POLS3336 University of Houston Does Democracy Cause Peace Position Paper TOPICS FOR POSITION PAPER1 – you must choose from the below list What is your cle

POLS3336 University of Houston Does Democracy Cause Peace Position Paper TOPICS FOR POSITION PAPER1 – you must choose from the below list

What is your clearly stated position on does democracy cause peace? [ see page 179 of our class textbook]

————————————————————————————————————————-

FORMAT: Please label each part clearly: TWO PARTS: (COVER PAGE, OF COURSE)

PART I. INTRODUCTION: tell the reader what your paper is about, what it will do, and why this topic is important

State your position CLEARLY as in C L E A R L Y in the Part I

Part I is about one third of a page

Part II ARGUMENT:

Explain the basis for your position, clearly.

Virtually every paragraph in your position paper Part II has to clearly, succinctly be connected to and contribute to your clear position as stated in Part I.

This part of your our paper will be about three/four pages

The only research cites go in Part II – only.

The research sources are cited as footnotes, not endnotes, not contextual, and no table of contents and no works cited page.

General Requirements

Total paper length will be between four and seven pages.

Your source attribution must include enough information to verify your source.

You will have at least four footnotes . There will be at least one of each of the following:

(1) Scholarly journal (LABELED AS JOURNAL)

(2) Newspaper (LABELED AS NEWSPAPER)

(3) Book (LABELED AS BOOK)

(4) Web source ( LABELED AS WEB SOURCE)

PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS CLEARLY – CRYSTAL CLEAR.

