Democracy is not an answer to the poorest countries

What I think the bottom billion countries need is Fascism. These poor countries need a fascist government, where a good, benevolent, educated and unselfish leader ..will bring rapid change in their society to create an Economic growth.

Economic growth is the only means to improve the lives of humans living in poverty. Economic growth brings education, intelligence, norms, morals into a society.

One thing I noticed is that You cannot have a democracy in the poorest country in the world.

Democracy is something that humans fight for or die for. For the most poor countries in our world, democracy is not even close to the answer.

The many poorest countries on Earth.. need a good/benevolent/moral dictator to rule with absolute fist.... to create economic growth.

Only after that, can that country have somewhat functioning democracy..

Originally posted by saabacura
What I think the bottom billion countries need is Fascism.

Billion?

These poor countries need a fascist government, where a good, benevolent, educated and unselfish leader ..will bring rapid change in their society to create an Economic growth.

Because democracies cannot create a good economy?

Economic growth is the only means to improve the lives of humans living in poverty. Economic growth brings education, intelligence, norms, morals into a society.

Obviously, although I take issue with you suggesting that the state of a nation's economy is directly tied with its level of 'morality'.

One thing I noticed is that You cannot have a democracy in the poorest country in the world.

Why not?

Democracy is something that humans fight for or die for. For the most poor countries in our world, democracy is not even close to the answer.

Again, why not?

The many poorest countries on Earth.. need a good/benevolent/moral dictator to rule with absolute fist.... to create economic growth.

Yeah, good luck finding one of them. Many of the world's poorest countries already have dictators.

Only after that, can that country have somewhat functioning democracy..

"The only way to make a democracy is to make a dictatorship"

Yeah, makes sense.

reply to post by saabacura


I would say that a quick study of the political history of most Africa nations might serve to make you rethink your position on this.

I agree that Democracy is good for advanced nations and that nations which struggle with even the most basic survival require...maybe not Fascism...but at least a little more tough-ness and less democracy for a certain time-span.

Most politicians and scholars will agree with you but wouldnt dare publicly say it in this "politically correct" atmosphere.

Problem is, benevolent dictators are rare. The Ego of the dictator gets in the way.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I agree that Democracy is good for advanced nations and that nations which struggle with even the most basic survival require...maybe not Fascism...but at least a little more tough-ness and less democracy for a certain time-span.

Most politicians and scholars will agree with you but wouldnt dare publicly say it in this "politically correct" atmosphere.

Problem is, benevolent dictators are rare. The Ego of the dictator gets in the way.

Yeah I agree

reply to post by saabacura


Democracy is not the answer to the poorest nations on Earth, but is THE ONLY ANSWER.

Do not even begin to think otherwise, because any other political doctrine will only keep the poor further enslaved.

Better to educate the masses on the voting process, which is as simple as ticking the box for a representative of his choice who can alleviate their sufferings and then dropping it into a box, and let that elected official do his job for the next 4 to 5 years.

If he fails, the people can either impeach him or vote him out of office.

Dictatorships are forever, and it will cost much blood sacrifices to boot that beast out of power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Furthermore, once a dictatship happens, the first thing the dictator will do is to dumb down the masses to keep them enchained.

Any human should be ashamed of himself if he even thinks fellow humans need dictators and slavery in order to progress.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by saabacura

 

Democracy is not the answer to the poorest nations on Earth, but is THE ONLY ANSWER.

Do not even begin to think otherwise, because any other political doctrine will only keep the poor further enslaved.

Better to educate the masses on the voting process, which is as simple as ticking the box for a representative of his choice who can alleviate their sufferings and then dropping it into a box, and let that elected official do his job for the next 4 to 5 years.

If he fails, the people can either impeach him or vote him out of office.

Dictatorships are forever, and it will cost much blood sacrifices to boot that beast out of power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Furthermore, once a dictatship happens, the first thing the dictator will do is to dumb down the masses to keep them enchained.

Any human should be ashamed of himself if he even thinks fellow humans need dictators and slavery in order to progress.

Yeah, you are right to a certain degree. But democracy requires an educated, literate, moral, good...etc citizens to make the decisions.

