Voter fraud is bad on all levels irrespective of how it is done. The story of Weaver, the Frat boy, is what I will say is an example of modern day electoral malpractice. What I see is, as the years progresses, there are new ways of committing these crimes. Compared to that of Adams County, Ohio. But I found it interesting how these practices in the county were normalized- even county officials looked on unconcerned- till the judge took action.
I also find it difficult to tell the lesser of these two evils. But one thing about that of Adams county was that it has some order attached to it. You go to the “market place,” and you bid- of course the highest bidder wins. But Louisville Kentucky’s “portable polling places” was done under the cover of darkness, and together with what happened when the results trickled in, could have ended in violence. For the purposes of this post, I will say “fraud that suppresses an opponent’s vote total” is pretty dangerous. As I mentioned, it could result in violence. The opponent and their following may try to rebel. And this is similar to what happened in the Weaver case. He tried to suppress his opponent’s total vote and ended in jail.
For the vote buying, you are not necessarily working directly to suppress the other candidate’s vote but rather cajole the voters to shade in your name when they go to the polls. This pretty much what most candidates do, even in a democracy. But the introduction of money, and other materials to influence them makes it wrong. But suppressing someone’s total vote seems more damaging and has thrown many countries in anarchy even in present day.
Bueno de Mesquita and Smith clearly stipulate the characteristics, rules and how autocracies and democracies can and should operate. As they mentioned, autocratic regimes have fewer people to please, who form their “essentials.” And pleasing them means you have a limited number of people to work with, though requires huge sums of money. Because the autocrat was not elected, he basically owes nothing the larger population. It’s all about himself, his “influencials” and essentials.” Incorporating a larger population, the “interchangeable,” means you are accountable to the nation. That prevents the leader from satisfying only a few people he or she trusts and could protect him from enemies or potential threats to the seat of government. A larger coalition also means that each citizen, whether they voted for you or not, must benefit from the public good. A lack of public good will see that leader exiting the stage. If everything goes as expected, the “interchangeable” will ensure they stayed in power and continued their work. That way, you have their support, your government gains legitimacy and favor.
For authoritarian regimes, what they could learn is that, it is better to have the support of the larger population to cement their leadership, rather than a few cronies who will switch camps when the tables turn. Their betrayal means the downfall of that regime. Their inner members cannot always be trusted, and that they are not safe at all.
Interestingly, some of the issues raised in Olson’s article has come up in my race theory class- citizenship, racial states et al. Creating of those racial states, somehow was to thwart rebellions from the slaves. Denying them the ability to use the justice system and other social avenues which could help them advance their cause. That way, they were able to deny citizenship and proceed to “democratize.” It also shows how the white elites loved to hold on to power and authority in the State. It was a means to maintain the cleavages between the various social classes . Olson stated, for whites to be ‘independent citizen-earners,’ black people had to be put at the bottom of the social class (p.47). Democratization also meant, in part, economic development. Therefore, giving the lower class equal rights meant decrease in the labor population. So denial also meant they could use them to solve the “labor problem.” One thing that surprises me is the definition of the anti-black attack as democratic. I don’t see how that could be justified then. But this process of democratization is a bit problematic.
Holton and Bouton give a vivid description of happenings in Pennsylvania which, according to Bouton, was highly underestimated with comparatively much less scholarship on it.
The situation as described by Holton and Bouton, especially the latter, shows a period of great economic crisis that hit the Pennsylvania region in the late 18th century. As it was an agrarian society, the farmers, who constituted most of the poor was gravely hit by the crisis. As time went by, they lost almost every property and struggled to eke out a living. Taxes were high so much that even if they sold off all of their belongings, it still couldn’t pay up. This led to a majority of them owing huge sums to the state. Inability to pay also meant that, foreclosures were initiated and property finally auctioned off.
As someone’s misfortune is another’s blessing, the gentry in society took advantage of the situation to make money off the farmers. They took property and bail out monies lower than it’s face value and redeemed it at higher prices. They forced laws that further worsened the woes of the poor farmers. They were basically in want of power, money and authority. Even as the farmers rebelled, they tried to do everything possible for state laws to compel the deadbeat farmers to pay up debt. Thankfully, some rational thinking members of the society put in efforts to protect them at their own peril. The Federal forces that came did less to make them pay up; rather put their creativity to test as they dug trenches on highways, built fences and host of other things to send a message to authorities.
The farmers only wanted economic equality or some form of economic relief which will give them back their lives. This led to a series of stiff oppositions in several shapes and form to drive home their demand for better conditions and reduction of taxes. Because they lost all their belongings to the wealthy-who got richer every day at the detriment of the agrarian society.
