Is democracy a failed concept for non-developed countries?

[Death Professor]

In fact, @striver44 is right. Liberal democracies are factually the most successful. They have the least poverty rates, have the highest education rates, the highest human development rate, the highest happiness rates, and consistently are the best places to live, they also have the best support programs for their citizens, and tend to be more financially secure. It is not a coincidence that when immigrants move to other countries, they move to liberal democracies.

You are also forgetting high tax rates and tax to GDP ratios.....

 

[xuxu1457]

No system is omnipotent. In the last 40 years, only a few countries such as South Korea, Japan and Singapore have become developed countries, but they are not democratic countries at the peak of their development.

Suitable is the best.In fact, what China implements is a meritocracy, which combines 90 million elites out of 1.4 billion people and governs the country by democracy within the 90 million elites.
Avoiding any of the arguments and struggles that have engulfed 1.4 billion people.

Ninety-five percent of developing countries are electoral democracies, and the failure rate is too high. South Africa and Brazil are falling too fast.
Because the cost of voting democracy is too high，Limited resources are invested in how to cater to short-term votes, and any reform will be fought. Insufficient resources for national development and construction, education.
The disadvantage of meritocratic democracy is how to ensure that these elites are for the interests of the state or for their own small groups，Can ordinary people have enough channels to rise and maintain the mobility of the elite?

 

[That Guy]

the dirty little secret of these so called "liberal democracies" is colonial might where the vast majority of their wealth comes from not their local democracies but rather from the wealth they stole from the land they colonized and fed their democracies with. the one and only exception to that rule is the u.s. which was in physical protection of the two oceans during to the two ravaging worlds wars. let's get one thing straight, Thailand is a liberal democracy but still poor, zimbabwe is a liberal democracy but still poor, the list goes on and on. liberal democracy is not the answer, education & accountability is. China is a prime example of why democracy isn't the answer, education & accountability is. hope that makes my point of view clear.

and remember, when the west wants to ruin a country, they bring "liberal democracy" to it, not education & accountability. when was the last time you heard of the american president or secretary of state complain about the lack of education or accountability in, say for example, North Korea or Venezuela? no, never. but they'll happily whine about the lack of liberal democracy until pigs fly. pretty obvious why they do so.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work. Whqt about South Korea? It was a victim of colonialism, and its a rich liberal democracy, and suffered economically under dictatorships.

You're using extreme and specific examples, while ignore examples that don't work for your argument.

By the way, the US was very much a colonial power, and still holds a number of territories across the world, the most famous being Puerto Rico.

If I wasn't on the side of the road, I'd make a longer comment, but honestly, I don't really care.

You are also forgetting high tax rates and tax to GDP ratios.....

Those taxes pay for social programs and government expenditures. I don't really get your point.

 

[GumNaam]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work. Whqt about South Korea? It was a victim of colonialism, and its a rich liberal democracy, and suffered economically under dictatorships.

You're using extreme and specific examples, while ignore examples that don't work for your argument.

If I wasn't on the side of the road, I'd make a longer comment, but honestly, I don't really care.

Those taxes pay for social programs and government expenditures. I don't really get your point.

uhm...you do realize that south korea has heavy economic dependence on investments from both the u.s. and the e.u. right? cuz if we were to go off this methodology then heck, KINGDOMS is the best government system out their given the filthy rich life styles of the gcc states, Qatar is supposedly the richest country in the world for God's sakes...but alas, they too have heavy economic dependence on investments from both the u.s. and the e.u. on the other hand, you have countries like China & ksA where there is no "liberal democracy" plus economic sanctions from most western nations including the u.s. one way or another and yet, they are still there and going strong...why? the key is education & accountability.

 

[Death Professor]

Those taxes pay for social programs and government expenditures. I don't really get your point.

The point is developed countries already had the mechanisms placed, where they had wealth stolen from the poorer countries. They had enough to start their social programs, focus on education, so that their population was able to produce goods and services for themselves and to sell to poor countries. It's called the first mover advantage. They occupied, they pillaged and now their new generation are enjoying the labor of their forefathers. And because of taxes it's now like perpetual motion machine. You can't have that for an undeveloped or a developing nation.

