Nguyen Nhat Anh – CUXE67

Huntington Essay

Since it became a world power by the end of the 19th century, the United States of
America has become the cornerstone and carrier of 'exporting democracy.' They've always
been on the side of democratic nations since that time, because both during the World War
and during the Cold War were seen. While there is a century since then, the United States
continues to struggle to ensure the continuity and restoration of democracy in all countries.
Anything that gave them the name of 'the world's police officer.' Though many condemn the
attempts they have made to turn countries into democratic principles in order to be a modern
democracy, none of them can doubt. Critics also coined the term exporting democracy, which
many use to demonstrate in a derogatory way that 'democracy' is yet another export from the
US, pressuring smaller nations to be an advocate for democratic ideals even though many see
it simply as an excuse for being more active in the region and for having greater power.
According to Kant, export-democracy countries mainly disguised as wanting these countries
to develop and become prosperous because of their personal motives. While this is valid in a
certain sense, you must investigate the hidden motives why you are not able to use your skills
and abilities in exchange. The answer is straightforward. With more peace and prosperity in
those countries, countries like the US would be better positioned to trade or to invest in those
countries. Statistics illustrate that countries have the same form of government or principles
at a high level of exchange. With democracy linked to stability, nations are more assured that
they are trustworthy and that there are no security problems. Experts now agree that
successful democracy has to be accomplished in order to have a successful economy, as it can
not exist without a successful democracy in the modern way that Western nations use. Some
claim it is partial because only countries with economic and political privileges want to
export democracy, while countries with the same degree of democracy lack what the West
wants. Democratic states have been shown to be sharing common principles and are thus
more cooperative in reducing the possibility of conflict between them.

Clearly, the liberal policy of the United States depends on the ideas and thoughts that existing
Americans support world relations, economic interdependences, international institutions and
political identities to promote a stable political system that will best benefit the United States.
Although there are a variety of approaches, for example the development of democratic
institutions abroad, some of them are lobbying for free trade and economic liberalization and
Nguyen Nhat Anh – CUXE67

others seek to build ambitive new international and regional economic and security
structures. The belief that only the United States can be the real representative of democracy
and show us what that entails is profoundly ingrained in their philosophy.

But the question, too, is: "What is democracy?”. We describe this concept as 'a system of
government, usually through the elect, by the entire population or by all the eligible state
representatives,' but this is the Western interpretation, which could not have the same truths
in some other parts of the world. Therefore Kant, but not all Eastern political experts, may
seem like a definitive post. The first is to allow the people access to other information sources
in order to determine for themselves what is right and wrong. There are three authoritative
articles outlined. In allowing this to happen, people can see for themselves whether or not
what the government professes. The second instance is that the right to freedom of expression
should be granted to people without any consequences. This encourages people to speak,
compose, and share their ideas and feelings in whatever way they can, without repercussions,
tell the nation what they believe to be true. The last article states that citizens are free to enter
or establish any autonomous association which enables them, if they believe their
representatives don't represent them in the right way, to form their own political party and run
for an electorate.

The two most critical aspects that a nation is evaluated by political transparency and the rule
of law when it is truly democratic. In 1991, the parliamentary voting system had officially
existed in 67 nations. Huntington questioned if this would be a constant phenomenon that
would make any country democratic or if it would be just an occurrence once. We know now,
as almost thirty years have elapsed as, that it is not only a once phenomenon but an indicator
that more and more nations are transforming into new democracies. Evidenced by the fact
that the number increased to 99. Although experts, including myself, know that many new
countries have been formed since 1991, the number continues to grow if we look at the
countries that existed before 1991.

Although these statistics may look positive, you must also look at the cold hard reality. Many
countries have begun to reverse their once prosperous future. Hungary can be seen as a
central example of this phenomenon. Hungary became the first partially democratic country
in the European Union in early April 2020. Although this could be a major shock for some,
Hungary's political structure was not shocked at all by those who watched closely. As it was
obvious to many countries (including Hungary) of the Eastern Bloc that communism was
Nguyen Nhat Anh – CUXE67

breaking down, and that the Soviet Union was about to crumble, it is time to begin to
represent its Western counterparts if they are to succeed in the 21st century. Many analysts
identified Hungary as one of the best economically and politically speaking countries, and the
West had high expectations for that. Some even figured, that in 30-40 years time it could be
as effective through appropriate policies as their neighboring Austria. Nonetheless, over 30
years have passed and this goal is no longer feasible. There are huge differences in living
standards when you compare the two nations. Hungary has started to fall into "liberal
democracy," where rule of law is ignored and freedom of expression is restricted by degrees
of government. Political rivals are labeled as "who want to kill Hungary" and, if problems
arise, "Soros," "Brussels" or some other entity are immediately blamed. The Budapest-based
Helsinki Committee has undergone a significant change and has neglected other human
rights.

The same thing Turkey is going to say. Turkey, which as an founding member of NATO is
also seen as a potential EU Member State, is supposed to establish a 'European viewpoint' on
democracy and the rule of law.  However, after the 2016 coup, political opponents were
convicted or killed against President Erdogan to a quasi-authoritarian rule. Freedom of the
press and speech are heavily limited to the extent that they barely exist, and the situation in
Turkey has moved significantly in the opposite direction. Freedom House defines 2019 as the
fourth year in a row that has undermined global democracy and no one would have expected
since communism. Yet in many Eastern Europe and Third World nations, this downturn can
be observed, as is clearly explained by Huntington. Many of them are not connected to
liberty, which destroys their accomplishments. For some time, euphoria over democracy
starts to diminish and officials begin to see that they are able to gain power by undemocratic
means. As the roots of these political institutions are not related to West Christianity, it is
easier to break them down and return to their lifestyle. Communist regimes, of course, can
not be compared with current ones, but the regulation of free media and expression may
include contemporary types of democratic repressions in particular. This is the problem of the
export of democracy.

By the end of the 1990s, but even now, according to Huntington, those governments showed
that they were issue and authoritarian. One such example is the overthrow of Gaddafi by the
Western countries with the assistance of his own men. The following example demonstrates
the rapid economic development, as many countries in Eastern Europe that could boost their
economies in the late nineties showed. There is also a great deal to be learned as structural
Nguyen Nhat Anh – CUXE67

changes take place in larger states such as the United States and the EU, as you know from
Croatia's recent accession to the EU in the Balkans and the agreements in many other areas. It
is also about the current effects of snowballing in many areas of the world, which saw the
political dawn of democracy as its neighbors knew it. But there are also many challenges,
such as countries such as Cuba or Venezuela which are now exporting ideological opposition
to democracy. Certain hurdles include the fact that nations will rely on exporting citizens
because they feel that democracy has a responsibility to support a new country such as
Kosovo, which still needs aid from the United States and the EU to control its institutions
after more than 10 years of international recognition for many countries.

So why then export democracy to countries like the US? It can gain legitimacy by exporting
democracy on the basis of three intentions. The first goal is that the citizens of developing
countries should be able to investigate the motives of a democratic regime. Not only is it
important to presume that a democratic government is in the interests of these peoples, but
also that peoples may not achieve their goal, for their governing government is tyranny. In
other words, a democratic exporter who works in good faith would give priority to the
reasons of the importer over the reasons of the exporter. Otherwise, the craze to make people
happy against their will represents one of those usual situations. For instance, when the ruling
government refuses to step down after losing independence and fair elections, in some cases
the intentions of a people may be clear. International law has started to be used to uphold
internal norms in these situations. Furthermore, the right of empowerment for the public in
terms of its own form of government. Clearly it is anti-democratic that people want to impose
democracy without letting them determine the representative process they want. Democracy
exports mean giving citizens the ability to determine which legislative process to apply. The
power of self-government can be transferred from outside, while the basic democratic process
needs to be determined from within. Thirdly, the way the constitutional systems are to be
judged. Since exporting democracy requires at least two agents, importers and exporters, a
contingent assessment should be carried out to decide if the importer needs a change of
regime and if the exporter can create an alternative regime.

On the contrary, as shown by examples, many countries have begun to slip away from
progress, raising the question whether this trend continues. The figures above show that since
1991 there has been a growing presence of democracy in countries. If the export of
democracy is uncertain why countries like the USA still try to export it. You can name the
benefits of exporting democracy. It benefits exporting democracy because it enables the
Nguyen Nhat Anh – CUXE67

country to build countries like that with the establishment of an ally in peaceful diplomacy.
For instance, take the United States. We are perceived to be the largest democratic exporter.
This would be advantageous because, through diplomacy and trade, they will promote
democracy, and strengthen diplomatic relations with any country on earth — including those
considered as unfair to the United States — to demonstrate to the world that nations can
negotiate and settle conflicts in peace. We will open up and make markets fairer, improve
lives and incomes and promote cultural and economic exchanges for workers in other
countries through exports of democracy.

So you must set a high precedent by being an exporter of democracy in countries where you
export, for otherwise, they would distrust you and blame your people for all their problems
by claiming that they have witnessed the collapse of "democracy" in the West. This is where
the US does not excel. There is always a way to guarantee a decent standard of universal
health coverage and to handle companies as individuals, do not need a parental leave and has
the lowest minimum wage in all developed countries. U.S. inmates are the highest in the
country with some of their lowest test scores. The U.S. can be viewed as a total failure on
those fronts compared with other western democracies. The US will encourage people in
other countries to create their own democracies by working for better democracy and
improve the life of our citizens. Because of looking at all the problems the USA has, they are
less likely to seek to build their own government, and see that it does not work to make them
happier. It is quite unlikely that people will endure a lengthy, arduous and even bloody cycle
of democratization in nondemocratic nations because they believe it will significantly
improve their lives.

The main take-away seems to be that the export of democracy by violence had significant
repercussions, as seen in my home country Vietnam. After hundreds of thousands of lives
were lost, countless massacres committed on both sides and billions of dollars spent by
taxpayers, many doubts the legitimacy of the initiatives.