NationStates Jolt Archive

Should developing countries, not even able to properly support their citizens, be expected to hold fair, democratic elections? Would it be worth the effort and resources if they will just ultimately be unfair and undemocratic, and the government unable to properly perform nation-building because of a weak majority or a swift coup?

On the other hand is developing a stable economy under authoritarian rule (Asian values in some cases) justified? If so, is there a clear, objective mark at which point elections should be held? What do you believe? Is there a middle-ground that all developing countries should aim for?

I'm still making up my mind on this, but it is becoming clearer that, as much as I dislike it, a real democracy is likely to fail in developing countries. Of course, it depends on your definition of developing, as there are plenty of countries in the middle ranges of the HDI that have successful democracy.

I know it has kind of been ridiculed now, but I have a soft-spot for Asian values, even if they are just a charade used as an excuse for authoritarianism. If used only as long (or short) as necessary, I think it is preferable to keep the country stable while getting the economy to a safe mark before trying to become democratic.

Do you agree? Should it be democracy first and stability last? Poll coming...

Stalinist Democracy.

Hey, it worked for the Soviets!

Stalinist Democracy.

Hey, it worked for the Soviets!

It did?

It did?

He's being sarcastic. If you want to look at a purely developmental standard, and ignore human costs, then Stalin's russia can't be beat in terms of industrial development. Something like a growth rate of between 11-14% per year. But, obviously, we can't ignore those costs. A 12% growth rate can never be legitmately paid for by a million people's lives.

He's being sarcastic. If you want to look at a purely developmental standard, and ignore human costs, then Stalin's russia can't be beat in terms of industrial development. Something like a growth rate of between 11-14% per year. But, obviously, we can't ignore those costs. A 12% growth rate can never be legitmately paid for by a million people's lives.

Well, it's better than negative growth rate at the same cost...

btw. I voted for authoritarian (perhaps akin to Roman dictators).

Well, it's better than negative growth rate at the same cost...

Meh. An authoritarian regime isn't necessarily going to go out of their way to perform massive human rights abuses. Now they're not going to just sit back and let dissidents fuck-up nation-building, but I think there is a middle-ground of economic growth, stability, and relatively few state-sponsored, ugh, "dispersements".

He's being sarcastic.

I honestly couldn't tell.

Whats most practical depends on exactly how backwards the country in question is, which stage of development it is in. Just like technological development throughout history has changed which society structure was the most efficient one in various time periods. So, it depends on if the country in question is back in the 1950, industrial revolution, stone age...

A feudal system with serfs was the most efficient back when most people couldn't read, there was no printing press to mass produce newspapers and literature and the fastest way to send a message was by horse. It was just not practical to have the general population exercise any freedom and power. Fair trials where also impractical without fingerprints, photography, autopsy or other hard evidence.

It's different in a modern society where the masses keep themselves informed of what centralized media wants them to think by watching TV, listening to radio and reading. Massive amounts of information can be handled with a bit of paperwork and it's possible to communicate over distances instantly. Now it's more efficient to let the population handle most activities in a free market, under the supervision of an elected authority. An authoritarian elite trying to plan everything, think about everything and control everything just can't keep up with the complexity and speed anymore.

It's not just 2 alternatives, throughout history different parts of society has evolved gradually as a result of new technology opening new possibilities. Internet, cell phones with camera and everything and other new advances will keep driving this development forwards.

Whichever they find appropriate, there you go.

He's being sarcastic. If you want to look at a purely developmental standard, and ignore human costs, then Stalin's russia can't be beat in terms of industrial development. Something like a growth rate of between 11-14% per year. But, obviously, we can't ignore those costs. A 12% growth rate can never be legitmately paid for by a million people's lives.
The fact that they went through Eastern Europe stealing everything that wasn't nailed down didn't hurt either.

I voted for universal suffrage. I haven't really given it much thought though.

that's entirely up to them.

I say an authoritarian regime that brings a capitalistic free-market economy into devolpment and safeguards democracy until the economy is stable enough that the citizens can live well off and in stability. Then the government transforms itself into a democracy.

Why the necessity for democracy? Why the burning passion to proselytise every state on the planet into the self-same democratic mire as the USA and UK?

Why not allow them to develop a form of government that suits them, not the sensibilities of an unquestioningly western moron?

A strong dictator is preferable.

Why the necessity for democracy? Why the burning passion to proselytise every state on the planet into the self-same democratic mire as the USA and UK?

Why not allow them to develop a form of government that suits them, not the sensibilities of an unquestioningly western moron?

Because, rightly or wrongly, voting is seen as an inalienable human right by the vast majority of people (Westerns who frequent this board, anyway), and so, as the poll shows, there is a large percentage of people who think installing democracy should come before development.

