Is Third World Democracy a bad thing?

[DinoDoc]

Under his rule China's population grew from 500 million to 900 million

It wasn't because Chinese women are particularly sexy?

[ranskaldan]

that would explain the harshness of the laws in place.

one day we will swamp your fertile, underpopulated countries with Chinese women. We will hypnotise your populations. Then we will rule.

[chequita guevara]

As long as I get my Chinese hottie you can rule all you want.

[The Mad Monk]

I remember reading an article in Foreign Affairs several years ago that suggested that new Democracies are nearly always unstable and dangerous, and that it is a normal state for them to go through. IIRC, it started with the French Revolution as an example of how any nascent democracy can drive itself to idealogical extremes. It suggested that third world democracies are having problems not because they are third world, but because they are new democracies.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, it started 100 years prior with the English Revolution. We all remember what a nice man Cromwell was, don't we?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As long as I get my Chinese hottie you can rule all you want.

It's a certified traditional strategy, known as the meirenji or "Strategem of Beauty". It has been used to great effect throughout Chinese history. It is, for example, how the Manchus bought off the Chinese general responsible for keeping the Manchus out.

I remember reading an article in Foreign Affairs several years ago that suggested that new Democracies are nearly always unstable and dangerous, and that it is a normal state for them to go through. IIRC, it started with the French Revolution as an example of how any nascent democracy can drive itself to idealogical extremes. It suggested that third world democracies are having problems not because they are third world, but because they are new democracies.

It depends on how much you want to sacrifice for the switchover, though. How long can a country afford to be a "new democracy" before the very purpose of being democratic - better living standards and greater individual dignity - is defeated?

Some countries switch over quite peacefully after all, Poland, for example, or Hungary. But others go through so much turmoil that their entire economies are wiped out. In this case it isn't worth it to switch over - the people's living standards have dropped and may not recover for a long time.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, when both Poland and Hungary were first democracies, they very quickly became right-wing dictatorships, back following WWI.

[Mr. President]

Whatever Third World countries get, they find some way to waste. Money, education, natural resources, democracy, whatever - sooner or later it goes down the drain and they're the Third World again.

[Berzerker]

chegitz -

I have an alagory for libertarian morality. You have ten people on a boat. Each of them owns a specific portion of the boat. One person decides he wants to drill a hole in his section. According to libertarian morality, not only should he be able to do so, but it would be wrong for the other nine to try and stop him. The world is just a very large boat.

If they can keep the water they let in out of everyone's compartments, go for it. But since they can't (and you know it), libertarian morality doesn't require allowing them to flood the boat.

Imran -

Have you SEEN India? Overpopulation is the main reason why India is so poor today. China is much richer because it has attempted to curtail population growth.

Why would China with a larger population be richer while India with a smaller population is poorer? It seems to me the main difference between India and China is that China is allowing the market to operate more than India. I've seen documentaries on the quagmire caused by India's regulatory system.

ranskaldan -

People have hands. But they also need medical care, and they need to send their children to school. They also need jobs, and a place to stay, and consumer products. They also need to produce waste, and pollution, and traffic.

As poor countries industrialise, reproduction rates decline with some countries seeing a negative rate. That has happened all over the "1st" world. I don't know about population densities in every country and continent, but it seems the most "backward" places have the lowest population densities. There's a reason for that, more hands translates into more production, more improvements, and more scientific discoveries.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I remember reading an article in Foreign Affairs several years ago that suggested that new Democracies are nearly always unstable and dangerous, and that it is a normal state for them to go through. IIRC, it started with the French Revolution as an example of how any nascent democracy can drive itself to idealogical extremes. It suggested that third world democracies are having problems not because they are third world, but because they are new democracies.

Ahem. The grand ol' U S of A never imploded. Not counting England (which still had a king, and wasn't a real democracy/republic) we are the first modern democratic country and longest continuous. Does this mean we are just better than the rest of the world? hehe, as if anyone would admit that.

Some possible deal breakers:
After independence we had the Articles of Confederation which failed within 10 years and the Constitution was written. Since it was a transfer from democracy to democracy and it was entirely peaceful and voluntary I don't think there is much of a problem here.

The true question y'all will raise, and rightly so, is the Civil War. It was a big crisis for the nation, but not a sign of unstability and danger, it happened after 80 years of stable peaceful democratic rule, and even the war never threatened US democracy. We split and fought, but amazingly both halfs retained democracy on their own, and after the war was over democracy remained with no major changes. There was no period of anarchy, no government change, no dictator rising to power, no massive civil unrest (some riots, but nothing unusual).

Our government has been unbroken and largely unchanged for the last 220 years, meanwhile France went through 5 republics, 2 empires, and 2 or 3 monarchies, hehehe.

I don't know why this is, and I'm not attempting to create a universal model for forming successful democracies, just pointing out that it did happen, and came off quite splendidly.

[Arrian]

(Representative) Democracy has its faults. It is very vulnerable to demagaugery (see: Hitler, Adolf), it tends to be shortsighted because the pols are only in power for a set # of years before having to get re-elected, and IMO the nature of the election process pretty much guarantees that the people who seek high office are the very last people who should be allowed to attain it.

Like Churchill said, it's the worst form of government, except for all the others. Each of those problems are, to me, preferable to the alternatives presented by non-democratic systems of government.

Anyway, I think there is definitely something to be said for the argument that young democracies are usually volatile. The US had some advantages that 3rd world countries don't have.

-Arrian

[VetLegion]

An article about overopulation and liberty of breeding: The Tragedy of the Commons (1968)

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Berzerker

I don't know about population densities in every country and continent, but it seems the most "backward" places have the lowest population densities. There's a reason for that, more hands translates into more production, more improvements, and more scientific discoveries.

Hmm...some of the least densely populated countries:

Canada
Australia
United States (yes, the US)
New Zealand
Sweeden
Russia
Norway

All well under 100/square mile

Even China doesn't have that high a population density, relatively speaking.

Really, the only exceptions are countries like Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Belgium, and a few other western European countries (although not France, Germany or Spain).

Overall, though, population density is rather meaningless in comparison to development. Many African countries have lower densities (comparatively speaking), and countries like India and Bangladesh have a some of the highest. Many Carribean states have densities as high or higher than the UK or Italy. Indonesia, while overall not that dense, has some areas (ie: Java) that are among the most dense in the world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why would China with a larger population be richer while India with a smaller population is poorer? It seems to me the main difference between India and China is that China is allowing the market to operate more than India. I've seen documentaries on the quagmire caused by India's regulatory system.

Um.. you looked a map lately? China is bigger than India.

And the regulatory system in India is NOTHING compared to what China had to go through. Both have liberalized at similar times.

[ranskaldan]

Bangladesh is one of the densest large countries in the world. Australia, on the other hand, is barely populated on the fringes. Is Bangladesh richer than Australia?

The problem does not lie with the density per se - it lies with the support structures in place that would keep these people fed, schooled, paid, married, happy, etc.

China, as of now, is struggling in that respect.