The Western Model of Democracy, Like Everything Else, Is a Distinct Phase in History
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1
The Western model of democracy, like everything else, is a distinct phase in history, which depends upon certain conditions for its existence. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it should not be assumed that it is of universal application, nor that it will always exist.1
- Professor Martin Jacques, London School of Economics
Democracy gives the people of a country freedom to express their opinions. A democratic government is based on the majority of votes, and the public elects the leader they feel provides them with the best plans and goals to run their country. Democracy was considered a great idea by the majority of citizens in many countries at the beginning of the 1900’s. Many people believed that democracy was inevitable, invincible, and that it would also create reason and peace for the next 100 years to come in Western society.
It was also believed that democracy would initiate a fresh start and create a new beginning to world politics. But was it really successful? Many would argue that democracy hardly proved to be an eligible form of government. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., a writer, historian, and former Special Assistant to President Kennedy, wrote that, “The
Great War, exposing the pretension that democracy would guarantee peace, shattered old structures of security and order and unleashed angry energies of the revolution – revolution not for democracy, but against it.”2 As history has demonstrated, anything but peace was created. Schlesinger also argued that, “In another decade, the Great Depression came along to expose the pretension that democracy would guarantee prosperity. A third of the way into the century, democracy seemed a helpless thing, spiritless, doomed.”3 To the shock of many, democracy did exactly the opposite of what was intended. Ultimately 1 Martin Jacques, Democracy Isn’t Working. Common Dreams News Center. June 2004. p.1
America has been trying for many years to force their style of democracy upon other developing nations. Because America is such a powerful country, their actions of doing so are often too predominant and forceful. America’s quest to instil democracy in developing countries will be unsuccessful because democracy neglects cultural differences, regional wars and terrorism have not yet been resolved, and adequate political and economical structure is absent.
Cultural democracy is the ability to protect as well as promote different cultures within a society. They are definitely capable of creating unity, and are still able to continue to live with their own beliefs without controversy. Cultural differences can coexist without causing conflict among different communal groups that are living in close vicinity. Democracy can in fact create this. Yu-Ping Chan, a senior editor at the Harvard
International Review, agrees that, “through open discourse and political activity, it provides peaceful and more effective means for diverse groups within developing countries to negotiate answers to ethnic and regional cleavages, interest-group conflicts, and ideological differences.”4 Democracy can create more freedom for cultures in which traditions and beliefs could be interfered with due to more dominate groups. With this type of government, minorities are protected and it allows all groups to live peacefully.
4 Yu-Ping Chan, Democracy or Bust? Harvard International Review.
Many countries have proven cultural democracy to be successful. There are countries that have established peaceful communities and multicultural societies, and have still managed to get along peacefully with one another. In a publication on the
Government of Canada website, Canada’s progress of cultural democracy has shown that:
Canadian communities contribute to the social, economic and cultural vitality of our society. A strong society can be described as one that is safe, encourages participation, strengthens social bonds and promotes our values. Canada's democratic tradition has enabled the development of a modern, open, and multicultural society that many countries now look to as an example.5
Canada is run by a democratic form of government, existing with many different types of cultures in many different types of societies. Therefore, if comfortable and safe environments can be established in the societies within this particular country, then it is safe to argue that these exact or similar types of societies can also be established elsewhere in the world. This proves that if process has been made, than it cannot be argued that process cannot be made any where else where democracy has been or can be established.
There is a way for democracy and cultures to achieve peace. Therefore, it can be suggested that democracy can work in countries that have many cultures, where those cultures do not have to give up their beliefs or lifestyles. It is indeed possible that cultures can coexist and do not have to hold resentment and hate towards one another.
