Is democracy always better than a dictatorship?

[Aloone_Jonez]

I think anyone with any sense would say that they'd rather live in a democracy rather than a dictatorship but is an authoritarian government always bad for a country and a democratic government always good?

Many people in the west, accuse the Chinese government of tyranny, of course if you applied that judgement to the old Mao regime then I'd agree but does that still apply today?

Before we answer that question we need to define what a tyrant is.

In modern usage, the word "tyrant" carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls. Many individual rulers or government officials are accused of tyranny, with the label almost always a matter of controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant

I wouldn't say that this is true of the modern Chinese government who have, in the last 30 years, raised the living standards of their citizens to a level unprecedented in China.

Deng Xiaoping was a genius, we shouldn't forget the  crushing of the Tiananmen Square Protests but he's probably the best thing that has ever happened to China.

I think the days are gone where the Chinese leader ran the country purely for the benefit of himself and his politburo.

Other developing countries with more liberal governments aren't doing nearly as well as China. Look at how poorly comparatively liberal South Africa and India are doing? Sure their citizens have a hell of a load more freedom than the Chinese but they're much poorer, most of them do not have adequate access to healthcare and education. Yes, they're are poor people in China too but the Chinese economy is growing much faster than India and South Africa's

China is just one example, what about really rich dictatorships such as Singapore and the UAE? Both firmly authoritarian, yet filthy rich.

Would you really rather live in Cape Town than in Dhabi?

Agreed, democracy and freedom are important, but are they really more important than adequate food, health care and prosperity?

I'd rather live in a rich dictatorship than a poor democracy.

[Laukev7]

In a rich dictatorship, only the rich benefit.

[Aloone_Jonez]

In a rich dictatorship, only the rich benefit.

Are you sure, care to back that up?

South Africa has a higher Gini coefficient than the UAE which has a lower Gini than the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... e_equality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA

[Laukev7]

I don't know much about South Africa, but I haven't heard particularly good things about living in the UAE. I talked to someone who lived there for five years and he said it was good for tourists, but boring and expensive for residents. The UAE is full of luxurious hotels and expensive shops so it's good for rich people, but for the rest it's overpriced and dated crap, often rejects from first-world nations. I've also read a lot of criticisms of the UAE for its poor work conditions.

[worker201]

Preferring a rich dictatorship over a poor democracy is subtlely selfish.  I assume that you would be one of those rich guys in UAE?  You're not choosing to be a poor unskilled worker who has no avenues of political recourse, are you?  By doing that, you are basically saying that any government which agrees with your personal self interest is good, and to hell with everyone else.  If the government suddenly doesn't agree with your personal self interest, you'll instantly be fucked.  And in such a case, you'd change your tune pretty quick.  Which delates your argument.

A democracy may not be very efficient at satisfying the public interest, but at least it considers the public interest.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Preferring a rich dictatorship over a poor democracy is subtlely selfish.  I assume that you would be one of those rich guys in UAE?  You're not choosing to be a poor unskilled worker who has no avenues of political recourse, are you?

Why do you always assume the worst of people?

No, I still think I'd rather be a poor person living in the UAE rather than a poor person living in South Africa.

At least in the UAE, I'd still have access to healthcare: if I fell ill in South Africa then I'd be fucked.

In the UAE I wouldn't be as poor as I would be if I lived in South Africa, because the UAE is a developed country with a welfare system.

As a poor person in the UAE, the income inequality between myself and my rich neighbour would be less than it would be if I lived in South Africa.

So my job might be shit, but I have more fucking chance of finding a job in the UAE than in South Africa.

Hell, if I were rich and selfish then South Africa looks more attractive: the cheap labour would provide me with plenty of servants, the more liberal laws would make throwing wild parties easier and the shit public healthcare wouldn't be a problem since I'd be able to afford to go private.

By doing that, you are basically saying that any government which agrees with your personal self interest is good, and to hell with everyone else. If the government suddenly doesn't agree with your personal self interest, you'll instantly be fucked. And in such a case, you'd change your tune pretty quick. Which delates your argument.

Agreed.

