A number of bilateral and multilateral activities aiming to promote democracy in the globalized world has been supported by the U.S. government constantly and both of government branches (the executive and congressional) were involved. These executive branch activities supporting democracy promotion have included:
”˘ providing aid to support election procedures and good governance practices;
”˘ assisting in building the legal system;
”˘ assisting in military and police training;
”˘ teaching the importance of a free media.
Besides it, there are a number of special public programs that used in order to support developing democracies overseas by showcasing American democracy and culture, like or example, international broadcasting, exchanges, and international information programs and also sometimes training and experience in broadcast or print media techniques for foreign participants are provided by the certain exchanges.
United Nations Development Program, the U.N. Democracy Fund, the Community of Democracies, and Freedom House, as well as the World Bank and the Organization of American States ”“ these are multilateral contributions of the U.S. administration in order to promote and monitor the reforms in developing democracies.
A big part in democracy promotion is played by American Congress. The typical impact of Congress on democracy promotion programs is funding levels and providing oversight of Administration democracy promotion programs.
Successes of democracy promotion
The description of an ideal democracy is a state which citizens have equal rights and government bears equal responsibility to each of its citizens. Unfortunately it may exist in a perfect world only.
Democracies are able to evolve and become even better and also to devolve and become abusive and unaccountable to their citizens at all. And country’s population itself is able to lost the interest in democracy maintenance.
Therefore how can we say when certain country can be announced as successful democracy? For instance, it was indicated in one of the recent researches that just 23% of transitions from authoritarian governments over the three decades have resulted as democratic, when it’s majority actually resulted in another authoritarian regime.
The situation with democracy in China
China’s rapid growth over the past 25 years makes it an excellent example of authoritarian-led economic development. Doesn’t it pose a major obstacle to the claim about the superiority of the democracy?
Authoritarian governments in poor countries supposedly have another huge advantage over democracies. They are insulated from the demands of the poor. In a system of one person, one vote, democratic governments in developing countries are pressured to respond to the population’s desire for costly entitlements like free schools, decent health care, minimum wage laws, labor rights, and generous pension plans. As an economy develops, the attitudes of a nation’s elites also mature. They will find common interest with the middle class on many issues. And with the threat by populist politicians to their wealth and status receding, they will become more amenable to sharing power. Little by little, they will come to accept the concept of political equality, even to the point of giving the poor a voice in the nation’s affairs.
Will it continue on its torrid pace of growth and make a smooth transition to democracy? Or will it begin to eventually endure economic collapse as so many other autocratic governments have before it? In other words, is China more likely to be the next South Korea or the next Indonesia? The next Indonesia will be much better; it would be in the best interests of the Chinese people and the world in general. Although some economic flaws, such as ranging from insolvent banks, environmental destruction and rising unemployment can impact and determine China’s future.
Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of China’s economy, there are two factors that need to be mentioned.
“First, China’s rapid growth began only after it adopted market-based reforms. Economic performance flowed from economic policies rather than its form of government. In the previous three decades under an authoritarian government and a planned economy, the economy stagnated.”ť
Second, China faces profound challenges in the next years, and its task will be absorbing workers rendered unemployed by the closure of moribund state-controlled enterprises.
Chinese economy faces substantial challenges. Will the Communist Party allow for a genuine transition to democracy? Or is it racing toward the edge of an economic cliff like so many other autocratic countries in the past that had seemed to be performing economic miracles? The latter is an unsettling””and real””possibility. For Beijing’s only claim to political legitimacy today is its ability to deliver economic growth. If it is no longer able to do so, its governance structure will be exposed not only as closed and inflexible but unworkable””and will crumble under its own weight. Should that happen, the consequences for the Chinese people will be severe and foreign investors will be left with the sad realization that their dreams of a big payout blinded them to the economic realities of an opaque system built on a weak adherence to a rule of law.
Whatever happens, China faces a period of great transition in the years ahead. The performance of democratic India, the other Asian behemoth, has frequently been compared to China’s as a barometer of the superiority of authoritarian governance to that of democracy. By most measures, over the last two decades, China has dominated.