Moving beyond democracy

[aelf]

Outside of the West, democracy as you know it is probably not the norm.

Often, the trappings of democracy may be present in one form or another, but they're a fig leaf for de jure non-democratic ways with which ruling elites retain power. From sham elections to Electoral Politics with Limited Scopes, the autocrats of today aren't your 20th century dictators - they might speak the language of democracy and by most appearances have solid mandates to rule.

And just as moderates in the West are champions of democratic ideals and tenets such as free speech, moderates in 'flawed democracies' are also adept at marshalling rational arguments for the rightness of their systems. On a side note, I'd really like to see moderates from the two worlds clash, and whether Western moderates would be so willing to "agree to disagree" when their fundamental freedoms are threatened.

But maybe Western moderates would be surprisingly amenable to a compromise, given that there are very successful examples of authoritarian systems at work, such as the rapid rise of China and the prosperity of Singapore. Heck, there are many Western fans (not saying that the writer is a fan like Thomas Friedman, but he does lay out the reasons) of these two examples in particular, public figures and government officials included. Singapore's GDP per capita is in the top ten; recently it has successfully blocked non-ruling party candidates from contesting the Presidential Election. Even though the people may sometimes be unhappy, the ruling party enjoys landslide victories every General Election because the opposition has been effectively destroyed.

Given that non-and-barely-democratic systems are widely admired for their performance, and the fact that genuine democracy isn't even the norm today, there's really no reason to believe in an 'end-of-history' hypothesis where democratic capitalism is the perpetual winner. Perhaps a form of technocratic capitalism will become more in vogue? Plenty of people in the rest of the world live just fine without freedoms taken for granted in the West. So what if you can't choose your leaders? So what if saying the wrong thing can get you arrested? If you can make money and live fairly comfortably, do you need more?

What do you think? Will democracy ultimately prevail? Will it die a slow death, replaced by authoritarian technocracies? Or will there be a long-term division of the world between democratic systems on one side and authoritarian systems on the other?

 

[onejayhawk]

A lot will depend on your definitions. What do you mean by democracy? Open and fair elections? Rule of law? There are significant examples in Asia: Japan, India, S Korea, Taiwan, Israel, also S Africa. The bulk of the others are police states of one form or another, eg Russia, China, most of the middle east and Africa.

J

 

[Hrothbern]

Smile

Before we had democracies (If I skip Greece), we had a long and slow evolution of the Law.
As Hammurabi stated: a Law to protect the weak against the powerful (even if his law was still making a difference between slaves, normal and nobility)
Roman law, non-Roman common law, HRE law, Montesquieu separation of powers, Napoleontic law, Immanuel Kant the Rechtsstaat law, etc, etc ....
It all preceded the modern democracy.

And a democracy without a good law system is imo just an unstable form of getting the buy in of the population.

China, just offering stability with a law system half way Montesquieu and a limited form of democracy confined to getting the buy in of party members is more succesful as many other nations with highly press covered democracy. Chinese people having high rates of happiness and trust in each other and state institutions when benchmarked against other countries in the world. Typical top 10 rating competing with countries of North/West Europe.

I think that in general Law comes first and the amount of democracy needed follows the increasing complexity and increasing indulgence of a developing/maturing society.
In a 19th century factory you could be a classic boss. In a 21th century high end innovative company it is all teamwork.

 

[Lexicus]

The world is currently on trajectory to become like Russia and China. The US was behind on this curve but fortunately Donald Trump and the Republican Party are fixing this.

 

[metatron]

The world is currently on trajectory to become like Russia and China. The US was behind on this curve but fortunately Donald Trump and the Republican Party are fixing this.

No that's incorrect.

1. It's not the world. According to most indices measuring these things freedom and democracy have essentially stalled at the highest level ever for the last 10 years.
However this is not monotone. Individual countries, obviously, have defied that trend one way or the other.
And the bulk of the total input on such indices can be summed up rather neatly:
Most of the upwards movement over the last 10 odd years came from western and southern Asia, various countries in Africa, most notably Tunisia, Jordan, Senegal, Myanmar, and Fiji.
Most of the downward movement came from Russia, Turkey, the US, Thailand and the west Balkans.
That's newsworthy, in the former three cases, but it's not universal.

