6 ms·

It is strange that this analysis goes into so much detail and yet skips over so much. The spread of democracy has caused a great deal of chaos as well document

It is strange that this analysis goes into so much detail and yet skips over so much. The spread of democracy has caused a great deal of chaos as well documented by Amy Chua in her book World on Fire. If we are counting on democracy as a foundation for progress and it causes instability then this concept of world order is bound to destroy itself. The more interesting problem is why democracy not only fails to contribute to stabilization but in fact destabilizes nation states.

refurb 5y ago
I’m not sure why you wouldn’t expect democracy to destabilize non-democratic nation states. You’re moving from an authoritarian system that can squash legitimate grievances and desires (e.g. Yugoslavia) that would otherwise need to be addressed under a democracy. If you look at history, a jump from authoritarian systems to stable democratic systems seems to happen in either countries had some quasi-democratic system prior (e.g. Poland) or a strong national identity to unite the population (e.g. Japan). Most other democracies transitioned through decades of instability and non-democratic government when given independence (e.g. South Korea, Taiwan).
- pirate787 5y ago
  Japan, Germany, Italy, and South Koreas transition to modern democracy required US military occupation (indeed United States occupying forces wrote Japan's constitution)
enkid 5y ago
This is a strange conclusion considering non-democratic political changes cause plenty of chaos. Russian Revolution, the Chinese Civil War, the Protestant Reformation and accompanying violence, the Boxer Rebellion, all come to mind. Of course changing political systems will cause violence. Look at Kazakhstan. The current protests have very little to do with democracy in their cause. People would have been protesting high gas prices without the goal of having democracy. But autocrats will blame the political side of things when the cause is purely economic. The real question is what happens once democracy has taken hold.
- Proven 5y ago
- AniseAbyss 5y ago
  Are revolutions undemocratic? Would Mao have won the Chinese civil war if he did not in fact have the support of the people? Democracy is not inherently stable, in fact I would argue they are the opposite. An election is like flipping a coin.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    An election is like flipping a coin that lands on a side with relatively substantial weight of public support (quirks of electoral systems mean it's not guaranteed to be the most popular or least unpopular side, but unless it's blatantly rigged, substantial public support will be there). A revolution is flipping a coin that lands on the side most effectively able to concentrate violence. Sometimes that's achieved by overwhelming public support, but if your "revolution" is a military coup, it doesn't need many people to be on side at all.
  - throwawaygal7 5y ago
    Mao won the Civil War only after getting US backing during WW2, and allowing the nationalists to do the bulk of the fight againsg the Japanese while gathering his strength.
  - enkid 5y ago
    Chaos and violence are not the sea thing in your definition. I would much rather have political chaos and no violence than violence and political stability.
ycombinete 5y ago
I think it was Lord Vetinari who said, “pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny; free men pull in all kinds of directions”
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  One up for the Sir Terry reference. I think The Patrician is probably the wisest ruler the world has never known.
- AniseAbyss 5y ago
  I disagree, man is a social animal that has survived throughout the eons by living in packs. Sociology is clear on this: leaders arise, villages are built, work is distributed.
zozbot234 5y ago
> The spread of democracy has caused a great deal of chaos as well documented by Amy Chua in her book World on Fire. No surprise there actually. Sensible people have always been aware that liberal/bourgeois values and Constitutional protection of fundamental rights are basic prerequisites for meaningful democracy, as practiced throughout the West. Elections alone are practically irrelevant if these more basic things are missing.
- everybodyknows 5y ago
  > Sensible people have always been aware ... Indeed. And yet it seems sensible people are quite impotent whenever there's such trouble, real or imagined, in some far-away land that a US Administration feels an uncontrollable urge to send in the Marines first, and try to "nation-build" afterward. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq -- we just never learn. George Orwell: "Not much is learned from the lessons of history. And that is the greatest of the lessons of history."
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    > try to "nation-build" afterward. This hasn't happened, though. True nation-building has not been seriously attempted since post-WWII Germany and Japan. Cargo-cult efforts to "export" the figments of electoral democracy (as seen in Afghanistan and 2000s Iraq) do not matter. They were always doomed to failure.
legutierr 5y ago
Among the countries that today maintain the same constitutional order as they have for centuries are democracies. Switzerland, the United States, the UK come to mind. All autocracies that existed 100 years ago have been overthrown—multiple times in many cases. In what way is democracy to be considered destabilizing? Looking at history and at the present moment, one could say that instability is an inherent feature of human society, but that democracy substantially reduces that instability.
- igorkraw 5y ago
  It seems to be quite destabilising for autocracies. Some might consider that a a good thing though
  - legutierr 5y ago
    Autocracy is destabilizing for autocracies. Looking at history, autocracies are constantly prone to being overthrown from within, and from without. This is a feature of the autocracy being overthown, and not necessarily a feature of the system of government that replaces it.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > autocracies are constantly prone to being overthrown from within, and from without And this is quite fundamental to the autocratic model. Coming in #2 in a democratic contest for power means you don’t get to be President. Coming in #2 in an autocratic contest for power means losing your property, liberty and likely life. The former encourages reconciliation. The latter, challenging the outcome at all costs.
      - notahacker 5y ago
        To build on that, coming in at #2 in a democratic contest for power means you don't get to be President yet. A properly functioning democracy affords you or your faction a second chance usually enhanced by accepting the result. A properly functioning autocracy doesn't.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> why democracy not only fails to contribute to stabilization but in fact destabilizes nation states This has been known since antiquity, and is why the Founding Fathers designed not a democracy but a republic that combines elements of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy. (The three branches of government.) That we’ve forgotten this lesson is a likely contributor to the current instability.
- smallerfish 5y ago
  The almighty Founding Farme^H^H^Hthers were upper class slave owners, not some omniscient illuminati. In the century after the constitution was ratified there were financial crises, domestic terrorism, skirmishes, ethnic cleansing, lynching, and civil war. The idea that the US republic is the ideal institution is propaganda drummed into the head of US school children. The US is where it is in the world order because of _resources_, access to a large amount of slaves at the time of colonization, geographical isolation, and many other fortunate circumstances.
  - eatonphil 5y ago
    Regarding the first half of your comment about instability and planning in the founding of the US, I've been reading a book that totally agrees and goes into more detail. Folks (like myself) whose only exposure to US history is public school classes and modern talking points might like it. It's called Empire of Liberty. It's about the first 3 decades of the US and definitely shows how much was not planned at the time and how much of the constitution was intended as just a starting point to be edited soon after. Very much not the perfect document people treat it (knowingly or unknowingly) today.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > idea that the US republic is the ideal institution This is a straw man. Nobody, including the Founding Fathers, claimed the original Republic was ideal. The Constitution's vagueness and incompleteness were widely admitted at its signing. Pure democracies don't work. They devolve into populist, majoritarian nightmares that tear themselves apart. This has been a consistent failure mode across over three millennia. We have minority-protecting, stabilizing features built into our system that have been systematically dismantled and attacked over the past decades, all in the name of more democracy. That more democracy isn't always a good thing has been absent from the discussion, in part due to Cold War and ensuing dynamics, in part due to ad hominem rejections like the one you made.
throwawaymanbot 5y ago
29837947 5y ago
Democracy does contribute to stabilization, but the people have to want it. In the same way that the liberal order requires all nations to sacrifice some self-interest to enable that stability, factions within a country must do the same. We’re now reaching a point where some nations, as well as some factions, no longer see this as a worthwhile sacrifice. They prefer to take power where they can get it and manage the chaos that ensues.
mbg721 5y ago
It's also strange that the author discards everything prior to 1989 with "Well, that was just the West." To the extent that small-l liberalism is crumbling, it's largely from the inside in Western democracies; foreign policy doesn't just spring into being from empty space.