COMMENT: READY AIM FIRE Position Paper 3:
How a Non-Democratic Ruled Government Can Be Effective
POLS 3311: Comparative Politics
This paper represents the product of my own work and does not feature collaboration with any
individuals or groups. The paper is submitted to fulfill a writing assignment for this class and this
class only and it is in strict compliance with the University of Houston’s Academic Honesty Policy.
Part I – Introduction
This paper is about how a non-democratic ruled government can be effective. My
position is that yes, non-democracies can rule effectively. To argue this position, this paper will
examine how three different types of non-democratic governments work, then consider examples
of countries that currently govern under each type, and finally specify the reasons that make each
of them effective. This topic is important because a democracy is not the only type of
government, and as it has its strengths, it also has its weaknesses and therefore should not be
considered the only way to successfully and effectively rule over a country.
Part II – Argument
When considering what makes rule over a country effective, it is important to first define
and understand what it is to be effective. Being effective is defined as being successful in
producing a desired or intended result. Although, who’s desired or intended result must be
produced in order to be considered successful, and therefore effective? In terms of a government,
the answer is, whoever is in charge of that government. In a democracy, the political power is
exercised either directly or indirectly by the people through participation, competition, and
liberty1 . In other words, the citizens are in charge. In non-democracies, the person or persons in
charge varies greatly, and therefore the perspective of the party in charge must be examined in
order to determine if the rule is effective. Three different non-democracies that will be examined
in this paper are that of a monarchy, a communist government, and a dictatorship/totalitarian
government.
1
(BOOK) O’Neil, Patrick H. “Essentials of Comparative Politics (Sixth Edition).” New York, New York: W. W. Norton
& Company, 2018. Pp. 138. Print.
2
Under monarchy rule, the state and society are commonly taken to be possessions of the
leader, to be dispensed with as he or she sees fit. The ruler is not a subject of the state; rather, the
state and society are subjects of the ruler2 . Qatar is one the few remained absolute monarchies in
the world. In an absolute monarchy, one person has an unrestricted political power over a state.
In Qatar, officials have been elected by the people since 1999, but there is very little participation
in these elections, hence making it insignificant and monarchic 3 . Currently, the Amir, known as
His Highness Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al-Thani, is the head of state and represents the country
internally, externally and in all international relations. He is also the Commander-in-Chief of the
armed forces, which he supervises with the assistance of a defense council, set under his direct
authority. The judicial authority is vested in courts of law; and court judgments are proclaimed in
the name of the Amir4 . The Amir has made it known that his goal for his country was to become
a global political and financial power5 . Under the Amir’s rule, Qatar has enjoyed political
stability, which is likely to stay into the foreseeable future as the country enjoys broad support
from its citizens, which enjoy the highest GDP per head of the world (USD 145,000 at PPP), a
very low unemployment (0.4% in 2014), and a high standard of living (Qatar ranks 31 st on the
Human Development Index)6 . The country’s success and wealth speak volumes as to the
effectiveness of its leader, the Amir, and therefore, Qatar’s monarchical government is an
2
(BOOK) O’Neil, Patrick H. “Essentials of Comparative Politics (Sixth Edition).” New York, New York: W. W. Norton
& Company, 2018. Pp. 191-192. Print.
3 (WEBSITE) Vashishtha, Pragya. “Top 12 Non-Democratic Countries in the World” Surge, 17 March 2016. Web. 9
October 2018. https://listsurge.com/top-12-non-democratic-countries-world/
4 (WEBSITE) “About Qatar: The Amir” Hukoomi Qatar e-government. Web. 20 October 2018.
http://portal.www.gov.qa/wps/portal/about-qatar
5 (WEBSITE) Black, Ian. “Qatar’s emir Sheikh Hamad to hand power to son, crown prince Tamim.” The Guardian, 24
June 2013. Web. 21 October 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/24/qatar-emir-steps-downson-tamim
6 (WEBSITE) Hayat, Raphie. “Country Report Qatar” Rabobank, 2 December 2014. Web. 20 October 2018.
https://economics.rabobank.com/publications/2014/november/country-report-qatar/
3
effective non-democratic ruled government, since its ruler has been successful in producing his
desired goal.
Another non-democratic type of rule is communism, which is, at its most basic level, an
ideology that seeks to create human equality by eliminating private property and market forces 7 .
China is arguably the largest of all current communist states in the world. To determine if it is in
fact an effective government, its leadership must be examined. Currently, it is run by a single
party called the Communist Party of China, who has a tightened control over its population as
they do not want China to be influenced by western ideologies8 . President of the Communist
Party of China is Xi Jinping, who in 2017, announced that China henceforth intended to lead the
world. With his intent and desire for China clear, he proceeded to reassert the primacy of the
Communist Party, and in the first five years in office, Xi fought government corruption,
launched a global strategy of economic outreach and stoked Chinese nationalism while casting
himself as a world statesman. Under his rule, China is now positioned to surpass the U.S. in the
next world-changing technology: artificial intelligence. China also excels in covert operations,
and by cultivating agents of influence at Western universities and in local politics. At home Xi
has cultivated both a bourgeoisie and a cult of personality and has brought an iron fist down on
advocates of free speech, an uncensored internet, civil society and human rights. In the process,
he has dashed the hopes of the western governments that believed China’s embrace of capitalism
would lead to democracy9 . Clearly, this communist government has had success at producing
7
(BOOK) O’Neil, Patrick H. “Essentials of Comparative Politics (Sixth Edition).” New York, New York: W. W. Norton
& Company, 2018. Pp. 270. Print.
