The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
What does a politically developed state look like?
Ethan Smith
Origin name: Beart4toArlington, VARegistered User regular
Origin name: Beart4toArlington, VARegistered User regular
I think that, looking at a country like South Korea or Taiwan compared to a country like Turkey or Ireland, you can see that political development is a very important part of the way a government exists, and that this political development affects the way that people in a country live far more than anything else.
But what is political development? Political development is a progressive move in a nation towards universal rights and democracy, though this is my opinion, and what this thread is all about. The way that I see this deveopment going is in stages, stages that have, generally, been accompanied by some sort of violence.
The first 3 stages of development, which nearly all politically developed states have, are
-private, non-monopolized ownership of goods
-representation under the law
-Laws applying to all citizens
Representation is generally the first step towards democracy, though many countries have had private owners before democracy, and it is generally the private owners (or landowners) who spark the revolution that creates the democracy (this was true of France's 3rd republic, of America's revolution, and of Britain's glorious revolution). It can be argued that laws that apply to all citizens equally is the most important building block of democracy, far more important than votes, and that this is the reason why many of the 'democratic' states that America has set up have failed as democracies.
From there, the next 3 stages are-
-Civilian Control of a submissive military
-Independent Judiciary
-Independent Press
This is the step that many de facto military dictatorships are at, but it is also a stage in which most countries with an inordinately strong military (Israel, pre-WW1 germany). At this point, though there are trappings of democracy (and a country can be developed in other steps without having one of them--Israel is a fully functioning democracy which, because of how many people have had military service, is very militant in the way it votes. Similarly, France's 1st Republic had an independent press and judiciary, as well as higher stages of development, but did not ever manage to get their laws to apply to all citizens, and because of that, the massive instability resulted in thousands of deaths by guillotine. I am simply putting these in the order that they come along, generally.)
Civilian control of a submissive military is something that you generally see later on. If you look at the early stages of many republics, France, America, and all the Latin American states elected a great deal of generals, colonels, and so on. In many partially developed societies (Pakistan for one, Iran for another), the country may have a system of voting, but in reality the generals and leaders of the secret services decide many foriegn affairs, and Greece, for example, had many other stages of development down while it was governed by colonels, which is why it was able to transition into a democracy.
the next 2 are
-Social Mobility
-A powerful, uncorrupt police force
Social mobility is one of the touchstones of the democratic ideal--it's why democracies exist, so that the people can rule themselves and so that you can become great even if you are of common birth. However, these 2 steps (both of which generally are an expansion of the state) allow both for equal protection by the law, where ever you are (yes, America had a judiciary which established equal laws, but these equal laws meant little in the western frontier), and for equal representation under the law. At this stage is generally where the aristocracy as they existed before dies out.
The last step, one which almost all of the world is still struggling with today is-
-Equal rights and representation, de facto and de jure, of women and minorities.
Saying that all men are equal and that all human beings have the same basic rights is all well and good, but when women can't vote and blacks/muslims/catholics/protestants or what have you have no real rights, the declarations of the state that all human beings are born equal doesn't really come to terms with reality. If you look at the later 20th century, you'll see that America and Britain have both gone through stages of intense violence in the 60's-80's period, stages which have eventually lead to a far more allowing polity, and for a society that allows minorities far more real rights.
Given all of these, I would say that France is one of the most politically developed countries in the world right now, because their politics allow for such a high level of representation. However, at the same time, France seems only now to be dealing with societal racism in the way that America and Britain have (not to say that the countries are not racist, but that they are less racist than others). So, tie between Britain and France.
We'll probably have similar opinions, as most of us are liberal democrats. However, I'm not sure if you guys might put more importance on some parts over others, or you guys might argue over whether parliamentary democracy is more representative than executive democracy. This thread is more of a 'what's your ideal state', but with the requirement of what would be an existing state that you would identify as ideal.
But what is political development? Political development is a progressive move in a nation towards universal rights and democracy, though this is my opinion, and what this thread is all about. The way that I see this deveopment going is in stages, stages that have, generally, been accompanied by some sort of violence.
