Paper Example on Governance: Key to Country's Success

Introduction

Governance is one of the most critical issues that every country has to give attention to ensure there is smooth running. Various country has employed of governance to guide its citizens and contribute to the current situation of these nations. There are different forms of governance that can be used by various countries to lead its people. Each of these forms of governance has a different outcome on the status of the country that uses it. While most of these forms of governance used by different countries have a positive impact, there are those that come along with negative effects, and this affects the citizens. According to Goel et al. (2017, 172), the major system of governance includes the communist system, the democratic system, and the authoritarian system. As far as these systems of governance are concerned, this paper seeks to define the communist, democratic and authoritarian system, the countries that are using them and the effect that they have on leadership by focusing on the case study of Poland and Serbia/Yugoslavia.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Defination of Authoritarian, Communist and Democratic System

As identified earlier, there three systems of governance that can be used in various situations; that is, the communist system, democratic and the authoritarian system.

Authoritarian System

First, the authoritarian system of governance refers to a political system where power has been concentrated in the hands of the leader or a small elite group which is not recognized by the constitution as the body of the people (McDonnell and Valbruzzi 2014, 650). Several countries have employed this system of leadership to lead their people. These countries include Ivory Coast, Niger, Comoros, Vietnam, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Syria, and Chad (Hooghe and Quintelier 2014, 230).

The Communist System

The second system of leadership that has been identified is the communist systems. A communist system is a form of governance whereby the state plans as well as control the entire economy. In this form of the governance system, a single party (always authoritarian) holds power (Linde, 2012, 420). While the singe party hold power in this system of governance, state rules are developed which focus on the elimination of the private ownership of property. This system of leadership claims that by taking this measure, there will be progress towards a high social order whereby all good and resources that are available are shared equally among the citizens especially those of low class that would not have access to the resources. Some of the countries that are using the communist system of governance include Cuba, China, Lao, Vietnam and North Korea (Csillag and Szelenyi 2015, 20).

The Democratic System

The third system of governance that has been identified is the democratic system (Hollifiel and Jillson 2014, 56)). The democratic system refers to the system of the governance that is created for the people, by the people, and of the people. This system of governance depends on the rule of the majority to determine how the state will be ruled. Furthermore, the democratic system of governance is the one that is commonly used when compared to the authoritarian and communist system. Some of the countries that are using this system of leadership include Australia, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, New Zealand, The Republic of Ireland, Canada and the Netherlands.

The Case of Poland

The case of Poland is an example whereby the government had employed the communist system of governance to lead its people. There were some groups of people who believed that the communist form of government was not favorable. As a result, there were social groups that were formed to resists this form of governance (Renwick, 2015, 20). However, by the end of the 1970s, these groups had not united. Therefore, most of the activities that they carried out were not well organized.

Lack of unity played a significant role in the failure of these social groups (Lee, 2011, 320). For instance, in 1956, some workers took to the streets of Poznan which was the fourth largest city in Poland to demand political as well as economic changes (Kubik, 2010, 69). However, the demonstration of these workers was stopped by the communist individuals whereby more than one hundred workers were killed (Beyer, 2010, 75).

Nonetheless, there were still intellectuals who believed that the system could be reformed from within, but they did not provide any support to the worker's radical demands (Mazurek and Hilton 2007, 320). In 1970, a different group of workers took to the streets of the major coastal towns to demand economic reforms as well as higher wages. During this demonstration, forty-five workers were killed where thousands sustained serious injuries (Bloom 2013, 46).

There was another workers strike that took place in 1978, whereby the protesters were demanding for the prices to be reduced. Hundreds of workers were arrested during this revolt and later the intellectuals joined them. However, the intellectual group had already been galvanized through their mobilization for the Polish Constitution (Bielasiak, 2010, 46). The Polish constitution gave the communist party more power and devoted to an eternal partnership with the Soviet Union. This act was an illustration of Poland losing its sovereignty as a state.

In 1976, there was a massive arrest of workers. In arrest to this event, several intellectuals formed the Defense of Human and Civil Rights. According to De Amicis et al., 2012, (69), the Defense of Human and Civil Rights was formed to raise money for workers to aid their families as well as legal defenses on the court. A year later, the movement for the Defense of Human Civil Rights was developed by the members of the opposition to hold the communist government responsible to its international commitments such as the recognition of the human rights that it had signed.

By the late 1970s, Poland experienced a massive deterioration in the economic situation. This deterioration led to many strikes in the summer of 1980(De Amicis et al., 2012, 69). All the social groups, as well as the region in Poland, were involved. The people of Poland had become agitated with the living standards, being paid low wages and the poor state of the industry (De Amicis et al., 2012, 69). In the past years, various trade unions had failed, but a new trade union was formed in 1980 known as the solidarity workers union.

The trade union started at Gdansk shipyard and was led by Lech Walesa (Shields 2007, 168). As the leader of this group, Lech Walesa developed 21 demands that she wanted the government to meet. The presence of the solidarity workers union in Poland turned out to be the best instigator for political change from communism to democratic government due to various reasons.

Important Companies were involved

The solidarity was the best instigator for this change because several important companies were involved in solidarity such as the Shipbuilding Company (Bartkowski, 2009, 109). These companies meant a lot to the economy of the country because they are a good source of revenue for the government. When these companies stop operating, the government will have low revenue and may not be able to run most of its activities. Therefore, when the government saw that these major companies had been involved in Solidarity, it had to give in to the demand to avoid most of the activities from being halted.

The Leader was Careful

The other reason that made the solidarity union a better instigator for political change from the communist to the democratic system was that Lech Walesa was careful when negotiating with the government Lech Walesa approached the government in a way that would not spark any dispute, and this ensures that they reach an agreement where all their demands were met. This approach was different from the one that had been used by other trade unions. The previous unions approached the government in a hostile manner which made most of their demands to be resisted.

Solidarity was Popular

The third reason why the Solidarity worker union was the best in change the political system was that it was popular. According to De Amicis et al., (2012, 69), this works union became extremely popular where 50% of all the workers became its members. Also, 95% of the people who had joined the solidarity explained that they hard trust in it (De Amicis et al., 2012, 69). These aspects made the union to have more power that made the government change its stand. The unions that had been formed previously had few members and that is why they never succeeded.

Support from the Catholic Church

Support from the Catholic Church was the other reasons as to why the Solidarity Union became the best instigator that changed the political system. Most of the poles who had joined the Solidarity were religious. Even though most of these individuals were anti-Catholic, they did not go against the Catholic Church, and this boosted them as they advocated for the change in the political system (Grodsky, 2007, 130).

The Solidarity Lasted for Long

The fourth reason was the solidarity lasted for a long time. The government was taking time hoping that the solidarity would end like the previous ones (De Amicis et al., 2012, 69). However, this was different because the members of the solidarity were perseverant and took the time to end it. The solidarity did not break up, and the government had to give in to their demands.

The Leader of the Solidarity was Popular

Another reason that made the solidarity the best to bring the change of the political system was that Lech Walesa was popular in the west. Her popularity made the whole union popular, and this issue was a threat to the government (De Amicis et al., 2012, 69). The government feared this group and accepted to officer them their demands because they could overthrow the government.

The Case of Yugoslavia

The change that was experienced in Poland whereby the political system shifted from the communist system to a democratic system was better than authoritarian leadership. The presence of a democratic system of government means that the citizens would not be involved in a making various that will benefit them in the end. The adoption of the democratic system of government was better than the authoritarian leadership (Dymek 2016, 128). The authoritarian leadership would mean that power has been bestowed on a single entity which could be a leader or the elite group in the country. This issue was experienced in Yugoslavia/Serbia where there was an authoritarian leader called Slobodan Milosevic.

When Milosevic gained power, he pushed for various changes in the constitution to ensure the autonomy of various provinces. Also, Milosevic rejected the emerging movement that favored multi-party elections. Therefore, I decided to use the broad Serbian Diaspora that stretched throughout Yugoslavia to fight against confederalism. Confederalism was a loose union of sovereign republics that was supported by the leaders of Slovenia and Croatia. However, Milosevic developed certain policies that led to an anti-Serb backlash in other countries. Serbia continued to resist against the political as well as economic reforms. This resistance went on for a while until it reached a time whereby the Yugoslav Federation broke up. In 1990, the League Communist of Yugoslavia was divided into different Republican parties. Later in 1990, multi-party elections were held whereby the noncommunist government took power in Slovenia and Croatia.

Poland Shifting to Back to Authoritarian-Democratic System

In Poland, there are events which indicate the country is going back to the authoritarian -democratic system. As much as Poland has been recommended as one of the most successful posit communist country, there be...