5 ms·

In the case of the UAE, it wouldn’t be the money. It would be a change in leader. The current president (one of only 2) is the son of the first and he isn’t as

In the case of the UAE, it wouldn’t be the money. It would be a change in leader. The current president (one of only 2) is the son of the first and he isn’t as liberal or as charitable, although his dad did create the country by unifying the region after Great Britain pulled out. But he isn't too bad, but if he goes away, UAE being an authoritarian dictatorship, it could go both ways. Inconsistent and unpredictable governance is the death knell of many countries and any organization. That’s why authoritarian governments are never stable long term.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
They seem to often be stable for decades which is dangerous enough for them
gwbas1c 2y ago
Hopefully they go the way of the UK: The Sovereign (King or Queen) gradually evolved to have limited power.
- vt85 2y ago
  [dead]
- nine_k 2y ago
  They would first need an angry mob of barons (sheikhs?) to force the king to sign a Magna Carta.
  - logicchains 2y ago
    That's already the case; the king doesn't have absolute power, the sheikhs of each of the Emirates share power (proportional to how rich/powerful their emirate is). That's why Dubai's policies on so many things differ vastly from Abu Dhabi's; it's a bit like the US's federalism.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  Given that the UK's gradual evolution involved lopping off one king's head and another king getting disposed when his military essentially refuses to resist an invasion, and that both of these were caused in no small part by the respective kings holding the wrong religion (and attempting to impose it!) according to their subjects, I don't think the UK is the model you'd want to see followed.
wongarsu 2y ago
> That’s why authoritarian governments are never stable long term. Authoritarian governments counter this issue with hereditary monarchy. The current leader can impart their knowledge and mindset on their next of kin, and having a clear successor removes power struggles and provides predictability. Even if the successor has different views this is often known far in advance, which allows people to take this into consideration. It's by no means perfect and has lots of opportunities to go wrong, but over the last 1000 years or so hereditary monarchies have a much better track record of stability than democracies.
- vt85 2y ago
  [dead]
- dragontamer 2y ago
  There's this little war called "World War 1" which resulted in the absolute collapse of the final world-power level monarchies. As it turns out: the problems of monarchies is innate. Hereditary Monarchies lead to a separation into "Noble" vs "Peasant" classes, where Nobles have a genetic line to the throne. The Nobles believe themselves to be superior and start putting themselves into various sections of government, when in actuality many Peasants are actually better than the Nobles. So when it comes to War (the only time societies can directly compare against each other), the side that has a bigger recruitment pool (ie: Peasant commanders, aka Napoleon's secret sauce), tends to win. This is also true of sciences, research, production, etc. etc. Every part of society, there are likely peasant leaders who are best at the job. Peasants win not necessarily because Peasants are smarter, but because peasants are at "sometimes" smarter, and this "sometimes" happens in a large enough degree that anyone who cuts off their leadership pool into "Family members of the Monarch only" innately hampers their abilities to lead over time. ----------- Now colonial rule by far-away foreign powers is clearly a bad situation as well (as Britain's control over its former colonies can likely attest). But that's not "Democracy" either. Hereditary monarchy may be an improvement over UAE's position (ie: better than foreign colonialism), but lets not get ahead of ourselves. The world gave up on monarchies over a century ago for a good damn reason.
  - 2y ago
ExoticPearTree 2y ago
The native population is roughly 1M. All other 7M are immigrants. So they don't have to turn against no-one. Locals tend to get pretty good jobs and are actually expected to perform. The UAE is actually pretty predictable. All in all, I wouldn't call UAE a dictatorship.
- fy20 2y ago
  I lived there a decade ago, and as a foreigner it felt pretty free to me. There are rules you need to follow that are different from the West, but that's not a bad thing, it's just accepting the local customs. When in Rome... Compared to other Muslim countries, it's pretty relaxed. Foreigners can buy alcohol, eat pork, and pre and extra-marital relationships are tolerated among foreigners as long as it's behind closed doors. Locals of course get favoured for positions of power within companies, but most of them are pretty well educated, so that isn't so bad. You don't want to piss them off, as you don't know what connections they might have. But that's no different from the elite class in any other country, such as the UK or Italy - it's just there are a higher percentage of them, and it's not hidden away. Many of the locals feel repressed at home, which is why London is a popular travel destination for them. You see women in burka with their eyes covered get on in Dubai, and by the time they've landed in London, they have changed into jeans and a fashionable top and are showing off their hair. If anything changes, that's probably going to be the catalyst. But most likely the UAE will just become more liberal rather than a big shift in power.
toss1 2y ago
Yes. The best, most effective form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. However, the mega-fatal flaw is that it is not reliably sustainable. Ultimately, every dictatorship becomes malevolent. Then, the need to protect the malevolent leadership from the subjects forces closed, loyalty-based structures, and plants the seeds of the dictatorship's demise as mistrust and inefficiency rot the structure and the society. Meanwhile, millions rot and die.
- CMCDragonkai 2y ago
  In the actual history of the world, we mostly have had monarchies. In terms of actual "sustainability" I don't think any democratic government has surpassed the longest peaceful period of a monarchy yet. I could wrong.
  - toss1 2y ago
    I'm also quite sure that the longest monarchies have outlasted the longest democracies, but I think we'd have to define the "peaceful" qualifier. It seems the nature of hereditary monarchies helps moderate the despotism, as there is an incentive to maintain the balance for the future of the monarchic family. If they get too despotic, they will get overthrown, and that's the end of the gravy train for not only them but also all their descendants; and they have the ability to train in these constraints from birth. So my conjecture is that this contributes to the longevity of the hereditary monarchies.
sniggers 2y ago
[flagged]
- gmac 2y ago
  > Democracy < dictatorship if you value technological and infrastructural progress over diversity, equity and inclusion. Or not, depending on what examples you pick. You might also want to include freedom and human rights in this picture somewhere.
  - sniggers 2y ago
    [flagged]
- mgbmtl 2y ago
  That's an odd reference to DEI. I'd say the negative consequences of authoritarian regimes is that they suppress freedom, and therefore art and technological innovation. China is authoritarian, but also has a huge political system, somewhat strong institutions. That can't be said of many authoritarian regimes, which tend to be more fragile. It takes a really long time to build civil institutions. For example, Russia has the money and an authoritarian regime, but repeatedly fails to innovate, and we can't predict what will happen when Putin leaves.
  - sniggers 2y ago
    [flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- komali2 2y ago
  You're all over this forum spreading white nationalist and fascist sentiments, aren't you? Hard to miss you with a username like that. The Soviet Union was an authoritarian regime and lost the technological arms race in silicon. Why? The PRC is an authoritarian regime and lost every technological arms race it's ever participated in, often to its tiny little democratic neighbor, Taiwan. Why? Japan built an HSR. So did Taiwan. What's so special about the PRC? The PRC has become mall-ified. When was the last time you went? It's a static and sterile place. Alleys in Shanghai I used to love for the food stalls are now simply malls with chain food courts. Is that progress? Yuck. Not every country needs to go down the path of the USA. Also it's simply not true that places like the PRC are culturally homogeneous. It is true that ethno-nationalist interests sell this lie, which is why the CPC propagandizes about international Han Communism and does genocide in Xinjiang. In reality, the PRC is composed of literally hundreds of ethnic groups. Every city has a language they speak alongside mandarin, and each is distinct from the other. Elsewhere you're arguing that past societies were also culturally homogeneous, and I can't imagine what society on earth had the kind of innovations you'd acknowledge that was anywhere near culturally homogeneous. Ford's era was one of huge amounts of immigration to America (a peek into the white nationalist/ han chauvinist lie - remember, the Irish and Italians weren't white back then!), both Greek and Rome were flush with "foreigners," the enlightenment era was kicked off by European encounters with indigenous people, who then visited Europe and mocked them for their rigid social structures. So I just can't envision what you mean. Basically, what you're saying isn't rooted in reality. Why did you choose that username?

