Notes on El Salvador
mattlakeman.org
mattlakeman.org
"The whole point of democracy is to spread political decision-making and create approval-based feedback loops with the population so that good leaders are elected and bad leaders are deposed without resorting to violence. Dictatorships concentrate power to permit more state dynamism but at the expense of this dispersed risk. This makes dictatorships a higher risk-higher reward proposition. A good dictator can do more good without democratic constraints, but a bad dictator can do more bad."
So democracy suffers from 2 main issues: 1) timeliness: some problems need to be solved now, not in 10 years. Example, need to decide your stance against Russia. 2) fragility from the inside: A malicious player can manipulate democratic institutions and convert it to an autocracy. See Russia, Turkey and Jan 6 USA.
Not sure how one can design a system robust to these two threats.
The US at various time has had a system robust to these threats. A prerequisite has been an educated and well-informed electorate with at least a large majority committed to a shared set of national values.
On the other hand, he will allow his establishment to feed off the system, so they become dependent on him and remain interested in maintaining status quo and stay within the line. Of course, this is reinforced with brutal crackdowns on any form of dissent. He makes everyone worthless and replaceable, and makes it seem that it is very easy to lose everything if you show any disloyalty or try to push for your interests in a wrong way.
In the country where I'm from, military chief commanders were just some planted nobodies that were rotated every year or so. All political establishment was fully loyal and were too weak to even have fantasies on grabbing power.
In almost any democracy the power base are political parties who have the obligation and ability to control what politics are allowed to manifest in the country. Very few democracies (a notable exception might be Switzerland) actually allow for the general population to act against what the political parties want.
The population exists as a feedback mechanism, which should enforce competition between parties. But the actual manifestation of the power is in the party representatives of the population, not in the population itself. If you want to tell me that the population just can create a new party, look how well that works in the US...
Most democracies are representative democracies. Where instead of army and industry leaders the government has to deal with party leaders and the representatives. Certainly there are different power dynamics there, but just as certain they exist and impact the actual policies. And just as certain there are misalignment of interests between population and party representatives.
This is a problem of a particular voting system. The majority reprentation system has a very strong tendency towards two party systems. In countries with proportional representation it is significantly easier to create new parties and even rise to power. On the level of local governments this happens all the time. But even on the state level it is definitely possible. Just think of the various green parties in Europe that have been founded in the 1980s and 1990s. Or to give a more recent example: the rise of the AFD in Germany in recent years.
Most European countries have new popular parties come into existence regularly. Regularly.
Your voting system in the US is broken.
A colleague of mine was on a flight when balloon of drugs burst inside a drug mule. They died.
Our appetites fuel a cycle of violence and depravity.
I believe some Russian and North Korean gangs have figured out how to do this via extortion (cyber-crime), but the drug trade seems to be another popular way to do it.
Overall, it seems like the gangs are victim of the same cycle that poor people everywhere are a victim of: Being poor makes it harder to make better decisions to not be poor. In other latin american countries which were perhaps somewhat wealthier (while still poor by the standards of developed countries), the gangs were better able to accumulate capital which allowed them to improve their organization and eventually get into higher-margin activities that required that organization. In El Salvadore, the gangs were never able to "pick themselves up by their bootstrap" so to speak.
While new entrants to gangs in other latin american countries may also be poor, the ones who survive and avoid imprisonment long enough to move up in the ranks have the opportunity to accumulate a relatively considerable amount of wealth (with real compensation being very top-heavy, like any other organization), and the overall higher wealth of those gangs allows for better organization.
The profit/honor dichotomy being reflected on isn't unrelated to the other issues.. the gangs which have nothing to lose in terms of wealth have only their honor (which is perhaps a type of perceived or coerced power, even it is primarily over their also-poor neighbours). The theory presented by the author is that the gangs couldn't move towards the profit-focused side of the dichotomy, because they were too poor to have those opportunities in the first place.
The fact that they were extorting their poor neighbours is a reflection of the gangs themselves being poor and poorly organized, but the point I was making above is that being in extortion isn't intrinsically the cause of them being less wealthy, the cause was targeting other poor El Salvadorans due to disorganization, rather than extracting money from wealthier pockets (whether that be from drugs, or yes, also extortion)
Almost every human has an appetite for some sort of mind alteration, but all the harms you describe here are from fucked up legal situations that have been imposed on us to control the profit and political power that trade would shift.
It's the worst kind of resource curse.
