Is democracy appropriate for developing countries?

[SultanOrder]

Let's discuss. Democracy could be very well the new "white man's burden" or "Civilizing mission" of the colonial era. It seems that the west is intent on promoting their vision of democracy on all countries their interests lie. But putting aside notions of freedom, elections, liberty, etc. I ask this very fundamental question, "how successful is democracy for poor, institutionally weak, developing countries?" and "How successful is it when faced with immediate threats?"

As we all know, even the Romans, when faced with a crisis would elect a Dictator with total control until the threat had dissipated. Or even democracies like the United States during the Civil War, WWII, and other wars gave their presidents near dictatorial powers. This is well known. I think this highlights the inherent flaw of a democracy to deal with crisis.

My last point is this, in most western democracies, we all know that their democracies developed with their economies, and that certainly it was not in the present form. In fact they were very undemocratic by today's standards. So why is modern democracy forced down the throats of countries that just aren't ready?

[Itrah]

You risk getting stuck in authoritarianism forever if you don't implement democracy from the get-go. Just look at China, it doesn't look like it will become democratic for the next couple of decades.

[PrinceDaadi]

The question what is democracy? Chinese will tell you they are democratic since regional representitives elect the government.

When it comes to democracy and developing world, it is bit complicated, it is actually labo Daran mid dooro since there no strong institutions. But Dr. Mahatir Mohamed used to say democracy should have limits and be localized.

6. We applaud democracy as the best system of governance ever devised by man. But democracy works only when the people understand the limitations of democracy. When people think only of the freedoms of democracy and know nothing of the implied responsibilities, democracy will not bring the goodness that it promises. Instead it will result only in instability and instability will not permit development to take place and the people to enjoy the benefits of freedom and the rights that democracy promises.

[Thuganomics]

If you think such a thing as a democracy (in the true sense of the word) exists anywhere in the world.You must be deluded sxb.That been said we definitely need some sort of a way for delegating power to politicians for them to lead,with at least some sort of semblance of accountability for those who are chosen.Authoritarian dictatorship does not and will not provide those measures,and would more likely lead to that old adage of "Power corrupts...".

[Jugjugwacwac]

The underlying political rationale for democratic government in the form we know it today are the twin ideas of egalitariansim and individualism that wre born out of the European Enlightenment. This new belief in the essential equality of all citizens and primacy of the individual over the whole gave rise to liberal (liberal in the classical sense) forms of government that upended traditional forms of government based on strict hierarchy, and either abolished the monarchy/aristocracy in totality like in France or subdued the crown to a constitution and representative government like in England.

The only issue is that the fundamental assumptions of the enlightenment, ie egalitarianism and individualism, are whoefully misguided, because humans aren't equal and individualism is anti-civilizational in the long run. I can't flesh out all of my thoughts on this on here but ill list some bullet points as to why Democracy is a farce.

1. Democracy creates factions and polarization within society due to party politics. Look at Somaliland. The followers of Waddani and Kulmiye and Ucid are at each others throats. This creates instability and is a danger to the peace and also wastes considerable time and energy focusing inward, as opposed to outward and looking for external threats.

2. Democratic governments have a short mandate, so those in power are incentivised to make use of their short time for their own benefit. If he doesn't buy a villa now, he might never be able to because he might be out of office in two or three years. Also, he/she will be more amenable to carry out the whims of his constituents no matter how stupid to ensure re-election. If he is not re-elected he doesn't care cause he passes the mess on to the new leader. Contrast this with a monarch or dictator. He will treat his country like his own personal property, and would not wish any harm to come to it. He'll forgoe the short term gains for the long-term benefits, because he wants his assets (ie country and people) to appreciate in value. He wont give a shit what the rabble and riff-raff or those with entrenched interests have to say.

3. Democracy inevitably leads to left-ward societal shift, as the have-nots will vote for more rights and privileges at the expense of those who have excelled. Socialist style wealth-transfers are inevitable. Also, with the extension of the vote to women socially progressive causes and crusades will gradually become more and more important, like womens rights, affirmative action, gay rights etc. The only women in USA for example who by and large don't support such things are women married to conservative men.

