5 ms·

well... I think the point is that it's especially challenging if a people have never experienced semi-functional democratic institutions...

by asah 4y ago

nradov 4y ago
Every functioning democracy started out at some point with no democratic institutions. Why did they succeed while other countries failed?
- Jensson 4y ago
  Most functioning democracies slowly expanded voting rights until everyone could vote. At first only the aristocracy could vote, that was the norm, then you add nobles, rich people, land owners, then go down to soldiers, women and eventually every adult. Going from no voting to every adult can vote is probably too much. Having elites create a parliament and make the foundation before full voting is how basically every well functioning modern democracy was formed.
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    Japan would like to have a word with you. (It also doesn't help that the US couped most of the South American examples to install dictators).
    - Jensson 4y ago
      Japan went that way as well, Japan has held elections since 1889. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Constitution > The Lower House, or House of Representatives was directly elected by all males who paid at least 15 yen in property taxes, effectively limiting the suffrage to 1.1 percent of the population. That 1.1 percent was expanded over the years. Then after WW2 USA just needed to finalize the expansion and you got a well functioning modern democracy.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      Japan has a long history of national government prior to the introduction of democracy. Even during the shogunate Japan had an elaborate national government with delegation of responsibility to elites. It’s worth remembering that the British “Parliament” arose from the king’s advisory body of nobles. The Meiji period saw further sophisticated administration and delegation of power to the imperial diet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Meiji_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Meiji_Japan. By the time Japan became a democracy, the people were already accustomed to functional and orderly governance.
      - mannykannot 4y ago
        By the time Japan came into conflict with the USA, it was essentially a military dictatorship. Afterwards it became a one-party democracy to an unusual extent. I am not sure what could or should be made of that, other than perhaps that one should be wary of general theories of political development.
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    Didn't Apartheid South Africa effectively have the exact same kind of limited franchise you're discussing? IE, it didn't go from "no voting" to "every adult can vote". Millions of people voted in every single election from '48 onward. There was a massive jump in voters in the first multiracial election of '94 (10+ million). But that's not the same as going from zero to full franchise.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      I think the difference is that South Africa expanded the voting population such that the election results completely changed. It replaced the entire government in a single election and the old rulers haven't gotten any power since, that isn't what happened when other democracies expanded the voting population. Not sure how it should have been done, the old rulers were associated with apartheid so of course the population would want to replace them, but totally replacing a government in a single election and starting over from basically scratch doesn't seem to lead to good outcomes.
      - mousetree 4y ago
        I don't think there would have been any alternative. Given how overdue the change of government was, the political pressure to change and the need for a full change from white minority rule to black majority rule, I don't think there's any other politically and morally acceptable transition other than totally extending the franchise to everyone. The years 1990-1994 could even be regarded as some type of unofficial transitionary government though. To the credit of the '94 administration they did extend an olive branch to those existing pre-94 staff to remain/join their government. In fact FW De Clerk (president before Mandela) was Mandela's Vice President. As a South African those early years of the ANC government still have a rosy tint as I still genuinely believe the ANC of that era (Mandela, maybe Mbeki to some degree) did try their best to move the country forward. The later Mbeki years and obviously JZ years are were things went backwards a few decades.
        alienthrowaway 4y ago
        > As a South African those early years of the ANC government still have a rosy tint as I still genuinely believe the ANC of that era I'll argue that Mandela and Mbeki gathered up all that goodwill and did exactly nothing with it. Zuma was more publicly corrupt, but policy-wise, I don't think there was any daylight between him and his predecessors.
  - nomel 4y ago
    > Going from no voting to every adult can vote is probably too much. Could you expand on this a bit? Why?
- rayiner 4y ago
  I’m partial to the theory that liberalizing institutions and culture happens first, and liberal democracy can come only after that. Fareed Zakaria is a proponent of this theory from the left: https://www.amazon.com/Future-Freedom-Illiberal-Democracy-Revised/dp/0393331520 https://www.amazon.com/Future-Freedom-Illiberal-Democracy-Re... Jonah Goldberg is a proponent of this theory from the right: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/off-the-shelf-suicide-of-the-west/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/off-the-shelf-suicide...
- fleddr 4y ago
  For a modern nation to function requires the efficient deployment of capital and technology. That is what ultimately drives up the quality of life, makes people happy and prosperous. It doesn't even require democracy in the political sense. Incompetence and corruption are likely the enemies of such progress that are incredibly hard to root out. A lack of competition in politics is also a problem. Sure, the current mega party sucks, but who's going to do better?

well... I think the point is that it's especially challenging if a people have never experienced semi-functional democratic institutions...

by asah 4y ago

well... I think the point is that it's especially challenging if a people have never experienced semi-functional democratic institutions...

nradov 4y ago

Every functioning democracy started out at some point with no democratic institutions. Why did they succeed while other countries failed?