Yet there are people who still idolize Pablo Escobar or think that becoming a drug lord is the only way to be wealthy - besides being a (corrupt) politician, that is. FARC leftovers think that way and that's why they won't stop doing crime.
The criminal organizations that came from Venezuela ("Tren de Aragua", "Los Satanás") aren't helping either.
Consequently, that's why many of us love our current benevolent dictator. Sure he's fucking harsh but he's effective.
Anyways, you're thinking more of Mexico. And if you think about it, that's probably why Bukele has been effective. Namely, cause the gangs are separate from the drug cartels even if they may have brushed elbows. The cartel seems more organized and more deeply rooted that I doubt they could be taken down by one man's decisions.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the sentiment.
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
All governments are basically mafioso. Consider the existence of national security laws of every government. These are a kind of legal Omertà.
What about the victims of those dictators, who lose lives and families and freedom? They don't much benefit from the 'good'.
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.
Wow, I am pretty well informed and I've never seen that. Do you have evidence of it?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Lots and lots of places have done it. But yes, it can be difficult - it's up to the people, like everything else. If they want it, they will have it.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Democracy doesn't necessarily change people, it gives them self-determination, a mechanism for change.
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.
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.
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 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.
And the same questions apply - see the GP.
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.
Based on my personal experience the countryside is beautiful, the beaches are great and the people are lovely. Yes, the cities are "ugly" but I didn't mind San Salvador at all. I'm not the type to seek out nightlife though.
It would be a shame to miss it if you're in the area.
As an aside, I find it incredibly amusing that the China-funded library is decorated with rather Western culture - Harry Potter, Star Wars, and even Mario. Even Chinese money is used to uphold American cultural hegemony.
From a hegemonic view, I don't. The "mass marketed corporate manufactured culture" ensures that the West retains an avenue for soft power in the country. As long as they watch american tv, play american games, and read american stories, the country is subtly primed to be more palatable to American view points.
It might not matter now, as Bukele has demonized Western influence; but as shown in Asia, Pokemon and Mario were massively effective in cleaning up Japan's image in the eyes of Korean youth. Both China and Korea were brutally colonized by Japan, but cultural influence has inverted the favorability of China and Japan in Korea. I don't see how repeating that mistake favors China interests.
[1] In fact, according to a survey published by news magazine SisaIN, China’s favorability among South Koreans reached a high-water mark in 2016 at a score of 60 out of 100—second only to the United States (73) and higher than Japan (43) and North Korea (28).6 However, by 2021, China’s score had fallen by half to 26.4
[2] I don't deny COVID could be a factor here.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/rising-anti-china-s....
Cool Japan would like a word with you ;)
It makes me think of German barbarians who, after sacking the urbs aeterna, couldn't think of a better name for themselves than Holy Roman Empire.
I know where these characters originated from, and their global presence is distributed by American cultural hegemony. Trying to one-up me by denying the American influence and amplification of these franchises is senseless
One has to deeply wonder about Political Theory after reading stories like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book)
I read the whole article and admittedly most of my knowledge of El Salvador comes from it, but I do think that the critics seem to not understand the concept of monopoly of violence, and how much of the democratic norms that keep the developed world in check are built upon this centralized authority.
Great article and I do agree with his basic conclusion: so far, it’s “been worth it”, but the cost may be future instability. I think a lot of people want El Salvador to turn into a typical western democratic state, but IMO I think their goal is to be something more like Singapore.
Note: the images below this text actually show Korean writing, not Chinese.
then hes in a good place to introduce some kind of monarchy, or personal transfer of power, someday. people want him to be dictator for life and he seems to be loved enough to receive it. democracy doesn't deal with gangs well enough to make a country like this functional. hes a wise person whose made good investments for his country.
I found zero success stories.
Every 20th century economic success story was a defacto autocratic nation. They only transitioned to democracy after they'd reached a certain level of development. (I excluded preexisting high HDI nations and ones that accidentally hit mineral gold)
It's similar to how commitees have never built successful startups. At the early phases, you need a decisive and singular leader.
I continue to be on team democracy for poor nations. But I'm well aware that data is not on my side.
And it does makes sense, in a way it would be similar to letting children (developing persons) make their own decisions.
The interesting question would be what is then, the best form of government for developing nations. Or even better, what are the required skill-set for leaders to bring development?