This I will say is the exact opposite of what happened in England. The peasants never rebelled and went with the flow as closures took away their livelihoods.
Both authors of today’s readings have made certain things clear in their writing that suggest it may be difficult for Islam to co-exist with liberal democracy. Kendhammer (2016) also mentions how some people within the faith are accepting of democracy but state laws and other factors are making it onerous for that to happen.
Before I declare where I stand on this issue, I will say that whether Islam is compatible with democracy or not, both situations are humanly possible. But as it stands now – with the current state of affairs- and the fight to establish caliphates and Islamic republics, I argue that, Islam is not compatible with democracy. I reckon that some governments (like Algeria) try to mimic a democracy (just so they can be accepted internationally) but the foundation of governance hinges on Islamic laws, rules or values.
As Amir Taheri puts it, “Many Islamist thinkers regard democracy with horror.” And this I believe stems from the fact that they see God as the ultimate ruler of their lives and rather not a mere man who has coined his system of governance called “democracy.” So far as majority of the followers continue to hold this belief, it will be very difficult for Islam and democracy to peacefully co-exist. Even if the citizens may be pushing for it, the fact that the religion supports the patriarchy, and do not ascribe to certain values such as gender equality – which democracy dismantles and favors, leaders of such countries will do everything possible to keep out a democratic system.
Another reason I find both incompatible is what Kendhammer (2016) mentions that, most of the followers of Islam would want some aspects of democracy to exist, that is probity and accountability. But at the same time do not want to commit to it and eschew “pluralism.” Democracy is an all-or-nothing game. It’s either you are for, or against. In their case, I foresee a constant conflict between the religion and the system of governance which will make the country unstable and eventually fail.
Map of Somalia
First of, let’s take a look at a country like Somalia, compared to South Africa. I am using South Africa because at least, they are on the same continent. Using a Western country might seem a bit unfair. Between both countries, we can say that South Africa is wealthier- and that I will say has contributed to its successful democracy. Poverty, the lack of working institutions, among others are reasons Somalia is classified as a failed state. So I agree that, wealth and democracy go hand in hand. Why do I say this? Countries that are wealthy are more likely have institutions, welfare and health systems work for them. So they have the propensity to support such a system of governance that has made those things possible, because they believe that style, which is democracy, has contributed to the comparatively good life they are enjoying. While the citizens are at peace, they are also more likely to support any step to strengthen that democracy and promote it. As Lipset said, they could “intelligently participate” in the political discourse. In a failed state like Somalia, the immediate need is not democracy. One is likely to ask “will we eat democracy?” They need basic things like food, water, shelter and medicine to survive the day. That, they are not even sure will come. A hungry man is an angry man – and will not be willing to support “foreign” systems which aren’t taking away his woes. In such a country, “democracy” cannot be modeled – not to talk of sustainability. So the probability that wealthier countries will sustain and strengthen democracy is higher than a non-wealthy states.
This, I will say has been one of the reasons why it seem difficult to define democracy. And whether it should a thin or thick definition. These institutions mimic a democracy and in some cases, one is n0t sure where to place them. As to whether they are a complete democracy or not.
For the sake of this question, I will say that they are actually autocracies in disguise. These states, for them not to lose their international standing portray on the outside what looks like a democracy – so as to be counted as such – but the citizens experience something different.
The fact that elections are held frequently and the presence of democratic institutions doesn’t necessarily means it is a democracy. Again, that is why it is difficult to define the term “democracy.” Else, all of such democracy-looking autocratic states will conveniently fall within the bracket.
I will add that, the presence of some of those democratic institutions is what is keeping them from a total collapse. However, they are autocratic states- who when given the chance, will show their true identity and completely take over the playing field.
Democracy, as realized from the readings, is hard to define. The components that come together to make a democracy is a tall list. We also saw that some countries experienced and practiced different systems which were all deem democratic. In as much as I believe we don’t fit it in a set of words- in way of defining it, it is also key that, there exist some basic principles that could help us point to a state or country and say-yes-this is a democracy.
It is hard to choose between a thin and thick definitions. Because there is the probability that in a thin definition, an autocratic state my easily fall into the category of a democratic one. On the other hand, a thick definition might throw many states out- with its non-exhaustive list of things that comprise it.
Nonetheless, I will opt for a thick democracy. Why? A thick definition leaves no gray area. It is clear on what constitutes a democracy. Therefore, an aspiring democratic state gets to know that it’s no joke. This further strengthens the system; and non-democracies may strive to reach the threshold to be recognized as such.