Western foreign policy, when push comes to shove: Democracy sacrificed for Stability?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Yeah but the difference is that you say Egypt has a crap democracy because Egyptian people/society can't handle/don't want democracy.

I think we have to recognise that societies look different after a period of a particular kind of rule, be it capitalist, democracy, communist, dictatorship etc. If you were to look at France prior to 1780, would you think it was suitable for democratic rule?

Also, what do you think would make a country suitable for democratic rule? Because from the sound of what you are saying, it sounds like a country would have to already be a democracy...

---

No I said that it's complex, it is, we simply can't expect the same from a devided people, here we fought things out and there we cut things up, look at Africa's borders. All African nations are are a joke, they are western inventions. Can we at least be honost about that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Ghana's not bad either. (AFAIK)

---

The congo too, well back in the 50s that is. To fragony, i think i take issue with the way you word things, but you seem to understand the situations fairly well, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No I said that it's complex, it is, we simply can't expect the same from a devided people, here we fought things out and there we cut things up, look at Africa's borders. All African nations are are a joke, they are western inventions. Can we at least be honost about that

---

Certainly, you are right on all counts, but I don't know if in practice these issues are more of a handicap than a death knell.

For example, who would have thought in the 1970s that Spain's democracy would stick after 40 years of dictatorship?

Paul Collier's analysis of democracies in developping countries is interesting, even if his recomendations are a bit fruity, not to mention interventionalist!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson

The congo too, well back in the 50s that is. To fragony, i think i take issue with the way you word things, but you seem to understand the situations fairly well, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

---

Nothing taken as such

You have to compare countries with similar economic situations to even approach a reasonable comparison. I thought that was so obvious I didn't need to stipulate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You have to compare countries with similar economic situations to even approach a reasonable comparison. I thought that was so obvious I didn't need to stipulate.

---

well yah. But surely more than just economics? no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Ghana's not bad either. (AFAIK)

---

Mhm, Obama visited there recently to acclaim it for it's democratic progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You have to compare countries with similar economic situations to even approach a reasonable comparison. I thought that was so obvious I didn't need to stipulate.

---

There really aren't any economy's to compare to draw any conclusion whatsoever, unless you want to live in the alternative reality that is social theory. If things would be better it would be better, is that really a point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

There really aren't any economy's to compare to draw any conclusion whatsoever, unless you want to live in the alternative reality that is social theory. If things would be better it would be better, is that really a point?

---

Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore are the only non-western nations which have a similar level of western wealth...and unamazingly, they have similar capitalist democracies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

well yah. But surely more than just economics? no?

---

Economic mode defines political superstructure. Political structure is the very expression of economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore are the only non-western nations which have a similar level of western wealth...and unamazingly, they have similar capitalist democracies.

---

Yes and my little pony also has 4 legs, giraffes as well but the have longer necks and are yellow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Economic mode defines political superstructure. Political structure is the very expression of economics.

---

I'm not sure about that tbh. I'm aware of evidence that democracies (on average) promote an extra percentage point or so of growth but I'm not convinced you can be so cock-sure of the particular causality of a country's economy on its political structure. Could you explain what you are getting at?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Yes and my little pony also has 4 legs, giraffes as well but the have longer necks and are yellow

---

I offer examples time after time Fragony, and you just make unbased assertions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

I'm not sure about that tbh. I'm aware of evidence that democracies (on average) promote an extra percentage point or so of growth but I'm not convinced you can be so cock-sure of the particular causality of a country's economy on its political structure. Could you explain what you are getting at?

---

This is basic political theory guys - nothing radical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I offer examples time after time Fragony, and you just make unbased assertions.

---

I'm being realistic, you on the other hand are in love with your idea on how things should be, I don't have to check any map I already know the asian country's aren't like the middle-east

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

This is basic political theory guys - nothing radical.

---

Indulge me then. How does a "country's economic mode define its political superstructure", or point me in the irection of a handy reference. From what I see of the world, the focus on economy (barring possible meanings of economic mode) and nothing else seems utterly incomplete.

Edit: (I'm an Engineer by the way so don't be surprised that I've not studied basic political theory)

Political power is wielded by those who demand it and cannot be turned away.

In an agrarian economy, it is the land owners who hold power. They defend their interests against a monarch through titles, and confer these titles within their families. Political modes: feudalism, colonial slave/plantation systems.

In an early industrial economy, the land owners and factory owners hold power. Rule of law is important for stable investments and contracts. Political modes: constitutional monarchy, mercantile capitalism, limited franchise democracy.

Middle industrial economy creates a booming middle class. This in turn demands political power to match rising economic power - franchise gets extended. You know what a late industrial economy looks like, and it's political mode.

In addition to this you get other types of economies such as the primary industry economies in the developing world and the middle east. They have vast mineral wealth, but it's controlled by a small political elite and only needs a fraction of the population to extract it. These have very similar political and economic structures to the agrarian economies - essentially fuedal.

This is a good introduction:

Barrington Moore - Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship

Thanks! My only problem with that (and i accept that it's necessarily brief) -and i'm sure you are expecting this, is China. Or is there a bubble for (mid) industrial economies where dictatorship/one party rule exists?

Edit:

Ok, Barrington Moore's wiki page gives a bit more on his theories so consider my question answered.

It does pose another however, how do non-democratic "modern" societies transfer to democracy? You seem to see that still as part of an evolution, albeit an ironic reversion of marxist evolutionary economics :wink:.

Idaho you are going to hate this, but relevant for thread imho

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm

#2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Idaho you are going to hate this, but relevant for thread imho

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm

---

Very consistent with the "our men" school of international relations. No real mention of cultural differences - which was pivotal to your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

It does pose another however, how do non-democratic "modern" societies transfer to democracy? You seem to see that still as part of an evolution, albeit an ironic reversion of marxist evolutionary economics :wink:.

---

I don't think it is a reversion as such. The Marxist principle of political change mirroring economic change is still the only analytical model out there. What Marx then went on to assume based on that model is another matter, and one that I don't think you need subscribe to (I don't).