1. Governments are Less Corrupt in Democratic Systems than in Authoritarian Systems

1.      Governments are Less Corrupt in Democratic Systems than in Authoritarian Systems

Both the authoritarian and democratic government systems have existed for centuries. While authoritarian government system is less transparent, most democratic government systems, especially the liberal democracies uphold the rule of law. As such, there is a fine line between the democratic and authoritarian systems—the former is less corrupt than the later.

Over the last century, success has been witnessed in democratic governments than the authoritarian regimes. Today, the authoritarian governments are a handful. The main reason for the radical shifts towards democracy by most of the authoritarian states globally is because of the evident decays in the system. Lacking an oversight authority, most authoritarian governments (for instance the North Korea, Russia and Zimbabwe) have had sluggish economic development. This is in sharp contrast to the western democracies such as the United States and the UK.

In liberal democracies, the citizens have extensive rights and freedoms. Periodically, they have an opportunity to elect their leaders to the government positions. Through the elections, they can get a chance to oust the government officials that are involved in corrupt activities. Besides, the corrupt individuals are often brought to book to account for their activities when they were in power. It is a different case in an authoritarian system, though.

In authoritarian systems of government, dictators rule. In fact, most dictators rule for life, especially when there is little intervention by the global community.  The total control of government arms including the lack of independence by law making bodies and courts makes it hard for a government official to be accountable. As a matter of fact, most whistleblowers are suppressed and instilled with fear. In the end, the corrupt government officials roam free in the authoritarian governance systems.

2.      The US should not Interfere with the Governance of other States

US government and its western allies have attempted to instill democratic values in most countries since the end of World War II. In most cases, the efforts have proven futile and have led to disastrous consequences including political and economic instabilities. In extreme cases, the US efforts have triggered a civil war that last for decades. 

A remarkable instance of the woes of US promotion of democracy is evident in the case of Korea. Most researchers argue that the US invasion of Communist Korean regime half a century ago was a bad idea. Not only was Korea divided, North Korea is now one of the strongest nuclear and a militaristic State. This poses a great danger of nuclear war to the neighboring US allies, for instance, the South Korea and Japan.

Islamic states in the Middle East are more inclined to authoritarian rule than democracy. Most scholars have attributed this to the religious beliefs and the cultural beliefs. Over the years, US have used its global influence and dominance to attempt an installation of democratic governments. It is hard to single out an instance where the policy has succeeded. Though there has been success in the ousting of dictators including Gadaffi and Sadaam Husein, the premature democratic governments set up in the Middle East countries have proved ineffective. In fact, there have been a rise in militia groups in the region including ISIS, Al Queda and Taliban which are even worse than the ousted dictators.

            In conclusion, it is hard to find a solid positive reason why the US interferes with the government systems of non-democratic countries. The US intervention policies fuels the civil wars in such states. The proof that the intervention works against US and its allies outweighs the success in democratization efforts. The most recent Europe migrant crisis due to Syria destabilization should serve as a constant reminder to the US to evolve her international policies.