4 ms·

Well, I know that this may sound unpopular, but Singapore is one of key examples why technocracy may be better than democracy. In democracy, it's popularity co

by stared 12y ago

Well, I know that this may sound unpopular, but Singapore is one of key examples why technocracy may be better than democracy. In democracy, it's popularity contest. It may be influenced by politicians' technical skills; though, much more often it's influenced by their ideologies. (If you think that popularity is the same as merit, then look at which current songs are the most popular.) And a large group of people have tendency to be biased towards short-term goals rather than long-term progress.

devnonymous 12y ago
Being an Indian (ie: coming from the largest democracy in the world), I have formed the opinion that democracy is a form of government where in theory everybody is happy most of the time but unfortunately what it instead does is keeps everybody equally unhappy, all the time. Now, whether this is necessarily a bad thing considering the alternatives is debatable but coming to your point, yeah, something like Singapore just cannot happen in a democracy although it is not due to the short-sightedness of the 'large group of people'. In a proper democracy the minority opinion (note, I said minority opinion, not minorities' opinion) no matter how flawed and unreasonable would still have to be considered. Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing, it just slows things down (in either direction !)
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  I don't see any particular reason why a democracy cannot have tech-savvy leaders. As often pointed out Angela Merkel was a chemist before becoming the German Chancellor. Margaret Thatcher was also a chemist, I believe. Germany is by all accounts very well run and is indeed a very tech-savvy and productive economy. I don't know anywhere else that has a computer scientist as a leader, but then again, I suspect that's because most people who have a passion for mathematics or computer science end up going into that field. Virtually nobody it seems decides to leave the CS world for politics. This guy did only because of the whole dynastic element - his father told him what he'd do in life, so he was never able to pursue his skills in this field. Sometimes I wonder if some of the political problems we often debate here on HN and elsewhere are our own fault. So few people enter politics from the tech and science industries, it should perhaps not surprise us much when technically illiterate leaders pass nonsensical laws .
  - govindkabra 12y ago
    Not exactly a computer scientist, but I am hoping Sheryl Sandberg runs for the office of President in the next decade.
twobits 12y ago
How do you argue "the earth isn't the center of the universe", when the current day technocracy, says that's not true? Merit, is absolutely important. But freedom, is equally and more so. Generally, people have a tendency to be biased towards themselves, and their kin.
- jfoster 12y ago
  Have you ever spent much time in Singapore? I ask because if you had, you would probably notice that Singaporeans do feel quite free to question things. The culture is not one of oppression. There is plenty of debate, typical amounts of criticism of government, etc. I wouldn't want to be a political opponent of the SG government (though those do seem to exist), but it really isn't a place where science or religion is going to get you into trouble.
S4M 12y ago
I can't remember the exact quote or its authoer, but it's like that: "The best for of government is a good dictatorship, then it's a good oligarchy, then it's a good democracy, then it's a bad democracy, then a bad oligarchy, and finally a bad dictatorship". And the problem with dictatorship is that a bad dictator can succeed to a good one. So while Singapore is currently a well managed country, we don't know who will success to Mr Lee Hsien Hong, and if that person does not turn out to be good, he will probably not encourage technological progress. On the other hand, democracy is some kind of middle ground. Yes, it's a popularity contest what you say, politician can lie or be short sighted (we have examples of this with France suing Google over its ranking algorithm, or with the US policies in term of imprisonment, just to name a few), but on the overall democracy guarantees more stability than a dictatorship does.
jessaustin 12y ago
...technocracy may be better than democracy. It's possible that autocratic governments can possibly have both much better and much worse results for the people. Singapore has long been an example of the former, while e.g. China under Mao would be the latter. ISTM, however, that nominal democracies like USA keep finding more ways to reduce the quality of government. We probably won't ever equal the worst dictators of the past, but we might invent different ways to be awful that they had never considered. I think a more important factor is the size of a government. There is no bureaucrat in Singapore that PM Lee couldn't reach with two phone calls. I shudder to contemplate the task faced by a USA President who wanted to do the same thing. Sometimes I think it would be better for all concerned if the USA were broken into about 300 separate territories for all government tasks, while retaining the same nation-wide citizenship.

