# data[].attributes.body
In the Seymour Martin Reading, he explains aspects that are aimed at maintaining stability in the democratic system. It focuses on cultural and economic variables, electoral systems, religious traditions, participation of civil society and political parties. He also bases his positions with theories of academics such as Weber, Toqueville, Marx, among others, along with examples from the history of different countries. Below I present my summary and most important appreciations of the reading.

In the introduction, a historical account is made of the expansions of democracy, such as "The Third Wave", and explains the problems that countries have (as is the case of African countries) of moving from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one, identifying that one of the biggest problems lies in the legitimacy of this democratic system, due to the traditions and beliefs of these communities.

The first part of the text, called "How does Democracy arise?", Highlights the link between industrial capitalism and democracy. As Moore highlights "Modern Democracy is a product of the capitalist process", states under the democratic system tend to have a "Free Market Economy". Although you can find cases of undemocratic systems with a Free Market Economy. This indicates that the scope of a democracy is associated with capitalist development within it. Even, several international agents such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, have the condition of having a democratic system to be a member or to contribute. Which puts pressure to have this kind of system. In "Poor" countries, corruption represents one of the main problems, since these states prioritize particular or personal interests over those of the majority.

On the culture side, authors like Kennan criticize this system, because the first group of states to become democratic originate in Europe, in another cultural tradition different from countries in Latin America or the Middle East, therefore, it is difficult for these regions adapt a model that often clashes with their beliefs.

In religion, the author determined that Protestants were more open to the democratic system because of their emphasis on individualism, while Catholicism, Islam, and Confucianism have traditionally linked their religion with the state.

In the second part, "Institutionalization", the author already delves into the essential characteristics for a stable state, highlights legitimacy as a fundamental characteristic for the stability of the democratic system. Legitimacy in a nutshell is the belief about this system gives validity. The three types of Validity are mentioned: "Traditional", "Rational-legal" and "Charismatic".

In "Executive and Electoral Systems" it is highlighted that to obtain stability, it is required:

Protection and participation of minorities (such as ethnic or linguistic), which allows these minorities to legitimize democracy by feeling part of "power"

Elections that allow voters effective ways to foster changes in government.

The question I leave for my colleagues is:
In addition to the characteristics for stability that the author exposed, what does it depend on if a democratic state succeeds or fails?

Word count: 488

*Attached is a photo of the author Seymour Martin Lipset

# data[].attributes.body
I think this texts was very important for understanding democracy and its endurance. Also, we can relate this reading with the presention of my classmate in the topic of ""...
For a further discuss. Here, I found a very interesting video of Seymour Martin explaining the changing of Nations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is the nation in transformation? — with Seymour Martin Lipset (1996) | THINK TANK

# data[].attributes.body
En la Lectura de Sey mour Martin, explica aspectos que dirigidos a mantener una estabilidad en el sistema democrático. Se enfoca en variables culturales y económicas, sistemas electorales, tradiciones religiosas, participación de la sociedad civil y partidos políticos. Además fundamenta sus posturas con Teorías de académicos como Weber, Toqueville, Marx, entre otros, junto con ejemplos de la historia de diferentes países. A continuación presento mi resumen y apreciaciones más importantes de la lectura.

En la introducción, se hace un recuento histórico, de las expansiones de la democracia, como lo fue "The Third Wave", y explica  los problemas que tienen países (como es el caso de los países Africanos) de pasar de un régimen autoritario a uno democrático, identificando que uno de los mayores problemas radica en la legitimidad de este sistema democrático , debido a las tradiciones y creencias de estas comunidades.

