Science topic

Democratization - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Democratization, and find Democratization experts.
Questions related to Democratization
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
453 answers
The structure of global politics over the past several decades, could be discerned through three distinct phases. Initially, the world was characterized by ideological bipolarity, where two major ideological blocs dominated international relations: the liberal democratic world (led by the United States and its allies) and the communist world (led by the Soviet Union). This era, known as the Cold War (approximately 1947–1991), was marked by intense rivalry between these two superpowers, each promoting its own political, economic, and social systems.
After the Cold War ended, a shift occurred towards a multipolar world, in which multiple influential powers (such as the United States, the European Union, China, Russia, Japan, and others) emerged on the global stage. This phase, spanning the next two decades, was characterized by a diffusion of power and a relative balance among different regions and nations. There was no single dominating rivalry, allowing for a more complex and interconnected global order, driven by economic interdependence, technological advancements, and new regional alignments.
In recent years, however, there has been a move towards a new form of bipolarity, now framed as a democracy-authoritarianism binary. This phase sees the global landscape divided between nations that support democratic governance and those that favor authoritarian rule. Unlike the Cold War, where the conflict was based on economic and ideological systems (capitalism vs. communism), this current division centers around political values and governance models (democracy vs. authoritarianism), with countries aligning themselves along these lines.
Overall, the shift represents a significant change from ideological divisions rooted in economic theories to a focus on the nature of political power and governance structures. The re-emergence of bipolarity reflects deeper tensions about how societies should be organized and governed in an increasingly interconnected world.
The new bipolarity reflected through the alliance of the undemocratic (Russia-China-North Korea) letting the multilateralism and its agencies down. The new binary challenges the global questions and their settlement through the legitimate means and facilitates the rule of the force and coercion.
Relevant answer
Answer
Michael,
We continue to debate this point because you have the talent of pointing out the uncivil behavior of humanity, and that scrutiny is valuable. For Global Civility to endure, we must confront and learn from uncivil actions.
Again, we have to have some sort of unanimity, on the definition of "civil." And the best we can do, to this end, is to quote the UNDHR.
Problem remains, billions of people do not actually agree that the UNDHR defines civility, at least not all of the articles. They pretend to subscribe, yet their laws have glaring conflicts.
Uncivil behavior is simply the opposite of an individual's civil liberty in the pursuit of happiness,
No, not true. The pursuit of "happiness" depends on your belief structure. Human beings are weird creatures that way. If they see their family members heading straight to hades, after death, they become incoherent with grief and worry. Same happens whenever someone else is seen to trample on a person's firmly held beliefs (whether these beliefs are logical, sensible, or otherwise).
Consider this through the lens of the physical Constructal Law (CL):
For a finite flow of society to persist in time (to live) [Life], it must evolve freely [Liberty] such that it provides greater access [the pursuit of] to its currents of civility [Happiness, positive feedback].
See above. There's nothing unique about this "optimize flow" idea, that it can only apply to secularism or for that matter, to anyone who holds to the ideals of the UNDHR.
In my view, you are assuming that you can cram western ideology down everyone else's throat, whether they like it or not. Doesn't work that way. I heard on the news today about the beginning of the trial for the whack job that tried to kill Simon Rushdie.
We think the defendant, in this case and many similar ones, are uncivil or even psychopaths. They think they are defending God's law.
Why would global society choose to regress to the dark chapters
Define "dark chapters." You are assuming the whole world is evolving into secularism. Yet, it's not. Or at least, not yet. Seems to be more like a case of one step forward, two steps back.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
Sharing this 2025 article on RETHINKING DEMOCRACY that just came out, you can check it when you have time
Rethinking democracy 108: Democratic and non-democratic systems: How external and internal paradigm dynamics should be expected to work under changing present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law conditions and competition for power?
(PDF) Rethinking democracy 108: Democratic and non-democratic systems: How external and internal paradigm dynamics should be expected to work under changing present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law conditions and competition for power?
Rethinking democracy 108: Democratic and non-democratic systems: How external and internal paradigm dynamics should be expected to work under changing present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law conditions and competition for power?
Relevant answer
Answer
Kirk, read the paper when you have time and then feel free to comment and bring A ACADEMIC COUNTER ARGUMENT...against the ideas in this paper, it is about paradigm dynamics ideas..contrasting internal and external paradigm completion, all exism movements like Brexit/brecism, Usexit/trumpism, Brazilexit, italianexit, argentinexit..fall withing the ideas in this paper as it is an academic article, NOT A POLITICAL ONE.
Scientist usually read if the are not familiar with something before they make conclusions...
Thank for taking the time to comment!
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
There're two outstanding facts in the history of the Russian higher education in the 21st Century: joining the Bologna process in 2003 and an expulsion in 2022. But inspite of geopolitical reasons of both events, no doubt we may observe now a somewhat exhausting the ideological backgrounds for such globalization processes and "democratic prospects" for today's world. Surely, we may attribute this new political agenda to occasionalities, but in fact, one it's necessary to recognize, that the war conflicts in the Post-Soviet space, "US conservative revolution" etc. are parts of a general trend, which is definitely influence higher education at a global scale. Some problems of this transformation have been treated here but it remains more general questions, what values, concepts, strategies and resources will determine the new era in the world-wide higher education in the near 10 - 15 years?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello, as a head of the Methodical brahch of the St.Peterdburg Mining Univ. in 1993 (was named as Mining institute in the time mentioned), Russian High Education 've been joined in reality with Bologna process in 1993, when the first stage of so-called standards (with order of minister Schadrikov) for education was issued , as you can see at https://fgosvo.ru/archivegosvpo/index/2?parent=16&edutype=2 / As the result, fist bachelors in technology released in 1997/98, when we at first accepted a magister courses.
More information about to-day released so called 'a pilot poject' of the transformation whole system of hi-education in Russia may be viewed at https://pilot.spmi.ru/ (in Russ.)
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article normal democratic outcomes and extreme democratic outcomes?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2017. Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory: Pointing Out The Structure of Normal and of Extreme Democratic Outcomes Analytically and Graphically, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 10, No. 8, October, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Amel, thank you for taking the time to comment.
Take a look at this article when you have time, it has the founding theory behind a series of articles on the structure, working, and dynamics of exism movements born inside liberal democracies ausing effective targeted chaos to induce full true majority complacency as the point of original entry, and then while in power focus attention on dismantling democratic institutions and the rule of law to remain in power in case they fail to sustain effective targeted chaos permanently,,,and normal democratic thinking keep making the original mistake since 2016 UK, THINKING THEY ARE COMPETING AGAINST ANOTHER NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME,,,And issue I am addressing currently systematically with my series RETHINKING DEMOCRACY....
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
3 answers
As Catherine Eschle writes, "encampments are often key to creating and renewing democratic institutions. This was a focus of the ‘movements of the squares’ which included the 2011 15M encampments in Spain, the worldwide Occupy movement and the 2013 Gezi Park uprising in Turkey."
Eschle goes on to explain that "[c]amps can also be sites of democratic experimentation and possibility, because of their spatial form and because activists live in them while organising collectively."
An aspect that I would like to highlight about protest camps - or protests generally (sans encampment) - is how they are often maligned by people who adhere to other understandings of democracy, such as liberal representative ones. Instead of trying to understand what the protest is about, and trying to reflect on whether they should be supportive or against the issue/s at hand, there is a rejection of it all due to inconvenience (say Extinction Rebellion roadblocks) or modality ("this is not how democracy is done", "you are too young", "go home", etc).
In my experience, which is primarily within Anglophone countries, it feels as if the sorts of democracy borne of protests are marginal in society and I do think this impoverishes the "democraticity" (Helene Landemore's wonderful term) of such English-language/worldview dominant places.
What do you think? And, if you do not live in English-dominant places, do you feel that it is the same/worse or are the sorts of democracies borne of protests taken up more readily in your society/ies?
Relevant answer
Answer
Georgia’s Security Service Alleges Foreign Plot Amid Anti-Government Protests
"Amid violent protests sparked by the Georgian government’s decision to halt accession talks with the European Union, the country’s State Security Service claims local “criminal actors” acting for foreign powers plan to disrupt the presidential election planned for Saturday. Their aim, the State Security Service claimed in an informal statement posted to Facebook, is to spark a “color revolution” — a term some have used to describe pro-democracy uprisings. Critics say the allegations aim to discredit protests and instill fear, and that they echo past claims made by Russian security services.
Tomorrow’s election marks the first time the president will be elected by an electoral college controlled by the ruling Georgian Dream party. The party’s candidate, former footballer Mikheil Kavelashvili, is expected to win due to the Georgian Dream’s parliamentary majority..."
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
6 answers
What does Donald Trump's re-election victory show us?
Is US society changing?
Can we attribute Trump's victory and his spectacular comeback to four years of failure by the Democrats (especially Joe Biden)?
Relevant answer
Answer
For both of your major questions, I'd say that answer seems to be unfortunately quite simple - had there been some good, easy solutions - someone would have already implemented them a long while ago.
Concerning Trump:
He does not seem willing to discipline Netanyahu, so the recent chapter of ME conflict is going to carry on.
With Ukraine it's a wild card. He seems to be willing to cede part of Ukrainian territory to satisfy Putin's imperialist ambition. The thing is that Putin demands half of Ukraine annexed, the second half turned in to some failed vassal state and limit sovereignty of nearby European states. If Putin wouldn't be satisfied with modest loot Trump can either back down (due to seeing China as more important threat) or conversely start being much more serious than Biden about arming Ukraine with weapons that could start hurting Russia to bring it somewhat mauled to negotiating table. For economy I'd expect him to continue running unsustainable budget deficit. The only noticeable difference would be that he would not be blocking fossil fuels investment to placate green (or greenwashing) electorate. He may also go on some trade war, but apparently the US is already on such confrontational course with China anyway.
