4 ms·

Is he right? There are places in the world where democracy doesn't work very well. I'd say that this is the sort of question that deserves actual thought instea

by thras 17y ago

Is he right? There are places in the world where democracy doesn't work very well. I'd say that this is the sort of question that deserves actual thought instead of the regular "Democracy Uber Alles!" platitudes that we get so often. (Yes, I know what Churchill said about democracy. However, Churchill would have said the same thing about absolute Monarchy if it were still around. He was that sort of guy.)

mnemonicsloth 17y ago
This is a hot research topic right now in the social sciences. The general theme is that democratic institutions (transparency, professionalism, corruption-resistance) are probably more important at first than actual democracy. http://www.amazon.com/Wars-Guns-Votes-Democracy-Dangerous/dp/0061479632 http://www.amazon.com/Wars-Guns-Votes-Democracy-Dangerous/dp... The "Asian Tiger" economies -- South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan -- all started ramping up their growth under extremely authoritarian governments which then liberalized once they had reached a certain level of prosperity.
- biohacker42 17y ago
  I don't know how much research this requires, as someone who had a front seat for the conversion of Eastern Europe to democracy it all seems obvious to me. OBVIOUSLY you need law and order to get democracy. Democracy is the pinnacle of a working society not the root cause of it. Now,people will often mistake the results of lawlessness and corruption as the reason peoples X just ain't made for democracy and freedom. I hope I don't have to explain how stupid that is. It is just as stupid at the theory that democracy would flourish in Afghanistan and Iraq with little to no effort, like magic!
  - bokonist 17y ago
    Is democracy a means or an end? To me, it is a means - a way to achieve better government by making government more accountable. But you are basically saying, in order to have democracy, you already need to have good government. Well, if you already have good government, then what's the point of adding democracy? Why not just stick with whatever government is working so well?
    - jacoblyles 17y ago
      I think most people in the West do treat it as an end. That is the only way to explain the passion people put behind their support for Democracy. When discussing policies, "anti-democratic" is used as a synonym for "bad".
    - shiranaihito 17y ago
      Indeed, a wise and benevolent dictator could be much better than democracy in general. Besides, the democracy we have now in western countries doesn't really make governments particularly accountable. Compared to some insane African tyrant, sure, but as much as appropriate? Not even close.
    - biohacker42 17y ago
      I think democracy is a means to preserve good government/stability. A means to guarantee sanity. With a perfectly functioning authoritarian government there's always the danger of it going to hell. A good king replaced by bad king, or what ever. With no checks and balances there's no guarantee things won't go crazy. And obviously authoritarian governments are almost never good, because they are by definition not accountable. But a functioning democracy, which functioning institutions and laws above individuals, that's a difficult system to achieve. In a very troubled part of the world, democracy is not something that just naturally wins over armed strong men.
- gyeh 17y ago
  Sorry for being nit-picky, but Singapore still vigilantly holds on to certain authoritarian practices (not to say some liberalization didn't happen). It is important to note that many people in China look to Singapore to be the ideal political economic model. This would be a very amusing scaling problem...
  - mnemonicsloth 17y ago
    You're not being nit-picky. You're exactly right, and I obviously wasn't paying attention when I was editing. I don't know what Singapore was like when its economy was developing, but today it is legendarily (sometimes hilariously) authoritarian. The wikipedia article on their universal chewing gum ban is a fun read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore
    - dasil003 17y ago
      Indeed it is. Check out this quote contrasted against the typical aseptic, fragmented prose of wikipedia: Details of the closed-door negotiations are unknown, but it became apparent that by the final phase of the negotiation in early 2003, there remained two sticky issues: the War in Iraq and chewing gum. That is by far the funniest thing I've read on Wikipedia.
- bokonist 17y ago
  Not just the Asian tigers - pretty much every country in the world established rule of law, property rights, contract law, and the other foundations of economic growth under authoritarian governments.
bokonist 17y ago
Yes, I know what Churchill said about democracy. Funny enough, Churchill did not say what people think he said about democracy. He said, "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time;" In other words, he was para-phrasing his opponents. Churchill was actually giving a speech defending the existence of the House of Lords! ( http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0105/0105churchilldem.htm http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0105/0105chu... ) And while Churchill's misquote is famous, few have heard of Gibbon's quote: -------------------------- OF the various forms of government which have prevailed in the world, an hereditary monarchy seems to present the fairest scope for ridicule. Is it possible to relate, without an indignant smile, that, on the father's decease, the property of a nation, like that of a drove of oxen, descends to his infant son, as yet unknown to mankind and to himself; and that the bravest warriors and the wisest statesmen, relinquishing their natural right to empire, approach the royal cradle with bended knees and protestations of inviolable fidelity? Satire and declamation may paint these obvious topics in the most dazzling colors, but our more serious thoughts will respect a useful prejudice, that establishes a rule of succession, independent of the passions of mankind; and we shall cheerfully acquiesce in any expedient which deprives the multitude of the dangerous, and indeed the ideal, power of giving themselves a master. In the cool shade of retirement, we may easily devise imaginary forms of government, in which the sceptre shall be constantly bestowed on the most worthy, by the free and incorrupt suffrage of the whole community. Experience overturns these airy fabrics, and teaches us that, in a large society, the election of a monarch can never devolve to the wisest, or to the most numerous, part of the people. ---------------------------------------- In other words, the principle of hereditary rule may be ridiculous, but it's the best way to keep the monsters out of power. And note, after Gibbon wrote this quote, many European countries proceeded to cast away their monarchs and elect monsters ( Robespierre, Napoleon, the Bolsheviks, Hitler, etc).
Tichy 17y ago
Which places are those? Also, not ll democracies are equal, maybe sometimes the system simply has flaws. For example, in Germany Hitler managed to rise to power even though his party did not even have the majority at the beginning. Since then, rules where introduced with the aim to prevent the same thing from happening again (I remember from school that for example a minimum share of votes became required to prevent too much fragmentation).

