|
|
Post by Ave` on Sept 15, 2007 22:34:13 GMT -5
I watched a documentary, 'Sicko'
Im sure some of you has seen it.
Did some research and found out most of the points are true.
and Cuba DO have free healthcare, which is far better then a lot of democratic country.
Just because your from democratic country doesnt mean your all good.
Even a democratic country CAN have dictatorship qualities.
I think it all go down to the leader himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 16, 2007 23:43:16 GMT -5
true, but at least you have a right to shelter, education and health care in Cuba as long as one refrains from criticizing the government - whereas in places like Colombia and Philippines, a citizen has a right to vote but their access to shelter, education or health care depends on their ability to pay for it...ditto in some richer countries.... and Cuba scores higher on the Human Development Index than either country: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Indexinteresting article on the perpetuation of income disparity in the Philippines under "democracy": www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FJ01Ae01.htmlas for Eastern Europe: depends on which country, but there is a lot of nostalgia for the Soviet Union's social security system.... just saying, it's much more complex than you're making it out to be - the poor in a poor country may be better off under authoritarianism than a "democracy".... the jury's still out on the verdict, i would say..... peace With regard to Eastern Europe, I thought I already made it clear which of those countries I'm talking about. No, there is not a lot of nostalgia for Soviet rule in Lithuania, for instance. You point to Cuba as a good example of a country under authoritarianism which has a good social safety net, but fail to consider countries such as North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc. on the other extreme. My point is that if you graph the HDI with the political freedom index, there will be a high and indisputable correlation between the two. Zoff is right, a benevolent and competent dictator will do a better job than a democracy. But how often do you find such kind of dictator? |
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 17, 2007 1:36:07 GMT -5
With regard to Eastern Europe, I thought I already made it clear which of those countries I'm talking about. No, there is not a lot of nostalgia for Soviet rule in Lithuania, for instance. You point to Cuba as a good example of a country under authoritarianism which has a good social safety net, but fail to consider countries such as North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc. on the other extreme. My point is that if you graph the HDI with the political freedom index, there will be a high and indisputable correlation between the two. Zoff is right, a benevolent and competent dictator will do a better job than a democracy. But how often do you find such kind of dictator? as i said, it's really not that simple....it's not a zero-sum issue... let me put it differently: is democracy (let's agree in this case in its crudest form, representative elections by universal suffrage) a condition of economic development? or does economic development itself foster stable democracies? or: does democracy help a country become rich? because let's face it: while there is indeed a high correlation between HDI and political freedom, there is an even higher correlation between the level of economic wealth, HDI and political freedom.... and of course, high correlation does not equal causation, either.... so, going on historical record, a poor country may have a better shot at economic development under a dictator than being a "democracy".... the record of poor democracies becoming rich is....rather poor - no pun intended -, isn't it? just something to think about....only because people should think harder before declaring democracy is some sort of universal ideal....it may be a product of economic development rather than a condition of development.... India has been a democracy since its independence but its economic record is...and yet many non-democratic countries have outperformed it in economic terms.... and strictly speaking, even the USA wasn't a proper democracy until the end of the 1960s when African Americans in the South got to vote...so many countries get rich without democracy..... peace |
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 17, 2007 4:16:36 GMT -5
Miaim,
Of course, there will be a higher correlation among wealth, HDI and political freedom, given that wealth (per capita GDP, etc.) is a major direct factor in the calculation of HDI.
Sure, we have on the record rapid economic development among economies that had authoritarian governments, such as Singapore, Spain, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia. On the other hand, you also have poor countries that achieved economic progress with democracy, such as Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand, Ireland, Portugal, and a host of other Western nations. India, though it has a spotty economic record, has the second fastest growing major economy in the world today.
Then, you have a vast group of countries that have regressed economically under authoritarianism, such as Zimbabwe, the Philippines, North Korea, many Latin American and African countries. Argentina was richer than France at the beginning of the 20th century, and is now considered a poor country after a series of devastating military dictatorships.
Comparing Europe itself, the countries in the democractic Western block were so much more wealthy than the communist East at the end of the Cold War, even though both of them started out at almost the same economic levels of development after WW II. So, what made the difference?