The first 3 stages of development, which nearly all politically developed states have, are
-private, non-monopolized ownership of goods
-representation under the law
-Laws applying to all citizens
Representation is generally the first step towards democracy, though many countries have had private owners before democracy, and it is generally the private owners (or landowners) who spark the revolution that creates the democracy (this was true of France's 3rd republic, of America's revolution, and of Britain's glorious revolution). It can be argued that laws that apply to all citizens equally is the most important building block of democracy, far more important than votes, and that this is the reason why many of the 'democratic' states that America has set up have failed as democracies.
From there, the next 3 stages are-
-Civilian Control of a submissive military
-Independent Judiciary
-Independent Press
This is the step that many de facto military dictatorships are at, but it is also a stage in which most countries with an inordinately strong military (Israel, pre-WW1 germany). At this point, though there are trappings of democracy (and a country can be developed in other steps without having one of them--Israel is a fully functioning democracy which, because of how many people have had military service, is very militant in the way it votes. Similarly, France's 1st Republic had an independent press and judiciary, as well as higher stages of development, but did not ever manage to get their laws to apply to all citizens, and because of that, the massive instability resulted in thousands of deaths by guillotine. I am simply putting these in the order that they come along, generally.)
Civilian control of a submissive military is something that you generally see later on. If you look at the early stages of many republics, France, America, and all the Latin American states elected a great deal of generals, colonels, and so on. In many partially developed societies (Pakistan for one, Iran for another), the country may have a system of voting, but in reality the generals and leaders of the secret services decide many foriegn affairs, and Greece, for example, had many other stages of development down while it was governed by colonels, which is why it was able to transition into a democracy.
the next 2 are
-Social Mobility
-A powerful, uncorrupt police force
Social mobility is one of the touchstones of the democratic ideal--it's why democracies exist, so that the people can rule themselves and so that you can become great even if you are of common birth. However, these 2 steps (both of which generally are an expansion of the state) allow both for equal protection by the law, where ever you are (yes, America had a judiciary which established equal laws, but these equal laws meant little in the western frontier), and for equal representation under the law. At this stage is generally where the aristocracy as they existed before dies out.
The last step, one which almost all of the world is still struggling with today is-
-Equal rights and representation, de facto and de jure, of women and minorities.
Saying that all men are equal and that all human beings have the same basic rights is all well and good, but when women can't vote and blacks/muslims/catholics/protestants or what have you have no real rights, the declarations of the state that all human beings are born equal doesn't really come to terms with reality. If you look at the later 20th century, you'll see that America and Britain have both gone through stages of intense violence in the 60's-80's period, stages which have eventually lead to a far more allowing polity, and for a society that allows minorities far more real rights.
Given all of these, I would say that France is one of the most politically developed countries in the world right now, because their politics allow for such a high level of representation. However, at the same time, France seems only now to be dealing with societal racism in the way that America and Britain have (not to say that the countries are not racist, but that they are less racist than others). So, tie between Britain and France.
We'll probably have similar opinions, as most of us are liberal democrats. However, I'm not sure if you guys might put more importance on some parts over others, or you guys might argue over whether parliamentary democracy is more representative than executive democracy. This thread is more of a 'what's your ideal state', but with the requirement of what would be an existing state that you would identify as ideal.
Ethan Smith on
0
Posts
A politically developed state is simply one which provides for the needs of its citizens.
I think trying to follow this process in, say, Afghanistan, will lead to you staring at your shoes.
I'd say a politically developed state is one with 'strong' institutions of governance and whatnot that have survived for 3 generations or more. If the coup just occurred and you're capable of rationing food &c. to the people within the month that doesn't really keep anarchy/the counter coup at bay even though you are meeting the needs of your citizens for the moment. A few months out that would not be the case and so development was strangled in the cradle.
A politically developed states also let's the citizens decide on many of their needs.
Switzerland is easily my perfect nation as far as political structure goes, but unfortunately one of the most boring places in the world.
