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.

Hmm, good perspective.

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 think we’re mostly in agreement here?

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.

> figuring out how to make democracy work is one of the hardest tasks on earth

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.

> 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.

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.

Maybe, but do the outcomes differ or not?