3 ms·

> many cultures are quite incompatible with democracy, unlike the West That's an old excuse of dictators, one of a series of obviously self-serving justificati

> many cultures are quite incompatible with democracy, unlike the West That's an old excuse of dictators, one of a series of obviously self-serving justifications for their taking power and oppressing others. Consider the cultures worldwide where democracy has thrived: The 'West' (Western Europe/US/Canada), Eastern Europe, South Asia, East Asia (S Korea, Japan, Taiwan - the wealthiest part of China by far, per capita, despite China's constant attacks on them), Costa Rica, South America (Brazil, Chile, others), places in W. Africa (Benin, Senegal), E Africa (Kenya), etc etc. In fact, democracy's record is entirely the opposite. It's by far the greatest development in human history; and somehow, instead of pulling their weight, doing their part as our ancestors did, who sacrificed so much, so many are dallying with power-hungry dictators.

blackhawkC17 3y ago
I agreed with you in my statement. Democracy works excellently when done well. The problem is that figuring out how to make democracy work is one of the hardest tasks on earth (I’m living in a country suffering from terrible corruption and tribalism under democracy). Yet, I still said that I prefer a system where people choose their leaders…it’s on them to make it work.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > figuring out how to make democracy work is one of the hardest tasks on earth Lots and lots of places have done it. But yes, it can be difficult - it's up to the people, like everything else. If they want it, they will have it.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > If they want it, they will have it. More like if they are lucky to have above subsistence living, and they (specifically the men) have sufficient time and are smart enough to organize and, eventually, over generations, create a culture of democracy and trust, AND a foreign power does not come in to meddle with progress or perhaps put in their own dictator, THEN “they” will have it. I would even go so far as to say the process has to be started by consolidating power to one tribe, and then that tribe eventually adopts it. If you walk into a land with multiple competing tribes, and you enforce democracy on it, it will usually not work because there is insufficient trust/alliance amongst the people of the country.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Do you have some empirical basis for all of this? (I don't at my fingertips - it would be great if you do!) Let's name the elephant in the room: It's trendy to talk down democracy these days, by the megalomaniacs who think they should rule the world and be unbound by others, by dictators, by the right wing in the US and other places which wants to impose its vision on everyone else. IMHO it's children toying with matches while the house is about to be bulldozed. We'd better start standing up for democracy soon. In particular: > specifically the men Why the men? At least one well-known theory is that the education and development of women is tightly correlated to overall development. > If you walk into a land with multiple competing tribes, and you enforce democracy on it, it will usually not work because there is insufficient trust/alliance amongst the people of the country. The problem is 'enforcing democracy' on anyone; they need to want it because they need to do it themselves. Outsiders can only do a small amount of the work. Democracy is designed for and works better (than alternatives) for those situations: For example, the US at its founding was in many respects 13 separate countries; they sometimes had different currencies, fought battles against each other, etc. A democratic mechanism allows them to resolve those differences by votes and laws instead of by violence. Another problem with 'enforced' democratic mechanisms, IMHO, is that they drop a default structure on the country rather than one created for their political situation. For example, Iraq used a parliamentary democracy, where perhaps, with the great division between Sunni, Kurd, and Shiite populations, something that structured power around three 'states' might have worked better. It doesn't create a nirvana; it can't make people agree nor magically create a wealthy, developed nation, but it perhaps makes the best of what you have. It does create peace and freedom and rule of law.
      - gigatree 3y ago
        > Why the men? At least one well-known theory is that the education and development of women is tightly correlated to overall development. Absolutely. It’s a fool’s errand to try to develop the men without prioritizing the development of women (ie mothers of men). I’d even go as far as to say the underdevelopment of women directly results in the corruption of whole society; how many vandals, militants, and generally corrupt men are the result of absent or uneducated mothers?
philwelch 3y ago
I think you're getting the causation backwards here. Successful countries can maintain democracies, but when a democracy runs into a crisis it can't handle, it usually ceases to be a democracy. You're just not counting the failures because most failed democracies turn into some other form of government.
- blackhawkC17 3y ago
  Hmm, good perspective. But doesn’t this seem to be a no true Scotsman fallacy? If you call all failed democracies not real democracies, you can write them off and only focus on the successful ones. Does a corrupt and poor democracy ceases to be a democracy? I agree that democracy is the best system when implemented well. I’m just pointing out that many countries have struggled to succeed as democracies because they lack the proper mindset and culture of maintaining one.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    I think we’re mostly in agreement here? I did say most failed democracies turn into other forms of government, which I think is broadly true. Consider Weimar Germany, Russia, and Zimbabwe as examples of this tendency. And while this is somewhat unfalsifiable, you could argue that any failed democracy that is still democratic is bound to eventually turn into another form of government eventually, or just to collapse into a completely failed state and de facto anarchy or civil war, like Haiti or Lebanon. I definitely agree that many countries aren’t really capable of being successful democracies. Lee Kwan Yew famously thought this was true of Singapore, and judging from what he did with the place I wouldn’t argue with him. You should also consider failed attempts to establish democracies, such as Afghanistan.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > they lack the proper mindset and culture of maintaining one. What is your basis for saying why they failed? Maybe they were just overwhelmed by violent dictators (and, like people in the US now, by anti-democratic propaganda). Democracy works across cultures; the examples are overwhelming from Latin America to the US to S Asia to E Asia (including the most prosperous part of China, and the most prosperous city in China until the CPC took away its democracy), W Europe, E Europe, etc. The biggest obstacle to democracy is people quitting and undermining it. Our ancestors sacrificed for many generations. What are we doing to promote it, to make it work, to spread freedom to all?