Jensson 4y ago
Most functioning democracies slowly expanded voting rights until everyone could vote. At first only the aristocracy could vote, that was the norm, then you add nobles, rich people, land owners, then go down to soldiers, women and eventually every adult. Going from no voting to every adult can vote is probably too much. Having elites create a parliament and make the foundation before full voting is how basically every well functioning modern democracy was formed.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  Japan would like to have a word with you. (It also doesn't help that the US couped most of the South American examples to install dictators).
  - Jensson 4y ago
    Japan went that way as well, Japan has held elections since 1889. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Constitution > The Lower House, or House of Representatives was directly elected by all males who paid at least 15 yen in property taxes, effectively limiting the suffrage to 1.1 percent of the population. That 1.1 percent was expanded over the years. Then after WW2 USA just needed to finalize the expansion and you got a well functioning modern democracy.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    Japan has a long history of national government prior to the introduction of democracy. Even during the shogunate Japan had an elaborate national government with delegation of responsibility to elites. It’s worth remembering that the British “Parliament” arose from the king’s advisory body of nobles. The Meiji period saw further sophisticated administration and delegation of power to the imperial diet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Meiji_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Meiji_Japan. By the time Japan became a democracy, the people were already accustomed to functional and orderly governance.
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      By the time Japan came into conflict with the USA, it was essentially a military dictatorship. Afterwards it became a one-party democracy to an unusual extent. I am not sure what could or should be made of that, other than perhaps that one should be wary of general theories of political development.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  Didn't Apartheid South Africa effectively have the exact same kind of limited franchise you're discussing? IE, it didn't go from "no voting" to "every adult can vote". Millions of people voted in every single election from '48 onward. There was a massive jump in voters in the first multiracial election of '94 (10+ million). But that's not the same as going from zero to full franchise.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    I think the difference is that South Africa expanded the voting population such that the election results completely changed. It replaced the entire government in a single election and the old rulers haven't gotten any power since, that isn't what happened when other democracies expanded the voting population. Not sure how it should have been done, the old rulers were associated with apartheid so of course the population would want to replace them, but totally replacing a government in a single election and starting over from basically scratch doesn't seem to lead to good outcomes.
    - mousetree 4y ago
      I don't think there would have been any alternative. Given how overdue the change of government was, the political pressure to change and the need for a full change from white minority rule to black majority rule, I don't think there's any other politically and morally acceptable transition other than totally extending the franchise to everyone. The years 1990-1994 could even be regarded as some type of unofficial transitionary government though. To the credit of the '94 administration they did extend an olive branch to those existing pre-94 staff to remain/join their government. In fact FW De Clerk (president before Mandela) was Mandela's Vice President. As a South African those early years of the ANC government still have a rosy tint as I still genuinely believe the ANC of that era (Mandela, maybe Mbeki to some degree) did try their best to move the country forward. The later Mbeki years and obviously JZ years are were things went backwards a few decades.
      - alienthrowaway 4y ago
        > As a South African those early years of the ANC government still have a rosy tint as I still genuinely believe the ANC of that era I'll argue that Mandela and Mbeki gathered up all that goodwill and did exactly nothing with it. Zuma was more publicly corrupt, but policy-wise, I don't think there was any daylight between him and his predecessors.
- nomel 4y ago
  > Going from no voting to every adult can vote is probably too much. Could you expand on this a bit? Why?
rayiner 4y ago
I’m partial to the theory that liberalizing institutions and culture happens first, and liberal democracy can come only after that. Fareed Zakaria is a proponent of this theory from the left: https://www.amazon.com/Future-Freedom-Illiberal-Democracy-Revised/dp/0393331520 https://www.amazon.com/Future-Freedom-Illiberal-Democracy-Re... Jonah Goldberg is a proponent of this theory from the right: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/off-the-shelf-suicide-of-the-west/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/off-the-shelf-suicide...
fleddr 4y ago
For a modern nation to function requires the efficient deployment of capital and technology. That is what ultimately drives up the quality of life, makes people happy and prosperous. It doesn't even require democracy in the political sense. Incompetence and corruption are likely the enemies of such progress that are incredibly hard to root out. A lack of competition in politics is also a problem. Sure, the current mega party sucks, but who's going to do better?