China on the other hand didn't have that, they had to starve, struggle, die to achieve what they have today. Millions died under Mao rule, there is a reason why Chinese "sweatshops" were famous in 90's. Sure one can be experimental, when the total population is around 60, 70 million, but when your population is huge, you need authority to force people into becoming a single unit. Don't know about India, but Pakistan can easily progress much faster under authoritarian rule compared to democracy. India is way too much diverse to have autocracy, it will only end up as a failure. Meanwhile our people have been systematically deprived in a way that they can't think for the future so their votes can easily be bought, so democracy isn't an answer here, until people are able to think long term instead of a plate of biryani.

 

[313ghazi]

Why talk only about China ??? Why not North Korea, Myanmar, Venezula ????

All 3 of those countries have faced prolonged western Embargoes and sanctions. It made economic success difficult. Look at what they did to Cuba.

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

Democracy seems to breed the most corrupt leadersin non developed countries.

a corrupt society is what breeds corrupt leaders. democracy is just a tool for one of the most corrupt to get into power, after using money/power during voting to clean up his image and seem like a saviour. i dont think religion is holding back underdeveloped countries from becoming developed democracies, since all religions tell the society to be morally upright.

Democracy works once a country is already rich or has access to near infinite resources (America in 1776 with free labour and free land)

democracy can work when the populace is ethical and morally upright. doesnt matter if the starting point is rich or poor, developed or not. but if the starting point is poor, then it means the population is also pretty uneducated. so its easy for them to fall for tricks and be fooled by politicians, and keep electing the corrupt ones to power over and over again. such as, how can a population vote for its economic interests every few years when they dont even understand basic economics and its graphs? these things arent taught in school. the to-be voters of tomorrow arent taught in schools how to become an educated voter and make a democracy work. simply teaching history and geography of the country isnt enough.

Democracy failed to give India or Pakistan the promised prosperity.

i think i covered a lot of reasons above. throw in wars over disputed borders, meddling in each other's country, uneducated masses in 1947 as a starting point, little economic integration between countries in the region, etc.

 

[That Guy]

uhm...you do realize that south korea has heavy economic dependence on investments from both the u.s. and the e.u. right? cuz if we were to go off this methodology then heck, KINGDOMS is the best government system out their given the filthy rich life styles of the gcc states, Qatar is supposedly the richest country in the world for God's sakes...but alas, they too have heavy economic dependence on investments from both the u.s. and the e.u. on the other hand, you have countries like China & ksA where there is no "liberal democracy" plus economic sanctions from most western nations including the u.s. one way or another and yet, they are still there and going strong...why? the key is education & accountability.

You're moving the goal post. You suggested you can't be a liberal democracy, and be a developed nation without a malicious history of wealth theft of other nations, and South Korea proves you wrong, regardless of how it made its money, so long as it wasn't maliciously gotten.

In the case of KSA, its oil money, not education and accountability, and its laughable that you'd even suggest that it has anything to do with the education and accountability.

With China, its a massive population, and extreme conformity. China's economy was built upon cheap labor, which is why corporations opened up manufacturing in China in the first place. China used to also extremely corrupt as well, and previous heads of China have been arrested for corruption as well, and in fact corruption remains a big issue in China. Education only really gained traction once China's economy started to rise, and China could actually afford to invest in large scale educational reform.

By the way, none of this actually proves my point wrong. Today, liberal democracies are the best place to live, and are extremely wealthy.

 

[Chacha_Facebooka]

There is democracy is developing nations?

 

[SABRE]

Democracy seems to breed the most corrupt leadersin non developed countries...Democracy works once a country is already rich or has access to near infinite resources (America in 1776 with free labour and free land)

Democracy failed to give India or Pakistan the promised prosperity..While China stole a march on us...Gentle guiding hand of patriotic authoratarian regimes seems to be the best for dirt poor countries of South Asia...too much energy, attention, resources are lost in the election cycle..not to mention the corruption it engenders...

Why do I say this?..Because after a long time, both India and Pakistan have true patriots at the top post...Giving them extended mandates of around 10-15 years would be beneficial for both countries

Problem is not with democracy but understanding of it and implementation of it based on the Western values and not on the existing ground realities in ones own country.

