เปรียบเทียบประชาธิปไตยกับอำนาจนิยมอย่างใหนดีกว่ากัน ?
Democracy has spread from nation to nation like wildfire since the 20th Century. Traditionally authoritative cultures and countries, such as Germany and Russia, have embraced progressive government. The nature of democracy's spread is inherently democratic. In nations such as the United States of America and India, the populace united under the banner of democratic ideals. The will of the people triumphed over authoritative installations and then the will of the people put in a government of the people.
Democracy is sustainable. Because of the electoral focus of democracy, its success does not rely on a single personality like most authoritarian states. South Africa displays this trait exceptionally. The veritable cult of personality that formed around Nelson Mandela and his revolutionary movement that not only displaced the apartheid government, but it also put Mandela into a position of executive power. After he left office, more democratic elections took place and a new president was elected. Even though the democratic movement had lost its face, Mandela, it still continues to thrive.
On the other hand, during the Bolshevik Revolution after the movement's driving personality Vladimir Lenin died the movement began to tear itself apart. And while the creation of the Soviet Union could be seen as a success, the violent infighting created a hyper authoritative mutation of what the revolution started as. And while the aim of the Bolsheviks wasn't to install democracy, their hopes shared similar characteristics, namely governance by the common man.
Government of the Governed caters to the diversity of mankind. Open forum governments like democracies, even representative democracies, allow for the inclusion of minority thinking, for better or for worse. In a democracy anyone has the ability to try and change the government to cater to his or her own unique beliefs. Authoritative states have no room for such independent thinking. Authoritarians seek to impose their own will on their people. It doesn't matter how benevolent the despot is, the government is still a reflection of his own personality and beliefs. There is no room for variety. There is only the state's thinking. Such freedoms can be seen in the freedomhouse.org rankings. Democracies, even transitional ones like South Africa and Mexico, are ranked and classified as there. Autocratic states like Iran's Theocracy or China's pseudo-communistic state are ranked as 'not free' (Kesselman 34). And as history has dictated, repressive states can only last as long as their population is willing to be controlled.
Iran exemplifies the instability of autocratic states. Every so often the ruling powers hold an election. The elections are heavily fixed and the ruling party, not surprisingly, always wins. Every time this happens, the populace vents its anger in the streets. As seen in the most contemporary round of elections, the populace's anger boiled over into riots and violence. Compared to the United States or Britain, where similar outbreaks of dissent do happen, but not nearly as regularly and they aren't calling for the abolishment of the government, usually its just a protest of policy.
Democracy's sustainability can be attributed to the fact that forums exist for the venting of frustration. People can hold town hall meetings, protest in the streets, and vote politicians out of office if they disagree with the ruling powers. The only forum in authoritarian states is violence.
History is rife with authoritative states collapsing and democratic revolutions installing progressive government. Few states have accomplished the inverse. The superiority of democracy exists, if in nothing else, its sustainability. Government by the people for the people lasts as long as the people wish it to.
By Nicolas DAlleva
ความคิดเห็น
แสดงความคิดเห็น