Although there are different cultures and different traditions that are able to unite and live in a society together in some cases, this idea is still struggling in many developed and developing nations. Places such as the Middle East and Africa have countries that
5 Government of Canada. III Society , Culture and Democracy. December 2004. p.1
Palestine. Rwanda consisted of two major ethnic groups known as the Hutu’s and the
Tutsi’s. The Hutu’s, although they made up 90 percent of Rwanda’s population, did not want to share land with any other ethnic group. The Hutu’s wanted to dominate the minority, but more powerful Tutsi group. Ethnic tensions climbed, until members of the
Hutu group went on a fatal rampage, killing a total of 800,000 Tutsi members.6 The exact same tensions can be found between Israel and Palestine. Although this fight has lasted for years, the similar struggle for land and power is evident. After World War I, Arabs were promised by Britain that they would be able to be recognized by introducing an
Arab state. However, the Jewish people were also promised the same thing. As time passed, neither group had a state in which they lived and were recognized. This resulted in the struggle for which land goes to which group, and continues to be a fight filled with rage, terrorism, killings and hate. These case studies are just a few mentioned among the number of other similar issues. Cultural clashes are very difficult to overcome, especially when cultures have been fighting for a long time, and when surrendering is not an answer to either side. So the question rises, how can cultures finally achieve peace? This is not a problem that can be solved overnight, nor can it be solved with democracy alone, the way
6 Genocide in the 20th Century: Rwanda 1994, 800,000 Deaths. The History Place. August 2003. p.1
Department of the State explains that:
The answer is that there is no easy answer. Democracy is not a machine that runs by itself once the proper principles and procedures are inserted. A democratic society needs the commitment of citizens who accept the inevitability of conflict as well as the necessity for tolerance.7
Cultures will inevitably have conflict and disagreements about traditions religious beliefs.
However, the ability to get cultures to unite and conform to a democratic society, creating a peaceful environment, is an ideal concept. It is definitely a far fetched idea in many struggling areas around the world. To be able to obtain and live in cultural unity means that cultures need to have a sense of equality and need to have the right to be treated fairly. Don Adams and Arlene Goldbard, writers and consultants in organizational and cultural development stated that:
First, it posits that many cultural traditions co-exist in human society and that none of these should be allowed to dominate and become an official culture. In contrast, cultural democracy places great value upon cultural diversity. It proposes that measures should be taken to preserve and promote cultural activities from the full array of traditions present in any community, not from just one of those traditions. In a sense, this is a kind “democracy of taste” -- a belief that mutual respect is a prerequisite to survival in a multicultural world.8
In order for the peace problem to be solved and have the ability to progress, cultures will need to have a certain understanding, that domination of land or the will to
7 Howard Cincotta, The Culture of Democracy. The US Department of the Sate, September 1995.
Paul Cammack, who has a completion of many degrees and is also a professor and head of the Politics and Philosophy department at the Manchester Metropolitan University, points out that:
The more the population of the territory of the state is composed of plurinational, lingual, religious or cultural societies, the more complex politics becomes because an agreement of the fundamentals of a democracy will be more difficult. Although this does not mean that democracy cannot be consolidated in multinational or multicultural states, it does mean that considerable political crafting of democratic norms, practices and institutions must take place.9
If democracy is going to prosper, citizens of any given country must commit completely to it. At the same time, their beliefs need to be maintained in order to keep a solid foundation for each culture. Cultural interests and differences have not been considered yet in many societies, and until different cultures can come together and unite,
9 Paul Cammack, Capitalism and Democracy in the Third World. (London, Great Britain: Leicester University Press, 1997.) p.1 7 this will be a difficult concept that is already rare in corrupt and communist countries.
Democracy will be unsuccessful to the developing country if this is not established.
Within cultural clashes comes the War in Iraq; the war that won first place in global newspaper headlines for months at a time. The fight is still not over. Though it is opposed by some, the War in Iraq does hold its beneficial and productive aspects. After all, it has allowed the people of Iraq to gain more freedom. It has also allowed them to try and form an enhanced style of government, different and more useful than what they are used to. To conquer terrorism, democracy needs to be initiated from the outside because of the amount of chaos and destruction that occurs on the inside. President George W.
Bush stated his plans to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom at a live television broadcast in Pennsylvania last May. He explained that:
The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region. This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power, and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.10
Since Iraq has not been able to form democracy on its own, America may be their only chance to reform its government. If democracy can be established, then there is a possibility that terrorism can be controlled and the Iraqi people can have peace. The War in Iraq has perhaps allowed Iraq to gain more freedom, and as the fight continues on, could allow them to establish a solid pathway to the road of democracy now that Saddam
Hussein has been taken out of power. Fareed Zakaria, who earned a Ph.D. from Harvard
University as well as a B.A. from Yale, and formerly an editor for Foreign Affairs
10 President George W. Bush and the Office of the Press Secretary, President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom. The White House, May 2004. p.1.