kjkjadksj 2y ago

They seem to often be stable for decades which is dangerous enough for them

gwbas1c 2y ago

Hopefully they go the way of the UK: The Sovereign (King or Queen) gradually evolved to have limited power.

vt85 2y ago
[dead]
nine_k 2y ago
They would first need an angry mob of barons (sheikhs?) to force the king to sign a Magna Carta.
- logicchains 2y ago
  That's already the case; the king doesn't have absolute power, the sheikhs of each of the Emirates share power (proportional to how rich/powerful their emirate is). That's why Dubai's policies on so many things differ vastly from Abu Dhabi's; it's a bit like the US's federalism.
jcranmer 2y ago
Given that the UK's gradual evolution involved lopping off one king's head and another king getting disposed when his military essentially refuses to resist an invasion, and that both of these were caused in no small part by the respective kings holding the wrong religion (and attempting to impose it!) according to their subjects, I don't think the UK is the model you'd want to see followed.

wongarsu 2y ago

> That’s why authoritarian governments are never stable long term. Authoritarian governments counter this issue with hereditary monarchy. The current leader can impart their knowledge and mindset on their next of kin, and having a clear successor removes power struggles and provides predictability. Even if the successor has different views this is often known far in advance, which allows people to take this into consideration. It's by no means perfect and has lots of opportunities to go wrong, but over the last 1000 years or so hereditary monarchies have a much better track record of stability than democracies.

vt85 2y ago
[dead]
dragontamer 2y ago
There's this little war called "World War 1" which resulted in the absolute collapse of the final world-power level monarchies. As it turns out: the problems of monarchies is innate. Hereditary Monarchies lead to a separation into "Noble" vs "Peasant" classes, where Nobles have a genetic line to the throne. The Nobles believe themselves to be superior and start putting themselves into various sections of government, when in actuality many Peasants are actually better than the Nobles. So when it comes to War (the only time societies can directly compare against each other), the side that has a bigger recruitment pool (ie: Peasant commanders, aka Napoleon's secret sauce), tends to win. This is also true of sciences, research, production, etc. etc. Every part of society, there are likely peasant leaders who are best at the job. Peasants win not necessarily because Peasants are smarter, but because peasants are at "sometimes" smarter, and this "sometimes" happens in a large enough degree that anyone who cuts off their leadership pool into "Family members of the Monarch only" innately hampers their abilities to lead over time. ----------- Now colonial rule by far-away foreign powers is clearly a bad situation as well (as Britain's control over its former colonies can likely attest). But that's not "Democracy" either. Hereditary monarchy may be an improvement over UAE's position (ie: better than foreign colonialism), but lets not get ahead of ourselves. The world gave up on monarchies over a century ago for a good damn reason.
- 2y ago

