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

To talk of a consolidated republic is a myth. How far do you agree with this statement - rise ExampleThe research on the practical implications and needs of democracy as developed in the context of this paper has led to the assumption that the existence of a consolidated democracy is not feasible in fact, consolidated democracy should be rather considered as a myth. The above argument is justified in this paper by advertring to the forms of democracy in a series of Mediterranean states France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Malta. The policy-making decisions developed by the governments of these countries in the context of democracy are presented and analyze using a series of relevant examples. The comparison of these practices with those of USA, another country where democracy has been promoted, has verified the assumption that consolidated democracy should be characterized as a myth democracy, as introduced in countries oecumenical, is a political system incorporating elements of democratic behaviour and values which have been combined with the values and ethics of various political teams in smart set for unique(predicate) 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 theoretical 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 approaches 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 equality and fairness for all pile reference is made to the initial aims of democracy, as included in the theoretical framewor k 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, alley & 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 voltage existence of democracy in real life can be explored using two 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 voiceless to be developed in real life there can be no ideal social conditions social turbulences are likely to get along even in countries which social rights and ethics are hi ghly promoted, i.e. social stability cannot exist at least not for a long metre 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