I personally believe that before democracy can be expected to work you need to get a stable government, growing economy, and competent bureaucracy (look at the Philippines; democracy before development didn't work). I'm open to debate on this though.

Because, rightly or wrongly, voting is seen as an inalienable human right by the vast majority of people (Westerns who frequent this board, anyway), and so, as the poll shows, there is a large percentage of people who think installing democracy should come before development.

I personally believe that before democracy can be expected to work you need to get a stable government, growing economy, and competent bureaucracy (look at the Philippines; democracy before development didn't work). I'm open to debate on this though.

And, given that you cite popularity as a guarantor of an idea's merits, you clearly subscribe to the notion that democracy is an end in itself. I do pity you.

Whichever they find appropriate.that's entirely up to them.Seconded.. I mean thirded

Why the necessity for democracy? Why the burning passion to proselytise every state on the planet into the self-same democratic mire as the USA and UK?

Why not allow them to develop a form of government that suits themHow democratic of you.

Why the necessity for democracy? Why the burning passion to proselytise every state on the planet into the self-same democratic mire as the USA and UK?I voted for the First option. (universal suffrage)
The first option does not say it has to be a USA mirrored Democracy.

For example:
Iranians have their own brand of Democracy..
Venezuelans have their own brand of Democracy..
Bolivians have their own brand of Democracy..

Chavez, Morales, Ahmejihad and the others would all vote for option 1.

I voted for the third option.
The first option does not say it has to be a USA mirrored Democracy.

For example
Iranians have their own brand of Democracy..
Venezuelans have their own brand of Democracy..
Bolivians have their own brand of Democracy..

Chavez, Morales, the Ahmejihad and the others would all vote for option 1.

They also happen to have a far more interested, politicised electorate than the west.

For that matter, I simply objected to the unthinkingly por-democratic stance of the OP.

For that matter, I simply objected to the unthinkingly por-democratic stance of the OP.I am with you on this one. (I object to that too)

I am with you on this one. (I object to that too)

Exactly.

And, given that you cite popularity as a guarantor of an idea's merits, you clearly subscribe to the notion that democracy is an end in itself. I do pity you.

You're a fucking idiot. Where did I cite popularity as having any correlation to the merits of democracy? Nowhere. In fact I specifically left that open:

Why the necessity for democracy? Why the burning passion to proselytise every state on the planet into the self-same democratic mire as the USA and UK?

Why not allow them to develop a form of government that suits them, not the sensibilities of an unquestioningly western moron?

Because, rightly or wrongly, voting is seen as an inalienable human right by the vast majority of people (Westerns who frequent this board, anyway), and so, as the poll shows, there is a large percentage of people who think installing democracy should come before development.

That being said, I personally do see democracy as the "end game" that a country should strive for, but as I've already said I don't think democracy should be forced on a country by either internal or external forces.

Universal suffrage allows everyone the basic input of their view as to who should be running their government. As such, it is markedly superior to all other methods of forming a government.

The problem for developing countries is not how to form a government, but how to form a NON-CORRUPT government (or, at least, one where the corruption is kept to a manageable level).

The best way to do that is to divide power. If you place only a very limited amount of power in the central government, forbid them to take more, and place the rest of the power in regional governments, things get better. If you then chop the central government up into discrete chunks, each independent of but overseen by the others, it gets even better.

However, it must be admitted that this kind of division isn't cheap, and administration costs will rise.

And, given that you cite popularity as a guarantor of an idea's merits, you clearly subscribe to the notion that democracy is an end in itself. I do pity you.
It may be hypocritical, but I pity people who feel superior enough to feel sorry for people because they have different views. Wait, pity isn't the right word..."am incredibly annoyed by"? Yes, that's better.

Have you heard of the lottery economy?

Have you heard of the lottery economy?

Wikipedia says it doesn't exist, so no. Continue...

Democracy is perhaps the second best form of government. Second only to a absolute monarchy in which I am in total control. As well, I will constantly clone myself to create a never ending cycle of rule. That's the best form of government for any country, at least in my opinion...

So, to answer your question, developing countries do not need a democracy, they need me to be their ruler.

I didn't know that Democracy (tm) came in a one-size-fits-all variety!

The answer is simpy "whichever one the citizens will support".

And the answer to that will depend entirely on many variables. Is the country relatively hetrogenous in population? Are there existing internal group frictions? Does it have the potential for economic success via available raw materials or other factors?

And, most importantly, can it attract the right people to run for office.

Even established first-world nations can go through periods where their democracy doesn't work all that well. The problem in an emerging country is that an early failure can be disasterous for a very long term.

