in a political high table. Revolution and Coup de tat In other countries where democracy does not exist, the citizens tend to start a revolution (Diamond 1999, p.10). They claim that their leaders use an authoritarian style of leadership. This is the culture within the society which Marxist theory regards as superstructure. The theory hypothesizes that this culture is characterized by ideology, ideas and values which promotes democracy (Almond 2000). However, the friction between the members is caused by arraignment of members into classes as the poor, middle class and the upper class (the ruling class). While the ruling accumulates wealth for themselves and making the poor to become poorer they create tension which ultimately results in revolution (Diamond 2003). This is the culmination that democracy is not universal, but a thing of the few. Such cases have been witnessed in the recent past and could be regarded as a culture. Some experts hold that values intrinsic in particular Asian and Arab cultures render democracy incompatible (Diamond 2003). When granted a chance, people coming from those cultures can push for their democracy just like they did from Tahrir Square to Tiananmen Square during the Arab Spring. Arab spring is a true representation of why democracy is not a universal. This wave of revolution of protests marked by riots and civil war in Arab nation started in December of 2010 and extended in the nations across of the Arab League. In 2013, presidents and other rulers had been ousted from authority in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Libya (Brownlee, Masoud & Reynolds 2013). Within that period, civil uprisings also exploded in Syria and Bahrain. Key slogans of these demonstrations have been "the citizens want to topple the administration". According to Brownlee, Masoud & Reynolds (2013), Arab Spring is broadly thought to have been prompted by discontent amongst citizens, wider income levels gaps, dictatorship, human rights violations, political corruption, economic decline and general lack of democracy. Considerably, Arab scholars, civil society activists and other intellectuals are also questioning the freedom and democracy gap which spreads within the Arab nations. The Arab Human Development Report 2013 authors noted that international democratization wave “has hardly entered the Arab nations” (Diamond 2003). In fact, democracy is believed to be virtually absent in the Middle East. Diamond (2003) claims that From 16 Arab nations, only one single democracy exists and that is Lebanon which was not democratic in the past. It is the need for democracy which is also claimed to have instigated the rise and fall of Nazism and Fascism. Such cases of economic depression led public to lose hope in democracy. Inglehart (1999, p.128) hold that while facing economic difficulties, the Germans had lost hope that they could a culture of democracy within their country. The working class and middle class population were dissatisfied groups owing to the fact that they were destabilized by two economic downturns within a period of six years (Inglehart 1999, p.128). It was even unexpected that they relied on the extreme parties to provide remedies for their troubles, i.e. Communists and Nazis. Even though, Nazis came to power, the regime was also removed from power. This is a manifestation that democracy could exist in many places, but in others, it would just be temporarily (Shin 2012, p.134). This is because most people in power and those out of power have individual interest which supersedes the interest of the nation. Individuals and groups like the military, rebel groups and civil societies destabilize the power of the elected government making its democratic authority to be at risk (Shin 2012, p.105). Furthermore, because several authoritarian administrations are led by rebel groups or military and they undermine democratic process that is being put in place. Policymakers who are voted by the public should be allowed to work freely from the risk of being ousted or intimidation by opposition. Many democracies practicing regimes have been overthrown; while in some cases elected representatives have strangled democracy. A research indicates that 15 of 130 democracies have been authoritarian (Diamond 2003). Free and fair election Free and fair election have remained one of the inseparable elements of established democracies. Elections authenticate the regime and offer a platform for political conversation between leaders and the public. They enable public to select from existing political frameworks, allows different parties, political activism and part mobilization. In respect to this, Clark (2002, p.105) claims that without standard legitimately and competitive elections, fundamental democratic components of equality and accountability are missing. Such are the scenes witnessed in many elections, including the US. Real supporters of democracy are therefore anticipated to recognize and approve popular election. Disintegration of religion The disintegration of religion has widely thought to have been caused by the lack of democracy. This is a primary reason why Protestants split from Catholicism (Diamond 1999, p.11). Disagreements over the election of leaders, money and sex have been some of the cause of disintegration of religious groups (Diamond 1999, p.18). It continues even today and is demonstrated by several churches being formed daily. Therefore, society must create a culture of trust if they would want democracy to thrive. Conclusion In conclusion, previous researches show that democracy is one of the most favoured systems by people in most cultures in the world. One could then hold that democracy is universal in every culture. However, most studies indicate that the elements of a democratic system are normally ignored by different governments such as free and fair elections, exclusion of women and the youth. Other cultures are also yet to embrace democracy like the Arab world while Chinese had earlier been sceptical about democratic principles. Therefore, many scholars believe that it is mainly in the western culture which embraces democracies and democratic values and processes. Presently, even though democratic system is favoured all over the world, its total adoption remains a contentious issue. References Almond, G.A 2000, The Study of Political Culture”, in Crothers, L. and Lockhart, C. (eds.) Culture and Politics: A Reader, St. Martins Press, New York. Bratton, M, Mattes, R & Gimah-Boadi, E 2005, Public Opinion, Democracy, and Market Reform in Africa, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Blokker, P 2009, Multiple Democracies in Europe: Political Culture in New Member States, London, Routledge. Brownlee, J, Masoud, T & Reynolds, A 2013, The Arab Spring: the politics of transformation in North Africa and the Middle East, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Carothers, T 2009, Democracy Assistance: Political vs. Developmental, Journal of Democracy Vol.20, No. 1, pp.103-142 Chae-bong, H 2012, The Ironies of Confucianism, Journal of Democracy Vol.15, No.3, pp. 93- 107. Clark, E. S 2002, Why Elections Matter, The Washington Quarterly Vol.23, pp. 56-74. Coppedge, M, Alvarez, A & Maldonado, C 2008, Two Persistent Dimensions of Democracy: Contestation and Inclusiveness, The Journal of Politics, Vol.70, pp.20-32. Chu,Y, Diamond, L, Nathan, A and Shin, D. C, 2008, How East Asian View Democracy, New York, Columbia University Press. Diamond, L 1999, The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies throughout the World, Journal of Democracy, Vol.10, pp. 3-17. Diamond, L 2003, Universal Democracy, Policy Review, No. 119, viewed September 12th, 2014 from http://www.hoover.org/research/universal-democracy Gettleman, J 2011, After Years of Struggle, South Sudan Becomes a New Nation, New York Times. Inglehart, R 1999, Trust, well-being and democracy, in Warren, M.E. (ed.) Democracy and Trust, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.121-134, viewed September 12th, 2014 From http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=KepLD0MXbhYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Democracy+and+Trust&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xzkQVKWPA4XQOcjNgPAI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Democracy%20and%20Trust&f=false Shin, D.C 2012, Is Democracy Emerging as a Universal Value? A Contrarian Perspective, Working Paper Series: No. 68, Asian Barometer Asian, pp.101-143. Merkel, W & Croissant, A 2004, Conclusion: Good and Defective Democracies, Democratization. McFaul, M 2004, Democracy Promotion as a World Value, Washington Quarterly Vol.28, No. 1, Pp.43-54. Yu, K 2009, Democracy Is a Good Thing: Essays on Politics, Society, and Culture in Contemporary China, Washington, D.C, Brookings Institution, pp.115–127. Read More