Most people understand democracy as elections & right to vote. Whereas, elections & right to vote are not democracy themselves but means to it. Democracy is ensuring from bottom to up & from up to bottom relationship between the ruler & the ruled. Alongside this, democracy ensures fundamental human rights: your right to live & livelihood. Unfortunately, the bureaucratic systems across the globe - be it a developed Western state or the most poorest of Eastern & Southern state - performs as an unsurmountable firewall rather than a bridge. Thus, the main problem lies with the state structure. For this reason, many thinkers over the years have postulated that bureaucratic system should be done away with.

Democracy is also meant to ensure equal & equitable relationship in countries with dynamic & lopsided demographics. The U.S. constitution introduced Senate system because of its smallest state, Rhode Island, which had population so small that it could not possibly compete in the legislative & electoral system of the time. India and Pakistan population/ethnic realities are much more challenging than this. In South Asia, the Upper Houses that have equal representations from provinces/states & are intended to create balance of legislative power amongst the federating units & their populations actually have no clear guidance, be it of their existence or function. The lopsided power sharing between upper & lower houses in South Asia overlooks the ground realities, in particular of the dynamic populations & ethnic identities. Ironically, the politicians that we deem corrupt are the ones holding the countries together despite the disparity in the legislative power. But they do so out of their own ulterior motives. If they are done away with things may start to unravel for both the countries with each province/state seeking independence.

Bangladesh's economic success is also setting up an example for ethno-nationalists & federating entities to consider separations. Unless, India and Pakistan accept democratic reforms based on ground realities both countries are likely to face existential crisis.

 

[LeGenD]

No man-made system is perfect when put into practice because humans are not like obedient drones by and large. There is much difference of opinion and personality flaws for real (Psychology is an important theme TBH).

To build a better society, practices such as constructive education, accountability, and consensus-building are essential. However, a society have to start from somewhere and at its core is the fundamental realization of the RIGHT and WRONG. This realization might stem from a values-driven religion (e.g. Islam). There would be rampant degeneracy and chaos otherwise.

Many societies are caught in the process of defining the RIGHT and WRONG however, and gains are limited therefore.

the key is education & accountability.

Fair points (see my perspective above). I would however contend that democratic political model gives RIGHTS and a SAY in political affairs of a country to its nationals/citizens - this is much better than not having these perks at all.

Pakistan is also caught in the realization of the RIGHT and WRONG unfortunately. Unless this realization is complete, Pakistani democratic system will not deliver as per expectations. The key to having flourishing democracy is the fundamental realization of the RIGHT and WRONG which comes from Islam in case of Muslims. This is assuming that people are willing to be good practicing Muslims to begin with.

Remember this: Islam also grants the Public the right to choose a leader. Authoritative regimes do no conform to this ideal on the other hand.

The lure of wealth and power is strong in general, and these perks can stimulate the WORSE of impulses in humans. If you have substantial wealth and power at your disposal, how will you treat others if they happen to disagree with you? Will you show mercy or destroy them? Will you be rational in your decisions or oppressive because you can get away with much?

If oppressive people are in power, they can steer the country towards ruin irrespective of the political model adopted. Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad are instructive case studies. There are numerous examples in fact if you look around carefully.

 

[313ghazi]

Democracy seems to breed the most corrupt leadersin non developed countries...Democracy works once a country is already rich or has access to near infinite resources (America in 1776 with free labour and free land)

Democracy failed to give India or Pakistan the promised prosperity..While China stole a march on us...Gentle guiding hand of patriotic authoritarian regimes seems to be the best for dirt poor countries of South Asia...too much energy, attention, resources are lost in the election cycle..not to mention the corruption it engenders...

Why do I say this?..Because after a long time, both India and Pakistan have true patriots at the top post...Giving them extended mandates of around 10-15 years would be beneficial for both countries

Any system you try to impose on a country is likely to fail. Models of governance have to be tailored to the specific needs of the country.

Pakistan for example cannot be a pure dictatorship and we are a multi-polar society, we have different religious groups, ethnic groups and limited resources. When one group doesn't have the resources they require, they will automatically blame someone else for taking what is theirs. A dictatorship has to be bloody and violent to suppress this sort of this and that creates resentment and cracks which foreign elements can exploit.

At the same time parliamentary democracy is utterly failed. The only people who are able to stand for power are an elite, they same people control all the institutions the country, they are focused only on preserving their own power and extracting resources for themselves. It's no different to colonialism.

What Pakistan needs is an empowered and long term central leadership, but also with a level of representation of the people. I think this should be limited to local government only. There is not enough money at that level for all the big sharks to want to be involved and it can give people the opportunity to vote out people who don't make a difference in their immediate area.

As for the central leadership, it should be a minimum of a 10 year term with a maximum of 3 terms. Each term should have an election for the Leader where a single candidate must get more than 50% of the vote to be selected (like the French do). There also should be a review election every 5 years where you must get the support of more than one third of the electorate to remain in power, else you are voted out.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Why talk only about China ??? Why not North Korea, Myanmar, Venezula ????

So strength of either democracy or authoritarianism depends on the strength of the human capital? Can you please elaborate how anti-corruption drives became successful in Indonesia as the country moved from authoritarianism to democracy?

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

It requires a politically conscious society for democracy to take root and become eventually successful. A state can never create a society. In fact, the opposite is true. A society always shapes the nature of a state to manage certain tasks. These are the very basics of social science for the last two millennia. People of under developed countries still foolishly expect that some special politician alone can rescue them out if misery. Can a few people change a society ? Never. Society is simply too complex to be engineered by few individuals. Only evolutionary pressure can achieve this objectives over a span of hundreds of years of natural selections.

What timeline do you envisage for various SOuth Asian countries so that they can achieve a minimum level of prosperity? (I mean at the very least middle income like $10,000 GDP per capita nominal..around where China sits today)

 

[Indos]

So strength of either democracy or authoritarianism depends on the strength of the human capital? Can you please elaborate how anti-corruption drives became successful in Indonesia as the country moved from authoritarianism to democracy?

Human capitals (education quality and reach, morality, characters, personal wisdom) and the elites group quality. The elites groups in democratic nations are quite large, not just those on the power but also media, intellectuals, NGO, religious leaders and any one who has the power to influence the government and people, including Youtubers, and people who has access to important people.

For China chase, if their top elite is not changing communist economic system, their fate now will be similar like Today North Korea




=============================

Anti Corruption is one of the main agendas of our "reformasi" that topple Soeharto and bring back democracy after it was taken since 1959 by Soekarno and then Soeharto

Our elites set up anti corruption body right after we have fair parliament election. The body is independent from government and has huge power, including the power to tap every body without court permission. We know the judiciary is also corrupt, so we set up special court to process corruption case.

I would say most elites understand that Indonesia should be reformed despite some of them still corrupt. It is already in our elites psychic, even our military leaders agree their power to be reduced and will try to be professionals. In the old days they have huge members in our parliament, then the number being reduced into zero since 2004, our second free election where we also change the system into full Presidential with first direct Presidential election held at that year.

The corruption mentality then get reduced over time. There were huge catches since 2005 that include central bank governor, constitution court chairman, and many ministers, governors, and parliament members, including four party leaders.

In the grass root level, many have change. Even about 10 years ago I still need to pay civil servant some money to renew my ID card, not because I want to, but because they ask for it, not just me but every body also get similar treatment. Todays our civil servants have reformed and we are treated like customers, quite professional. helpful, and polite.

The anti corruption drive is particularly promoted by religious leaders, anti corruption NGO and medias. Any way, in Islam stealing money or bribing is a big sin, other religion also forbid that acts.

I dont say we have successfuly combated corruption, but big change I would say has happened. And all people must still work to combat any misdoing or corruption as far as they can. Most catch in our corruption case is due to report from people for example. Our anti corruption body has line and access for people to report any misdoing safely and secretly through their website.

People, particularly the wider elites groups must be proactive in democratic countries. With that system, people also has bigger responsibility to help their country stay in the right course as they also have more power than people living in an authoritarian state, Big power creates bigger responsibility right ??