From dictatorship to democracy: The road less travelled | Hacker News Reader

From dictatorship to democracy: The road less travelled

economist.com

34 pointse15ctr0n37 comments

The distinction between a democracy and republic is worth noting, specifically in Western democracies where elected representatives, not the voting public, make most major decisions. Two issues here: 1. Technology (telecom and social networks) clearly is a threat to dictators when used for challenges to the established order (see various recent populist uprisings) and 2. Yet, despite the theoretical ability of tech to drive mass participation in decision making, where's the push, particularly in Western democracies?

Personally, I'm a firm believer in 'be careful what you ask for,' especially since established regimes (to say nothing of global corporations) have the resources and motivation to manipulate the same technology/social connectivity in their favor. In other words, democracy depends on an informed polis, so the hearts-and-minds campaign continues and is somewhat more directly valuable--but nothing much changes: Best messaging wins.

Anyway, basic if conventional discussion is here: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/03/why-technology-hasnt-del...

> By contrast, Arab countries had no local beacon of democracy to guide them during their recent revolutions—apart from Israel, to whose democratic virtues they seem strangely blind.

How condescending and an utterly false statement! If it weren't for the "democratic" Israel and its deep state and ruling class in the military and security establishment with their close ties and entrenched interests with the Egyptian military, we would be having a nascent and growing democracy on our hands here in Egypt unlike the oppressive military dictatorship approved by Bibi and his henchmen.

The first - but not the last - Egyptian experience with democracy faltered from an external standpoint due to the confluence of reactionary powers from Gulf monarchies such as UAE and Saudi Arabia and Israel on one side, with the repressive and tyrannical Egyptian military, and on the other side, the equally regressive powers albeit opening to electoral democracy, like Turkey and Qatar with the Muslim Brotherhood, thus turning the whole local political game into a regional power struggle between two fierce camps and ruining it for us aspiring citizens for a democrtic rule.

As an Israeli, I just want to let you know: no, we don't support your government. We basically consider every single government in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and basically every other Arab country to be an enemy who will only think twice about invading us because the IDF would soundly beat them.

Paranoid? Hell yes, and I should say triple-yes because I am a Meretz voter. But it's got one virtue: whenever someone in the Arab world says, "El-Sisi, or Abdullah, or Assad, or Da3esh, are tools of the Israelis", they are dead wrong.

Fuck, if Abbas at least was our tool, we could get him to quit with the anti-Jewish incitement and accede to a damned peace deal.

> because the IDF would soundly beat them.

Didn't Hezbollah in 2000 send your valiant IDF packing from Southern Lebanon? Didn't Hamas make your gallant IDF withdraw unilaterally from Gaza in 2005?

Showing some humility would not be a bad idea.

- The military backed regime voted for Israel in the UN for the first time ever[0] If this is not rapprochement and normalization for relations, I don't know frankly what it really is.

- The head of the Coptic Orthodox Church is visiting Jerusalem breaking the boycott imposed by his predecessor in visiting Israel till a fair solution for the Palestinians is reached and a lasting peace is materialized.

Those two obvious incidents above indicate that yes the military-backed regime in Egypt is on good terms with Bibi's govt and they're more than allies on a lot of issues and denying that is not a smart thing to do.

[0]: http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2015/11/01/egypts-voting-of-is...

"Nowadays, almost all dictatorships and authoritarian regimes at least go through the electoral motions—such is the homage vice pays to virtue."

I've always found it curious how many authoritarian regimes go through the motions of sham elections or include some of variation of "Democratic Republic" in their name. It would seem to undermine their own self-proclaimed legitimacy.

A lot of authoritarian regimes actually end up believing their own version of reality. They believe they're representative, saving their nation, that the people want them there etc. Plenty - if not most - of the dictators that have ruled in the last century were extremely irrational. There is enough historical information about Saddam, Fidel, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Putin, Mussolini, etc. to see that common thread among them - they believed they were put there by 'the people' to best serve the people's interests. In their delusional minds, it's a form of democratic representation. The Communist Party regime in China today believes that same thing.

