It is the democracy that is saving INDIA and the patriotism that comes with it. Remember our history has proven that one person can never rule this nation for a long term.. however good or bad he might be. We INDIANS are most free and cannot be ruled with a dictator's sword and the main reason for this could be our hindu heritage unlike islam and christianity that could be ruled on the basis of there limited viewpoint about reality. When it comes to China.. it is not a dictator. It is one party democracy.. the president has to listen to the cpc members who in turn are elected by citizens. If you ask me it is the best system for INDIA.
One factor that make some country have advanced economy is they're flexible, quick to adapt, practical, and never talk too much about ideology asling as it can provide them prosperity. Meanwhile democracy is make the process of unification, nimble, and practicality much more worse and complicated, because you must lobby everyone and only populat people that get vote not the one that have expertiy in certain area
There is a list of authoritarian regimes, that built their economies and industries well under the management of "benevolent rulers". S Korea , Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania,UAE,Iraq, Lybia. In fact the last four suffered decline and even destruction by democrats and crusaders from liberal democracies like NATO. Try to promote liberal democracy, USA style in Saudi Arabia and listen how Arabs would condemn it. Ask Romanian about Chaushesku or serb about Broz Tito. Their countries became rubbish dutchies and outcasts of EU instead of solid respected countries they were in times of rulers.
The hypothesis of this video assumes that Democracy works for Developed or Rich countries. Really? So democracy works in the UK when the people democratically decided on Brexit? And democracy works in the US when the people (thru the electoral college system) elected Donald Trump in 2016? And it is democracy at work when Kevin McCarthy was elected Speaker of the House after 15 rounds of voting and was dethrone with a simple majority some months later, and US Congress (when controlled by Republicans) regularly threatened to shut down the government because... democracy? Democracy doesn't work in developed countries. But these countries survive in spite of the follies/failures of democracy because they are big, rich, and have deep stock. Developing (or less developed) countries do not have wealth and deep stock to back them up when "democracy" throws a spanner in the works. I would even argue that Democracy does not even provide the conditions for economic growth. Take the Philippines. They were a colony of the US, and they learned democracy at the foot of the world's champion of democracy and freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms. Then they were granted independence in 1946. Singapore was independent in 1965, about 20 years later than Philippines. Singapore did not have the tutelage of the US to teach us Democracy, US-style. All we had was Lee Kuan Yew. If democracy provided the conditions for economic growth, the Philippines would be way ahead of Singapore, economically, having had a grounding in Democracy, and a twenty year headstart over Singapore. Instead, Filipinos, today, are migrating to Singapore for better paying jobs and a better life. Democracy, at its most fundamental, is just a popularity contest. And the most popular candidate elected has at best a 50% chance of being good at governing (or whatever he is elected for. In the US, Sheriffs are elected. Whether they are any good at law enforcement is a valid question.) The fundamental question for developing countries is, how do we ensure that our government is competent, capable, and effective? Then the US (or some other Western Democrat) comes along and says, "you should have an election!" or "Democracy is the answer!" To a democrat, every problem can be solved with democracy. Just as to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
@@gorilladisco9108 If "democracy works" as in it reflects the will of the people, you are correct. If "democracy works" as in it produced the best or at least the better or more rational result - good government, good decision, good candidate etc, then you are incorrect. Or my point (which may elude you) is that Democracy does not lead to the best choice, or even the better choice. But you can assure yourself, and be satisfied with the lower standard or definition of "democracy works." And enjoy the chaos of democracy working with Brexit, Trump, and a gridlocked congress/government. And assure yourself that this is DEMOCRACY. AT. ITS. BEST. (At least as far as the West is concerned.)
@@angeluscorpius Democracy doesn't always lead to the best choice. Welcome to the real world. After all, it's the worst type of government, except for other types ever tried by humanity. I'll take democracy over other types of government. At least the odds to have the best choice is higher. And as libertarian leaning person, I'll take the gridlock as a win. In libertarian view, most of the time when everybody in government agree to something, it's more likely to screw us.