The major difference would be enforcing border security. He may champion some issues like protection of freedom of speech (and publish how prior gov fight against misinformation expanded into pushing big tech platforms into censorship also against statements of opinions, memes or stuff that turned to be factually correct) or fighting against reverse racism. He may also deem some prior actions against him as lawfare and answer in kind. For example he may investigate to what extend Biden was involved in his son's shady businesses or who exactly was Epstein's client.
Concerning Democrats (and similar establishment parties in other Western countries):
The growing discontent among masses has been noticeable for at least a decade but among those elites there have not been seriously adjustment of their position but rather doubling down. Maybe continuous dismissing of incoming bad news as hate speech or misinformation is not the best way of detecting problems?
So far the acceptable diagnosis of the source of problem seems to be:
- existence of popular opposition parties or leaders, so for example German establishment right now openly tries to ban major opposition party
- spread of so called misinformation which should be solved by government properly filtering available for citizens information and interpretation that government at particular moment considers as correct
Possibility that their waning popularity is primarily caused by long list of their blunders and being detached from issues crucial for average voter seems to be considered among those elites as a fringe view so far (though to be fair for example Bernie Sanders dared to utter that they have abandoned the working class). I do not expect any u-turn soon.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article? Some food for thoughts here:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2015.  Moral and Practical Sustainability Gaps: Implications for the Current Liberal Development Model, Weber Sociology & Anthropology (ISSN:2449-1632), Vol. 1 (4) 2015, Article ID wsa_149, 317-320.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for taking the time to write. Hope you find some good food for thoughts in that article. Today I am writing about RETHINKING DEMOCRACY to understand the post 2016 Brexit and USEXIT structure of the liberal democracy landscape.....
Sharing here one of five already out there:
Rethinking democracy 102: What are the 3 fundamental lessons learned from facing exism movements and dictatorship threats 2016-2024?
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
4 answers
The poster symbolizes the power of Donald Trump and his neo-Nazi movement to ‘Make America Great Again’. Be warned: his playbook is totally Hitlerian and therefore should not be portrayed (as some in the Comedy club world have) as a political buffoon of no consequence. To start, the Democratic Party and its supporters need to wake up. And it is time that Americans form a Real 3rd Party (under the leadership of a Burnie-Sanders-like candidate) to give Americans choice at the ballot box, otherwise they will wake up to Donald Trump as president (for life) this November. Please tell me why I am wrong?
Relevant answer
Answer
“Governor Gavin Newscum is trying to KILL our Nation’s beautiful California,” Trump said Friday in a post on Truth Social, using his derisive nickname for the governor. “He is using the term ‘Trump-Proof’ as a way of stopping all of the GREAT things that can be done to ‘Make California Great Again.’”
We will soon be returning WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment, based in Florida) as Trump smacks down his opponents nationally, and soon internationally. Even though many (including myself) have compared Trump to Hitler, Trump is unique in his use of male adolescent passions to mobilize the nation against all enemies. This differs from having blonde haired, blue eyed Aryan men running the world with the Richard Wagner’s symphonies (Wagner, a card-carry antisemite) leading the charge. I would have to agree with recent defenders of Donald Trump believing that since he has not exterminated millions of civilians that comparing Trump to Hitler is at the very least premature. Let’s see what happens over the next four years—hope the Democrats rethink why they are failing America and return to being the party of FDR: now the party of  MAGA,
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
6 answers
Are you familiar with the lessons learnt from the coming and going of BREXIT/Brexism and USEXIT/Trumpism in 2016-2024?
Here is a simple academic way of looking at the NEW LIBERAL DEMOCRACY LANDSCAPE where you have normal democratic outcomes competing for power against extreme democratic outcomes….
Muñoz, 2024. Rethinking democracy 102: What are the 3 fundamental lessons learned from facing exism movements and dictatorship threats 2016-2024?. In: CEBEM-REDESMA Boletin, Año 18, Nº 11, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Carolina, gracias por escribir
Es una buena idea leer los artículos antes de comentar para poder compartir las ideas de manera efectiva.
Su comentario es coherente con las recomendaciones dadas después de compartir las ideas en el artículo utilizando el marco P-A-ETK-IRL, puede encontrarlas al final del artículo REPENSANDO LA DEMOCRACIA 102 compartido anteriormente pero que usted no menciona.
Para comprender completamente qué ha cambiado en la estructura del panorama de la democracia liberal desde 2016, debemos pensar en tres conceptos: polarización/caos, polarización/caos dirigida y polarización/caos dirigida efectiva. La ultima forma cambia el panorama ya que esta es mas que solo polarización or emoción.
Aquí comparto las cuatro publicaciones, que están vinculadas por la misma teoría y pensamiento, una apoya a las otras. Y otras publicaciones estan por salir.
Rethinking Democracy 101: How can a general present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law quadrant-based framework be built to capture the necessary and sufficient conditions for democratic and non-democratic models to come to exist and persist in power once in power?
Rethinking democracy 102: What are the 3 fundamental lessons learned from facing exism movements and dictatorship threats 2016-2024?
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
ethinking democracy 104: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law quadrant-based framework be used to show how the democratic landscape has changed since 2016 Brexit and 2016 Trumpism?
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
3 answers
Can multiethnic nation, play politics without attaching tribal sentiment.
Relevant answer
Answer
Considering the diverse historical backgrounds, beliefs, cultural norms and values that exist in multiethnic nations, it is not possible to separate tribal sentiments from politics. This strategic exploitation of ethnic divisions is commonly adopted in developing countries where politicians leverage tribal loyalties to mobilize support towards political agendas.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
You have seen the comings and goings now of Trumpism, Brazilianism, and Brexism, 2016 to 2024 and the common theme is why they failed to persist in power ONCE THEY CAME TO POWER. You have seen the direction that exism movements take towards permanent authoritarianism. And you may be familiar with the environment in countries with permanent authoritarianism.
If you look at the evolution of democracy theory since 2016 paradigm shift from normal to extreme liberal democracies in some countries you and you adjusted your previous democratic thinking as now EFFECTIVE TARGETED CHAOS and THE NATURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN A CONJUNCTURAL CAUSALITY MODE play a key role. And you compare this environment to the one found in countries UNDER permanent authoritarianism you may see some similarities in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions for them to keep power for ever between the structure of permanent authoritarianism from within and well as from outside.
If you take into account this, then you may be able to see that the necessary and sufficient conditions for permanent authoritarianism to stay in power for ever using this new thinking has technically not changed, it is the same before 2016 and it is now in 2024..
And this raises the question: What is the necessary and sufficient condition for permanent dictatorships to remain in power regardless of opposing democratic movements?
What do you think the necessary and sufficient condition is?
Note: The answer is short.
Relevant answer
Answer
Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
Since 2016 Brexit, the world needed to change the thinking behind traditional democracy as the democratic landscape changed, yet traditional democratic thinkers and actors have been acting as if the competition for power is STILL BETWEEN NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOMES that are happy to live within an independent rule of law system, when it is no longer the case as now a new variable came into play, legal targeted chaos, that when effective it is a game changer as it leads to extreme democratic outcomes that should be expected to be unhappy living under an independent rule of law system.  To be able to answer general questions as the one here, we need to rethink democracy thinking.
And this raises the question: In terms of chaos, what is the necessary and sufficient condition for authoritarianism, permanent or temporary, to come to exist and persist?
What do you think is the answer to this question is from the point of view of just CHAOS?
Relevant answer
Answer
Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
6 answers
Regime change often involves significant shifts in political, economic, and social policies, and it can have far-reaching consequences for the affected country and the international community. It may occur through: military intervention, diplomatic or economic pressure, or democratic process.
My question is that why international establishment do this? Your valuable remarks will be highly appreciated.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thanks a lot for your useful comments.
Regards,
M.Rashid
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
I corrected some typos in my file, the Democratic Evolution. How can I delte and load a corrected fine?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear professor Janda,
Try to navigate to the full text, where you can find a drop-down menu, and there is an option to "remove or make private". Attached is a screenshot showing where it is.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
You see internal and external dynamics in majority rule-based countries with actual extreme democratic outcomes at play and in countries with want to be extreme democratic outcome around, all majority ruled based countries, but even though this has been going on since just before 2016 BREXIT and 2016 USEXIT and continues today with the coming of an extreme democratic outcome in Argentina...
Yet politicians in normal democratic outcome run countries have not yet CLEARLY figured out that the idea that DEMOCRACY is a mess within democratic competitors like NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME AGAINS NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME, where both are normal democratic outcomes with the best interest of the majority at hand but different approach has CHANGED as when competition is between A NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME VERSUS AN EXTREME DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME the nature of the MESS changes as the extreme democratic outcome is not restricted or bound or it does not believe in the democratic values and rules under which it is born; and hence, cometition has a different structure. Hence, the way democratic outcomes compete with extreme democratic outcome needed to change since 2016, but it has not changed yet.
It seems normal democratic outcome run countries appear to be still following normal democratic theory when competing with EXTREME DEMOCRATIC THEORY/ exism theory, which indicates why they have been more often than expected been taken victim of the Murphy’s law under efficient targeted chaos.
Hence, everything changes when we shift from normal democratic outcome to extreme democratic outcome in majority ruled based countries, both internally (extreme democratic outcome vrs normal democratic outcome) and externally (extreme democratic outcome-based country versus normal democratic outcome-based country, and there is a reason to rethink to keep democratic norms where the best interest of the majority, not the minority, rules under majority rule democratic based systems.
And this raises the question: Does paradigm exism theory explain why normal democratic outcome-based countries should not be expected to get along with extreme democratic outcome-based countries?
What do you think? What is your view on the answer to this question.
Relevant answer
Answer
You may find the following article interesting:
Rethinking Democracy 101: How can a general present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law quadrant-based framework be built to capture the necessary and sufficient conditions for democratic and non-democratic models to come to exist and persist in power once in power?