Therefore, I dispute your statement indicating that it may be better for a poor country to develop economically under a dictatorship than under a democracy. If you qualify your statement by adding "a benevolent and competent dictatorship", then I would wholeheartedly agree. But then again, how often do we see in history a "benevolent and competent dictatorship"?
|
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 17, 2007 5:58:16 GMT -5
um, no offense, but can you get your historical facts straight, please?
1. HK has never been a democracy - the govts are/were chosen in London/Beijing
2. Japan developed economically before democracy - and has had one-party rule since the end of WWII
3. Thailand has a very spotty record of going back and forth between democracy and military dictatorships...
4. Portugal and Ireland - you've got a point there but you could've thrown Spain into the lot while you were at it...and a lot of the economic development in all three countries can be put down to aid from the EU....
5. Argentina was a democracy when it was plunged into its last economic crisis....
6. which Eastern European countries were richer than which Western ones in 1945? most Western ones were already richer than the Eastern ones before the Marshall Plan....
also, many of the Eastern European countries have returned the ex-Communists to power (and voted them out again)....
see, the correlation between democracy and economic development isn't so straightforward after all, is it? actually, there's a much stronger correlation between being an ally of the west but not a colony + economic development than there is between democracy + economic development....
mind, that's not a fool-proof formula either - it didn't work for the Philippines or various dictatorships backed by the west in Latin America and Africa.....if anything, the nature of a country's economic relationship with the West may be far more important than whether the government is democratically elected or not....
i'm not necessarily saying dictatorships are better than democracies - merely pointing out that democracies have a pretty poor record of fostering economic development....
if anything, it may be the other way round: richer countries tend to become democracies when they have developed a large, stable middle class...
to be fair, the jury's still out - but i think people confuse the existence of regular elections with economic development.....and superficial "democracy" coupled with neo-liberal economic policies can, if anything, be harmful...
see the Philippines or Colombia - what's the point of having elections when trade union and poverty activists get assassinated on the regular? when an elected oligarchy plunders the state and the poor still don't have shelter, education or health care?
just a thought....!
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 17, 2007 7:02:09 GMT -5
Uhm, get your facts straight too, Miaim. 1. Hong Kong can be considered a semi-democracy with a directly elected legislature when it was handed to the Chinese in 1997. On the other hand, most of Hong Kong's economic development occurred before it became a semi-democracy, I give you that; 2. Japan was very devastated after WW II, and its "economic miracle" occurred under democracy. 3. Most of Thailand's recent economic growth occurred under democracy. 4. Could the main reason for the development of Portugal and Ireland be due to democraticization and the introduction of reforms? I would say so, more than EU government aid. I mean if it's down to aid as the pivotal factor in economic development, then Africa should have several developed countries right now, starting with Ethiopia!!!!!!!!! 5. Argentina's economic problems arise from systems and policies that came into place under dictatorship. Ditto with the Philippines. 6. Compare East Germany with West Germany. They were one country before WW II, and had almost similar economic development levels, and after the Cold War, were miles apart in development. I believe we have different concepts of democracy. The democratic system I'm advocating is one where there are free representative elections, an accountable leadership, a free independent press, protection of civil and property rights. I'm not advocating for "superficial democracies" that are fakes. By the way, Venezuela may look good now, but Chavez is slowly usurping civil liberties. Last time I checked, he even wants to change the constitution so he could extend his term and create a "new" society. Sounds very Marcos-esque. Also, he has began the process of nationalization of the economy. It does sound very promising?  ?? Would I rather that the Philippines be under a dictatorship? Again, I personally lived through that under the Marcos regime, and he simply made the country a lot worse, such that his legacy of the culture of corruption and resulting communist/separatist insurrections lives on. |
|
|
|
Post by jefe on Sept 17, 2007 9:26:14 GMT -5
Uhm, get your facts straight too, Miaim. 1. Hong Kong can be considered a semi-democracy with a directly elected legislature when it was handed to the Chinese in 1997. On the other hand, most of Hong Kong's economic development occurred before it became a semi-democracy, I give you that; You obviously do not live in HK.  |
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 18, 2007 10:00:07 GMT -5
Uhm, get your facts straight too, Miaim. 1. Hong Kong can be considered a semi-democracy with a directly elected legislature when it was handed to the Chinese in 1997. On the other hand, most of Hong Kong's economic development occurred before it became a semi-democracy, I give you that; You obviously do not live in HK. Oh gosh, I'm sorry I apologize. Strike out statement 1 please. I was just going by the usual economic surveys that say "Hong Kong is one of the freest economies in the world". I stick by all the rest of my statements though. |
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 22, 2007 19:33:41 GMT -5
JC, no offense, but like your assertion about HK, you're basing your claims on superficial skimming....as i finally found some time to refute your numerous yet erroneous claims: 1. Hong Kong 2. Japan: as i said, Japan was already Asia's richest, most developed economy BEFORE WWII....the economy was rebuilt thanks to US aid and favorable trade policies...and Japan has been a one-party state since WWII....i'll spare you the details how.... but it's not entirely clear whether Japan became rich under a democracy (that wouldn't qualify as one under your definition) OR because it was already a fairly rich, industrialized country even before WWII... 3. Thailand was a dictatorship in the 1980s, its most sustained period of growth...been a democracy since the Asian Financial Crisis in the late 1990s - when it was limping back, not its most sustained period of economic growth.... 4. er....Ireland has been a democracy since the 1920s but economic growth started in the 1970s, when it joined the EU (or EC as it was known back then).....so i'm quite baffled as to the factual basis of your claim that i should get my facts straight when you have such a slippery if not outright false grasp of historical facts... you're on stronger ground with Portugal - economic growth came after it too joined the EU was massively subsidized but it was also after the end of the Estado Novo dictatorship...so here, you would at least be able to claim it's a chicken and egg issue.... as for the issue of aid: no disrespect, but you quite clearly have a poor grasp of the nature of aid - most of what is called "aid" are actually loans to buy equipment and services from rich countries (including, but not exclusively, military hardware).... very little of it, besides the Marshall Plan its day and subsidies from Brussels for EU member states, is in fact aid.... some food for thought: www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoV-wtxyQKY5. well, you've got a point about Argentina- since its the military dictatorship in the late 1970s and early 1980s took on all the foreign debt that has crippled the country since... but the Philippines' economic problems are those of a colonized economy - which goes back centuries, not decades.... 6. true, but it should be noted the quality of life (social security) wasn't all that different between East and West Germany.... also, since the end of the Cold War, the former Communists have been voted back into power across Eastern Europe- which brings me back to my point: is political freedom more important than economic security? i think the jury's still out on that: and anyway, the issue isn't as simple as "democracy will bring economic development, poverty reduction and social security".... 6. leaderships aren't all that accountable even in the rich west and neither civil (see laws on detention of "terrorists") nor property rights (eminent domain) are protected.... i don't think democracy is as simple as you're making it out to be: and either way, doesn't exist anywhere by your standards.... 7. Venezuela and nationalisation: what's wrong with nationalisation of resources? it's quite common in the rich, 'democratic' countries.... as i said, i don't think it's the zero-sum game you're making it out to be.... for example: are the poor in Cuba better off than the poor in the Philippines? arguably, yes: as the poor in Cuba get free shelter, education, medical care and food...whereas the poor Colombian and Philippino gets none of that, just the right to vote (and, to boot, may be assassinated if they organize politically).... ideally, the poor shouldn't be forced to choose between political rights and socio-economic rights....but we don't live in an ideal world, do we? peace |
|
miss feli
Full Member
here kitty, kitty!
Posts: 315
|
Post by miss feli on Sept 22, 2007 23:15:37 GMT -5
Does everyone have a right to naturalisation? Should a country be forced to accept citizens that it's population does not want(for whatever reasons) in the interest of fairness? I don't know if this is relevant, but the Declarations of Human Rights came into mind: " (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." I wouldn't think it's fair even without the Declaration. Why should someone be denied just because they are different? Ahhh... |
|
