Limits of democracy

[fleetmouse]

Anyone else want to talk about this, are there periods of development where authoritarianism can be justified as a part of development?

Justified to whom, Miles? To a political science professor? To God? To the average American man on the street? To an impartial alien observer from Alpha Centauri? To the people living under the authoritarian leader? To the people "disappeared" and tortured under his rule? To their families?

How do you justify the omelette to the eggs? I guess it's easier to justify to the guy eating the omelette, or the guy who got paid to make it.

I guess you can justify it to the descendants of the benevolent dictator, after The Crisis has been overcome by his wise and judicious seizure of power and he has seen fit to give power back to the people in the ripening golden years of peace and prosperity eventually engendered by his regime, a regime in which Hard Decisions Have Been Made But Maybe It's For The Best In The Long Run.

[mdsimpson92]

I guess you can justify it to the descendants of the benevolent dictator, after The Crisis has been overcome by his wise and judicious seizure of power and he has seen fit to give power back to the people in the ripening golden years of peace and prosperity eventually engendered by his regime, a regime in which Hard Decisions Have Been Made But Maybe It's For The Best In The Long Run.

Perhaps, though right there you have pretty much set up the model for the original concept of the Dictator.

Though there have been authoritarian leaders who I think have been good for their country on the net (granted that doesn't necessarily Justify them). Deng Xiaoping would certainly be a good example for cleaning up Mao's terrible domestic policies. Uplifting 500 million people out of poverty and opening up China, while making it so that no one man could ever possess absolute power in the Party ever again. Granted he was different in that he started with all of it and REDUCED his power considerably and enforced term limits for everyone in the party. Granted, as I say that he did some pretty nasty stuff, but in general, the rights of Chinese have gradually improved.

During the period of the 1980's and the 1990's I'm not entirely sure how democracy would have helped that much at that point, and on a selfish note, the nationalism here (which granted the government does take advantage of if ever so warily) does give me the impression that democracy might lead to conflict with the neighbors, and that kind of scares me. Granted, I think that more democracy would help create more accountability here which is desperately needed. China's government is pretty corrupt, not Russia bad, but still pretty bad.

However, perhaps I need to clarify a bit by asking this: would it be better to have a majoritarian democracy, or a non-democratic system that (largely)respects the rights of citizens(except voting of course). Note, that China is NOT the latter. Oddly enough if they actually followed what they put in the constitution in terms of rights, the people would be A LOT better off.

[fleetmouse]

This is sounding a lot like consequentialism / utilitarianism. Not that that's a bad thing - but you're saying that something generally recognized as negative - dictatorship, here - can have greater positive consequences overall, contra the Kantian idea of always doing the "right thing" regardless.

[mdsimpson92]

This is sounding a lot like consequentialism / utilitarianism. Not that that's a bad thing - but you're saying that something generally recognized as negative - dictatorship, here - can have greater positive consequences overall, contra the Kantian idea of always doing the "right thing" regardless.

That would generally work within the minds of leaders and historians who generally look at the results in determining the qualification of a leader, otherwise individuals like Augustus would be a lot more reviled. But yeah, this does have a bit of a rule utilitarian vein to it. Or at least Machiavellian consequentialism.

[mdsimpson92]

This is sounding a lot like consequentialism / utilitarianism. Not that that's a bad thing - but you're saying that something generally recognized as negative - dictatorship, here - can have greater positive consequences overall, contra the Kantian idea of always doing the "right thing" regardless.

Eh, I'm a virtue ethics guy overall and practical wisdom is towards the top of the list for virtues.



Granted as I say that, I think in Augustus' case, not his later successors, he actually did have more respect for citizens right more than his immediate predecessors (and slaves to a lesser extent), as did Deng Xiaoping for that matter, who, while indeed violate rights, on the net actually expanded them for citizens.

Actually, I have to note that I think the examples I have brought up don't actually fit, in both cases it was authoritarian leaders taking over from other authoritarian leaders and on the whole improved the welfare of the country(among other things).

[KR Wordgazer]

I think the idea of a representative democracy is supposed to mitigate some of the problems of an uneducated populace. Ideally, you elect someone you trust who is more educated and understands the issues.

Of course, this system is only as good as the representative's character, but it does have advantages over straight democracy.

[Metacrock]

I think the idea of a representative democracy is supposed to mitigate some of the problems of an uneducated populace. Ideally, you elect someone you trust who is more educated and understands the issues.

Of course, this system is only as good as the representative's character, but it does have advantages over straight democracy.

have to have educated citizens to know who to trust.

[mdsimpson92]

have to have educated citizens to know who to trust.

I agree with that statement. Would a republic be appropriate for a civilization that is let's say medieval. I think perhaps yes, but would those (or should) those who are completely uneducated be allowed to vote, etc. Then again, the Most Serene Republic of Venice lasted pretty long (1000 years total), so I guess the answer is a limited yes, at least in small states.

[Metacrock]

have to have educated citizens to know who to trust.

I agree with that statement. Would a republic be appropriate for a civilization that is let's say medieval. I think perhaps yes, but would those (or should) those who are completely uneducated be allowed to vote, etc. Then again, the Most Serene Republic of Venice lasted pretty long (1000 years total), so I guess the answer is a limited yes, at least in small states.

by definition fulfilling that model would require that they vote. I sometimes ask if uneducated people should vote today in USA. Then I say "O silly boy, if you took out the uneducated voter who would be left?"

[mdsimpson92]

by definition fulfilling that model would require that they vote. I sometimes ask if uneducated people should vote today in USA. Then I say "O silly boy, if you took out the uneducated voter who would be left?"

Fair enough to a point. But in our case, modern developed states have a largely educated population (at least to a basic high school level, if not college, though I will note issues with american high school and middle school education, not colleges though).Also that initially was a major reason why the electoral system was put in place at that point. I'm just trying to think of a scenario where non-democratic states would be ethically justified. Also the other question is, is it possible to have such a state while having it respect the rights of its citizens?