by stared 12y ago

devnonymous 12y ago

Being an Indian (ie: coming from the largest democracy in the world), I have formed the opinion that democracy is a form of government where in theory everybody is happy most of the time but unfortunately what it instead does is keeps everybody equally unhappy, all the time. Now, whether this is necessarily a bad thing considering the alternatives is debatable but coming to your point, yeah, something like Singapore just cannot happen in a democracy although it is not due to the short-sightedness of the 'large group of people'. In a proper democracy the minority opinion (note, I said minority opinion, not minorities' opinion) no matter how flawed and unreasonable would still have to be considered. Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing, it just slows things down (in either direction !)

mike_hearn 12y ago
I don't see any particular reason why a democracy cannot have tech-savvy leaders. As often pointed out Angela Merkel was a chemist before becoming the German Chancellor. Margaret Thatcher was also a chemist, I believe. Germany is by all accounts very well run and is indeed a very tech-savvy and productive economy. I don't know anywhere else that has a computer scientist as a leader, but then again, I suspect that's because most people who have a passion for mathematics or computer science end up going into that field. Virtually nobody it seems decides to leave the CS world for politics. This guy did only because of the whole dynastic element - his father told him what he'd do in life, so he was never able to pursue his skills in this field. Sometimes I wonder if some of the political problems we often debate here on HN and elsewhere are our own fault. So few people enter politics from the tech and science industries, it should perhaps not surprise us much when technically illiterate leaders pass nonsensical laws .
- govindkabra 12y ago
  Not exactly a computer scientist, but I am hoping Sheryl Sandberg runs for the office of President in the next decade.

twobits 12y ago

How do you argue "the earth isn't the center of the universe", when the current day technocracy, says that's not true? Merit, is absolutely important. But freedom, is equally and more so. Generally, people have a tendency to be biased towards themselves, and their kin.

jfoster 12y ago
Have you ever spent much time in Singapore? I ask because if you had, you would probably notice that Singaporeans do feel quite free to question things. The culture is not one of oppression. There is plenty of debate, typical amounts of criticism of government, etc. I wouldn't want to be a political opponent of the SG government (though those do seem to exist), but it really isn't a place where science or religion is going to get you into trouble.

S4M 12y ago

I can't remember the exact quote or its authoer, but it's like that: "The best for of government is a good dictatorship, then it's a good oligarchy, then it's a good democracy, then it's a bad democracy, then a bad oligarchy, and finally a bad dictatorship". And the problem with dictatorship is that a bad dictator can succeed to a good one. So while Singapore is currently a well managed country, we don't know who will success to Mr Lee Hsien Hong, and if that person does not turn out to be good, he will probably not encourage technological progress. On the other hand, democracy is some kind of middle ground. Yes, it's a popularity contest what you say, politician can lie or be short sighted (we have examples of this with France suing Google over its ranking algorithm, or with the US policies in term of imprisonment, just to name a few), but on the overall democracy guarantees more stability than a dictatorship does.

jessaustin 12y ago

...technocracy may be better than democracy. It's possible that autocratic governments can possibly have both much better and much worse results for the people. Singapore has long been an example of the former, while e.g. China under Mao would be the latter. ISTM, however, that nominal democracies like USA keep finding more ways to reduce the quality of government. We probably won't ever equal the worst dictators of the past, but we might invent different ways to be awful that they had never considered. I think a more important factor is the size of a government. There is no bureaucrat in Singapore that PM Lee couldn't reach with two phone calls. I shudder to contemplate the task faced by a USA President who wanted to do the same thing. Sometimes I think it would be better for all concerned if the USA were broken into about 300 separate territories for all government tasks, while retaining the same nation-wide citizenship.