Democracy vs Authoritarianism

J

jackliu

Banned Idiot
IronsightSniper said:
Of course, you're not taking any of it into context. I compared Japan and China because of their similarity in societal structure, in that they're both East Asian (yes, this may have been more racy). The Korean countries are far more compatible for comparison in that they're both similar in most ways except the fact that one follows the Supreme Leader and the other is more democratic than such. Next, Venezuela v. Mexico were also compared to each other due to the fact that both of them are dealing with a rampant drug issue. You should realize that I only picked countries that were comparable to each other because anomalies like the U.S. is incomparable to most countries.
Click to expand...

Did you also forget the fact that Japan and Korean's economy industrialization started 20-30 years early than China? Thus they are more wealthier? Or how about let's compare homicide rate of democratic Philippines vs China, which is actually 5 times worse.

Oh and btw, difference between China and Japan is actually very small.

Or let us compare the democratic Mexico and Colombia with Cuba, which is again5-6 times worse.

This debate is about democracy vs authoritarianism, homicide rate have nothing to do with this, for every correlation you find, I can find more to contradict your data.

So if you want to argue that democratic nation makes safer society, I can also argue from the data that authoritarian nation makes safer society.
 
D

duncanidaho

Junior Member
Southkorea, yes. But i would say Japans industrialisation began 70-80 years earlier than China, in the late 19th century.
 
A

airsuperiority

Captain
jackliu said:
There is no government type as "Flawed Democracy" my friend.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


And if you think Iraq and Afghanistan have "flawed democracy" then you are not really arguing with us, one of the main point of this whole discussion is that for different societies, democracy very well not be the best form of government for them, and when a society is not ready, but yet forced democracy upon them will often result in failure.

That means it is very possible and actually already happening that a functioning Authoritarian nation will benefit it is own people much more than a failed democracy nation. China is actually the best example here, sure India have democracy and voting, but how many people did India raise out of poverty vs China's? Everyone now bitch about China's human right, well guess what genius, if you compare China's human right with UK or US it will always fall short, but somehow no one compare China's progress with China, all the mainstream media coverage about China are nothing but negative. Tell me you find no problem with this?

You pointed out that democracy means more than voting, but have you think about what happen when you only introduce election into a nation without addressing any other aspect? Which is actually exactly what the Western nations trying to do all around the world, they don't care about a nation's social/racial/historical background as long as it introduce democracy, and then somehow it will be all sunshine and rainbows. Iraq and Afghanistan is the best example of that fail policy, and yet, the Western government is still pushing this agenda all over the world on Syria, Lydia, Egypt, China etc...

Please tell me you find absolutely nothing wrong with this?

btw, I there I won't call them "Flawed democracy", I call them "Failed democracy"
Click to expand...

Hey everyone. I've just returned from a trip to NYC to the UN, and I can say, combined with my minor in IR, I've learned quite a lot. Something I must point out is, if we assume and put conspiracies and all that out of equation, what the West is doing is to bring democracies to these states and liberal values such as human rights. The problem with this is, almost all of these places that they are trying to help, all have very limited state capacities, and in fact, bordering "failing/failed" index. Corruption is rampant due to poor economy, high unemployment rate, food scarcity, low education rates, poor infrastructures, and perhaps even civil wars and other political instability. With all these accounted for, to create democracy is equivalent of putting a scholar in a war zone. It is dangerous, and very hard for this mild-mannered scholar to survive through enough tests of nature and men before the fruit is ripe. On the other hand, 2nd world states possess much better capabilities for democracies, but often times the political instability and corruptions remain a huge concern, along with perhaps industrialization only in its mid-stage, not maturity. The peoples in this country should be in the midst course of pushing for greater responsibility and accountability from the government first, but to ask for democracy is still a leap too big.
finally, states like malaysia and hk(treating it as separate entity), are well modernized enough where the population are quite educated, economy and industries are comfortable with their identities. at this stage, tailoring for a democracy is the right way. this is my 2 cents. i used to think quite the same in regards that the West is pursuing imperialistic agenda in the name of democracies, but after coming back from the UN, I can now see why UN and these western states promote democracies. again assuming/putting national benefits out of question, it is because democracies can better guarantee and protect its citizens. as i anticipated you guys will argue with me on this point by bringing up iraq, i can say that iraq is an example of failing state, which is why police brutality remains. democracy isnt in its full function there, and the police are also unaccounted for properly. and why i said democracy can better protect its citizens is because at least it can't do it in light of constitution.(authoritarian regimes aren't held accountable by public in the same way generally). along with that, democracies can allow and preserve human rights properly(at least allow it to breed). although again the priority of such state-building can be in question in regards with human rights, it's occurred to me that the current international phenomenon is more bent towards humanitarian than actual state-building and lifting failing states out of its condition.
 
Kurt

Kurt

Junior Member
What exactly did convince you of these ideas?
Democracy (or any good alternative) wins if people fight for it. The scholar in the warzone can survive if people realize that he has the gift to create something beyond the capabilities of any warlord. It's not necessarily about democracy, people like Muhammed the prophet, Temujin - Genghis Khan or Mao should also be counted among the scholars who can give the warriors a better reason to fight for or even become a warrior. In the beginning, the scholar needs to convince people to start this enterprise with him and it's not bad as long as the system is upheld voluntarily. The problem is not so much about exporting ideas and trying to transform the world by force of arms, but about the locals deciding about cooperation to create something great together instead of age old feuds with petty-"heroes". That's why the Egyptian demonstrants are a force to fear - they cleaned up Tahrir Square after the protests.
 
J

jackliu

Banned Idiot
airsuperiority said:
Hey everyone. I've just returned from a trip to NYC to the UN, and I can say, combined with my minor in IR, I've learned quite a lot. Something I must point out is, if we assume and put conspiracies and all that out of equation, what the West is doing is to bring democracies to these states and liberal values such as human rights. The problem with this is, almost all of these places that they are trying to help, all have very limited state capacities, and in fact, bordering "failing/failed" index. Corruption is rampant due to poor economy, high unemployment rate, food scarcity, low education rates, poor infrastructures, and perhaps even civil wars and other political instability. With all these accounted for, to create democracy is equivalent of putting a scholar in a war zone. It is dangerous, and very hard for this mild-mannered scholar to survive through enough tests of nature and men before the fruit is ripe. On the other hand, 2nd world states possess much better capabilities for democracies, but often times the political instability and corruptions remain a huge concern, along with perhaps industrialization only in its mid-stage, not maturity. The peoples in this country should be in the midst course of pushing for greater responsibility and accountability from the government first, but to ask for democracy is still a leap too big.
finally, states like malaysia and hk(treating it as separate entity), are well modernized enough where the population are quite educated, economy and industries are comfortable with their identities. at this stage, tailoring for a democracy is the right way. this is my 2 cents. i used to think quite the same in regards that the West is pursuing imperialistic agenda in the name of democracies, but after coming back from the UN, I can now see why UN and these western states promote democracies. again assuming/putting national benefits out of question, it is because democracies can better guarantee and protect its citizens. as i anticipated you guys will argue with me on this point by bringing up iraq, i can say that iraq is an example of failing state, which is why police brutality remains. democracy isnt in its full function there, and the police are also unaccounted for properly. and why i said democracy can better protect its citizens is because at least it can't do it in light of constitution.(authoritarian regimes aren't held accountable by public in the same way generally). along with that, democracies can allow and preserve human rights properly(at least allow it to breed). although again the priority of such state-building can be in question in regards with human rights, it's occurred to me that the current international phenomenon is more bent towards humanitarian than actual state-building and lifting failing states out of its condition.
Click to expand...

Now you see the problem of trying to spread democracy all over the world regardless of their each different background, which is exactly what the Western nation trying to do without much success, but yet they are still doing it.

Also it is true that authoritarian nation usually is not as good at protects the individual right of the citizens, but the thing is, the same thing can be just as worse in democratic nations, I have said before and I'll say again, when you think of democracy you always think of US, UK, France etc.. whom had hundreds of years of development, but you don't ever think of India, Philippians, Haiti etc.. who only had the tradition of democracy for a few decades and the result is show it is failing horribly, and the people that live inside those society, their individual right are not exactly being protected.

And at last there is something as too much protection for individual right at the expense of the common good, this not in my backyard sentiment here in US have hinder many development that would have benefit the masses.
 
J

jackliu

Banned Idiot
Kurt said:
What exactly did convince you of these ideas?
Democracy (or any good alternative) wins if people fight for it. The scholar in the warzone can survive if people realize that he has the gift to create something beyond the capabilities of any warlord. It's not necessarily about democracy, people like Muhammed the prophet, Temujin - Genghis Khan or Mao should also be counted among the scholars who can give the warriors a better reason to fight for or even become a warrior. In the beginning, the scholar needs to convince people to start this enterprise with him and it's not bad as long as the system is upheld voluntarily. The problem is not so much about exporting ideas and trying to transform the world by force of arms, but about the locals deciding about cooperation to create something great together instead of age old feuds with petty-"heroes". That's why the Egyptian demonstrants are a force to fear - they cleaned up Tahrir Square after the protests.
Click to expand...

oh wow, how brainwashed are you?? Do you really think democracy will spun spontaneously out of no where and thus result in haplessness on earth? Muhammad and Temujin was great person, but trust me, democracy never come to their mind when they created their empire. And how do you expect people that have been living under tribal mentality to suddenly start to care and love each other and work for the common goods? When people are starving everyday, when they don't' have a place to sleep at night now much crap will they give to voluntarily to establish a democratic system?

Oh and the Egyptian demonstration was not a show case for democracy, as much as a show case for how much they are pissed off with the existing government, last time I check all the people that helped to started the demonstration are not in the current government, and last time I check Egypt currenlty is not exaclty a great showcase of textbook democracy.
 
A

airsuperiority

Captain
Kurt said:
What exactly did convince you of these ideas?
Democracy (or any good alternative) wins if people fight for it. The scholar in the warzone can survive if people realize that he has the gift to create something beyond the capabilities of any warlord. It's not necessarily about democracy, people like Muhammed the prophet, Temujin - Genghis Khan or Mao should also be counted among the scholars who can give the warriors a better reason to fight for or even become a warrior. In the beginning, the scholar needs to convince people to start this enterprise with him and it's not bad as long as the system is upheld voluntarily. The problem is not so much about exporting ideas and trying to transform the world by force of arms, but about the locals deciding about cooperation to create something great together instead of age old feuds with petty-"heroes". That's why the Egyptian demonstrants are a force to fear - they cleaned up Tahrir Square after the protests.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to, but my thoughts towards all these had been around at least since back in the days I first joined this forum (around 2006?), if not earlier(regular members can testify). It's just that my thoughts have been constantly improvising because I fear to fall in the holes of bias, and would prefer to regularly review my thoughts and add new angles towards how I see this question.

Secondly, my analogy of mild-mannered scholar is referring to the mild-mannered nature of democracy. It requires collective effort in a civilized manner without the use of force(thus mild-mannered), but when people are scoring low in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it's harder to ask people to wait in line to wait their turn for food than to simply rush and push. Democracy is more a philosopher's question at a coffee table, where one is relatively comfortable. On the other hand, authoritarian regimes are more crude, but practical. It can keep a country in order, despite how messy and battered everything else is inside. Despite all that, they are fundamentally different, therefore there shouldn't even be direct comparisons.

With all this said, no offense but I almost feel this thread of comparisons of methods of governance as almost pointless and derailed, because each of these methods are different, and in an attempt to compare them side by side, it's same as comparing apples to oranges without recognizing their differences for different situation. Each has their merits, although authoritarian sounds much more unattractive to most people these days. It's of even greater folly if anyone attempts to conclude an overall "victor" as being the better methods.
 
A

airsuperiority

Captain
jackliu said:
Now you see the problem of trying to spread democracy all over the world regardless of their each different background, which is exactly what the Western nation trying to do without much success, but yet they are still doing it.

Also it is true that authoritarian nation usually is not as good at protects the individual right of the citizens, but the thing is, the same thing can be just as worse in democratic nations, I have said before and I'll say again, when you think of democracy you always think of US, UK, France etc.. whom had hundreds of years of development, but you don't ever think of India, Philippians, Haiti etc.. who only had the tradition of democracy for a few decades and the result is show it is failing horribly, and the people that live inside those society, their individual right are not exactly being protected.

And at last there is something as too much protection for individual right at the expense of the common good, this not in my backyard sentiment here in US have hinder many development that would have benefit the masses.
Click to expand...

One of my earlier statements on how mid-industrialized states should be would be what Philippines and Indonesia and all that are happening. The Philippines and Indonesia would definitely not be third worlds, but their situations are neither in exactly a great shape.

Another point that I want to bring out is, democracy is just like human rights and a corruption-free environment: people are pissed off at the lack of it, but must understand that if they want it, they better fight for it really really hard.
 
A

airsuperiority

Captain
jackliu said:
oh wow, how brainwashed are you?? Do you really think democracy will spun spontaneously out of no where and thus result in haplessness on earth? Muhammad and Temujin was great person, but trust me, democracy never come to their mind when they created their empire. And how do you expect people that have been living under tribal mentality to suddenly start to care and love each other and work for the common goods? When people are starving everyday, when they don't' have a place to sleep at night now much crap will they give to voluntarily to establish a democratic system?

Oh and the Egyptian demonstration was not a show case for democracy, as much as a show case for how much they are pissed off with the existing government, last time I check all the people that helped to started the demonstration are not in the current government, and last time I check Egypt currenlty is not exaclty a great showcase of textbook democracy.
Click to expand...

It's true that Egypt currently isn't going as straightforward as they wanted to. I talked to a Egyptian diplomat who just returned from a trip to the Egyptian Permanent Mission to the UN as of recently, and we had this discussion. He had his heart in the right place and wanted democracy for his country, but I also shared with on my thoughts of how Egypt may perhaps have to go through a few stagnant years of figuring out what identity it wants, before a properly molded system of government will take place. I compared this to how it is similar in Hong Kong, and while it may sound dismal, it is actually a safer and stable method to transition. Something I've learned about this world is, nothing that changes rapidly are stable, and this apply even more so for human behaviors. Nonetheless, we won't have immediate answers, so it's up to us to watch closely.
 
J

jackliu

Banned Idiot
airsuperiority said:
It's true that Egypt currently isn't going as straightforward as they wanted to. I talked to a Egyptian diplomat who just returned from a trip to the Egyptian Permanent Mission to the UN as of recently, and we had this discussion. He had his heart in the right place and wanted democracy for his country, but I also shared with on my thoughts of how Egypt may perhaps have to go through a few stagnant years of figuring out what identity it wants, before a properly molded system of government will take place. I compared this to how it is similar in Hong Kong, and while it may sound dismal, it is actually a safer and stable method to transition. Something I've learned about this world is, nothing that changes rapidly are stable, and this apply even more so for human behaviors. Nonetheless, we won't have immediate answers, so it's up to us to watch closely.
Click to expand...

I won't compare Egypt to HK, HK was actually wealthy with a developed economy, Egypt on the other hand is not, and their revolution was not complete, I see them kicked out the old leader but all the wealth and true power is still concentrated in the hand of the old elite.

If anything I would compare them with France revolution, they kicked out the old leader but it is still not a new beginning, they will either have a few years of bloody revolution or enter into another stagnation just like before, which will only push back another revolution.

If you want to study this, try to do some research of correlation between people's wealth and government type, also try to do some research on how the original democratic nation today got wealth, aka nation such as US, Western Europe etc... When they were in industrialization, was it really democratic by today's standard? And under what situation did they really became democratic as the standard you would give today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top