Democracy Building

Nowadays, it is common to fuddle free elections in the country, to have rightfulness to vote and those atomic number 18 whatever of the characteristics that define republic in twain(prenominal) country. However, the question is how did the democratic government amazeed what are the factors that helped in trying the state? In this piece of music I forget discuss the texts by Lipset Seymour, Moore Barrington, Przeworski hug drug and Fernando Limongi and Skocpo Theda. All the menti whizzd authors answering the previous question. In their papers they discuss passageway from the aristocratical type of government to much(prenominal)(prenominal) than overhaul and democratic government.The historic noniceable variables in texts that kind of pushed for the majority rule are parsimony, education, secernate construction in the night club and political legitimacy. Right from the title of Seymour Lipset text close to Social Requisites of Democracy Economic Development and Political Legitimacy it is writ large that he agency that deliverance and political legitimacy are essential for knowledge and maintenance of democratic regime in some country. unconnected Lipset, Przeworski Adam and Fernando Limongi in their hold Modernization Theories and Facts believe that the bullnecked sparing does not need to be necessary for the countries to develop the democracy entirely they believe that democracy have more chance to survive in countries with stronger economy.While Lipset, Przeworski and Limongi focus mostly on the influence of the economy on the victimization of democracy, Moore Barrington in his book Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy master and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World compares different countries and the regimes that influenced musical passage to more modernized countries. He describes in his book how independent saveton-down is necessary for transition from the agrarian order to more modern society (democr acy).A bid Przeworski and Limongi dis harbour in some points with Lipotski, Skocpo Theda in her article A Critical Review of Barriangton Moores Social Origins criticizes Moore. Skocpo admits that conflict mingled with the configurationes is important for the breeding of democracy in the country but she to a fault believes that bourgeois is not as necessary for the democracy as Moore exempts. While Moore is foc apply more on political revolution in the countries, Skocpo is focused primarily on social revolution. I will go on and rationalise these texts more in depth and I will start first with Lipsents article. nigh Social Requisites of Democracy Economic Development and Political Legitimacy is compose in very philosophical way, he used more soft method over quantitative, and the texts is not focused on small dilate much, so considering that it seems that Lipset used a macro-level of analysis. Lipset similarly used a deductive analysis because he has a hypothesis that he n eeds to outpouring and he claims already in the first paragraph of his article It his paper the problem is attacked from a sociological and behavioral standpoint, by presenting a result of hypotheses concerning some social requisites for democracy, and by discussing some of the data available to discharge these hypotheses (Lipset, 69).Even though in his article Lipset believes that the main characteristic to have a stable democracy is strong economy, he also agrees that the class structure and historical compensatets are also factors that can influence the victimization of democracy in a country. Through his canvas Lipset indicates that Max weber says how historical events can influence the countrys political regime (72). Lipset also gave Ger more as an example of a state who had good economy, growing industrialization, education but still could not develop stable democracy all successful the establishment of a democratic system, but in which a serial of adverse historical e vents prevented democracy from securing legitimacy in the eyes of many important segments of society, and thus weakened German democracys ability to withstand crisis (Lipset 72).What Lipset also emphasizes is education. From his researchers he found out that the more democratic countries have the high education. Another reason why the education is important the countrys democracy is because The high ones education, the more potential one is to believe in democratic set and support democratic practices7 (Lipset 79). However, on that point is also a connection between education and economy because the countries with the higher education are also the stiff countries.In his essay he also compares some variables like urbanization, literacy, media participation, of some countries and political participation in the countries like Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Jordan. The Turkey scored the highest (Lipset 81). Even though Egypt is more urbanized than Turkey, Lipset supports Lerner o pinion on that Turkey is more modernized state than Egypt because the literacy, participation and urbanization are increasing, firearm Egypt is literacy homeless (Lipset 81).Furthermore, like Moore, Lipset says that burgher class whose existence was some(prenominal) a catalyst and a necessary condition for democracy, from this we can see that the social classes are one of the factors that is important for learning of democracy. Lipset also mentions that the better economy influences the class structure. However, the top(prenominal) class did not like the idea of democracy because they wanted to be different from the lower class. Nonetheless the scotch increment for the lower class means greater economic security, and higher education, permit those in this stead to develop longer time perspectives and more complex and gradualist views of politics (Lipset 83).With the economical development the middle class would be come out of the closet. Lipset indicates that legitimacy and effectiveness are also necessary to hurt the democracy. Legitimacy is defined as the cleverness of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that existing political institutions are the most appropriate or proper ones for the society (Lipset 86). With effectiveness Lipset means that the government should vex the more active utilization in political system (Lipset 86). As mentioned before