Hey look, even in the USA, a deceptively attractive and great speaking politician will get elected. Even in the USA, the citizens can vote a fraud into office.... Imagine how democracy could play out in the poorest of the poorest country in the world. I would imagine, something very nasty??

reply to post by saabacura


1. Democracy at its basic level is a simple doctrine to understand. Civilisation began with such doctrines from the jungles, when many saw survival of the fittest policies resulted in the decimation of their tribal members.

Tribal leaders were elected based on their strengths which could lead the people to greater heights. Even our cavemen ancestors knew what is democracy then

It is only when the elected became too powerful did dictatorship resulted and ended everyone back into the law of the jungles, just as US is experiencing today.

Literacy, morals, education are already present in humans rich or poor since the dawn of civilisation. It is only the level which separates society to either being farmers or space explorers.

If a nation is poor, what need do they have for an astrophycist? They only need farmers and tradesmen, as well as teachers who can teach such basic skills for progress and evolution to happen. And democracy will be the doctrine to enable such aspirations.

Dictatorships are otherwise, as the poor will always be kept stupid and servile, never allowed to grow beyond the servitude required by the masters.

2. USA system of democracy had worked for 200+ years. A charmer and snakeoil salesman may be elected, but his rule will only last for 4 years or at worst 8 years and be booted out, with the electorate a hell lot more smarter and wiser to find alternative incumbents.

In dictatorships, the price for the masses' freedom is their blood, not by the vote.

I also see how malicious dictators can last forever and ever. Which is also a big problem. But for some reason, I feel that you could have a dictator/president...which will time period of at max of 15 years.. to rule the country the way he/she feel necessary. So I guess not fascism in exact words... but a hybrid between authoritarian and democracy..... (But I think Fascism can fit in any description of government as it is a loose term, if you really think carefully)

Remember how democracy can fail. Democracy will fail, when a politician panders/over-promises to its people on things which are impossible, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF GETTING ELECTED!!! FOR EXAMPLE, when we have too many politicians in the USA... who say I promise you this, get you this, get you that etc, you know that the USA will fail. A politician will never really tell you the truth because the truth is actually difficult, hard, rough, with many sacrifices... POLITICIANS IN THE USA WILL NEVER EVER GET ELECTED THROUGH HONESTY, BECAUSE THE TRUTH WILL NOT GET THEM ELECTED. THE TRUTH, LIKE I SAY BEFORE, REQUIRES HARD, ROUGH SACRIFICES.

This is why DEMOCRACY will eventually fail. Like all other govn't system in the world, nothing is fail proof. Remember, democracy in ancient Greece failed as well. Didn't last that long. Republic in Rome failed, didn't last that long. The point is DEMOCRACY WILL TURN SOUR IN THE LONG RUN. IT IS INEVITABLE.


These poorest of poor country do not need this back and forth bickering between politicians and within it citizens... which constantly them.

They need a hybrid between a democracy and totalitarian.... A 15 year long elected dictator who can turn the country around as quick as he/she could possible can, with absolute authority.

reply to post by saabacura


I understand what you mean, but sadly, men are flawed beings. That dictator that you presumed, DO NOT EXISTS. Not in our kind. Sorry.

Better a democracy that will ultimately fail, but with humanity intact, to find a better team to rule, than to welcome in a dictatorship and any other trash in between for 15 years, which with his powers, extend it to forever, and have to pay in blood to remove him.

You may be willing to sacrifice yourself, but you will never be willing to sacrifice your loved ones when misrule happens under such trash systems.

Do reconsider.

Originally posted by Hefficide

I would say that a quick study of the political history of most Africa nations might serve to make you rethink your position on this.

Perhaps the moral of the African experience is that poor countries find it difficult to sustain democracies.
Perhaps this is because democracy demands the existence of a class of people with a degree of economic power below those at the very top.
If there is no wealth, then everybody is poor except the top man and his friends, which is a recipe encouraging dictatorship.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by saabacura

 

I understand what you mean, but sadly, men are flawed beings. That dictator that you presumed, DO NOT EXISTS. Not in our kind. Sorry.

