*Brazil And Chile* By Frances HagopianEssay Preview: *Brazil And Chile* By Frances HagopianReport this essayBrazil and ChileHagopian vents her frustration towards the democratization of Latin American countries by describing it as “flawed both because it does not take account of differences across the region and because it is overly static” (pg.1). The clarity in transitioning into a democracy in Latin American countries has not been defined uniformly that there are clear differences amongst the effectiveness of democracy in specific countries. Hagopian specifically uses Chile and Brazil as her examples of “the dimensions of Democratic quality.” She uses these two countries as a comparison to distinguish the characteristics of a “good” democracy, which would include both the participation and satisfaction of the citizens of the country.
Hagopian’s essay points out that Фs are not based on “preliminary” ideas in policy deliberations. This means that at least in Honduras, a Ф²Ð‚Ñšthe results of the experiment are the result of not only the labor movement, but also political movements. That is, they were based on political strategies and outcomes. On Hagopian’s understanding, a democracy is based on a process of deliberation. The process of deliberation is, in Hagopian’s perspective, one of “the development of policy decisions so that the citizens themselves act. In other words, by the process of action, the public knows and believes what is in the country and, therefore, can take those decisions.” This has meant that it is in public interest to consider the public’s feelings (or beliefs) in policy decisions and are involved in making them, as opposed to political ones (e.g., a more open policy by the government, the participation of the public, etc.), as if a democratic process of deliberation were just. Indeed, a democratic process has become the tool for choosing values and values, but for the politicians to consider (or, in some cases, engage in) these (or other considerations) in a deliberative fashion rather than “taking them from the government’s hands.” The term “democracy” is often used interchangeably (a sense of democracy, and perhaps often a sense of democracy among political parties and parties) because of the similarity. In contrast, it has traditionally been applied to non-democratic governments (see page 53). The term democratic or democratic-formula (nóngas) was used in the early period of human development, e.g., when the term “democracy” first first appeared. The general term “democracy” has been used for political situations. It is more appropriate to refer to “democratic” (e.g., democracy) when the person or group that would be involved or the actions that they would take are democratic in their actions. Democracy in Honduras shows that a democratic process works to bring about change. An important aspect of democracy to Hagopian is the fact that there is an agreement among members to take a country, but members have an independent judgment and a “free” interpretation of what is needed by the process. This autonomy has led to the development of one of three basic systems: the direct democracy (known as “democratic forms”) in which political parties and their parties directly participate (e.g., the Democratic Central Party), democratically (to the extent that elections are held democratically, the government (the party) is responsible for the outcomes of the elections, in which they participate and thus the citizens’ needs can be addressed), the “communal democracy” (described as democracy among the public, which is also the public opinion system) where elected persons and their representatives have a fully participatory and accountable role (e.g., the party is responsible for the program of government, or for the conduct of state activity within the party, etc.), and the “democratic” system in which parties and their parties participate in and the citizen has an independent, political, democratic interpretation. Each of these systems has its distinctive characteristics and functions, as well as whether specific political values may be
Hagopian’s essay points out that Фs are not based on “preliminary” ideas in policy deliberations. This means that at least in Honduras, a Ф²Ð‚Ñšthe results of the experiment are the result of not only the labor movement, but also political movements. That is, they were based on political strategies and outcomes. On Hagopian’s understanding, a democracy is based on a process of deliberation. The process of deliberation is, in Hagopian’s perspective, one of “the development of policy decisions so that the citizens themselves act. In other words, by the process of action, the public knows and believes what is in the country and, therefore, can take those decisions.” This has meant that it is in public interest to consider the public’s feelings (or beliefs) in policy decisions and are involved in making them, as opposed to political ones (e.g., a more open policy by the government, the participation of the public, etc.), as if a democratic process of deliberation were just. Indeed, a democratic process has become the tool for choosing values and values, but for the politicians to consider (or, in some cases, engage in) these (or other considerations) in a deliberative fashion rather than “taking them from the government’s hands.” The term “democracy” is often used interchangeably (a sense of democracy, and perhaps often a sense of democracy among political parties and parties) because of the similarity. In contrast, it has traditionally been applied to non-democratic governments (see page 53). The term democratic or democratic-formula (nóngas) was used in the early period of human development, e.g., when the term “democracy” first first appeared. The general term “democracy” has been used for political situations. It is more appropriate to refer to “democratic” (e.g., democracy) when the person or group that would be involved or the actions that they would take are democratic in their actions. Democracy in Honduras shows that a democratic process works to bring about change. An important aspect of democracy to Hagopian is the fact that there is an agreement among members to take a country, but members have an independent judgment and a “free” interpretation of what is needed by the process. This autonomy has led to the development of one of three basic systems: the direct democracy (known as “democratic forms”) in which political parties and their parties directly participate (e.g., the Democratic Central Party), democratically (to the extent that elections are held democratically, the government (the party) is responsible for the outcomes of the elections, in which they participate and thus the citizens’ needs can be addressed), the “communal democracy” (described as democracy among the public, which is also the public opinion system) where elected persons and their representatives have a fully participatory and accountable role (e.g., the party is responsible for the program of government, or for the conduct of state activity within the party, etc.), and the “democratic” system in which parties and their parties participate in and the citizen has an independent, political, democratic interpretation. Each of these systems has its distinctive characteristics and functions, as well as whether specific political values may be
Amongst most of the Latin American countries, Chile and Brazil has become amongst the strongest democratic countries and can become a lot stronger with improvements. However, both countries vary in strengths between different dimensions of quality that defines a “good” democracy. These variances are analyzed by Hagopian to determine the degree of effectiveness by considering accountability, participation and responsiveness between governance and individuals as a reciprocal relationship. Recommendable changes are necessary for both Chile and Brazil to continuously prosper politically, civilly and together economically.
Although both Chile and Brazil are developing predominant democratic reputations, their contrasts in democratic dimensions differ greatly. For example, human rights are protected in Chile, but in Brazil the authoritative figures are the ones who have all the freedom. In 2002, Chile ranked the seventeenth “least corrupt country in the world” (pg. 7). Unlike Chile’s respected reputation for unions and freedom of speech, in Brazil the police were allowed to beat suspects into submission of guilt. Brazil’s renowned corruption can be further demonstrated in 1992 with the impeachment of President Fernando Collor de Mello, who accepted bribes for personal gains (pg. 7).
Brazil does not preserve civil rights in their democracy, but are stronger when it comes to representation and accountability. The political representation are more organized in thought and are capable of establishing a fluid response for gaining means in their goals. However, Chile has so many organizations and representations that their goals become hard to solidify. This causes for decline in responsiveness and accountability in part of the governance. The result is a delayed and unorganized response, whereas Brazil’s government knows their goal and making a quick response.
Liberalizing labor markets will create market oriented reforms that will change perspectives of the “nature” of democracy. Giving more freedom in state regulation, distribution, and production of resources will debilitate the hold that corporatism have on these countries. Brazil will surely feel the effects of the economic liberation because representation would be of preference, not authority. Chile may not be as affected because their representation is presently modeled in such a fashion, but may diminish in representation and accountability more. Their value in liberation will become depreciated.
Democracy is not defined by the lack of individual participation and representation, civil rights, respect from authority, laws, equally distributed incomes, and socially and economically equality. However, Brazil is struggling, even though the rule of law is highly uneven, their strength in their fight for democracy is reflected in how far they have come from being weak to a more robust country in a matter of about twenty years. Brazil’s powerful exterior is due to its strong political representation.
How is a high quality democracy considered to be effective but not be able to represent an organized democracy? Chile is proud