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
You have seen the comings and goings now of Trumpism, Brazilianism, and Brexism, and the common theme is why they failed to persist in power ONCE THEY CAME TO POWER. If you look at the evolution of democracy theory since 2016 paradigm shift from normal to extreme liberal democracies in some countries you and you adjusted your previous democratic thinking as now EFFECTIVE TARGETED CHAOS and THE NATURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN A CONJUNCTURAL CAUSALITY MODE play a key role you may be able to see that the necessary and sufficient conditions for extreme democratic outcome to come to exist as temporary authoritarianism is different than the necessary and sufficient condition binding to persists under reelections at all costs and become permanent authoritarianism.
And this raises the question: What is the necessary and sufficient condition for exism movements to become permanent authoritarianism from within liberal democracies?
What do you think the necessary and sufficient condition is?
Note: The answer is short.
Relevant answer
Answer
You may find the following article interesting
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
You have seen the comings and goings now of Trumpism, Brazilianism, and Brexism, 2016 to 2024 and the common theme is why they failed to persist in power ONCE THEY CAME TO POWER.
If you look at the evolution of democracy theory since 2016 paradigm shift from normal to extreme liberal democracies in some countries you and you adjusted your previous democratic thinking as now EFFECTIVE TARGETED CHAOS and THE NATURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN A CONJUNCTURAL CAUSALITY MODE play a key role.
If you take into account this, then you may be able to see that the necessary and sufficient conditions for normal liberal democratic outcomes to come to exist and persist has changed as conditions have changed.
And this raises the question: What is the necessary and sufficient condition for normal democratic outcomes to maintain power regardless of the coming and going of exism movements and dictatorship threats?
What do you think the necessary and sufficient condition is?
Note: The answer is short.
Relevant answer
Answer
You may find the following article interesting
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
3 answers
Some research indicates that the fist steps toward democratization of an authoritarian regime actually lowers state capacity. How strong is the evidence for this hypothesis?
Relevant answer
Answer
The problem in answering this question we need to ask what is the degree of political and social development the given nation has. That if you have no real formation of civil society--which is when all remember of that nation see each other as fellow sharers of a common bond or seeing them more as strangers they accidentally live nearby--or not. In that case, the authoritarian body is the only thing holding things together. Democracy can only work where there exists a healthy civil body where the members see themselves as being part of one community sharing a common good which they all believe they are benefiting from and would be far worse off if they did not share.
We tend to forget that Western European states only developed viable democratic political systems after several hundred years of autocratic/monarchial rule that produced a viable civic and national common good that became the basis for the civil society that all members of those nations see as a shared common benefit.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
Why I Asked About Democracy
I asked if democracy has really worked for the progress of a country or if it has contributed more to corruption and self-interest because I want to understand if democracy truly benefits people or if it has serious flaws. Democracy is often seen as the best way to govern, but I want to look deeper at both the good and bad sides of it.
Here are some reasons why this question is important:
1. Progress Evaluation
Democracy and Progress:
  • Democracies are often praised for promoting economic growth, social development, and political stability. They allow people to participate in government and protect individual rights.
Key Question:
  • Do democratic principles like freedom of speech, free elections, and the separation of powers actually help a country progress socially and economically?
2. Corruption in Democratic Systems
Democracy and Corruption:
  • Even with checks and balances, democratic systems can still be corrupt. Corruption can weaken democratic institutions and cause people to lose trust in their government.
Key Question:
  • How and why does corruption happen in democracies, and how much does it affect a country's progress?
3. Self-Interest and Populism
Self-Interest and Populism:
  • Democracies can be vulnerable to populist leaders who exploit people's fears and desires for their own gain. This can lead to short-sighted policies and undermine democratic institutions.
Key Question:
  • How can democratic systems protect themselves from the dangers of populism and leaders who act in their own self-interest?
4. Lessons from Different Countries
International Examples:
  • By looking at different countries, both successful democracies and those that struggle with corruption and self-interest, we can learn important lessons.
Key Question:
  • What can we learn from the experiences of countries like Norway, Brazil, the United States, South Korea, India, South Africa, and even our own Suriname?
5. Specific Context of Suriname
Suriname’s Reality:
  • Suriname, like many other countries, has its own unique challenges and context. It's important to understand how democratic principles work within our specific political, economic, and social framework.
Key Question:
  • How can Suriname apply lessons from other countries to strengthen its own democratic system and fight corruption?
Relevant answer
Answer
It is important to know whether democracy is regarded as a means or ends. If democracy is ends, then all its dark sides can be tolerated as some side effects. If democracy is a means for economic prosperity or people's happiness, then it is debatable whether other political systems might be able to produce the same or even better result.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
Let me please clarify that what is the main characteristic of Democracy? Secondly, how do you see democracy in Turkey and Pakistan? What is the best democratic between Pakistan and Turkey?
Relevant answer
Answer
Democracy is a governance system where power is vested in the people, either directly or through elected representatives. Key aspects of democracy include public sovereignty, political equality, rule of law, protection of minority rights, and accountability and transparency.
Regarding Turkey and Pakistan:
Turkey: Turkey has a history of democratic institutions but has experienced periods of military coups and interventions. In recent decades, Turkey has held regular elections, and there is a multi-party system. However, under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's leadership, concerns have arisen about democratic backsliding, including restrictions on press freedom, crackdowns on political opposition, and changes to the judiciary and electoral laws that critics argue undermine democratic principles.
Pakistan: Pakistan has also faced challenges in establishing stable democratic governance since gaining independence in 1947. It has seen periods of military rule interspersed with civilian governments. In recent years, Pakistan has held relatively free and fair elections, and there is a parliamentary system with a multi-party democracy. However, issues such as political corruption, weak institutional frameworks, and military influence in politics have often strained democratic processes.
Comparison and Evaluation:
The best democracy between Pakistan and Turkey depends on various factors, including institutional stability, political freedoms, electoral process, rule of law, and minority rights. Turkey has experienced more stable periods of democracy, while Pakistan has faced challenges in press freedom and human rights. Both countries hold regular elections, but concerns over fairness and transparency have been raised, particularly in Turkey's recent elections. Both countries face challenges in ensuring the rule of law and protecting minority rights, with varying degrees of success.
In conclusion, assessing the "best" democracy between Pakistan and Turkey involves considering multiple dimensions of democratic governance, including political freedoms, institutional stability, electoral integrity, and respect for rules of law and minority rights. Both countries have made strides in certain aspects of democracy while facing challenges in others, highlighting the ongoing complexities and nuances of democratic development in different contexts.
I hope this answer will give you a high confidence.
Thank you for reading!
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
3 answers
The balance of power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches is crucial for effective democratic governance, preventing the concentration of power and ensuring accountability. However, achieving this balance can be challenging, especially in the face of political polarization, institutional dysfunction, and external pressures. This topic discusses the principles of power balance in democracies, the common challenges to maintaining it, and potential solutions to strengthen democratic institutions and processes.
Relevant answer
Answer
In short, promoting comprehensive policies that address social and economic disparities, ensure equal access to education and health care, and empower marginalized communities through representation and participation... Although the balance of power in democratic governance faces major challenges, it is possible to take proactive measures to address these challenges Strengthening democratic institutions and ensuring that they effectively serve the interests of all citizens.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
3 answers
Autocratic systems offer swift decision-making and short-term stability but often at the cost of human rights and accountability. Democratic systems emphasize inclusivity, accountability, and protection of civil liberties, fostering long-term stability and sustainable development, which are crucial for the diverse and dynamic needs of developing nations. Considering all this, which model suits the best for developing nations and what are the factors that make democracy a better choice?
Relevant answer
Democracy is the best model because it places autonomy in the majority than in a leader. It provides for checks and balance and prioritize the rule of law. It is sustainable and archors on the tenets of democracy that provides a framework for continuity in terms of power change. It limits contradiction as the law is supreme and avoids abuse of authority.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
Having lived in Pretoria for a few months, I recognized the significant potential in South Africa, particularly through its decades-old infrastructure, and its ability to influence other African nations positively. I've been closely monitoring the political landscape since 2012, when I decided to travel there, and have observed notable developments. The African National Congress (ANC) lost its majority in Parliament in the 2024 elections after a 30-year reign. This event offers several critical insights and has extensive implications for both South Africa and the continent. The results showed ANC leading with 40%, followed by the Democratic Alliance with 21% and Jacob Zuma's MK party with 15%. The EFF, led by Joseph Malema, garnered less than 10%. Despite these figures, ANC factions, including the EFF, MK, and other smaller parties, still represented a significant force, though divided on issues like land and tribal affiliations.
Key lessons from this election include the importance of long-standing political parties remaining accountable to their electorate. The ANC's defeat highlighted the need for transparency, the implementation of anti-corruption measures, and good governance. Factionalism within the ANC likely contributed to its electoral losses by alienating many voters. Moreover, enduring socio-economic issues like poverty and inadequate public services have undermined trust in the ruling party, emphasizing the necessity for addressing these problems to retain political support. The shifting demographics, including younger and new voters, demand changes and have different expectations from their leaders, indicating that political parties must stay relevant and engage with these groups actively.
The end of ANC's dominance suggests a shift towards a more competitive political landscape, which could enhance accountability and inspire innovative policymaking. New leadership might introduce changes in economic policies aimed at reducing unemployment, improving education and healthcare, and stimulating economic growth. Furthermore, a change in leadership underscores the importance of democratic processes and the role of institutions in protecting democracy. However, transition periods can be unstable, and it is vital for new leaders to manage these changes cautiously to avert social unrest.
Relevant answer
Answer
Was student activism a contributing factor in the election outcome? I read that there were active student movements surrounding reducing fees for education in the 2010s (Cini, 2019; Mashayamombe & Nomvete, 2021). It would be interesting to see if student activism continued into the 2020s and fostered campaigning in the recent election.
