There exist various forms of governments across the globe, including democratic and non-democratic regimes. Democracy denotes a type of government in which the supreme power is bestowed on the citizens of a nation. On the other hand, non-democracy is a form of government system except democracy, which can take in systems like theocracies, oligarchies, as well as monarchies. Therefore, the key dissimilarity between non-democratic and democratic government is the power bestowed on the citizens; within a non-democratic government, power is bestowed on the leaders, while in a democratic system, power is bestowed on the common people. The current paper seeks to discuss the difference between democratic and non-democratic regimes, explaining which of these regimes tend to concentrate or disperse political power, using the U.S. as a democratic government versus China as a non-democracy regime.
The United States is a good example of a democratic government. However, it is critical to acknowledge that the exclusive form of democracy that is revealed in the United States is not an ideal model of all democracies. Numerous democracies, for example, within Europe and other regions of the globe define democracy in a different way and, thus, demonstrate different democratic features. Stepan (2010) describes democracy as any ruling entity which makes decisions by merging the votes of over fifty percent of those qualified and present is considered to be democratic, whether that majority materializes a parliament, an electorate, a committee, a party bloc, or a city council indoors. Commonly amongst most real democracies is the formation of independent branches of government that leads to a separation of power to prevent one council or one individual from attaining absolute power. Contrasted with authoritarians, the legality of power is within the government offices which is vested on by political figures via polls. Within a democracy, the constituents and the government accept a social treaty with one another.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Rose and Mishler (2002), democracy denotes a government system where citizens hold their leaders liable for their activities in the public domain. Here, the common people are anticipated to comply with the decisions so long as its outcome stays contingent on their mutual favorites as conveyed via regular and fair elections. Also, the government has the accountability of maintaining and promoting the rule of law; that is, no individual regardless of economic status or position is greater than the laws which rule an egalitarian society. Furthermore, within democracies, occasionally, there exists competition and cooperation amongst various political parties, which signify beliefs and the views of voters with whom they match with politically. Disagreements in opinions, in addition to the ability to differ and oppose policies, cultural norms, and ideas is a crucial primary characteristic of democracy.
As outlined by Stepan (2010), several principles determine a fully functioning democracy. To begin with, democracy should have voted administrators representing the citizens, frequent, free, and fair elections, right of expression for every citizen without the risk of being penalized, and freely accessible, alternate sources of info not controlled or influenced by the government. What is more, the freedom of people to establish political parties and organizations, also called associational autonomy, in addition to comprehensive citizenship in which each grownup shares identical rights with every other resident residing in that nation are six crucial criteria for a fully functional democracy.
Also, democratic regimes need to be autonomous and by no means be controlled or influenced by a detached governing body outside of the borders of that country or its rulers. Government officers cannot and must not be directly forced or coerced into various political resolutions by the hierarchy of their institution or external regimes. Nevertheless, it is vital to comprehend that democracies vary on numerous main institutional procedures and focuses. They are continuously transforming to mirror the region’s culture and also the opinions of the common people dwelling in a given country (in this case, the United States form of democracy).
Barry et al. (2014) claim that democratic regimes disagree on the role and importance of parliament versus 2-chambered congress, federalism and pluralism, federal polls, party government roles, and so forth. Rose and Mishler (2002) contend that although each of the aforementioned has been termed as a crucial aspect of democracy, they ought to rather be viewed either as indicators of that or this version of democracy, if not as critical criteria for assessing the performance of specific governments. Additionally, unlike non-democratic governments, democracies can amend their institutions and rules consensually in answer to fluctuating situations. Democracies might not instantaneously generate all the outcomes stated above; nonetheless, they stand a greater opportunity of ultimately doing so than authoritarianism do (Brooker, 2013).
In major contrast to democratic regimes, non-democratic (authoritarian) governments differ on numerous crucial matters such as the significance of fundamental freedoms, the legitimacy, and necessity of polls, the society’s role in government judgments, governance, and the association between the rulers and the citizens. China is an example of a non-democratic government. Rose and Mishler (2002) describe authoritarianism as a political system that concentrates power in the hands of a small elite or a leader who is not legitimately accountable to the people’s body. Non-democratic governments include a single person or a small team of rulers, who normally possess absolute control over government and army operations. In case polls are carried out in a non-democratic country, they are prone to corruption by the ruling entity.
Furthermore, primary rights, such as freedoms of speech, assembly, and press, are usually forbidden or regulated by the government (Brooker, 2013). Every so often, non-democratic governments censor the stories and information that the internet and media issue to their spectators. Moreover, in numerous non-democratic governments, businesses and citizens should comply with the regulations and laws given by the rulers of the country, though they might not mirror the best interest or opinions of the citizens.
However, not every non-democratic government fits into a single definition; there exist several different interpretations and versions of non-democratic governance that have been realized in diverse areas. According to Barry et al. (2014), there are army regimes, monarchies, electoral governments, limited multi-party governments, and one-party governments that all follow under the non-democratic government classification.
What is more, no country falls wholly into either classification. Also, it perilous to classify a country merely by the instant in time in which they were studied. For instance, Russia in the year 1992 was extremely different from Russia in the year 1990. Both non-democratic and democratic regimes transform with time, rendering the worldwide mosaic unpredictable and complex.
In a nutshell, the exist various forms of governments, including democratic and non-democratic regimes. Democracy denotes a type of government in which the supreme power is bestowed in the citizens of a nation. On the other hand, non-democracy is a form of government system except democracy. Therefore, the key dissimilarity between non-democratic and democratic government is the power bestowed on the citizens; within a non-democratic government, power is bestowed on the leaders, while in a democratic system, power is bestowed on the common people. The current paper discussed the difference between democratic and non-democratic regimes, using the U.S. as a democratic government versus China as a non-democracy regime.
References
Barry, C. M., Clay, K. C., Flynn, M. E., & Robinson, G. (2014). Freedom of foreign movement, economic opportunities abroad, and protest in non-democratic regimes. Journal of Peace Research , 51 (5), 574-588.
Brooker, P. (2013). Non-democratic regimes . Macmillan International Higher Education.
Rose, R., & Mishler, W. (2002). Comparing regime support in non-democratic and democratic countries. Democratization , 9 (2), 1-20.
Stepan, A. (2010). The multiple secularisms of modern democratic and non-democratic regimes. In APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper .
