During a chat on the Monde.fr, Tuesday, September 22, 2009, Bertrand Badie, Professor at Sciences Po analyzed the autoritrisme. According to him we must qualify the opposition between democracy and authoritarianism, which he considered "too simple and partly false." "Especially since no regime, even in Europe, is spared by an authoritarian thrust." His comments conserventtoute timeliness.
vs. authoritarian dictatorial regime : (...) "It has become customary to define an authoritarian regime as characterized a limited pluralism: competition for power is restricted to certain candidates, freedom of expression is itself limited, legal protection is imperfect and even partial or biased. We are therefore faced with a logical degrees: we say a system that is more or less authoritarian, but it will not always know how the limit.
In any case this concept does not lead to a duality between democratic regimes to their opposite is even in the gray area between these two poles lie the greatest number of states.
Russia Is an authoritarian regime or a democracy, when we know that freedom is restricted and that political choices are not entirely free?
Venezuela is there an authoritarian regime while President Chavez was elected and he has even accepted his defeat in a referendum "no" was the majority? Israel appears to be a perfect democracy if we take into account the free competition for power, but the Israeli Arabs are second class citizens so severely that taint the quality of democracy in this regime.
In short, the notion invites us to reflect on a number of criteria, but it does certainly not lead us to distinguish so sharply between clear categories of state.
Dictatorship is a narrower concept. It involves the full exercise of power by one man alone, without supervision, without limiting its powers, without limiting the duration of his mandate. A dictator may come to power by force or he may be elected but will hold it against the law and oppression.
(...) opposition democracy-authoritarianism is too simple and partly false. Democracy is a technique of government and authoritarianism posture more or less pronounced, the two concepts can be combined in practice. "
Authoritarianism as a factor of stability
" (...) In a Wilsonian tradition, it has been established particularly since 1945, that democracy was a factor of peace where the most authoritarian regimes led naturally to the war. This thesis has even received a name, that of "positive peace". She arguments in its favor Strengths: the hostility of public opinion for war and international violence, the correlation between democratic values and the values of peace and tolerance; cons of the game-powers that limit the claims of a bellicose leader. But at the same time, this thesis has been disproved by the facts. Although
democracies tend to do more to war than their authoritarian regimes alike, they are far to establish themselves as forces for peace. The example of Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also there to remember. The only atomic bomb that was used was also the military instrument of the largest democracy in the world at that time.
Some in this wake, argued that the versatility public opinion could lead to war more than peace, and indeed, an authoritarian regime, with less accountability, can take more risks to build and impose a peace diplomacy.
In fact, examples abound in both directions: it is to re-legitimized the Argentine dictatorship was launched in the Falklands War, but also to strengthen its own equation that the Greek military regime s is launched on a military adventure in Cyprus. And we could continue this long list, which would bring us back to the elementary fact that the ideal point would be the dictatorship of the Platonic sage that would impose virtue to his subjects and neighbors.
In fact, an international review of the subject leads us to look elsewhere: to take into account first international situations, some favoring dictatorial regimes, others actively promoting democracy. It must look also uses diplomatic and strategic plans are made based on political interests of each other.
Note for example that the U.S. has encouraged the rise of dictatorships in Latin America for years 1960 and 1970, instead supporting a return to democracy at the end 1980s and into the neoconservative period recently experienced. "On
interventionism: (...) " We got out of the euphoria that halo outside intervention. This was done first by conviction: the virtues of democracy seems to proselytize and messianism. She was also an opportunity: the fall of the USSR left the "Western democracies" free rein to become the policeman of the world and virtuous send across what Mitterrand called the "Soldiers of law." It was actually too fast under confused and efficiency, solidarity and intervention, and we just forgot a democracy could derive only a social contract built by local actors themselves. The pitiful fate of the recent election in Afghanistan has recalled a now indelible way.
In fact, quite the opposite of what was desired, which is taking place: an uncontrolled intervention is being revived worldwide fiber nationalist and particularist identitarism reconstruct a violence which international ever stronger .
can certainly play with the regime cynically on the other, but we can not change it. This opposition becomes misunderstood today that the essential factor for the failure of western diplomacy. Democracy or dictatorship may be a parameter of diplomatic action, but certainly not the end of it. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment