Name; waweru Maureen wangari

Id;640927

Course; political science

Task; term paper

Lecturer; Pauline ndungu

1. Table of contents
2. Introduction- definition of democracy
3. Democracy in western states * United states of America-government and politics * Germany - government and politics

Democracy in African countries * South Africa- government and politics
4. Comparison and contrast between African and western democracy
5. Conclusion
6. Referees

INTRODUCTION
Often do we come across the word democracy people are constantly trying to define it but most do not understand it. It has many definitions but what I term best fit is a government for the people and by the people. It is a form of government in which all eligible citizens are meant to participate equally either directly or indirectly through elected representatives or by establishment of laws in which the society is run.
There are three main types which include direct democracy, presidential democracy and parliament democracy. Any form of democracy tries in its own way to ascertain the will of the people and to bring public affairs into line with it. This can be achieved by direct democracy or by a body of elected representatives. Within the group of representative democracies the focus may be on a strong president which is the presidential democracy or on a strong parliament which is the parliament democracy. As earlier mentioned the question is never on whether there exist some forms of direct participation or of representation but rather on how much importance they are given in a certain system.

Democracy in western states
UNITED STATES
Many long term trends suggest that politics and democracy in the western world are declining. Since the end of the cold war, the crisis has accelerated and become even more visible.
Among this trends are globalisation itself, both as idea and practice; a sustained expansion of financial markets; free trader, symbolised by organisations such as WTO and the NAFTA agreements; and the dotcom industry’s boom. They emerged in the bill Clintons years in the white house (1993-2000). There was general boom in the economy which grew in those years at an average annual rate of 4% while unemployment fell from 6.9 to 4%.

Democracy and respect for human rights have long been central components of U.S. foreign policy. Supporting democracy not only promotes such fundamental American values as religious freedom and worker rights, but also helps create a more secure, stable, and prosperous global arena in which the United States can advance its national interests. In addition, democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others. Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health.
With these goals in mind, the United States seeks to: * Promote democracy as a means to achieve security, stability, and prosperity for the entire world; * Assist newly formed democracies in implementing democratic principles; * Assist democracy advocates around the world to establish vibrant democracies in their own countries; and * Identify and denounce regimes that deny their citizens the right to choose their leaders in elections that are free, fair, and transparent.
The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) is committed to supporting and promoting democracy programs throughout the world. As the nation's primary democracy advocate, DRL is responsible for overseeing the Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF), which was established in 1998 to address human rights and democratization emergencies. DRL uses resources from the HRDF, as well as those allocated to Regional Democracy Funds, to support democratization programs such as election monitoring and parliamentary development.
Over the past quarter-century, a large number of nations have made a successful transition to democracy. Many more are at various stages of the transition. When historians write about U.S. foreign policy at the end of the 20th century, they will identify the growth of democracy--from 30 countries in 1974 to 117 today--as one of the United States' greatest legacies. The United States remains committed to expanding upon this legacy until all the citizens of the world have the fundamental right to choose those who govern them through an ongoing civil process that includes free, fair, and transparent elections.

