Given that democracy is at its heart mob rule, in countries without a liberal democratic tradition the losers of elections tend to also lose their lives and privileges; it'd be insane to ever step down as president in many of these Third World states. Rather than embracing democracy fetishism, what if we embraced liberty instead? Let the strongmen declare themselves Kings or Presidents-for-Life or whatever, but encou…
Isn't this what we practiced in the '80s, with Pinochet's Chile?
Yes, and it hasn't worked anywhere that it has been tried in modern times.
A Republic is the ideal formulation, balancing representative systems with checks & balances, an independent judiciary capable of striking down attempts at authoritarianism and protecting individual rights via a sound constitution, and a moderate executive office.
Given that democracy is at its heart mob rule, in countries without a liberal democratic tradition the losers of elections tend to also lose their lives and privileges; it'd be insane to ever step down as president in many of these Third World states. Rather than embracing democracy fetishism, what if we embraced liberty instead? Let the strongmen declare themselves Kings or Presidents-for-Life or whatever, but encou…
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once they are entrenched, and their allies and family members have started to siphon public money, why would they ever give up?
Especially since these are not countries with strong institutions and a lot of regards for human rights. Nothing keeps the next strongman from disappearing them. It's closer to medieval politics than western democracy.
This is the strong man in Nigeria. To adapt a joke to context, the police went into the compound with tear gas and came out with...jobs, and that was the end of chaos in Nigeria.
I think the key to Africa is the same as the key to India. The conflagration of languages other than English or other than the majority. Africa still has a diverse language stack that stifles its progress. 2000 languages. India had ~750 languages 50 years ago. Today it has ~250 languages.
Given that democracy is at its heart mob rule, in countries without a liberal democratic tradition the losers of elections tend to also lose their lives and privileges; it'd be insane to ever step down as president in many of these Third World states. Rather than embracing democracy fetishism, what if we embraced liberty instead? Let the strongmen declare themselves Kings or Presidents-for-Life or whatever, but encou…
That's the truth at the heart of statist (as opposed to anarchist) libertarianism. A despot is a despot, whether they're exercising power purely for self-interest, or according to "enlightened" principles.
Yes, by definition "despot" is simply a measure of one persons power. But this word also has significant negative connotation, which I find unfair. First off, simply because it's implying that "somewhere out there is a problem and here we are smart guys sitting in our comfy chairs in a country with electricity and deciding if it's right or not", and if "out there" isn't actually your country where you are living yourself it's none of your business. Second, implying that "situation in the country doesn't matter" as you do right now is simply absurd. We must remember, that all that stuff isn't something that simply "happens", but actual people making real decisions, drinking their morning coffee while thinking what they ought to do next in a country where everything might just change radically every minute. Believing that it is their moral obligation both to "care about your country" and "not to become a dictator" is simply contradictory, because it's quite likely that situation makes him to believe it's his only choice to hold power in his hands steadily and stepping aside after 4 or 8 or whatever years would be outright contradictory to "caring about your country". Even if we actually would like to step aside, because it's easier. He might be wrong, but if he truly does this believing that this is his only moral choice, that he does it for his people's sake — even if he is wrong in my opinion I would know better than disrespect his sacrifice by saying something like "A despot is a despot, whether they're exercising power purely for self-interest or not". But if he is right and actually rules justly, making lives better, then I have no problem with it whatsoever. Opposing it would be nothing more than saying simply that "democracy is the best form of government", and now this is something I have problem with, because even if it could be true in the case of that old, pure "Athenian democracy" (and could be not), implying that this fake "democracy thing" that is called "democracy" in USA and UK today is the same thing — is simply wrong, even harmful, and "if it actually is the best form of government" is actually a very serious question by itself.
I think the key to Africa is the same as the key to India. The conflagration of languages other than English or other than the majority. Africa still has a diverse language stack that stifles its progress. 2000 languages. India had ~750 languages 50 years ago. Today it has ~250 languages.
Except that India is a country and Africa is a continent. And language and ethnic politics aren't the largest issues here: its actual policy and governance. I don't see how language homogenization solved major problems in India other than the east (Nagaland, Assam) or how its democratic to even do this the way the French and English did in their nations to minority languages.
I think the key to Africa is the same as the key to India. The conflagration of languages other than English or other than the majority. Africa still has a diverse language stack that stifles its progress. 2000 languages. India had ~750 languages 50 years ago. Today it has ~250 languages.
Given that democracy is at its heart mob rule, in countries without a liberal democratic tradition the losers of elections tend to also lose their lives and privileges; it'd be insane to ever step down as president in many of these Third World states. Rather than embracing democracy fetishism, what if we embraced liberty instead? Let the strongmen declare themselves Kings or Presidents-for-Life or whatever, but encou…
Isn't this what we practiced in the '80s, with Pinochet's Chile?
And from wiki:
"Various reports and investigations claim that between 1,200 and 3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 people were interned and as many as 30,000 were tortured during the time Pinochet was in government."