Just look at what Putin believes today. He thinks that as a dictator (he disagrees with that title of course) he can best serve Russia by being a strongman type, and fighting to reclaim what he perceives as Russia's lost glory. He seems to actually believe he is in Russia's best interests, represents the average Russian, and has been legitimately elected (despite the vast vote rigging during his first election for example).

The superficiality of your opinion makes me believe you take your "historical information" from the History Channel.

It'd be nicer if you pointed out what's wrong with that particular opinion rather than to attack the person.

First, believing that "extremely irrational" people can compete with other rational and irrational individuals or groups and climb a hierarchy of power to the top and control it (for decades sometimes) it's something self evidently irrational in my opinion. And second, I doubt the OP really knows what "Putin believes". Putin projects a lot of images for a lot of different people and that's part of a very rational strategy (most probably conceived by some advisor specialized on russian voter psychology). The OP is stuck on one of these projections because it's fed to him frequently by a very rational mass media which simply understands that the average joe needs/loves to believe he is smarter than the "obviously delusional dictator" of a country with 143 million people.

"The biggest obstacle to restoring freedoms for Singaporeans is that our government doesn’t shoot protesters and that it does hold elections. That’s just enough to persuade the West to praise us and they in turn can take advantage of our convenient off shore, low tax regime. It would definitely be easier to protest against full blown tyranny."

Singapore is an example. In their case, by claiming they are a pluralistic democracy, allies and investors can repeat the claim, smoothing the process of doing business with an essentially corrupt and authoritarian regime.

See http://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/ and http://www.wired.com/2012/04/opinion-jeyaretnam-disneyland-d...

"Singapore is becoming increasingly isolated as it falls behind and becomes more North Korea than South Korea."

"Despite attempts by the EU and the US to combat money laundering and bribery, Singapore seems to accept any pariah’s money. Singapore has been one of the prime business partners of the Burmese junta and been at the forefront of attempts to stop tougher sanctions being imposed on the regime."

Hello Xefer -

My name is Haoting and I work for the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that supports Wikipedia around the world.

Could we talk about your project-"Wikipedia Radical Graph"? Thank you!

It's like naming a used car dealership "Honest Johns Used Cars"

I'm surprised the article completely ignores worlds largest democracy, India, sitting right next to Myanmar. Suu Kyi and her party had Indian support (as did the Junta) and India-Myanmar relations are strong. India is also developing Sittwe port for Myanmar and it'll be interesting to see what role she'll play in Myanmar's future.

The book From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation by Gene Sharp (a free download from the Albert Einstein Institution)[1] explains many of the hard-learned lessons of democracy movements around the world. Dictatorships fight dirty, so they are not easy to undo. But it does happen. I watched the successful and largely peaceful transition of Taiwan (my wife's birthplace) from a dictatorship to a democracy during the 1990s. People power inside the country helps most, and outside pressure of the right kind can help too.

[1] http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf

Not sure why this is getting down voted. FDTD is solid work.

I presume the Rohingya [1] are now properly represented and have been given back their basic human rights? No? Then why are we calling Myanmar a democracy? Any article that praises Myanmar without mentioning the suffering of the Rohingya is poorly written. To the author: please, more research next time.

As for Tunisia, my home country, it's just having some hard time with extremists these days, but it's doing OK otherwise.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people

The USA were a democracy while slavery was still legal.

And while only white men had the right to vote. In other words: They claimed to be a democracy, but they weren't.

The right to vote has always been restricted in various ways, and continues to be. In all Western countries, voters must be citizens who have reached the age of majority; these are artificial rules created to achieve utilitarian ends (much like restricting voting rights to landowners, racial groups, or genders). The fact that voting is restricted does not mean the country is undemocratic.

But it brings up a broader point of democracies are more like a gradient of democracy where a "true" democracy could never be achieved (i.e. all citizens eligible to vote).

Even China for example, could just be on an extreme end of democracy in which just members of the National Peoples Congress are eligible to vote. This is better than a dictatorship in which only one person can "vote." At what point does a nation become a democracy? When 51% of the citizens can vote? When 70% can vote?

