In democratic system people are participating in political and decision making process without considering their race, color, physical ability such as Scandinavian countries. They are able to decide on their destiny directly or through their representatives. Each individual have their votes and these votes are effective and able to change decisions. There is no lumber on their choice and government can not mobilize citizens to pro-government relies; in contrast people are being mobilized by themselves or non governmental organization to put a pressure on the government. However, in non-democratic regimes people are not participating in political process and they were restricted by central body. The government has absolute powers over its citizens and nobody have a right to freely participate in election, decision making process and so on. The government dominated everything and every activity within the territory of its sovereignty. Furthermore, the government has an authority to practice some policy to mobilize people for particular purposes like demonstrating against some countries or the activity of opposition parties or to show of that their government is representing their dignity and choices (Allen, 2002). For instance, the former Iraqi regime restricted people from voting and the government banned any anti governmental actions, tortured and jailed people especially women and mobilized people to pro-government demonstrations against the USA and Israel (Lasky, 2006).
In democratic régimes the leaders and those who are governing country are elected by the community. The head of the state has not inclusive power, but there are some limitation on his/her authority that defined by the constitution. This constitution written by some expertise and passed through democratic and freely referendum that people directly voted for like Denmark, Australia, Estonia, Germany, Uruguay after the authoritarian regimes in 1946 (Schiller, 2009, p. 7). The authority circulated among the government apparatus like parliament, president and prime minister and decisions are collective. Likewise, there is a political pluralism and multi-party system that competes to achieve the majority of parliament seats and no one of them can control government. Parties are competing on the base of public goods, political reconciliation and values rather than monopolizing power (Dixon & Senese, 2002, p. 550).Though, in non democratic system the country governs by a small group of people whether they are individual, military, family or one dominant party (Allen, 2002, p.170). They absolute power and use it to their self interests and through this they achieve their personal desires. Fore example, in the dictatorship regimes, one individual on the top level decide on the destiny of millions of people without considering their likeness and wishes such as Hitler and Mussolini. Here, the president or prime minister doesn’t elected by people but they come to power through military coup or revolution. Also, in some places the government governs by the dominant family or tribes. The family gives the priority to its members and neglects other people to participate in the process of governing, also they use country’s resources and dominate the economy. This is very common in monarchy systems especially in Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Bahrain. Controversy, one of the other features of non-democratic system is governing country by the Military, in this case “Human rights and democratic freedoms may be severely curtailed by the government” and the election is controlled by the government and opposition parties can not win or get the majority of votes due to the military intervention as Myanmar, Nigeria and North Korea (James et al, 1999). Finally, in some countries one party controlled the whole country and there is no alternative or opposition inside the government like communist countries such as North Korea, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam (Slater 2003,...
Bibliography: Ahewar, 2008. Campaign to stop polygamy in Kurdistan-Iraq. (updated December 19, 2008). Available at: http://www.ahewar.org/eng/show.art.asp?aid=671 [accessed May 2, 2009]
Bobbio N., 2006
Christiano T., 2006. Democracy. (Updated Jul 27, 2006). Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/ [accessed May 4, 2009]
Democracy web, 2008
Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 547-571. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3176190 [accessed May 7, 2009]
Ellen G., 2002
Freedom House, 2009. Freedom of the Press. Available at: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16 [accessed April 22, 2009]
James et al (1999)
Lasky M., 2006. Iraqi Women under Saddam. (Updated 24 April 2006). Available at: http://www.alterinter.org/article170.html [accessed May 5, 2009]
Politics I: Governmental Systems, Democracy and Non-democracy”
Schiller T., 2009. Direct Democracy in Modern Democratic Evolution. Available at: www.tfd.org.tw/english/docs/Report_03_DM_P_03_14.pdf [accessed May 4, 2009]
Sewell P., 2003
Slater D., 2003. Iron Cage in an Iron Fist: Authoritarian Institutions and the Personalization of Power in Malaysia. Comparative Politics, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 81-101. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150161 [accessed April 8, 2009]
Please join StudyMode to read the full document