What's so bad about not having democracy?

[Yeekim]

Well, what's the mechanism? The immediate cause of most legislative change- that is, legislation that isn't just fussing around existing laws, or standard partisan back-and-forth- is political change, that is, change in the political outlook and expectations of voters, and it would seem to most observers that the immediate cause of political change is social, cultural and economic change, at least as often as technological change. So the argument is that social, cultural and economic change is always, ultimately, technological, and that is a very big claim.

For example, recent moves in favour of LGBT rights do not seem to have a self-evidently technological cause; yes, the internet and other technologies have helped open public minds, but that's as a means, not a cause, and most of this legislation has a clear origin in LGBT activism dating back to when personal internet access was limited to a few students and academics, if not earlier.

The root problem is that technology does not invent itself. People invent it, in accordance with their own needs or wants, and those needs and wants are shaped by their cultural, social and economic context. It's not enough for the technological potential for a printing press to exist, for example, if a society doesn't want to invent it. The Near East had the potential to develop a sophisticated iron-working culture for hundred of years before it actually did so, because the cultural, social and economic conditions did not exist to make iron preferable to bronze.

Looping back to the topic, it also seems that technological determinism sits uneasily alongside representative democracy, at least as it now exists. Politicians are not particularly technological adept, or, at least, they aren't selected on the basis of that adeptness. Some are seeming technological illiterates; "it's a series of tubes", etc. You've pointed out that most voters don't have the time to investigate every piece of legislation out forward- but what is time without understanding? What good would an entire set of people dedicated to fussing over legislative minutiae be- as if politicians spent most of their time legislating rather than simply politicking- if they did not understand the significance of the legislation in regards to technology. The implication would be, if not the abolition of representative government, then it's restructuring along very different lines, either corporatist or syndicalist, depending on your political preferences.

I agree with this. It's is a good argument that most legislative activity deals with things that people care about and that affect people's lives, rather than merely technological changes.

Full disclosure: drafting (national and, to an extent, European) legislation in various loosely connected areas has been my job for the last 6 years and my previous posts represent how I've come to see this issue over that time. This is not intended as an appeal to authority, rather an admission that I can well be biased regarding what and why I do. I'm also somewhat irritated by (increasingly common) perception that the chief reason behind heaps of laws and regulations is boredom and/or spite of "bureaucrats" or politicians, which seems to have peaked in Trump's "repeal two acts to enact one new" nonsense and "who could've thought this stuff could be so complicated?" surprise. People tend to grossly underestimate the complexity of support systems that underpin their way of life - Brexit vote being a good example of this - and this complexity is only growing.

I don't wish to debate what exact proportion of legislation is directly or indirectly caused by technological change:
- because I don't think there is reliable data (or even reliable methodology to gather such data);
- because it isn't really relevant to my original point, which is that even MP's - who tend to be slightly brighter than average people, for whom legislating is a full-time job and who have a full government branch with dedicated civil servants and sometimes also personal aides/secretaries to support them - have virtually no hope to actually stay on top of the sheer volume of stuff they are expected to vote on. Outside of having a few areas of personal interest, limitations of being but human (no, this is not a veiled endorsement for governance-by-AI) mean they have to fall back on party lines or simply rubber-stamp whatever executive branch feeds them. However, I can't see resorting to direct, non-representational democracy (if this was what TF alluded to in #25?) making this any better - rather these problems would become several magnitudes worse.

I also agree, and add to that my suspicion that the idea of legislative change being driven by technological change (which became a common idea) was a deliberately disseminated deception. Technological change is inevitable, so goes the common
sense, so claiming that some legislative change derives from it, is necessary because of it, weakens opposition.

I mean... yes, it can obviously be a deceptive claim in context on any particular bill. But to discount the entire idea of some legislative change deriving from technological change as never valid? That's not what you're saying, is it?

At its most pernicious this gets into the 'techno-utopianism', the belief that "technology" (I put it in quotes because the analysis usually is really this simplistic) can solve all problems of governance.

