Reply to A difficult truth to accept: Liberal democracy is not favored around the world

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "A difficult truth to accept: Liberal democracy is not favored around the world"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Apologies for the long musings here but it's something I've been thinking about.

I traveled a lot throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia in my early 20s and in my naive open mind I accepted that Western-style liberal democracy simply wasn't the be-all end-all, I was such a cultural relativist that one could even call me a dictator-apologist, "tankie", or conspiracy theorist a la The Grayzone if anyone is familiar with that podcast.

Then upon becoming a more educated, professional adult, I appreciated the freedom and opportunities that came with the US and the West. I definitely consider myself a political liberal and an economic social-democrat. I despise Trump and his authoritarian tendencies and Putin, Orban, Edrogan, and the like.

Here's the thing, though. Revisiting in my mind the places that I've visited and the people I've known that coastal urban liberals of the US take so much for granted that the rest of the world agrees with us. It's not just conservatives, right wingers, and Trump supporters in the US. It's everywhere else. We assume that everyone should agree that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys, that Israel are the good guys and Palestine are the bad guys, that everyone favors capitalism (whether American-style with less regulations or Northern European-style with more regulations), social welfare, social freedoms and gender equality and LGBTQ rights and separation of church and state. The fact is that day to day, people are looking out for themselves and their families and this is human nature, and that many populations around the world believe that regimes that we consider authoritarian deliver better on bread-and-butter issues. And that the church/mosque/whatever is essential to maintain a moral fabric of society. There are certain ways in which the rural conservatives in Alabama and West Virginia have more in common with many other parts in the world than people in Bethesda, Maryland.

If you look at Alexander Dugin and Eurasianism, I have read his texts many times, and have often thought it is the most abhorrent philosophy in the world, akin to Nazism. I still abhor Duginism, but I realize how it makes sense from a non-Western, socially conservative perspective.
There's a reason why BRICS exist. There's a reason why China is ascendant and the Belt and Road Initiative is working in other parts of Asia - they don't care about China's authoriarian policies or lack of freedom of speech or human rights violations reported... China is building things, America is bombing things - that's what they see. Likewise, Russia has done outreach in Africa and Latin America over thigns like cybersecurity and infrastructure policy. Even countries in Europe, many people are burned out over supporting Ukraine and feel that the EU hasn't done much of them, and don't feel like continuing to feel the pain over oil and gas sanctions against Russia.

You look at other cosmopolitan places in the world and assume that the US is so much better because of our freedoms, but places like Dubai (terribly misogynist!) and Singapore (they execute people who do drugs!) still attract people. Russia and China are not universal villains. The Arab world's wealth and energy sector trump their policies on women and LGBTQ rights. The world is just not woke. The world is multipolar, and we don't have to like it. The more the US fights against multipolarity, the more people will hate us.

Americans assume that the arc of history always bends towards justice, and more social freedoms, but this is simply not true. Culture needs to be left alone to evolve, not imposed by war or corporations. [/quote]

They are favored in wealthy western countries but Russia and China spend billions to spread misinformation that undermines confidence in them.

The alternative to messy democracies is clinical dictatorships, no free press, no freedom of speech to criticize elected officials and jail worse for any promising opposition.

Umm, no thanks![/quote]

Okay. Now, imagine you have your messy democracy. Also, your money is worth nothing, your social safety benefit net has crumbled, you can’t find a job and everything is out of reach financially. Imagine how much you’d care about your freedom if speech then.

You have to be really honest about what you like about your democracies. If it’s economic prosperity, then remind yourself that you can clearly have that without democracy or at least a full range of it. Life in China, UAE, or Russia can be quite comfortable if you have the right skillset.

A good friend of mine is married to a VP of a major Russian bank. They are both UK citizens and have lived there for decades. But right now they have no intention of leaving bc life is just too dang comfortable. [/quote]

So life is great as long as you’re visiting and the citizen of another country. You can travel around but with the protection of a foreign power. [/quote]

I'm just saying that people care primarily about meeting their economic needs, and lots and lots of people are perfectly willing to accept reduced freedom and democratic rights in exchange for economic prosperity and solid safety net.  Let's be honest, most people aren't that interested in politics.  Conversely, if a democracy isn't meeting economic needs, freedom of speech isn't going to keep you warm when you have no job and your money can't buy anything.  People assume economic prosperity goes along with liberal democracy but that's not always the case, and a look around the planet shows that many are comfortable without democracy as long as prosperity is there. [/quote]

I think you have a weird definition for liberal democracy.  I cannot think of a nation where the people are happy without it except China.  And as I said before, China is still in a honeymoon due to the previous leaders.  As Xi takes them further from prosperity, that will change.

