
From dictatorship to democracy: The road less travelled - e15ctr0n
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21679178-how-make-most-difficult-political-transition-alland-how-not-slip-back
======
Bulkington
The distinction between a democracy and republic is worth noting, specifically
in Western democracies where elected representatives, not the voting public,
make most major decisions. Two issues here: 1. Technology (telecom and social
networks) clearly is a threat to dictators when used for challenges to the
established order (see various recent populist uprisings) and 2. Yet, despite
the theoretical ability of tech to drive mass participation in decision
making, where's the push, particularly in Western democracies?

Personally, I'm a firm believer in 'be careful what you ask for,' especially
since established regimes (to say nothing of global corporations) have the
resources and motivation to manipulate the same technology/social connectivity
in their favor. In other words, democracy depends on an informed polis, so the
hearts-and-minds campaign continues and is somewhat more directly valuable--
but nothing much changes: Best messaging wins.

Anyway, basic if conventional discussion is here:
[http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/03/why-technology-hasnt-
del...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/03/why-technology-hasnt-delivered-
more-democracy-democratic-transition/)

------
gotchange
> By contrast, Arab countries had no local beacon of democracy to guide them
> during their recent revolutions—apart from Israel, to whose democratic
> virtues they seem strangely blind.

How condescending and an utterly false statement! If it weren't for the
"democratic" Israel and its deep state and ruling class in the military and
security establishment with their close ties and entrenched interests with the
Egyptian military, we would be having a nascent and growing democracy on our
hands here in Egypt unlike the oppressive military dictatorship approved by
Bibi and his henchmen.

The first - but not the last - Egyptian experience with democracy faltered
from an external standpoint due to the confluence of reactionary powers from
Gulf monarchies such as UAE and Saudi Arabia and Israel on one side, with the
repressive and tyrannical Egyptian military, and on the other side, the
equally regressive powers albeit opening to electoral democracy, like Turkey
and Qatar with the Muslim Brotherhood, thus turning the whole local political
game into a regional power struggle between two fierce camps and ruining it
for us aspiring citizens for a democrtic rule.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
As an Israeli, I just want to let you know: no, we don't support your
government. We basically consider every single government in Egypt, Jordan,
Lebanon, Syria, and basically every other Arab country to be an enemy who will
only think twice about invading us because the IDF would soundly beat them.

Paranoid? Hell yes, and I should say triple-yes because I _am_ a Meretz voter.
But it's got one virtue: whenever someone in the Arab world says, "El-Sisi, or
Abdullah, or Assad, or Da3esh, are tools of the Israelis", they are dead
wrong.

Fuck, if Abbas at least was our tool, we could get him to quit with the anti-
Jewish incitement and accede to a damned peace deal.

~~~
gotchange
> because the IDF would soundly beat them.

Didn't Hezbollah in 2000 send your valiant IDF packing from Southern Lebanon?
Didn't Hamas make your gallant IDF withdraw unilaterally from Gaza in 2005?

Showing some humility would not be a bad idea.

\- The military backed regime voted for Israel in the UN for the first time
ever[0] If this is not rapprochement and normalization for relations, I don't
know frankly what it really is.

\- The head of the Coptic Orthodox Church is visiting Jerusalem breaking the
boycott imposed by his predecessor in visiting Israel till a fair solution for
the Palestinians is reached and a lasting peace is materialized.

Those two obvious incidents above indicate that yes the military-backed regime
in Egypt is on good terms with Bibi's govt and they're more than allies on a
lot of issues and denying that is not a smart thing to do.

[0]: [http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2015/11/01/egypts-voting-of-
is...](http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2015/11/01/egypts-voting-of-israel-into-
un-space-body-sparks-wave-of-criticism/)

------
xefer
"Nowadays, almost all dictatorships and authoritarian regimes at least go
through the electoral motions—such is the homage vice pays to virtue."

I've always found it curious how many authoritarian regimes go through the
motions of sham elections or include some of variation of "Democratic
Republic" in their name. It would seem to undermine their own self-proclaimed
legitimacy.

~~~
adventured
A lot of authoritarian regimes actually end up believing their own version of
reality. They believe they're representative, saving their nation, that the
people want them there etc. Plenty - if not most - of the dictators that have
ruled in the last century were _extremely_ irrational. There is enough
historical information about Saddam, Fidel, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Putin,
Mussolini, etc. to see that common thread among them - they believed they were
put there by 'the people' to best serve the people's interests. In their
delusional minds, it's a form of democratic representation. The Communist
Party regime in China today believes that same thing.

Just look at what Putin believes today. He thinks that as a dictator (he
disagrees with that title of course) he can best serve Russia by being a
strongman type, and fighting to reclaim what he perceives as Russia's lost
glory. He seems to actually believe he is in Russia's best interests,
represents the average Russian, and has been legitimately elected (despite the
vast vote rigging during his first election for example).

~~~
leaveyou
The superficiality of your opinion makes me believe you take your "historical
information" from the History Channel.