Selectorate theory (as described by Bruce Buena de Mesquita) is one of the most powerful tools for analysing the spectrum of democracy, and it even encompasses so-called dictatorships.[1] It describes the impact of the number of people who make up the body which selects the country's government, which is a spectrum (as you correctly pointed out).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory

Restricting by age makes sense. Myanmar is doing the same, but based on ethnicity, race, and religion. That is clearly not democratic.

Makes sense to whom? Clearly not to the people who want to vote but are prohibited. And I'm sure many in Myanmar will be quick to explain why it makes sense to restrict based on those factors.

I understand your "objective" and theoretical approach to this issue, but please don't belittle what many people are going through.

>The fact that voting is restricted does not mean the country is undemocratic.

Actually it kind of does.

They didn't claim to be a Democracy. They installed a Constitutional Republic. There are important differences between the two. The founding fathers were largely against actual Democracy, direct voting, and so on. That's why they set the Federal Government up the way they did, instead of having the people directly vote on everything.

Judging by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Myanmar it's even worse. Then again, democracy means "rule of the people", not "respect for human rights"...

But when some of the people do not have rights because of ethnicity or religion, and cannot represent themselves in the political scene, then it's really not a democracy is it?

But why is this transition desirable?

Living in the world's largest democracy, it's more and more evident each day that the basis of democracy is it's biggest problem itself - majority. Majority is not always right & minority might not always wrong(Sometimes both these statements can be mutually exclusive). If you belong to any kind of minority (lgbt, religious minority, cannabis users etc.) life can be very difficult in India, since democracy has little mechanism for qualitative evaluation.

Democracy can work in a utopia very everyone's perfectly rational but irl, even for intelligent people, mental space is occupied enough to be corrupted by lopsided influence.

Nepal has also been slowly transitioning to a democracy since 2006 (with a little help from India), albeit from a monarchy and not from a dictatorship. They recently adopted a new constitution [1] with some controversies surrounding it. But overall, it seems like there aren't any strong trends there to revert back to a non-democratic government.

[1] http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/09/20/nepal-constitution-...

As a Tunisian citizen I must ask, is democracy always a positive thing? Even if the majority of the people doesn't know what's best for them?

My theory is that a strong economy must come before a robust democracy can take root. People have to want to have a political voice before they'll do things like form political parties, raise awareness of issues, contribute meaningfully to institutions. If most citizens are still worried about where their next meal is coming from, it's going to put a serious damper on their political will.

I don't really know how to turn a country's economy around, but the failure of the Arab Spring indicates to me that the solution may have to come from without rather than within. Strong, sustained foreign investment to build civic infrastructure may well be the only solution.

Alternatively, infrastructure can be as simple as cell towers. Perhaps in the next hundred years, we'll figure out how to build infrastructure that isn't so expensive. Cheap water purification, low-impact agriculture, these things can create business opportunities for the poor that can raise their quality of life. Then they'll eventually start wanting democracy.

An excellent question and you are right, without educated voters and a free and fair press, democracy can fail. However with a strong constitution that guarantees basic human rights and free speech, and first and foremost, separation of church and state, it can help, but it takes some enlighten people willing to go against the majority in Islamic countries today.

I remember what happened in Algeria in the 90's the elections were fairly democratic , and people voted for the worst kind of islamists. Same with Egypt. Tunisia today is an exception. In the rest of the arab world, people will elect Islamists whenever they are given the choice.

But maybe that is a necessary evil in order for the region to evolve. I think the west messed up enough with the politics in that area and actually prevented some kind of "natural" course of action.

I hope Tunisia succeeds in becoming the first true "free and democratic" nation of the middle east.

A democracy provides at least the minimum amount of feedback to the rulers. Even in the worst democracy the ruling group must convince a large percentage of the population that they are doing a better job than the alternative.

In a dictatorship on the other hand only a small percentage of the population must catered to (eg the officer corp).

Changing a vote from one party to another is pretty simple and anyone can do it. Starting or joining a protest/revolution is a lot harder.

In the short term, perhaps not. In the long term probably yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com