Iraqi people would get on the road to an economic well-being.”11 It is possible that this war has created more peace. Iraq has done a complete turn around since it was raided by
American troops.
Therefore, the War in Iraq comes with its benefits and will continue to help the
Iraqi people gain liberty. As a result, the Iraqi people no longer have to live in Saddam’s control and they can begin to experience peace and can start experiencing and getting accustomed to democratic policies.
It is difficult to acknowledge the War in Iraq for its good potential, because any form of war or terrorism in a country is detrimental. Eric J. Hobsbawm, an emeritus professor of economic and social history at Birkbeck and the University of London, strictly believes that:
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are but one part of a supposedly universal effort to create world order by “spreading democracy.” This idea is not merely quixotic—it is dangerous. The rhetoric surrounding this crusade implies that the system is applicable in a standardized (Western) form, that it can succeed everywhere, that it can remedy today’s transnational dilemmas, and that it can bring peace, rather than sow disorder. It cannot.12
Because Iraq’s citizens are not able to comprehend democracy, the war in Iraq’s goal to implement it will fail. So then why is it that America is trying so hard to implement democracy in Iraq and other developing nations? George W. Downs, the Dean for Social Sciences and Arts with a B.A. and a Ph.D. in this field argued a valuable point
11 Fareed Zakaria, Looking on the Brightside – War In Iraq. p.2
In the absence of effective international governance, some humanitarians are still ready to support a world order imposed by U.S. power. But one should always be suspicious when military powers claim to be doing favours for their victims and the world by defeating and occupying other states.14
Military power in America, known as defeating and occupying other states is now how democracy should be introduced to developing nations. Shoving their way into another nation and taking control is how America shows their power. However, this is not so called saving other nations from their harsh government; it is taking over and claiming territory. If America has proven over and over that prowling into other nations has not led to their freedom or created any positive outcome, then the United States should simply stop trying. People in developing countries that are having their government forced to instil democracy by America will only lash out in anger and therefore create further problems. President George Bush pointed out himself at the Pennsylvania press conference explaining that, “Iraq now faces a critical moment. As the Iraqi people move closer to governing themselves, the terrorists are likely to become more active and more
13 George W. Downs, Gun-Barrel Democracy Has Failed Time and Again. Los Angeles Times, February 2004. 14 Eric J. Hobsbawm, Spreading Democracy – the World’s Most Dangerous Ideas. Sep.2004. p.1
Then it is assumed that one who makes such a statement should take some time to think that maybe they should stop and let Iraq form democracy by itself, when ready. As news broadcasts and publications have shown, Iraqi terrorists are becoming angrier and chaotic the longer America continues to occupy their country.
The recent Iraqi election, held January 2005, was said to signify the beginning of the road to a democratic society, occurred amongst angry citizens and an incomprehensive amount of security. The election brought out anger and frustration to most citizens, leaving the rest of them scared to even go out and make a vote, as shown by the low voter turn out and frightening new reports from Iraqi citizens. Robert Fisk, the chief Middle East correspondent for the London Independent wrote his thoughts on the election, observing that, “at least 44 people were killed and over 100 wounded in suicide bombings, shootings and mortar attacks. The attacks came amid unprecedented levels of security – including shoot-on-sight curfews, closed foreign borders, a ban on cars and travel restrictions within Iraq.”16 Democracy is not about terrified voters or corrupt elections. It is not about suicide bombings or shootings or attacks. Clearly, this form of government is not wanted, let alone established in Iraq. The people of Iraq simply do not want to be told what to do. Until Iraq can hold elections that are free from terrorism and hate crimes against innocent voters, democracy will not work.