by thras 17y ago

mnemonicsloth 17y ago

This is a hot research topic right now in the social sciences. The general theme is that democratic institutions (transparency, professionalism, corruption-resistance) are probably more important at first than actual democracy. http://www.amazon.com/Wars-Guns-Votes-Democracy-Dangerous/dp/0061479632 http://www.amazon.com/Wars-Guns-Votes-Democracy-Dangerous/dp... The "Asian Tiger" economies -- South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan -- all started ramping up their growth under extremely authoritarian governments which then liberalized once they had reached a certain level of prosperity.

biohacker42 17y ago
I don't know how much research this requires, as someone who had a front seat for the conversion of Eastern Europe to democracy it all seems obvious to me. OBVIOUSLY you need law and order to get democracy. Democracy is the pinnacle of a working society not the root cause of it. Now,people will often mistake the results of lawlessness and corruption as the reason peoples X just ain't made for democracy and freedom. I hope I don't have to explain how stupid that is. It is just as stupid at the theory that democracy would flourish in Afghanistan and Iraq with little to no effort, like magic!
- bokonist 17y ago
  Is democracy a means or an end? To me, it is a means - a way to achieve better government by making government more accountable. But you are basically saying, in order to have democracy, you already need to have good government. Well, if you already have good government, then what's the point of adding democracy? Why not just stick with whatever government is working so well?
  - jacoblyles 17y ago
    I think most people in the West do treat it as an end. That is the only way to explain the passion people put behind their support for Democracy. When discussing policies, "anti-democratic" is used as a synonym for "bad".
  - shiranaihito 17y ago
    Indeed, a wise and benevolent dictator could be much better than democracy in general. Besides, the democracy we have now in western countries doesn't really make governments particularly accountable. Compared to some insane African tyrant, sure, but as much as appropriate? Not even close.
  - biohacker42 17y ago
    I think democracy is a means to preserve good government/stability. A means to guarantee sanity. With a perfectly functioning authoritarian government there's always the danger of it going to hell. A good king replaced by bad king, or what ever. With no checks and balances there's no guarantee things won't go crazy. And obviously authoritarian governments are almost never good, because they are by definition not accountable. But a functioning democracy, which functioning institutions and laws above individuals, that's a difficult system to achieve. In a very troubled part of the world, democracy is not something that just naturally wins over armed strong men.
gyeh 17y ago
Sorry for being nit-picky, but Singapore still vigilantly holds on to certain authoritarian practices (not to say some liberalization didn't happen). It is important to note that many people in China look to Singapore to be the ideal political economic model. This would be a very amusing scaling problem...
- mnemonicsloth 17y ago
  You're not being nit-picky. You're exactly right, and I obviously wasn't paying attention when I was editing. I don't know what Singapore was like when its economy was developing, but today it is legendarily (sometimes hilariously) authoritarian. The wikipedia article on their universal chewing gum ban is a fun read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore
  - dasil003 17y ago
    Indeed it is. Check out this quote contrasted against the typical aseptic, fragmented prose of wikipedia: Details of the closed-door negotiations are unknown, but it became apparent that by the final phase of the negotiation in early 2003, there remained two sticky issues: the War in Iraq and chewing gum. That is by far the funniest thing I've read on Wikipedia.
bokonist 17y ago
Not just the Asian tigers - pretty much every country in the world established rule of law, property rights, contract law, and the other foundations of economic growth under authoritarian governments.

bokonist 17y ago

Yes, I know what Churchill said about democracy. Funny enough, Churchill did not say what people think he said about democracy. He said, "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time;" In other words, he was para-phrasing his opponents. Churchill was actually giving a speech defending the existence of the House of Lords! ( http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0105/0105churchilldem.htm http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0105/0105chu... ) And while Churchill's misquote is famous, few have heard of Gibbon's quote: -------------------------- OF the various forms of government which have prevailed in the world, an hereditary monarchy seems to present the fairest scope for ridicule. Is it possible to relate, without an indignant smile, that, on the father's decease, the property of a nation, like that of a drove of oxen, descends to his infant son, as yet unknown to mankind and to himself; and that the bravest warriors and the wisest statesmen, relinquishing their natural right to empire, approach the royal cradle with bended knees and protestations of inviolable fidelity? Satire and declamation may paint these obvious topics in the most dazzling colors, but our more serious thoughts will respect a useful prejudice, that establishes a rule of succession, independent of the passions of mankind; and we shall cheerfully acquiesce in any expedient which deprives the multitude of the dangerous, and indeed the ideal, power of giving themselves a master. In the cool shade of retirement, we may easily devise imaginary forms of government, in which the sceptre shall be constantly bestowed on the most worthy, by the free and incorrupt suffrage of the whole community. Experience overturns these airy fabrics, and teaches us that, in a large society, the election of a monarch can never devolve to the wisest, or to the most numerous, part of the people. ---------------------------------------- In other words, the principle of hereditary rule may be ridiculous, but it's the best way to keep the monsters out of power. And note, after Gibbon wrote this quote, many European countries proceeded to cast away their monarchs and elect monsters ( Robespierre, Napoleon, the Bolsheviks, Hitler, etc).

Tichy 17y ago

Which places are those? Also, not ll democracies are equal, maybe sometimes the system simply has flaws. For example, in Germany Hitler managed to rise to power even though his party did not even have the majority at the beginning. Since then, rules where introduced with the aim to prevent the same thing from happening again (I remember from school that for example a minimum share of votes became required to prevent too much fragmentation).