Comparative Politics
Democracy refers to the means use by a country’s population to choose their leader and make the leaders responsible for the policies, made and their actions while in the office. Advanced democracies were ones referred to as “first world” countries, and they are those countries with institutional democracy together with high economic development. Most of such countries have a GDP above $800 and are ranked top third on the HDI. Some of the countries with advanced democracy include the United States, Norway, and Sweden among others.
On the other hand, we have countries that are democratic but cannot be considered to be an advanced democracy. In most cases, those countries have underdeveloped democracies while others have flawed democracy. China is an example of a country not considered an advanced democracy. Politics of different countries have been at the center of analysis and understanding the different political parties increase our knowledge of how different countries operate.
Development of a democracy is in most cases associated with the social and economic development of countries. Although not all countries with advanced democracies have experienced progression, most have attained economic and social development. Economies of such countries do not suffer serious declines because they are economically stable (Dalton 128). They are powerful and are never influenced by any power of a dictator, unlike the fewer democracy countries. When comparing the impact of advanced democracy of the United States and Norway, United States has a more improved way of living with a reduced cost of living. Although both are an advanced democracy, the United States has a more developed democracy which has led to a more stable economy. Democracy in the United States has led to the increased purchasing power of consumers by 17.76% compared to Norway (Dalton 128). The consumer prices including rent, groceries and restaurant prices are lower compared to those of Norway. Additionally, the cost of living in China is lower compared to that of the United States in spite of China being a less advanced economy. China is not an advanced democracy country, but it is the largest economy by the purchasing power parity as well as the second largest economy by the nominal gross domestic product. Although development of a democracy is believed to lead to a progressed country, it is not always the case because China is not considered an advanced demography but it has managed to lead in the economic purchasing power parity, and it is among the leading in economic GDP.
Democracy of a country is influenced by various institutions that determine its advanced status. Economic institutions which include regulatory institutions, institutions for social insurance, institutions for macroeconomic stabilization and institutions for conflict management affect the economic growth of any country. Besides any other institution, economic institutions have a decisive influence on the investments made on either physical or human capital, industrial production or in the technology used by a country (Dal 29). Economic institutions have major roles in the distribution of resources for a country hence they determine the advanced status of a country. Political institutions are other determinants of advanced status of a democracy since they influence the incentives and constraints faced by key players in every society. The effect of political institutions is felt in all corners of a country, and any poor decision by political institutions can have a negative impact on the economy of a country. Therefore, both economic and political institutions play a major role in deciding the advanced status of any given country.
Some of the issues that signify the weakening or improper functioning of these institutions include dysfunctional political process. The process can either be an individual government agency or the whole institution. Failure of institutions can be caused by the growing power of entrenched political actors who in most cases turn down reforms and rebalancing (Pereira NP). Any case of institutional reform cannot be accomplished without the disruption of the main political or economic order; thus, reforms can be determinants of weakening institutions. Intellectual rigidity is another way that indicates weakened or weakening institutions. When the leaders of these political and economic institutions are not in agreement, the result can be a failed institution which ultimately results in a weakened democracy. Political polarization also indicates weakened institutions. When members of one party are not willing to come to terms with members of the other party, it is likely that the political institution will be affected, leading to weakened or ineffective democracy. A falling GDP of a country is another signal that economic institutions are weak because they are responsible for the distribution of resources and decide on investments that should take place in a country (Pereira NP). The increased cost of living with a reduced purchasing power of the consumer can symbolize weakened economic and political institutions, therefore, can be used to show a weak democracy.
Political and economic institutions are largely affected by various factors that determine the success or failures of the parties. The main actors are political parties. The political parties within any nation determine the participation of individuals and which candidates to be nominated and elected (Dal 29). The support from the political parties gives the institutions political empowerment and more so those at the national level. The political parties offer support to political institutions largely both financial support during elections and after an election to ensure that the institution is functional. Thus, they can undermine the institutions in case they fail to offer support after the election.
Non-governmental organizations are also likely to affect political and economic institutions of a country. They include community groups, women’s and other civil society institutions. These organizations can uphold or undermine the political institutions depending on their involvement in politics (Almond NP). Labor unions affect political institutions directly or indirectly as they mobilize individuals and support the candidates to the end. Without the support of labor unions, economic institutions can be affected negatively to the extent of lowered GDP. Media is another factor likely to influence the operations of political and economic institutions. The way the media portray different genders and in particular women determine their participation in political issues.
The current use of anti-immigrant rhetoric in the United States is a strategy used to limit and present immigrants from joining the United States. The political party that is strong in the United States is the republican which have tried in all means to fight against immigration. They blame the Democrats for not supporting the change of immigration law (Huber 215). The differences in the political parties have contributed much to the anti-immigrant rhetoric where the republicans view immigrants as a threat to their state. They are against them because they want to retain Republicans in the US Congress and most immigrants are Democrats. Referring to immigrants as illegal humans is a rhetoric that has been used to try limiting immigration in the United States. The immigrants are also made suspects of all illegal actions so that they can be deported to their countries, a strategy used to enhance Republicans’ leadership.
The effect of anti-immigrant rhetoric on democratic institutions include assists the Republicans to run the country with minimal effect of Democrats. According to Trump, immigrants are supported by the Democrats to fight against the republican, and since he has hopes of re-electing Republicans in the US Congress, rhetoric is used to discourage immigration (Ramaprasad 92). With the current ruling party being Republican; the anti-immigrant rhetoric is thus used to strengthen the political institutions. The rhetoric weakens the United States Democratic Party which acts as the opposing party to the leading political party.
The rhetoric has a great impact on everyday politics because of the discriminative nature associated with them. Rhetoric affects the relationship of students while in campus because both the democrats and republicans view immigrants as illegal and are associated with any illegal act even in the campus. The immigrants are secluded not only in schools but also at homes as they are politicized to be unwanted in the country. They are discriminated in the workplace and are limited to work in most organizations (Huber 215). Jobs in the informal economy and low-status occupations define immigrants in the United States. Perceptions of illegality affect the relationships of state-based and a non-state based student which has been a common experienced at the University of Alabama. They are also not allowed to vote and participate in any legal action in the United States, and the ultimate result is reduced confidence to air their views while in the US.
Works Cited
Dal Bó, Pedro, Andrew Foster, and Louis Putterman. “Institutions and behavior: Experimental evidence on the effects of democracy.” American Economic Review 100.5 (2010): 2205-29. Almond, Gabriel Abraham, and Sidney Verba. The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton university press, 2015.
Dalton, Russell J., Susan E. Scarrow, and Bruce E. Cain. “Advanced democracies and the new politics.” Journal of democracy 15.1 (2004): 124-138.
Huber, Lindsay Perez. “Make America Great again: Donald Trump, Racist Nativism and the Virulent Adherence to White Supremecy Amid US Demographic Change.” Charleston L. Rev. 10 (2016): 215.
Pereira, Carlos, and Vladimir Teles. “Political institutions, economic growth, and democracy: The substitute effect.” Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www. brookings. edu/research/opinions/2011/01/19-political-institutions-pereira(2011).
Ramaprasad, Venkat R. “Terror, Suspicion and Neo-Liberal Logics:’Expanding Orientalisms’ and South Asians in the United States.” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies41.1 (2018): 87-105.