2. The movement on the US part is not new. Over the course of the Bush and Obama presidencies the US has been downgraded time and time again on every metric regarding freedom and democracy there is. And social justice democrats have merryly participated whenever it fit their ends.

Obviously the general bias against good news applies. Like...

"Senegal steadily building civil society"
"Tunisian democracy still fine"
"Italians feeling more democratic post Berlusconi - international organisations agree with them"​

...these are obviously not CNN graphic-animation-gasm headlines.

[stuff]

Well, if people in non-western countries are so content with somewhat non-free technocracy, why the need to restrict information?

Of course there are exceptions; you can certainly make the case that Hungary or Malaysia manage to be somewhat restrictive (to different degrees) while having a somewhat open flow of information, and people seem to be largely content with that.
But it is significantly more common for non-democratic or mixed regimes (that are not dirt-poor or in direct threat of war or civil war) to insist on absurd levels of disinformation and/or censorship, and rightly so because virtually every time these measures fail, the general populace has this curious western tendency to come after their government with pitchforks and torches.
Well, granted, in East Asia it may be more like stern remarks than pitchforks, but anyway.

 

[Lexicus]

1. It's not the world. According to most indices measuring these things freedom and democracy have essentially stalled at the highest level ever for the last 10 years.

I don't take indices of this kind very seriously.

2. The movement on the US part is not new. Over the course of the Bush and Obama presidencies the US has been downgraded time and time again on every metric regarding freedom and democracy there is. And social justice democrats have merryly participated whenever it fit their ends.

Social justice democrats? *Looks around quizzically*

Well, if people in non-western countries are so content with somewhat non-free technocracy, why the need to restrict information?

I don't think there really is much of a need. Too much information serves the same purpose as too little; the real threat to free speech is not that governments will curtail it using the blunt instrument of censorship but that massive media corporations like Facebook will be the sole arbiters of who gets a hearing. Or you can just breed Radical Centrists who are politically impotent and incapable of challenging the status quo regardless of what information they're exposed to.

 

[metatron]

Re: Social Justice:
Oh, you heard me just fine.

I don't take indices of this kind very seriously.

Well then make your own, by way of belly feelz estimation.

*making-weighing-hand-gestures-so-as-to-immitate-scales*

Italy now. Italy ten years ago.
Tunisia now. Tunisia ten years ago.
Venezuela now. Venezuela ten years ago.
Turkey now. Turkey ten years ago.
etc.

So, what would you come up with, feelings wise?
You really think the way you expressed in post #4?
Jebus, huge numbers of people's lived realities don't exist then. Like, wow.

I don't think there really is much of a need. Too much information serves the same purpose as too little; the real threat to free speech is not that governments will curtail it using the blunt instrument of censorship but that massive media corporations like Facebook will be the sole arbiters of who gets a hearing. Or you can just breed Radical Centrists who are politically impotent and incapable of challenging the status quo regardless of what information they're exposed to.

Regarding the latter part: You are projecting the American condition onto others. Some applicability notwithstanding this is errant.

Regarding the former part: Well, again, it's vary curious then that most regimes still resort to this censorship that must be so superfluous and that they usually get into trouble very quickly once said censorship fails.

 

[Lexicus]

Re: Social Justice:
Oh, you heard me just fine.

Yes, which Democrats are the social justice Democrats? Perhaps you can explain this matter to me more fully?

Well then make your own, by way of belly feelz estimation.

To paint this as the only alternative is silly. This is a matter of qualitative, rather than quantitative, analysis. It is not easy and there are no shortcuts.

Jebus, huge numbers of people's lived realities don't exist then. Like, wow.

I think those indices tend not to jive with people's lived realities all that well, and that is one of my major objections to them.

Regarding the latter part: You are projecting the American condition onto others. Some applicability notwithstanding this is errant.

I don't really think that issue is applicable only to the US.

Regarding the former part: Well, again, it's vary curious then that most regimes still resort to this censorship that must be so superfluous and that they usually get into trouble very quickly once said censorship fails.

