To speak of democracy is important to define it in its entirety, because currently all countries, without exception, have in their constitutions that word.
intuited then there are certain countries in the world to deceive us. For example, China's first article states that "The Republic of China is a socialist state of people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on worker-peasant alliance. The socialist system is the basic system of the People's Republic of China "The contradiction is obvious. In the first instance to declare an ideology as the only form within the government, suggests that any differently be rejected (dictatorship where you look). The second is the paradox of the "people's democratic dictatorship." Which is it then, we dictatorship or democracy? The answer is this: what he calls China's democracy, not merely a synonym of the tyranny of the majority, where what matters is the popular consultation through elections. The second is the centralization of power from the standpoint of government and administration. Alexis
Toceville on this point states that "If you ever founded a democratic republic like the United States in a country where the power of an already established and had only been set, in customs and laws, administrative centralization, not afraid to speak, in such a republic, despotism would become more intolerable than any of the absolute monarchies of Europe. Would need to go to Asia to find something to compare "
Taking this clear, it could be surprising to the point of asking, how can China have a socialist dictatorship, is at the same time the second world power. How is it that Marxist dogma literally says "to centralize all instruments of production owned by the state" which obviously prevents economic progress and yet its economy is strong. The short answer is that the Chinese are all liars. Between the years 1978-1979 there was a case of a Chinese farmer who had a communal farm, but decided to split between them equally. This brought them to earn more than the rest of the communal farms. Diang Xiaoping's government to realize this "incident" decided to carry out economic reforms, which allowed entry to the free market, thus loosening their Marxist dogmas. Behold the response of Chinese economic growth, there is no such socialism. In a conversation
Andres Oppenheimer with a Chinese government official raises the question What is left of communism in China? The answer is
"We're still communists. What happens is that communism is an ideal long-term, which may take two or three hundred years to achieve (...) During the fifties, our perception of communism was not right, made the mistake of adopting policies to implement of communism overnight. However, as I said Marx, communism should occur in a society that has reached the material welfare (...) We are building socialism with Chinese characteristics. And what characterizes this stage, our decision is pragmatism " In short, China aims to achieve communism through ergo capitalist measures are liars, you'll note the seam that the government will not admit that it is capitalism, simply because they want to leave power. He knows that if you admit you jumped the talanquera, its citizens would eventually require reforms in the political arena to get a true democracy. These reforms are causing the country's economic progress, which responds to the first element of the question. No need for a democracy to a country's economic development, however it is essential to free markets and economic openness.
Cuba, by contrast, is a dictatorship entirely socialist, with a U.S. economic embargo and few openings (if not any) economic or out or internally. However their level of literacy is high. The fact that education in Cuba is good, does not make it a developed country. However, if the dictatorship in Cuba were to fall, relations with the United States would give a 180 °, with 70,000 doctors and a good level of health development, it might even solve the same problems to Floridians of Cuban descent to a pension $ 900, which would allow Cubans to start living well and stable, Cuba requires, on the contrary, democracy and technology for progress.
This is not a dream while the Castro brothers are in power. Professor García Larralde said "One advantage of enormous significance in the adoption of category typical of neo-communist discourse is that it allows to display an image made up in moral superiority over its opponents. All ideology has the ideas, opinions and values \u200b\u200bfrom which their followers can differentiate what is considered right from wrong is supposed, ie will always have a moral stamp "What this means is that no matter which Cuban people live in squalid conditions, implement some element capitalism is immoral. It is clear that Cuba is behind in all aspects. It has not happened in the assimilation of the era of ideologies ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the imminent failure of communism. Does not exist except in countries with high delay as Cuba, the struggle of ideologies.
Samuel Huntington cites the words of Francis Fukuyama in his book Clash of Civilizations in saying "«... the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. "Since then, he said, can be to some conflicts in parts of the Third World, but the conflict has ended on a global scale, not only in Europe. "It is precisely the non-European world" which have been major changes, particularly in China and the Soviet Union. The war of ideas is over. There may still adherents of Marxism-Leninism "in places like Managua, Pyongyang, and Cambridge, Massachusetts", but on the whole liberal democracy has triumphed That does not mean the end of war. The difference is that wars will be in the future, not by ideological convictions, but for reasons, ethnic rivalries, border, no recognition of legal-political space of a nation etc. For example, the internal problems that are suffering the Middle East, with all the crises that are living in dictatorships in those countries.
to gradually close the idea, education, technology and democracy are factors that may be contributing factors in the development of a country. The development of a country can exist without democracy, but dictatorial excesses of disrespect for human rights, political prisoners, non-compliance with established laws and others can not be a symbol of development in its entirety. Education can be high in a country, although this represents progress. As we have seen, education can be high, but not the country itself. It is generally all very relative, Spain, for example, has three elements, and yet his economic policies have been misguided and has at present a great economic crisis of many English unemployed. However, in comparison, for example, Uganda, the country English is in the best conditions. This gives us some idea of \u200b\u200bthe three elements together, could help the development of a country, but not 100% sure.
0 comments:
Post a Comment