POLITICS
There are major differences between the political system of the United States and that of most other developed democracies. These include greater power in the upper house of the legislature, a wider scope of power held by the Supreme Court, the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive, and the dominance of only two main parties. Third parties have less political influence in the United States than in other developed country democracies.
The federal entity created by the U.S. Constitution is the dominant feature of the American governmental system. However, most people are also subject to a state government, and all are subject to various units of local government. The latter include counties, municipalities, and special districts.
This multiplicity of jurisdictions reflects the country's history. The federal government was created by the states, which as colonies were established separately and governed themselves independently of the others. Units of local government were created by the colonies to efficiently carry out various state functions. As the country expanded, it admitted new states modeled on the existing ones.
German democracy and German history
There is a popular view that Germans are instinctively authoritarian and uncomfortable with democracy. I think the historical evidence belies that. And I thought that even before the recent remarkable concession by Bundeskanzler Schroeder. But I am afraid that I have to make a longish excursion into history to show what I mean. The history concerned is pretty interesting, though:
Nobody would argue that respect for the individual is as strong in Germany as it is in England but I believe that Germans are not far behind in that respect. Before we go on to the historical data, however, some psychological data might help plant a few seeds of doubt about the conventional view of Germans: Koomen (1973) showed that pre-war Germany did not have characteristically authoritarian child-rearing practices. He concludes:
“Secondary analysis of data concerning periods before and after the war showed that before the war, only differences in parental control with regard to daughters could be demonstrated; parental control concerning sons appeared to be approximately the same in the two countries” The first modern historical fact we need to note is that at the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 Germany was a democracy: And a rather enlightened one at that which took better care of its people than almost any other country at that time did. Wartime propaganda which portrayed the war as the doing of “Kaiser Bill” still lives on but the legal powers of the German monarch were in fact not dissimilar to those of the British monarch. This entry about the Kaiser from the Encyclopedia Britannica is a useful starting point for understanding what actually went on:
William often bombastically claimed to be the man who took the decisions. It is true that the German constitution of 1871 put two important powers in his hands. First, he was responsible for appointing and dismissing the chancellor, the head of the civil government. Admittedly, the chancellor could only govern if he could get a majority in the Reichstag, but this limitation on the emperor’s freedom of choice was more apparent than real, because most members of the Reichstag felt it their loyal duty to support whomever the Kaiser appointed. Secondly, the German Army and Navy were not responsible to the civil government, so that the Kaiser was the only person in Germany who was in a position to see that the policy followed by the soldiers and sailors was in line with that pursued by the civil servants and diplomats. Thus, British journalists and publicists had some justification when during and immediately after the war they portrayed the Kaiser as Supreme War Lord, and therefore the man who, more than anyone else, decided to make war.
As time passes, however, historians are increasingly coming to see William as an accomplice rather than an instigator. In the years after 1890 the German upper and middle classes would have wanted a larger say in the world’s councils no matter who had been on the throne, and this “urge to world power” was almost bound to bring them into collision with some of the existing great powers. The chief real criticism to be made of the Kaiser is that, instead of seeing this danger and using his influence to restrain German appetites, he shared those appetites and indeed increased them, particularly by his determination to give Germany a navy of which it could be proud. He was a quick-witted, well-meaning man who went with the stream instead of having the vision and strength of judgment to stand out against it.
I might add that the Britannica’s comment that the German parliament felt duty-bound to support whatever Chancellor (Prime Minister) the Kaiser chose is a gross exaggeration. Even the brilliant Chancellor Bismarck had a lot of trouble with German parliaments. Germany was undoubtedly in 1914 as much a democracy as the Britain it went to war with. And that democracy continued after the war—so that Hitler himself came to power by essentially democratic means So a democracy that was interrupted only by the 12 year rule of Hitler is a pretty persistent democracyPrussia
Those who know their German history, however, will often reply that it is not so much Hitler as his Prussian predecessors who show Germans as not being democratically inclined. The Prussians were the people who created the modern German nation in the first place. Roughly speaking, Prussia is the Northeastern part of Germany which, over the course of the 19th century, gradually came to dominate the whole of Germany. And the Prussian army had a famous tradition of requiring that its troops be Kadaver gehorsam (corpselike obedient) so how that squares with my claim of a Germanic respect for individual liberty does at first seem very difficult to explain indeed.
Perhaps the first thing to note about the Prussians, however, is that they were not originally Germans. They were a Baltic people until conquered by the Teutonic Knights and the Old Prussian (Baltic) language did not die out until the 17th century. The second thing to note is that the militarized and bueaucratized nature of the Prussian State was largely the the creation of one man—King Frederick William I, who ruled from 1720 onwards. And although Frederick William was undoubtedly German, he may have been assisted in setting up his militarized State by the large non-German element in his subjects.
So Frederick’s Prussia showed that militarism and individualism can coexist. Making it happen is perhaps a difficult trick and perhaps it is a trick that only Germanic peoples can manage but Frederick showed that even extremes of both (for the times) can coexist. The third thing to note is that rigid obedience to orders was NOT a requirement higher up the chain of command in the Prussian army. The famous Prussian general and military theorist, Clausewitz (1976), is clear that an innovative, flexible, opportunistic, improvisatory strategy is of utmost importance among military commanders. Kadaver gehorsamwas, in other words, even in the military context a strictly limited requirement. Germans have always been good military men and the strict obedience to orders of the ordinary soldier is an age-old military ideal.

AFRICAN STATES AND THERE DEMOCRACY
South Africa
South Africa’s advent to democracy was ushered through the 1933 interim consititution, drawn up through negotiations among various political parties, culminating in the countries first non-racial election in 1994.
All legally eligible south Africans were able to cast there vote for the first time on 27 april 1994 to mark the end of an apartheid rule and establish new constitutional order.
The road to democracy in south Africa wa marked by centuries of racial and economic discrimination and oppression as well as an unyieliding sacrifice and resistance of the oppressed peoples, together with a minority of their white compatriots. Today south Africa is a new society built on a foundation of freedom and democracy.
In order to mark this 20yrs of democracy it is important to reflect on some of the key issues/features of the countrys young democracy. This feature focuses on a range of aspects such as social economic and health policies; formation of new poitical parties; establishment of institutions uch as the independent electoral commission, public protectors office, labour court, equality court; and major events such as 2010 fifa world cup and so on.
Politics
The republic of south Africa is a parliamentary representative democratic republic. The president of south Africa, serves as both head of the head of state and head of government-in the same manner as prime ministers of other nations. The president is elected by by the nation assembly and must enjoy the confidence of the the assembly in order to remain in office. South Africans also elect provincial legistratures each of the countries nine provinces
Since the end of apartheid in 1990s the African national congress ANC has dominated south African politics. It is the ruling party of the legislature as well aseight of the nine provinces
The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature. Government is three-tiered, with representatives elected at the national, provincial and local levels.

Comparison between African democracy and western democracy * in western countries in there democracy they respect and accord there citizens the bill of human rights unlike African states which take it less seriously. * In western countries there democracy is free and liberal while in African states there democracies tend to be dictatorial. * In African countries citizens do not know how to exercise there democracy due to illetracy levels while in western countries a good number of people understand and exercise there democracy. * Lack of funds in African countries unlike the western countries which are wealthy
Comparison
* Both choose their leaders by either balloting or representatives * Both have a leadership structure * In both development of democracy is a gradual process.
Conclusion
Democracy is a new thing in the world; well-developed forms of it have been in practise less than a century. We are still learning what it is and how to operate it. A democracy in which there are second class citizens for all citizens. A reality in which, as the result of the as result of long term behaviour of the state, one state.

Referees
Corrin,j.p(2002) catholic intellectuals and the challenge of democracy
Wood,G.S(1993).the radicals of theamerican revolution
Understanding politics by Thomas m. madgstadt Adams, the power of in American history,pp127-151