4 ms·

This is a hot research topic right now in the social sciences. The general theme is that democratic institutions (transparency, professionalism, corruption-res

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 18y 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 18y 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 18y 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 18y 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 18y 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 18y 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 18y 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 18y 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 18y 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.

biohacker42 18y 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 18y 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 18y 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 18y 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 18y 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 18y 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 18y 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 18y 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 18y 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.