ExoticPearTree 2y ago

The native population is roughly 1M. All other 7M are immigrants. So they don't have to turn against no-one. Locals tend to get pretty good jobs and are actually expected to perform. The UAE is actually pretty predictable. All in all, I wouldn't call UAE a dictatorship.

fy20 2y ago
I lived there a decade ago, and as a foreigner it felt pretty free to me. There are rules you need to follow that are different from the West, but that's not a bad thing, it's just accepting the local customs. When in Rome... Compared to other Muslim countries, it's pretty relaxed. Foreigners can buy alcohol, eat pork, and pre and extra-marital relationships are tolerated among foreigners as long as it's behind closed doors. Locals of course get favoured for positions of power within companies, but most of them are pretty well educated, so that isn't so bad. You don't want to piss them off, as you don't know what connections they might have. But that's no different from the elite class in any other country, such as the UK or Italy - it's just there are a higher percentage of them, and it's not hidden away. Many of the locals feel repressed at home, which is why London is a popular travel destination for them. You see women in burka with their eyes covered get on in Dubai, and by the time they've landed in London, they have changed into jeans and a fashionable top and are showing off their hair. If anything changes, that's probably going to be the catalyst. But most likely the UAE will just become more liberal rather than a big shift in power.

toss1 2y ago

Yes. The best, most effective form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. However, the mega-fatal flaw is that it is not reliably sustainable. Ultimately, every dictatorship becomes malevolent. Then, the need to protect the malevolent leadership from the subjects forces closed, loyalty-based structures, and plants the seeds of the dictatorship's demise as mistrust and inefficiency rot the structure and the society. Meanwhile, millions rot and die.

CMCDragonkai 2y ago
In the actual history of the world, we mostly have had monarchies. In terms of actual "sustainability" I don't think any democratic government has surpassed the longest peaceful period of a monarchy yet. I could wrong.
- toss1 2y ago
  I'm also quite sure that the longest monarchies have outlasted the longest democracies, but I think we'd have to define the "peaceful" qualifier. It seems the nature of hereditary monarchies helps moderate the despotism, as there is an incentive to maintain the balance for the future of the monarchic family. If they get too despotic, they will get overthrown, and that's the end of the gravy train for not only them but also all their descendants; and they have the ability to train in these constraints from birth. So my conjecture is that this contributes to the longevity of the hereditary monarchies.

sniggers 2y ago

[flagged]

gmac 2y ago
> Democracy < dictatorship if you value technological and infrastructural progress over diversity, equity and inclusion. Or not, depending on what examples you pick. You might also want to include freedom and human rights in this picture somewhere.
- sniggers 2y ago
  [flagged]
mgbmtl 2y ago
That's an odd reference to DEI. I'd say the negative consequences of authoritarian regimes is that they suppress freedom, and therefore art and technological innovation. China is authoritarian, but also has a huge political system, somewhat strong institutions. That can't be said of many authoritarian regimes, which tend to be more fragile. It takes a really long time to build civil institutions. For example, Russia has the money and an authoritarian regime, but repeatedly fails to innovate, and we can't predict what will happen when Putin leaves.
- sniggers 2y ago
  [flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
komali2 2y ago
You're all over this forum spreading white nationalist and fascist sentiments, aren't you? Hard to miss you with a username like that. The Soviet Union was an authoritarian regime and lost the technological arms race in silicon. Why? The PRC is an authoritarian regime and lost every technological arms race it's ever participated in, often to its tiny little democratic neighbor, Taiwan. Why? Japan built an HSR. So did Taiwan. What's so special about the PRC? The PRC has become mall-ified. When was the last time you went? It's a static and sterile place. Alleys in Shanghai I used to love for the food stalls are now simply malls with chain food courts. Is that progress? Yuck. Not every country needs to go down the path of the USA. Also it's simply not true that places like the PRC are culturally homogeneous. It is true that ethno-nationalist interests sell this lie, which is why the CPC propagandizes about international Han Communism and does genocide in Xinjiang. In reality, the PRC is composed of literally hundreds of ethnic groups. Every city has a language they speak alongside mandarin, and each is distinct from the other. Elsewhere you're arguing that past societies were also culturally homogeneous, and I can't imagine what society on earth had the kind of innovations you'd acknowledge that was anywhere near culturally homogeneous. Ford's era was one of huge amounts of immigration to America (a peek into the white nationalist/ han chauvinist lie - remember, the Irish and Italians weren't white back then!), both Greek and Rome were flush with "foreigners," the enlightenment era was kicked off by European encounters with indigenous people, who then visited Europe and mocked them for their rigid social structures. So I just can't envision what you mean. Basically, what you're saying isn't rooted in reality. Why did you choose that username?