8 (WEBSITE) Vashishtha, Pragya. “Top 12 Non-Democratic Countries in the World” Surge, 17 March 2016. Web. 9
October 2018. https://listsurge.com/top-12-non-democratic-countries-world/
9 (WEBSITE) Vick, Karl and Campbell, Charlie. “The Short List: No. 3 – Person of the Year 2017: Xi Jinping, China’s
leader vies for global dominance” Time. Web. 20 October 2018. http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2017-xijinping-runner-up/
4
results and moving towards reaching its leader’s goals, therefore making it an effective nondemocracy.
The final non-democratic type of rule that will be examined is that of a dictatorship and
totalitarian state. A dictatorship involves not only the abolition of the separation of powers, but
also the subordination of the rule of law to the rule of human will. It assumes a highest authority,
who holds the legal position to suspend law itself and commission or authorize the dictator to
hold and use uncontrolled powers10 . A totalitarian government is a system of government that is
centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state. North Korea, in its
current political form, fits these definitions. Its current dictator, Kim Jong-un, became the
supreme leader of North Korea in 2011, succeeding his father Kim Jong-Il. Although initially
Kim Jong-un implemented some economic and agricultural reforms, human rights violations and
brutal suppression of opposition continue to be reported under his rule11 . Shortly thereafter, Kim
made it known that it was his desire for his country to become a dominant nuclear power. In
2017, it was learned that over the course of the prior year, Kim Jong-Un unveiled an advanced
capacity to threaten the American homeland with a nuclear-tipped long-range missile. Then on
July 4, he launched the first of several missiles capable of reaching Los Angeles, Denver and
Chicago. In September of that same year, he tested what the U.S. believed was a nuclear warhead
that would fit on top of one of those missiles; it was more powerful than the bombs the U.S.
dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended World War II. Further, in the early-morning of
November 29th , North Korea test-fired a missile capable of reaching Washington, D.C. and New
10
(SCHOLARLY JOURNAL) Arato, Andrew. “Good-by to Dictatorships?” Social Research. Vol. 67, Iss. 4: pp. 925-955.
Print.
11 (WEBSITE) The Editors of Biography.com. “Kim Jong-un Biography.” Biography.com, 31 July 2018. Web. 20
October 2018. https://www.biography.com/people/kim-jong-un-21125351
5
York City. Its arc rose 10 times higher than the International Space Station 12 . With reports
estimating that North Korea has anywhere from fifteen to sixty nuclear weapons with capabilities
of reaching a potential range of 13,000 kilometers11 , this dictator has produced his desired result
in becoming a dominant nuclear power. He confirmed this, when, in April of 2018, he
announced that he had completed one of his two parallel goals: building a nuclear arsenal. He
then stated that North Korea would focus all national resources on rebuilding the economy 13 . By
all accounts, the dictatorship and totalitarian run government continues to prove effective, as its
leader has had success in obtaining his desired goals.
Be it a monarchy, a communist government, or a dictatorship/totalitarian government, the
person or persons with the control are the ones that truly determine the effectiveness of their
government. Due to the fact that effectiveness is determined by the success in producing a
desired or intended result, and a government is defined as the governing body of a nation, state,
or community, then it is the success in obtaining the desires of those in charge of that
government that determine whether or not it is an effective government. Through the review of
these three examples, it has been shown that non-democratic rule can be effective; it is all
dependent upon the desires of those in command.
12
(WEBSITE) Pearlstine, Norman. “The Short List: No. 5 – Person of the Year 2017: Kim Jong Un: North Korea’s
young dictator takes on the World.” Time. Web. 20 October 2018. http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2017kim-jong-un-runner-up/
13 (NEWSPAPER) “As Talks Stall, Kim Homes in On Prosperity.” New York Times, 20 August 2018: Pp. A1. Sang-Hun,
Choe. Print.
6
4
Domestic Politics and War
THE PUZZLE War is costly for states, but what if there are actors within the state—such as
politicians, businesses, or the military—who see war as bene?cial and who expect to pay few
or none of its costs? Do states ?ght wars to satisfy in?uential domestic interests?
Above: In democratic systems, voters can in?uence
foreign policy by removing (or threatening to
remove) leaders who make unpopular decisions.
In 2014, thousands of protesters in London let their
government know how they felt about renewing
military engagement in Iraq.
138
On March 30, 1982, thousands of demonstrators marched
in the streets of Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina,
denouncing the country’s military government for its
harsh economic policies and oppressive rule. Riot
police used tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons to break up the protests, and over 2,000 people
were arrested. A week later, the streets of Buenos Aires
?lled with demonstrators once more, but this time the
demonstrations voiced enthusiastic support for the military regime, as many of those who had earlier called for
the government’s ouster now joined in the outpouring of
praise. What changed in the course of a week? On April 2,
Argentine naval forces invaded a small group of islands
300 miles off the Argentine coast that were the subject of
a long-standing dispute between Argentina and Britain.
Is there any connection between these events? Did the
Argentine government provoke a war with Britain in
order to revive its popularity with its people?
In 1954, representatives of the United Fruit Company went to Washington, D.C., to voice concerns about
the leader of Guatemala, a man named Jacobo Arbenz.
Arbenz had pushed a land reform program that led to
the seizure of almost 400,000 acres belonging to the
American company. Arbenz offered to compensate
United Fruit to the tune of $1.2 million, the value of the
land that the company claimed for tax purposes. The U.S.
government insisted on behalf of United Fruit that the
company be paid almost $16 million. In June of that year,
rebels armed and trained by the U.S. Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) invaded Guatemala. Fearing a full-scale
American invasion, parts of the Guatemalan military