It can solve a lot of problems, but as far as governance goes, it definitely creates them. I hope it also provides tools to solve/alleviate some of these, or else we're headed for a societal collapse. (It is claimed that all societies invest resources into increasing their own complexity, until they buckle under their own weight. I hope we're not getting there just yet).

 

[Mise]

Full disclosure: drafting (national and, to an extent, European) legislation in various loosely connected areas has been my job for the last 6 years and my previous posts represent how I've come to see this issue over that time. This is not intended as an appeal to authority, rather an admission that I can well be biased regarding what and why I do. I'm also somewhat irritated by (increasingly common) perception that the chief reason behind heaps of laws and regulations is boredom and/or spite of "bureaucrats" or politicians, which seems to have peaked in Trump's "repeal two acts to enact one new" nonsense and "who could've thought this stuff could be so complicated?" surprise. People tend to grossly underestimate the complexity of support systems that underpin their way of life - Brexit vote being a good example of this - and this complexity is only growing.

I don't wish to debate what exact proportion of legislation is directly or indirectly caused by technological change:
- because I don't think there is reliable data (or even reliable methodology to gather such data);
- because it isn't really relevant to my original point, which is that even MP's - who tend to be slightly brighter than average people, for whom legislating is a full-time job and who have a full government branch with dedicated civil servants and sometimes also personal aides/secretaries to support them - have virtually no hope to actually stay on top of the sheer volume of stuff they are expected to vote on. Outside of having a few areas of personal interest, limitations of being but human (no, this is not a veiled endorsement for governance-by-AI) mean they have to fall back on party lines or simply rubber-stamp whatever executive branch feeds them. However, I can't see resorting to direct, non-representational democracy (if this was what TF alluded to in #25?) making this any better - rather these problems would become several magnitudes worse.

Yeah, it sounds like we're talking orthogonally, because I agree with all of this too. Personally I think both sides of the argument strengthen, not weaken, the claim that most legislative activity is beneficial.

 

[red_elk]

China is your big example? I don't think you understand just how poor China is.

China, as well as its neighbors, is relatively poor for historical reasons, not because of its wrong government system. Compare it to India, which is a democracy, yet has 5 times less GDP per capita.

The Eastern block as a whole is a great deal poorer compared to capitalist democracies.

The same thing, in XIX century it was also poorer. While Russia, first time in its recent history, reached level of economic development and living standards of developed world in 1960s-1970s. There is no such simple and clear correlation, democracy -> better economic development. In some places it works, in others it doesn't.

I don't see any way Communism comes out on top in this comparison. Maybe in the Communist system kleptocrats didn't steal as much, but that's only because those countries were so poor that there was nothing to steal.

Communism was never implemented in practice, the Soviet block countries never get past Socialism stage. The USSR lost a competition against an order of magnitude more powerful opponent, which hardly proves its inferiority. Yes, it had serious flaws, but they theoretically could be resolved through reforms, just as for example, USA eventually got rid of slavery and institutionalized racism.

 

[Yeekim]

The same thing, in XIX century it was also poorer. While Russia, first time in its recent history, reached level of economic development and living standards of developed world in 1960s-1970s. There is no such simple and clear correlation, democracy -> better economic development. In some places it works, in others it doesn't.

There is no simple or clear correlation because there is no simple and clear definition of "democracy". There are several components to democracy (such as free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers etc). The less well developed these are, the more corruption tends to spring up. And I believe we agree that corruption seriously hurts economic development.

 

[red_elk]

There is no simple or clear correlation because there is no simple and clear definition of "democracy". There are several components to democracy (such as free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers etc). The less well developed these are, the more corruption tends to spring up. And I believe we agree that corruption seriously hurts economic development.

In theory, yes. In practice it's sometimes more complicated. Take Russia, for example - when we moved from totalitarian system to more democratic one in late 80-s, corruption skyrocketed. When Putin came to power, he was criticized for bringing the country back to the Soviet times, but economy and living standards improved a lot. May be it isn't such a bad idea to bring country back to the Soviet times, at least in some aspects?

