No elections were held between 1918 and 1947, and I don’t know that those were highly free. The 1912 elections might have been the best.
The first true Republic of China democracy was ushered in by Lee Teng-hui, a true democratizing dictator. As soon as he completed his presidency, he joined the opposition.
Government by warlords, with Chiang Kai‐shek and the KMT eventually nominally the biggest warlord in the end, but with various warlords having varying degrees of autonomy, the Chinese Communists in the mix, a puppet Chinese government set up by Japan, various Japanese puppet governments running parts of what would/could be considered part of China (Manchuria, Inner Mongolia) and from 1937-45 a large part of the country under Japanese occupation.
That it had ‘republic’ in its name falls under the same category as East Germany and North Korea both having ‘democratic republic’ in their names.
Fascism?
I missed the course that covered that period!
I remember reading that the Chinese public didn’t like Zhang Yi Mou’s Hero, glorifying Qin Shu Huang’s brutal bringing together the Warring States under his reign. But I believe, he did what he saw best for the now united country.
During the course which covered Mao. I told the professor; “I don’t blame Mao for what he did.” To which my professor replied “I do.”.
Maybe it’s because I’m from Hawaii, where Kamehameha also forcefully united the islands.
I have not studied it either, but since the US supported Chiang Kai Shek, China must have been a democracy at the time, because the US only ever supports democracies.
My interpretation of your (first) cite was that it was doing the latter.
Sorry, I didn’t notice your second link. The JSTOR paper does seem to confirm a very low income inequality and, s as you say, a higher purchasing power due to the ready availability of extensive land, food, etc. Housing and the basics of life were more readily available. That does seem like a strong argument.
But I would still say that finances aren’t the start and end of quality of life.
The English boated halfway around the world and conquered the Indian subcontinent for the sake of having more flavor in their diet. Readily available, cheap squash and corn varieties aren’t the stuff of dreams. It’s what you need to survive but not to live as a snobbish gourmand.
For a full QoL metric, I feel like you need to know how diverse the diet is, the rates of murder, disease, losses to war, the amount of travel, suicide rates, and alcoholism rates.
I’ll try to look some of that up this weekend. That could still show you to be right. I’m mostly just curious now.
I am not aware of counterexamples, not having studied the matter thoroughly, but it seems to me that authoritarian regimes tend to rely heavily on their police forces, or the equivalent (military). In general, policing serves to maintain social imbalance, protecting one segment of society to the detriment of another or others. Enforcement is meted out at the discretion of the officers, according to the guidelines of the rulers, and it is usually selective.
A society that overuses enforcement to maintain order does not provide well for all its people and bears serious structural flaws that pose a high risk of irreversible instability. Authoritarian regimes are almost always riddled with these flaws. Of course, some apparently-non-authoritarian regimes also have these kinds of structural flaws, especially if they were formed out of the ashes of authoritarian rule (because, those kinds of methods are the standard that they know).
I’d say Julius and Augustus Caesar were both better stewards of Rome than the Republic had been for at least a century prior to their rule. Similarly, some ancient Greek tyrants were actually pretty good rulers compared to the collaborative governing systems they overturned.
In both cases though, the “democracy” they usurped was more of an aristocracy or oligarchy than what we would consider a democracy today. I’m also unsure how well any ancient ruler could fit our modern definition of “authoritarian”.
Still, I think history shows it’s entirely possible for a single individual with all the power to use it wisely and for the benefit of his people, while it’s also possible for a democracy to be corrupt, dysfunctional and harmful to the people. The real question is which is more likely, and which is more flexible, and able to be corrected if you find your self in one of these harmful situations.
As a red-blooded American, I lean towards democracy, But I have to say I don’t think it is guaranteed to be better than a monarchy or any other governing system. To the extent our modern government is less oppressive, more just, and more equitable than those that came before, I think it has more to do with limiting the powers of government, rather than the particular form that government might take.
But, democracy or no, a government with limited powers can’t really be called authoritarian.
A post was merged into an existing topic: SeamusMuadhen Trock posts
A signifcant number of Iranians were very unhappy with the Reza Pahlavi regime, so they rose up, toppled him and installed a “democracy”, which turned out to be better for some, worse for others. AIUI, women got dealt short hands.
