Contemporary politics with a focus on Europe
Contemporary comparative politics can only be well understood through a critical analysis of the European politics right from the ancient time to the current world. European politics brings a clear picture of different elements and features of politics because it is the origin of all forms of politics that have been in existence in the world. The post-1945 political systems, wars and economic movements in Europe give a detailed explanation of contemporary issues in politics. The issue of democracy is one of the most common issue that is well addressed by the analyzing the political situations in European, there a lot of studies that have been conducted in relation to that and thus there is detailed information about the issue of democracy. Other issues like the relationship between the economy and the government, and the issue of modern monopoly states are well explained through the wide topic of European politics. The object of the paper is to discuss the surrender paradox using the German case, the explanation of modern monopoly states by the economist, explanation of paradox of democratic Exuberance, explanation of market failure and government failure and lastly, the explanation of the linkage and the demand of democracy.
Surrender paradox using the German case
The surrender paradox is well explained using the German case and a brief explanation of the German case would offer a good platform for understanding the case well. The German surrender paradox means is derived from situation where the Germans were not supposed to surrender but it was a must for them to surrender. The statement sounds contradicting but it is the statement that explains the whole concept of surrender paradox. The Germans were the main party that was involved in the Second World War, with the leadership of Hitler and the military and economic strength that Germans had, it managed to conquer many states and territories in the war (Hart, 45).
Hitler had vowed that he will never surrender to any military group in his life as the German leader. This made him to involve all the Germans who were also referred to as Nazi people in the war, many young men were involved as soldiers while the rest were involved indirect through provision of resources. However, the energy of Hitler in the war lusted until 1944. The Nazi troops had conquered many territories during the war and thus they were much diverted in many place of Europe, this made it easy for the Allies who were fighting them to conquer them. There are a number of reasons that made the Germans to surrender, the pearl harbor attack by the Japanese was one of the main reason, this because the United State who were very powerful got involved in the war. The USSR broke form the German side and thus it started attacking Germany on one side, the France and Italy troops also attacked the Germans on another side. The United States and the allies eventually managed to push Germany out of all territories that it had occupied. As a result of this failure the German were forced to retreat to their own territory and their leader by the name Hitler committed suicide to avoid the shame of surrender and the punishment which the Allies could subject to him. He left his assistant in command who signed the unconditional surrender agreement which marked the end of war in Europe. The above German case gives a clear picture of surrender paradox especially in the statement which stated that the Germans could not surrender but it was a must for them to surrender.
Origin of modern monopoly states according to economist
Monopoly states is where the government gains a full control of the territory it is ruling including the people in that territory. There is the old monopoly state which was exercised in 19th century and the modern monopoly state that is currently exercised. The origin of modern monopoly states is addressed by the historian, politicians and economist but they all address the issue in different perspectives. In this paper the economist perspective on the origin of modern monopoly states will be the main focus. Many economists had given their views concerning the origin of monopoly states but they all give the same idea and that is why it is called the economist modern monopoly states perspective (Bell, 12). Economists deal with the issue of economy when they are addressing any issue irrespective of the origin of the topic. In this case, the economist addresses the origin of modern monopoly states in relation to economic sector that happened in 1930s.
The economist explains that in 1930, the famous economic depression occurred. The depression affected the economy of the whole world in a greater way where many countries were left unstable in their economy. The politicians and the economist at that time urged the government not to interfere with the situation because it would solve itself. The government had no other option but to let the situation solve itself. However, instead of the situation going back to normal, it started deteriorating, citizens started complaining on the economic situation in the world and that is where the government took charge of the situation. The economist later concluded that the government intervention was the only way to control the economic crises.
This conclusion gave the government the total power to control all sectors of economy because it initially concentrated more on the security and political part of the country. That is where the modern monopoly states emerged because the government gained the power to control the all areas of countries economy (Beaudreau, 112). Modern monopoly states can also be associated with socialism though some features of socialism are not included in the modern monopoly states. The overall perspective of the origin of modern monopoly states is the 1930s depression that led to economic crises in the whole world. The historian holds a different view because they explains that the modern monopoly states originated form the two world wars and other political factors and that is where the difference comes between the historian and economist point of view in this issue.