Cini, L. (2019). Disrupting the neoliberal university in South Africa: The #FeesMustFall movement in 2015. Current Sociology, 67(7), 942–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392119865766
Mashayamombe, J., & Nomvete, S. (2021). Leadership and Politics of Belonging in a 2015 FeesMustFall Movement: A Case of UPrising. Politikon, 48(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589346.2021.1877454
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
3 answers
The comparative study of democratic and autocratic governance provides critical insights into how different political systems influence socio-economic development. By examining economic performance, social progress, institutional quality, and public participation, this discussion seeks to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each governance model. Participants are encouraged to share empirical evidence, case studies, and theoretical perspectives to foster a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Relevant answer
Answer
Every day, we are reminded of the changes needed for economic and social progress, but not that institutions are the channels through which such changes can happen. We would do well to consider what is meant by (and can be accomplished through) participation, how participation grows out of democratic processes, how these processes depend on the structure of institutions, and how institutions originate from (and are supported by) human resources.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
5 answers
There was widespread social discontent/protest in the UK in 2016 after Brexit/2016 and in the USA after Trump/2016 after their exism movements won the democratic contest under effective targeted chaos.
The same has happened in other countries where liberal democracies under majority rule have produced an extreme democratic outcome since 2016, the latest case is ARGENTINEXISM/2023.
And this raises the question: Murphy's law remorse and widespread social protest/discontent after exism movements/extreme democratic outcomes come in to power: Are they linked?.
What do you think?
If you think that they are linked why do you think so?
If you think they are not linked why do you think so?
Note:
Key concepts: Murphy's law, Murphy's law remorse, effective targeted chaos, exism movements, extreme democratic outcomes, social discontent after the fact
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for reading and commenting Estaniel.
What is your view on the question?
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
What are the factors contributing to the rise of authoritarianism and democratic backsliding around the world, and how can we strengthen democratic norms and institutions?
Relevant answer
Answer
I would say an important contributor is the quality of political education. This includes both curricular instruction about political institutions and practical experience making collective decisions. If education systems and all institutions an individual is exposed to when they are growing up are authoritarian, how can the individual be expected to suddenly begin practicing good democracy when they are an adult?
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
3 answers
How can we combat political polarization and rebuild trust in democratic institutions in the face of misinformation and disinformation?
Relevant answer
Answer
Also, I would strongly recommend one turns to and read very carefully Al-Farabi's The Political Regime (Al-Siyasa Al-Madaniyya)--this might be a more fruitful way to understand this problem here for the question poser's social and political environment.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
5 answers
Why is the aristocratic system not the alternative system to the democratic system, especially since this system did not take up sufficient space in government?
Relevant answer
Answer
In response to the main question, I would say yes. The quality of democracy still needs to be improved, but it appears to be the best way humans have come up with to alleviate the need for an irresistible absolute (Honig, 1991). I would say aristocratic systems involve irresistible absolutes in politics that lead to inherent unfairness in decision-making.
Honig, B. (1991). Declarations of Independence: Arendt and Derrida on the Problem of Founding a Republic. The American Political Science Review, 85(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962880
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
In an essay on the types of democracy used by members of the Church of Norway, Helge K. Nylenna points to the broader picture of the democracies (and democratic innovations) used/created by other non-governmental organizations.
Here I encourage that we try not to think of the "big" global NGOs but rather that we focus on the ones started locally, as community groups, ones that remain small in number.
These smaller NGOs are deeply underappreciated sites of democratic innovation and, in my experience with the literature, appear infrequently within the works of democracy's professional students (aka academics/lifelong practitioners in international democracy development and promotion).
Is there a small NGO that you know of that runs itself democratically?
Relevant answer
Answer
I agree with Senapathy Marisennayya
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
There has not been any intentional probe on the role of youth and social media in reforming Nigeria’s democratic process whereas recent involvement of the Nigerian youth in socio-political matters and their engagement on different social media has shown the tendency to impact the democratic process and engineer changes that could herald reforms.
Relevant answer
Good question
1. Strengthening confidence in the political process
2. Political and constitutional reforms
3. Change the laws
4. Expressing freedom of opinion and expression
5. Eliminate poverty and unemployment
6. Encouraging investment
And other.....
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
this is a dissertation in the partial fulfilment of Master degree
Relevant answer
Democracy in Africa is temporary and artificially created by Western countries.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
i need articles that are related to peace building and Democratic peace theory .
i will also need articles that have argued if Ghana is 'at peace'
Relevant answer
Answer
If I am not too late, I recommend reading the article The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory by Sebastian Rosato.
The article can be found at this link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3593025
I could provide PDF too, If you don't have access to the JSTOR platform.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
I propose as subject for a discussion my PDF-PowerPoint "Remarks on Seyla Benhabib’s interpretations of the cosmopolitan rights". I prepared this PDF-Powerpoint for my lecture at the INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC-PRACTICAL CONFERENCE, Alfraganus University, Tashkent, 3-4 October 2023. My essay is dedicated to the analysis of aspects of Benhabib’s interpretations of the birth of cosmopolitan rights. The expression “the right to have rights” is contained in different works of Seyla Benhabib: it refers, in the thought of Benhabib, to the birth of a new constellation of human rights. This new constellation of human rights consists in the claim, which every individual may raise, to be acknowledged and protected as a person by the world community. In Benhabib’s view, rights and the interpretation of rights have profoundly changed after and thanks to the different covenants and conventions signed by the countries belonging to the world community for the protection of human rights: this process of transformation of the interpretation of human rights began with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The new dimension of human rights is a cosmopolitan one: it is not merely a national dimension. This new dimension overcomes the dimension of particular countries; it promotes, and, at the same time, it calls for the creation of new juridical spaces. Through this new dimension, moreover, individuals are no longer seen as being only citizens of a particular country: individuals are elevated, thanks to the new dimension of the rights, to the condition of world citizens possessing rights which are independent of their belonging to a particular country. Cosmopolitan norms create a new universe of values, of juridical meanings and of social relationships that did not exist at all before the creation of these norms. Seyla Benhabib has expressed the birth of the new constellation of rights in many of her works such as, for instance, The Rights of Others. Aliens, Residents and Citizens, Another Cosmopolitanism. With Commentaries by J. Waldron, B. Honig, W. Kymlicka, and Dignity in Adversity. Human Rights in Troubled Times. The new dimension of rights directly (that is, without the mediation of a particular country) connects every individual to the world community: the right dimension does not depend on a particular country and it is not limited to the validity it possesses within a particular country. The authority that corresponds to and is responsible for, at least, some rights of the individuals is the world community. The right of men qua men, that is, the rights independent of a determined citizenship and not coinciding with a determined citizenship emerge gradually, even though this process is steadily being affected by backlashes. As covenants and conventions signed by the countries of the world community, Benhabib mentions the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948); the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (approved on 28 July 1951); the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination – ICERD – (adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 1965); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – ICCPR – (adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – ICESCR – (adopted by United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966); the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women – CEDAW – (adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979); the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – UNCAT – (adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984). Within the new constellation of human rights, particular countries are being surpassed by the world community: particular countries do not represent the first and last authority for the acknowledgement of rights. Correspondingly, individuals possess determined rights qua human beings: to have certain rights does not depend on the individuals’ possession of a particular citizenship; to have rights depends on the fact that individuals belong to mankind. A new dimension of the individuals comes about: individuals are not only citizens of a country; they are, first of all, human beings, and they have to be recognised as human beings. Benhabib sees a fundamental difference between the Westphalian and the post-Westphalian concept of country and rights. Within the Westphalian interpretation of rights, countries are the first and last authority for the acknowledgement of rights. Within the post-Westphalian interpretation of rights, countries depend on common values and on common principles which they have accepted: countries obligate themselves to the protection of definite rights and definite principles; this means that countries acknowledge these rights and these principles as being over the sovereignty of the countries themselves. A new dimension of countries, a new dimension of rights, and a new dimension of individuals arise at the same time. An indispensable presupposition for the promotion of the integration between inhabitants of a country is, according to Benhabib, that citizenship does not depend on ethnos: to belong to a definite ethnos ought not to be the condition for possessing citizenship. If the condition for possessing a citizenship depends on belonging to a definite ethnos, all the inhabitants of a country not belonging to the definite ethnos are automatically excluded from citizenship. This kind of condition for possessing the citizenship of a country is steadily being used to bring about the exclusion of definite inhabitants and groups of inhabitants, for instance, the exclusion of all the inhabitants that have been compelled to or are compelled to migrate to a country. Benhabib strongly differentiates between the concepts of ethnos and of demos as criteria for the possession of the citizenship: Whereas the concept of ethnos represents a closed concept, the concept demos represents a completely different conception as regards the conditions for membership: demos is a flexible concept, since demos can always be modified by political decisions. Benhabib is particularly firm when it comes to all the structures establishing the right to citizenship on belonging to an ethnos; she is likewise firm as to all the structures excluding certain inhabitants of a country from the right to citizenship because these inhabitants belong to a culture which is different from the culture of the majority of a country: a democratic institution may not afford to forever exclude inhabitants from acquiring citizenship; every kind of such an exclusion is, in the opinion of Benhabib, simply not compatible with a democratic order. To conclude, I believe it should be noted that Benhabib endorses a kind of flexible, dynamic interpretation of the concept of culture: this means that cultures do not constitute unchangeable patterns; cultures are structures continuously changing: they are dynamic patterns. Moreover, Benhabib considers all individuals as not being prisoners of their own culture; Benhabib does not accept concepts like culture essentialism or culture reductions, as if individuals essentially belonged to only a culture and as if individuals could be reduced to only a culture: individuals possess cultures, they are not possessed by them. All individuals maintain, in the opinion of Benhabib, autonomy in relation to their own culture: individuals are more than just a culture.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Dr. Doug Traylor ,
I thank you very much for your very interesting observations!
Yours sincerely,
Gianluigi Segalerba
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
In their essay, Erica Dorn and Federico Vaz make the assertion that:
"Current democratic structures designed to be representative of the people cannot adapt to the increasing number of people on the move. As a result, an overwhelming gap exists between the rapidly changing reality of democracies made up of ineligible voters, and the need for inclusive participation in the democratic process."
How, therefore, can representative democratic structures account for an increasingly mobile demos?