However, surely there's a greater risk of dying from Malaria or AIDS in South Africa than being executed for political dissent in the UAE?

EDIT:
Just to make another point about the Chinese government: they actually have the support of most of their people. One could argue that this is through indoctrination and repression but that wouldn't explain the public outrage shown by the UK Chinese population when the protester threw a shoe at their leader.

[Laukev7]

If we assume that your argument is true, it just means that living in a country with more resources is better than in a country with less. It doesn't mean that converting South Africa into a dictatorship would make it a better place.

[Laukev7]

Just to make another point about the Chinese government: they actually have the support of most of their people. One could argue that this is through indoctrination and repression but that wouldn't explain the public outrage shown by the UK Chinese population when the protester threw a shoe at their leader.

They don't live in China, and if those nutcases think it's fine for people to be tortured and executed by a government simply for voicing their disagreement, they can fuck themselves with chopsticks. They're no better than the Bush supporters and the Israelis.

[Aloone_Jonez]

If we assume that your argument is true, it just means that living in a country with more resources is better than in a country with less.

Agreed but it depends on how the government manages the resources.

An oil rich nation governed by a tyrant who plunders the resources and uses them purely to for the benefit of himself and his politburo would be a very shitty place to live.

The same oil rich nation governed by a monarch who still represses his people but also spends vast sums of money on them would be a much better place to live.

Of course it would be better if the oil rich nation were governed by a non-repressive government who spend the money for the people's benefit is the most ideal scenario.

It doesn't mean that converting South Africa into a dictatorship would make it a better place.

It depends on the dictatorship: Robert Mugabe? Hell no! A Chinese style government to put the country under firm control whilst encouraging foreign investment would be much better.

They don't live in China, and if those nutcases think it's fine for people to be tortured and executed by a government simply for voicing their disagreement, they can fuck themselves with chopsticks. They're no better than the Bush supporters and the Israelis.

Well they might not live in China but they almost certainly have family who live in China.

Can't you see their point?

Here's a typical flame war that might occur between a westerner and a Chinese person.

Have you heard about someone throwing a shoe at our leader? This is fucking terrible, he hasn't done anything bad to him, besides: he's a good leader.

No he's not, he's a fucking asshole, he kills 1000s of people a year and tortures many more, simply for disagreeing with him.

Your whole government is fucked up, and has no respect for its citizens' human rights and rules without their consent.

Our leader has saved our country from recession.

We have a great government, before the Marxist revolution, China was poor: comrade Mao defeated the imperialism then dear Deng opened our country to the rest of the world; since them our leaders have only made us richer and richer.

Don't get me started on human rights: fuck you, your government are friends with the US and tyrant Bush tortured many people.

Both of you quit your fucking bickering before I close this thread.

I've seen similar bullshit on other forums before and I can honestly sympathise with both parties.

[Laukev7]

It's easy for China4ever to justify those repressions when he's not the one being beaten and tortured and when he's getting all those economic benefits while his fellow citizens are being sucked dry and worked like slaves to pay for his gravy train.

The way my government acts has no bearing on the validity of my criticisms of the Chinese government unless I make grandiose claims about it the way many Chinese nationalists do. I recall the PRC embassy-funded 'One China' crazies who were protesting in Australia against Tibet independence activists. Given how I'm totally against Canadian involvement in Afghanistan and their alliance with the US, I will damn right express my outrage against the Chinese government and their horrific repressions.

How many of those oil-rich royal families are not a bunch of corrupt bastards? The only possible claims to that are Bahrain and Qatar according to my readings of Wikipedia, which I don't trust. Tunisia is a so-called 'enlightened' despotism according to Western countries, yet the Ben Ali family is corrupt as fuck. I read censored Tunisian dissident blogs, many of which are in French.

[worker201]

Countries tend to be kinda unique, including the UAE.  First, it's not really a dictatorship - it's a type of constitutional monarchy.  Second, there are only 6 million people living there, but they have more proven oil reserves than Russia and Nigeria combined.  Those are special characteristics that greatly influence the character of its wealth distribution.  The fact that oil and gas only account for half of its wealth helps as well.