Oligarchy (rich men of the dominant ethnicity) would work best for about, say, forever. Even the "Democratic Republic" of the U.S. is really just a less oligarchial oligarchy.

Oh, and don't try to ban alcohol. That rarely works out.

Oligarchy (rich men of the dominant ethnicity) would work best for about, say, forever. Even the "Democratic Republic" of the U.S. is really just a less oligarchial oligarchy.

Oh, and don't try to ban alcohol. That rarely works out.

Meh, that is pretty broad. An oligarchy in colonised island-states meant tribal caciques. I don't think that was a good idea.

I'd say that there should be a transparent government that encourages education and economic development. The original authoritarian government should slowly relinquish power to the people as they become more educated and informed.

I'd say that there should be a transparent government that encourages education and economic development. The original authoritarian government should slowly relinquish power to the people as they become more educated and informed.

Except that authoritarian governments NEVER "slowly relinquish power". They either release it all at once, or they have it taken from them.

And usually neither happens without a fight.

All I have to say is, look at America. After it gained independance from the UK it was a democratic country while they were still weak and look at them now, the biggest and most powerfullest, least liked, aggressive country I know that is still around. Although alternatively look at Weimar Germany, they were the most democratic country in Europe at the time it was created in 1918 and they had revolt after revolt and a really bad economy (which did pick up after the dawes plan for a few years but then with 1929 came the great depression).

All I have to say is, look at America. After it gained independance from the UK it was a democratic country while they were still weak and look at them now, the biggest and most powerfullest, least liked, aggressive country I know that is still around. Although alternatively look at Weimar Germany, they were the most democratic country in Europe at the time it was created in 1918 and they had revolt after revolt and a really bad economy (which did pick up after the dawes plan for a few years but then with 1929 came the great depression).

But you have to acknowledge that the Weimar Republic had several things against it: unthinkingly hostile neighbours, a huge and unrighteous debt, a lack of a democratic tradition and no help at all from outside. Really, it's rather amazing they got as far as they did.

Why the necessity for democracy? Why the burning passion to proselytise every state on the planet into the self-same democratic mire as the USA and UK?

Why not allow them to develop a form of government that suits them, not the sensibilities of an unquestioningly western moron?

Because Democracy is the best form of government? Democracies are more stable once they're established, less warlike, more respectful of human rights and they're very rarely ruled by lunatics. You might get democratic leaders who are incompetant (Blair), corrupt (Nixon) or even incompetant AND corrupt (Bush), but if you want real insanity, like adding an extra-lane to every motorway in the country for their own personal use or renaming every month of the year after themself or their mother, then you need an autocrat or theocrat.

In answer to the OP: Constitutional Democracy is by far the best form of government.

Something in the middle.

Atleast people needs to be educated in what they're getting into.

Uneducated masses + democracy = gullible controllable masses... oh wait,... nevermind.

In answer to the OP: Constitutional Democracy is by far the best form of government.

In all instances? What about politically unstable countries where the only chance for economic development and stabilisation is for a hard-ass to be in charge for a few years?

In all instances? What about politically unstable countries where the only chance for economic development and stabilisation is for a hard-ass to be in charge for a few years?

Well, the advantage of constitutional democracy is that you can DO that, if necessary. Look at the Lincoln Presidency; while he had his battles with Congress, Lincoln acted the "Hard Man" as much as he saw the need, and got away with it.

In other cases, suspension of the usual system is built into the constitution. The Governor General of Australia can suspend Parliament and rule by decree for up to six months - entirely legally and within the stated constitution.

Perhaps the best model for a developing state is Taiwan or South Korea. Sure, Chiang Kai-shek and Syngman Rhee weren't the nicest guys in the world, but economically, they got things done, and in time, democratic reform happened. Taiwan now has a free press, and I'm pretty sure South Korea does, too. Turning a "backward" state into a first-world powerhouse doesn't happen overnight, and the first benefits should be economic. Once people are comfortable economic, the next step can be political and personal freedoms.

I think that developing nations are so varied and diverse that it would be impossible to find a solution that fits all situations. Some have or had left wing dictatorships. A lot more have or had right wing dictatorships. Some already have democracies. Some have forms of government that they consider democracies but that others do not consider a democracy.

I think the best thing would be to let the people from that particluar nation decide what they feel is the best solution. Since they are the ones dealing with the problems on a day to day basis, they are probably the ones with the clearest ideas as to how to implement solutions, and what potential obstacles may be faced.

On a more general, theoretical level, I would side with the democracy first, as this would ensure that the economic model used by the country is not imposed, but freely chosen.