4. Democracy leads to innefficent government, as there is too much beurecratic red-tape. Ambitious economic reforms and infrastructure projects take forever, and are frequently interrupted due to the constant changing of administrations. Whereas authoritarian states just get shit done. Compare Putin to Obama. One is a real leader that can actually call shots and the other an impotent figurehead.

[grandpakhalif]

Democracy is not appropriate anywhere it is shirk, sharia law is the only acceptable form of governance. For further explanation please refer to this video

[FieldMarshalMenace]

Let's discuss. Democracy could be very well the new "white man's burden" or "Civilizing mission" of the colonial era. It seems that the west is intent on promoting their vision of democracy on all countries their interests lie. But putting aside notions of freedom, elections, liberty, etc. I ask this very fundamental question, "how successful is democracy for poor, institutionally weak, developing countries?" and "How successful is it when faced with immediate threats?"

As we all know, even the Romans, when faced with a crisis would elect a Dictator with total control until the threat had dissipated. Or even democracies like the United States during the Civil War, WWII, and other wars gave their presidents near dictatorial powers. This is well known. I think this highlights the inherent flaw of a democracy to deal with crisis.

My last point is this, in most western democracies, we all know that their democracies developed with their economies, and that certainly it was not in the present form. In fact they were very undemocratic by today's standards. So why is modern democracy forced down the throats of countries that just aren't ready?

A message from my illegitimate son Abdijohn

What a foolish question. It is your fundamental human right to live in a democracy.

[sahal80]

If democracy means having a governance thats elected by the people then china is democracy bc they vote on a low level then the party elects the central committee who will elect the ruling committee

The president is just figurehead

so every nation has a democracy of its own characteristics

You got the westren liberal democracy and the non-liberal democracy of israel, pakistan, russia, and so on

A while ago i was stating that the multi-ethnic based djibouti is more democratic than some one-clan-based democracy...

Its like israel bc the state is a jewish/ ethnic based state

Ok suppose that democracy is the way for the muslim world

Do you think the west will accept the results if the islamists won it like they did in egypt and algeria?

fukuyama calls it the islamic exceptionalism!

What about the "anti-semite" parts

We have seen how they imposed sanction on austria in 1999 elections
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian ... tion,_1999

Basically democracy for the wes is a tool of imperialism

Some countries like lebanon had some sort of sectarian based-democracy

In somalia it will be a clan-based democracy so if thats the solution let it be then!

[BlackVelvet]

What developing countries need is vision and commitment. Short term presidencies don't necessarily provide the commitment and long-term dictatorships don't always have the vision that fosters public commitment


The model of governance itself is irrelevant in my opinion. Different cultures would have different expectations, yes people can be taught and influenced to accept new and foreign models however whatever political system is adopted must remain true to the home countries cultural ideals


A mix of two things is needed; one, democratic ideals that promote commitment in the general public so that they feel represented and two, a stable vision for both the masses and those in leadership so that the country has a roadmap that does not waver during election season. Each country needs to formulate the right mix that suits their population's idiosyncratic needs for autonomy and their perception of fairness


Dictatorial regimes, monarchies and the like create a semblance of stability but they are their own worst enemy because regardless of how pretty the progress is when viewed from the outside there is always internal discourse that will eventually rip it apart. Democracies on the other hand service the most affluent and feed division creating polarised communities, that said, at least the public have a way of showing their dissent that is non-violent. Which one is the best, neither, the right mix of the two is best

[zidane88]

Democracy is a poison to developing countries till they reach political maturity. The interpretation of Democracy in these countries are: To annihilate, degrade, and terminate the opposing factions/clans by force. You have a clear example of countries like Somalia, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They needs Iron-fisted leaders such as Kings, Sheikhs, Sultans, and Military-rulers to check whomever steps out of line. It is not a plausible choice, but it is a fact.