Autocracies advancing on the world stage?

[Slim]

A friend sent this to me, I thought it was an interesting take on world politics.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article3821251.ece (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article3821251.ece)



The article suggests that dictatorships are making a comeback, and their populations don't seem to mind. From what I see, from my admittedly limited point of view, is the rest of the world getting to be more like us, not more like China or Russia. The article also made no mention of North Korea or Iran.

What say SOCnet, is liberal democracy losing ground globally to autocracy?

[MrBean]

Well with the rising cost of food, and gas (which are tied together). I am sure people of lower education think that their goverments are responsible for this. It quite possible that someone who promises to return things to the old way could gain power. Think about the numerous Coups in thrid world countries.

People in general just want to get by, having a good life. When that plan starts to get messed with people tend to look to other individuals or groups who promise they can return the "good" life back to them. I would sespect that with the price of everyday living getting higher and higher, that countries with a lower standard or education will see more and more dictators taking control, without more foregin intervention. If you saw in the news the other day the President gave millions to other countries for food to help combat food problems but to also help stabilize other countires that we consider friends.

[Greenhat]

I read that article twice... trying to figure out how someone could write so much and say so little. I'm still trying to figure out if the author is:

1. Taking a shot across the bows of liberals for the sake of being a NeoCon
2. Suggesting that the gov'ts of Russia and China today are the equivilant of Stalin and Mao's
3. Just trying to reinvent the Cold War
4. Attacking or defending International Law

Regardless of which it is, he writes a lot to say not much, and what he does say isn't very clear.

A few simple points that he seems to completely miss:

I believe Russia recently had elections, which may not have been to US standard (then again, considering 2000, may have been), but certainly was not the equivilant of elections under Stalin.

Rather than the autocratic despots that the author claims China is, the Chinese rulers have managed to sort out a compromise for Hong Kong which is mostly working, and China can't realistically take Taiwan by force (at least not without pretty much destroying it).

Tiananmen Square and the actions there were striking and memorable, however, to claim that the students there represented the majority of the Chinese people (which his claim that if democracy ruled China, Tiananmen Square would have resulted in them out of office) is pure conjecture.

And now it's "the liberal creed that grants the right, the belief that all men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights that must not be abridged by governments, that governments derive their power and legitimacy only from the consent of the governed"? Here I thought that was natural law as set down by John Locke. And applies to autocracies just as much as democracies!

[Oldtexan]

As I was reading this, before he mentioned Zimbabwe, I was mentally comparing my thoughts on Zimbabwe. I wanted fair elections. I wanted the International community to ensure the population did not suffer violence, and I wanted the ship turned back.

That compares to my base thought that on Africa the rest of the world should first do no harm. I look down on NGO's that set up feed stations while funded, then pack up and leave when not. I seem to look at all interference with a critical eye.

Sometimes I think we should help countries of Africa, then other times I think everyone should leave Africa to evolve on it own, in its own time without outside influence.

It was within that context that I think I was seeing what the writer was saying. I took the article as neutral when I am used to a media bias, which did leave the article open as to what the point may have been. Yet I did see where the author took the liberty to set up a base thought on how Russia and China concepts are, vs. how the West is.

It was an interesting article, thanks for posting it. It sure makes a complicated world seem simple to understand.

[SOTB]

I think the planet is at a special crossroads and that interesting times are coming. I'm not of the opinion that the sky is falling, but I do think that tensions, technology, perceived or real shortages, perceived or real slights (insults), and the all-around reality of humans really don't get along that well all set us up for a very difficult 10-20 years to come.

I don't think so much that we are looking at the end of the world, but that one line from "Contact" where the character Dr. Arroway comments that the one question she would ask was how did an advanced civilization manage to get through the moment where they had enough technology to kill everyone off (or something to that effect) does hit a spot with me. It is difficult to ignore that the world is a whole lot smaller place than what it used to be. Pretty much anyone has the ability to fuck with someone else -- whether virtually, with conventional weapons or WMDs, hell -- drive an airliner into a building or sink a tanker in the channel leading into a major port.

So I guess I'm stating that I don't think that China and Russia are going to play nice. I think we will dick around and not spank that Muslim ass sufficiently to put that behind us. I think we'll find ourselves embroiled in "little" wars in Africa -- and I hope not LATAM. Somewhere in all of that, if we can just have even a LITTLE luck -- something like find a serious alternative to oil as an energy source (or a different and VERY large supply of it than where we get it now), or maybe something like a fucking wild-assed streak of ebola across Africa. Or global warming winds up being true, and the result is that our farmlands (and those of Canada) remain the best on the planet and Russia and China are buttfucked -- then I think we (Americans) might come out of this on top, and I think being on top is the right place to be.

To answer the question -- yeah, I think it is likely that democracy is going to be challenged in the coming decades. I even think that the USA is going to confront some challenges in that arena. I do think that things are going to get better, though -- we just have to have some patience....

[Husker19D30]

Autocracy is a more efficient form of government. That doesn't mean it's better for the people underneath it, just that an autocracy can respond more quickly to changing events and isn't as beholden to public opinion as is representative or direct democratic government.

[WS-G]

As I was reading this, before he mentioned Zimbabwe, I was mentally comparing my thoughts on Zimbabwe....
In 1923, Southern Rhodesia paid 2 million pounds to His Majesty's Government for the right of self-government, the only British colony to do so. Ever. Since the current populace isn't getting any more value for the money paid several previous governments and generations ago, then perhaps the UK could help matters by paying that money back.

Two million 1923-era quid, adjusted for inflation, with interest added should be enough to keep old Bob in his accustomed lifestyle for at least three or four days!

(OK, let's be serious now!)

SOTB: Interesting idea on the ebola thing, except for one small detail. It kills the patient so fast that they normally don't have sufficient time to pass the disease to very many others before they crash and bleed out. There are several good texts on this very pathogen --- in both scientific and popular literature --- written by epidemiologists who've spent years working in the midst of Ebola Congo, Lassa Fever and Marburg Fever outbreaks (all various filoviral-caused haemorrhagic fevers) dating back to the late 1960's. These truly are too virulent for the viri's own good. Just some light reading from an old biology elective. ;)


Autocracy? It has it's good points. Some autarchs are just too fond of taking it out and playing with it.

[SOTB]

Interesting idea on the ebola thing, except for one small detail. It kills the patient so fast that they normally don't have sufficient time to pass the disease to very many others before they crash and bleed out....Yes, it is one of the reasons I prefer an ebola outbreak -- bird flu has the ability to wander around too far. I think this just staying put to Africa would be just fine....