Which is the best kind of democracy?

Scarf said:

Japan...doing pretty well

Click to expand...

AHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

You watch too much anime, darling.

Rezilia said:

AHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

You watch too much anime, darling.

Click to expand...

I'll thank you to tone down the 'tude, please.

And I've lived in Japan. I can personally attest that it's a pretty stable place. Clean, with healthy people, and although it's government has mostly been dominated by one party, it recently showed that the people are willing to step up and change things when they wanted to. Which is just what you'd expect from a healthy democracy. You'll also notice there are no government shutdowns, roaming mobs, or other signs of lawless states.

Hmmm...

Well, the issue of problems in Japan and public disrest is...different from other places. The Yakuza are generally the bad dudes in Japan - so people oftentimes let them handle issues concerning public disrest. Also, though a criminal organization, the Yakuza uphold various chivalric traits, which makes them show their disrest in less harmful ways than other groups normally would.

I will say that Japan's govt, itself, is fine - but I just don't think the nation is. You still have issues when it comes to living SPACE, whether it's clean or not, and different tidbit issues exist very differently in different regions due to different living situations.

Scarf said:

This seems kinda like a Catch-22. They're poor so they can't thrive under democracy, but because they're authoritarian the majority of the population is relatively poor so they don't have the agency to participate in democracy.

You look at places like South Korea or Japan and they're doing pretty well and they hadn't had some bumps in the road to democracy. What made them different? My knowledge of Korean history is pretty lacking, but I know that there was a large postwar push in the US to rebuild Japan.

Click to expand...

It's very very important to study the politics and history of all countries to understand the context in which democracy exists. South Korea and Japan emerged from a Cold War context, in which the United States dominated the world economy and influenced the rules of international trade. They were also major American allies and received major American support. Japan was constitutionally restricted to low military spending, and both Japan and ROK are under the American security umbrella, so they experienced a peace dividend in which the national purse can be diverted from military spending to development spending.

The ROK government underwent many political transitions through military dictatorships and one party rule - much like what we see in the rest of Asia right now. In fact, the communist parties were crushed by both the Americans and American-backed capitalist government. Democracy in Korea and Taiwan were repressed for the longest time. Korea went through many coup-d'etats and constitutional changes. In Taiwan, freedoms began to be protected slowly.

Anyways, both of these economies were able to expand their export industries while limiting foreign imports. This is why Korean and Japanese companies are so powerful worldwide. Their setup is increasingly harder to do in today's world of global capitalism.

Democracy is a process, not a state of being. It is something that has to be sustained and worked for - and thus the conditions of democracy must be met before it can be sustained. The ROK, Taiwan, and Japan achieved these conditions sooner or later - as well as with the help of a world order that suited them. I cannot say the same for the developing countries of Asia of today.

But going back to your point democracy from the Western world. You're saying that these east Asian countries needed to get their national security/economies/etc. under control before they could get the kind of democracy in place that they have now, but are you also saying democracy would have been bad for them during this whole process? that it should wait until all these other foundations are laid before introducing it?

Scarf said:

But going back to your point democracy from the Western world. You're saying that these east Asian countries needed to get their national security/economies/etc. under control before they could get the kind of democracy in place that they have now, but are you also saying democracy would have been bad for them during this whole process? that it should wait until all these other foundations are laid before introducing it?

Click to expand...

One does not simply create democracy. It is a process that must be sustained. Japan had industrialized near the end of the 19th century and was already considered a modern nation for several decades by the time of its defeat after WWII. The simple fact of the matter is that Taiwan and the ROK did not democratize until their economies matured, a vocal middle class and civil society. Their policies of economic development were really undemocratic - the state picked certain industries and companies they would support. But sustained economic growth brought wealth to the people, and the people began to demand. The conditions for a healthy democracy became apparent. Yes, a country should be ready for a democratic transition before it occurs.

Of course, Singapore is a whole other story.

BlahISuck said:

I would say Asian countries, whether from China to Singapore, Indonesia to the Phillippines, all have more authoritarianism than tolerable in the West. However, democratizing hasn't shown the best results, especially not for the poorer ones. It makes it harder for the states to suppress Islamist movements, which although gain from democratic freedoms, are not very democratic themselves and wish to alter their political systems.

I don't think much can be said about democracies in prosperity. It's kind of like the jackpot. It's definitely not a model that the rest of the world can follow.

Click to expand...

No ****ing way would that be true. The poorest countries in the world (most of the Black Africa, Southern Asia, North Korea, etc.) are all autocratic dictatorships.