refurb 5y ago

I’m not sure why you wouldn’t expect democracy to destabilize non-democratic nation states. You’re moving from an authoritarian system that can squash legitimate grievances and desires (e.g. Yugoslavia) that would otherwise need to be addressed under a democracy. If you look at history, a jump from authoritarian systems to stable democratic systems seems to happen in either countries had some quasi-democratic system prior (e.g. Poland) or a strong national identity to unite the population (e.g. Japan). Most other democracies transitioned through decades of instability and non-democratic government when given independence (e.g. South Korea, Taiwan).

pirate787 5y ago
Japan, Germany, Italy, and South Koreas transition to modern democracy required US military occupation (indeed United States occupying forces wrote Japan's constitution)

enkid 5y ago

This is a strange conclusion considering non-democratic political changes cause plenty of chaos. Russian Revolution, the Chinese Civil War, the Protestant Reformation and accompanying violence, the Boxer Rebellion, all come to mind. Of course changing political systems will cause violence. Look at Kazakhstan. The current protests have very little to do with democracy in their cause. People would have been protesting high gas prices without the goal of having democracy. But autocrats will blame the political side of things when the cause is purely economic. The real question is what happens once democracy has taken hold.

Proven 5y ago
AniseAbyss 5y ago
Are revolutions undemocratic? Would Mao have won the Chinese civil war if he did not in fact have the support of the people? Democracy is not inherently stable, in fact I would argue they are the opposite. An election is like flipping a coin.
- notahacker 5y ago
  An election is like flipping a coin that lands on a side with relatively substantial weight of public support (quirks of electoral systems mean it's not guaranteed to be the most popular or least unpopular side, but unless it's blatantly rigged, substantial public support will be there). A revolution is flipping a coin that lands on the side most effectively able to concentrate violence. Sometimes that's achieved by overwhelming public support, but if your "revolution" is a military coup, it doesn't need many people to be on side at all.
- throwawaygal7 5y ago
  Mao won the Civil War only after getting US backing during WW2, and allowing the nationalists to do the bulk of the fight againsg the Japanese while gathering his strength.
- enkid 5y ago
  Chaos and violence are not the sea thing in your definition. I would much rather have political chaos and no violence than violence and political stability.