@@gorilladisco9108 wrote: "Democracy doesn't always lead to the best choice. " Yes. And you are willing to settle for less than the best choice, or even the better choice, or even the rational choice, or the reasonable choice or even a satisfactory choice and pat yourself on the back for being a libertarian and "living in the real world" and the compromises to your security and quality of life and economic development that that entails. But "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination". You do you and you take "gridlock as a win". My point, (and the point of the video) is that for small developing countries without the wealth, history or "stock" of developed countries, gridlock and/or a populist government erupting from (Western-evangelised) Democracy is crippling at best, and possibly deadly at worst. Take the US for example (I'm not assuming you are US citizen - some may consider that an "insult". Just using it because that media circus is on show for the whole world, and even non-US citizens might have a passing familiarity with that circus.) A developing country would not have the institutions and structures and history and wealth and stock of (in this case) the Democratic Party, to field a rational, reasonable, and credible candidate as an alternative to the populist clown (hence, circus) running for POTUS. In a developing, third world country without an established Democratic Party (or its equivlaent) with wealth, history, stock, and structure to defend the democratic process, their only viable candidate against a populist candidate is ANOTHER populist candidate. Because democracy is at its basic premise, a popularity contest. And people have one vote. And there is NO MECHANISM to ensure people vote base on rational, reasonable, logical, and sane basis. Instead, they will vote their gut, their biases, their fear, their loathing, their hunger, their need, their visceral emotions, the popularity of the candidate, his promises outlandish or not, his professed ideology hypocritical or not, his lies believable or not. But that, as you defend, is democracy, warts and all. Good, bad, ugly, or infantile. You do you.
@@angeluscorpius You can only get the best choice in heaven. Welcome to real world, kiddo. While we live in this world, we have to content ourselves with good enough choices, and even those are not always available that we have to choose the best of the worse. Your pursue of the best choice will only lead you into dystopia. It's okay for me if it's only you in dystopia, but as usual, you will drag others into it. But of course, real communism has never been tried. Amirite? Amirite?
❤No one can predict with certainty. However, some things are for sure : 1. China will remain as authoritarian as it has been. That will not change. CCP is CCP. 2. Democracy is fundamentally flawed and weakened due to Self Interest as Unity never existed in NATO as only perceived unity exist. What existed was merely self interest. So the second certainty is Self Interest. 3. Authoritarianism trumps democracy because it is self destructive. The Opposition is the tool for CCP if it wants CCP to help take over the govt. This is true for usa and tw. In China, there is political stability thats not likely to change the CCP's dominance in foreseeable future. 4. Asians and Russians accept Authoritarian rule because of *Pragmatism.* Authoritarian rule allow all sorts of freedom a citizen to do what the americans do except in politics. As humans are all Selfish, self interest can be taken care of in authoritarian countries as long as they do not touch politics. This is why Asians and russians accept authoritarian rule which offers all sorts of freedoms except political ones. Most Asians are politically apathetic as they are Pragmatic and focussed on Self Interest in terms of wealth or income which they place above politics. To Asians in general, Politics has less value than Ideals which are not pragmatic and cannot supercede their self interest which is what is real and matters. Please try your best to rebut me.😅
There is "Democracy" and there are "Democratic Principals" in government...very different things. 'Direct' or 'Pure' Democracy is rule by the majority (or masses) with not consideration of the minority...no matter how close that minority is to a majority.
In a democratic form of government the party or candidate that gets the most votes is the winner. Such a system may seem fair but in reality can create unfortunate outcomes. For instance, a large number of candidates can divide votes so that a totally unpopular candidate can squirm his way to power. This has happened most starkly in India where the Congress party ruled India for over five decades despite not getting the majority of the votes. In the US, western democracy could not prevent the theft of the 2000 Presidential elections where Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush and still lost. Bush stepped into the White House and took the US into the senseless war against Iraq, in 2003. In contrast to Singapore Lee Kuan Yew’s strong sense of nationalism, India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was completely delusional. Instead of raising living standards, Nehru imposed western democracy on a poor and divided country, causing chaos that slowed economic growth and caused numerous caste and religious conflicts. Contrary to most people belief. Democracy doesn't deliver economy prosperity. Look at China, is China a democracy ? Democracy will not automatically transform into prosperity when the elected politicians are incompetent and corrupted. “We don’t know the people we elect, they come in disguise “. Best description of a politician.