As for economics, the vast majority of nations are less well off than the US, and that is why we have a very high immigration rate.

The problem with oligarchies is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and once the nation falls into the hands of an agressive idiot (say Trump), there is no way out.  The nation then falls.

Democracy is messy.  Liberal democracy is about repect for truth and the rule of law.  No other form of government has those values.  (we don't always live up to those values, but at least those are our asperational values in Japan, S. Korea, Europe, the US and other liberal democracies).  No other form of government can say that.[/quote]

The Gulf nations seem to enjoy prosperity without any democracy. Of course not everyone is happy but life is generally comfortable.

Remove economic prosperity from the democracy package and see what happens. [/quote]

women, who are more than 50% of the population,  are not happy[/quote]

You don't actually know that. You are superimposing your value system onto theirs and assuming you'd feel a certain way about things.  Being an actual Penninsula nation citizen is pretty luxurious because of the oil wealth and the use of third country nationals who work for slave wages. If you more or less buy into the culture that you grew up in (as most people do), and you want an easy life, you can have that in these nations. Also, they look at our conditions in the US with absolute horror-- women culturally expected to show skin, to date around before getting an offer of engagement, rarely have prenuptial agreements (which have existed in Islamic cultures for over a thousand years), having to work, etc. You think they think like you, but they don't. [/quote]

what country are you from?  In the US, if you want to show skin, you show skin.  If you are Amish, and don't want to do that, you don't.  And everybody has to work, even women in the gulf.  They just do different kinds of work.

Look at Iran.  The women there are making it very very clear they don't want the life you describe.  And very very few women in the US chose that life.  The Amish.  A few mormons.  A few orthodox Jews.  But given a choice, most women chose freedom.[/quote]

The irony is that the U.S. is to blame for the fact women in Iran live the life they live…[/quote]

The history of human beings is full of irony.  What's your point?  Because the US has done bad things, has some bad people, you want to live in Iran, without the basic protections of rule of law and without some basic freedoms?  Because if you cannot have perfection, you want hell?[/quote]

No, I am saying that maybe it’s time to either stop meddling in other countries’ affairs, or at least stop pretending that this is done for the sake of democracy…
Democracy is great, I love it. But let’s pretend it can happen everywhere,
Where there is a will, there is a way, etc [/quote]
NP
This is a good point.  The list is long of countries that have become decidedly undemocratic after US meddling and scheming.  Or what’s even worse is when US gets played (like how Aung San Suu Kyi who took advantage of the good will of the US for decades and then betrayed the democratic world and proved to be just as brutal as the military junta).[/quote]

Because as I said before, there are only two choices for the countries that aren’t part of the “first world” today - either become essentially subservient to the U.S. (under the guise of building democracy) which doesn’t bring much prosperity, OR start standing their ground and at some point being cornered into becoming autocracies, totalitarian regimes etc.

[/quote]

How would you divide the following countries between these groups? Subservient or autocratic? Kiribati, Malaysia, Guyana, Zambia. [/quote]

I don’t know but it doesn’t matter in their case. They are either subservient or so insignificant that their autocracy doesn’t threaten the US so no one cares. [/quote]

Sorry but you said there were only two choices for countries which aren’t part of the first world today. I gave you four examples that apparently don’t fit your model so you say they are irrelevant. I could give you a list of a lot more which I’m sure you would also dismiss.  Exactly which non-first world countries does your model apply to? A list would help. [/quote]

I will be honest, I haven’t thought it through. I think a country either tries to build democracy (and hopes for US aid) or doesn’t want to be in any way accountable or dependent on the U.S. and eventually becomes an autocracy.

[/quote]

Sorry but it’s clear you haven’t thought this through. You seem to think the US is some sort of absolute reference point for all countries and it really isn’t. I think you will struggle to fit most countries into your theory. Have a look at the list of top 30 recipient countries of US aid and tell me whether you think they are subservient and working towards democracy (eg Syria, Sudan, South Africa, Pakistan, Somalia, Zimbabwe). [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics