of course, having food in quantity enough for anyone has nothing to do…
You don’t make this clear, but the “thesis” that you seem intent on disproving seems to be “authoritarian government is causal for excellent economic growth”. I don’t congratulate you for any kind of academic achievement. No one on this planet would have a hard time rattling off a long list of violent, incompetent authoritarian dictators.
Here’s a different thesis for you: in the post-colonial era, authoritarian government has been a necessary but not sufficient condition for economic growth amongst developing nations. And I define “authoritarian government” in this context not by the presence absence of any specific political process… but rather by the absence of highly partisan, representative pluralism in government.
60 years ago, Italy was a third-world country. In the interim, they have changed governments dozens of times (even Italians have lost count) with their highly partisan, representative pluralism, and yet rode a rising tide of economic growth to transform into one of the world’s leading economies.
Democratic post-Franco Spain experienced a similar economic “miracle” in recent decades - only a couple of decades after the old dictator died and democracy took hold.
Ireland, currently Europe’s fastest expanding economy, has done the same. A few decades ago the Irish lived under what would be considered today third world standards.
The only examples you provide of authoritarian states + strong economy are Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. And if you expand your parochial eyes beyond East Asia, Chile under Pinochet. OK, let’s throw China onto the list. That’s still only 5 out of over 200 nations on the earth. Note that the U.S. and most of the Western developed without the “benefit” of guided authoritarianism, but under democratic systems.
And how does Asia’s most successful economy, Japan, fit into your thesis?
[quote=“Quentin”]60 years ago, Italy was a third-world country. In the interim, they have changed governments dozens of times (even Italians have lost count) with their highly partisan, representative pluralism, and yet rode a rising tide of economic growth to transform into one of the world’s leading economies.
[/quote]
Italy’s greatest period of economic growth came during the '50s and '60s. Coincidentally…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … n_Republic
For almost four decades, Italian elections were successively won by the Democrazia Cristiana (DC) centre-right party, leading to questions regarding the workings of Italian democracy.
I can only imagine you’re unfamiliar with the actual origins of the term “Spanish miracle”, because you’re certainly using it incorrectly here. The “Spanish miracle”, referring to surprisingly rapid/positive economic growth, occurred between 1959 and 1973 under the rule of Franco.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_miracle
I don’t think we can ignore US interests in making sure Japan remained a successful and strongly ally in east Asia after WW2. But in addition to that, Japan was not truly a “developing” nation in the aftermath of WW2. Japan had been an industrialized nation for 6 decades before WW2, and featured a high degree of literacy and education by the time her physical infrastructure was devastated. The amazing thing about roads and machines is that they can be rebuilt, especially when there is large amounts of capital available. You can’t compare the Japanese experience to, say, the Chinese, Indian, or Brazillian one. The innate human capital available to each were hugely different. And also as a side note, I’d also point out that Japan has a democratic “process”… but it’s political culture is hardly partisan and hyper-pluralistic. Look at their electoral results.
Plus Spain and Italy, as you helpfully pointed out above. If there is a problem here, it isn’t that there’s a scarcity of authoritarian governments who’ve moved on from 3rd world developing nation status… it is that, as the United Nations has sadly observed time and time again, there have been such little progress amongst developing nations over the past 50 years in general.
Again, I spoke of the post-colonial period. The economic rules in the 21st century have changed quite a bit since the 19th, in case you haven’t noticed. “Democratic” nations of the 21st century no longer have the option of colonizing new lands and pillaging her wealth through force of arms.
They’d be just like AC Dropout… following the latest trends
Wow, stuff like this almost makes the Taiwan Politics forum worth reading. :bravo:
Almost.
[quote=“LA”]Acutally, the real answer is a combination of hard work/good education principals (Huaren/ethnic Chinese in this case) and a political/legal/economic system that rewards people who work hard and have good education (US in this case).
Just imagine, if Mainland China has a true capitalist system with the rule of law that protects everybody, then watch out world.[/quote]
That should be the campaign platform of the reunificationists. And don’t go telling me it is, because I know what their campaign platform is: CSB is evil and we are benevolent.
If they argued against “ïndependence” on the grounds that Taiwan ought to stick with its destined path and ultimately “liberate” the mainland through its postitive influence and no-compromise stance on democracy, I for one would be far more inclined to see them in a favorable light. But that would lose face for those in Beijing that they have chosen to kowtow to. When Lien Zhan visited China during the black rally against the “evil dictator of Taiwan” he never spoke the word democracy once.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I think cc has a good point (necessary but not sufficient thing) but that it seems to apply more in Asia than in the West. As for Africa and the Arab world, are there any good examples of impressive development? Israel perhaps.
But after enough westernization, it seems democracy in Asia can do just fine, witness Korea, Taiwan and even Thailand before it recently took a giant step backward. (I agree Japan should be left out of this debate as it was highly developed already even 100 years ago.)
I think besides a sufficient level of economic development, a Westernized outlook (a certain degree of acculturation to Western culture and ideals ← yes ideals not ideas) is almost a prerequisite before what Westerners would accept as “true” “democracy” can “do just fine.” This type of system is developed out of the history of Western Europe (yes, the American democracy was not some invention, but a fork in the road from the Old World and incremental step forward) and ultimately only natively suited for Western cultures. Others need to adapt, and some just don’t feel it fits.
[quote=“dearpeter”]
That should be the campaign platform of the reunificationists. And don’t go telling me it is, because I know what their campaign platform is: CSB is evil and we are benevolent.
If they argued against “ïndependence” on the grounds that Taiwan ought to stick with its destined path and ultimately “liberate” the mainland through its postitive influence and no-compromise stance on democracy, I for one would be far more inclined to see them in a favorable light. [/quote]
Ma’s speeches say precisely that. He doesn’t seem very concerned about losing face to Beijing when he’s calling for a reversal of 6/4.
Wo bu dong. What is 6/4? And do you mean causing Beijing to lose face?
I sort of agree that Ma does speak along these lines a lot. But I don’t trust him anymore. Not since his stupid peace treaty idea, but that’s a different subject. And not since he started making such a hypocritical ass of himself by joining in all the CSB is evil bullshit and petty fingerpointing. I’m glad that came back to smack him in the face, and I hope he learns his lesson.
But Lien and the other KMT oldsters don’t speak along those lines at all. I hate them.
6/4 is commonly referred to as “Tiananmen Massacre.” Ma requested Beijing re-interpret the events of 6/4 last year.
You know like how the DPP keep requesting ROC to revisit 228.
6/4 = the date of the Tiananmen square incident/massacre/whatever. Ma stands up on 6/4 every year and insists that the CCP must reclassify the event as a patriotic uprising, along the lines of 5/4 (another nationalist movement dating from the early Republican era).
Ma has also insisted time and time again that this event (+ political democracy on the mainland) would be a requirement for unification.
I’ve never heard Lien call Chen Shui-bian “evil” either.
Ma critiques Bejing annually over that? Bless him for that then. I do like quite a lot of Ma’s thinking in fact. I was over the moon when he installed normal Pinyin across Taipei in record time right after the DPP idiots declared Tongyong Pinyin (sic) the new national system.
But about the CSB as evil thing, I still argue both Lien and Ma failed as leaders for not reining in their lawmakers who were parading Hitler effigies around in the streets and other such nonsense.
But I thought Hitler was a common name in Taiwan (see the weird name post in Open Forum).
The extremely partisan governance found in US democracy is incompatible with Asian societies that emphasize communal values, consensus, and harmony.
Sun Yat-sen would definitely disapprove of the highly partisan, kindergarden antics found in Taiwan’s legislature.
Democracy is compatible with Confucianism. Confucius said that a ruler should uphold the interests of the people and be accountable to their welfare. If he didn’t, he would lose the Mandate of Heaven. The people then have the right to kick him out of power, which means voting him out of office in the modern sense.
But my advice to the PRC is to not copy the US system. Probably a better model is Norway’s democracy, which is very consensus-oriented and free of corruption. Norway’s legislature is elected via proportional representation. The leader of a coalition government in the legislature becomes the prime minister. There is an independent judiciary and a free press.