Prof. Stephen Hess
Promoting and Expanding Democracy
Democracy, “defined as a government by the people, or the rule of the majority government. The supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly, through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. A political unit that has a democratic government, the principles and policies of the Democratic Party in the United States are designed for the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges (Susanne Karstedt and Gary LaFree Vol. 605, Democracy, Crime, and Justice (May, 2006), pp. 6-8).” When we take a closer look at democracy, the connection between democracy and criminal justice is self-evident, (Susanne Karstedt and Gary LaFree Vol. 605, Democracy, Crime, and Justice (May, 2006), pp. 7-10). For most of the last five decades, Washington has done little to promote Arab democratization, relying instead on the autocratic leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other countries to help protect vital U.S. interests in the neighborhood (Cook, S. A. (2005). The Right Way to Promote Arab Reform Foreign Affairs, 84(2), 91-92). Constructing further, with examining regions that come to rely on criminal justice officials to actively promote the rule of law or justice; such as, East and Central Europe, China, Japan and Sub-Saharan, can explain and how effective Western democratic principals has resulted in less crimes, wars and economic deficits.
Criminal justice is so fundamental as to be self-evident; the rule of law guarantees due process, and the observation of human right is an integral part of the emergence and institutionalization of democracy. It’s apparent that a high crime rate causes number of problems in developing countries without a political institution and within democratic societies. While crime rise it directly under-cuts the economic growth in which threatens the institutions of democratic principal. At it most element, a concern with reaction to crime is a concern with reaction to justice; likewise, a concern with etiology is a concern with social order (Susanne Karstedt and Gary LaFree Vol. 605, Democracy, Crime, and Justice (May 2006), pp. 12-14). The connection between democracy and criminal justice are underlined by their shared objective for social order. Looking at the collapse of the Soviet-Union and Russia from 1950 to 2000, there was a political change and also a change in homicides.
The regions of the Soviet-Union that strongly supported communist had an increase in homicides; in contrast, other regions experienced an increase in homicides when the political transition occurred; however, followed by a large decrease in homicide after the political change matured. Indeed, the civilization perspective predicts that violent crime rate will decline along with the civilizing effects of democratization. The conflict is that violent crime rates will increase along with the brutalizing effects of the market economies that so far have universally accompanied democratization (Susanne Karstedt and Gary LaFree Vol. 605, Democracy, Crime, and Justice (May, 2006), pp. 6-23). The modernization is the violent crimes will initially increase but soon after decline as democracies mature.
In conjunction with the relationship between criminal justice and democracy and how effective democracies reduce crime rate, democracy also has an absence of war. Observation of an apparent absence of a war between democracies has produced considerable empirical evidence for the liberal proposition that democracies rarely if ever fight with rival or within (Democratizing for peace (Ward, Michael D., and Kristian S. Gleditsch. The American Political Science Review, 92(1), 51-53).
Although democracy suggests that this form of government is more peaceful than aristocratic societies; the transition phase of newly democratic states is especially dangerous. Nascent