The last few years I like trotting out this old chestnut, a study that shows democracy tends to be pretty resilient when per capita income is above $6000, and pretty much permanent at $10,000 or more.
But this article was from years ago. Poland, Hungary & Turkey are all above the ‘immortal’ $10,000 mark and all are seeing their democracies rolled back. There are anti-democracy movements in the US and Europe too. Then there is Brazil, Phillipines, etc.
Anyway, was this period of immortal democracy among middle income and upper income nations a fluke? Is it still onging?
Why was democracy pretty reliable as long as a nation had wealth, but now that correlation seems to be breaking down?
We’re talking about a relatively small sample size until relatively recently. Democracy in Germany is only about a century old and that took a pretty serious detour early. Until the end of the Cold War there was also the unifying element of a strong adversary to keep things focused.
A lot of the democracies that were economically successful had long, and sometimes troubled, transitions to being both wealthy and democratic. What we’re seeing in Eastern Europe is countries where the senior government officials grew up under an oppressive and authoritarian regime. They already had industrialized economies that were well set up to improve quickly with new economic freedom. That part came easier. They weren’t any better set up politically to navigate the frequently difficult transition to liberal democracy. The spreading of democracy in the wake of the Cold War means a lot of countries are still navigating that period of political adjustment to a new system. Better economies don’t necessarily make that transition period trivial.
China’s also demonstrating a new technique to achieve affluence. They combined pretty significant new economic freedoms with machinegunning their pro-democracy demonstrators in the street 30 years ago. Since then they’ve kept up the economic, but not political, freedom mix. As per capita GDP has increased they’ve been using newer technology to help maintain tight controls. That mixed model wasn’t really tested in the old data.
I’ll go with wealth was never a guarantee. We saw strong correlation. There may even have some causal link that explained part of the correlation. We’re now testing new conditions and seeing different results.
I think the following comments give a partial explanation for the problem.
Democracy is not just about “purple fingers.” It’s about respecting minority rights, about having a population committed to common goals and striving together.
If instead, minority ethnic groups or foreigners become scapegoats for economic shortcomings, there will be a push for “populist” policies. At first glance, “Populism” may seem almost like a synonym for “Democracy,” but populism leads to ruthless politicians who feed on hatreds to get electoral success.
In today’s economics, intellectual property, capital equipment (e.g. robots), land, and politically-entrenched rent-seeking command an ever-growing share of the economic pie, at the expense of human labor. The lower and middle class become resentful as their earnings stagnate while the rich get richer. Again, this results in a rise of “populist” politicians.
Education and journalism are ways to inform the public and help them avoid following the allure of deceitful “populist” leaders. Unfortunately, the rise of social media has degraded the level of public debate. Proper democracy depends on easy access to intelligent opinions, but that has been short-circuited.
There is a difference between the fall of democracy and the election of people you don’t approve of. In fact, they are pillar opposites and are mutually exclusive
This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Please do a little background reading on Poland, Hungary, and Turkey before throwing opinions like this out there. Thanks.
Umm, well…I mean so you’ve got the UK, where the kneejerk reaction of 51% of the electorate created the Brexxit mess. France, where the mass yellow vest protest is because the protestors are pretty sure they aren’t being represented under the current system.
And then the USA. Which, uh, democratically kept slavery and then oppression of minorities going for most of it’s existence. And has more recently entered an era where a substantial part of the voting base just views a propaganda stream and makes their decisions based on what it tells them to do. Actual facts and numbers seem to no longer matter, instead that 30-40% of the electorate is voting for the interests of rich people who they are not…
I think you could make a compelling case that the amount of “democracy” and “freedom” these countries have is a bit less than advertised.
Holding out that the 51% Brexit referendum was somehow undemocratic is perplexing. Stupid, short-sighted, xenophobic, etc… sure, but anything BUT undemocratic. Unless, somehow you think democratic means that everyone gets their way or something.
And the US is far from undemocratic. Again, stupid, short-sighted, prone to demagoguery, etc… but the institutions and general feeling of the people is strongly democratic. It’s true we have stuff to work on, but overall, all three countries are working from a 240+ year tradition of democratic governance.
That’s why somewhere like say… Hungary that’s had democratic governance for what… 28 years(?) isn’t necessarily a good choice to draw conclusions about the longevity or legitimacy of democracy. Same for Poland and Turkey.
60 years in issues like this is a short time. It’s not quite geological time, but it’s definitely something that you kind of have to see several generations of people undergo before you can draw conclusions.
Stupid, yes. Shortsighted, absolutely. But quite democratic.
Where I’d be concerned about democracy is where people embrace, you know, not having democracy. Holding elections adn referenda is pro-democracy. Suggesting journalists should be sent to prison for saying things the government doesn’t like - as the nominee for U.S. Attorney General did this week - is anti-democracy.
Not really. I think it’s more about having a population that can endlessly argue and bicker about competing priorities and goals without murdering each other.
I would guess the citizens have to be more committed to the idea of the state then to whatever race/religion/clan might apply. I don’t even know who my third cousins are, let alone be willing to ally with them in a coup.
Average income isn’t the main factor. As Robert Reich famously stated: “Shaquille O’Neil and I have an average height of six feet.” It’s income distribution that matters.
I’d second everyone else that points out its not wealth but the relatively equal distribution of wealth, that makes it more likely that democracy will survive.
I’d actually say massive increases in wealth actually tends to damage democracy, as they tend to make a small elite much richer than everyone else (the roman republic is a classic example of that from antiquity).
I don’t see everyone saying that. And I don’t see anyone justifying it.
Looking at the income and wealth inequality charts at Wikipedia*, it seems to me that the wealthier countries tend to have less inequality. So, given the small sample size, it is going to be a little hard to tell which is more important. But it appear to me that wealth is a bigger factor.
My big problem with the thread title is – modest past correlations in a fairly small sample size couldn’t possibly guarantee anything.
I think it is a open question what happens if Trump loses next year and then – count on this part – insists it was rigged. Will our income save us? Our Gini sink us? Or, just maybe, does it have little to do with that?
Any form of government is secure as long as people have stable lives with possessions and relative safety.
You can impose almost any ridiculous rules you’d like as long as this is true.
Government’s have two choices.
Give them something to lose or lose yourself
