I believe even today there
are many friends and foes of liberal democracy that have their good conclusion
of democratic system that it is one of the sufficient, responsive and
transparent systems. The assumption was made immediately after the collapse of
a superpower state Soviet Union, due to the failure of communist system which was
very heavily echoed by Marx-Leninism idealist. After the end of the Cold War, almost
nobody talked about Red Army, plan-economy, class or equality. If they have to discuss,
they would fundamentally talk about the tragedy of that system that led the
Soviet Union and many other communist states to develop inflexible policies
which after all resulting in million killings, underdeveloped economy, genocide,
and discourage freedoms of enterprise etc. Driven by international mass media
and the United Nations flag, sea of states has turned attention on the Western
liberal democracy. The biggest and largest wave of democratization also was
taken place. Many states, such as in Latin America and Cambodia specifically,
wanted to develop to be the U.S.-like country. Many victims in developing or
war-torn countries, moreover, migrated to live in the U.S. as they perceived
the U.S government is a peaceful, growth and responsive institution in the
world, except the spies who sought private life in Russia new democracy.
Of
course, no one can stop these people and states from dreaming to be the U.S.-like
state. Consequently, citizen and many states vote in favor of liberal democracy
installation. A war-torn Cambodia, for a striking instance, went for democracy
under the U.N. sponsored programme since it has witnessed liberal democracy such
as those in the West brings progress, stability, and prosperous to their
country. It is quite correct to some certain level. When states run a political
system that gives a clear and separation of powers, bureaucrats and voters,
these three factors can work equally in many criteria of issues and get
compromised for win-win solutions. It is true that matured democratic states
tend to be stable, less conflict, more growth and development and peaceful. The
very evidence is the smooth flow and development of countries like Sweden,
Denmark, Norway and New Zealand. It is an unchallenging proof since these
states are democratic and implications of this practice bring them fortune. In
principle, liberal democracy is a voting-oriented political system. It does
guarantee separation of powers and holding accountable to constituencies. Human-centered
approach has unlocked the voters and government to work harder and to check and
balance one another’s performance – a good government is supposed to be a government
that produces productive policy and will likely gets more votes, otherwise getting
vote of confident if fails to provide better service.
However, this claim does
not always ring the bell true either. Historical stagnation, deadlock, change
of governments, and either one institution is too powerful and abuses other
organs in the same functioning system decrease liberal democracy momentum as
well. If the U.S. liberal democracy truly creates growth, peace, stability, and
no-crisis maybe there is no such contentious issues, such as Obamacare, Gun,
and environmental policy that President Obama has been campaigning at the
moment but most often got killed, bitterly attacked from his oppositions, or pending
the bills for an unknown time.
From the same source, many
commentators interpret or foresee future of liberal democracy differently.
Instead over exaggerating that democracy is progress, they argue very badly
opposite. Some scholars, such as Mansfield and Snyder the author of
Democratization and War article, claimed that clear separation of powers may be
a source of decision-making crisis especially in the early stage of
democratizing states. Rossiter in the Constitutional Dictatorship and Stevens
in the Six Amendments book have further echoed that minimal government or too
much independent institutions could lead to governing failure due to the reason
of widen polarization, particularly in the U.S. Congress where the two parties
– Republican and Democrat – increasingly find less and less compromises but
more and more reasons to divorce.
Probably,
the U.S Presidential democracy is also a crisis-prone system as well. What do
you think about this propostion? Is it because House and Senate could(n’t) get
a long or is increasing the culture of disagreement or rejection and ignoring
Abraham Lincoln of unifying the congress? Please come and give comment on this
matter. I am so curious to about position…!