The key problem in setting up a democracy is that people are, on average, pretty dense. Doing things by vote doesn't cause stupid people to make good decisions. There is a real cultural element where the people involved have to be strongly against solving domestic problems with force, for evolution over revolution and also big believers in general liberty (otherwise you just get two factions fighting to use the big stick of government against the other).
I'm not sure that you could say that France was a democracy in the late 18th century (1770's, 1780's) - the critical time for the creation of the US and its form of government.
On the other hand, Britain itself was already fairly democratic by 1776, and the thirteen colonies had their own representative government institutions. The point of complaint was that the British were simply ignoring those institutions and flagrantly violating the traditional rights that Englishmen were entitled to. And a lot of the British were sympathetic to this viewpoint so there wasn’t the political capital to crack down on the rebellion as harshly as Britain would do in various other colonies at other points in time.
And aside from Lafayette, the French monarchy—the same absolute monarchy the Revolution sought to overthrow—was the regime that supported American independence, mostly out of “enemy of my enemy is my friend” considerations.
The more interesting one is how often a democracy can survive against democratic superpower wishes. I.e, during the cold war era, the US helped taking down more democratic governments than the USSR itself. That is a bit of ironic remark. People tend to forget that the US didn't like democracies outside its sphere of influence in the last century.
I am sure this legacy gets blind eye when people usually talk about democracy and why many people doesn't like it. The scars are still alive til this day (Iran is the prime example here).
Are you suggesting that the CIA was worried about democracy in Iran so they ousted him to give the absolute power to the king?
It turns out that Iranians have agency of their own and don’t just do whatever the CIA tells them to do. In fact the role of the CIA in the 1953 coup has been deliberately overstated by multiple sides, including the CIA itself: https://web.archive.org/web/20150603235034/https://www.forei...
But even if you still want to blame the CIA, they still needed enough supporters inside of Iran who were angry at Mossadegh, and one of the reasons they were angry at Mossadegh is because he had turned himself into a dictator.
Edit: I replied before you edit your comment
> The CIA and US media propaganda spread false reports about the situation then and still to this day. i.e this article you attached is a pure piece of western propaganda.
That claim is completely inconsistent with the CIA and US government repeatedly and publicly claiming responsibility/taking credit for the coup.
switch to democracy for a long time and it's a mess
This can be imposed by a time of autocracy gradually evolving into democracy - see the UK, imposed during colonialism and then taken over after independence - see the Indian Civil Service, Courts, etc, or imposed by an occupying force - see Germany.
Without that “Deep State” it will degenerate in alternating bouts of violence until people cry out for autocracy - See Roman Republic.
Aren’t you just referring to regular government institutions or is there something I’m missing from your comment?
A state without that deep-rooted sense of continuity is much more fragile. Having a civil service without political allegiance seems to be critical to preservation of a democratic system.
In the U.S. I would say that Trump’s takeover of the GOP has generally de-emphasized smaller government as a plank of the party. He certainly doesn’t care about it.
Whether the bureaucrats lean towards one party or the other doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t compelled out of fear for their jobs to break the law at the president’s command.
I’m thinking about all of the politically motivated “leaks”, the weaponization of institutions like the FBI, DOJ, IRS and I’m just wondering how you are seriously saying above.
The “deep state” or “the state” or “the elites” or “ the bureaucracy class” or whatever you want to call it and whatever you want to claim it exists for… is a different topic than “they don’t break the law”. I’m thinking I must be really misunderstanding your text, because that’s just ridiculous.
Obviously if you interpret “deep state” as “secret cabals of evildoers” then yes, that’s a nonsensical argument.
My personal interpretation of the “deep state” argument that Trump has been bandying around is that he means “people who resist my desire to do whatever I want as President”.
Which... can be a government institution... but not generally in a democracy.
That's the very thing that kills a democracy (both the system of government, and a country that develops one).
But there’s a difference between aristocrats and oligarchs. When people reference the deep state they are referencing what they believe are oligarchs that are self interested and use the state to advance personal goals of power and wealth. What they want but can’t usually communicate is an aristocracy that takes care of them and the country.
Oligarchy decays into populism eventually (years, decades, more?) as we see in many places now. Populists will call for a monarch. This has happened in El Salvador.
Not saying it was bad either. Just that he was an autocrat and extremely successful. The moment they could congress weakened the executive branch to the point of near uselessness as we see today.
I'm taking the OP as talking more about "you can't democracy your way out of being Haiti" kind of things.