15 President George W. Bush and the Office of the Press Secretary, President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom. The White House, May 2004. p.1
Thomas Carothers, an international lawyer who studied at Harvard College, the
London School of Economics, and Harvard Law School, supported that democracy is not wanted in Iraq and that the idea of American influence will create anger:
A U.S. invasion of Iraq would likely trigger a surge in the already prevalent anti-American in the Middle East, strengthening the hand of hard line Islamist groups and provoking many Arab governments to tighten their grip, rather than experiment more boldly with political liberalization.17
It is not easy or fair to argue that Arab nations will never subject themselves to a democratization of their country, but Carothers also points out that it does mean that,
“democracy will be decades in the making and entail a great deal of uncertainty, reversal and turmoil.”18 Democracy will take years to secure, as there are so many parts that need to be considered. With basic aspects such as less terrorism and wars, democracy cannot be expected to work overnight. This is especially true when people who have never heard of or been exposed to this type of government are trying to implement a democratic government. The Iraqis have shown that they do not want a forced democracy from
America, and that they do not want to have America’s form of democracy being a compulsory aspect to their country.
America is simply trying to maintain its hegemony country by shoving its democratic regime into other nations. A publication from the US Department of the
State’s website clear cut this supposition for anyone opposed to the idea of American influence. Paula Dobriansky, the US Department of State’s secretary of global affairs wrote that, “the war on terrorism must be fought on many fronts, it is our belief, that the
17 Thomas Carothers, Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror. Foreign Affairs, January/February 2003 p. 8 18 Thomas Carothers, Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror. Foreign Affairs, January/February 2003 p. 8 12 spread of liberal democracy is an essential part of a long-term strategy to win that war.
To win the war, or take over developing nations? Who is to say that the American form of democracy is perfect? Is there even such a thing as a perfect democracy? America wants to spoon feed Iraq democracy so that they can have power over as many areas as possible. Thomas Carothers, an international lawyer who studied at Harvard College, the
London School of Economics, and Harvard Law School, supports this claim by explaining, “…for decades, the United States had already suppressed any such concerns in the region, valuing autocratic stability for the sake of various economic and security interests.”19 American interests need to be suppressed and not first priority when it comes to achieving democracy or peace in developing countries. America wants to benefit their economy and have more security by supposedly allying with weak and vulnerable nations which are susceptible to American influence.
Although the War in Iraq and American power has been a major issue since the events of September 11, there are also many other places where America has tried to dominate. In the later part of the 1990’s, Kurdistan and Afghanistan were among these invaded places, where the United States sought out these countries’ weak societies and overly encouraged their unwelcome style of democracy. In the Sub-Saharan parts of
Africa, services and some institutions were weakened by democracy, including corrupted elections. Such an establishment in China would cause chaos among rival cultures. Sierra
Leone and Congo-Brazzaville both held elections, which turned out to be chaotic. In
1994, Haiti had 22,000 American soldiers sent in to try and refurbish American democracy. In countries where education is especially low, very few people benefit from
19 Thomas Carothers, Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror. Foreign Affairs, January/February 2003 p.1 13 the Western form of government.20 These countries are only a few of the many countries that have experienced the dark side of democracy. Dilip Hiro, author of The Essential
Middle East: A Comprehensive Guide, and Secrets and Lies: Operation "Iraqi Freedom" and After, wrote that, “The United States flaunts the banner of democracy in the Middle
East only when that advances its economic, military, or strategic interests.”21 With all of these countries representing such low success rates, the United States should withdraw from international countries and ease the pressure of their parliamentary wants. America should let developing countries form their own style of government at their own pace which best suits the countries’ needs.
Democracy is said to give freedom and peace. As Abraham Lincoln once stated at
Gettysburg, PA, in 1863, democracy is a “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”22 However, this idea has clearly not been demonstrated. Democracy is said to give the citizens of a country their freedom and rights, and to allow their opinions and ideas to be explored through their government, but this is not happening. Steven
Weinberg, who studied at Cornell, Copenhagen and Princeton, and who was formerly a professor at Berkeley and Harvard, supports this proposal and wrote that, “There has never been a governing elite in any age that did not eventually come to give priority to its own interests.”23 Democracy has never been completely run by public opinion. Therefore, it should not be expected to flourish in a country where citizens want complete power, and where they have clearly shown that they will go by any means to prevent it.
