Question 1
I am in agreement with the criteria used for constitutional democracy fundamentally because it considers the issue of whether or not the elements contained in the American Constitution, as practiced and amended in the current times, are more inferior or superior to the systems set by the constitution in terms of sequentially stable democracies. The criteria for evaluation focuses on political stability (especially remaining democratic), effective democratic rights protection, democratic fairness, fostering consensus building and promoting effective problem solving. The criterion also supposes the fact that there are various conditions that make it even easier for the entire system to maintain a critical democracy among all citizens. This is based on the understanding that these appears to be inclusive of the effective control through the elected leaders above the military and police (Civitas 54). This also focuses on the political culture that supports the essential democratic beliefs as well as the relatively well-functioning economic forms of order based on the same case.
This suggests that there is a high rate of unfavorable circumstances causing instability irrespective of the set constitutional systems. Under the highly favorable circumstances, any country is in a position of remaining rather democratic based on the range of probable constitutional arrangements in case the system is in kind of promoting stability. In other mixed conditions, the details of the constitution of a country could tip the balance between undesirable changes and stability, such as development of dictatorship. For this reason, most constitutional democracies make use of separation of powers as the most fundamental means of having to limit the political power exercise (National Archives & Records Administration 1). Such a separation is essentially grounded on the legislative, executive as well as judicial functions.
Question 2
With this document, there is a whole range of opportunities for nurturing active local participation within the research across design and planning stages transcending. Other than this, the overall evaluation will even adopt the extensive form of traditional approach for the research through which there are smaller teams of donor country personnel on the brief fieldwork mission. The evaluation techniques are towards the odds of having the consensus for which democratization will essentially remain an internal process. This is also a focus of the contribution for external factors which are relatively peripheral (National Archives & Records Administration 1). The evaluation of the document provides a critical opportunity for the reflection of the democracy promotion activities. This also elicits various views of knowledgeable and domestic pro-democracy actors upon the external efforts and on the democratization trends with a goal of re-orientating the lead strategy in light of the analysis and discussion.
However, the fact that the evaluation studies are donor-focused as well as conducted by external consultants, this becomes an opportunity at the moment for the critical thinking that also descends on mere affirmation and corroboration of citizens’ efforts. The debate on the strength of methodologies in the evaluation of democracy support gain momentum in tandem with the significant increments in democracy assistance. On the other hand, the weaknesses expressed by the debate are raised especially on the evaluation of democracy support which is rather different from evaluation of subsequent areas of development assistance (Civitas 63). This document also enables the determination of the diverse conceptions coupled with definitions for democracy and democratization which are impediment to the essential evaluation of democratic support. While having the ways through which such challenges of causality and attribution are overcome, the document forms a solid base for democracy support.
Works Cited
Civitas. Res Publica: An International Framework For Education In Democracy. California: Center for Civic Education, 2003.
National Archives & Records Administration. The Emancipation Proclamation. Web. 29 August, 2013. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/
