This article presents logic and evidence that demonstrates that the spread of democracy consistently advances many important values, including individual freedom from political oppression, deadly violence, and hunger.
The first way in which the spread of democracy enhances the lives of those who live in democracies is by promoting individual liberty, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom to own private property. Respect for the liberty of individuals is an inherent feature of democratic politics. A democratic political process based on electoral competition depends on freedom of expression of political views and freedom to make electoral choices. Moreover, governments that are accountable to the public are less likely to deprive their citizens of human rights. The global spread of democracy is likely to bring greater individual liberty to more and more people. Even imperfect and illiberal democracies tend to offer liberty than autocracies, and liberal democracies are very likely to promote liberty.
Second, people should support liberal democracy because the citizens of liberal democracies are less likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments. These two findings are supported by many studies, but particularly by the work of R.J Rummel. Rummel finds that democracies between 1900 and 1987 saw only 0.14% of their populations (on average) die annually in internal violence. The corresponding figure for authoritarian regimes as 0.59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%.28. Rummel also finds that citizens of liberal democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes such as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of civilians in the twentieth century.
A third reason for promoting democracy is that democracies tend to enjoy greater prosperity over long periods of time. Why do democracies perform better than autocracies over the long run? It is because democracies that embrace liberal principles of government are likely to create a stable foundation for long-term economic growth. Individuals will only make long-term investments when they are confident that their investments will not be expropriated. These and other economic decisions require assurances that private property will be respected and that contracts will be enforced.
Fourth, democracy should be supported because the citizens of democracies do not suffer from famines. The economist Amartya Sen concludes that “ one of the remarkable facts in the terrible history of famine is that no substantial famine has ever occurred in a country with a democratic form of governments and a relatively free press.” Democratic countries do not experience famines because their governments are accountable to their populations and their leaders have electoral incentives to prevent mass starvation. The need to be reelected impels politicians to ensure that their people do not starve. On the other hand, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are not accountable to the public; they are less likely to pay a political price for failing to prevent famines. Moreover, authoritarian and totalitarian rulers often have political incentives to use famine as a means of exterminating their domestic opponents.
This article presents logic and evidence that demonstrates that the spread of democracy consistently advances many important values, including individual freedom from political oppression, deadly violence, and hunger. The first way in which the spread of democracy enhances the lives of those who live in democracies is by promoting individual liberty, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom to own private property. Respect for the liberty of individuals is an inherent feature of democratic politics. A democratic political process based on electoral competition depends on freedom of expression of political views and freedom to make electoral choices. Moreover, governments that are accountable to the public are less likely to deprive their citizens of human rights. The global spread of democracy is likely to bring greater individual liberty to more and more people. Even imperfect and illiberal democracies tend to offer liberty than autocracies, and liberal democracies are very likely to promote liberty. Second, people should support liberal democracy because the citizens of liberal democracies are less likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments. These two findings are supported by many studies, but particularly by the work of R.J Rummel. Rummel finds that democracies between 1900 and 1987 saw only 0.14% of their populations (on average) die annually in internal violence. The corresponding figure for authoritarian regimes as 0.59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%.28. Rummel also finds that citizens of liberal democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes such as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of civilians in the twentieth century. A third reason for promoting democracy is that democracies tend to enjoy greater prosperity over long periods of time. Why do democracies perform better than autocracies over the long run? It is because democracies that embrace liberal principles of government are likely to create a stable foundation for long-term economic growth. Individuals will only make long-term investments when they are confident that their investments will not be expropriated. These and other economic decisions require assurances that private property will be respected and that contracts will be enforced.
Fourth, democracy should be supported because the citizens of democracies do not suffer from famines. The economist Amartya Sen concludes that “ one of the remarkable facts in the terrible history of famine is that no substantial famine has ever occurred in a country with a democratic form of governments and a relatively free press.” Democratic countries do not experience famines because their governments are accountable to their populations and their leaders have electoral incentives to prevent mass starvation. The need to be reelected impels politicians to ensure that their people do not starve. On the other hand, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are not accountable to the public; they are less likely to pay a political price for failing to prevent famines. Moreover, authoritarian and totalitarian rulers often have political incentives to use famine as a means of exterminating their domestic opponents.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..