Pre-requisites for a Democracy

A Can of Man

Je suis aware
Basically a response for the thread about Iran's F-5 face lift.

In any case, in the vast majority of cases, you need a dictatorship that brings stability and wealth into a country before it can be ready for a democracy.
South Korea did have a run with democracy in the early sixties but it was an utter and complete failure because the country had no money and people were struggling to just get food on the table. The people did value education but for most it was an unattainable dream at that point.
Enter a few years of dictatorship and what do you know, problem solved. Country is ready for democracy. Everything has its own time. Trying to get a country with no stability, no wealth, little basic services up and running to be a proper democracy is like trying to get a toddler to drive a car.
But since the whole idea of a dictatorship for a country makes everyone puke at home, the idea is best left scrapped.
Even in a country with corrupt dictators like Indonesia life did get better. Still lots of work to do. Before my old man visited India, he thought Indonesia was in a very bad state. After he visited India he said Indonesia was paradise compared to the India that isn't cordoned off for tourists only. That was during the early or mid 90's I think. And guess which one of the two countries was the democracy?
Democracy is only meaningful with stability, wealth and education. Without it, it's simply a pile of sh*t that guarantees a government that will be easily bullied and bought out by mid sized companies, will be corrupt as hell anyway and at best, it will simply be inefficient beyond belief.

Added: By the way, the dictatorship I'm referring to isn't just universal any sort of dictatorship. I mean dictatorship that actually gives a damn about the country. Two examples I can think of is South Korea's Park Jung-hee and China's Deng Xiao Ping. These guys were dictators and they were also had a genuine care and concern for their country. The results speak for themselves.
Obviously the really crappy dictators are bad news for everyone... it's a bit like this. If you are sick you go to a hospital to cure yourself. But if your hospital sucks, you might die from a light paper cut.
 
If you want a democracy, you got to earn it.
A little outside pressure/help won't hurt either. Just a little. Not too much.
 
There's nothing wrong with a benevolent dictator. Problem is getting him to step down when you're ready for democracy.

I will never allow someone to rule over me..... simple as that. Whether he/she is the most benevolent dictator. I don't care if because of him I never have to work a day in my life, I eat like a king, and I can own everything that I want... I have that under his/her rule because he/she allowed me to have it.

I'm the President's Boss. I elect him/her into office and if I don't like him/her I fire his/her ass from office by not voting for him/her.

If a dicatorship ever happens in the USA I will gladly fight it until either I'm a free man or I'm dead. Simple as that..... I fled one dicatorship as a child. I will not allow another one to form while I'm alive.
 
Basically a response for the thread about Iran's F-5 face lift.

In any case, in the vast majority of cases, you need a dictatorship that brings stability and wealth into a country before it can be ready for a democracy.
South Korea did have a run with democracy in the early sixties but it was an utter and complete failure because the country had no money and people were struggling to just get food on the table. The people did value education but for most it was an unattainable dream at that point.
Enter a few years of dictatorship and what do you know, problem solved. Country is ready for democracy. Everything has its own time. Trying to get a country with no stability, no wealth, little basic services up and running to be a proper democracy is like trying to get a toddler to drive a car.
But since the whole idea of a dictatorship for a country makes everyone puke at home, the idea is best left scrapped.
Even in a country with corrupt dictators like Indonesia life did get better. Still lots of work to do. Before my old man visited India, he thought Indonesia was in a very bad state. After he visited India he said Indonesia was paradise compared to the India that isn't cordoned off for tourists only. That was during the early or mid 90's I think. And guess which one of the two countries was the democracy?
Democracy is only meaningful with stability, wealth and education. Without it, it's simply a pile of sh*t that guarantees a government that will be easily bullied and bought out by mid sized companies, will be corrupt as hell anyway and at best, it will simply be inefficient beyond belief.

Added: By the way, the dictatorship I'm referring to isn't just universal any sort of dictatorship. I mean dictatorship that actually gives a damn about the country. Two examples I can think of is South Korea's Park Jung-hee and China's Deng Xiao Ping. These guys were dictators and they were also had a genuine care and concern for their country. The results speak for themselves.
Obviously the really crappy dictators are bad news for everyone... it's a bit like this. If you are sick you go to a hospital to cure yourself. But if your hospital sucks, you might die from a light paper cut.

Here is a question for you, are there any countries where "democracy" has been imposed by an outside force that has taken hold to form a strong stable nation, Japan is the only country I can think of but I even think there are mitigating circumstances there.

Take a look at every stable democracy out there and I think you will find they all have several things in common:

1) Well educated.
2) Strong middle class.
3) Low levels of poverty.
4) A population that is prepared to accept rule of law (ie bugger all tribalism to split loyalties).
5) A national identity and the will to place that above all else (colour, religion etc).

I am sure there are far more than this but its too early to think.
 
Here is a question for you, are there any countries where "democracy" has been imposed by an outside force that has taken hold to form a strong stable nation, Japan is the only country I can think of but I even think there are mitigating circumstances there.

Take a look at every stable democracy out there and I think you will find they all have several things in common:

1) Well educated.
2) Strong middle class.
3) Low levels of poverty.
4) A population that is prepared to accept rule of law (ie bugger all tribalism to split loyalties).
5) A national identity and the will to place that above all else (colour, religion etc).

I am sure there are far more than this but its too early to think.

I actually said a little outside pressure, not too much, not too little. So it's a different ball game from going in and forcing it on the populace.
South Korea, Taiwan and perhaps even Indonesia were influenced heavily in their drive towards democracy by the United States and American diplomats pushed the democracy agenda for quite some time with at least the two countries I first mentioned.
Japan, like you said, was a case where it was forced upon the populace.
How about West Germany? I'm sure they didn't have much of a choice on whether or not they would be a democracy or not.



I will never allow someone to rule over me..... simple as that. Whether he/she is the most benevolent dictator. I don't care if because of him I never have to work a day in my life, I eat like a king, and I can own everything that I want... I have that under his/her rule because he/she allowed me to have it.

I'm the President's Boss. I elect him/her into office and if I don't like him/her I fire his/her ass from office by not voting for him/her.

If a dicatorship ever happens in the USA I will gladly fight it until either I'm a free man or I'm dead. Simple as that..... I fled one dicatorship as a child. I will not allow another one to form while I'm alive.

You didn't just run from dictatorship. You ran from a Communist dictatorship. There are A LOT of countries that would not have made it this far without a period of dictatorship where the country needed some damned discipline and direction.
And by the way, "I am the President's Boss" is exactly the attitude that causes the whole "entitlement" attitude. The President wants something done... it's never going to satisfy all the citizens but because your asses elected him, you got to give the guy some damned faith. But no, people will protest even before the announcement is over. You are not the President's boss. The President is your boss for the elected period of time. If you don't like him, you vote for another boss after the regular term is up. If the President shows up, I salute him, he doesn't salute me first. This is regardless of whether or not I like the President or not. That's the system. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
When I said there was nothing wrong with a benevolent dictator, I meant a dictator whose ultimate goal is to set the conditions to hand over the country to its people without it resulting in mob rule by stupids.
 
And believe it or not, they exist.
The only bad thing is they have a habit of not knowing to let go. But like I said, that's when the people have to get their thing together and earn their right to choose their leaders and a little outside help usually helps out pretty good.

The first President of South Korea, Rhee Sung-man stepped down when the people protested against him. Stepped down willingly in fact. After that came years of completely incapable democracy. Eventually a General called Park Jung-hee had enough. When his coup succeeded, he found out how little money the country had and even thought about giving the whole thing back to the people he took the seat from. Fortunately it was only a passing thought sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top