economic development causes extension of the middle class, and with more mint on the higher short letter government will scram more efficient and will take the legitimacy more seriously.Through the whole essay Lipset is trying to explain how the development of the economy is essential for the establishment and substation of democracy. He uses many variables to levy his point. He compares different (rich, poor) countries to each other. Lipset has some good points and everything is supported by qualitative or quantitative evidence. He shows through his essay that strong economy i s fundamental element in having a stable democracy but he concludes that democracy can survive only when if people work together towards it, one man alone cannot do anything (Lipset 103). same Lipset, Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi in their article are also trying to explain how development of economy affects transformation from the dictatorship to democratic regime. However, through their article they try to discuss the points that Lipset says about relationship between development of economy and democracy, nevertheless as a mentioned before Limongi and Preworski do not agree with all the points that Lisent made in his essay. In their article they provide a lot of quantitative data to support their supposition.Przeworski and Limongi started their essay by specify two types of democratization, endogenous and exogenous. The endogenous in this content means any democracies may be more likely to emerge as countries develop economically and exogenous or they may be established singly of economic development but may be more likely to survive in developed countries (Preworski, Limongi pg2). Endogenous in their opinion is considered as a modernization theory, and in that theory, democratization is the final stage of modernization (Preworski, Limongi pg2).The endogenous theory describes us that the democracy can happened chthonic the swaggering regime if the country develops. On the other hand, exogenous is not considered a modernization theory. Furthermore, exogenous is focused more on economy, the wealthier countries are more likely to stay democratic than poor countries, and they agree with Lipset on this one. Therborn also highlights that the war caused democratization in European countries and not modernization (Preworski, Limongi pg 2). However, there also some dictatorship regime that collapsed because of economic crisis or because of the closet from other democratic countries (Preworski, Limongi pg2).To get better sense if the levels of economic development and the incidence of democratic regimes is due to democracies being more likely to emerge or only more likely to survive in the more developed countries. they tested 224 regimes that existed during the 1950 to 1990, and all the regimes that existed during that time were either under the regime of dictatorship (123 countries) or democracy (123).They found out that when the per capita income reaches more than $6,000 in dictatorship countries, the country become more stable (Prewoski, Limongi pg 3). So that means that dictatorship survives in the countries that are wealthy, however out 123 dictatorship countries only 19 survived during these years (1950-1990). Even though the small number of countries remained under the dictatorship regime, it cannot be said for sure that dictatorship regime collapses when the countrys economy develop, this is the proof that indeed economic growth does not need to tierce to democracy right away. However, some countries after the dictators hip still could not get the $6,000 per capita income. According to that, countries managed to get rid of dictatorship and lean towards the democracy, even though, they were economically weak.That point supports exogenous theory, which shows us that democracy in the countries return independently and even with the fragile economy countries can develop democracy. To conclude this point, unlike Lipsot, Prewoski and Limongi prove that development of economy is not necessary for democracy to emerge in some country. However, Prewoski and Limongi do believe that economic development keeps the democracy more stable, and it is likely that democracy in poor countries will not last.Furthermore, Preworski and Limongi, disagree with Lipset concept that when countries grow quickly, democracy will become more fragile. Preworski and Limongi with their data prove that Lipset is wrong Moreover, democracies that grow slowly, at the rank of less than 5 share per annum, die at the send of 0.0173, w hile those that grow at a rate faster than 5 percent die at the rate of 0.0132(Preworski, Limongi pg 5).That means that democracies that grow faster than louver percent per annum will die in a lower rate than the democracies that grow slower. Finally, Preworski and Limongi use deductive type of analysis, because they have a theory which they tested and then they concluded it. It also looks like they were more focused more on a micro level of analysis because they used data mostly from the per capita income.It seems that in both texts democracy is treated as depended variable and economy as an independent variable, because they are trying to explain how democracy and the economic development are related. Lipsets essay and the article from Preworski and Limongi, both have some fair points. After first reading essay from Lipset it looked like he has proof enough and that economy is the key for the countries to establish democratic regime.On the contrary to Lipset, Preworski and Limong i give more quantitative data, and look from it is noticeable that Lipset was wrong about that point. Nevertheless, Perworski and Limongi agree with Lioset about how economic development is crucial for democracy to sustain a country. Lipset uses education as an important aspect to stability of democracy and he supports with the evidence while Preworski and Limongi do agree that education is vital aspect for democracy to develop and sustain stable but they mention education just briefly and do not use much data to support it. In both texts we can see that they use different countries in their data, while Lipset is more focused on Latin America and Europe, Prewowski and Limongi take data from one hundred thirty-five countries. Both texts give attention to economy and how economy influences democracy.