Better a democracy that will ultimately fail, but with humanity intact, to find a better team to rule, than to welcome in a dictatorship and any other trash in between for 15 years, which with his powers, extend it to forever, and have to pay in blood to remove him.

You may be willing to sacrifice yourself, but you will never be willing to sacrifice your loved ones when misrule happens under such trash systems.

Do reconsider.

Perhaps you are right. See this is what I see in the US. A term limit for president is 4 years. What I have seen so far is that a president in his first year is busy trying to pander to his constituents for whatever he may have promised... Then in his last year, he is only busy trying to get re-elected. So the US president, in my opinion, is only spending less than 2 years, being an actual president. Do you see what I mean...

Then maybe I comprise with you. We need USA president, with term limit of 8 years.
(EDIT) Limit term of 8 years with no re election. Same goes for Senators and congress



[edit on 5-9-2010 by saabacura]

[edit on 5-9-2010 by saabacura]

In reality, Africa IS NOT a study for political doctrines, simply because it is immensely wealthy in resources, and every nation on Earth is greedily obligated to keep the africans stupid and servile.

Totalitarian or democracies will fail in Africa as long as other nations and corporations are help bent on raping its resources. Any african son who stands too tall will either be co-opted by dictators or mercilessly cut down.

This is the pathetic truth and reality of Africa, a land of immense riches, today, as in the past.

Try other lands for political discourse and remember that nothing will work in Africa if other nations do not keep their itchy greedy fingers off it.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Perhaps the moral of the African experience is that poor countries find it difficult to sustain democracies.
Perhaps this is because democracy demands the existence of a class of people with a degree of economic power below those at the very top.
If there is no wealth, then everybody is poor except the top man and his friends, which is a recipe encouraging dictatorship.

Agreed!

But I feel that is an oversimplification because severe political splintering, from a variety of causes (Tribal bias for example) also served to weaken governments there.

In my original post I was less extolling the virtues of democracy for struggling nations as I was suggesting why dictatorships tend to quickly destroy them.

[edit on 9/5/10 by Hefficide]

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Hefficide

I would say that a quick study of the political history of most Africa nations might serve to make you rethink your position on this.

Perhaps the moral of the African experience is that poor countries find it difficult to sustain democracies.
Perhaps this is because democracy demands the existence of a class of people with a degree of economic power below those at the very top.
If there is no wealth, then everybody is poor except the top man and his friends, which is a recipe encouraging dictatorship.

I agree. Democracy requires an educated public who are willing to fight and die for it. It cannot be really taught. The citizens must demand it, and at the same time, must understand how democracy can be corrupted. You see, I don't really know how democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan would really work out at the end.

reply to post by saabacura

These poor countries need a fascist government, where a good, benevolent, educated and unselfish leader ..

Not only poor countries, every country would be better with such a wise fascist leader. But the trouble is, benevolent dictators are rare, and these regimes have a tendency to turn into tyranical dictatorships over time. It sounds good in theory, but will often fail in practice.

What the poorest nations need is less dictatorship and corruption which stifles and hobbles the development of society and human rights. Democracy is the only way to assure positive development in social orders and human rights because there is political accountability. What the poorest nations need is proactive support from the Advanced World around education and “reward” based support, such as linking the amount of aid and support to the reduction of corruption and the improvement in good governance.

I would support a UN which is quicker to intervene militarily to remove the worst offending nations who have demonstrated total contempt for their people and added to the toll of human suffering through their negligence, corruption and politics. I can think of half a dozen nations where “regime change” would be to the common good. The intervention by the UN in Sierra Leone and the actions by the UK in 2000 (Operation Palliser) brought to an end a particular nasty conflict and shows what can be done with the right leadership and mandate.

Forms of government and social ordering, such as fascism and “one party rule” do not serve the common good and they only serve the people in power. The rights of the people and development of society is negatively imposed and secondary. History proves that the successful nations are those which are democratic and where the politics is ordered and formed by the people who are served.

