Political Compass #40: One party states avoid delays to progress.

[SentientMeat]

Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).

And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were.

It would also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked. I might suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation, but seeing for yourself what kind of answers are given by those with a certain score might be more useful than second-guessing the test’s scoring system.

Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them. (And for heaven’s sake, please don’t quote this entire Opening Post when replying like this sufferer of bandwidth diarrhea.)

The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. Finally, I advise you to read the full proposition below rather than just the thread title (which is necessarily abbreviated) and request that you debate my entire OP rather than simply respond, “IMHO”-like, to the proposition itself.

To date, the threads are:

Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy's enemy is my friend.
#6: Justifying illegal military action.
#7: “Info-tainment” is a worrying trend.
#8: Class division vs. international division. (+ SentientMeat’s economic worldview)
#9: Inflation vs. unemployment.
#10: Corporate respect of the environment.
#11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need.
#12: Sad reflections in branded drinking water.
#13: Land should not be bought and sold.
#14: Many personal fortunes contribute nothing to society.
#15: Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
#16: Shareholder profit is a company's only responsibility.
#17: The rich are too highly taxed.
#18: Better healthcare for those who can pay for it.
#19: Penalising businesses which mislead the public.
#20: The freer the market, the freer the people.
#21: Abortion should be illegal.
#22: All authority must be questioned.
#23: An eye for an eye.
#24: Taxpayers should not prop up theatres or museums.
#25: Schools shouldn’t make attendance compulsory.
#26: Different kinds of people should keep to their own.
#27: Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
#28: It’s natural for children to keep secrets.
#29: Marijuana should be legalised.
#30: School’s prime function is equipping kids to find jobs.
#31: Seriously disabled people should not reproduce.
#32: Learning discipline is the most important thing.
#33: ‘Savage peoples’ vs. ‘different culture’
#34: Society should not support those who refuse to work.
#35: Keep cheerfully busy when troubled.
#36: First generation immigrants can never be fully integrated.
#37: What's good for corporations is always good for everyone.
#38: No broadcasting institution should receive public funding.
#39: Our civil rights are being excessively curbed re. terrorism.



Proposition #40: A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Strongly Disagree.


Even were this blatantly totalitarian nonsense true it would not justify dismantling democracy (democracy of course being the “worst form of government except all those other forms which have been tried” - W. Churchill). In any case, I believe it is false: avoiding delay is not an advantage in this context. The simple fact is that it those very arguments are essential to progress: a rigorous examination of all sides of a proposal is the only way to uncover possible negative consequences which might prove catastrophic.

Time and again, history shows that rash and hasty decisions have brought disaster which careful deliberation has averted. Indeed, arguably the most important factor in Germany losing WWII was the fact that the Nazi Party brooked no dissent and all important decisions fell solely to Hitler. By contrast, the civilian governments of the Allies were able to see the Bigger Picture far more clearly by incorporating the arguments of different departments and authorities into their considerations.

I recently had chance to witness many details of how a Bill eventually became law, from its conception and initial draft, through its hammering out at the anvil of esteemed government lawyers, through its three debates in each House, and finally into law. This process felt interminable, with every clause and in some cases every word being picked over for any possible important consequence it might have, before finally being presented to a bunch of showmen in the House of Clown...sorry, Commons, who might filibuster or wreck it for reasons utterly unrelated to its content. But had that careful, stringent process not been carried out, I have no doubt some poor bugger would eventually have suffered unjustly at the hands of shoddy legislation.

A feasible, reasonable and prudent proposal will stand up to such rigorous examination. The masterplan of an impatient thug will not. Taking time to think through the consequences of a policy does not delay progress - it is progress. Clearly, people saw the folly of proposition #40 even two and a half thousand years ago.

“Although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it” - Pericles of Athens, 430 BCE

[John Mace]

Strongly disagree. Competion is the agent of change, and consolidation of power leads to conservatism (in the true meaning of that word). And, as SM has already shown, history shows this to be true.

[Dunderman]

Priceguy (-8.50/-5.33) ticks Strongly disagree. I'd be most surprised if anyone will pop in to say they ticked Agree.

[Duke]

Duke (Can't remember/Can't remember) ticks Strongly Disagree. Just ask the average North Korean about how much his/her country as "progressed" under juche.

[Dr. Love]

Strongly disagree. I think I was around (2.2, -7). Same reason mentioned above by others.

[Quartz]

I'm not entirely sure how anyone could possibly agree with this. We all know what a stunning success the Soviet Union was.

[Avumede]

While no one disagrees, I haven't heard any conservatives in the U.S. complaining about the increasing dominance of the GOP. Surely a one-party dominated state is almost as bad as a one-party only state.

[amarinth]

-5-point-something, -5-point-something
When I read it carefully, there's that pesky word "all." But I think I may have checked "Agree" when I first took the test and did not read as carefully.

Under the same category as "every cloud has a silver lining," and "it is an ill wind that blows no good," and "the trains ran on time." When you do have a single, driving, recognized point of decision making authority, there will be a gain in efficiency. When there are two or more parties, there are delays caused by the necessities of compromise and coalition building that a one party system just isn't going to have.

That said, the history has shown time and time again the flaws and flat out evils of one party systems. And I think the inefficiency, deliberation, and occasional gridlock in a multiparty system is a blessing in disguise; and I think the debate brings out better decisions, even with the cost of delay.

[MMI]

(-2.5, -3.5 or vice-versa)

Agree.

However, the converse is also true and a much more powerful disadvantage than it is an advantage. An effective one-party state or dictator ship is capable of running in any direction. The marginal advantage of its speed in taking correct action is more than offset by its ability to make lightning like bad decisions. Saddam Hussein could single handedly use the power of the state to provide universal health care (good) or invade Iran/gas the Kurds/ad nauseum (very very bad)

A democracy only rarely runs in any direction (though when it does, it is quite capable of running in a bad direction as well as a good one). I don't think that the realm of "efficiency" is one where a representative democracy is necessarily going to shine. It's advantages are many, but lie elsewhere.

Realistically, of course, any one-party state (rather than merely a dictatorship) would likely have lovely and vicious internal policy battles that could be as paralytic as any filibuster.

[smiling bandit]

Strongly Disagree

I'd say that the One-Party state thing doesn't have any real progress at all: without competition, they have no incentive to grow, advance, or progress. What usually winds up happening is that we see corruption to a greater or lesser degree depending on the people and ideologies involved (Mexico, Ireland, Sov Union).

This doesn't mean that such states are doomed to corrupt, evil governments and have no progress; Mexico and Ireland have done reasonably well in modern times. But being a one-party state or one-party political situation carries no special advantage.

[BobLibDem]

Strongly disagree. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Ludovic]

Around -2,-2. If forced to not click "undecided", I'd have to select "disagree". Not "strongly disagree".

Sure, most of the time a give and take will arrive at the best answer, but there are times when you need swift action, or the majority is simply wrong.

For instance, if Bill Clinton were dictator, he could have fully integrated the armed forces without having any of the "don't ask, don't tell" BS.