Yes, but it was bootstrapped by the biggest land takeover in history, along with all of its natural resources. It also benefitted from all the western big players of the 19th/early 20th century being exhausted after 2 wars that never touched continental US soil. Neither is easily replicated without a rich in natural resources continent full of easy targets, or massive remote wars.
I thought the slave states were significantly poorer than the free states, a major advantage of the North in the Civil War? I'm sure it's been examined, but would the South have been better off with paid labor of free people? Countries using that model do far better. Imagine someone trying to compete with slave labor against a modern enterprise.
For colonization, that seems to have played a minor role in the US economy?
My understanding of the pre-industrial or non-industrial US economy is that it's most powerful engine was the Mississippi River basin, which is something like the largest continguous amount of farmland in the world with navigable waterway access to the sea (and thus a way to get goods to market, as overland transport was much too expensive - compare a barge to a horse, or even a train).
I believe that's at the heart of the Civil War discussion, because downstream of that mythology, alongside the "life and liberty" parts, are the compromises of slave vs free states. What took place from the founding into the 19th century was the experiment in following the myth and seeing where it led, which favored industrialization. The South had the wealth when the nation was agrarian, but the founding principles gave a political edge to industrialists, enabling the development of roads, canals, and eventually rails, while also using cheaper immigrant labor to build those things; using slaves to do these projects creates a less favorable balance sheet for the owner, because bodies that you own and are mandated to take responsibility for cannot simply be fired and replaced with new ones if they are too weak to work.
This tension of old vs new wealth also propelled western expansion, since it led to the "1 free state per slave state" dynamic to maintain political consensus, only for it to hit an abrupt ending in the 1850's when expansion reached the West Coast.
The 'mythology' is an attempt to dismiss it - ironically using Enlightenment concepts. The Enlightenment was the escape from mythology, using actual fact and reason, which is the foundation of democracy.
Much more than mythology, democracy, the US, and the Enlightment generally have been overwhelming successes in reality. Nothing in the history of humanity comes close.
The 'mythology' is that somehow dictatorship is somehow 'natural' or necessary or inevitable or even reasonable.
That being said, there simply aren’t very many countries and even less ones that made the successful leap to rich world status regardless of the political regime. There’s a huge small sample problem here. And then of course there’s also a huge endogeneity problem. The literature in general has found a weak positive association between democratization and growth. And that’s about the most we can say. Stop worrying about the data not being on your side; it isn’t on anyone’s side.
The dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) for most of the post-war period has led to critiques regarding the vibrancy of political competition and the effective functioning of democracy.
The chaebols, those massive family-run conglomerates, have essentially been the architects behind South Korea's economic renaissance since the '60s. Think Samsung, Hyundai, LG - these giants spearheaded the transformation from a post-war economy to an industrial powerhouse, under the guidance of policies favoring heavy industrialization and export-led growth. It's fascinating to see how the government played matchmaker here, doling out financial support and monopolistic privileges like candy at a parade. This strategic play birthed the "Miracle on the Han River," flipping the script from poverty to prosperity.
But, as with all tales of meteoric rise, there's a darker subplot. The symbiosis between the chaebols and political elites isn't all roses. Issues of corruption, nepotism, and economic dominance cloud this success story, leading to a wave of calls for corporate governance reform and efforts to dilute their power.
On a different note, South Korea's journey to democracy is a saga of its own. Decades of authoritarian rule gave way in the late '80s, thanks to the collective might of students, intellectuals, and labor activists. The June Democratic Uprising in '87 was a game-changer, forcing the military regime's hand to pave the way for democratic reforms and the country's first free presidential election later that year.
India is admittedly stable. But it was very much an economic failure. Things only started turning around in the mid-90s.
> 400 million Indians still make less than many sub-saharan African nations.
Yes, and they are more important than all the programmers in Bangalore. Also, non-Hindu Indians, including those who are Muslim, are relegated to second-class status (which also must affect their economic opportunity).
What do you mean by this?
I'm not criticizing the economic boom per se - it provides resources that have allowed huge numbers to escape poverty.
This doesn't make any sense.
> Also, non-Hindu Indians, including those who are Muslim, are relegated to second-class status (which also must affect their economic opportunity).
This is not true.
Perhaps you'd like to offer some more depth? There is lots and lots of evidence otherwise. For example, India's program of 'reclaiming' Muslim land for Hindu temples.
I am an indian too.