Paradox of Democratic Exuberance
European political history gives a clear picture of the paradox of democratic exuberance in the past and in the modern world. A lot of studies have been done on the issue of democracy where democracy in retreat history book by Joshua J gives a detailed concept of paradox of exuberance. Paradox of democratic exuberance means the cheerfulness of having a democracy which indeed is of no help to the people. The situation was identified during the Post-1945 during the development of democracy in many European countries. Democracy means ruling of people where people of middle class are given a chance to raise their views on issues of their concern. The paradox of democratic exuberance is found in many situations and the common one is when the political leaders go against the democracy. Violation of democracy by the political leaders means that the rights of middle class people are prone to violation and thus they will just the boosting of democracy which is of no help. A good example is the demonstrations that were organized in Philistines and Thailand because of the misuse of democracy by the leaders. Irrespective of the kind of democracy, it should protect the middle class people and they should have voice on government matters. When a democracy fails to meet the above requirements, irrespective of its structure, the situation is referred to as paradox of democratic exuberance. Paradox of democratic exuberance is well explained by the people of middle class and the way it favors them. If it is does not benefit them in any way, then it becomes a democratic paradox. Generally, people should be cheerful for a democracy that is important to them (Carens, 6).
Market failure and government failure
Market and government failure are interrelated and each term can explain another. Market failure can cause government failure and government failure can cause market failure and they are both common in the current world. Market failure refers to a situation where the quantity demanded in the market by consumers exceeds the quantity supplied by the suppliers (Winston, 33). On the other hand, government failure refers to a condition where the government intervention in the market makes the market condition to be worse. In most cases the political situation in any given country determines the failure or success of any market. The paper will mainly concentrate with how government failure can cause market failure because the topic relates to political issues.
There are many situations where the government can cause market failure. The main one is political self-interest. When politicians have self-interest like gaining fame, exploring more territories and gaining financially, they can make decisions that can cause market failure instead of success. A good example is the 19030s depression crisis (Kurlantzick, 331). The crisis was caused by political self-interest where leaders used all the finance of their countries in order to finance the war without any consideration of the economic situation. This led the 1930s depression which marked the greatest market failure ever in the world.
Market failure that is as a result of government failure can also be caused by careless investments by the government in the market. A government may decide to finance a certain deteriorating company. The financing of the particular company makes it to become a monopoly in the market and as a result of that; many potential investors in the market are scared away and this cause an overall market failure. The government has a tendency of addressing economic problems using short term plans and goals. This is very dangerous because it causes future market failure which is very hard to solve. The short term goals that were used to handle the 19th and 20th century market problems are the main causes of today market failure. The market failure that is caused by other factors other than the government intervention can cause market failure; this is because the government uses a lot of funds to finance the market and these results to government failure (Kotsonis, 55).
Linkage and demand for democracy
Demand for democracy emerged when people of the middle class started demanding for their rights. The demand of democracy can be linked with the development of democracy from ancient times. The development of democracy started during the time of village’s administration to the time of empire administration. However, some countries were left behind in this development and that is why the issue of demand of democracy started. Officially this demand started after the fall of Berlin war during the world war. People of different countries compared their countries with countries that were developed like Canada and United States. They identified that the countries which were developed had well established democracies and thus they demanded for democracy. They suggested for democracies that would consider their rights and democracies that could give them a chance to raise their views in the government. Human rights organizations were also in the first line in the demand of democracy and this boosted the efforts of the middle class people in this demand. This led to the establishment of new democracies which were different but they all considered the issue of equality and safeguarding human rights. The demand led to the establishment of two types of democracies, direct and representative, according to the type of government structure that had been established in those countries (Boix, 440).
To wrap it up, contemporary comparative of politics focusing in Europe is a wide topic that covers many areas of political sectors in Europe and the whole world at large. Every situation that happened in the post-1945 in Europe has a significant meaning in this topic. For instance, the German surrender incident explains the whole concept of surrender paradox. Issues like the modern monopoly, paradox of democratic exuberance and demand for democracy are well understood though critical analysis of European political issues from ancient times to the current time.
Hart, R., Hart, S., & In O’Neill, R. J. World War II. New York: Rosen Pub, 2010
Boix, Carles and Susan Stokes. Endogenous Democratization. World Politics. 2013 55: 5-549, doi:10.1353/wp.2003.0019.
Bell, Daniel. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books, press 1999
Kurlantzick, Joshua. Democracy in Retreat: The Revolt of the Middle Class and the Worldwide
Decline of Representative Government. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Print.
Kotsonis, Yanni. States of Obligation: Taxes and Citizenship in the Russian Empire and Early Soviet Republic. , 2014. Print.
Beaudreau, Bernard C. How the Republicans Caused the Stock Market Crash of 1929: Gpt’s, Failed Transitions, and Commercial Policy. New York: iUniverse, Inc, 2005. Print
Winston, Clifford. Government Failure Versus Market Failure: Microeconomics Policy Research and Government Performance. Washington, D.C: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 2006. Internet resource.
Carens, Joseph H. Democracy and Possessive Individualism: The Intellectual Legacy of C.b. Macpherson. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1993. Print.