3 ms·

Germany as a single state emerged only at the second half of XIX. You may argue that those multitude of German states which existed before still count, but how

Germany as a single state emerged only at the second half of XIX. You may argue that those multitude of German states which existed before still count, but how more functional each of them were compared to e.g. Khmer Kingdom is an open question. What is 'functional' to begin with? I probably would agree that there should be some sort of pre-requisite for a working democracy, but your theory of a 'functional state' (at least as I can derive it from your commentaries) feels a bit too raw so far

throwup238 2y ago
Functional means it has some form of bureaucracy that can collect taxes from the population and use that to do state things, usually provide for the defense of that population against internal and external threats. The actual system of government is irrelevant and in many cases the state itself survives even radical political change. What matters is whether it has the resources to actually exert authority. Haiti lost its functional state when the French colonialists fled en masse after the 1804 massacre. Due to racism, they were the only ones allowed in administrative positions in the bureaucracy so when they left Haiti, it was left with no one qualified to run the state apparatus. Since the population were transplanted slaves, they had no tribal traditions to fall back on. Without a continuity of bureaucracy it was left hobbled to this day. Since the state can’t afford to police the population, these gangs fill the void because they can use force to collect taxes (in the broadest sense because usually this takes the form of business shakedowns and roadblocks that they use to extract money from the population).
- broken-kebab 2y ago
  The question is not that we need some system of gov't before coming to democracy. It's just that we can't explain multiple failures of building/exporting democracy by this thing alone. There are way more functional bureaucracies than there are democratic governments. The question is what is the secret ingredient.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    The bureaucracy is the secret ingredient and it’s orthogonal to the system of government. Throughout history the bureaucrats have survived regimes and adapted to the demands of their new rulers, whether that be kings or constituents. Successful conquerors and revolutionaries both tend to repurpose that bureaucracy rather than rebuilding it from scratch (which tends to end very badly, see Haiti or the Democratic Republic of Congo).
    - broken-kebab 2y ago
      I don't think so. China shows us an example of exceptionally developed bureaucracy, having long historical roots, even entrenched in culture - and no democracy. I really don't think governing system in the US had the same at its birth, and look how it went. I'd rather suggest some features of judicial system is the key
rayiner 2y ago
Unified Germany was a direct outgrowth of the Prussian state, which was an efficient, centralized modern state. Most of Germany was also within the holy roman empire, which had a sophisticated government with an elective monarchy (though the electors were a handful of princes). Of course German elements of democracy goes back to pre-Christian times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly)
- broken-kebab 2y ago
  Thanks for the answer, but we haven't moved anywhere. Prussian state became a 'modern' (to its time) state not long before. HRE wasn't a state at all, and I'm not sure one can really call an assembly of princes 'a sophisticated government'. It didn't have direct power over anything for the most time of its existence, and to tbomk never had functional executive bureaucracy. Pre-Christian Germanic 'ting' is as irrelevant to the problem of modern representative democracy as qurultay (which existed arguably for longer periods, but most Turkic countries are not democracies). Practically all significant tribes had a period when heads of clans had their gatherings to reduce amount of internal violence. Long story short there's a tradition (starting from Marx, if I'm not mistaken) to call it 'military democracy', but once you look at it closer, it's a clear case of misnomer. In addition, I dare to say, centralization doesn't really correlate with democracy.

throwup238 2y ago

Functional means it has some form of bureaucracy that can collect taxes from the population and use that to do state things, usually provide for the defense of that population against internal and external threats. The actual system of government is irrelevant and in many cases the state itself survives even radical political change. What matters is whether it has the resources to actually exert authority. Haiti lost its functional state when the French colonialists fled en masse after the 1804 massacre. Due to racism, they were the only ones allowed in administrative positions in the bureaucracy so when they left Haiti, it was left with no one qualified to run the state apparatus. Since the population were transplanted slaves, they had no tribal traditions to fall back on. Without a continuity of bureaucracy it was left hobbled to this day. Since the state can’t afford to police the population, these gangs fill the void because they can use force to collect taxes (in the broadest sense because usually this takes the form of business shakedowns and roadblocks that they use to extract money from the population).

broken-kebab 2y ago
The question is not that we need some system of gov't before coming to democracy. It's just that we can't explain multiple failures of building/exporting democracy by this thing alone. There are way more functional bureaucracies than there are democratic governments. The question is what is the secret ingredient.
- throwup238 2y ago
  The bureaucracy is the secret ingredient and it’s orthogonal to the system of government. Throughout history the bureaucrats have survived regimes and adapted to the demands of their new rulers, whether that be kings or constituents. Successful conquerors and revolutionaries both tend to repurpose that bureaucracy rather than rebuilding it from scratch (which tends to end very badly, see Haiti or the Democratic Republic of Congo).
  - broken-kebab 2y ago
    I don't think so. China shows us an example of exceptionally developed bureaucracy, having long historical roots, even entrenched in culture - and no democracy. I really don't think governing system in the US had the same at its birth, and look how it went. I'd rather suggest some features of judicial system is the key

rayiner 2y ago

Unified Germany was a direct outgrowth of the Prussian state, which was an efficient, centralized modern state. Most of Germany was also within the holy roman empire, which had a sophisticated government with an elective monarchy (though the electors were a handful of princes). Of course German elements of democracy goes back to pre-Christian times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly)

broken-kebab 2y ago
Thanks for the answer, but we haven't moved anywhere. Prussian state became a 'modern' (to its time) state not long before. HRE wasn't a state at all, and I'm not sure one can really call an assembly of princes 'a sophisticated government'. It didn't have direct power over anything for the most time of its existence, and to tbomk never had functional executive bureaucracy. Pre-Christian Germanic 'ting' is as irrelevant to the problem of modern representative democracy as qurultay (which existed arguably for longer periods, but most Turkic countries are not democracies). Practically all significant tribes had a period when heads of clans had their gatherings to reduce amount of internal violence. Long story short there's a tradition (starting from Marx, if I'm not mistaken) to call it 'military democracy', but once you look at it closer, it's a clear case of misnomer. In addition, I dare to say, centralization doesn't really correlate with democracy.