Well...all the countries you listed are democracies (either Republics or Parliamentary Democracies) and from a quality of life point of view, they all are doing fairly exemplary (South Korea & Taiwan industrialized with the Asian Tigers; Turkey's doing swell lately after reigning in inflation; Ireland's part of the UK). So I'm not seeing the point that you attempt to allude to with the contrast in the second part of your sentence.
Alternatively, they could have failed as democracies because they resented a new political system forced upon them and/or couldn't function when their previous political arrangement that the local people functioned in was replaced with something alien. You can't simply state that if only the institutional arrangements were more refined that the democracy-building would have worked and ignore local factors and how they are going to perceive any outside intervention in their political system (this also ignores the fact that recent democracy-building has followed a period in which the US had been bombing said country, which isn't going to do much to engender the trust and good will of the local population).
Really, your description of the process of democratization is somewhat compacted, but from a developmental perspective (of which you attempt to allude to by your characterizations of some states and by your implicit assumptions in what constitutes a good quality of life or ideals that should be wanted) democratic institutions usually come secondary to providing (or rather, building) for the needs of what these countries are suffering from, be it poverty, disease, etc.
And there are examples abroad of nations developing without the same form of democracy that your post seems to champion (Western Democracy).
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
You're thinking of Northern Ireland. The rest of the island has its own government which is not part of the UK.
Bleh, point taken. Though the thrust behind my classifying as such was to mention the obvious note that Ireland retains a rather high quality of life given its connection with previous first-world industrialization that happened years past.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Democracy is not the best form of government, and has a number of structural weaknesses that manifest themselves in states both weak and strong. "Universal human rights" are hardly as universal as we might wish them to be, but are normative products of the Western imagination, and aren't always relevant to cultures outside of Europe and North America.
Really, one can't afford to be universalist when discussing topics like political or cultural development. There's no such thing as an ideal state or system of government—every nation develops along its own unique line. The best we can do is do comparative studies: try to figure out why, for example, democracy seems to be particularly adapted to Western culture and state formations.
There's a bit of a circular argument being present here. Of course once a democracy becomes 'stable' it's hard to destabilize it. It wouldn't be stable if it could be easily destabilized. But you could say this of any regime type that becomes 'stable'. China's regime is far from a democracy, but if we're going by your metric of stability, well it seems to be pretty stable (given its development and the increasing quality of life of people living there to the point where it can compete and surpass US economic output).
India still maintains a number of elements of its caste system, contravening your issue on human individual equality; Japan's peachy politically, I'll give you that one; and Indonesia has a number of human rights concerns which would contravene your OP's category for what would make an 'ideal' political system.
Not to mention that the transition to democracy itself is highly unstable. It is far more likely for a state to fail during the transition to a different form of government, than it would be for a state to remain in its previous form of government. And since you can't simply go from autarky>democracy without a transition, this would have to be calculated into the ability (or usefulness) of whether bringing democracy to another country is preferable.
It's called Comparative Politics, which is what development theory in political science (influenced by anthropological practices) currently uses to analyze development.
It's not necessarily un-exportable. But it's also not necessarily universally applicable or suitable to all states everywhere for a number of region-specific reasons.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
There's a massive difference, however, between a stable dictatorship or monarchy, which could fall apart upon the death of the ruler, and a democracy, which has a lower possibility of that happening.
I'm not suggesting that Democracy is ideal. I would never suggest that democracy makes everything perfect. I'm saying that it is the most ideal situation, and in saying that rule of law is more important than voting puts out the fact that you can be a dictatorship and still apply to more of these steps than countries which call themselves democracies. I would say that Cuba is a more politically developed than, say, Greece.
I'm aware of this too, the book that I took influence from was Democracy and it's Alternatives, which talked about the democratization process in Eastern Europe. I believe that with examples in other regions, that it is possible for democratization, or at the very least a kind of egalitarianism, to emerge anywhere.
Yes, and each state and culture will have its own form of what they consider the perfectly egalitarian state. That's the point of the thread.