*shrug* What I said isn't the whole story. Certainly for countries with less well-developed media infrastructure it is less applicable. But I still think it is essentially true that we live in a Fahrenheit 451/Brave New world, rather than a 1984 world. The most sophisticated, cutting-edge forms of social engineering (by governments and corporations) don't involve brute-force censorship. For example Facebook's algorithms accomplish many of the same things as censorship, but far more unobtrusively, and in a way that even allows the process to be framed as directed by (and/or catering to) the end-user in some sense. People are depoliticized just as effectively if you convince them they're consumers rather than citizens.

 

[BvBPL]

Democracy works just fine. It isn’t going away anytime soon.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

If whatever the hell is going on in the US and Switzerland both are democracies, then that category doesnt mean much to me at all. For countless countries the line is completely blurry.. I cannot say, for example, that South Korea is a democracy. I would say the same for Russia. But on the other hand I do not feel comfortable calling these countries straight-up dictatorships or oligarchies, because they arent. Even Poland, I think, has entered a transitional state between democracy and dictatorship, the sort of political twilight zone. Both the US and the British democratic systems honestly weird me out, some princeton folks recently have argued that America is an oligarchy, good for them.

 

[Lexicus]

If whatever the hell is going on in the US and Switzerland both are democracies, then that category doesnt mean much to me at all. For countless countries the line is completely blurry.. I cannot say, for example, that South Korea is a democracy. I would say the same for Russia. But on the other hand I do not feel comfortable calling these countries straight-up dictatorships or oligarchies, because they arent. Even Poland, I think, has entered a transitional state between democracy and dictatorship, the sort of political twilight zone. Both the US and the British democratic systems honestly weird me out, some princeton folks recently have argued that America is an oligarchy, good for them.

Keep in mind that a country is never either a democracy or not; the only sensical way to discuss this is the degree of democracy that exists in a country, which in turn requires a serious analysis of its institutions. This is the problem with all this kind of sociological typecasting - in reality these ideas are manifested to various degrees and coexist with one another, but we rely on the "ideal types" (democracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, socialism, communism, whatever) to such a degree that they become crutches, and we end up confusing the analytic tools we use to make sense of reality with the reality.

 

[red_elk]

What do you think? Will democracy ultimately prevail? Will it die a slow death, replaced by authoritarian technocracies?

I think it's naive to consider democracy as an ideal and perfect form of government. Eventually it will be replaced by more advanced and effective system. How long will it take and what will replace it, is another question.
Some form of technocracy (not necessary authoritarian) seems like a good replacement candidate. Capitalism and consumerist culture hopefully will also transform into something less wasteful and detrimental for the planet.

 

[Yeekim]

People don't need democracy. They need sausages.
However, once democracy disappears, sausages tend to follow suit. Admittedly, it can sometimes take a long time.

 

[warpus]

Even though most democracies are flawed, it's the best system of governance we've figured out so far, that doesn't completely ignore the needs of the citizenry.

I would call Singapore's system of government a single party technocracy. I am a big fan of the technocracy part, but not the single-party part. The ideal form of government for me would be a technocracy with a socialist-democratic touch, all the things that make American democracy horrid removed. Power should belong to the people, not the people with money.

I would also support longer terms for candidates, so they don't spend 80% of their time campaigning.

 

[Hrothbern]

I think also that the "winner takes all" political culture is not good for a country.
The winner having the mandate, having the steering wheel: yes
A winner free to make 50% minus 1 vote unhappy: no !
Having the steering wheel in your hands means still taking all passengers in account.
And I think this principle of sharing is much easier to sustain in multi party countries with a popular vote with a code of responsibility culture.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I would also support longer terms for candidates, so they don't spend 80% of their time campaigning.

That can work against people, though. I certainly wouldn't have wanted any more time before we could get rid of the Reformacons.

Speaking of the Reformacons... Andrew Scheer's first campaign ad was aired today, during my soap. The next federal election is TWO FRIGGIN' YEARS FROM NOW.

 

[Gori the Grey]

This is a matter of qualitative, rather than quantitative, analysis. It is not easy and there are no shortcuts.

Well, ok, but there's going to some institution that does that qualitative analysis better than anyone else, so

According to most indices measuring these things

What are the indices that measure these things?

I ask because I once had a similar question, I about which countries are regarded as most "free," I think it was. Similarly qualitative, but I poked around on the internet and got something that struck me as being as plausible a way of approaching that matter as any other I could find or devise.

So the claim that democracy is declining in my country, does correspond to my lived experience of the US, so I'd like to see how anyone who undertakes to measure such things does do so.

