anaylasis democracy in your own point of view
Answers
Answer:
The analysis of the quality of democracy requires a joint definition of democratic quality – that is, a definition of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ democracies. Its complex nature necessitates the introduction of five principal dimensions – the rule of law, accountability, responsiveness, freedom and equality/solidarity – for empirical definition of the democratic quality and, more importantly, for the identification of the factors that subvert the democratic balance in old and new regimes. This analytical framework differs from other studies by advancing the importance of combining both quantitative and qualitative measures in studying the quality of democracy.
Defining democracy
What is a ‘good’ democracy?
The analysis of the quality of democracy – that is, an empirical scrutiny of what ‘good’ democracy is about – requires not only that we have a definition of democracy, but also that we establish a clear notion of quality.
The minimal definition of democracy1 suggests that such a regime has at least universal, adult suffrage; recurring, free, competitive and fair elections; more than one political party; and more than one source of information. In addition, democratic institutions, existing rights and also the decision making process should not be constrained by non-elected elites or external powers.2 Among the countries that meet these minimal criteria, further empirical analysis is still necessary to detect the degree to which they have achieved the two main objectives of an ideal democracy: freedom and equality.
Thus, the analysis of a ‘good democracy’ should theoretically set alongside those regimes that are to varying degrees deficient in principal democratic features. Amongst them are hybrid regimes,3 whose failure to ensure free and fair electoral competition and a minimum level of civil rights keeps them below the minimum threshold to be classified as democratic. Likewise, the defective democracies 4 should also be left out of the analysis. This category includes ‘exclusive’ democracies, which offer only limited guarantees for political rights; ‘dominated’ democracies, in which powerful groups use their influence to condition and limit the autonomy of elected leaders; and ‘illiberal’ democracies, which offer only partial guarantees of civil rights. In reality, the last three models may also be seen as institutional hybrids, and thus fall short of the minimum threshold specified above.
Deficient democracy is a recurrent expression used to depict East European regimes, but it often bears a different meaning. These are regimes that have just overcome the minimal democratic threshold, but still experience problems of consolidation. By displaying minimal requirements for democracy, they differ from hybrid regimes (see above) and can be included in the analysis here.
Delegative democracy, sometimes referred to as populist democracy, also falls well within the scope of this analysis, having overcome the necessary threshold. These regimes are usually based on a majority system, and host relatively ‘clean’ elections; parties, parliament and the press are usually free to express their criticisms, and the courts block unconstitutional policies.5 In practice, however, citizens of these democracies, which O'Donnell finds in Latin America, for example, ‘delegate others to make decisions on their behalf’, such that they no longer have the opportunity to check and evaluate the performance of their officials once they are elected. Other bodies of government, even those meant for this purpose, neglect or fail to carry out their watchdog functions, and consequently the rule of law is only partially or minimally respected.
Answer:
follow me plz
plz plz plz