Authoritarianism vs Democracy

For the record, I do not support authoritarianism of any kind. I'm only making this conversation because, frankly, there are actual advantages authoritarianism has over democracy. This conversation's aim is to establish the fundamental weaknesses (preferably not ideological)of democracy and how to potentially solve it. This conversation defines democracy as representative democracy, used in most democratic countries.

For starters, let's start with government bail outs. Ford, the automobile company which has gained net losses since I'm not sure when, continuously gets bailouts from the government (specifically, from the president or whoever is in charge) because the bankruptcy of Ford would leave thousands jobless, and make the president look bad. It doesn't make much economic sense into giving the bail-out the first place, but it does make political sense, as a thousand-job-loss would not be good for the president's image, and to an extent, his political party's image.

Authoritarian governments do not have this weakness, since no one is worrying whose gonna get elected next term, because there aren't any elections. This allows authoritarian governments to focus on the long term, and thus one of the reasons why China is doing so well (N.Korea, not so much).

Politicians in democratic countries constantly make decisions good for the short term but horrible on the long term just to get reelected. Authoritarian countries, again do not have this problem (China's economic stability comes to mind).

Of course, then again, that might not be a correct claim. But really, there is a really big difference in terms of accomplishment between, let's say, Vladmir Putin and Bill Clinton (or for a an even better comparison, Vladmir Putin and George W. Bush).

Thoughts?

Your sample is highly selective. The fate of the Fascist dictatorships, or the Soviet Union, or even the Communist system in China (they're doing so well because they abandoned Communism, becoming less authoritarian economically) undermines the thesis.

You can have a government that's authoritarian socially and liberal economically, and vice versa, you know. Soviet Russia just happened to be both, and the rightwingers today are trying to make us the first. The thing about democracy is that people voted people with those objectives in. And we can vote in people with the opposite agenda.

edited 28th Sep '11 10:15:51 AM by AceofSpades

Well, the problem still persists. I admit my example is rather (very) selective, but I was just trying to illustrate the problem with politicians making short-term decisions which are bad for the long run just to get reelected or to keep their party in power. Bush's tax cuts come to mind, and to some economists, economic stimulus which are bad on the long run. Again, you might not agree, but this conversation isn't about economics.

You're the one who brought Ford and the potential job loss into it. And, frankly, it does make economic sense to preserve the jobs of that company; people who don't work don't spend as much.

And anyway, even if people are worrying about getting reelected they still have to do a job. And people can vote in a rather authoritarian administration in a democracy. Under authoritarianism though, people don't have as many freedoms in whatever sense. Consider that the Arabs right now are trying to convert their countries to democracies; for all that you say politicians worry more about reelections obviously something right is being done if people want to switch over.

A competent autocracy typically leads to long-term stability and economic growth, that's true. Unfortunately, autocracies by definition lack the checks and balances to remove the elite once it proves incompetent. And they have a horrible track record on human and civil rights.

A socially and economically liberal autocratic system with a competent leadership might be a godsend, but there are very serious risks involved in establishing one. For starters, what if the competent Benevolent Dictator stops being either competent or benevolent?

edited 28th Sep '11 10:46:57 AM by SavageHeathen

I'd rather have an incompetent democracy over a competent autocracy.

You got to thing blatantly wrong.

1. Ford has actually been posting good profits recently, they're doing well internationally.

2. China is a HORRIBLE example of a "long term" plan. Do you know what they have been doing? They've been maintaining massive growth artificially for too long, and anyone with a decent knowledge of economics knows large growth is not sustainible.

Fact is, the argument could be made for Authoriarianism if there was several good examples.

edited 28th Sep '11 2:08:19 PM by Erock

And who would be in charge of this hypothetical authoritarian utopia? You?

Sure, an absolute dictatorship or rule by oligarchy is great, as long as you're one of the top dogs. Nobody wants to be the one getting stomped on.

It all depends on type of Authorian society. If it is truly benevolent, yeah sure rahter it can easily corrupted democracy but unfortunantly, such system does not exist so we need to pick smaller of two evils.

For a note, I prefer authorian democracy. If that makes any sense to people.

My impression is that Republican ideology uses corporations to substitute for authoritarian leaders in situations where it's best not to have someone beholden to the voters. (This doesn't necessarily work if the corporation is beholden to its stockholders.)