South Africa, which is a terrible example of a democracy, has nearly 50 million people who speak 9 different languages.  South Africa has only been an independent country since 1931, and has only been outside the UK Commonwealth since 1961, and I don't think there has ever been a discussion about the positive benefits of colonialism (except providing India with a common language).  Plus, the country had a uniquely repressive system of government for nearly 50 years.  That they have elections at all is still a significant fact, citing them as a representative of democracy is misleading.

Singapore is another fairly wealthy country that is run under a dictatorship.  But again, size matters - Singapore is a city-state with only 5 million people.  They may be wealthy, but chewing gum and pornographic materials are illegal.  Unlike UAE, which has a pretty lenient take on censorship and punishment, Singapore has made chewing gum and pornography illegal, and they still cane people there.  So there are downsides that have to be measured.

My opinion of China has always been that having that many people occupy that little arable land is a tough management situation, and a government that doesn't collapse every time there's a flood is a good government.  I think they are at a point now, though, that they can start relaxing their repression a bit.

[Laukev7]

Given that India is a smaller country than China and has the second largest world population that is at least as diverse, and has a parliamentary system without the totalitarian crap (including communist Kerala), the population excuse doesn't stand to scrutiny.

[Aloone_Jonez]

There is a link between democracy and wealth: repression is usually inversely proportional to wealth.

Here's some of the theories I've read about and generally support:

• Repressive policies stunt economic growth: if you stop people from trading freely they can't make as much money, and preventing freedom of speech stifles innovation.
• It is harder to control freedom of expression in a country with better a communication systems and transport links.
• As the general population become more wealthy and well-educated, they'll be more aware of the outside world and far less likely to put up with a repressive regime.

As the world as become more prosperous, dictatorships have gradually being replaced by democracies or at least less repressive governments; there were no democracies before the industrial revolution.

Notice that there are very are few rich dictatorships?

Most are oil rich nations where the government has so much money it can keep the people happy enough to stop them from dissenting.

The only exception (as far as I'm aware) to the rule is Singapore, like worker said, every country is unique. So why is Singapore so authoritarian?

Singapore is a very small city state.

It's very rich.

Perhaps the government have done so well at attracting foreign investment and wealth creation that the people are generally happy with their government that they tolerate all the repression.

[worker201]

There's another angle of this that I mentioned earlier - the selfishness factor.  I actually know a guy who lives in Singapore.  He's originally from Boston, but his wife is Cantonese.  They're both pretty wealthy - in the US, they would be upper-upper-middle class.  I've asked him on numerous occasions why he puts up with all the authoritarian bullshit in Singapore.  The main answer is that they're happy.  Singapore has almost no crime, it's ridiculously clean, very modern, and master-planned.  It's got all the benefits of a gated suburban community, but in an urban environment.  Coming from America and China respectively, seeing a city of 6 million people with no homeless and no drugs and no gangs must have been like a dream to both of them.

The reason chewing gum is illegal (which I found out when I contacted the government during a research project back in school) is that people tend to spit it out on the ground or put it under a table, where some other unsuspecting citizen can find it.  It's more of an annoyance than a crime.  And the fact that Singapore has chosen to deal with an annoyance in such a heavy-handed way says a lot about what the government means to the people and what the people mean to the government.  If that's the kind of place you are interested in, then Singapore is the happiest place on earth.

Let's be honest - freedom is sometimes about selfish indulgence.  If your society has no use for selfish indulgence, then freedom won't be all that important to you.  For example, certain religious groups in America shun technology and don't mix with normal society.  As long as they are allowed to practice their beliefs, freedom of speech and the ability to chew gum and read pornography mean nothing to them.  From their perspective, such freedoms are meaningless, and the whole country would be better off if they (the freedoms) were to disappear.  The freedoms we have in America may be freedoms that the people of Singapore don't want.

[Laukev7]

This is the point I was making with the China4ever example -- authoritarianism caters to the selfish who want the government to deny freedom to other people when it's to their benefit. It's no more right for the Chinese to do it than it is for a Bushist or an Islamic fundamentalist or a gun control activist.