Clearly, some posters on these Boards are disaffected and feel their political order has in some way betrayed them and these are typically Americans if I am to crudely simplify. I say to these people that they should move to a non democratic county and experience the difference – Saudi Arabia, China or Iran spring to mind, but the same applies to some God forbidden hell hole in Africa – Zimbabwe or Somalia to name but two sparkling examples.

Name one successful fascist state.

Regards

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
In reality, Africa IS NOT a study for political doctrines, simply because it is immensely wealthy in resources, and every nation on Earth is greedily obligated to keep the africans stupid and servile.

Totalitarian or democracies will fail in Africa as long as other nations and corporations are help bent on raping its resources. Any african son who stands too tall will either be co-opted by dictators or mercilessly cut down.

This is the pathetic truth and reality of Africa, a land of immense riches, today, as in the past.

Try other lands for political discourse and remember that nothing will work in Africa if other nations do not keep their itchy greedy fingers off it.

I majored in Economics but took a political science class on the poorest coutries. Read a book by Paul Collier called "the Bottom Billion" and "Guns, war, and votes" He gave several reason why these countries are completely stuck in poverty.

1.Being landlocked with bad neighbors

2.Natural resource curse

3.Wars

4.Bad/corrupt government

I believe the writer said that these are the major traps that cause permanent poverty in specifically in Africa. If you read Paul Collier's book, you will realize that there isn't much hope for Africa... (unless a dramatic course is taken..even than, probably won't work)

Originally posted by paraphi
What the poorest nations need is less dictatorship and corruption which stifles and hobbles the development of society and human rights. Democracy is the only way to assure positive development in social orders and human rights because there is political accountability. What the poorest nations need is proactive support from the Advanced World around education and “reward” based support, such as linking the amount of aid and support to the reduction of corruption and the improvement in good governance.

I would support a UN which is quicker to intervene militarily to remove the worst offending nations who have demonstrated total contempt for their people and added to the toll of human suffering through their negligence, corruption and politics. I can think of half a dozen nations where “regime change” would be to the common good. The intervention by the UN in Sierra Leone and the actions by the UK in 2000 (Operation Palliser) brought to an end a particular nasty conflict and shows what can be done with the right leadership and mandate.

Forms of government and social ordering, such as fascism and “one party rule” do not serve the common good and they only serve the people in power. The rights of the people and development of society is negatively imposed and secondary. History proves that the successful nations are those which are democratic and where the politics is ordered and formed by the people who are served.

Clearly, some posters on these Boards are disaffected and feel their political order has in some way betrayed them and these are typically Americans if I am to crudely simplify. I say to these people that they should move to a non democratic county and experience the difference – Saudi Arabia, China or Iran spring to mind, but the same applies to some God forbidden hell hole in Africa – Zimbabwe or Somalia to name but two sparkling examples.

Name one successful fascist state.

Regards

What you are saying is giving the United Nations more militaristic powers to do what you have said.

You may be right, just like democracy, socialism, communism, monarchy.. nothing really last forever. Fascism, a loose term, can be anything it wants to be. Fascist states are only successful for min of 5 to 10 years. Within in that period, a fascist state can rapidly increase economic growth. AFTER that, then something bad happens.... So example, Nazi Germany had rapid economic growth from hyperinflation. So as Italy after Mussolini. Rapid cultural change in Japan from serfdom society to rapid industrialization. To Great Britain which started the age of industrializtion. Singapore. modern day China and Russia . Fascism is a loose term cause you can have a president/dictator/monarch but it is the same thing. A great leader/king with the right direction can bring a rapid change with lasting impact. But once again, flaws in human nature.....

So term limit for US president to 8 years, with no relection. Same applies to congress.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by saabacura]

Originally posted by saabacura
Fascism, a loose term, can be anything it wants to be. Fascist states are only successful for min of 5 to 10 years.

Untrue.

To Great Britain which started the age of industrializtion.

Great Britain was never a Fascist state.

Fascism is a loose term cause you can have a president/dictator/monarch but it is the same thing.

That would be dictatorship, not Fascism. Fascism has several very specific characteristics.

So term limit for US president to 8 years, with no relection. Same applies to congress.

I may be reading it wrong, but this last part doesn't really seem to fit in with the rest of your post. Please explain.