Gang crime seem to be a common weakness of democracies. There's a notable list of countries that had to resort to elect a quasi-dictator to get rid of gangs. As my hometown is coming to grip with a bubbling gang war, I wonder if there is a better way.
> Gang crime seem to be a common weakness of democracies.
I've read many histories and that hasn't been a problem. I've lived all my life in democracies and it's never been a problem anywhere that I've lived.
I also don't see a correlation. Countries with high levels of corruption, of every form of government, have organized crime problems. Haiti has a very serious gang problem but never much democracy. You might not read about gangs as much in dictatorships because, first, the government is a gang - they are a gang that took over government. And also there's no free press.
And on the other side of the correlation, modern democracies are the safest, most prosperous places in the history of humanity. And they have a free press to report on everything. Nothing is perfect, of course; but compare them to the alternative (and to history), not to the almighty.
Also, the premise that democracy is optional is irrational. If the people don't get to select their leaders, who the f- does? Who will do better? If they are so clearly better, why not have a vote?
Democracy has largely worked and ushered in widespread economic and social development in the West.
The issue is that many cultures are quite incompatible with democracy, unlike the West.
Many countries are still stuck in a culture of tribalism and corruption and keep voting horrible leaders (the vast majority of Africa and a few in Asia and Eastern Europe).
But I agree with you that people should have a say in who leads them. If they keep voting horrid leaders, that’s a problem they brought on themselves.
> many cultures are quite incompatible with democracy, unlike the West
That's an old excuse of dictators, one of a series of obviously self-serving justifications for their taking power and oppressing others.
Consider the cultures worldwide where democracy has thrived: The 'West' (Western Europe/US/Canada), Eastern Europe, South Asia, East Asia (S Korea, Japan, Taiwan - the wealthiest part of China by far, per capita, despite China's constant attacks on them), Costa Rica, South America (Brazil, Chile, others), places in W. Africa (Benin, Senegal), E Africa (Kenya), etc etc.
In fact, democracy's record is entirely the opposite. It's by far the greatest development in human history; and somehow, instead of pulling their weight, doing their part as our ancestors did, who sacrificed so much, so many are dallying with power-hungry dictators.
I think you're getting the causation backwards here. Successful countries can maintain democracies, but when a democracy runs into a crisis it can't handle, it usually ceases to be a democracy. You're just not counting the failures because most failed democracies turn into some other form of government.
> when a democracy runs into a crisis it can't handle, it usually ceases to be a democracy
Democracies, it turns out, are more stable in part because they have peaceful transitions of power. When the UK government gets into a crisis it can't handle, it gets voted out and a new government is put in its place; it's a normal process. When dictators get into such situations, there is war and destruction and death; dictatorships are far more brittle and fragile.
The idea that democracies are somehow fragile is a fantasy of dictators and wannabe dictators.
Not every democratic transition works out - it doesn't solve problems magically, and dictators try to find a way to undermine the will and freedom of the people. Sometimes, unfortunately, they succeed.
> Democracies, it turns out, are more stable in part because they have peaceful transitions of power.
That remains to be seen. The longest lived democracy, if you want to define the term generously enough, might be the UK, which has been roughly the same style of constitutional monarchy since 1688. That’s a little under 350 years. Almost as long lived as the Western Roman Empire. The French monarchy survived for about twice as long. The oligarchic Venetian republic lasted over a millennium, as did the Eastern Roman Empire.
But doesn’t this seem to be a no true Scotsman fallacy? If you call all failed democracies not real democracies, you can write them off and only focus on the successful ones.
Does a corrupt and poor democracy ceases to be a democracy?
I agree that democracy is the best system when implemented well. I’m just pointing out that many countries have struggled to succeed as democracies because they lack the proper mindset and culture of maintaining one.
I did say most failed democracies turn into other forms of government, which I think is broadly true. Consider Weimar Germany, Russia, and Zimbabwe as examples of this tendency. And while this is somewhat unfalsifiable, you could argue that any failed democracy that is still democratic is bound to eventually turn into another form of government eventually, or just to collapse into a completely failed state and de facto anarchy or civil war, like Haiti or Lebanon.
I definitely agree that many countries aren’t really capable of being successful democracies. Lee Kwan Yew famously thought this was true of Singapore, and judging from what he did with the place I wouldn’t argue with him. You should also consider failed attempts to establish democracies, such as Afghanistan.
> they lack the proper mindset and culture of maintaining one.
What is your basis for saying why they failed? Maybe they were just overwhelmed by violent dictators (and, like people in the US now, by anti-democratic propaganda).
Democracy works across cultures; the examples are overwhelming from Latin America to the US to S Asia to E Asia (including the most prosperous part of China, and the most prosperous city in China until the CPC took away its democracy), W Europe, E Europe, etc.
The biggest obstacle to democracy is people quitting and undermining it. Our ancestors sacrificed for many generations. What are we doing to promote it, to make it work, to spread freedom to all?
I know it because I live in one (Nigeria). My country of 200 million+ is not under any threat from a violent dictator. The issue is terrible corruption and a culture that values irrational tribalism over democratic dialogue and cooperation.
There's a reason the Middle East has no successful democracy except Israel, and that's because Israel's culture is largely Western-oriented and fit for democracy.
Nigeria hasn't done it well yet. It takes time to build those institutions and that culture. The US was not a successful democracy for many years - and is still an imperfect one now. Generations worked and built so the future generations could have something better.
Democracy doesn't necessarily change people, it gives them self-determination, a mechanism for change.
> Maybe they were just overwhelmed by violent dictators
Yes, that is a form of failure. And it’s not always the result of violence. German democracy failed when the chancellor of a minority government managed to make himself dictator. Russian democracy failed when Putin took over.
Explain to me why, even after 20 years of help, Afghanistan couldn’t establish a democracy. I have an explanation that largely approximates to “they lack the proper mindset and culture of maintaining a democracy”, but if you reject that categorically, go ahead and provide an alternative explanation.
I agreed with you in my statement. Democracy works excellently when done well.
The problem is that figuring out how to make democracy work is one of the hardest tasks on earth (I’m living in a country suffering from terrible corruption and tribalism under democracy).
Yet, I still said that I prefer a system where people choose their leaders…it’s on them to make it work.
More like if they are lucky to have above subsistence living, and they (specifically the men) have sufficient time and are smart enough to organize and, eventually, over generations, create a culture of democracy and trust, AND a foreign power does not come in to meddle with progress or perhaps put in their own dictator, THEN “they” will have it.
I would even go so far as to say the process has to be started by consolidating power to one tribe, and then that tribe eventually adopts it. If you walk into a land with multiple competing tribes, and you enforce democracy on it, it will usually not work because there is insufficient trust/alliance amongst the people of the country.
Do you have some empirical basis for all of this? (I don't at my fingertips - it would be great if you do!)
Let's name the elephant in the room: It's trendy to talk down democracy these days, by the megalomaniacs who think they should rule the world and be unbound by others, by dictators, by the right wing in the US and other places which wants to impose its vision on everyone else.
IMHO it's children toying with matches while the house is about to be bulldozed. We'd better start standing up for democracy soon.
In particular:
> specifically the men
Why the men? At least one well-known theory is that the education and development of women is tightly correlated to overall development.
> If you walk into a land with multiple competing tribes, and you enforce democracy on it, it will usually not work because there is insufficient trust/alliance amongst the people of the country.
The problem is 'enforcing democracy' on anyone; they need to want it because they need to do it themselves. Outsiders can only do a small amount of the work.
Democracy is designed for and works better (than alternatives) for those situations: For example, the US at its founding was in many respects 13 separate countries; they sometimes had different currencies, fought battles against each other, etc.
A democratic mechanism allows them to resolve those differences by votes and laws instead of by violence. Another problem with 'enforced' democratic mechanisms, IMHO, is that they drop a default structure on the country rather than one created for their political situation. For example, Iraq used a parliamentary democracy, where perhaps, with the great division between Sunni, Kurd, and Shiite populations, something that structured power around three 'states' might have worked better.
It doesn't create a nirvana; it can't make people agree nor magically create a wealthy, developed nation, but it perhaps makes the best of what you have. It does create peace and freedom and rule of law.
I don’t mean to talk democracy down, it’s great in my opinion.
It’s just the initial conditions under which democracy can flourish may require being un-democratic first.
>Why the men? At least one well-known theory is that the education and development of women is tightly correlated to overall development.
Because they are physically more powerful. A tribe of men able and willing to dish out damage is usually only stopped by another similar tribe. So there has to be a critical mass of them (specifically the leaders) who are willing to forego violence and accept compromise.
We have an easy example before us. Israel and Palestine or Russian and Ukraine. Two or more tribes want the same land, and there is no sufficient middle for there to be middle ground.
So if you were to draw a line around the perimeter of both tribes and setup a democracy, it’s probably not going to work out.
> Why the men? At least one well-known theory is that the education and development of women is tightly correlated to overall development.
Absolutely. It’s a fool’s errand to try to develop the men without prioritizing the development of women (ie mothers of men). I’d even go as far as to say the underdevelopment of women directly results in the corruption of whole society; how many vandals, militants, and generally corrupt men are the result of absent or uneducated mothers?
I think you misunderstood the parent post, they didn't say democracies had a common gang crime problem or that there is a correlation between gangs and democracies, they just said democracies don't do very well in dealing with gangs.
I think people forget that universal suffrage and male suffrage are pretty recent phenomenon, so when talking about democracies we should understand that historical democracies were very different. As such this weakness may be more of a character of modern universal suffrage democracies. There might be a middle point between everybody voting and one person voting that would be more optimal.
Historical humanity was nothing like what you have now, a product of generations of modern democracy which has yielded the most free, most wealthy, most prosperous places and times in the history of humanity.
For ~95% of human (homo sapien) history, we were hunter-gatherers. Everything else is a recent phenomenon. Even starting with settled, post-hunter-gatherers, democracy wasn't common at all until the last couple centries. We left that past behind for a reason, and live far, far better now.
> There might be a middle point between everybody voting and one person voting that would be more optimal.
Who gets to decide that? No doubt you would be willing to let others rule over you, taking away your freedom and power? Whoever doesn't have a seat at the table is certain to be victimized by those in power.
I have never voted, and can’t vote in the country I live in. And I’m perfectly happy with it. You could say I voted with my feet and my wallet. There are plenty of ways to wield power without voting.
I know it’s a touchy point for people, the justifications being if you’re taxed then you must be able to vote. I know plenty of people who would give up their vote to live tax free. Then there is also the draft, if you can be drafted you must be able to vote. I would rather abolish the draft.
We live in an era with many firsts so historical comparisons are not generally particularly useful. And I think it’s too early to tell if all modern decisions are good ones.
The point I’m making is people are thinking the two options are dictatorship or universal suffrage democracy and I’m saying not only does a middle ground exist but that middle ground used to be the default.
You don't need to try the BS characterizations of people who disagree with you. Just make your argument.
You may know people who make those choices, but those are their choices, their democratic, free choices, and they can change their minds tomorrow if they don't like how it's working out. That's the point - they choose, nobody else gets to choose for them.
> The point I’m making is people are thinking the two options are dictatorship or universal suffrage democracy and I’m saying not only does a middle ground exist but that middle ground used to be the default.
> There might be a middle point between everybody voting and one person voting that would be more optimal.
That’s called an dictatorship. Absolute unquestionable authority is a myth, even Stalin relied on the support of others to stay in power and had to make decisions while keeping that in mind. Most other dictators in history didn’t even remotely have as much power as him.
Belgium, the Antwerp port is the main entry point for drugs in Europe, and there is high demand for drugs in Belgium itself as well. The gangs used to be 'quiet' but there's been a drive-by shooting wave in Brussels recently, which re-opened the debate about what to do with all this.
I know the situation is in no way comparable with what's going on in South-America, but there are also well known spots in the city where drugs are dealt openly, people even queue, which is a bit of a wtf
Of course the extreme right is riding on this hard and winning a lot of popularity as a result
Dictatorship is very good at combating crime if it's under good hands (which itself is a tall order imo), just look at Singapore, the problem with dictatorship is the lack of accountability and 99% of dictators simply suck at governing hence democracy is usually better since most dictators have a severe case of Dunning–Kruger effect. People like Bukele and Lee Kuan Yew are very few and far between.
Crime nearly always goes down with dictators, that's not a good metric. The question is how many completely innocent people have their lives ruined or lost in the process.
Gang crime is primarily a symptom of poverty, inequality and lack of opportunities. Many rich Western European countries had very little gang crime, at least until they decided to create a new class of working poor from exploited migrants. Nordic countries in particular would have a super low crime rate, had migration been handled better.