 

[Yeekim]

In theory, yes. In practice it's sometimes more complicated. Take Russia, for example - when we moved from totalitarian system to more democratic one in late 80-s, corruption skyrocketed. When Putin came to power, he was criticized for bringing the country back to the Soviet times, but economy and living standards improved a lot. May be it isn't such a bad idea to bring country back to the Soviet times, at least in some aspects?

This is why I was saying there are several elements to working democracy... and Russia had - and has - serious problems regarding most of those. It is a huge task to turn such a big country around successfully, and sadly reformers of the time fell short. If only Yeltsin had less of an alcohol problem... if only oil prices hadn't dropped the way they did then... maybe things could have turned out a lot better. I mean... Russia is a country of vast natural wealth and fairly well educated population (the latter is something USSR duly deserves credit for), so why is German GDP per capita today ~2 times higher than that of Russia in PPP terms (~3 times higher in nominal terms), when it was Germany that was largely reduced to rubble, defeated and occupied 70 years ago? I believe corruption and lack of democratic accountability is a big part of the answer.

 

[red_elk]

If only Yeltsin had less of an alcohol problem...

The West's hypocrisy didn't help either. When we had free democratic elections in 1993, we ended up with a communist parliament, which tried to impeach Yeltsin - and he sent tanks against it. I watched it live on TV. USA reaction? 2 years later they sent money and PR advisers to help reelect our everdrunk president.

 

[Yeekim]

The West's hypocrisy didn't help either. When we had free democratic elections in 1993, we ended up with a communist parliament, which tried to impeach Yeltsin - and he sent tanks against it. I watched it live on TV. USA reaction? 2 years later they sent money and PR advisers to help reelect our everdrunk president.

Yeah, well. In trying to prevent Communist restoration, this meddling may have caused a bigger problem.
However, I think your timeline is somewhat askew.
1993 parliamentary elections took place in December, after Yeltsin had used military against Congress of People's Deputies and Supreme Soviet (in October).
At least that's what wiki tells me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_legislative_election,_1993
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis
Not that this changes much, admittedly.

 

[red_elk]

However, I think your timeline is somewhat askew.
1993 parliamentary elections took place in December, after Yeltsin had used military against Congress of People's Deputies and Supreme Soviet (in October).
At least that's what wiki tells me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_legislative_election,_1993
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis
Not that this changes much, admittedly.

Yes, looks like you are right. I forgot these details.

 

[aelf]

You pose the question.
And then you make a set of hypothetical, arguably one big compouhnd hypothetical - i hope we can say that without fear of misrepresenting your argument.

Like I've already said, utopian alternatives to democracy sound like crap. But if it turns out that some of them are actually, demonstrably better than democracy, as proven by real world success, then sure, I'll consider it.

There's nothing hypothetical about China and Singapore. They are a demonstration.

Election of Trump is not a problem itself, it's a symptom of more fundamental underlying problems. Even if he would lose, the situation when people have to choose from two exceptionally bad candidates doesn't look like it's "inherently superior" system.

This.

The refrain has been that democracy offers the prospect of change even when bad governments come into power, which is true enough in theory. But the real choice that many people actually seem to see is between the good or okay for now or the perpetually bad or mediocre. They have had no experience of good democratic governments and they have no faith that having democracy will improve their current situation. Examples from other countries only reinforce this belief (e.g. the USA today or India).

China is your big example? I don't think you understand just how poor China is. Based on GDP per capita, China is ranked at around 70, whereas China is overall still really poor. I'm not sure that the future of China is any better either, most of their economic growth is due to financial bubbles and over-indebtedness, and once those bubbles pop, they could lead to massive unrest and even civil war. I hope these things won't happen, but China is hardly an example of a non-democracy that we can all look up to (or certainly not us in the West).

Comparing material conditions in China and a Western country and trying to draw conclusions about authoritarian single-party rule vs. liberal democracy is way too simplistic. What is the history of their development? Materially, China was much less developed than the West when it started modernising sometime around the turn of the 20th century. For the first 50 years of that century, it faced hugely destructive civil wars and did not have the skilled labour force and technological and capital stock that would allow it to recover as quickly as the West. Its pariah status for the next few decades didn't help, and neither did continued social upheavals.

The reason why people are so impressed with China, including many people in the West, is its development since 20-30 years ago, which is when things had stabilised internally and internationally for China.

Reason alone.

Doesn't matter much to a large number of people, I suspect. Economic security is probably the number 1 concern in the world.

 

[Hehehe]

China, as well as its neighbors, is relatively poor for historical reasons, not because of its wrong government system. Compare it to India, which is a democracy, yet has 5 times less GDP per capita.

Yes, and I never said that democracy is the only thing that matters.

The same thing, in XIX century it was also poorer. While Russia, first time in its recent history, reached level of economic development and living standards of developed world in 1960s-1970s. There is no such simple and clear correlation, democracy -> better economic development. In some places it works, in others it doesn't.

Comparing material conditions in China and a Western country and trying to draw conclusions about authoritarian single-party rule vs. liberal democracy is way too simplistic. What is the history of their development? Materially, China was much less developed than the West when it started modernising sometime around the turn of the 20th century. For the first 50 years of that century, it faced hugely destructive civil wars and did not have the skilled labour force and technological and capital stock that would allow it to recover as quickly as the West. Its pariah status for the next few decades didn't help, and neither did continued social upheavals.

The reason why people are so impressed with China, including many people in the West, is its development since 20-30 years ago, which is when things had stabilised internally and internationally for China.

Indeed, one could always argue that such comparisons are problematic. This is precisely why I brought up the example of East Germany vs. West Germany. That is a perfect example of a liberal democracy producing clearly superior results.

Communism was never implemented in practice, the Soviet block countries never get past Socialism stage. The USSR lost a competition against an order of magnitude more powerful opponent, which hardly proves its inferiority. Yes, it had serious flaws, but they theoretically could be resolved through reforms, just as for example, USA eventually got rid of slavery and institutionalized racism.

This thing about "real communism" is a whole another can of worms. Suffice to say, communism has never worked in practice, and I don't think it ever will. I suppose you're free to try it, but I don't want to be included in this trial.

There's nothing hypothetical about China and Singapore. They are a demonstration.

Singapore is a parliamentary republic with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government representing constituencies. The country's constitution establishes a representative democracy as the political system.[84] Executive power rests with the Cabinet of Singapore, led by the Prime Minister and, to a much lesser extent, the President.[59] The President is elected through a popular vote, and has veto powers over a specific set of executive decisions, such as the use of the national reserves and the appointment of judges, but otherwise occupies a largely ceremonial post.[85]

The Parliament serves as the legislative branch of the government.[59] Members of Parliament (MPs) consist of elected, non-constituency and nominated members. Elected MPs are voted into the Parliament on a "first-past-the-post" (plurality) basis and represent either single-member or group representation constituencies.[86] The People's Action Party has won control of Parliament with large majorities in every election since self-governance was secured in 1959.[87]

...

Singapore has a highly developed market economy, based historically on extended entrepôt trade. Along with Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan, Singapore is one of the original Four Asian Tigers, but has surpassed its peers in terms of GDP per capita. Between 1965 and 1995, growth rates averaged around 6 per cent per annum, transforming the living standards of the population.[157] The Singaporean economy is known as one of the freest,[158] most innovative,[159] most competitive,[160] most dynamic[161] and most business-friendly.[162] The 2015 Index of Economic Freedom ranks Singapore as the second freest economy in the world and the Ease of Doing Business Index has also ranked Singapore as the easiest place to do business for the past decade.[163] According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, Singapore is consistently perceived as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, along with New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries.[citation needed] In 2016, Singapore is rated the world's most expensive city for the third consecutive year by the Economist Intelligence Unit.[164][165]

...