 

[warpus]

That can work against people, though. I certainly wouldn't have wanted any more time before we could get rid of the Reformacons.

Speaking of the Reformacons... Andrew Scheer's first campaign ad was aired today, during my soap. The next federal election is TWO FRIGGIN' YEARS FROM NOW.

Yeah, I do think our 5 year election cycles are too short. Parties start campaigning too early, and it's even not nearly as crazy as what happens in the U.S.

The problem with short terms is that almost none of the stuff implemented really starts having an impact until after the term is over. So look at the U.S. - the people are brainwashed to flip flop between the major two parties. Here in Canada it's a bit better, but still not ideal.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yeah, I do think our 5 year election cycles are too short. Parties start campaigning too early, and it's even not nearly as crazy as what happens in the U.S.

The problem with short terms is that almost none of the stuff implemented really starts having an impact until after the term is over. So look at the U.S. - the people are brainwashed to flip flop between the major two parties. Here in Canada it's a bit better, but still not ideal.

Our federal election cycle is 4 years now, although in practice an election can be called at any time if a vote of non-confidence happens (ie. if the budget is defeated). That's not likely to happen, though, given the Liberals have such a huge majority.

Months of those obnoxious "nice hair" ads (long before the insane 78-day campaign writ was dropped) are what made me basically stop watching TV on any Canadian channel. I suppose this time around it'll be "nice socks."

 

[metatron]

Yes, which Democrats are the social justice Democrats? Perhaps you can explain this matter to me more fully?

I appreciate that you are asking questions. US liberals rarely do. But i am not going to give the big talk on how the entirety of the Democratic narrative is bunk on a low energy setup like that.
Besides i sort of respect the craftsmanship of Aelf's opening post; so there's also that.
Anyway...

To paint this as the only alternative is silly. This is a matter of qualitative, rather than quantitative, analysis. It is not easy and there are no shortcuts.

I didn't say it was the only alternative.
But, yeah, i'm not sure what your claim is based on. There are clear examples of democracy advancing and expanding in a significant number of places.
So what is your basis for dismissing that and claiming - conveniently - that the world at large is basically in the same place as the US?
And how can you claim the US had been behind the curve?
How phantastic is that?
How can you be still completely unable to accept Trump and Brexit as a specific Anglospherian pathology, that has been a long time coming, that you have been told about, no less, probably on this board - you know, by deplorables like me?
This is remarkable!
All the other countries who didn't fall to right-wing populism in the last two years, they are just further behind the bend?
Like in France and Germany they are rubbing sticks together. It's not like they were even more in Putin's crosshairs or anything?

I don't really think that issue is applicable only to the US.

I can only remind you of the line i wrote that you quoted, which didn't claim it was.

*shrug* What I said isn't the whole story. Certainly for countries with less well-developed media infrastructure it is less applicable. But I still think it is essentially true that we live in a Fahrenheit 451/Brave New world, rather than a 1984 world. The most sophisticated, cutting-edge forms of social engineering (by governments and corporations) don't involve brute-force censorship. For example Facebook's algorithms accomplish many of the same things as censorship, but far more unobtrusively, and in a way that even allows the process to be framed as directed by (and/or catering to) the end-user in some sense. People are depoliticized just as effectively if you convince them they're consumers rather than citizens.

Oh, we misunderstood each other:
I perfectly agree that the technology can have such consequences.
I disagree with you in two ways:
1. You seem to believe that the actual companies have power. I think they largely don't. They are largely a plaything of governments. Not even their own ones. You may underappreciate that because your government is not that terribly effective.
2. You are implying that this is something that just comes over people like a biblical plague.
I would contend the general notion... hmm... how do i best put this... that American liberals are hugely arrogant idiotic imbeciles who know nothing about the world and are intellectually deficient to the point where they are unable to perform informed citizenship - just as much as American conservatives - and that this state of affairs in not universal accross the developed "west" but exceptional.

What are the indices that measure these things?

Oh, you know, EIU's Democracy Index, WJP's Rule of Law index, RSF's Freedom of the Press index, Freedom House's Freedom in the World index etc.

Things of that nature.
I'm not sure if you can find satisfactory data, since most of these people have hideous web presences or even market their reports.