blackhawkC17 3y ago

I agreed with you in my statement. Democracy works excellently when done well. The problem is that figuring out how to make democracy work is one of the hardest tasks on earth (I’m living in a country suffering from terrible corruption and tribalism under democracy). Yet, I still said that I prefer a system where people choose their leaders…it’s on them to make it work.

wolverine876 3y ago
> figuring out how to make democracy work is one of the hardest tasks on earth Lots and lots of places have done it. But yes, it can be difficult - it's up to the people, like everything else. If they want it, they will have it.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > If they want it, they will have it. More like if they are lucky to have above subsistence living, and they (specifically the men) have sufficient time and are smart enough to organize and, eventually, over generations, create a culture of democracy and trust, AND a foreign power does not come in to meddle with progress or perhaps put in their own dictator, THEN “they” will have it. I would even go so far as to say the process has to be started by consolidating power to one tribe, and then that tribe eventually adopts it. If you walk into a land with multiple competing tribes, and you enforce democracy on it, it will usually not work because there is insufficient trust/alliance amongst the people of the country.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Do you have some empirical basis for all of this? (I don't at my fingertips - it would be great if you do!) Let's name the elephant in the room: It's trendy to talk down democracy these days, by the megalomaniacs who think they should rule the world and be unbound by others, by dictators, by the right wing in the US and other places which wants to impose its vision on everyone else. IMHO it's children toying with matches while the house is about to be bulldozed. We'd better start standing up for democracy soon. In particular: > specifically the men Why the men? At least one well-known theory is that the education and development of women is tightly correlated to overall development. > If you walk into a land with multiple competing tribes, and you enforce democracy on it, it will usually not work because there is insufficient trust/alliance amongst the people of the country. The problem is 'enforcing democracy' on anyone; they need to want it because they need to do it themselves. Outsiders can only do a small amount of the work. Democracy is designed for and works better (than alternatives) for those situations: For example, the US at its founding was in many respects 13 separate countries; they sometimes had different currencies, fought battles against each other, etc. A democratic mechanism allows them to resolve those differences by votes and laws instead of by violence. Another problem with 'enforced' democratic mechanisms, IMHO, is that they drop a default structure on the country rather than one created for their political situation. For example, Iraq used a parliamentary democracy, where perhaps, with the great division between Sunni, Kurd, and Shiite populations, something that structured power around three 'states' might have worked better. It doesn't create a nirvana; it can't make people agree nor magically create a wealthy, developed nation, but it perhaps makes the best of what you have. It does create peace and freedom and rule of law.
    - gigatree 3y ago
      > Why the men? At least one well-known theory is that the education and development of women is tightly correlated to overall development. Absolutely. It’s a fool’s errand to try to develop the men without prioritizing the development of women (ie mothers of men). I’d even go as far as to say the underdevelopment of women directly results in the corruption of whole society; how many vandals, militants, and generally corrupt men are the result of absent or uneducated mothers?

philwelch 3y ago

I think you're getting the causation backwards here. Successful countries can maintain democracies, but when a democracy runs into a crisis it can't handle, it usually ceases to be a democracy. You're just not counting the failures because most failed democracies turn into some other form of government.

blackhawkC17 3y ago
Hmm, good perspective. But doesn’t this seem to be a no true Scotsman fallacy? If you call all failed democracies not real democracies, you can write them off and only focus on the successful ones. Does a corrupt and poor democracy ceases to be a democracy? I agree that democracy is the best system when implemented well. I’m just pointing out that many countries have struggled to succeed as democracies because they lack the proper mindset and culture of maintaining one.
- philwelch 3y ago
  I think we’re mostly in agreement here? I did say most failed democracies turn into other forms of government, which I think is broadly true. Consider Weimar Germany, Russia, and Zimbabwe as examples of this tendency. And while this is somewhat unfalsifiable, you could argue that any failed democracy that is still democratic is bound to eventually turn into another form of government eventually, or just to collapse into a completely failed state and de facto anarchy or civil war, like Haiti or Lebanon. I definitely agree that many countries aren’t really capable of being successful democracies. Lee Kwan Yew famously thought this was true of Singapore, and judging from what he did with the place I wouldn’t argue with him. You should also consider failed attempts to establish democracies, such as Afghanistan.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > they lack the proper mindset and culture of maintaining one. What is your basis for saying why they failed? Maybe they were just overwhelmed by violent dictators (and, like people in the US now, by anti-democratic propaganda). Democracy works across cultures; the examples are overwhelming from Latin America to the US to S Asia to E Asia (including the most prosperous part of China, and the most prosperous city in China until the CPC took away its democracy), W Europe, E Europe, etc. The biggest obstacle to democracy is people quitting and undermining it. Our ancestors sacrificed for many generations. What are we doing to promote it, to make it work, to spread freedom to all?