Comments on: Was Democracy Just A Moment?

By: Alec

Alec — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:46:39 +0000

I think Kaplan makes a lot of pertinent points, specifically around China, that can wrap up this dialogue. Not verbatim, but paraphrased, I believe Kaplan said what keeps China functioning is the social order created by a powerful central body. At the time, Russia was a democracy dipping its toes into capitalism that provided the antithesis to China’s non-democratic success story (though we see Russia reemerging as otherwise currently).

Successful democracy emerges with economic stability that fosters a middle class. It is not that democracy is too difficult to bother with, it is that it is too difficult to export. Even with cultural knowledge, political viability, etc., you cannot coerce a country into democracy.

By: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Blueprint for Action

ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Blueprint for Action — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:12:56 +0000

[...] And people wonder why I’m pessimistic about democracy. What say you? [...]

By: Grendel

Grendel — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:32:45 +0000

a functioning civil society and a strong middle class

…Germany had as well and that didn’t prevent the NSDAP to take over – Kaplan is certainly right when he argues that the world is complex, but that’s hardly news. Monocausal explanations don’t really work as this case proves it, too.

By: mark safranski

mark safranski — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 04:31:51 +0000

Hi Curzon,

Too many fantastic things at Coming Anarchy in too short a time frame to give everything due attention in a timely fashion !

Kaplan’s argument is very much in the tradition of George Kennan, Henry Stimson, Henry Adams – heck, John Quincy Adams !. Call it Realism, paleoconservative skepticism, democratic exceptionalism – whatever you like, it is a very pessemistic viewpoint.

While we should concede to Kaplan the growing realization among democracy advocates of the importance of the rule of law, transparency and societal liberalization ( economically and in terms of tolerance) we have to be careful because this attitude quickly can slide into a simple dismissal of the capacity of others to exercise democratic franchise – as Stimson did with East Europeans and Kennan did with Blacks and women.

In some instances, KSA for example, Kaplan may well be correct. Burma on the other hand was ready for democracy coming on twenty years ago. Skepticism should still lean in the direction of optimism when forced to choose.

By: J. Kende

J. Kende — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 07:57:39 +0000

So the question becomes, how are those liberal-democratic supporting structures built, sometimes alongside the introduction of democratic elections?

Barnett provides a vision of one framework for it. But it seems the world is a bit more complex than Barnett describes, and that scenarios for the emergence of stable, generally positive (as we measure it), free nations/democracies will require a more adaptive playbook.

I started reading The Great Game, by the way, and I can’t help but think of it right now for some reason…

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 07:34:42 +0000

Mali and Mongolia are two poor and successful (with at least a long a track record as Chile anyway) democracies that come to mind. Not to totally rip off Larry Diamond, but if democracy can happen in places without the "preconditions," then there is no reason why it can't elsewhere. That's not to say that it is necessarily easy or that success is inevitable. But, what my big beef here is that the attitude seems to be that democracy is so hard that it's not worth trying. I do agree that elections are not sufficient and do not equal democracy. People certainly should be cautioned against thinking they are some kind of silver bullet. But it's also important not to go too far in the other direction.