~~~
jacquesm
It'd be nicer if you pointed out what's wrong with that particular opinion
rather than to attack the person.

~~~
leaveyou
First, believing that "extremely irrational" people can compete with other
rational and irrational individuals or groups and climb a hierarchy of power
to the top and control it (for decades sometimes) it's something self
evidently irrational in my opinion. And second, I doubt the OP really knows
what "Putin believes". Putin projects a lot of images for a lot of different
people and that's part of a very rational strategy (most probably conceived by
some advisor specialized on russian voter psychology). The OP is stuck on one
of these projections because it's fed to him frequently by a very rational
mass media which simply understands that the average joe needs/loves to
believe he is smarter than the "obviously delusional dictator" of a country
with 143 million people.

------
FlyingSnake
I'm surprised the article completely ignores worlds largest democracy, India,
sitting right next to Myanmar. Suu Kyi and her party had Indian support (as
did the Junta) and India-Myanmar relations are strong. India is also
developing Sittwe port for Myanmar and it'll be interesting to see what role
she'll play in Myanmar's future.

------
tokenadult
The book _From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for
Liberation_ by Gene Sharp (a free download from the Albert Einstein
Institution)[1] explains many of the hard-learned lessons of democracy
movements around the world. Dictatorships fight dirty, so they are not easy to
undo. But it does happen. I watched the successful and largely peaceful
transition of Taiwan (my wife's birthplace) from a dictatorship to a democracy
during the 1990s. People power inside the country helps most, and outside
pressure of the right kind can help too.

[1] [http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf](http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf)

~~~
steveax
Not sure why this is getting down voted. FDTD is solid work.

------
Cyph0n
I presume the Rohingya [1] are now properly represented and have been given
back their basic human rights? No? Then why are we calling Myanmar a
democracy? Any article that praises Myanmar without mentioning the suffering
of the Rohingya is poorly written. To the author: please, more research next
time.

As for Tunisia, my home country, it's just having some hard time with
extremists these days, but it's doing OK otherwise.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people)

~~~
anon4
The USA were a democracy while slavery was still legal.

~~~
Kristine1975
And while only white men had the right to vote. In other words: They claimed
to be a democracy, but they weren't.

~~~
nickff
The right to vote has always been restricted in various ways, and continues to
be. In all Western countries, voters must be citizens who have reached the age
of majority; these are artificial rules created to achieve utilitarian ends
(much like restricting voting rights to landowners, racial groups, or
genders). The fact that voting is restricted does not mean the country is
undemocratic.

~~~
outlace
But it brings up a broader point of democracies are more like a gradient of
democracy where a "true" democracy could never be achieved (i.e. all citizens
eligible to vote).

Even China for example, could just be on an extreme end of democracy in which
just members of the National Peoples Congress are eligible to vote. This is
better than a dictatorship in which only one person can "vote." At what point
does a nation become a democracy? When 51% of the citizens can vote? When 70%
can vote?

~~~
nickff
Selectorate theory (as described by Bruce Buena de Mesquita) is one of the
most powerful tools for analysing the spectrum of democracy, and it even
encompasses so-called dictatorships.[1] It describes the impact of the number
of people who make up the body which selects the country's government, which
is a spectrum (as you correctly pointed out).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory)

------
kang
But why is this transition desirable?

Living in the world's largest democracy, it's more and more evident each day
that the basis of democracy is it's biggest problem itself - majority.
Majority is not always right & minority might not always wrong(Sometimes both
these statements can be mutually exclusive). If you belong to any kind of
minority (lgbt, religious minority, cannabis users etc.) life can be very
difficult in India, since democracy has little mechanism for qualitative
evaluation.

Democracy can work in a utopia very everyone's perfectly rational but irl,
even for intelligent people, mental space is occupied enough to be corrupted
by lopsided influence.

------
trextrex
Nepal has also been slowly transitioning to a democracy since 2006 (with a
little help from India), albeit from a monarchy and not from a dictatorship.
They recently adopted a new constitution [1] with some controversies
surrounding it. But overall, it seems like there aren't any strong trends
there to revert back to a non-democratic government.

[1] [http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/09/20/nepal-
constitution-...](http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/09/20/nepal-constitution-
idINKCN0RK03P20150920)

------
KhalilK
As a Tunisian citizen I must ask, is democracy always a positive thing? Even
if the majority of the people doesn't know what's best for them?

~~~
vinceguidry
My theory is that a strong economy must come before a robust democracy can
take root. People have to want to have a political voice before they'll do
things like form political parties, raise awareness of issues, contribute
meaningfully to institutions. If most citizens are still worried about where
their next meal is coming from, it's going to put a serious damper on their
political will.

I don't really know how to turn a country's economy around, but the failure of
the Arab Spring indicates to me that the solution may have to come from
without rather than within. Strong, sustained foreign investment to build
civic infrastructure may well be the only solution.

Alternatively, infrastructure can be as simple as cell towers. Perhaps in the
next hundred years, we'll figure out how to build infrastructure that isn't so
expensive. Cheap water purification, low-impact agriculture, these things can
create business opportunities for the poor that can raise their quality of
life. Then they'll eventually start wanting democracy.

