Thanks for reading in advance, To start, the question: "What do you guys feel is the biggest impediment of the transition from authoritarianism to democracy?" Working on a political science paper, I've written my introduction, and mapped out how I want to go into the impediment and comparisons to other issues that can arise. But, when I write papers that are opinionated, I don't write well unless I'm fully behind my topic - I'm stuck because I can't decide which impediment I've thought of is more of a problem for the transition. Ideas I have: Charismatic leaders (credit to my buddy) - people can be fiercely loyal to a charismatic leader, even if it is authoritarian. Examples - Hitler, Fidel Castro Rigged "Elections" - Hosni Mubarak in egypt, democratic by name, but not by practice Ethnic Tension - elected officials are of one ethnicity only because they are the majority, policy issues due to favoritism Rebellion (post/during transition)- a country turned towards democracy by military coup may have violent dissidents Demilitarization - post rebellion/civil war, soldiers not needed in large amounts anymore, reintegration into society can be an issue Civil War(pre-transition) - post-war, installing a democratic government will be the same issue as ethnicity, two sides opposed operating under 1 government. The last three are kind of weak, but good to use as examples. Wondering if you guys have any ideas yourselves, or if you could let me know and (hopefully) explain why to help me understand, so I can write well about it.
What do you guys feel is the biggest impediment of the transition from authoritarianism to democracy? The nature of humanity is the impediment, the question is paradoxical. Let it resonate, marinate, contemplate, associate, integrate, whatever you've got to do .
The 'nature of humanity' is mutable and reflects the broad social and economic environment the subject lives and has lived in. OP: Well, first off, is "What do you guys feel is the biggest impediment of the transition from authoritarianism to democracy?" your chosen topic or did the professor choose it? There's some big assumptions at hand, is why I'm asking. How do you define both 'authoritarianism' and 'democracy'? Is this a false dichotomy? How does the economy reflect itself in the political apparatus? By that last one I mean, to what extent and in what way does the economy create a certain political climate? This is a HUGE and controversial subject matter you're getting into.
Sheer longevity of the authoritarian rule could have something to do with it? Ex. Russia. Maybe you can also say something about the attempts to exterminate the middle- class during some regimes in history (The Khmer Rouge etc.) and how that would make it difficult because "free thinkers" and any material contradictory to thoughts other than he certain philosophies of that regime are gone.
I couldn't think of anything excellent right now. Here's some of what I came up with "What do you guys feel is the biggest impediment of the transition from authoritarianism to democracy?" -A (man oriented) systematic process requirement for becoming an integral guide, ruler, president of a country -Leaders that attain their placement through means of their own will and desire for power rather than capable people as guiding with their genius, self-sufficiency, positive growth as a goal, and the following generation secured. Furthermore, leaders acquire their position by having money. -The support of gun-wielding police as a justified enforcement agency -A government that threatens society with incarceration; America is the big one here. -The manufacturing and tolerance of firearms -A government that rules over its country rather than each state having its own laws. In other words, an all powerful ruler of anything but godly wisdom or knowledge grants itself the cosmic placement of authority and supremacy over an enormous extent of land, its people, and its environment. Example; The federal government controls fifty states, rather than 1 state controlling 1 state. Such is the nature of government and countries itself. This prevents the vital aspect of freedom regarding "If I don't like this place, I can choose to move elsewhere." -The existence of all-too powerful military, and the manufacturing of nuclear bombs which in and of itself is one of the biggest problems in the entire world.
I say nature of humanity as a whole because you have to consider the global mindset towards said types of leaders/government. It's not mutable and cannot be ignored. Do you think that Governments/political leaders simply "ignore" the way people will respond to their actions? No, their entire campain/livelihood is built upon logos, ethos, and pathos, which are the very root of why people do the things they do. Now, this may be subconscious for most people, but humans have an animal instinct, which addresses your points about social and economic environments. The economy is more or less a fancy term for who can eat more, or who can even eat, period. What kind of f*cking species sits around and debates with each other about what they can and cannot do? Some say this "seperates" us from animals, but not by much judging by the condition of the world. Don't get fooled by technology, we are still living in hard times and haven't come that far. Nobody has a clear cut answer, about anything. Does a dog go take advice from a strange dog they have never seen before? What I mean by this is, do you not think that the very natural instincts of individual humans will eventually guide their thoughts to manifest into their physical actions? In other words, if push comes to shove, would they rather have food on the table or the new Ipad? Hopefully you can understand where I'm coming from. All this needs to be taken into account, and I know I've strayed from OP's question, just trying to rebuttle your comment. I realize I am trying to cover many points at once, just reply to this and I'll clarify.
Why? Will that suddenly give me the answer to OP's question? Go rebuttle my comment and come back. Better yet, go become a senator, then come back . I've already hinted at too much valuable knowledge, my lips are sealed now. Go look deeper than "Anthro 101" and "Sociology 101" and gain a much larger insight into what you consider your "life" and "government".
That's kind of like saying "well the ocean is made of jello" and telling me to rebut it when I say "no, it's made of water and a lot of other shit didn't you learn this in school?". Seriously. Go to a community college if you're not in school, take anthropology 101 and sociology 101, go further past that if you're interested, then slap yourself.
You're veering way off course here bub . And no need to tell me to slap myself, that really didn't help your already flawed rebuttal. The simple fact that you can't see that maybe YOU as a human being already have some deeper knowledge than anything a PAID (economic) teacher can spew out, (who is likely human, mind you), is rather sad and demands deeper insight. All I'm asking and asked is to consider it and see the larger picture and you tell me to slap myself, even after taking the classes you recommended. OP, this poster is the PERFECT example of what I meant about animal instinct and nature of humanity. And btw, if you're going to start telling me to "slap myself", then fine. I dictated the hell out of your mom 101, go ask her how it was and come back .
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces"
Your logical fallacy is genetic Your logical fallacy is begging the question https://www.google.com/search?q=anthropology+101+online
Your logical fallacy is the texas sharpshooter http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...1.1404.10j5.15.0.les;..0.0...1c.1.oUrCCoZd094 peace
The point is you don't know what you're talking about. I bet you think crystals let you read people's auras.