India and Brazil are two countries that are widely analyzed for their democratic practices. Their choice may be due to the reforms they have done over the years to become democratic nations. Essentially, India greatly evolved from being a country where women were not allowed to vote or carry out free and fair elections. However, a great barrier to democracy in the country lies in the people’s literacy levels.
Thus, people that participate in the elections in India are required to have a civil education to enable them know what is required for one to be a good leader and what sort of developments are right for them. On the other hand, Brazil has come a long way to emerge a democracy and implement the democratic decisions, given that it was previously under military rule. However, the country tends to suffer from authoritarian rule in some regions. In effect, this essay seeks to analyze how Brazil and India are democratic, and to what extent they are not democratic. Further, the writer will analyze the role of the international community in fostering democracy and how being a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) fosters development.
How India and Brazil Are Democratic
India has positioned itself as the largest democratic country in the world, owing to the fact that a democratic government is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The power of the people of India has been deemed supreme, as everyone participates consciously in the country’s governance (Schmitter and Karl 106). Thus, India has been deemed to have the finest form of democracy. India has also positioned itself in the democratic space since its post-independence period.
The country transitioned to the introduction of suffrage in line with its road to democracy. The British did not allow adults, both male and female, to exercise democratic voting rights in India. The Indian government unsuccessfully tried to enact legislation that would establish a franchise in the year 1935, as it did not go beyond the 10% of its population. The country became free in the year 1947 after several years of British rule. India was then declared a federal democratic republic after it had its new constitution. In 1952, the country held its first democratic election under the universal franchise.
Brazil is also considered one of the largest democracies in the world, boasting of a population of over 100 million. In Brazil, voting is not only a right, but it is also a duty that is expected of every adult eligible as a voter (Schmitter and Karl 106). It is the Parliament and the President that exercise federal authority in the country. The parliament is composed of the senators, who are in the higher chamber and the deputies, who sit in the lower chamber, making Brazil a strong democracy. For instance, President Luis Inaco da Silva was elected in his fourth attempt at the Presidency. Before him was Mr. Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who was a respected sociologist.
On the issue of leadership, it has been long since Brazil had a government that is ruled by generals, based on hierarchy and authority. On the contrary, the current situation in Brazil dictates and gives authority for the rule of law. There are various instances where the rule of law has been implemented Brazil. For instance, presidents have been impeached, and judges have faced arrest in Brazil. Moreover, some dishonest civil servants have faced arrest. This is a pointer to how the country is intolerant to matters of corruption in an attempt to declare Brazil a corruption-free environment.
On the issue of the elections, Brazil has been deemed to conduct free and fair elections. The voting system is comprised of a secret ballot. Moreover, all the citizens of the country have equal voting rights (Schmitter and Karl 104). The person who is declared the president must have gathered the majority of the votes. Consequently, if the results are uncontested or undisputed, they are usually announced a few hours after the voting and the counting process is complete. In essence, Brazil has one of the most modern and equally reliable voting systems in the world.
How India and Brazil are not Democratic
The Indian people did not have the requisite knowledge to understand what democracy was all about. They could not differentiate what was evil and that which was right. It was poverty that had engulfed the country, which constituted about eighty percent of the population that was poor. Moreover, many of the citizens could not differentiate the local and the British rule. Thus, the election of the constitutional office holders was not democratic, as it only looked like a festival. Interestingly, even today the Indian people do not show enough development on this front due to the abject poverty and illiteracy that characterize much of its populace. In effect, this has made India fail concerning democratic development that would bring the desired changes economically, socially, and politically.
Also, there are problems that Brazil encountered in its march to a fully-fledged democracy. Although the country has made the tremendous transition from the authoritarian form of government, Brazil still has a lot to do to ensure that it has a democratic regime that has a well-defined, institutionalized democracy. For instance, the political institutions, particularly the Congress and parties have been associated with exhibiting authoritarian rule as opposed to democratic pillars of the society and the rule of law.
In Brazil, there are still elements of authoritarian political actors that still exist in a government that has been deemed democratic, which is in contrast to their Latin counterparts that have undergone the same process of transition to the road of democracy (Collier and Levitsky 443). Some of the people, notably President Sarney, who served in the military with loyalty, are now the people who exhibit authoritarian tendencies.
Other examples include President Jose Sarney, who had a tenuous claim to the tenancy of the office due to the death of the incumbent, who was the President-elect. Moreover, this was an elected vice-president in an electoral college that was convened by the military. Thus, military rule is still evident in Brazil as it retains the veto power over very fundamental legislation of the country (Collier and Levitsky 444). Moreover, the public or party debates are not considered in the main ministries, like economic and planning in the central bank, owing to the bureaucracy that still exists.
Influence of International Communities on Democracy
The influence of the international community on enhancing democracy is high. First, the international community tries to enforce the economic development of countries that are not highly democratic to usher them into a democratic space. Thus, international communities like the UN and UNDP have taken up the initiative of financing development in the countries to foster the freedom of expression needed to promote innovation. It is through these elements that the quality of life for people in both India and Brazil has been improved. Thus, economic development promoted by the international community is meant to yield political freedom, as well as reverse the nature of authority. In effect, the freedom helps to enhance the relationship between both economic and political liberalization.
Can countries develop if they are part of the World Trade Organization?
The ability of countries to develop if they are part of the WTO is debatable. The debate arises from the context that while there are general safeguarding positions that the WTO holds out for these countries, the WTO does little or nothing to promote trade in the countries (Rolland 5). Thus, it is solely the efforts of the developing countries to enhance trade, though they get an easier platform through the WTO.
For instance, the WTO offers a host of provisions and special rights for developing and least developed countries. Further, these provisions ensure that developing countries are not tied to trade concessions they receive from developed countries. Thus, when the developed countries give trade concessions to their least developed counterparts, they should not expect them to make return offers. Consequently, it is not automatic that a developing country will attain unilateral benefits by being a member of the WTO, as this power lies with the preference giving country, which decides the member countries that will receive the preferences (Rolland 7)
In conclusion, both India and Brazil have a long way before they can claim the title of fully fledged democracies. While both countries exercise features of democracy like fair elections, voting among the citizens, and the government making independent decisions to some extent, there are still influences of class in India and military rule in Brazil. However, the international community is making democracy easier through aiding in economic development, thus exposing citizens to political and economic freedom.
Works Cited
Collier, David, and Steven Levitsky. “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.” World Politics 49.3 (1997): 430-451. Print.
Rolland, Sonia. Development at the WTO, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
Schmitter, Philippe, and Terry Lynn Karl. “What Democracy is… and is Not.” Journal of Democracy 2.3 (1991): 75-88. Print.