20 Robert Kaplan, Was Democracy Just a Moment? Atlantic Monthly, December 1997. p.2. 21 Dilip Hiro, Playing the Democracy Card - How America Furthers Its National Interests in the Middle East. Portland: TomDispatch.com, March, 2005. p.1
22 Don Hunt, Democracy. (New York: Colliers Encyclopaedia, Macmillan Educational Company.) p.75 23 Steven Weinberg, Five and a Half Utopias. The Atlantic Monthly, January 2000. p.2 14
This proves that forcing democracy into developing countries will create anger and lack of control by compelling this form of government into their nation. As displayed in Iraq, where terrorists and angry citizens are present, democracy is a tool that needs to be used only when it is needed and wanted by its citizens. Developing countries are not used to this type of government, and a powerful nation taking control, such as America, will only cause them to be angry and lash out. Democracy needs to have cooperation and dedication for it to prosper.
Political and economical means must be present in order for democracy to flourish and grow. The basic foundation for a democratic society to run involves both a stable political and economical platform. It is possible that developing countries have the potential to establish democracy and maintain it when, and only when, every person within the society agrees on the majority of their issues. When there is cooperation, political control and success can increase the country’s economy. “Democracy has made remarkable progress during the past 30 years, especially in the developing world – a change that has been strongly influenced by the evolution of global communications.”24 A few of these successful countries with a recognizable democratic platform include India,
Sri Lanka, and recently the Philippines. Democracy has shown that it has been successful in these countries when the citizens were ready and willing to support it.
Although there are developing and developed countries that have successfully implemented a democratic form of government, there are the countries that have struggled and continue to struggle. Should these countries try to implement democracy?
24 Marzia Fontana, Democracy and Civil Society. August 2001
What is the success rate? Since developing countries are significantly weaker than powerful countries such as the United States, it is difficult for them to even achieve success because of competition coming from other developed and industrialized nations.
Eric Hobsbawm also came up with an excellent theory, stating, “We are at present engaged in what purports to be a planned reordering of the world by powerful states.”25
Even if developing nations are given the opportunity for democracy, the chances are low they will succeed without the appropriate and careful measures taken. Mr. Downs supports this statement by writing that, “…even under the best conditions, the chances of success for externally imposed democracy are quite small.”26 Therefore, if the chances of success are quite small, then democracy should not be played around with and spoon fed to the at risk and helpless mouths of developing nations.
Democracy, as mentioned before, does not flourish overnight. The rate of success, especially to a developing country where the people tend to be misinformed and uneducated about democracy, is low. Out of 128 developing countries for which there is data, only fifty one have actually made a serious attempt to establish a democratic type of system.27 More than half of them were successful. Other countries could not maintain a certain position, switching back and forth between democratic and authoritarian systems.
This data even includes the relatively young states where the political capabilities have not yet been tested. Among these young states, twenty of them were identified as
“somewhat stable” democracies.28 With these numbers shown, democracy cannot be
25 Eric J. Hobsbawm, Spreading Democracy – the World’s Most Dangerous Ideas. Sep.2004.
Developing countries do not have the political or economical structure to support democracy. To begin to implement a political foundation, the country needs to be eager to receive it. Alberto Alesina, a Harvard economist points out that, “Political instability is one sure-fire predictor of poor economic performance. Particularly in developing countries, uncertainty about government policies reduces investment and encourages capital flight.”29 Political and economical foundations need to be established in order for democracy to be successful. Since democracy is being forced into these nations without first recognizing any crucial elements, it will have a difficult time surviving. Democracy would definitely succeed if political and economical means have not been taken care of first. Potential leaders of a democratic government would need to be instructed and taught about basic procedures for the success of democracy. Since these leaders have never run democratic nations before because democracy is a new idea for them, it would take patience on their part. Jochen Hippler, a professor of political science and international relations at the university of Duisburg-Essen in Germany, concluded that, “…many Third
World societies lack secure foundations, have fragile institutions, and are economically dependent on other countries and on the world market...”30 Since democracy needs secure foundations and strong institutions and a stable economy, developing countries must have the motivation to bring up these aspects, as well as their political and economical foundations.
29 Yu-Ping Chan, Democracy or Bust? Harvard International Review.
Even when developing countries make a serious attempt to establish democracy, the success rate is so low as proved earlier by Arat Zehra. This is especially evident when democracy is forced into a developing country that is not completely dedicated to pursuing it. There will always be a leader wanting autocracy. Power enables domination, and domination means to be on top. Democracy cannot be forced into a developing nation because the nation does not have the capability to maintain a democratic type of government if it is not used to doing so. The new ideas that democracy brings will confuse citizens and make it difficult to prosper from if a political and economical frame is not established beforehand.