revolted, Arbenz resigned from of?ce and ?ed the country, and a pro-American leader was installed. The operation cost the CIA just under $3 million.1 Did the United
States overthrow a foreign leader to bene?t a single company at the expense of American taxpayers?
Our ?rst look at the puzzle of war in Chapter 3 considered this problem from the perspective of states. We
assumed two states in con?ict over a particular good, such
as a piece of territory, and trying to arrive at a settlement
that would avoid the costs of war. This kind of analysis is
very common in international relations scholarship, where
1. U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “CIA’s Role in the Overthrow of
Arbenz,” Job 79-01025A, Box 153, Folder 3, www.state.gov/r/pa/
ho/frus/ike/guat/20181.htm (accessed 11/07/07).
139
it is often referred to as the unitary state assumption: the
treatment of states as coherent actors with a set of interests that belong to the state. While this assumption can
be a useful starting place for analysis, we must remember
that states are legal and political constructs, not beings
capable of taking actions. The choices and actions of states
are made by people. Decisions about waging war are made
by a state’s political leaders. Military plans are drawn up
by military of?cials and carried out by soldiers.
Others within the country may also be able to in?uence foreign policy choices, even if they have no direct
say over them. There may be interest groups such as
business or ethnic lobbies that in?uence decision making through their organizational and ?nancial resources.
In democratic systems, voters in?uence policy decisions
because of their ability to remove leaders who make
unpopular choices. Looking inside the state reveals new
actors with varied interests, as well as variation across
states in the political institutions that determine who
affects decision making.
How does our understanding of the causes of war
change when we look inside the state and consider the
interests, interactions, and institutions within it? In
Chapter 3, we argued that to understand why wars happen, we need to understand why states at times cannot
solve their con?icts peacefully, in a way that avoids the
costs associated with ?ghting. This argument rested on
the assumption that war is costly to those engaged in
the interaction. These costs create a bargaining range,
or a set of deals that both states prefer over ?ghting.
The assumption that war is costly makes sense when
we think of the state as a unitary actor, but once we look
inside the state, it is clear that the costs and bene?ts of
war are not distributed equally within the country.
Different actors within the state may place more or
less value on the issue in dispute. A disputed territory
might represent a source of livelihood, pro?t, or national
pride to some, a tract of worthless land to others. The
persecution of a minority group in a foreign country might
arouse outrage in some, perhaps owing to ethnic attachment to the victims, while others greet it with indifference. Most Americans in 1954 had little or no stake in the
land reform policies of the Guatemalan government; to
the United Fruit Company, however, millions of dollars’
worth of land were at risk.
The costs of war are also distributed unevenly. Some
people, such as those who might be drafted to serve in
the military, can expect to pay very high and direct costs
140
from war. Others may see the costs of war in economic
terms, if the need to ?nance the con?ict leads to higher
taxes. In contrast, there are some groups within a country that may pro?t from war ?nancially or professionally:
arms manufacturers bene?t from increased purchases
of their products; for military of?cers, combat experience leads to opportunities for medals and promotions;
and for unpopular governments, such as the Argentine
junta in 1982, war can build support domestically and
solidify their hold on power.
These observations raise a number of questions: To
what extent is war rooted not in the information and commitment problems discussed in Chapter 3, but rather in the
interests of domestic actors who see personal bene?t and
little or no cost to war? Do wars serve the national interest or the narrow interests of of?ce-hungry politicians,
multinational companies, and/or a “military-industrial
complex” composed of glory-seeking militaries and pro?tseeking arms merchants? How do domestic institutions,
such as democracy, in?uence a government’s decisions
and the likelihood of war between states?
Thinking Analytically about
Domestic Politics and War
To answer the questions posed here, we must consider the different interests that domestic actors have
in terms of war and peace. Simply identifying these
interests is not enough, however, since not all actors
within the state have equal say over foreign policy
choices and hence not all interests are represented
equally. Which domestic interests drive foreign policy
choices depends on two factors: the strategic interactions between actors, which determine which individuals and groups can exert effective in?uence and
which cannot; and the institutions within the state,
which determine how different actors have access
to the decision-making process. Further, we have
to recall that war is not the choice of a single state,
but rather an outcome of the interaction between
or among multiple states. Hence, as we consider
domestic in?uences on foreign policy, we need to
examine how these factors shape bargaining at the
international level.
Whose Interests Count in
Matters of War and Peace?
In the previous chapter, we observed that international disputes generally arise
over territory, policies, and the characteristics of countries’ domestic regimes.
Why these con?icts of interest arise in the ?rst place is a complicated question
with no single answer. One view, referred to in this book’s Introduction as realism,
is that states’ interests are largely, if not entirely, dictated by external factors. States
want to preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity. To do so, they need
power—primarily, military power. Hence, they seek opportunities to expand their
own power and/or to diminish the power of those that threaten them. In this view,
states’ interests are ?xed, determined largely by their material resources and geographic position, and they are not shaped by domestic factors.
Although this argument is sometimes useful in understanding sources of con?ict in the world, it is also overly simplistic. The interactions among states at the
international level can be fundamentally affected by interactions among actors at
th…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment