Snorrius
Librivorator
The problem
Imagine some guy whom you do not really know but who is asking your advice. You do not know specifics but want to help him, so you give a "general solution": something which not necessary will work for this particular individual but usually works for majority.
Imagine a group of future rulers of some young nation from Africa or Eastern Europe asking you (as experienced Cafcian) which form of government they should use so their country would have more chances to prosper. You do not really know specifics nor you have any desire to know (you already learned on CFC too much), so you tell them a "general solution":
- Democracy, guys. Universal suffrage, parliament, premier-minister and president. It will work for sure. 100%.
Three years later you read about civil war in this place, foreign intervention, refugees and look at the photo of some guy whom locals elected and who would be able to become only a small criminal in your own country.
- Strange, did not work, - say you, - usually works, but not this time. No luck, poor guys.
Suddenly another group of young nation-wanna-builders enters your room with similar question. You look at the newspaper, then at the guests, sigh and say:
- Democracy, guys. Not the best but best what we have. Universal suffrage, parliament, premier-minister and president. Should work. 100%.
The evidence
A usual explanation of this choice usually defended by its proponents something like "Not the best but best what we have" or "It is obvious" and sounds more like religious dogma - not like a solid argument. So I've decided to look for an evidence and checked the "Human Development Index": a good chart which takes in account not only economy but also life expectancy, education and other important statistics. Let's check who is on Top Ten.
Norway - monarchy
Australia - monarchy
Switzerland - rare confederacy
Netherlands - monarchy
United States - thalassocracy
Germany - "democracy" (follows the "general solution")
New Zealand - monarchy
Canada - monarchy
Singapore - benevolent hereditary authocracy
Denmark - monarchy
WTH?
6 of 10 countries in top 10 of HDI are monarchies! Ask any Cafcian and as a good Commie he will say: "Monarchies are useless obsolete forms of governments, nobody should use them". But reality shows that they are strong when we check who really prospers.
Non-monarchies are also interesting because only one of them truly follows "general solution" usually promoted for new countries and governments.
Sure, Switzerland is democratic republic but its political system is quite different from what is usually described as such. It is (former) confederacy and have a political system which is very close to direct democracy and as a rule modern democratic governments do not entrust to their citizens such power.
United States is a giant thalassocracy. It is a humongous Carthage. Such "solution" you can not replicate easily. This is a very custom thing, a historical fluke.
Singapore is a very benevolent hereditary authocracy which uses very interesting but also unsual for an average Cafcian ways to do things.
We actually have only one country among top 10 which follows the general recipe - Germany.
Bottom Ten
Let's check who is at the bottom of the list.
Mozambique - "democracy" (follows the "general solution")
Guinea - "democracy"
Burundi - "democracy"
Burkina Faso - "democracy"
Eritrea - one-party rulership
Sierra Leone - "democracy"
Chad - "democracy"
CAR - "democracy"
DR Congo - "democracy"
Niger - "democracy"
What's interesting here is that only one country is not "democracy" which openly defy it. We could expect here dictatordoms, one-party rulerships, hereditary authocracies but they are higher in the list. Only Eritrea with her sole-party rulership got to the bottom. All others follow the "general solution".
Result
Our preliminary research seems to show that a usual solution prescribed to young nations is actually bad one. Top countries are either monarchies or have very custom solutions, so if a country does not have an experience of state-building, monarchy is the safest bet.
Add-ons
Arab case
Answer to main objections
Imagine some guy whom you do not really know but who is asking your advice. You do not know specifics but want to help him, so you give a "general solution": something which not necessary will work for this particular individual but usually works for majority.
Imagine a group of future rulers of some young nation from Africa or Eastern Europe asking you (as experienced Cafcian) which form of government they should use so their country would have more chances to prosper. You do not really know specifics nor you have any desire to know (you already learned on CFC too much), so you tell them a "general solution":
- Democracy, guys. Universal suffrage, parliament, premier-minister and president. It will work for sure. 100%.
Three years later you read about civil war in this place, foreign intervention, refugees and look at the photo of some guy whom locals elected and who would be able to become only a small criminal in your own country.
- Strange, did not work, - say you, - usually works, but not this time. No luck, poor guys.
Suddenly another group of young nation-wanna-builders enters your room with similar question. You look at the newspaper, then at the guests, sigh and say:
- Democracy, guys. Not the best but best what we have. Universal suffrage, parliament, premier-minister and president. Should work. 100%.
The evidence
A usual explanation of this choice usually defended by its proponents something like "Not the best but best what we have" or "It is obvious" and sounds more like religious dogma - not like a solid argument. So I've decided to look for an evidence and checked the "Human Development Index": a good chart which takes in account not only economy but also life expectancy, education and other important statistics. Let's check who is on Top Ten.
Norway - monarchy
Australia - monarchy
Switzerland - rare confederacy
Netherlands - monarchy
United States - thalassocracy
Germany - "democracy" (follows the "general solution")
New Zealand - monarchy
Canada - monarchy
Singapore - benevolent hereditary authocracy
Denmark - monarchy
WTH?
6 of 10 countries in top 10 of HDI are monarchies! Ask any Cafcian and as a good Commie he will say: "Monarchies are useless obsolete forms of governments, nobody should use them". But reality shows that they are strong when we check who really prospers.
Non-monarchies are also interesting because only one of them truly follows "general solution" usually promoted for new countries and governments.
Sure, Switzerland is democratic republic but its political system is quite different from what is usually described as such. It is (former) confederacy and have a political system which is very close to direct democracy and as a rule modern democratic governments do not entrust to their citizens such power.
United States is a giant thalassocracy. It is a humongous Carthage. Such "solution" you can not replicate easily. This is a very custom thing, a historical fluke.
Singapore is a very benevolent hereditary authocracy which uses very interesting but also unsual for an average Cafcian ways to do things.
We actually have only one country among top 10 which follows the general recipe - Germany.
Bottom Ten
Let's check who is at the bottom of the list.
Mozambique - "democracy" (follows the "general solution")
Guinea - "democracy"
Burundi - "democracy"
Burkina Faso - "democracy"
Eritrea - one-party rulership
Sierra Leone - "democracy"
Chad - "democracy"
CAR - "democracy"
DR Congo - "democracy"
Niger - "democracy"
What's interesting here is that only one country is not "democracy" which openly defy it. We could expect here dictatordoms, one-party rulerships, hereditary authocracies but they are higher in the list. Only Eritrea with her sole-party rulership got to the bottom. All others follow the "general solution".
Result
Our preliminary research seems to show that a usual solution prescribed to young nations is actually bad one. Top countries are either monarchies or have very custom solutions, so if a country does not have an experience of state-building, monarchy is the safest bet.
Add-ons
Arab case
Answer to main objections
