2 ms·
Japan . . . was and remains a stable, functioning democracy . . . China is a fundamentally unstable autocracy Why is this obviously wrong assumption about the
by mhartl 17y ago
Japan . . . was and remains a stable, functioning democracy . . . China is a fundamentally unstable autocracy
Why is this obviously wrong assumption about the stability of democracy vs. autocracy so pervasive? Stable democracies (USG) are stable, unstable democracies (Weimar) are unstable; stable autocracies (Louis XIV) are stable, unstable autocracies (Louis XVI) are unstable. As a criterion for good government, stability simply doesn't give you a clear reason to choose one form over the other.
- golwengaud 17y agoI think the argument is that democracies tend to be more stable. Weimar was an attempt to patch together a democratic successor to a fairly authoritarian state, and Louis XIV's rule was at best metastable. Near the end of his reign, the War of the Spanish Succession (among other things) was causing France to begin to run into the financial difficulties that would cause Louis XVI trouble. More generally, if Amartya Sen is right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen#Research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen#Research), democracies are rather less likely to do things that would lead to popular unrest.
- mhartl 17y agoI agree that people argue that democracies are more stable (though usually they just assume it), but the lists of unstable democracies and stable autocracies are both incredibly long. At the very best, there may be a rough correlation between stability and democracy; I rather suspect an anti-correlation, but in any case I don't see anything that would justify the blithe yet pervasive confidence of democratic stability exemplified by the assertion quoted in my original comment.