Relevant answer
Answer
The essay of Dorn and Vaz points to the increasing deficits of static democracy, in terms of the tax state:
(Democracy today is a colonial artefact tied to violent borders. Moreover, it produces an increasing number of non-citizens, unable to participate in democracy where they live. Erica Dorn and Federico Vaz argue that Jean-Paul Gagnon's courageous enquiry into defining the historical landscape of democracy can bring more equity to its current – unjust – paradigm; citation from the source).
Representative democratic structures are therefore designed for the resident tax citizen.
In its sense, digital nomads, for example, are creating gaps for themselves to being possibly more state-free.
The question: So, what can the field of political science learn from design? And, similarly, what can design learn from the practice of democracy? of the mentioned text is in consequence a matter of social engineering, i.e. scientific disciplines may learn from each other by knowledge transfer, but social process and systems do not emerge by (engineering) design, with respect to evolutionary principles, dear Jean-Paul Gagnon
As long as politics is the shadow of big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. J.Dewey
Dewey believed that a philosopher should not only reflect but also act, both to improve society and to participate in “the living struggles and issues of his age.” His tools: reason, science, pragmatism. His goal: democracy, not only in politics and the economy but also as an ethical ideal, as a way of life.
Democracy is a form of moral and spiritual association that recognizes the contribution that each member can make in his or her particular way to this ethical community. And each of us can contribute to this community since we each only become the individuals we are through our engagement in the institutions and practices of our society.
_______
The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
Plato
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
3 answers
In his essay here (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/how-to-overcome-democratic-gridlock/), Pablo Ouziel states:
"Today, our ability to imagine democratic futures is diluted, and narrow perspectives on democracy are presented as universal. Such a state of affairs [...] calls for a conversation among democratic traditions that emphasises diversity and reciprocity."
From my perspective, a key to emphasising diversity and reciprocity, as Ouziel puts it, is to carefully describe the thousands of different manifestations of "democracy" (<- this includes synonyms in English and like-terms in other languages) that we can presently perceive.
I'm thinking, for example, of Panchayats, the Haudenausonee Confederacy, Black democracy, but also Tlaxcallan republicanism, decision-making among the Inuit (including their circumpolar democracy), and thousands of other already-existing examples like this.
I think that if people can understand these different manifestations (myself included!) they can then be equipped to use that information if they wish to do so by, for example, communicating it to others or implementing aspects of it/combinations of it, wherever they want in their lives.
What comes to mind for you when you read Pablo Ouziel's encouragements?
Relevant answer
Answer
Am in support of Janusz Ruszkowski , with respect to the DNA of democracy.
Yet every man (and woman) has a property in his (her) own person; this nobody has any right to but themselves. Richard Lyons, The DNA of Democracy
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
5 answers
Democracy links to a genetic or epigenetic regulation? Can we create democratic mice or humans? The switch on/off of Democratic values depend on the social; memories; spatial properties of the individual or the society?
Are we democratic individuals or just members of social groups who follow?
Relevant answer
Answer
The Virtual Space : money, life, new technologies....., is the mean to switch the Democratic Regimes to NON Democratic Regimes who STILL will Claim Legitimacy?
Are societies facing a "Storming of the Bastille"??
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
Mencius/Confucius wrote the following some estimated 2,400 years ago:
"‘The people are the most important element in a nation; the spirits of the land and grain are the next; the sovereign is the least 民為貴,社稷次之,君為輕" (see book 7, part 2)"
As Li-Chia Lo explains, Mencius is here giving an explanation for the term "min ben" 民本 which, due to its adherence to sovereignty, is controversial among liberal democrats.
I find this controversy confusing, though, as liberal representative democracy has always been strongly adherent to the (at least) Westphalian nation-state. In fact, in practice it seems that the state is considered the most important in liberal democracies, the land (resources) secondmost, and peoples last. One could argue that the liberal democratic state is simply a synonym for an Emperor. Like an Emperor, the state must find ways to stay atop the "slippery egg" of legitimacy (as John Keane puts it from time to time), it must continue to prove its worth to the people in its capture lest they revolt, and it must also keep its power away from the people lest the elites lose it (and therefore lose their privilege or, as some paternalists see it, allow anarchy caused by state failure).
In short, I see more similarities between minben theory and liberal democratic theory than differences. Perhaps this is why there is discomfort among our liberal democratic peers about minben for it exposes the "Emperor/dictatorship" of electoral democracies (David Beetham recognized this dictatorship across more than 40 years of publishing democratic theory - so this is not a new position either).
Have a read of Li-Chia Lo's essay and let us know what you think. We'll be seeing more of these discussions between languages and their respective contested concepts.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thanks for highlighting these refreshing reflections on people as a root of democracy, rather than a predominant emphasis on institutions and some limited views of leaders (especially common among media pundits in the United States, for example). Seems we might also have to go back around 2,400 years to Lao-Tzu for the wisdom that "a leader is best when people barely know [she or] he exists." More recent commentators on leadership, like Warren Bennis and Lee Thayer, do add that a true leader: * helps focus a desired state of affairs; * asks the right questions that help people come to grip with problems; and * helps translate solutions into practice. If a leader's duty is to help, perhaps people should more often expect leaders to take actions that help people.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
"Ruthless", writes Jennifer Greiman, "is not a descriptor normally attached to democracy. Unlike familiar modifiers – constitutional, representative, direct – it does not simply describe a stable and recognisable form that the rule of a people might take. Instead, 'ruthless democracy' describes an egalitarian principle that is pursued without sentimental attachment to the permanence of any particular form. It is a commitment to the fundamental equality of human (and nonhuman) life that demands a receptivity to perpetual change."
As you can see for yourself in reading Greiman's essay, the concept comes from Herman Melville's many contributions to democratic thought. My favourites are the story of "round robins" (see image attached) - which is a democratic approach to mutiny and also Greiman's conception of "cetocracy", or a polity of whales.
What is it about ruthless democracy that draws your attention? What stands out for you?
Relevant answer
Answer
Indeed, this is why many Islamic societies failed to gain democracy.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
The potential for AI to generate convincing fake content raises questions about misinformation, propaganda, and the influence it may have on public perception and democratic processes.
Relevant answer
Answer
Propaganda, misinformation and influencing content were known long before AI and even long before the Internet. Of course the new technologies are and will be used to e.g. manipulate public opinion.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
4 answers
What is the propensity for authoritarian regimes to use quazi-democratic institutions, such as sham elections, stacked legislative bodies, etcetera, to undermine the public's confidence in democratic principles, thereby averting opposition?
Relevant answer
Answer
We need to perhaps distinguish between democratic processes and institutions from processes, networks, and institutions that facilitate effective feedback. This is because successful authoritarian regimes need to be able to manage and optimize feedback from the forces and sectors that the body political they are ruling is composed of. Effective management of feedback permits them to optimize the benefits and minimize the costs in the classic "Coercion–Extraction" Cycle and thus permits them stability and longevity that could not be achieved by mere coercion.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
Democracy, writes Nathan Pippenger, "involves a kind of cultural aspiration wrapped up in words and meanings."
But "[h]ow can this distinctive way of living together include all citizens when the demos comprises such different groups?"
The answer that Pippenger provides to this question is thrilling. He follows Ralph Ellison's example to argue that to understand a diverse community's democracy - and democratic aspirations - we need to examine its common talk.
"Ellison", Pippenger writes, "did not naively believe that the vernacular process would automatically resolve complex questions that arise in culturally diverse democracies. But his writings offer an account of how certain virtues of artistic and political importance — such as creativity, aesthetic sensitivity, and openness to novelty — can help citizens overcome social barriers without resorting to assimilation. In this way, he believed, the everyday workings of language and culture might promote a shared democratic life."
What would you say is your community's aspiration for democracy? And how did you get there through your understanding of the common talk around you?
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes, it is a matter of "real", not formal functioning of democracy.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
Remi Chukwude Okeke argues that we need to demonstrate the effectiveness of democracy in, for example, families, schools, apartment buildings, etc., so that people can see, for themselves, that being democratic in those settings suits (at least) their self-interests.
Importantly, as Okeke and others point out, there are many benefits to being democratic in our social lives - benefits most of us do not get as our social lives are, in the majority, authoritarian in nature.
What is your proposal for how we can do this?
In my esteem, the key is to try to practice democracy or be democratic (however defined) in one's own family, etc., and to lead by example.
What do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
Such an interesting discussion.
My take on this discussion is that while demonstrating democracy's utility in social lives can contribute positively to democratic uptake, it is essential to recognize the multifaceted nature of democratic engagement. Factors such as empowerment, protection of rights, accountability, and transparency undoubtedly play crucial roles in fostering democratic participation. However, the complex socio-political realities, perception of institutions, and the potential for social fragmentation also demand attention. To foster democratic uptake, it is necessary to address systemic issues, promote inclusivity, and establish trust in democratic institutions, alongside demonstrating the utility of democracy in individuals' social lives. Therefore, significantly, a comprehensive approach encompassing both practical demonstrations of democracy's benefits and addressing underlying challenges is more likely to lead to sustainable democratic engagement.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
In the essay linked above, psychologist Fathali M. Moghaddam argues that "actualised democracy does not exist – yet. And this is because we have not yet achieved the psychological portrait of the democratic citizen in a demographically broad or especially multiracial sense."
To get there, Maghaddam avers, we each need to all get better at practising ten characteristics of thought which he sees as integral to manifesting (bringing about) the possibility of an individual behaving/being a democratic citizen.
These ten characteristics are given as follows:
1. "I could be wrong"
2. "I must critically question everything"
3. "I must revise my opinion as the evidence requires"
4. "I must seek to better understand those who are different from me"
5. "I can learn from those who are different from me"
6. "I must seek information and opinions from as many different sources as possible"
7. "I should be actively open to new experiences"
8. "I should be open to creating new experiences for others"
9. "There are principles of right and wrong"
10. "Not all experiences are of equal value"
Would you question any of these characteristics, want to change/rephrase one or more, or add to this list?
