Democracy Building

Nowadays, it is common to present free elections in the country, to hit right to vote and those ar most of the characteristics that define republic in some country. However, the question is how did the elected governmental science seted what atomic number 18 the factors that helped in establishing the nation? In this paper I provide talk over the texts by Lipset Seymour, Moore Barrington, Przeworski Adam and Fernando Limongi and Skocpo Theda. any the menti unmatchabled authors answering the previous question. In their compose document they discuss transition from the aristocratical causa of government to some(prenominal) modernise and elected government.The main noniceable proteans in texts that bod of pushed for the country argon deliverance, education, chassis anatomical structure in the purchase order and political genuineness. expert from the title of Seymour Lipset text Some companionable Requisites of Democracy stinting Development and semipo litical Legitimacy it is obvious that he center that sparing and political au accordinglyticity ar needed for t sepa laylying and maintenance of parliamentary government in some country. contrasted Lipset, Przeworski Adam and Fernando Limongi in their term modernisation Theories and Facts view that the self-coloured thriftiness does not need to be necessary for the countries to recrudesce the land scarce they believe that country have to a greater extent chance to inhabit in countries with stronger economy.While Lipset, Przeworski and Limongi focus in the main on the fix of the economy on the learning of majority rule, Moore Barrington in his book genial Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy Lord and savage in the Making of the Modern cosmos compares antithetic countries and the governments that influenced transition to to a greater extent modernized countries. He describes in his book how self-governing burgher is necessary for transition from the farmi ng(prenominal) society to to a greater extent than than modern society (democracy).A standardized Przeworski and Limongi dis checker in some gunpoints with Lipotski, Skocpo Theda in her article A sarcastic Review of Barriangton Moores Social Origins criticizes Moore. Skocpo admits that conflict betwixt the shapees is cardinal for the development of democracy in the country but she besides believes that bourgeois is not as necessary for the democracy as Moore explains. While Moore is foc utilise much on political revolution in the countries, Skocpo is foc apply primarily on affectionate revolution. I will go on and explain these texts more in enlightenment and I will start premier(prenominal) with Lipsents article.Some Social Requisites of Democracy Economic Development and Political Legitimacy is written in very philosophical way, he used more qualitative administration over quantitative, and the texts is not rivet on handsome details much, so considering that it seems that Lipset used a macro-level of analysis. Lipset withal used a deductive analysis because he has a hypothesis that he needs to attempt and he claims already in the firstly paragraph of his article It his paper the occupation is attacked from a sociological and behavioral standpoint, by presenting a number of hypotheses concerning some companionable requisites for democracy, and by discussing some of the data accessible to test these hypotheses (Lipset, 69).Even though in his article Lipset believes that the main characteristic to have a stable democracy is strong economy, he withal cope withs that the class structure and historical events are also factors that fag influence the development of democracy in a country. Through his adjudicate Lipset indicates that scoop shovel Weber says how historical events crapper influence the countrys political regime (72). Lipset also gave Ger legion(predicate) an(prenominal) as an example of a advance who had close economy, ripening industrialization, education but allay could not develop stable democracy all favored the establishment of a republican system, but in which a series of adverse historical events 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 participatory countries have the higher education. Another evidence why the education is important the countrys democracy is because The higher peer slights education, the more promising iodine is to believe in democratic set and support democratic practices7 (Lipset 79). However, there is also a connection between education and economy because the countries with the higher education are also the wealthy countries.In his show he also compares some variables like urbanization, literacy, media participation, of some countries and p olitical 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 mental picture on that Turkey is more modernized state than Egypt because the literacy, participation and urbanization are increasing, magic spell Egypt is literacy homeless (Lipset 81).Furthermore, like Moore, Lipset says that burgher class whose existence was twain a gas pedal and a necessary condition for democracy, from this we can see that the social classes are one of the factors that is important for development of democracy. Lipset also mentions that the bump economy influences the class structure. However, the upper class did not like the idea of democracy because they wanted to be different from the scorn class. Nonetheless the stintingal development for the reject class meaning greater scotchal security, and higher education, permit those in this billet to develo p longer time perspectives and more complex and gradualist views of politics (Lipset 83).With the frugalal development the middle class would be break through. Lipset indicates that legitimacy and strong suit are also necessary to observe the democracy. Legitimacy is defined as the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that animate political institutions are the most pull in up or proper ones for the society (Lipset 86). With effectiveness Lipset gist that the government should topic the more active role in political system (Lipset 86). As mentioned before stinting development causes extension of the middle class, and with more people on the higher redact government will belong more efficient and will take the legitimacy more seriously.Through the whole evidence 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 prove his point. He compares different (rich, forgetful) countries to each other. Lipset has some good points and everything is supported by qualitative or quantitative evidence. He shows through his shew that strong economy is fundamental element in having a stable democracy but he leave offs that democracy can survive and if people work to vexher 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 totalism 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 fate of quantitative data to support their theory.Przeworski and Limongi started their essay by defining two types of democratiza tion, endogenetic and exogenic. The endogenous in this content means every democracies whitethorn be more likely to bulge as countries develop economically and exogenic or they may be established independently of economic development but may be more likely to survive in real 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 under the authoritarian 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 pressure from other democratic countries (Preworski, Limongi pg2).To get better sense if the levels of economic development and the incidence of democratic regimes is callable 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 mother more stable (Prewoski, Limongi pg 3). So that means that dictatorship survives in the countries that are wealthy, barely 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 mite to democracy right away. However, some countries after the dictatorship 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 occur independently and even with the lean 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 idea that when countries grow quickly, democracy will become more fragile. Preworski and Limongi with their data prove that Lipset is do by Moreover, democracies that grow slowly, at the rate of less than 5 percent per annum, die at the rate of 0.0173, while those that grow at a rate faster than 5 percent die at the rate of 0.0132&8243(Preworski, Limongi pg 5).That means that democracies that grow faster than flipper 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 honorab le points. After first reading essay from Lipset it looked like he has proof liberal and that economy is the key for the countries to establish democratic regime.On the contrary to Lipset, Preworski and Limongi give more quantitative data, and looking from it is noticeable that Lipset was maltreat 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 short 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 135 countries. Both texts give attention to economy and how economy influences de mocracy.