I consider Modi to be a useless, corrupt, duffer of a Prime Minister with no role in India's economic growth. His regime will be known as the "lost decade" of India where it failed to seize the momentum and even damaged India's economic prospects with his idiocy that also pushed a lot of people back to poverty.
However, India's economic development under capable governments are just as visible as the poverty that remains. PM Nehru laid a solid foundation for our country's democracy and created the foundational infrastructure for manufacturing, defence, and scientific research. PM Shastri and Indira Gandhi focused on self-sufficiency in food production and India today is the largest producer of grains, oils, vegetables, milk, livestock etc. etc. that it can feed its 1+ billion population. Indira Gandhi boosted our military and gave extraordinary impetus to our defence, space and nuclear industries. Rajiv Gandhi focused on creating the foundation for India's electronic and IT infrastructure. PM Rao, based on the plans of his predecessors, implemented the policies for private enterprises to thrive. Dr. Manmohan Singh created and implemented one of the largest rights-based welfare scheme in the world to reduce the wealth-gap in India, while fostering economic growth with a focus on services. During his administration, and due to the continuing momentum of the economic growth that he nurtured 270 million indians were lifted out of poverty between 2005-6 and 2015-16 – the most in a global study of 75 countries ( https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-lifted-270-m... ). (I suspect Modi's policy have sent half of them back again to poverty).
It's all easy to say that economic growth happened only from the 90's. That belays an understanding of both state craft and indian history. We chose to focus on building a sustainable and strong nation-state because of our colonial history, at the expense of faster economic growth (and an emphasis on ensuring everyone benefited from the economic growth). On the other hand look at South Korea and Japan. Their economic policies were certainly better than ours at one point. But look at other aspects of their state - they are even today totally dependent on the US to safeguard their borders and thus having to sacrifice some of their sovereignty (on foreign policy) to the US. Korea even has had a history of military rules.
My point is that everything is not as simple as it appears and you have to consider the whole system - due to our democratic system and our huge population, we are operating on whole different level compared to the rest of the world. We have actually done quite well with the handicaps we have ...
The Balkans maybe don't count as Eastern Europe, but before ww2 we were predominantly agrarian. 75% of the population worked on farms[1]. By the 1970's Yugoslavia was a modern industrial economy with all the accoutrements you would expect from a European nation (power, sanitation, roads, etc). Only 29% of the population worked on farms[2].
Then in early 1990's the country fell apart, democracies came out of the ashes, and by 2004 the first bits of former Yugoslavia started joining the EU and NATO[3]. Overall a great success.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia#Farming [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Socialist_Feder... [3] https://www.gov.si/en/topics/slovenia-as-an-eu-member-state/
And then in the late phases you stagnate and get overthrown. Am I right?
It is well worth a watch. Anyone with an interest in democracy (or corporate politics or dominance hierarchies) definitely should watch it. I feel that his discussion of the making of the video was even more interesting (although long winded): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILvD7zVN2jo
The interesting conclusion that he draws in the discussion of the video is that all systems of governance are dependent upon responsible people getting into positions of power and then choosing to act responsibly rather than selfishly. The key insight is that getting into the position of power is corruptive and you have to make personal sacrifices to not be corrupted.
In fact, there is no other form of government that is remotely close. All the wealthiest, most free countries in the world are democracies.
Also, we have become so steeped in nationalism that we miss the true goal and point of it all: The freedom and prosperity of individuals. Raising aggregate wealth is not the goal - as we have seen recently, that means nothing to the people it doesn't benefit. Dictators and their syncophants say, 'only we can just ignore human rights, property rights, etc. and do X'. That doesn't help their victims. Democracy ensures that everyone has a seat at the table (imperfectly, and we can do it better - and we will do it faster if you'll help).
What makes El Salvador a “country like this” that is incompatible with democracy as compared to other countries
In a monarchy, long term interests win out over short term interests because they're dynastic and stay within a family. There is a natural incentive for long term thinking that comes with a monarchy.
I'm quite skeptical that that's the case. The basic problem is that a monarchy has an entirely different source of legitimacy from a modern popular dictatorship like Bukele's. What examples are there of this transition happening successfully? I guess you could maybe count North Korea, but even they haven't actually declared a monarchy... I could perhaps imagine it happening there, but that's a real extreme special case. A much more ordinary case like Bukele, I don't see it.
ETA: It's not erroneous, as that gang is known as either Barrio 18 or Mara 18. At any rate, ignore the letters - it's 18 vs 13.