Relevant answer
Answer
Don't You think, dear Jean-Pul, that the tenth principle, that not all experiences are of equal value, discriminate and marginalize the big segments of population or separate individuals? - how then democracy can be built?
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
Hager Ali, in the essay linked above, makes what I believe to be a profound argument. Today, "autocracies around the world are emulating democratic features and democracies [are adopting] authoritarian characteristics". Perhaps this has always been the nature of regimes for as long as there have been regimes. Some are better at being "democratic" whilst others less so.
Ali demonstrates that we, private citizens, residents, and visitors of various sorts, need to get better at differentiating what makes a "real and existing democracy" - be that in a country or school or family - and why that's the case.
This is a formidable challenge as most of us are ill-equipped to understand the often delicate or nuanced differences between an act of democracy and an act of authoritarianism. Some say that "you know it when you see it" but I am not convinced. Today's ars politica are often sophisticated and power, as John Keane wrote a few years ago, has taken on a more spectral (shadowy) quality. We require an upgrade to whatever the perceptive faculty of ours that is responsible for detecting a democratically-formulated order of power.
Ali offers one approach to help us detect democratic order: democratic states control their militaries through civilian oversight.
What approach might you offer to help others detect "democracy"?
Relevant answer
Answer
In today's world, an interesting trend has emerged where autocracies are increasingly incorporating democratic elements, while democracies are adopting certain characteristics of authoritarian regimes. This phenomenon raises questions about the evolving nature of governance and the blurring lines between these two distinct forms of government.
Autocracies, traditionally characterized by concentrated power in the hands of a single ruler or a small group, have recognized the appeal of democratic practices. By implementing certain democratic features, autocratic regimes aim to enhance their legitimacy and present a facade of inclusivity. These features may include holding periodic elections, creating pseudo or controlled opposition parties, and establishing institutions that mimic the checks and balances seen in democracies. While these measures may provide an illusion of popular participation, the core power and decision-making authority ultimately remain with the ruling elite.
On the other hand, democracies, which have long prided themselves on their commitment to individual freedoms, rule of law, and inclusive governance, have faced challenges and internal pressures that have led to the adoption of authoritarian characteristics. These pressures often arise from concerns over security, stability, and the ability to effectively govern in a complex and rapidly changing world. Democracies may resort to strong executive powers, limiting civil liberties, increasing surveillance, and centralizing decision-making processes in the name of efficiency and swift action. Such measures can erode the democratic values that form the foundation of these systems.
This convergence between autocracies and democracies can be attributed to various factors. One significant factor is the spread of information technology and social media, which have enabled autocratic regimes to control narratives and manipulate public opinion more effectively. Democracies, too, have grappled with the impact of these technologies, facing challenges such as misinformation, polarization, and foreign interference. In an attempt to combat these issues, some democracies have sought to exert greater control over online platforms and limit free speech, blurring the lines between democratic principles and authoritarian practices.
Furthermore, the rise of populist movements around the world has contributed to the erosion of democratic norms. Populist leaders often exploit societal divisions and grievances to consolidate power, challenging the established institutions and norms of democracy. In their pursuit of strong leadership and decisive action, populists may exhibit authoritarian tendencies, disregarding the importance of checks and balances and undermining democratic institutions.
It is crucial to recognize and address these shifts in the political landscape. While autocracies adopting democratic features may appear to be progressing towards openness, transparency, and inclusivity, it is essential to scrutinize the extent of genuine democratic practices and assess the concentration of power behind the scenes. Similarly, democracies must guard against the erosion of civil liberties and the concentration of power in the hands of a few, reaffirming their commitment to democratic values and accountability.
In conclusion, the blending of autocratic and democratic characteristics in today's world raises concerns about the future of governance. As autocracies emulate democratic features and democracies adopt authoritarian characteristics, the distinction between these two forms of government becomes increasingly blurred. It is imperative for societies to remain vigilant, ensuring that democratic principles are upheld and that power remains in the hands of the people rather than concentrated within ruling elites. Only through such vigilance can we strive for governance systems that truly reflect and protect the values of the people they represent.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
In July of 2021, a short essay of mine was published by invitation from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Religion & Ethics section: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/words-of-democracy-an-abandoned-science/13386940).
In that essay, I worked through an idea put forward by the philosopher Isaiah Berlin to argue that we can approximate democracy's total texture by collecting its many thousands of words (e.g. 'black democracy', 'democracy lite', 'archaic democracy', etc) and studying them, where they came from, why they exist, what their democratic credentials are (<- this must be recurringly participatory and not an 'expert only' determination), how they relate to one another in meaning or through bibliometrics, etc.
As enchanting as the idea was and remains (we are preparing a homegrown AI-supported open digital encyclopedia of the democracies), what brilliant thinkers like Alex Prior and nearly 100 others have shown, is that should a total texture of democracy ever be approximated it is going to require far more data than just words but also theories to help us all understand these many, and disparate, data.
For example, Prior suggests that we look to fractals: Benoit Mandelbrot is credited with the 'discovery' of fractal geometry which pairs art and math together so very well. Prior relies on fractal art/geometry as a metaphor to show that certain types of democracy - such as electoral majoritarianism - does repeat itself from the smallest scale to largest scale. Indeed, what Prior doesn't mention in his essay is that neurologists have shown that dendrites in animal brains rely on majoritarian decisions! (See: ) And that our planet, Gaia/Pachamama/Turtle Island/etc, is arguably itself majoritarian in how planetary systems self-regulate.
If you were to try to make sense of democracy's immense diversity in the world, how would you do it?
Relevant answer
Answer
The concept of democracy encompasses a vast array of intricacies that make it a complex system, rendering its complete texture virtually impossible to observe and comprehend in its entirety. Democracy is not a monolithic entity; rather, it is a multifaceted framework composed of numerous interconnected elements, including political structures, institutions, processes, and the participation of citizens. Understanding and evaluating democracy requires analyzing its diverse components and their interactions, a task that proves challenging due to its inherent complexity.
One of the key reasons why the texture of democracy remains unobservable is the dynamic nature of the system. Democracy evolves and adapts over time, influenced by historical, cultural, and societal factors unique to each country. As a result, attempting to capture the full spectrum of democracy's texture in a single snapshot becomes an elusive endeavor.
Moreover, democracy operates within intricate webs of power, with various stakeholders involved in decision-making processes. The interplay between political parties, interest groups, media, and individuals further contributes to the complexity of democracy. Each entity brings its own perspectives, values, and agendas, shaping the texture of democratic systems differently across nations. This complexity extends to the nuances of debates, negotiations, and compromises that occur within democratic frameworks, making the observation of the complete texture an arduous task.
Furthermore, democracy involves intangible elements that are challenging to quantify or measure directly. Concepts such as freedom, equality, justice, and human rights are fundamental to democratic systems, but their interpretation and application can vary greatly. These abstract ideals are intertwined with cultural norms, historical legacies, and societal aspirations, adding layers of complexity to the democratic fabric.
Attempting to capture the entirety of democracy's texture requires navigating a maze of interconnections, variables, and contextual factors. While scholars, political scientists, and analysts have developed frameworks and methodologies to study and assess democracy, it remains an ongoing challenge to encapsulate the system's full complexity within a single lens.
Nevertheless, despite the infinite complexity of democracy, it remains a vital and cherished system of governance, embodying the principles of popular sovereignty and citizen participation. Democracy's intricate texture, while elusive in its complete observability, is an ever-evolving reflection of the diverse aspirations, values, and struggles of societies worldwide. Understanding and appreciating democracy's complexity entails continuous exploration and analysis, recognizing that its multifaceted nature defies simplistic categorizations or definitive observations.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
Reginald Oduor writes the following:
"Prior to the incursion of Western imperialism, a sizeable proportion of the governance models of Africa’s peoples placed a high premium on consensus-building rather than majoritarianism."
Oduor goes on to detail how elections across Africa today continue to stifle democratization in the continent and that's precisely because majoritarianism is used to shut down discussion.
The critical stance toward making a majoritarian decision first instead of last, as often happens in elections, was also struck decades ago by David Beetham. He, too, held the opinion that we should only use a majoritarian decision when all other options to reach a decision have failed.
In short, consensus-building, deliberation, etc., should be what we reach for first when it is time to decide who our representatives will be or when it is time to make any sort of decision.
What do you think? Why should reaching for a majoritarian decision be the last resort and not the first option to be tried?
Relevant answer
التحول الديمقراطي في افريقيا، حتى وإن كان يمثل هدفا شعبيا، يمكن ان يتحقق من خلال التجربة والممارسة. وعلى الرغم من أن معدّلات التحول تلك تشهد تزايدا مطردا، فما هو جدير بالملاحظة هو أن تلك الزيادة تقترن بظاهرتين. الاولى، أن عددا من قيادات الحزب الواحد والنظم التسلّطيّة في دول افريقيا، قد قبلوا بالديمقراطية بعد فترة امتناع و تباطىء. و الثانية، أن القبول ليس معناه التسليم المطلق بالإجراءات والنتائج، فالنخب الحاكمة تقبل بالشكل وتقوم أحيانا بالتلاعب والتزوير فيما يتعلق بترتيب وتنظيم الاجراءات الادارية والتنظيمية للعملية الانتخابية، بينما النخب المعارضة، تطعن في النتائج بالأسلوب القانوني وأساليب الاجتماع والحشد الشعبي والإعلامي. فلهذا ينبغي على الدول الافريقية ان تعتنق النظام الديمقراطي على حسب خصوصيتها، وأن لا يكون نظام فرضته املاءات من الغرب.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
3 answers
Neology and sociolinguistics are at the crossroads of analysis for the democratization processes and need an integral approach combined with the concept studies to understand linguistic democratization dynamics fully.
Linguistic Democratization of the Modern English Language - one more book chapter of mine is now in the wild of the #openaccess academic realm. This chapter focuses on Functional Parameters of English Youth Slang Neologisms. Thanks to prof. Nata Lazebna who co-edited this collective monography with prof. Dinesh Kumar - Studies in Modern English published by The Julius Maximilians University of Würzburg Press.
