Example collocations logo

Democracy in sentence

5983 examples of Democracy in a sentence

China's political model will never supplant electoral democracy, because unlike the latter, it doesn't pretend to be universal.
Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over.
And so these are questions like, "How can a democracy balance freedom and security?"
Democracy is in trouble, no question about that, and it comes in part from a deep dilemma in which it is embedded.
In fact, we live in a 21st-century world of interdependence, and brutal interdependent problems, and when we look for solutions in politics and in democracy, we are faced with political institutions designed 400 years ago, autonomous, sovereign nation-states with jurisdictions and territories separate from one another, each claiming to be able to solve the problem of its own people.
In that dilemma lies the central problem of democracy.
We are talking about the cradle of democracy.
We are talking about the venues in which those public spaces where we come together to create democracy, and at the same time protest those who would take our freedom, take place.
That is the real world, and unless we find a way to globalize democracy or democratize globalization, we will increasingly not only risk the failure to address all of these transnational problems, but we will risk losing democracy itself, locked up in the old nation-state box, unable to address global problems democratically.
The road to global democracy doesn't run through states.
It runs through cities. Democracy was born in the ancient polis.
In that journey from polis to cosmopolis, we can rediscover the power of democracy on a global level.
I am ready to reach out and embrace a new global democracy, to take back our democracy.
This isn't good for democracy, nor is it a satisfying way to live, even for those of us who can afford to buy our way to the head of the line.
Democracy does not require perfect equality, but what it does require is that citizens share in a common life.
Over the past hundred years, the combination of liberal democracy and private capitalism has helped to catapult the United States and Western countries to new levels of economic development.
Thus, there's understandably a deep-seated presumption among Westerners that the whole world will decide to adopt private capitalism as the model of economic growth, liberal democracy, and will continue to prioritize political rights over economic rights.
"Give me liberty or give me death" is all well and good if you can afford it, but if you're living on less than one dollar a day, you're far too busy trying to survive and to provide for your family than to spend your time going around trying to proclaim and defend democracy.
Now, I know many people in this room and around the world will think, "Well actually, this is hard to grasp," because private capitalism and liberal democracy are held sacrosanct.
I'm not saying people in the emerging markets don't understand democracy, nor am I saying that they wouldn't ideally like to pick their presidents or their leaders.
However, I am saying that on balance, they worry more about where their living standard improvements are going to come from, and how it is their governments can deliver for them, than whether or not the government was elected by democracy.
Instead of liberal democracy, they have de-prioritized the democratic system.
In particular, there is growing doubt among people in the emerging markets, when people now believe that democracy is no longer to be viewed as a prerequisite for economic growth.
In fact, countries like Taiwan, Singapore, Chile, not just China, have shown that actually, it's economic growth that is a prerequisite for democracy.
In a recent study, the evidence has shown that income is the greatest determinant of how long a democracy can last.
The study found that if your per capita income is about 1,000 dollars a year, your democracy will last about eight and a half years.
If your per capita income is between 2,000 and 4,000 dollars per year, then you're likely to only get 33 years of democracy.
And only if your per capita income is above 6,000 dollars a year will you have democracy come hell or high water.
But perhaps it's also telling us that we should be worried about going around the world and shoehorning democracy, because ultimately we run the risk of ending up with illiberal democracies, democracies that in some sense could be worse than the authoritarian governments that they seek to replace.
What this says is that for people like me who care about liberal democracy, is we've got to find a more sustainable way of ensuring that we have a sustainable form of democracy in a liberal way, and that has its roots in economics.
BackNext