ycombinete 5y ago

I think it was Lord Vetinari who said, “pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny; free men pull in all kinds of directions”

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
One up for the Sir Terry reference. I think The Patrician is probably the wisest ruler the world has never known.
AniseAbyss 5y ago
I disagree, man is a social animal that has survived throughout the eons by living in packs. Sociology is clear on this: leaders arise, villages are built, work is distributed.

zozbot234 5y ago

> The spread of democracy has caused a great deal of chaos as well documented by Amy Chua in her book World on Fire. No surprise there actually. Sensible people have always been aware that liberal/bourgeois values and Constitutional protection of fundamental rights are basic prerequisites for meaningful democracy, as practiced throughout the West. Elections alone are practically irrelevant if these more basic things are missing.

everybodyknows 5y ago
> Sensible people have always been aware ... Indeed. And yet it seems sensible people are quite impotent whenever there's such trouble, real or imagined, in some far-away land that a US Administration feels an uncontrollable urge to send in the Marines first, and try to "nation-build" afterward. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq -- we just never learn. George Orwell: "Not much is learned from the lessons of history. And that is the greatest of the lessons of history."
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > try to "nation-build" afterward. This hasn't happened, though. True nation-building has not been seriously attempted since post-WWII Germany and Japan. Cargo-cult efforts to "export" the figments of electoral democracy (as seen in Afghanistan and 2000s Iraq) do not matter. They were always doomed to failure.

legutierr 5y ago

Among the countries that today maintain the same constitutional order as they have for centuries are democracies. Switzerland, the United States, the UK come to mind. All autocracies that existed 100 years ago have been overthrown—multiple times in many cases. In what way is democracy to be considered destabilizing? Looking at history and at the present moment, one could say that instability is an inherent feature of human society, but that democracy substantially reduces that instability.

igorkraw 5y ago
It seems to be quite destabilising for autocracies. Some might consider that a a good thing though
- legutierr 5y ago
  Autocracy is destabilizing for autocracies. Looking at history, autocracies are constantly prone to being overthrown from within, and from without. This is a feature of the autocracy being overthown, and not necessarily a feature of the system of government that replaces it.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > autocracies are constantly prone to being overthrown from within, and from without And this is quite fundamental to the autocratic model. Coming in #2 in a democratic contest for power means you don’t get to be President. Coming in #2 in an autocratic contest for power means losing your property, liberty and likely life. The former encourages reconciliation. The latter, challenging the outcome at all costs.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      To build on that, coming in at #2 in a democratic contest for power means you don't get to be President yet. A properly functioning democracy affords you or your faction a second chance usually enhanced by accepting the result. A properly functioning autocracy doesn't.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> why democracy not only fails to contribute to stabilization but in fact destabilizes nation states This has been known since antiquity, and is why the Founding Fathers designed not a democracy but a republic that combines elements of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy. (The three branches of government.) That we’ve forgotten this lesson is a likely contributor to the current instability.

smallerfish 5y ago
The almighty Founding Farme^H^H^Hthers were upper class slave owners, not some omniscient illuminati. In the century after the constitution was ratified there were financial crises, domestic terrorism, skirmishes, ethnic cleansing, lynching, and civil war. The idea that the US republic is the ideal institution is propaganda drummed into the head of US school children. The US is where it is in the world order because of _resources_, access to a large amount of slaves at the time of colonization, geographical isolation, and many other fortunate circumstances.
- eatonphil 5y ago
  Regarding the first half of your comment about instability and planning in the founding of the US, I've been reading a book that totally agrees and goes into more detail. Folks (like myself) whose only exposure to US history is public school classes and modern talking points might like it. It's called Empire of Liberty. It's about the first 3 decades of the US and definitely shows how much was not planned at the time and how much of the constitution was intended as just a starting point to be edited soon after. Very much not the perfect document people treat it (knowingly or unknowingly) today.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > idea that the US republic is the ideal institution This is a straw man. Nobody, including the Founding Fathers, claimed the original Republic was ideal. The Constitution's vagueness and incompleteness were widely admitted at its signing. Pure democracies don't work. They devolve into populist, majoritarian nightmares that tear themselves apart. This has been a consistent failure mode across over three millennia. We have minority-protecting, stabilizing features built into our system that have been systematically dismantled and attacked over the past decades, all in the name of more democracy. That more democracy isn't always a good thing has been absent from the discussion, in part due to Cold War and ensuing dynamics, in part due to ad hominem rejections like the one you made.

throwawaymanbot 5y ago

29837947 5y ago

Democracy does contribute to stabilization, but the people have to want it. In the same way that the liberal order requires all nations to sacrifice some self-interest to enable that stability, factions within a country must do the same. We’re now reaching a point where some nations, as well as some factions, no longer see this as a worthwhile sacrifice. They prefer to take power where they can get it and manage the chaos that ensues.

mbg721 5y ago

It's also strange that the author discards everything prior to 1989 with "Well, that was just the West." To the extent that small-l liberalism is crumbling, it's largely from the inside in Western democracies; foreign policy doesn't just spring into being from empty space.