Big shout out to prof. Rusudan Makhachashvili who created and leads a network of Contemporary English researchers now being scattered across the globe but contributing wherever we are.
Shtaltovna, Y. (2022). Linguistic Democratization of the Modern English Language: Functional Parameters of English Youth Slang Neologisms // N. Lazebna / D. Kumar (Ed.), Studies in Modern English, Würzburg, 2022, p. 105-115. DOI: 10.25972/WUP-978-3-95826-199-0-105
Relevant answer
Answer
The peculiarities of neologisms' use are determined not only by the semantic compe-tence of the speaker. It is not only responsible for the correlation of the sign and the wordbut also the pragmatic one, which provides a permanent connection between the speakerand the sign. Pragmatic parameters of neologisms most fully manifest in Internet discourse,characterized by constantly updating lexical vocabulary.
This feature is since Internet dis-course is inherently a heterogeneous phenomenon that integrates the characteristics of other types of discourse and covers all spheres of society. Therefore, functional analysis of discursive neologisms is an essential aspect of studying neologisms
(PDF) Linguistic Democratization of the Modern English Language: Functional Parameters of English Youth Slang Neologisms. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366230053_Linguistic_Democratization_of_the_Modern_English_Language_Functional_Parameters_of_English_Youth_Slang_Neologisms [accessed May 30 2023].
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
Lucy J. Parry points out the exclusionary character of "mainstream" democratic theory. Parry writes:
"There is a disconnect between democratic innovations in academic research and practice. Hans Asenbaum and Friedel Marquardt have already pointed out that, to reinvigorate democracy, we need to engage with those who enact it outside academia in their day-to-day work and lives. Practitioners – including facilitators, designers, public servants, NGOs and consultants – have been somewhat neglected in this debate. Yet they are often on the frontline of democratic innovations, and their experience can greatly enhance our understandings of democracy."
I have discussed Parry's point on and off with colleagues since this essay was published and one of the recurring questions in these discussions is how to connect with practitioners.
Academics are trained in typically exclusive arts that rely on specializing in specific methodologies, adopting certain writing styles, using technocratic language, publishing in specialist outlets, and attending specialist events/developing specialist networks. This does not bode well for collaborating with experts who not only do none of these things but sometimes have little interest in the "high theory" that some democratic theorists promote.
What would be your suggestion for helping democratic theorists to connect with experts outside of academia?
Relevant answer
فكرة أن الديمقراطية تعني حكم الأغلبية بدون قود أو عقلانية فكرة قديمة بالية. سارتوري (1962، ص 460-461) قال إن "الديمقراطية لا معنى لها بدون الليبرالية". وبعد خمسين سنة، يردد بيثام (2004، ص 61-75) نفس الحجة: الديمقراطية والحرية لا ينفصلان. ويؤكد: "بدون حرية لا تو
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
How will emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and blockchain, impact democratic processes and governance structures?
Relevant answer
Answer
1. AI and blockchain can streamline government operations and improve transparency, boosting efficiency and accountability in democratic processes.
2. AI-powered chatbots and blockchain-based voting systems can enhance citizen engagement, participation, and trust in governance.
3. AI can help detect and counter disinformation, while blockchain enhances cybersecurity and protects sensitive information.
4. AI algorithms and blockchain-based systems can reduce bias, promote inclusivity, and ensure fair decision-making in democratic processes.
5. Privacy protection measures, such as differential privacy and blockchain data security features, are vital in safeguarding citizen data within democratic systems.
I guess these points will give you clear knowledge.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
What is the best way to conduct this study?
Relevant answer
Answer
One way to research this could involve an ethnographic study or other type of observational research of two organizations, one with democratic management and one without, but which are otherwise similar in size, budget, etc., to see which one demonstrates more creativity.
For measuring creativity, it may be good to search for academic literature on the topic to see if there have been any previous attempts to measure it that could be applied to develop a theoretical framework to assess creativity in both organizations.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
In the Netherlands, there are currently administrative law experiments in which people who instigate public order disturbances via social media can be dealt with (e.g. with a fine). The first court case shows that this cannot stand up under local rules (local ordinance). Are there any known examples from other democratic regimes where public order disturbances incited via the Internet are prevented through legislation or through cooperation with social media platforms? Please let me know, thanks!
Relevant answer
Answer
It's a welcome development,
This will serve as deterrent to bloggers with fake information/ News, malicious information, derogatory use of language which tends to promote acrimony.
Hence sanity will be restored back to the social media
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
It's talking about public opinion in democratic governance
Relevant answer
Answer
Public opinion is an essential element in democratic governance, as it helps policymakers to understand the needs and preferences of their constituents. In Nigeria's fourth republic, public opinion has played a critical role in guiding democratic governance, though its impact has been mixed.
On the one hand, public opinion has been instrumental in shaping policy decisions and government actions in Nigeria. For instance, in 2012, the Nigerian government attempted to remove fuel subsidies, which sparked widespread protests and civil unrest. The government was ultimately forced to backtrack on its decision due to the overwhelming public outcry.
On the other hand, there have been instances where public opinion has been ignored or manipulated by those in power. For example, in the run-up to the 2019 general elections, public opinion polls indicated that the majority of Nigerians were dissatisfied with the performance of the incumbent government. However, the ruling party still won the election amid allegations of vote-rigging and manipulation.
Moreover, Nigeria's democratic governance is still grappling with challenges such as corruption, ethnic and religious divisions, and insecurity, which have affected the quality and effectiveness of public opinion in guiding policy decisions.
In conclusion, public opinion plays a crucial role in guiding democratic governance in Nigeria's fourth republic, but its impact is still limited by various challenges. There is a need for continued efforts to strengthen public participation and accountability mechanisms to enhance the quality and impact of public opinion in guiding governance.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
In his essay here (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/untangling-description-deception-and-denunciation-a-linguistic-twist-to-the-science-of-democracy/), Rikki J. Dean states that: "[w]ords do not only describe, they also deceive and denounce".
This creates a puzzle for us. On the one hand, there are excellent reasons to trust that anyone can establish for themselves which words have some democraticity or democratness about them. They will be able to spot the fakes. On the other hand, there are arguably equally excellent reasons to say that this is not the case - that experts need to weigh in and provide advice on words and their meanings so that everyone can at least understand why x is considered "democratic" but not "y" and make up their minds from there.
What do we do in a situation where there seem to be two truths? Pursue them both at the same time? How would you solve this puzzle?
Relevant answer
Answer
Interesting. But do we really have two truths?Democracy has historically been characterized by incongruities. Theoretical and empirical finesse have never been associated with democracy. In its aboriginal Athenian standards for instance, slaves and women and some others, were dehumanized by the denial of franchise and other formats of political participation. What obtained was accordingly difficult to stand the test of time as democracy. There is this fluidity in democracy that makes irregularity its abiding truth.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
5 answers
As a result of tools such as Chat GPT, Bing and others, What would be the main risks for democratic systems when using AI like these? personalized fake news? Perpetuation of biases? Or what other elements?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello Dr Jonathan Piedra
You raise some very large issues. Noah M. Kenney mentioned another one in what was called "personalised fake news". On one hand, I think that is a funny comment. On the other, I can see it is very serious. In fact, we are starting to see that already with personalised advertisements on some websites. That is just a very rudimentary form of AI. But we are on the way.
And it, like said, encourages people to think less. That is also what fake news does.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
Anyone can kindly share a sample copy of (Principals Leadership Style) and (Teachers Job Performance) Questionnaires used in Parveen et al. 2022 study :Impact of Principal Leadership Styles on Teacher Job Performance: An Empirical Investigation or any other useful validated questionnaires. I'm looking at the impact of autocratic and democratic leadership styles on teachers performance. Thank you
Relevant answer
Answer
Try my assessment archive (section on education at the bottom): https://paulspector.com/assessments/assessment-archive/
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
4 answers
In her essay, Paula Sabloff asserts that:
First and foremost, a democratic government protects people’s human rights as laid out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Among these are the right to life, to freedom from degrading punishment or enslavement, and to follow one’s own beliefs. They also include the right to citizenship and, most relevant to dignity, the right to self-determination.
If you were asked to complete the sentence: A democratic government must ...
What would you come up with? What would be your answer or list of minimum requirements?
Relevant answer
A democratic government must be aware of the importance of the individual in managing the state, respect his civil, intellectual and human rights, and draw future plans to ensure the existence of generations that respect the opinion of the other and reconcile with him.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
In reading John B. Min's essay here (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/a-democratic-philosophy-for-democracys-data-mountain/) I began to wonder about "democratic progresses" as opposed to the now all too familiar "democratic backslidings".
For me, at the moment, "democratic progresses" looks like a combination of private citizens (inclusive of residents and visitors, especially migrants), civil society (or public sphere) organisations, and public things/officials/institutions working together to develop trustworthy patterns of behaviour given to enhancing the power of people - especially marginalised individuals and groups.
These sorts of progresses are people-driven and advices are provided to them by so-called "democracy experts" (broadly conceived).
One example is the rising interest and practice in "sortive", "aleatory", or "sortition democracy".
What do you think? What examples come to mind for you and why?
