Can non-Indo-European peoples ever be democratic?

[Q Classic]

Well, I wanted to show more class than crass when referring to the August celebrations of Bright Light Days 1 and 2.

[RGBVideo]

you're sounding like a stupid, prejudiced old man

Originally posted by Q Classic

Well, that depends on your definition of "democratic".


Indonesia's "democracy" isn't the shining example you think it is. Nor is Bhutan's.


That's more likely due to failed economic or unbalanced policies in the African and Arab states; the former due to chronic, endemic mismanagement which destroyed any opportunities for a growing middle class, and thus democratic reform, and the latter due to the "beverly hillbillies" effect, where sudden and dramatic wealth has prevented any sort of middle-class reform movement from gaining ground.

That said, a middle class isn't always in favor of true democracy; take a look at Thailand, where they were the ones behind rather anti-democratic protests.


So why is Taiwan a relatively successful democracy? Or Singapore? Sure, the latter's a one-party state, but essentially so is Japan, and so was Mexico until recently. But in Singapore, the people are content, their economy is strong, and they regularly vote to retain the party in power.


Bull****. You don't really know what you're talking about here. Yes, they're vibrant "functioning" democracies. Or, in other words, western institutions bolted onto more traditional, eastern structures.

Japan's one-party state preserves the illusion of democracy with a parliament and multiple parties, none of whom have ever truly posed a threat to the established order in the LDP--which has more or less been nothing more than a loose coalition of factions that do back-room deals with each other without much public input. (There are signs that this is changing, but "change" in a country like Japan means that it's likely to be at least two or three decades off.)

South Korea is a racuous democracy with no constant notion of political parties; rather, "parties" are formed around politicians due to anti-democratic back-room dealing and gamesmanship. If you think the American lobbyist system is bad, you have no concept how endemic influence is in Korean politics.

Additionally, it wasn't the Buddhism per-se that guided them--Korea's Yi Dynasty, which ruled from about 1400 to 1910 was more influenced by Neo-Confucian thought (which did bring in elements of Buddhism, but was more driven by non-Indo-European, Eastern/Chinese thought), and Japan has always been more syncretic, with Shinto being the one being slightly modified by Buddhism.

The reason why those two countries have a modern, "Western-style" "Democracy" is not because of the influence of Buddhism, but because of the overwhelming influence of the United States in the post-WW2 period.


There is a strong emphasis on the individual as opposed to the society at large in Western European societies, but you don't find this in many other democracies.

how about you define "democracy" for us.

sounds like your definition is the usual post-modern relativist tripe about "established, functioning democracy" which only "functions" if it ends up with leaders who share your world-view (never mind how the voting system works), but I'm hoping that I'm wrong

[Fake Boris]

Re: you're sounding like a stupid, prejudiced old man

Originally posted by VJ


how about you define "democracy" for us.

sounds like your definition is the usual post-modern relativist tripe about "established, functioning democracy" which only "functions" if it ends up with leaders who share your world-view (never mind how the voting system works), but I'm hoping that I'm wrong

That would be the modernist conception of democracy.

[Dauphin]

Re: Re: Re: Can non-Indo-European peoples ever be democratic?

Originally posted by Felch

Originally posted by Q Classic
The reason why those two countries have a modern, "Western-style" "Democracy" is not because of the influence of Buddhism, but because of the overwhelming influence of the United States in the post-WW2 period.

I think I put it more succinctly, but this is cool too.

Not forgetting the US was well known for propping up regimes not very democratic as well.

[Q Classic]

sounds like your definition is the usual post-modern relativist tripe about "established, functioning democracy" which only "functions" if it ends up with leaders who share your world-view (never mind how the voting system works),

You assume incorrectly, which has made you exactly what one expects.

If we presume an established, functioning Western idemocracy, we can expect to see two or more functioning parties that provide a decent opposition to one another; in addition, we can presume that most governance takes place with the oversight of the voting population, which is defined by those holding citizenship with the country in question. Additionally, because it is a democracy, we expect that corporations and other plutocrats do not have undue influence over governmental policy, but also that the government is not so populist that it restricts liberties, rather than guarantees them.

Japan and S Korea both fail this test because they do not have really have more than one viable, functioning party. Most governance is done by decree, sent out by those in power with minimal oversight from the population. Additionally, both countries are very strongly in the pocket of the major congolmerates which dominate their economies.

In other words, the only reason why they're not governed more like Singapore is that they have populations at least an order of magnitude larger, with far more land area to deal with.

That said, I still think it's a better system than what you hvae in China, for example, or N Korea. They are democracies, but their actual operation is exactly why I qualify the term. To automatically assume that they function in the same way as Western democracies just because they happen have similar trappings is a fallacy; to assume that Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore have democracies because of some "Indo-European" tradition is offensive; and to assume that non-Indo-Europeans cannot have their own variation is insulting at best.

[OzzyKP]

A counter-example in the other direction is Russia who never fully embraced democracy.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
A counter-example in the other direction is Russia who never fully embraced democracy.

But they weren't influenced by Buddhism.

[OzzyKP]

They are Indo-European though.

[Q Classic]

Ethnically, yes. Maybe they're culturally Arabian or African?

[Sandman]

Just modify Indo-Aryan to not include Slavs. Or Semites.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Sandman
Just modify Indo-Aryan to only include Germans.

Now that you put it that way, I had no idea aneeshm was a Nazi.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Sandman
Just modify Indo-Aryan to not include Slavs. Or Semites.

you don't even need to modify it, put it this way and it's in line with nazi ideology

that's why i was tried to call a troll on the first reply on the thread, as a matter of fact. there are some things i agree with, but that is an extremely undiplomatic way of presenting that theory.

[Unimatrix11]

Democracy is established where it is in the interest of those who rule that it be established. If you live in a democracy, you can be pretty sure, that your government has little to say. Democracy is the intertemporal form of devide and rule. It´s spread has a lot more to do with financial systems (e.g. the credit system) than anything else.

[Dr Strangelove]

How about Taiwan, South Korea, and the Phillipines? How about South Africa?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Re: Re: you're sounding like a stupid, prejudiced old man

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
That would be the modernist conception of democracy.

Indeed. Post-modern definition would likely involve the concept that whatever the people (or societies) considered to be a democracy is one.