Navigating Democratic patterns
repression of violation by carrying the façade of democracy is a tool signified by the West as the reality of the armed conflicts has remained unchanged
From a rhetorical, perspective, a truly democratic state with an idealistic approach encompasses the protection of all humans to be secured and respected. True democracy suggests electoral processes and requires individual opinions that have the right to elect the government for their betterment. But the freely elected government cannot ensure individual rights or democratic rule hence it requires accountability in the political structures. Recent history has confirmed the undemocratic patterns of government under the shadow of democratic norms. For democracy to flourish and take its roots, governments have to exercise individual rights with a common understanding, internal will for bringing change, common agreement, and succeeding without any violation of individuals.
Access to power as per the rule of law. Fair and periodic free elections as per universal suffrage and secret ballots to respect the will of people. Pluralistic, free and independent media. These elements provide a significant link to human rights. However, these links have been documented and are not legally binding. The existence of a policy document does not necessarily qualify to legally ascertain its value. Until recently, because of their unbinding nature, human rights and democracy are regarded as separate phenomenon that bears little relation to each other. Democracy is denned as a constitutional arrangement that comprises elections, a pluralistic party system, and separation of powers. Liberal democracy has become a political system in the world order which is left to the internal discretion of a sovereign state.
On the other hand, in the framework of human rights, despite the elements being present within the political structure of democracy, it has individuals as a point of reference rather than a political order. Human Rights have been universalized in terms of their application regardless of what the political system is present within a State. The status of International Humanitarian Law in the sovereign nation-state is limited because of the internal discretion of the State and thus they cannot be held accountable for they maltreat or treat their citizens. Because the infringements upon the dignity of humans have raised grave concerns that outline the loopholes of international humanitarian law. The serious consequences have put forward the rule of accountability and the skepticism fall since the perpetrators of these violations describe the legal bindings of this law. These side with the ones committing acts of violence and promoting the notion of democracy since their interest becomes a source of attraction to promote a liberal democratic order in world politics.
Additionally, in the contemporary analysis repression of violation by carrying the façade of democracy is a tool signified by the West as the reality of the armed conflicts has remained unchanged. The destruction, loss, sufferings, and deaths have continued inexorably because of the civilians facing the brunt of the armed conflicts to date. With the increasing trends of humanizing policies and the prevalence of liberal order, the global civilians continue to bear the displacements, deliberate attacks, and demolition of the infrastructure that threatens the cores of human rights and freedom. The damage to personal dignity upon the outrages and cruel treatments has deprived the humanitarian purposes by hampering efforts of any legal efforts to contain the violations of human rights.
Consequently, the manipulation involved in liberal democratic practices of States has aggravated the issues of the conflicts deliberately. The dynamics of war concerning the damages have only improved awareness of human rights. Even with the legally binding nature, individuals have faced the consequences that indicate the loopholes of the law and political structure itself. The pointing out of the violations with little to no willingness of acknowledging the ongoing violations done by the States, precisely major powers (protectors of liberal democratic order), is detrimental to the application of exercising human rights universally. The complex phenomena of violence with subjectivity attached to it cannot completely regulate the solutions to eradicate the war because there is no singular truth to predict the nature of states and their political structures. Despite the penalty involved in the legal aspects of protecting human rights, there are no limitations involved in describing the State’s behavior. States follow the pragmatic approach solely based on political, economic, social, and cultural structures to determine the direct behavior of other States while waging a war or putting an end to it. Therefore, the support of democracy is not the only way to end the atrocities but the trial proceedings without the biasness for major powers or any political order can curb the heinous acts which again are very idealistic to be practical.