No doubt there are terrible leaders, but experience in the middle east has shown it's no just terrible leaders standing in the way of prosperity.
Keep in mind that the only countries in MENA that currently have a democratically elected leader are Tunisia and Lebanon.
It's amazing how bad government "democratic nation-building" is at realizing this.
Democracy is, at best, a generational project. This issues we're seeing in autocratic -> democratic states are almost inherent in an overly quick transition.
From a game theory perspective, why would any leaders act in the best interest of the country when there are no institutions and no expectation of democratic continuity?
Most people tend to point to Iraq as the model of "democratic nation-building" but that was probably the best example of what not to do -- send all the bureaucrats (who were, by necessity, members of the Ba'ath party) home and deny them a say in the new government, disband the police and military forces, basically let the people do whatever they want with revenge killings and ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods and keep the people who are (presumably) in charge of law and order bottled up on the military bases with limited contact with the local population.
It still boggles my mind the total shitshow post-invasion Iraq turned into...
Which is to say the area was likely primed for democracy over hundreds of years in a similar manner.
And as anthithetical as communist mono-party government is to pluralist democracy, one can certainly make the case that it can be credited with building institutions and a functioning bureaucracy.
Many organs of which directly mapped to democratic equivalents, as near as I can tell.
As for Iraq, absolutely agreed. And I think essentially everyone still working in foreign policy now believes de-Ba'ath-ization was a terrible mistake.
In India(my home nation), we have a 70 years old democracy. It's broken but functioning. And hopefully, we will get there soon.
Migration crises are the result of a chain of bad decisions made over the years. Avoiding them requires long-term thinking and leaders with foresight.
You are right avoiding migration issues requires leaders with foresight and motivation to make those decisions. It suits some leaders to have their countries always in a state of crisis so there is no clear accountability. It suits leaders in these countries to always point to the West and say that is where all our problems come from. They take no accountability and then they go on holiday and get medical attention in the West. The question is how do we motivate these leaders to make the right decisions, life is pretty good for them as things stand. It's not their relatives jumping in boats to try to get to the West. They fly first class.
But claiming that democracy doesn't suit all populations is something I do not agree with.
Democracy is the only form of government where (in practice) the people have a say in how their country is run.
America is losing is democracy as the money in politics is determining policy more than the constituents voting [1]. China, meanwhile, is vastly expanding its empire and economy under totalitarian control that’s lifting millions out of poverty [2]. Other countries have populations that want clerics or other religious folks at top (e.g. Iran), or tend to have a history of authoritarian rule and a population that respects that. There are many different forms, and I find it to be cultural imperialism to suggest there is an ultimate form of government for all people. That is coming from your own values, which is due to where you were raised and the larger social norms.... not some commandments from the heavens that dictate what it must be.
Democracy can be great (in theory), but it’s not the only way.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
And yet American's current president was elected despite him being out-spent 2:1 by Hillary Clinton. In the UK Leave won despite being outgunned and outspent by Remain.
In fact here is a study that claims campaign spending during general elections has essentially no impact whatsoever.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/gsb-cmis/gsb-cmis-download-auth...
China was dirt poor because of its long, unbroken history of dictatorship. It's still poor today, although given the fraudulent nature of many Chinese statistics it's hard to know how poor. But the fact that the PRC appears to have learned a few lessons by copying the success of more democratic capitalist nations, is in no way a vindication of dictatorship: there are still so many lessons for China to learn.
Finally, the "cultural imperialism" line. I wonder if you actually are Chinese, to be using that line, because it's one the PRC pushes constantly. The idea that dictatorship and democracy are two equally valid ways to run a country can be easily disproven by just looking at how many people mourn the passing of dictatorships when they fall (not many), or their success rates in various metrics. Democracy is clearly a much better way to run things.
The british and french systems are more likely to be copied nowadays.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution_a...
Do you really think that it's just about drafting a constitution? And do you think that Middle Eastern countries do not have the capability to write their own constitutions?
For example, most of the nationalist/Kemalist leaders were brutal autocrats.
I'd argue that the best among them was Borguiba, but I suppose you've never heard of him.
It was a historical attribute that many "good leaders in the Middle East" shared.
And you specified Middle Eastern, which I took to be exclusive of the Maghreb.
I'm sure there are other examples in North Africa.
But 'name good leaders in the Middle East' -> 'here are some good leaders (many of which were nationalists' -> 'most nationalist leaders were autocrats' isn't arguing the same thing.
I assume we agree that there were in fact many good leaders in the Middle East? Which was my original point.
It's ugly but true.
It also happened in the United States. In Britian. In France. In Germany. In Spain. In Italy. In ancient Greece and Rome.
There are lighter / harsher ways of going about it, though the appropriateness of those is also defined by the opposition's actions.
Successfully creating a national identity, where there were disparate groups before, breaks a lot of people in the transition.
Great, but what does that have to do with my question, exactly? Were Kemalist leaders not nationalist autocrats?
Or are you trying to argue that nationalism is necessary for a country to transition into a democracy?
I'd argue that nationalism is a requisite step for a diverse country, including multiple ethnic or cultural groups within its borders, to become a democracy. (And I'm sure I'm cribbing an old idea in the field here)
It seems like there's little basis for common action without a supergroup which includes, binds, and restrains all otherwise oppositional parties inside a legal framework.
I'd argue that's why uni-party "democracies" tend to be so fragile. When the party becomes the state, then opponents of the party can only be opponents of the state.