What's wrong with democracy leadership?

I believe even today there are many friends and foes of liberal democracy that have their good conclusion of democratic system that it is one of the sufficient, responsive and transparent systems. The assumption was made immediately after the collapse of a superpower state Soviet Union, due to the failure of communist system which was very heavily echoed by Marx-Leninism idealist. After the end of the Cold War, almost nobody talked about Red Army, plan-economy, class or equality. If they have to discuss, they would fundamentally talk about the tragedy of that system that led the Soviet Union and many other communist states to develop inflexible policies which after all resulting in million killings, underdeveloped economy, genocide, and discourage freedoms of enterprise etc. Driven by international mass media and the United Nations flag, sea of states has turned attention on the Western liberal democracy. The biggest and largest wave of democratization also was taken place. Many states, such as in Latin America and Cambodia specifically, wanted to develop to be the U.S.-like country. Many victims in developing or war-torn countries, moreover, migrated to live in the U.S. as they perceived the U.S government is a peaceful, growth and responsive institution in the world, except the spies who sought private life in Russia new democracy.
            Of course, no one can stop these people and states from dreaming to be the U.S.-like state. Consequently, citizen and many states vote in favor of liberal democracy installation. A war-torn Cambodia, for a striking instance, went for democracy under the U.N. sponsored programme since it has witnessed liberal democracy such as those in the West brings progress, stability, and prosperous to their country. It is quite correct to some certain level. When states run a political system that gives a clear and separation of powers, bureaucrats and voters, these three factors can work equally in many criteria of issues and get compromised for win-win solutions. It is true that matured democratic states tend to be stable, less conflict, more growth and development and peaceful. The very evidence is the smooth flow and development of countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway and New Zealand. It is an unchallenging proof since these states are democratic and implications of this practice bring them fortune. In principle, liberal democracy is a voting-oriented political system. It does guarantee separation of powers and holding accountable to constituencies. Human-centered approach has unlocked the voters and government to work harder and to check and balance one another’s performance – a good government is supposed to be a government that produces productive policy and will likely gets more votes, otherwise getting vote of confident if fails to provide better service.
However, this claim does not always ring the bell true either. Historical stagnation, deadlock, change of governments, and either one institution is too powerful and abuses other organs in the same functioning system decrease liberal democracy momentum as well. If the U.S. liberal democracy truly creates growth, peace, stability, and no-crisis maybe there is no such contentious issues, such as Obamacare, Gun, and environmental policy that President Obama has been campaigning at the moment but most often got killed, bitterly attacked from his oppositions, or pending the bills for an unknown time.
From the same source, many commentators interpret or foresee future of liberal democracy differently. Instead over exaggerating that democracy is progress, they argue very badly opposite. Some scholars, such as Mansfield and Snyder the author of Democratization and War article, claimed that clear separation of powers may be a source of decision-making crisis especially in the early stage of democratizing states. Rossiter in the Constitutional Dictatorship and Stevens in the Six Amendments book have further echoed that minimal government or too much independent institutions could lead to governing failure due to the reason of widen polarization, particularly in the U.S. Congress where the two parties – Republican and Democrat – increasingly find less and less compromises but more and more reasons to divorce.   
            Probably, the U.S Presidential democracy is also a crisis-prone system as well. What do you think about this propostion? Is it because House and Senate could(n’t) get a long or is increasing the culture of disagreement or rejection and ignoring Abraham Lincoln of unifying the congress? Please come and give comment on this matter. I am so curious to about position…!


Share on Google Plus

About One Book One Wisdom

My name is Horn Ken. I design this blog with purpose to share leadership development tips and also working to find greatest sources for leadership building. I hope users benefit from this blog as I do. Please kindly share it if you find my article useful!