La primera parte del texto, llamada "How does Democracy arise?", Resalta el vínculo existente entre el capitalismo industrial y la democracia. Como Moore lo resalta "Modern Democracy is a product of the capitalist process", los estados bajo el sistema democrático tienden a poseer un "Free Market Economy". Aunque se puede encontrar casos de sistemas no democráticos con  un Free Market Economy. Lo que indica que el alcance de una democracia está asociado al desarrollo capitalista dentro de este.  Incluso, varios agentes internacionales como el banco mundial o el fondo monetario Internacional, tiene como condición tener un sistema democrático para ser miembro o contribuir. Lo cual, ejerce presión para tener esta clase de sistema. En los países "Pobres", la corrupción representa una de las máximas problemáticas, debido a que estos estados priorizan intereses particulares o personales, sobre los de la mayoría.

Por el lado de la cultura, autores como Kennan critican este sistema, porque el primer grupo de estados en convertirse en democráticos se originan en Europa, en otra  tradición cultural diferente a países en Latinoamérica o el medio oriente, por ende, es difícil para estas regiones adaptar un modelo que muchas veces choca con sus creencias.

En la religión, el autor determino que los protestantes estaban más abiertos al sistema democrático por su énfasis en el individualismo, mientras que el catolicismo, el Islam y el confucionismo, han juntado tradicionalmente su religión con el estado.

La pregunta que dejo para mis compañeros es:

Además de las características para la estabilidad que expuso el autor ¿De qué depende si un estado democrático triunfa o falla?

# data[].attributes.body
In the second part, "Institutionalization", the author already delves into the essential characteristics for a stable state, highlights legitimacy as a fundamental characteristic for the stability of the democratic system. Legitimacy in a nutshell is the belief about this system gives validity. The three types of Validity are mentioned: "Traditional", "Rational-legal" and "Charismatic".

In "Executive and Electoral Systems" it is highlighted that to obtain stability, it is required:

• Protection and participation of minorities (such as ethnic or linguistic), which allows these minorities to legitimize democracy by feeling part of "power"
• Elections that allow voters effective ways to foster changes in government.

The question I leave for my colleagues is:
In addition to the characteristics for stability that the author exposed, what does it depend on if a democratic state succeeds or fails?

# data[].attributes.body
The text analyzes the factors and processes that see the prospects for the institutionalization of democracy in the world and concluded that, because the new democrats have low levels of legitimacy and it tells us it is necessary to be very cautious with the long-term perspectives.

It also indicates the requirements for the new democracies to become legitimate in the economic and political sphere. Moore that modern democracy is a product of the capitalist process and those states under the democratic system that stand out as having a "free market economy." Although you can find cases of undemocratic systems with a Free Market Economy. This indicates that the scope of a democracy is associated with capitalist development within it.

The author suggested that private ownership of the means of production is not enough to promote democracy. arguing that a strong market economy is necessary and that the fewer economic resources the state can control directly, the greater the possibilities for free politics. Likewise, the new democracies must be institutionalized, consolidated and legitimized. They face many problems that they must overcome.

In the reading they say that Weber mentioned three ways in which an authority can gain legitimacy. These might be:

(1) Traditional

(2) Rational-legal-

(3) Charismatic

They also tell us that non-traditional authoritarian and autocratic regimes are weaker than democratic ones. Authoritarian regimes are, by definition, less legitimate, as they rely on force rather than credibility to stay in power. Therefore, it can be said that they are usually feared and rejected by the majority of the population.

Thus, it is concluded that democracy is recommended not only for moral reasons but because, finally, it strengthens systemic stability. It allows citizens of all democratic social sectors (and not only those in power) to participate in politics. The electorate becomes part of the legitimation structure and in it, more than in the government, resides the highest authority. In this way, members of the electorate are encouraged to work for changes in the government and not for that reason to stop being loyal to the system. It is repeated that what the new democracies need to achieve legitimacy is, above all, efficiency, economic but also political. If they can hit the road to economic development, they can probably keep their politics in order. But the flow of tensions created by economic growth could undermine democratic stability.

The question for my colleagues is what role does the charisma of their leaders play in the legitimacy of the government?

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with...
I linked... I analyzed that the point of viability of a non democratic regimes is one of the