Since the 70s a few Asian countries have seen great economic development, in particular the "Asian Dragons" and China. Let's take a look HongKong: Never had democracy. Pre-1997 the British appoint the governors. Now China does (sort of). Singapore: Lee Kuan Yew was their prime minister from 1950s-1990 and remained in the cabinet after that. Go figure. He imposes a number of harsh rules but Singapore has gotten from one of the worst towns in Asia to a global marketplace. Taiwan: No democracy until the very late 1990s. Chiang Kai Shek was president from 1949 (in China from 1925) until his death in 1975. He was succeeded by his son, who ruled until 1988 when he died. So here you go. After the democracy years (2000-) very little economic growth compared to before. Korea: Park Chun Hee, who ruled from 1963-1979 and is now credited with most of Korea's development, was an elected dictator. His reign saw the economy soaring but also saw numerous social unrests. He even changed the Constitution to give him absolute power. He was assassinated in 1979. Chun Doo Hwan, who ruled in the 80s, ruled with a military hand and massacred hundreds of protesting students in Kwangju. China: Thanks to American media, you all know they are Commie dictators. Let's look at those Asian countries with democracy: Sri Lanka: Frequent changes in government, but little economic growth. Philippines: Same as above India: Same etc.
this shows that people who b**** about China being a commie country and all that dont know what the frack they are talking about. China today is more capitalist than communist. China is becoming an economic power and everyone agrees its inevitable. I do not want to see China immediately revert to democracy becasue , as Russia is proof that it cant work. a ONCE powerful commusnist nation that once it became a democracy fell into economic turmoil with a corrupt govt.
I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you saying that democracy isn't good for economic development? Are you saying that democracy isn't successful in Asia?
I think you have a good point, but it's lost in there somewhere... As Americans, we have been indoctrined to believe that 'democracy' and 'wealth' go hand-in-hand. The problem is that is not true and has never been shown/proven to be true. What seems to be true, however, is that countries that have successfully adopted an export-oriented industrialization (many Asian countries did so in the 1970s-80s which resulted, for ex, in what we see in South Korea today) have been more successful. Some form of capitalism is usually necessary, or free-market economics. I think the key word here is 'industralization', since that seems to be the primary driving force behind growing economic powers in the world. The Asian experience in the 1970s-80s pretty much convinced most people that an export-oriented industrialization is the key for developing nations and producing enough wealth/production/jobs to make countries competitive in the current world economy. I think the incredible turnaround by both South Korea and Japan in the past half-century is a good example of a 'working model' for some, not all, developing countries to follow. As for democracy, it entirely depends on the situation given. There are certainly instances throughout history that could be cited as an example of how democracy is sometimes not only inappropriate for a given situation, but can in fact lead directly to instability and corruption that would hinder the viability of a country's economy. Stability, most of the times, takes precedence to political freedom. Dictatorships and Capitalism are certainly not contradictory terms, as the U.S.' own foreign policy throughout the past century has clearly shown that 'free trade/free-market capitalism/economic freedom' takes precedence over political freedom, and for good reason. Democracy is just an ideal, it doesn't mean that it's appropriate at all times and in all places...that was the mistake of the Neocons, IMO.
Excellent post tigermission! I do disagree with your post though. Democracy may just be an ideal, but eventually a totalitarian country must become democratic in order to be a fully developed first world country. Countries like South Korea, Taiwan, etc. became democratic after economic reforms were instituted. As those countries liberalized, the people demanded greater political freedoms which eventually led to democracy. China will eventually become a democratic country in some form, but America must realize that this is going to be a long process. This is one of my main problems with American foreign policy. Instead of waging a war against a country, we should encourage economic reforms which will eventually lead to greater freedoms. This process tends to take a long time but America always forces democracy down the throats of other countries. By doing this it breeds resentment in those countries, a la China. Patience is a virtue. And stop with always trying to threaten a country with weapons and the military; do it in a much more subtle way--by encouraging trade and economic liberalization. America would be a much less hated country this way.
Sorry if this is slightly off topic because of the geographic deviation. Democracy is not a problem in Mexico, which has political, economic, and religious freedoms. The country is nicely located and has plenty of oil. But why it lags so much behind (compared to, say, Canada)? I can hardly fathom.
The fact that you think these countries, especially India, have had "little economic growth" since the 1970's, shows that you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.