Democracy has proven to be unsuccessful in the past, and history demonstrates that democracy fell short of its expectations. Even still, it continues to be implemented in developed and non developed nations. However, cultural traditions and differences still need to be considered. A multicultural society cannot unite if aspects from each culture are ignored or forgotten. For a multicultural society to even exist, however, wars and terrorism need to be ceased.
Wars and terrorism have taken over many developing nations. Many of these fights are due to the causes of culture, simply because cultures have not learned to get along together within a society. Wars and terrorism are large aspects of some developing nations. If externally implemented democracy causes angry uprisings within a country, it should stop being forced. In order for democracy to be achievable, a country must want it and work for it. Therefore, this type of controversial fighting cannot be stopped if it is thought that democracy will instantly cure this. After cultural democracy and wars can at 18 least be controlled, a country needs to build a stable economy and have a political structure built.
Nations that have less political strengths also do not have the capabilities as the ones which are more fortunate to carry hegemonic aspects. This is due to the fact that a political and economical structure must be present before an unfamiliar form of government is going to be successful. In order for democracy to flourish and be successful in developing nations, these main aspects must be considered.
Bibliography 19
Adams, Don, and Arlene Goldbard. Cultural Democracy: A Brief Introduction. 1995.
Arat, Zehra F. Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries. United Kingdom: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc., 1991.
Barber, Benjamin. “Jihad vs. McWorld.” The Atlantic Monthly, March 1992.
Cammack, Paul. Capitalism and Democracy In The Third World. 1997. Leicester University Press: London, Great Britain.
Carothers, Thomas. “Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror” – Foreign Affairs, January/February 2003.
Chan, Yu-Ping. Democracy or Bust? Harvard International Review.
Cincotta, Howard. The Culture of Democracy. Sep. 1995.
Downs, George W. “Gun-Barrel Democracy Has Failed Time and Again.” Los Angeles Times, February 2004.
Fisk, Robert. Robert Fisk on Iraq Elections: Iraqis Voting for "Freedom from Foreign Occupation". 31 Jan. 2005.
Fontana, Marzia, and Yanoma, Yukitsugu. Democracy and Civil Society. August 2001.
Genocide in the 20th Century: Rwanda 1994, 800,000 Deaths. The History Place. August 2003. p.1
Government of Canada. III Society , Culture and Democracy. December 2004.
Hippler, John. The Democratization of Disempowerment - the Problem of Democracy in the Third World. London, England: Pluto Press, 1995.
Hiro, Dillip. Playing the Democracy Card - How America Furthers Its National Interests in the Middle East. Portland: TomDispatch.com, March, 2005.
Hobsbawm, Eric. “Spreading Democracy - the World's Most Dangerous Ideas.” Foreign Affairs, Sep. 2004.
Hunt, Don. Democracy. New York: Colliers Encyclopaedia, Macmillan Educational Company.
Jacques, Martin. Democracy Isn’t Working. Common Dreams News Centre, June 2004.
Kaplan, Robert D. “The Return Of Ancient Times.” The Atlantic Monthly, June 2000.
Myerson, Robert B. Federalism and Incentives for Success of Democracy. Feb. 2005.
Payne, James L. “Democracy For Everyone?” The American Conservative, January 2005.
Pfaff, William. “The Question of Hegemony.” Foreign Affairs, February 2001.
Presence Switzerland. Direct Democracy: Advantages and Disadvantages. 2004.
President George W. Bush and the Office of the Press Secretary, President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom. The White House, May 2004.
Schlesinger, Arthur Jr. “Has Democracy A Future?” Foreign Affairs, September/October 1997.
“Spread of Democracy Called Essential Part of War on Terrorism.” US Department of State, February 2004.
Stromberg, Roland R. Democracy, a Short Analytical History. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, 1996.
Weinberg, Steven. “Five and a Half Utopias.” The Atlantic Monthly, January 2000.
Zakaria, Fareed. “Looking On The Bright Side.” War In Iraq.
Zehra, Arat, Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries. Democracy Does Exist In Developing Countries. 21