Democracies and Dictatorships - Question 1

India is known to be a democratic country in terms of its characteristics. Self-governance in India is more than a regular voting system or even about the gathering of the electors or about the speech-making. The key objective of self-governance is to allow every citizen of the country to share their decisions in terms of an integrated society-based values (Ahmad, 2016).

Democracy is known to be a concept where the governing body of the country allows its people to give their votes and choose a governing body of their preference. India adopted democracy after attaining freedom from the British reigns in the year 1947. India is known to be the biggest self-governing country in the world.

The self-governing system in India allows its people to give their votes and does not consider their class, texture, religion, community and sex in this respect. India is known to have five self-governance norms (Rao et al., 2015).

India is known to pursue secularism, sovereignty, socialism, democracy and republicanism. Moreover, it is these principles only that makes India a democratic country.

There are several politics-based groups that participate in the process of election both at the level of the territory as well as at the level of the nation at regular intervals of time. Also, they inseminate in the context of the work that has been achieved in their past administration and even discuss their upcoming strategies with the citizens of the country. All the people of India, more than 18 years of age, have the accountability to cast their votes to choose their government. Moreover, the governing body of the country is taking constant initiatives to motivate an increasing number of people to give their votes. It is the right of the citizens of the country, to have every information about the contestants who are participating in the election and on the basis of which they should be able to give their votes to the most efficient contestant according to their knowledge for the purpose of regulating the country.

India is considered to have the most effective self-governing system. Hence there are few drawbacks that are required to be fixed. Also, the governing body of India should work towards removing impoverishment from the country, along with incapacity, collectivism, gender biasness and caste system with an attempt to manage self-governance in its real sense.

India is still required to follow a long route in terms of democracy. The country faces a number of issues due to which it is unable to execute its functions effectively as a democratic country. Due to the prevalence of the ranking system in the current society as well, the socialism norm of self-governance has also been disturbed. Furthermore, the concept of collectivism is also increasing in India which is intervening in the secularism nature of the nation. In this regard, all such distinctions need to be separated and make sure that the people of the country are happy and prosperous.

In brief, the system of self-governance in India is more effective than the self-governance system of other such countries. But still there are a number of enhancements that can be made and people should concentrate on the same. The governing body of the country should execute strict norms to make sure that there is no biasness taking place in the country. Furthermore, an alertness module should be organized to help the people of the country gain knowledge about their authority and accountability. (Keith, 2018)

Democracy in India can be regarded as a success because it is the most initial point for the development of any particular society. India has successfully developed to a large extent from the time of its freedom in the year 1947. The minority group of India is the deprived section of the society and is also portrayed in the parliament that paved the way for an intrinsic level of growth. However, when India attained its freedom, its economic condition was in a chaos, with an increased rate of impoverishment, food scarcity, job scarcity, but the self-governing system of India had effectively stabilized its well-being and growth. Currently, India is considered to be the quickest developing economy around the globe. Furthermore, the country is continuously holding effective elections that indicate that it is a well-accomplished democratic country. (Shani, 2017)

The democratic nature of India can also be considered as a failure because the potential of the country falls in the hands of the various political parties of the country, administration as well as robustness. In spite of the citizens of the country having the authority to vote, there are several political parties that are playing with the citizens in the name of class, cost-free and other well-being plans. Also, it is not simple to obtain legitimacy from the court of law, the majority of the cases keep on waiting in India and the clients are compelled to come to the court time after time. Furthermore, the number of criminal deeds and corruption has also risen in India that indicates the downfall of its democratic condition.

Democracies and Dictatorships - Question 4

The authoritarian conducts election due to the following reasons:

If the governing body of the country is required to be known as self-governance on the global level. Also, it is required to go through a litmus testing procedure by means of conducting a variety of team elections. Even though a larger number of elections are being conducted all around the globe than in the past years, the mediocre standard of self-governance all over the globe has also reduced since about a decade. (Sen, 2017) The key reason for this is that the authoritarian chiefs have gained an understanding about the way in which an election is required to be manipulated.

At a time when the authoritarian heads are exposed to variant team elections, they generally struggle using all their energy and powers. Majority of them quit in a condition when they are compelled to do so by the pressure of the local counterattack or even due to a global warning. However, when an election is in the course of advancement, it is simpler for those heads to manipulate an election.

The authoritarian holds an election because it can make their life simple in many different ways. However, at a time, when a private tyranny along with a single-team federation enters into a politics-based issue, they are in danger in terms of integrating various counterattacks into a pre-transformation conspiracy. However, it has been determined that it is easy for the people to integrate over a mutual rival. Furthermore, when an autocrat enables a variety-team election, it gets comparatively simple for them to distribute and dominate, playing games with an individual’s own culture or religion-based issues to break up and reduce the intensity of the counterattack.

In the same intensity, the autocratic heads who do not accept the process of conducting an election determines the process of obtaining funds to be complex that they will be required to maintain their states. This is mostly when the Western regulating body penalizes any kind of a misdeed against the authority of any human being by eliminating any scope of assistance for the same. However, when the process of election is conducted, such kind of assistance is again offered and the great standard of the election also doesn’t intervene in between. (Nadkarni et al. , 2016)

The authoritarian heads also have the scope to conduct an election for the purpose of breaking the switch among their own teams and replacing them with an energetic as well as a robust competitor. Elections camps also plays a vital role in the direction of integrating various political teams and heads, assisting them to upgrade outdated aristocracy and the anticipation of politics-based downfall. Hence, if there is no reason to bring out a protest in regular interval time, the critical politics-based ground of such leaders is prone to downfall. Thus, it is really simple for such kinds of leaders to manipulate with the election system. (Miller, 2017)

Furthermore, the prime reason for the authoritarian leaders to conduct an election is to encourage the people belong to the team of these leaders to enhance sponsor-customer and the process of collecting particulars, that makes the federation of such leaders more robust (Cantú, 2019). Also the system of conducting an election will encourage the people belonging to the winning party to get involved in matters of public welfare. As per the characteristics of such kinds of a leader they tend to demonstrate a high level of uncertainty. The reason is that its authority can’t be generated from any famous depiction as well as self-governing responsibility. Instead they generate a sense of authority from the assistance of the powerful individuals as well as secured organizations. However, such kind of assistance is totally dangerous because it is not restricted beyond any politics-based cycles. Also, it contributes towards creating highly unorganized completion like that of actions, innovations and punishments. Thus, in the context of an authoritarian state an election system acts as an ultimate safety mode to handle different kinds of risks faced by such a kind of a leader. (Morgenbesser, 2017)

This type of an election provides a respected way for the president to suppress powerful as well as famous assistants that has the potential to develop as a danger. In this way people will believe in the wrong notion that a transformation is going to take place. Hence, the poor economic condition of a particular country would be due to the fault of the corrupted ministry and not due to the bad conduct of the president. The election system also gives an indication to the assistants as to why they are required to be converted as well as to the rivals that a wide assistance for the federation paves way for a higher level of break-up. Hence, after an election is over, the various protection-based instruments are re-arranged to alarm authentic and prospective rivals. (Abbink, 2017)

Referencing for Democracies and Dictatorships

Ahmad, I. (2016). Democracy and Islam. In Toward New Democratic Imaginaries-İstanbul Seminars on Islam, Culture and Politics (pp. 125-136). Springer, Cham. Retrieved from

Rao, S., & Mudgal, V. (2015). Introduction: Democracy, civil society and journalism in India. Retrieved from

Keith, A. B. (2018). Revival: A Constitutional History of India (1936): 1600-1935. Routledge. 

Shani, O. (2017). How India became democratic: Citizenship and the making of the universal franchise. Cambridge University Press. 

Sen, R. (2017). Bullets to Ballots: Maoists and the Lure of Democracy in India. Retrieved from

Nadkarni, V. V., & Sinha, R. (2016). Transforming social work education in India: integrating human rights. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 1(1), 9-18.

Miller, M. K. (2017). The strategic origins of electoral authoritarianism. British Journal of Political Science, 1-28.

Morgenbesser, L. (2017). The autocratic mandate: elections, legitimacy and regime stability in Singapore. The Pacific Review, 30(2), 205-231.

Knutsen, C. H., Nygård, H. M., & Wig, T. (2017). Autocratic elections: Stabilizing tool or force for change?. World Politics, 69(1), 98-143.

Edgell, A. B., Mechkova, V., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., & Lindberg, S. I. (2018). When and where do elections matter? A global test of the democratization by elections hypothesis, 1900–2010. Democratization, 25(3), 422-444. Retrieved from

van Ham, C., & Seim, B. (2018). Strong states, weak elections? How state capacity in authoritarian regimes conditions the democratizing power of elections. International Political Science Review, 39(1), 49-66. Retrieved from

Abbink, J. (2017). Paradoxes of electoral authoritarianism: the 2015 Ethiopian elections as hegemonic performance. Journal of contemporary African studies, 35(3), 303-323. Retrieved from

Cantú, F. (2019). The fingerprints of fraud: Evidence from mexico’s 1988 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 113(3), 710-726.

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Political Science Assignment Help

Get It Done! Today

Applicable Time Zone is AEST [Sydney, NSW] (GMT+11)
Not Specific >5000
  • 1,212,718Orders

  • 4.9/5Rating

  • 5,063Experts


5 Stars to their Experts for my Assignment Assistance.

There experts have good understanding and knowledge of university guidelines. So, its better if you take their Assistance rather than doing the assignments on your own.

What you will benefit from their service -

I saved my Time (which I utilized for my exam studies) & Money, and my grades were HD (better than my last assignments done by me)

What you will lose using this service -

Absolutely nothing.

Unfortunately, i had only 36 hours to complete my assignment when I realized that it's better to focus on exams and pass this to some experts, and then I came across this website.

Kudos Guys!




  • 21 Step Quality Check
  • 2000+ Ph.D Experts
  • Live Expert Sessions
  • Dedicated App
  • Earn while you Learn with us
  • Confidentiality Agreement
  • Money Back Guarantee
  • Customer Feedback

Just Pay for your Assignment

  • Turnitin Report

  • Proofreading and Editing

    $9.00Per Page
  • Consultation with Expert

    $35.00Per Hour
  • Live Session 1-on-1

    $40.00Per 30 min.
  • Quality Check

  • Total

  • Let's Start

500 Words Free
on your assignment today

Browse across 1 Million Assignment Samples for Free

Explore MASS
Order Now

Request Callback

Tap to ChatGet instant assignment help

Get 500 Words FREE
Ask your Question
Need Assistance on your
existing assignment order?