To talk of a consolidated democracy is a myth. How far do you agree Essay

To talk of a unify state is a myth. How far do you agree with this statement - Essay ExampleThe look on the practical implications and needs of commonwealth as veritable in the circumstance of this paper has guide to the assumption that the existence of a consolidated country is not feasible in fact, consolidated democracy should be rather considered as a myth. The higher up argument is justified in this paper by referring to the forms of democracy in a series of Mediterranean states France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Malta. The political decisions developed by the governments of these countries in the stage setting of democracy are presented and analyze using a series of relevant examples. The comparison of these practices with those of USA, anformer(a) ground where democracy has been promoted, has verified the assumption that consolidated democracy should be characterized as a myth democracy, as introduced in countries worldwide, is a political system incorporating el ements of participatory behaviour and determine which have been combined with the values and morals of various political teams in order for specific political interests to be promoted. 2. Democracy consolidated democracy, characteristics and forms In order to understand the reasons for the non-feasibility of consolidated democracy it would be necessary to refer primarily to the rules and the ethics of democracy as a conjectural framework. Then the concept of consolidated democracy would be explained and analyzed making clear the reasons for which the specific political system is not applicable in practical terms. 2.1. Theories on democracy Through the decades, different overturees have been used by theorists in order to explain the context and the priorities of democracy as a political system which should be promoted in all countries worldwide ensuring comparability and fairness for all people reference is made to the initial aims of democracy, as included in the theoretica l framework of the specific political system. In accordance with Harrison (1995) the key rule of democracy would be summarized as follows the citizen body as a whole meets to decide what to do (Harrison 14) referring to a practice related to the Athenian democracy. On the other hand, Lane & Ersson (2003) notes that a distinction should be made between real democracy (i.e. real life democracy) and the ideal democracy, a concept related to justice (Lane & Ersson 2003). It is explained that the potential existence of democracy in real life can be explored using deuce important questions a) what are the conditions for democratic stability and b) what are the outcomes of a democratic regime? (Lane & Ersson 24). It is made clear that the use of the above two questions is helpful in order to realize why democracy is quite difficult to be developed in real life there can be no ideal friendly conditions affable turbulences are likely to appear even in countries which social rights and et hics are highly promoted, i.e. social stability cannot exist at least not for a long time on the other hand, the benefits of a democratic regime are quite difficult to be set as a priority by governments worldwide in this context, it is quite unlikely that the public interest is set above all interests even in countries where the interests of citizens are of high importance for the political decisions. A similar approach can be identified in the