At the end of the day though, I really hope it all works out.
Bukele pitches crypto at CPAC, so it’s frankly hilarious you think he resides outside this order.
This speech? You think that makes Bukele a "globalist neoliberal"? That would indeed be hilarious, if you did. I do like your sense of humor!
But no I wasn't claiming any particular person is or is not "with" the western ruling class. Obviously this order welcomes many horrible dictators (and "authoritarian demagogues") among its ranks, famously in the Middle East but really anywhere it furthers their power. I was just commenting on the parent's post about people supporting them, and it's in contrast to their cookie cutter ones. The Justin Trudeau, United Nations types.
Not saying any particular politician or policy is better or worse, just that people feel like they've been failed.
If there's one thing that the Five Eyes are known for, it's their commitment to crypto. /s
I understand you were trying to make a cynical point about govs, but I don't think it's even true.
TFA says that before the crackdown gangs directly extorted money from civilians, and frequently threatened and murdered them. As far as anybody seems to be able to tell, the current government is not doing that. You can maybe argue that they are harming any innocents swept up in the crackdown, but the scale of civilian suffering seems far lower now. I don't get how that isn't "reduc[ing] the gangs in people's lives".
Skimmed it, interesting thoughts overall.
Honduras was the place I was told to skip, unless you wanted to scuba in Roatan
There were other backpackers in the hostels.
Even Colombia at that time was fine.
As the marketing for tourism Colombia goes “the only danger is you’ll never want to leave”
I wouldn't let fears of crime discourage anyone from visiting Latin America but compared to many other parts of the world you need to be much more aware of what's going on around you.
How did you cross that part of Colombia that is impassable and has no road and blah blah blah ?
Genuinely curious as I was dissuaded from a similar trip by the supposed inability to go all the way through Columbia.
I've read a number of articles about the Darién Gap, and they all indicate that there have been several ferry operators in the past, in some cases for years at a time, but that there's currently no regularly scheduled service. For example, Wikipedia states this several times
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap
Wikivoyage suggests that you can make it by boat if you're willing to fly part of the way, and/or that you can make private arrangements with a shipping company that can transport cars.
https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Darien_Gap
My understanding from these and other articles is that people with enough money can buy access to sea transportation for themselves and/or their cars, but that you can no longer just buy a ticket for any kind of regularly scheduled departure. But this could conceivably change again in the future.
Lol this is accurate for people like me too who know almost everything they do about America from TV shows
Crime rises in the summer in most areas, iirc.
Looks like they have quite a stack compared to what people previously thought. There's also a tracker you can follow: https://nayibtracker.com
Briefly, the author's beliefs appear to be:
> If the elections are rigged how did he “win”
The election is partially manipulated by gerrymandering but won in the sense that Bukele's overwhelming popular support is real, and the gerrymandering only pushed him from "clear victory" to "almost total victory".
> If he is responsible for the crime reduction, how did he do it in such a short time
The crime reduction came because it happened at a time when both of its opponents (the gangs themselves, as well as anti-Bukele government forces) were weak. It may also have benefited from a decline in murders that had already started before Bulele took office.
> how were the police trained so fast
The police and army were less "trained so fast" than having been relatively competent for a while but hamstrung by insufficient political will/funds (this point is less well explained -- maybe because the gangs trade so much off honor rather than actually paying off economically, reasonable people find the police/army a more enticing career path?).
> If the original crime reduction was due to gangs hiding the bodies is it really that unreasonable to think that what actually is happening is that the government is more effective at hiding the bodies?
Maybe the government is fudging things, but even anti-Bukele organizations and media don't seem to think so, and Bukele's popular support in the absence of repression (yeah, Bukele is not a champion of free press, but he doesn't yet seem to police the actions of everyday civilians to the extent that they would all be scared and lie to a visiting ~journalist) suggests that the murder rate really is down, and not just faked.
The cure to mass extortion is carrying weapons, or making the extortionist believe there is a good chance you have a.weapon. There is no other mitigation.
Re weapons making people feel safer: this is something I heard from Israelis (~2017) that for them seeing soldiers with big assault rifles makes them feel safer; for me it normally does not. I wonder what the conditions are under which this makes people feel good/bad.
Re innocent people ending up in jail and abused: I wonder how the number of people whose lives are now destroyed by the state is vs how many peoples' lives were destroyed (e.g. murders) pre-crackdowns?