Cerberus87 said:

No ****ing way would that be true. The poorest countries in the world (most of the Black Africa, Southern Asia, North Korea, etc.) are all autocratic dictatorships.

Click to expand...

Just because the poorest countries in the world happen to be autocracies does not disprove - especially given empirical evidence - the advantages an autocratic government can have in developing their economy. South Korea and Taiwan are the best examples of poor Asian countries that transitioned to democracy after using an autocratic system to develop highly competitive industries which increased their standard of living to Western levels. Besides, many African countries began as democracies following liberation, yet coup-d'etats occurred that took it all away. They're the poorest countries in the world and they're autocracies now, but they were democracies once. Like I said, democracy must be sustained. It can be taken away. The poorer countries of the world do not have the luxury that we do to sustain a democratic government. Your tag says Brazil, so you should be familiar with the long and hard path towards democracy your country has gone through.

The U.S. infected Somalia with its Democratic virus.

I give it 2 years, max.

I am broadly sympathetic to the idea that democracy cannot be rushed. If the populace is not ready for all that democracy entails, including losing elections from time to time (lessons that first world countries could stand to remember) then we'll see resort to undemocratic means to advance a particular group's goals. Egypt is a good case study of this.

However, I am unconvinced that prosperity is a precondition for democracy. It may appear that way because prosperous countries tend to already have functional civil societies, but prosperity alone is insufficient. India became a parliamentary democracy just as it left British rule, and it certainly was not considered a rising world power at the time. On the hand, China is a rising world power with an educated and prosperous population which has only from time to time clamored for democratic governance.

What makes democracy work is respect for democracy.

Winston Churchill said:

Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, 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.

Click to expand...

I was discussing this with my grandfather earlier, and he brought up an interesting point. In the past, out government did work very well, but only when we were smaller. We as a people have not grown with our government, and that is the whole problem.

Communism.

I am not a democracy person because there is always one half that is unhappy and you cannot be a good prime minister/president if there are people who dislike your party/you and want someone else.

I wouldn't mind communism maybe if it wasn't surrounded by the stigma of being bad and everyone who is in it is corrupt because I know a few people (like 40 years older than me) who would make great leaders because of the community service they provide they would make it a certainly more equal place but then again religion the birth of war comes into the picture and some jew or catholic or budhist or someone from any religion will get upset. In my country we let minority groups run the place, a group of muslims said that we could not put christmas decorations up around this shopping centre so they took them down... are you serious this country (australia) is primarily christian if we goto their countries and say that we could be killed or sentenced to jail. that is why we need communism everyone under one rule!!!

I would actually prefer that we move to a more direct form of democracy, for me the problem with political parties is that it is inevitable that they will prioritise their own agenda over the will of the people. I'm not saying that we should get rid of parties (this is more or less impossible anyway), what I'm saying is that all a party should be is a group of people who come together to formulate a number of policies which are clearly stated and are then voted upon in a referendum if that party gets into power.

Oh, and please don't say that we have 'too much democracy,' because right now my country, and also the US is ruled by two parties that are separated be almost nothing in terms of their ideologies. Is a two party state really that much more democratic than a one party state?

Scarf said:

But going back to your point democracy from the Western world. You're saying that these east Asian countries needed to get their national security/economies/etc. under control before they could get the kind of democracy in place that they have now, but are you also saying democracy would have been bad for them during this whole process? that it should wait until all these other foundations are laid before introducing it?

Click to expand...

South Korea (est. 1948) only became the liberal democratic country we see now in 1987 with the establishment of the Sixth Republic. Thailand only became a full fledged democracy in 1997 despite ending centuries of absolute monarchs in 1932.

A fine example where democracy failed not once but twice in the same century would be Cambodia. Cambodia became a republic in 1970 overthrowing a centuries old monarchy. Unfortunately it was rather bad timing as it was during the turmoil of the Vietnam War. Despite American financial and military aid the country fell to the communist five years later as a result of the instability resulting from the coup earlier.

Then in 1991 the United Nations attempted a rather interesting experiment where they directly had guardianship over Cambodia until 1993 after ending decades of civil war via the 1991 Paris Peace Accords. Elections were held in 1993 (with the aid of the restored monarchy to provide stability) and a democratic government was finally established. It was off to a rocky start and finally imploded when one of the co-Prime Ministers ousted the other one in 1997 and has remained PM ever since.

When the United States was established you had to be white landowning male to vote. Let's not even start with France. Point is democracy can't simply be implemented overnight and needs stability to take root.

I may as well put forward feudalism. I'm kinda a history buff, particularly from 600-1500, and I was wondering what are your opinions are.