In recent years, the country has been identified as an increasingly popular tax haven for the wealthy due to the low tax rate on personal income and tax exemptions on foreign-based income and capital gains. Australian millionaire retailer Brett Blundy and multi-billionaire Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin are two examples of wealthy individuals who have settled in Singapore (Blundy in 2013 and Saverin in 2012).[188] In 2009, Singapore was removed from the OCDE "liste grise" of tax havens,[189] but ranked fourth on the Tax Justice Network's 2015 Financial Secrecy Index of the world's off-shore financial service providers, banking one-eighth of the world's off-shore capital, while "providing numerous tax avoidance and evasion opportunities".[190] In August 2016, The Straits Times reported that Indonesia had decided to create tax havens on two islands near Singapore to bring Indonesian capital back into the tax base.[191] In October 2016, the Monetary Authority of Singapore admonished and fined UBS and DBS and withdrew Falcon Private Bank's banking license for their alleged role in the Malaysian Sovereign Fund scandal.[192][193]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore

I believe I already covered China.

 

[red_elk]

Indeed, one could always argue that such comparisons are problematic. This is precisely why I brought up the example of East Germany vs. West Germany.

Which is also an incorrect comparison, giving post-WW2 realities, such as Cold War, Marshall plan, etc. USSR was economically weaker, devastated by war and was unable to give the same level of economic support to its European allies, as US could.

I believe I already covered China.

Yes, and ignored its comparison with India.

 

[Lexicus]

Which is also an incorrect comparison, giving post-WW2 realities, such as Cold War, Marshall plan, etc. USSR was economically weaker, devastated by war and was unable to give the same level of economic support to its European allies, as US could.

Of course, the real issue was that rather than investing in rebuilding these regions the USSR was more interested in stealing everything that wasn't nailed down.

 

[red_elk]

Of course, the real issue was that rather than investing in rebuilding these regions the USSR was more interested in stealing everything that wasn't nailed down.

In 1945? May be, though this "stealing" hardly compensated a tiny part of what was stolen by the Nazis from USSR.
After that, it doesn't have anything to do with the subject we are discussing here, unless you are suggesting that USSR continue stealing everything from East Germany in next few decades.

 

[Lexicus]

In 1945? May be, though this "stealing" hardly compensated a tiny part of what was stolen by the Nazis from USSR.

But naturally.

 

[red_elk]

But naturally.

If you want to label German post WW2 reparations a Soviet crime, don't hesitate, say it out.

 

[Lexicus]

If you want to label German post WW2 reparations a Soviet crime, don't hesitate, say it out.

I think I already called it stealing? I'm not interested in moralizing, though, I'm just trying to point out that the reason the USSR didn't invest as much in the development of the Warsaw Pact countries as the US invested in the development of NATO countries isn't solely due to the differing economic strength of the US and USSR.

 

[red_elk]

I think I already called it stealing?

Demanding war reparations from the country which attacked you, killed tens of millions of your people... is a crime? Seriously?

I'm not interested in moralizing, though, I'm just trying to point out that the reason the USSR didn't invest as much in the development of the Warsaw Pact countries as the US invested in the development of NATO countries isn't solely due to the differing economic strength of the US and USSR.

It was more complicated than just that, obviously.

 

[aelf]

Indeed, one could always argue that such comparisons are problematic. This is precisely why I brought up the example of East Germany vs. West Germany. That is a perfect example of a liberal democracy producing clearly superior results.

East Germany whose industries were stripped down and shipped to the Soviet Union?

Also, that could be evidence that a command economy is not so good for development as compared to a market economy, not that a non-democratic system is worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore

I believe I already covered China.

Not sure what that Wiki link shows. How familiar are you with Singapore's political system?

And what did you cover about China?

 

[Lexicus]

Demanding war reparations from the country which attacked you, killed tens of millions of your people... is a crime? Seriously?

I dunno, I guess I have this funny idea that "they did it first" doesn't change the morality of an action.