Speaking as someone with some minor Authoritarian bents, I'd say the advantages of authoritarianism is, provided whoever the sovereign is, (monarch, oligarchy, potentates, single party state or just a stridently authoritarian democratic parliament, and yes the difference can matter), a specific 'vetting' of the people in power that is of a different kind to the one found in most democracies today. Contemporary politicians are, ideally, subjected to a baptism of fire with regards to their views and accountability to the people prior (and again ideally,) during their term in office. The problem with this is self evident of course as it mostly reduces politics to literal vote buying often with outright lies and promises politicians break after attaining office (I am willing to bet every troper knows at least ten politicians off hand who are like this) and afterall, their terms are so short they are practically encouraged to 'get as much out of the office as possible'. In authoritarian systems, while accountability is lessened, and of course depending a great deal on the cultural and political culture f the nation in question, the ruler is often encouraged to think long term, and the lack of reliance on vote buying lessens the impact of ideologies on rational and reasoned debate in legislature and cabinet. Basically it becomes less 'What must I do to increase my own power/prestige or my party's agenda/power grip before I lose my position' and more 'my position is not readily in danger, I can afford to ignore the party whip, will this proposition/legislation be best for the nation? What does my friend from across the aisle think?' Again this is the authoritarian ideal legislatively speaking but on the executive position, and using a monarchist example this once because its often an example of what I believe should be included in the restraints of executive power, that of culture and tradition. Even an inept monarch can be coerced into carefully making decisions by weighing up the dual values of legacy and Tradition. He has the memories of his forefathers to live up to, often in a personal level and, ultimately, he will leave the rulership to one of his own children/relatives/elected successor (depending on system), what state will it be in by then? How will he remembered, if he is not to be great, he will strive to at least be adequate and even moreso then the legislative body, his position is in no threat to being usurped by either demagogues or rabble rousers and it isnt owed to corporations (as an example), who does he really 'owe' favour too other then his people and his successors? In an ideal system the Authoritarian can actually be a check and balance against the powers of the legislature (speaking as a European, Parliaments can get damnedably scary sometimes)

Dude. Paragraphs.

Anyway the problem with Authoritarianism is that it works ok at first, because you can't stage a coup without some level of competence, but somewhere down the line you get some fuckwit of an heir who leaves the country in ruins.

Well, isn't preserving those thousands of jobs a valid economic reason? If those workers are laid off, they'll have less money to spend, pay less tax, and become dependent on welfare (which costs the government gazillions). Granted, keeping a company on life support like this probably isn't the best economic policy, but it's not like there aren't any economic motives for these bailouts whatsoever.

Is China 'doing so well'? I wouldn't say that. Extreme environmental pollution, criminally low wages, constant forced evictions, and of course the ridiculous levels of cronyism and corruption... China appears to have one of the most incompetent governments in the world. And while democracy wouldn't instantly turn China into Sweden, I think the checks and balances of a democratic system would significantly decrease these problems.

Um, no, they can't. Any real democracy has lots of constitutional "emergency brakes" which no government can override, to prevent that sort of thing from happening.

Harper? :T

I choose Totalitarianism

That's not a "third option", that's just the Up To Eleven version of Authoritarianism.

That's not not really a third option, its more just an extreme subset Authoritarianism where the authority's power is absolute.

Edit: Ninja'd

edited 24th Dec '12 3:25:09 PM by KnightofLsama

A third option would be Anarchy or something.

Hmm... I'd say that Anarchy and Authoritarianism are Not So Different: both systems boil down to the rule of the strong over the weak. In authoritarianism, it's a principle; in anarchism, a practical consequence.

Anarchy is just democracy.

Depend on what variation of Anarchy your choosing.

Anyways, I choose Tribalism

What do you mean? Most democratic systems in the world aren't anarchies at all...

edited 24th Dec '12 4:21:59 PM by MidnightRambler

Just because most Democracies aren't Anarchist, doesn't mean Anarchism can't be Democratic.

X5 you appear to be confusing Anarchy with chaos. Anarchy just means a lack of top down government, I lived in an anarchical democratic society (well society is stretching it a bit, it was an anarchical democratic boarding school).