Authoritarianism is like Opium. Incredibly effective, that isn’t in doubt, the issue is getting off of it.
Lincoln needed and used Authoritarianism, as did Washington. That they gave the power back is why they are legends.
Lincoln? Gave the power back?
Washington? He was certainly in command of the Continental Army but the Continental Congress was effectively the national government.
Likewise Lincoln still had Congress to work/deal with. He was the commander in chief of the military (that’s sort of in the Constitution itself) but within bounds laid out by law. And there are several examples from the war where maybe he should have left the military strategy to experts rather than trying to do that part himself. And both Congress and the Supreme Court checked his power during the war itself.
The idea that Lincoln, backed by Congress, would behave as an authoritarian and end slavery by fiat was one of the great fears of the South. It did not happen, but it is ironic that he’s now apparently lauded for leading by dictate, which would have legitimized those fears, when he very much did not do so.
Neither of these examples is really a particularly good one. Nobody expects a military itself to be run as a democracy but in both these examples, the military was still subordinate to duly seated (asterisk for the case of the Continental Congress) civil authority.
You think that because you know how it all turned out and consider it inevitable. It was not. And Washing ton founding a monarchy in in the United States wasn’t a pipe dream. He could have if he wanted it. He just didn’t want it.
You also have an idea that Authoritarianism must look like something specific and no other time period can have it. That is not true.
But that means he wasn’t an autocrat yet. He didn’t give power back, which was the claim, because he never accepted such power in the first place and, in fact, actively rejected being placed in that situation.
I assume authoritarianism is usually more effective in the short term than democracy. That doesn’t really address the question. It seems clear to me that democracy has been much more effective than authoritarianism for at least a century, but that’s still short term in the history of all governments. It’s certainly my hope that will continue, but I don’t see anything that would guarantee that.
Isn’t that the main selling point authoritarians use? That The People need the strength and wisdom of some charismatic and decisive Leader?
As others have pointed out, dictatorships and authoritarian rulers are often popular because they appeal to a populist mindset and actively repress dissenting or minority opinions.
I would argue that rather than being better at surviving a crisis, authoritarian regimes are actually much worse and may actually depend on being in a perpetual state of “crisis” for the leadership to stay in power. Unlike democracy, you can’t simply vote a poorly performing dictator out of office. Civilian and military leaders are often appointed based on political connections, rather than competence. And because of that, those regimes tend to be corrupt and inefficient. They also tend to be run very “top down” with little room for dissention or differing opinions, which is not what you want during a crisis.
I think it depends on the place and time. Back in the 17th century and earlier (with very few exceptions), that was Just The Way It Was Done. Sometimes, as in the current day when a democracy is backsliding into authoritarianism, it’s more about “Dear Leader will screw over Those Other People that Good Patriotic Citizens rightfully hate. I think the model of a a strong, wise, leader who will fix things tends to happen in situations where the old authoritarian leader did a really horrible job. I think it tends to happen when people are in the mood for a revolution, but they prefer a different authoritarian rather than a democracy. Either that or on the rare occasions where a decent person who is also talented ends up with job despite being a nice guy (Cyrus the Great, Marcus Aurelius, Suleiman the Magnificent, Mikhail Gorbachev, and such).
Sure, back in the 1600s and earlier, authoritarianism was the norm. Countries were led by kings and emperors who ruled through a combination of force of arms, tradition, and divine will (IOW inherited birthright). Maybe some were just and others were tyrants but by and large they ruled by their whim.
It’s almost like an offshoot of the “Great Man Theory”. People believe that to truly effect change, you need an individual of exceptional skill and genius to step and take charge from the squabbling bureaucrats and politicians who are only focused on advancing their own interests.
Like everyone assumes Aragorn was going to be a great king because he was a good man and an exceptional fighter. But I don’t recall the Lord of the Rings books ever talking about his policies on trade, health care, infrastructure, or really anything other than defense.
Democracy or free market economies have historically fared better than authoritarian regimes. Just fact, looking at historical average or median incomes per capita of such countries.
Given that, why do almost all companies/corporations operate more like heirachical authoritarian regimes as opposed to developing free market principals within the firm? More delegation of authorities, widening the span of control, much like property rights exist within society. Reward/compensate individuals for effective decision making and their individual contribution instead of pay-bands.
Can you gve us an example?