Relevant answer
Answer
I think that Sortition democracy is one example of a democratic progress as this form of democracy involves the selection of political representatives at random from a pool of citizens. The idea is that by randomly selecting citizens, it will give them a voice in the decision-making process, regardless of their socioeconomic background or other external factors. This form of democracy is believed to be more representative of the population as a whole and could help to reduce the effects of political bias. Other examples of democratic progress include the use of digital technologies to increase public participation in the decision-making process. For example, some governments have used online voting systems to allow citizens to cast their votes remotely, making it easier for people to participate in the democratic process. Additionally, there has been a rise in the use of public opinion surveys to gauge public opinion on various issues. These surveys provide valuable data that can help inform decision-makers and ensure that the public's voice is heard. Finally, there has been an increased focus on transparency in government. Many governments have implemented transparency initiatives, such as providing access to public records and documents, to ensure that citizens can stay informed about what is happening in their government. These initiatives allow citizens to stay informed about the decisions their government is making, helping to ensure that their voices are heard in the democratic process.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
Patricia Roberts-Miller begins her essay as follows:
"'Thucydides’ trap' is famous in international relations, used to describe a situation in which a rising power threatens an existing hegemon. It’s also a misnomer — it describes a 'trap' of no interest to the Athenian historian Thucydides. Neither is it applicable to the relationship between Sparta and Athens that would result in the regionally devastating Peloponnesian War, the history of which Thucydides wrote. The misnomer is the consequence of a misunderstanding of a quote from a secondary writer, and an anachronistic understanding of what it means to be a hero in classical literature."
This led to my asking: what does it mean to be a hero today especially in relation not only to "democracy" but to "the democracies" - the thousands of possible routes that we can take to be ever more democratic, ever better democratic people?
To my mind, perhaps because I am working on a book called "Democracy Therapy: Democratic Treatments for our Authoritarian Lives", such a hero tries to democratise their family, or school, workplace, condo/apartment building, local hospitals, their neighbourhood, domestic relations with non-human life, and so forth - all, notably, more social than political spaces.
What does being a hero of the democracies today mean to you?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello Jean-Paul,
In the first place, I like this concept of "the democracies" which deals with "the thousands of possible routes that we can take to be ever more democratic, ever better democratic people". Then, there are still locations on earth, where knowledge, information, education are not yet democratized. This breeds inequality on different fronts in such places. To my mind therefore, whoever that facilitates the democratization of knowledge, information and education in such environments, and in doing so helps in the reduction of domestic disparities in such countries, is a hero of "the democracies".
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
7 answers
In his essay, Ramon Van Der Does (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-best-use-of-our-limited-resources-in-service-of-democracy/) argues that: "We already know the cures for many of democracy's ills. What we lack are ways to realise the transition towards a deeply democratic society".
Why is that the case? What is preventing us from achieving deeply democratic societies?
Relevant answer
Answer
Revered Professor Dr Jean Paul has raised more important Question in the Research Gate platform to know all the Academicians ideas.
Democracy is one of the political tools to achieve the majority of the people common agreement, opinion poll to win in the election, justify good or bad things suitable to the society.
Most of the Government have advised the 📽️🎥 Filmmakers have to produce the most touching effects of the film related to Democracy.
The developing countries stakeholders might not know the political tactics, hidden secrets, and sources of the wellbeing, etc. To make them more understand these illiterate stakeholders that the democracy tools could become the engine to protect those innocent people.
It can be realized through proper education. Of course, there are studies like Public Administration, Political Science, Good Governance and Policy making etc but it needs to be strengthened at the ground level at first.
The "Haves" and "Havenots" should know the real meaning of the Democracy in the course of life but the things are not like in the ground.
There are vast gap between the Rich and Poor in the societies. If the gap between rich and poor are very wide then the robbery, Naxalites, stealing, and all kinds of revolutionized activities would emerge in the societies.
Democracy justifies many things in the society like Truth, equal distribution of the wealth, income, equality and confidence building exercises among the stakeholders in the societies.
Everyone fear in front of the Democracy because it tells about the people's welfare ultimately. None have the right to accumulate the resources irrationally.
Hope my answer somehow touched the Question.
Regards
Senapathy
Ethiopia
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
7 answers
"Democratic theory should account for diverse democratic practices happening worldwide. At a closer look, this deceptively simple proposition leaves contemporary democratic theory with a range of conceptual and methodological puzzles. How can we acknowledge plural forms of democracy in our normative and empirical endeavours? How can we gain a more comprehensive picture of diverse understandings of democracy in the first place?"
These are the words of Dannica Fleuss from Fleuss's essay here: https://theloop.ecpr.eu/gagnons-data-mountain-a-lookout-point-for-revolutions-to-come/
The puzzle of accounting for diverse democratic practices is, it seems to me, made up of philosophical and methodological challenges.
Philosophically: what is democracy? who constructs it? where? with what justification? would a specimen of it "count" as a "valid" democracy if, for example, that specimen falls more into the authoritarian family of resemblance than the democracy family?
Methodologically: what tools do we use to detect democratic practices when meaning is so variable? how can this work be done affordably? where is the data kept? who is overseeing that the benefit of this work goes to, e.g., marginalised scholars & practitioners (if not one and the same)?
Are there any emphases you would like to add to the puzzle or questions to its philosophical or methodological aspects?
Relevant answer
Answer
From a methodological point of view, I propose 4 actions. First, I would take democratic as a variable, consider it a spectrum, where you can have more and less degree of it. This gives more room to include some forms of democracy that a binary or any discrete classification would exclude. Second, I would examine the degree of "democraticness" in different dimensions of governance. This adds more variability as some governance modes might be more democratic in some areas, not so much in others. Third, there would not only be one spectrum, but multiple spectra, as you could break down democraticness into components: degree of transparency, opportunities to assert interests, state domination, etc. Fourth, I would detach the measure of democraticness from the way a certain governance mode or state achieves this. Different institutional or process designs might reach similar degress of democracy. All in all, this creates a descriptive analytic framework that does not make normative judgements and allows variability you might need to escape dogmatism.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
Alex Prior makes the excellent point that "[w]e cannot simply airdrop a democratic institution and expect a democratic outcome, because the institution inevitably ‘lands’ on an already established context".
Like others who have studied global histories of democracy, I take this "already established context" to mean that people - wherever they are to be found - innately understand what it means to, for example, resent a tyrant, want freedom from authority, and seek the autonomy to live as they see fit (collectively, individually). These feelings can turn into institutional/cultural "birth moments" or origination points of a form/type/kind/model of democracy.
Do you know of any resources that can help us map these "births" of the democracies?
Relevant answer
Answer
we must limit the place and society that we want install democracy in it,
if you want took about birth of democracy and growth it successfully .
we need identify some things,like social situation such as how is institution of society allowed democracy?, and relation that are with other city or country and identify democracy change it until successful in this society because democracy is a process not unchangeable thing.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
3 answers
As someone who is considered a newcomer in the architectural academic field, I found the typical teaching process to take place inside closed studios without engaging the community in whatever we are teaching.
Upon searching for the meaning of open education systems, most of the readings talk about the structure and the role of administration in the educational process. Yet, there seems to be limited writings on the quality of education itself, i.e. the production and delivering of knowledge inside the studios. Teaching manner, which takes the place of the learning manner, is a one-way direction from the teacher to the students.
Where is the community? Doesn't including the people ensure a more democratic design process? Do you think the teaching process should take place in a more open environment rather than the traditional studio rooms?
Relevant answer
Answer
H mr.Taher
in my opinion there is too leval in the formation process, one with the class (closed system) with an autocratic methode to get the basic knowlege, the with a more dimocratic methode outside the class for the practical training (open system)
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
1 answer
Thomas Bunting argues that "sport is a forum for democratic contestation" (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/sporting-democracy-as-illustrated-by-the-qatar-world-cup/).
What are examples of democracy or democratic contestation in sport?
Relevant answer
Answer
That's a fascinating question. Sport was already a political issue in antiquity, even more so in modern times. Besides the political appropriation of sport by dictators, which has a long tradition, processes of emancipation also take place in sport that take longer elsewhere. Women's tennis is an interesting example. Female players are very political, committed against sexism, racism and war : Serena Williams, Naomi Osaka, Coco Gauff, Elina Svitolina, Iga Swiatek etc. revolt against anti-democratic phenomena and use their notoriety to express solidarity.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
In her essay, Sonia Bussu avers that "democracy is far removed from our daily lives". See: https://theloop.ecpr.eu/democracy-as-a-way-of-living/
I read this as meaning most of us do not have an "inner" or "psychogenic" democracy, most families/homes are not democratic, nor schools, workplaces, apartment/condo buildings, hospitals, aged care facilities, prisons, even many social/sporting clubs.
Why do you think our social lives are so far removed from democracy (meaning they are more authoritarian/autocratic in nature)?
Relevant answer
Answer
The answer is very simple. Man is inherently self-centered. He brings in this self-interest into his putative democratic beliefs. Whenever it is possible to do away with his democratic pretentiousness, he jettisons it.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
22 answers
We are probably all aware by now that artificial intelligence will disrupt virtually every single industry globally. It will eliminate millions of old jobs and create millions of new ones. Memorization, multiple-choice testing, or rote work will no longer be relevant to these new jobs. Even jobs in the service sector that traditionally need the "human touch," like nursing and teaching will be affected in one way or another.
Unfortunately, the developing world will probably make attempts to adhere to "tradition" and resist change. How can we democratize technology so that students gain the data and computer literacy needed to succeed in the job market of the future despite this resistance?
Relevant answer
Answer
In addition to Rudra Tiwari perfect response, i think there is need to encourage more 'Social Integration' among the populace. The world is fast evolving and becoming a global village and there is need for everyone join the train. There is need to turn down the believe that education is a scam, technology will end cultural heritage and/or encourage crime by giving access to education(rural areas) through public enlightenment among other.
  • asked a question related to Democratization
Question
2 answers
Friedel Marquardt avers the following:
"[The] naming and recording of various definitions of democracy gives place to those definitions that may not have been considered or acknowledged before, often eclipsed by more prominent definitions like liberal democracy. Identifying a manifestation as 'democracy' and applying the term to it has the effect of recognising a wide range of practices as democratic. It gives them legitimacy among the other more prominent democracies identified." (For more, please read Marquardt's essay here: https://theloop.ecpr.eu/who-gets-a-say-in-the-meanings-of-democracy/)
Which practices around you, perhaps ones you conduct yourself, are not formally part of the "canon of democracy" but should be?
Relevant answer
Answer
Very True Jean-Paul Gagnon
  • asked a question related to Democratization