Parliamentary democracy is the best Regime in Norway.
is straightforward to state that the kind of regime in a country plays a critical role in the societal predicament of the country. The responsibility of any administration is similar across all the states, and they involve establishing laws, promoting general welfare by providing public service, provide security, and among others. Consequently, it is effortless to affirm that the order of regime inaugurated in a state dictates the accessibility of these services to its citizen. Norway has the world’s top-ranked democracy [1]. Its administration can be tagged as democratic because the Norwegians have political freedom and equality. Elections to the 169-member parliamentarians are held every four years. All Norwegians, of at least 18 years of age, are eligible to participate and are automatically registered to vote. Seventy-eight percent of them did so in their last election. The question that emerges and begs an answer is whether this country, which possesses the best democracy, really enjoys and benefits from this regime type. I take a new stand that representative democracy is a perfect fit for Norway, judging by how beneficial the regime has been to the Norwegian population. In this paper, I will take a position with the statement that representative democracy is the best regime type for Norway.
To get into specifics of how democracy plays well in Norway, I cannot resist the urge first to state that the question of whether democracy is the best form of government for any particular country encompasses both philosophy and politics. Philosophy concerns itself with which type of government is theoretically justifiable, whereas the political approach considers whether democracy is viable in practice. Exploring whether democracy is the best form of the regime through a philosophical look reveals that it is superior to other types of government because it is in line with human dignity and human rights. In reality, however, democracy is slightly problematic because it can prove challenging for leaders to satisfy an entire population. This situation, yet, does not set the upper bound of the capabilities of this sort of regime. Democratic governments today have room for improvement.
Presently, Norway is among the top 10 countries in the world in GDP per capita, scoring $80,000 per person and has one the world’s highest standards of living on account of the national autonomy of Norway overseeing the thinly populated country. One of its major dependent exports is oil, the land being fortunate to have discovered it was off coast oil reservoirs 20 or 30 years ago. Norway consists of only 5+ million people, so the country needs little oil, and virtually all of its petroleum is sold elsewhere. For such a country with a small population and a very high GDP, a democracy regime suits well if the wealth is to be distributed equitably among the people, and it has indeed done so. Many other countries have much higher oil reserves, but unlike other nations, Norway has put most of its oil profits into Sovereign Funds. Annual revenues from this fund now exceed the income from oil sales. By the constitution, only 4 percent of the funds can be extracted for use by the Norwegian government [3]. It is fair to contrast Norway to Venezuela because both are relatively thinly populated and have oil reservoirs. The latter country does not practice real democracy. Instead, its regime has been tagged as an authoritarian regime due blatantly rigging of constitution and electoral process to cling to power by some of the leaders. Venezuelan GDP is well below $20,000, and the benefits from oil exports are not efficiently tapped and invested. It comes out clearly that the exceptional democratic regime in Norway does play a role in sustaining the GDP per capita and hence the economy as a whole.
Norway fairs well to be among the top seven countries whose level of corruption and misuse of public funds are minimal [5]. The democratic government is responsible for this. The key to Norway’s success is the healthy relationship between its people and the lawmakers. Norwegians do feel like they are part of democracy. They recognize their politicians as not some elite but instead as one of them. The rigging of the law by the parliamentarians in the aim of personal benefit and withholding of power is an uncommon scenario in Norway. Unlike many parliamentary forms of the legislature, the parliament cannot be dissolved during its four-year term of office. Amendments to overturn this restriction have been fruitless since 1990 [3]. Instead of big-personalities with more significant chest wars, the focus here is on how rival parties can collaborate in policymaking. This uncompromising arrangement has deflated coincidences of corruption and embezzlements but instead fostered imperturbable and democratic governance.
Socially, the country routinely ranks as the second happiest country in the world [4]. On a snapshot, other quality-of-life measures in Norway are contenting with the country boasting with a life expectancy of 87.1 years, an infant mortality rate of two-per 1000 live births, the murder rate is at 0.51 per 100,000 and incarceration rate stands at 74 per 100,000 [2]. There are indeed complicated factors here not accounted for by economic systems. Still, it is impossible to believe that better social health and relations have nothing to do with the democratic government using its financial control to provide everyone with free health care that can account for those numbers in assessing the quality of life.
In order to ascertain that parliamentary democracy best suits Norway as a country, this paper had to explore the benefits of the inaugurated democratic regime in the country. By now, it has been illustrated that democracy in Norway is efficient in sustaining the economy of the state, putting the country in the list of the countries with the highest standards of living. Embezzlement and corruption are efficiently curbed, and the different metrics of the standard of living fare well in the country due to this successful regime. This paper has shown that the parliamentary democracy regime best suits Norway. As stated earlier, there is no limit on the improvement of democracy in any state. It is the best form of leadership since it puts human dignity put into consideration. Norway is setting the pace on the matter and is for the better cause if other states try to mimic this agreeable democracy in their quest to ensure better sustainability of the economy, curbing misuse of public funds and ensuring better standards of living among its population. Parliamentary democracy is a perfect fit for Norway.
References.
[2] Cooper, R. (2018, July 10). If democratic socialism is so bad, why is Norway so great?
The Week. Retrieved from: https://theweek.com/articles/783700/democratic-socialism-bad-why-norway-great
[3] Kjolberg, T (2018, March 16). Norway- World’s Best Democracy.
Daily SCANDINAVIAN. Retrieved from: https://www.dailyscandinavian.com/norway-worlds-best-democracy/
[4] Chokshi, N (2017, March 20). Norway is No.1 in Happiness. The U.S. Sadly, Is No. 14.
The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/world/worlds-happiest-countries.html
[5] Transparency International (2019) Corruption around the World in 2019.
Retrieved from: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi#