I have a philosophy paper to write and my topic is "Is it right to force democracy on other countries" I need to find example of philosophical theories made by philosophers that either go against or for this question. I would really appreciate any type of help on how to approach this question and I would also appreciate the help. Thank You

The issue with democracy is that it will easily return to old forms if that is the peoples desires, since they will allow it to happen. We see it all the time in areas where we set up governments.

Democracy ( of course that is not the US form of government we are republic) never works well, unless it is fought far and desired by the people.

Do you have any examples of any philosophers that maybe oppose this idea or agree with it. It would really help. Thank You!

Here's one:

"Plato took a dim view of democracy. To Plato, it made no sense that we should proceed to put people in charge who have shaky, or, worse yet, no philosophical positions. A 'democratic' system turns up people to govern on the basis of what the majority of the voters say, a majority which when compared to the number of citizens (non-voting included) is likely in fact to be a minority of people who have no plans, no answers other than that necessary to get themselves elected. Plato may have been right in his views on democracy; the difficulty is Plato's avowed and stated belief that men were unequal to one another. I say unequal, but that is putting it on a too charitable basis. To Plato society was to break down to those few who were to be the philosopher kings, and the rest of us, who were to be treated like labouring beasts of the field. The Platonic view of man is one that is in complete accord with the view of the socialist." --from Plato. (http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Plato.htm)

When I Googled "philosophers democracy" (without quote marks), I got all sorts of interesting hits. Do that and/or go to your local public library for more information from the philosophy encyclopedia, etc. Check into Ayn Rand's Objectivism too.

Thank You! I am looking into that at the moment. But, I am still having trouble approaching this topic in a way that makes sense I have considered looking in many different aspects and now I feel that I have many ideas but there is no way that they can flow together or even make sense together nicely. For example, I was looking into the idea of militarism and the U.S. basically looking into the idea that America has gotten addicted to War and how democracy is used as an excuse to go to war. Then, I also looked at the concept of Totalitarianism but I am still not sure how to approach it. Can you please help me.

Why can't you just answer the assigned question? Why do you have to wander off onto side topics?

How long is the paper supposed to be?

Yeah, I mean I understand what you are saying but the point of this paper is to have theories that philosophers have said to in a sense be your evidence or proofs. And, it is very difficult to find philosophers that have a direct opinion to this topic. So, the reason I am kind of wondering off to other topics is because they have more proof. Right now, I am having trouble finding a clear idea around this topic because we have to not only list the pros but also the cons. It is kind of confusing. The paper has to be around eight pages.

Only eight pages? Piece of cake! (I was thinking you had to whip up 30 pages or more.)

What about chewing around on this sentence:

"Men did not evolve into robots; they did not come to possess the independent spirit, so characteristic of man, by serving others; man came to be the superior being, that he clearly is, because of the exercise of free choice, one of the essential ingredients in the evolutionary process." (from the Plato link I posted earlier)

You're throwing in so many related ideas that you are going to miss making the point that you are supposed to make. And yes, there are whole bunches of philosophers that are, for instance, against the idea that one country should not force another into something such as democracy. Of course, the philosophers don't SAY it that way, but Ayn Rand is big on individualism, so that works into free choice. Emerson and Transcendentalism emphasized individualism, self-reliance, and rejection of traditional authority. (The Classical Essayists. (http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Literary/BiosEssayists.htm#Emerson))

Now, what do free choice and individualism have to do with democracy? Do an Intro and define democracy first.

So you're saying that I should focus my paper on free choice and individualism and relate it to democracy. Uhhmmm, that is interesting I never thought of it that way. By, doing that then I could answer this question through these two arguments. I kind of understand now. Thank You So Much! You are literally my life saver. See, I am in my last year of high school and I am currently getting a very high mark in Philosophy so I was very scared that I would bring it down because I did not know how to approach this topic.

Ohh, can you give me some of the names of the philosophers that are against the idea because I wanted to research them. So I can get a clear understanding! You are truly a Wonder Girl!

Do you know how to build an outline? If so, do that, so you can keep your thoughts in order. Also, keep this simple. Don't scatter your thoughts and arguments all over the map.

Write a thesis statement that will be in your Intro paragraph. The rest of the outline (and paper) will prove or disprove (or both) that thesis statement. Do you have to use both positive and negative proofs from philosophers, or just go one way (pos or neg)?

I have to use both (positive and negative) arguments.

If I had a dollar for every paper I ever wrote in h.s. and college and grad school, I'd be able to buy out Donald Trump (maybe). The best thing I ever learned was how to write a good outline. We did that around 4th or 5th grade, and the skill has served me well throughout the years.

I gave you a link to Plato. Read more about his philosophy, especially regarding free choice and individualism. Check into Ayn Rand, the Transcendentalists (Emerson, Carlyle, Wordsworth, and Emerson's friend Thoreau), Nietzsche, and of course Kierkegaard. Check into Camus and Sartre too, just in case you can use them for this paper. Start with Wikipedia perhaps to get a good summary of the various philosophers and what they believed.

On the other hand, "Spinoza denies free-will and establishes strict determinism. Human willing is determined by another cause, that by another cause, and thus ad infinitum. Man has the wrong notion that he is free, because he is unable to know the causes that direct his will."

Do not wander around, but define terms and use examples to make your case clean and clear.

Check into Durkheim and his ideas on anomie. Also, read up on Weber and Marx.

Think individualism vs. social determinism.

So your saying to relate social determinism which means that what determines a persons behavior does not depend on their genetic foundation but rather the people around them. Thus, making democracy the ultimate power because an individual has been 'brainwashed' by society that they are unable to think for themselves and making them go along with everyone else into believing that democracy is the ultimate form of government and it should be forced on the world. I don't know if I got what you where saying?

So your saying to relate social determinism which means that what determines a persons behavior does not depend on their genetic foundation but rather the people around them. Thus, making democracy the ultimate power because an individual has been 'brainwashed' by society that they are unable to think for themselves and making them go along with everyone else into believing that democracy is the ultimate form of government and it should be forced on the world.
Yeah, something like that -- social determinism is the excuse for forcing democracy, whereas individualism is the reason for leaving other countries alone and allowing them to have free will and be self determining.

You're going to need 30 pages for this.

Make a list --

Individualism = no forced democracy = philosophers t, u, v, w, x, y, z

Social determinism = forced democracy = philosophers a, b, c, d, e, f, g

Or some such.

Ok! I am so excited now! I was reading somewhere that these are two questions I should be thinking about "Are freedom and democracy the same thing?" and "Will democracy imposed by force guarantee the same thing?" Do you think that I am jumping all over the place again?

Sorry I meant "Will democracy imposed by force guarantee peace?"

Ok! I am so excited now! I was reading somewhere that these are two questions I should be thinking about "Are freedom and democracy the same thing?" and "Will democracy imposed by force guarantee the same thing?" Do you think that I am jumping all over the place again?
No, it sounds like you are still in the ballpark and are running toward home plate for a home run.

Now, think back on what you were considering writing about. See the difference in where you are now? You are headed toward clarity of thought and concise writing, not flopping around like a landed fish.

Ok! So I am heading in the right direction! I should be focusing on individualism and self determinism those should be my main points that I can built the essay on.

Haaaa, I am writing what you are saying down on a piece of paper and building an outline like you said!

I have a philosophy paper to write and my topic is "Is it right to force democracy on other countries" I need to find example of philosophical theories made by philosophers that either go against or for this question. I would really appreciate any type of help on how to approach this question and I would also appreciate the help. Thank You

Hi Sandy,

As usual Wondergirl has put forward good information and sources.

I would add just a little. The question is of a very general nature and this is evident from the words used in the question, e.g. 'right' 'force' and perhaps even 'democracy'. The word 'right' could meaning anything from moral right to historical rights and anything in between. By the same token 'force' could be understood in a variety of ways. The word 'democracy' is generally understood, but you should still define your terms for the purpose of the essay. For example, democracy being of the elected parliamentary type ( assuming this is how you want to define democracy for the purpose of your essay).

On this basis I would carefully define these keys words in your introduction. Your definitions are of course important because they will serve as the basis of your arguments.

You can attach any meaning you like to key words provided you have said how they are to be understood. This is because these words are of a general nature. Put forward definitions and stick to those definitions throughout the essay. Doing this will also help organize your thinking.

Regards

Tut

Would this last paragraph that I was reading be part of Social Determinism

Whatever its virtues, democracy is not freedom. As the 19th Century French philosopher Alexis d'Toqueville warned in his classic Democracy In America, a democracy can be just as tyrannical as a dictatorship once the voters decide to vote themselves money from the treasury.

Democracy is a method of deciding who shall rule. It does not determine the morality of the resulting government. At best, democracy means that government has popular support. But popular support is no guarantee that government will protect your freedom.

In a democracy, if most voters support freedom of speech, press, religion, association and enterprise, their elected government will probably respect such freedoms.

But if voters prefer that governments impose a welfare state and confiscatory taxes, ban unapproved drugs, impose censorship, imprison critics, seize the property of unpopular groups, torture prisoners, and draft the young, a democratic government will likely grant those wishes also.

Self determinism and individualism vs. social determinism (forced democracy)

Would this last paragraph that I was reading be part of Social Determinism
Yes, but it clouds your discussion. Stick to the basics. You have only eight pages and tons of philosophers who speak to your basic idea. Don't get confusing and messy.

I'm thinking de Tocqueville's Democracy in America discusses why republican representative democracy has succeeded in the United States while failing in so many other places. That might be food for another paper. Can you link it to this one?

I hope it does not sound confusing when I finish the paper because right now it does not seem that I will be able to write out a proper paper. But, I guess that is what researching is about first understand everything you have to know on your topic and then when you have a clear understanding begin to write.

Yeah, I think your right that would be food for another table.

I hope it does not sound confusing when I finish the paper because right now it does not seem that i will be able to write out a proper paper. But, I guess that is what researching is about first understand everything you have to know on your topic and then when you have a clear understanding begin to write.
Make your outline. If you do that right, it will write your paper for you.

Introduction (thesis statement and definition of terms)
I. Individualism
A. Philosopher T
1. beliefs
2. quotes
B. Philosopher U
1. beliefs
2. quotes
etc.

II. Social Determinism
A. Philosopher A
1. beliefs
2. quotes
B. Philosopher B
1. beliefs
2. quotes
etc.

III. Discussion

IV. Conclusion


Or some such. Or make a chart instead of an outline, but keep your ideas and researched info in good order.

You have plenty of philosophers on both sides, so you may want to avoid philosophers like Machiavelli and Hobbes who believed in the inherent selfishness of the individual (individualism) which led them to adopt a strong central power as the only means of preventing the disintegration of the social order (social determinism).

See how muddy that makes your discussion -- unless, of course, you want to add philosophers like that who swing both ways.

When you wrote discussion does that mean my stand on which side I agree with

Yeah, I think I'll avoid those particular philosophers just because I think it will get messy.

I have a philosophy paper to write and my topic is "Is it right to force democracy on other countries" I need to find example of philosophical theories made by philosophers that either go against or for this question. I would really appreciate any type of help on how to approach this question and I would also appreciate the help. Thank You

As to your question about forcing democracy on others, read the daily papers. Russia and Iraq are prime current examples.

It took the West 1500 years to work itself into "democracy". So, no, democracy cannot be forced onto societies. They must gradually absorb what it means and its principles. Tribal societies cannot change overnight.

when you wrote discussion does that mean my stand on which side i agree with
Discussion is where you tie everything together to prove your thesis. You bring in each philosopher to show how each proves your point. You've already discussed each one in some detail, so now hit the high point for each to prove the social determinism or the individualism. The Discussion pulls everything (all previous points) together for the reader.

The Conclusion is the summary and restatement of the thesis.

When is this due?

Are you more comfortable with this paper now?

I am kind of comfortable with this paper. Although, I am still finding it hard to relate social determinism to this topic. Right now I am reading Nietzsche and his ideas of individualism.

The paper is not due in 3 weeks. But, we are having a discussion in class (seminar) on topics and on wed. I have to present this topic. Its kind of like you said I have to present a outline and it has to be 10 min long.

I am kinda of comfortable with this paper. Although, I am still finding it hard to relate social determinism to this topic. Right now I am reading Nietzsche and his ideas of individualism.
Social determinism = we need democracy (government) because we need to take care of each other; we're all in this together

Would this be useful for indivdualism
"Pericles himself made it clear that the laws must guarantee equal justice “to all alike in their private disputes�; but he went further. “We do not feel called upon,� he said, “to nag at our neighbor if he chooses to go his own way.�

Wasn't Pericles pro democracy?

Wonder Girl would it be terribly rude of me to go to sleep. I have been up since 8 studying and now my eyes have gotten so heavy that I am starting to fall asleep. Do you think we can keep discussing this tomorrow? If you have time because I think discussing it with you is really helping me. Thank you so much x a billion for your help. I'll talk to you tomorrow hopefully :)

P.S I'll wait till you respond before going to bed.

To be sure! Go to bed! I'm a night owl.

Sleep well, and see you tomorrow.

Thanks so much. See you tomorrow!

Let's begin to pull this together.

"Is it right to force democracy on other countries?"

You have only eight pages. The Intro (and thesis statement, definition of terms) may take up most of the first page. Figure out how you want to lay out the rest of the paper 1) with the "yes" discussion taking up, say, three pages, and the "no" discussion taking up three pages, and then the conclusion at the end on page 8, or 2) you can name your philosophers and the quotes that apply for "yes" and for "no" on four pages, and then throw them all together into a discussion section on pages 6 and 7, then the conclusion on page 8. I personally would go with choice 1) -- sounds more organized and cohesive.

Also, choose your philosophers for each discussion. We've talked about some, but be sure to use those your teacher would approve of. As Athos mentioned, some think Rand was the cat's meow, and others think she was a kook. The Transcendentalists were essayists (and philosophers in a way), but your teacher may spit on them. So be careful whom you choose to be in your paper.

I'd chose three or four philosophers for each side of my discussion, depending on how much value you can get out of each one and how much room you have in your paper.

A) Yes - social determinism, the residents of that country need to give up their old ways and become like "us," must be unified as a whole country, unified in purpose of all for one. Decide on which three or four philosophers fall into this, find quotes that apply, and fit them into the discussion.

B) No - individualism/self-determinism, the residents of the country are a unique people with their own culture(s) and must be left alone to continue to live as they have always lived (autonomy). Also, changing styles of governing will take generations with probably great resistance and possibly ultimate failure, so is it worth the struggle? Decide on which three or four philosophers fall into this, find quotes that apply, and fit them into the discussion.

Conclusion, restatement of thesis, summing up, etc.

Whaddya think?

I was also thinking of maybe including utilitarianism as part of the reason why they force democracy. How does that sound ?

Okay. I can go with that. Philosophical utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill) says that an action is right if it tends to promote "happiness" -- e.g. human rights, social programs to help the least of those among us, etc. The opposite would be egoism, self-motivation, self-interest, individualism, self-determinism.

Do you think that is a good idea? Then I can use that as one of my main arguments for forcing democracy. Would that mean that I could also use the social determinism

Sounds good to me.

I thought social determinism was already part of the paper.

Okay!

Is there any other points on why we should not force democracy on other countries. In terms of a philosophical example.

Is there any other points on why we should not force democracy on other countries. In terms of a philosophical example.
What reasons do you have so far?

Hi! Wonder Girl
Well, I am almost done my essay! I just have to write one more paragraph for my last point but sadly I can't think of any. My other points are self determinism and individualism

Do you have a conclusion?

What about the argument that democracy isn't necessarily the best thing since sliced bread, that other forms of government can work well for countries?

It's beyond individualism and social-determination. In fact, it's the thing that should be considered first, before the idea of individualism vs. self-determinism kicks in. I think it's a good way to end your discussion of the two points. Or even make it the conclusion.

How would I go about writing that like what kinds of theories would I use to support this idea

Here's one --

Technological determinism is a reductionist theory that presumes that a society's technology drives the development of its social structure and cultural values. The term is believed to have been coined by Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), an American sociologist.

Use tech determinism as a third possibility, and then conclude with a summarization and the final comment that democracy isn't necessarily the best thing since sliced bread, that other forms of government can work well for countries. Or something like that.

What do you think?

I like it but I think that I have to research it

Now, I only have to do the conclusion and introduction but I'm not sure how to go about doing them. I wanted to use the example of saying that democracy should not be forced and it is similar to a this scenario imagine someone holding a gun to your head and telling you to learn to like seafood;you can force someone to eat it,but not to like it,and chances are good that they'll stop eating as soon as the gun is taken away.

I like it but I think that I have to research it
Definitely! And it's not directly opposed to either of the other two.

Now, i only have to do the conclusion and introduction but i'm not sure how to go about doing them. I wanted to use the example of saying that democracy should not be forced and it is similar to a this scenario imagine someone holding a gun to your head and telling you to learn to like seafood;you can force someone to eat it,but not to like it,and chances are good that they'll stop eating as soon as the gun is taken away.
Sounds like tribal Afghanistan being forced to become a unified republic and a democracy. As soon as the US leaves, guess what will happen.

Haa that's true

The downside to tech determinism is that it focuses on technology and I would not know how to tackle this topic. Do you possibly have any other ideas.

And where do you think Iraq is going with the Sunnis and Shiites "leading" the country? (I won't even mention the Kurds.)

I know I am asking too much but do you think that you can maybe explain to me of how your thinking about tech determinism

I know i am asking too much but do you think that you can maybe explain to me of how your thinking about tech determinism
Individualism says be tough and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, no matter who you have to trample. Social determinism says be kind like Jesus and help the least among you. Tech determinism says technology, or technological advances, is the central causal element in processes of social change, one that drives forward the government, the economy, the population, production, etc. with ricochet effects.

This is off the top of my head (with help from Wikipedia), so maybe it's worth exploring, or maybe you hate it. Maybe there's another "determinism" that can be used.

I am not sure. I am so screwed I am almost done and this last point is getting me frustrated because you have no idea what to write about. And it is taking way too long to think of something to write about. This essay is due on Friday and I was hoping on finishing my introduction,conclusion, and second paragraph today so all I would have to do for tomorrow is edit the essay and put on finishing touches.

Sorry but for "u" I meant me

How about the theory of democratization?

Tell me more (briefly). How would that fit?

I'm "researching." Yeah, that could work as a third possibility for promoting democracy and should be easy to throw in.

Here's an abstract from a paper on the subject --

It has been a venerable proposition among liberals that trade will facilitate the spread of democracy in the world. Despite the long history behind this proposition going back to the 18th century, we are still quite ignorant of the exact mechanism through which trade can foster democracy.

By combining a two-factor two-country model of international trade and a political model of strategic optimization by dictatorial rulers in face of the threat of anti-regime movements from below, this paper proposes a theory of democratization in an era of globalization. To put it succinctly, trade liberalization beyond a certain point will compel the dictatorial rulers to relax political coercion; the resulted political relaxation will expand the room for the development of democratic institutions under authoritarian regimes. This theory is firmly corroborated by empirical data for the period of 1981-2002.

As you edit, be sure to watch out for mixing up self determinism and social determinism.

self determinism = individualism = free choice

Yeah, I think I got the hang of the two theories of self determinism and individualism. But, I am having a bit of hard time trying to understand my third point. See my teacher wants us to do a philosophy paper right the only think is that instead of being a five paragraph essay it is a 6. so it goes like this intro-body#1,Body#2,Body#3, Rebuttal (basically state what the other side says and shoot it down), and conclusion. So I finished body 1 and 2 and rebuttal. My conclusion won't be that difficult it is just the last argument and intro is what is kind of getting me stuck.

Yeah, I think I got the hang of the two theories of self determinism and individualism.
Wait a minute! Those two are the same thing.

It's self determinism (individualism, free choice) vs. social determinism.

Self vs. social.

Intro
Body#1
Body#2
Body#3
Rebuttal (basically state what the other side says and shoot it down)
Conclusion
Intro presents your case and includes your thesis statement.

Body#1? Topic

Body#2? Topic

Body#3? Topic

Rebuttal (what vs. what?)

Conclusion restates the thesis and summarizes your arguments and decides if there is a "winner" (or not).

Mmm Here Is An Idea...

Key Words.
Forcing
Democracy...
They Can't Be Used Together Really. So The Theory Is An Oxymoron.

You Can't Force Democracy. If It Is Forced, It Ceases Being Democracy And Becomes A Dictatorship.

On a side note, I always preferred the '5para essay' format.

Intro

Paragraph 1
2
3
4
Etc as needed.

Conclusion.

I use a web design. A circle with the main theme of the paper in the center, and then branches off the circle with different points you want to make in the paper.

I am having a bit of trouble writing the 1st paragraph I have tried but so far it sounds bad

I am having a bit of trouble writing the 1st paragraph I have tried but so far it sounds bad
What's your first sentence of it?

Democratization is a process in which a political system becomes a democracy.

I would really appreciate your help because I am so stressed and this point is getting me frustrated.

Democratization is a transition from some system [give examples?] to a more democratic one.

But, I think I still need to understand how democratization should not be imposed.

Does that have to be said in the first sentence? If so, it can be said as an appositive to "democratization."

Democratization, the transition to a more democratic political regime, [should not be imposed -- to be said in your words].

OK so what types of proofs should I use?

ok so what types of proofs should I use?
You mean examples? Well, think about the world during the past 20 years (or longer). Think about countries which are now democratic and what they were before that.

I was going to use the example of France during the sixteenth century and eighteenth century and relate it to modern day Iraq. But I am not completely positive if I should use it. This is what I read on it.
France's history from the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries demonstrates how institutions fail when they prove unable to manage conflicts or adapt to pressures. Religious disputes from the Reformation, social and economic changes, and external military pressures challenged regimes across Europe. France under Cardinal Richelieu and Louis XIV responded by developing a centralized royal bureaucracy to mobilize resources and concentrate authority. War had already expanded the responsibilities of royal officials France at the expense of both local institutions and the old military classes, while failure of the Fronde revolt in the 1750s left no alternate authority. Absolutism met challenges that had undermined the older partnership between rulers and social estates, and it worked well enough to provide an appealing model of rational, efficient royal governance that other European rulers copied. Representative government seemed backward and an impediment to progress when measured against the modernizing efforts to absolutist regimes. The fragility of the absolutist state only became apparent as financial crises and forceful popular resistance to state policy emerged during the 1780s.

Financial crisis undermined absolutism in France, but the relationship between public opinion and the state played a crucial role in the government capacity to mobilize resources. French rulers declined to call an Estates General between 1614 and 1789 because such assemblies inevitably led to trouble. While some provincial estates and judicial parlements advised the crown and occasionally acted as a venue for expressing public opinion, these bodies' narrow focus limited their impact. Public opinion thus emerged as a political category in France from the gap created when representative institutions failed to provide an outlet of criticism and discontent. It acted as an abstract category of authority invoked to give positions the legitimacy that an absolutist political order could not provide. Because only the king could legitimately decide questions on behalf of the community, absolutism precluded a public politics beyond the court. The notion of government as private royal business made unauthorized discussion illegal, but the French crown failed to stop debate, and political contestation forced the government to argue its own case. If French rulers minded public opinion for lack of an alternative, they failed to give it a stabilizing institutional role. Political culture in eighteenth-century France and other absolutist states therefore tended towards polarization. Disengaged from practical concerns and lacking a political role, public opinion under absolutism fostered a culture of critique that turned on society itself.

I think you need modern examples -- and there should be plenty. This was on Yahoo!Answers four years ago (so some changes) --

Albania: Emerging democracy
Andorra: Parliamentary democracy
Angola: Multiparty republic
Argentina: Multiparty republic
Armenia: Multiparty republic
Aruba: Parliamentary democracy
Australia: Democratic Constitutional Monarchy
Austria: Federal republic
The Bahamas: Parliamentary Representative Democratic Monarchy
Bangladesh: Parliamentary democracy
Barbados: Parliamentary democracy
Belgium: Parliamentary democracy under a constitunional monarchy
Belize: Parliamentary democracy
Benin: Multiparty republic
Bermuda: Parliamentary British overseas territory with internal self-government
Bolivia: Multiparty republic
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Emerging republic
Botswana: Parliamentary republic
Brazil: Federative Republic
Bulgaria: Parliamentary democracy
Burkina Faso: Parliamentary democracy
Canada: Parliamentary democracy
Cambodia: Multiparty democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Cape Verde: Multiparty republic
Chile: Multiparty republic
Colombia: Multiparty republic
Comoros: Multiparty republic
Cook Islands: Self-governing parliamentary democracy
Costa Rica: Democratic republic
Croatia: Presidantial/Parliamental democracy
Cyprus: Multiparty republic
The Czech Republic: Parliamentary democracy
Denmark: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Dominica: Parliamentary democracy
Dominican: Republic Democracy
Ecuador: Multiparty republic
El Salvador: Multiparty republic
Estonia: Parliamentary republic
Fiji: Multiparty republic
Finland: Multiparty republic
Gabon: Multiparty republic
France: Multiparty republic
Georgia: Multiparty republic
Germany: Multiparty republic
Ghana: Constitutional democracy
Greece: Parliamentary republic
Greenland: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Grenada: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Guatemala: Democratic republic
Guinea-Bissau: Multiparty republic
Guyana: Multiparty republic
Honduras: Democratic republic
Hungary: Parliamentary democracy
Iceland: Democracy
India: Federal Republic
Indonesia: Multiparty Republic
Ireland: Multiparty republic
Israel: Parliamentary democracy
Isle of Man: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Italy: Multiparty republic
Jamaica: Parliamentary democracy
Japan: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Kiribati: Multiparty republic
Kyrgyzstan: Multiparty republic
Latvia: Democracy
Lebanon: Multiparty republic
Lesotho: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Liberia: Emerging democracy
Liechtenstein: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Luxembourg: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Lithuania: Parliamentary democracy
Macedonia: Parliamentary democracy
Malawi: Parliamentary democracy
Malta: Multiparty republic
Marshall Islands: Constitutional government
Mauritius: Parliamentary democracy
Mexico: Federal Republic
Micronesia: Constitutional government
Moldova: Multiparty republic
Monaco: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Mongolia: Mixed parliamentary/presidential
Mozambique: Multiparty republic
Namibia: Multiparty republic
Nauru: Multiparty republic
New Zealand: Democratic Constitutional Monarchy
The Netherlands: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
The Netherlands Antilles: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Nicaragua: Multiparty republic
Niue: Self governing parliamentary democracy
Northern Mariana Islands: Self-governing with locally elected governor, lieutenant governor and legislature
Norway: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Palau: Constitutional government in free association with the U.S.A.
Panama: Democracy
Papua: New Guinea Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Paraguay: Multiparty republic
Peru: Multiparty republic
The Philippines: Multiparty republic
Poland: Multiparty republic
Portugal: Democracy
Puerto Rico: Democracy
Romania: Multiparty republic
Saint Kitts and Nevis: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Saint Lucia: Parliamentary democracy
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Parliamentary democracy
Samoa: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
San Marino: Multiparty republic
São Tomé and Príncipe: Multiparty republic
Senegal: Multiparty republic
Serbia and Montenegro: Multiparty republic
Seychelles: Multiparty republic
Sierra Leone: Constitutional democracy
Slovakia: Parliamentary democracy
Slovenia: Parliamentary republic
Solomon Islands: Parliamentary democracy
South Africa: Multiparty republic
South Korea: Multiparty republic
Spain: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Sri Lanka: Multiparty republic
Suriname: Democracy
Sweden: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Switzerland: Multiparty republic/Direct democracy
Republic of China (Taiwan): Democracy
Thailand: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Trinidad and Tobago: Parliamentary democracy
Tuvalu: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Turkey: Parliamentary democracy
Ukraine: Multiparty republic
United Kingdom: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
United States of America: Federal republic
Uruguay: Multiparty republic
Vanuatu: Parliamentary republic
Venezuela: Multiparty republic

Source(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dem…

So how can I relate them. It is reallly confusing me and I have no idea how to write this paragraph

How long does this paragraph/section have to be?

I personally would use Albania* and Iraq -- and maybe Afghanistan -- for the democratization section.

* from Wikipedia:

Enver Hoxha, who ruled Albania for four decades, died on 11 April 1985. Eventually the new regime introduced some liberalization, and granting the freedom to travel abroad in 1990. The new government made efforts to improve ties with the outside world. The elections of March 1991 left the former Communists in power, but a general strike and urban opposition led to the formation of a coalition cabinet that included non-Communists.

Albania's former Communists were routed in elections March 1992, causing economic collapse and social unrest. Sali Berisha was elected as the first non-Communist president since World War II. The next crisis occurred in 1997, during his presidency, as riots ravaged the country because of collapse of pyramid schemes. The state institutions collapsed and an EU military mission led by Italy was sent to stabilize the country. In summer 1997, Berisha was defeated in elections, winning just 25 seats out of a total of 156. His return to power in the elections of 3 July 2005 ended eight years of Socialist Party rule. In 2009, Albania – along with Croatia – joined NATO.

The paragraph at least a page

A page double spaced

But how could I relate this example with forcing democracy is wrong. BTW I have some family members that are from Albania so its funny that you brought it up.

Maybe cite Albania as a gently evolving example, the more preferred. Or just use Iraq and/or Afghanistan. You really don't have much space to use Albania and get into the gentle stuff, plus I guess it doesn't work with the "forcing."

I don't know what to write it on and I don't have much time to research it I have to hand it in by 8:00 this is the only thing that is screwing me over. :(

I dont know what to write it on and I dont have much time to research it I have to hand it in by 8:00 this is the only thing that is screwing me over. :(
Both of those countries are run by tribal chiefs who mostly hate each other. Discuss that. Skirmishes are not unusual, the economy is based on the importing of oil and poppies, everyone grabs for what he can get, and no one shares. Poverty and poor education for males only are rampant. The two countries are basically theocracies.