Davenport and Armstrong also studied the correlation of democracy and the amount of repression of human rights. In their findings, they discovered that democracy has little effect on reducing oppression until democracy has reached a certain “critical level”. After this level had been reached, constraints on authorities are increased, and the likelihood of repression is decreased: “[The] results disclose that at lower and middle levels of democracy, there seems to be no systematic impact on human rights violations. After democracy has reached a critical level, however, the impact on repression appears to be negative and roughly linear” (Davenport 548). BdM et al also concludes that new or transitional democracies often do not see immediate positive results. Further, they conclude that new democracies do not see major gains for human rights until party stabilization occurs and peaceful elections can proceed.
In essence, although democracies coincide with better conditions for human rights and less repression, there is a bumpy road to get to that point, and countries transitioning into democracies often do not see the full results until they reach a certain level in the democratization process. Does this mean that democratization should not be promoted? No, because although there may be problems along the way, a state …show more content…
I would ask the leaders of any country what is more important: promoting and preserving freedom, or preserving safety? Unfortunately, I think all to often we sacrifice freedom in the name of security. However, human freedom is of the utmost importance in this world. And if there is any way to promote more freedom, then I think it is within the power of every capable leader to promote a system that has been demonstrated to be a net positive, in the long run, for human