There is a big difference between direct and indirect democracy. Plato criticised direct democracy of that time. That's why we have indirect democracies now that work much better, the problem is that we have fallen too much onto the oligarchy path
*Meritocracy* works better above all; the Meritocracy person should be elected from the pool of selected people based on their expertise, knowledge, experience, their education and their loyalty to the nation. The people who elected by the people should elect these set of people who could run the Govt. There won't be any time period for the Govt. Till the Govt is doing better and producing results they could go on till max 15 to 20 yrs otherwise, they are doing bad to the people and to the Govt should be sacked immediately by the group of elected people by the people. We can call this kind of governance as *Meritocratic Democracy*
Damn your video is so underrated I think some country didn't want this video watch by people well we all know why hehe Hope your video have more view and like in future
germany used to be an dictatorship with nazi germany but after ww2 with hardwork and reforms with the strong and first chancler konrad adenauer it slowly turn things around and germany now became a powerhouse in the eu and its obviously right with an enlightment and well educated population any country can be successful
For INDIA--- It is the democracy that is saving INDIA and the patriotism that comes with it. Remember our history has proven that one person can never rule this nation for a long term.. however good or bad he might be. We INDIANS are most free and cannot be ruled with a dictator's sword and the main reason for this could be our hindu heritage unlike islam and christianity that could be ruled on the basis of there limited viewpoint about reality. When it comes to China.. it is not a dictator. It is one party democracy.. the president has to listen to the ccp members who in turn are elected by citizens. If you ask me it is the best system for INDIA.
cant you see chaos in country, we dont have place to shit, streets stink, peoples looting each other for business, going in trains like chicken crates. and you are talking about china and dictatorship. cant you see their economic prosperity. their local city metro station is even better built than india's best airport. they are travelling in bullet and meglev trains. they're 100's years ahead of india. and all in all their peoples are much sincere than undisciplined indian peoples.
0:56 western democratic system? Ever heard of India, phillipines, South Korea, Japan? Also Singapore is a terrible example. It is a city state. There are no rural areas in Singapore. It’s always been urbanized and never had to deal with the problems rural to urban migration creates on urban infrastructure. Rural areas are known to be much less developed in the developing world
I'm in the Philippines and the Western style democratic system here is an absolute joke. This country would have been better off as a dictatorship like Vietnam so it could get things done faster.
There are a number of arguments against the assumption that authoritarian regimes are effective because of Singapore's economic success. First off, it's critical to remember that Singapore's economic development came at a tremendous cost to the country's civil liberties and human rights. The government of Singapore regulates the media, maintains stringent rules against dissent, and imposes limitations on the right to free speech, assembly, and association. Due to this, there is now no political opposition and little room for dissent and civil society, which could have long-term detrimental impacts on society. Second, outside elements like Singapore's strategic location, advantageous trade agreements, and foreign investment have all contributed to the country's economic success. Although the government has put in place strong economic policies, it is crucial to recognize that outside factors have also had a big impact on the performance of the nation's economy. Thirdly, Singapore's economic structure could not be long-term viable. Concerns concerning the treatment and rights of these employees arise from the nation's considerable reliance on foreign labor, which accounts for a sizeable section of the population. Moreover, social welfare and environmental protection may suffer as a result of the government's emphasis on economic efficiency and growth. Fourth, Singapore's administration may not be held accountable or transparent due to a lack of political opposition and checks and balances. This may result in power abuse and corruption, which could have detrimental effects on society and the economy. Finally, Singapore's administration may not be held accountable or transparent due to a lack of political opposition and checks and balances. This may result in power abuse and corruption, which could have detrimental effects on society and the economy. Conclusion: Even if Singapore's economic success under a totalitarian government cannot be disputed, it is crucial to recognize the costs and potential drawbacks of this paradigm. Civil rights restrictions, a lack of political opposition, and a lack of accountability and transparency can have long-term detrimental impacts on society and the economy. Strive for a balance between economic growth, the defense of human rights, and democratic principles.
I think there are 2 ways you can look at it. No one more than Lee Kuan Yew believed in the marketplace of ideas and the open confrontation. That's what kept Singapore from being populist, because Lee Kuan Yew never shyed away from rigorously defending his position, both domestically and internationally, even if it was unpopular. That being said, Lee Kuan Yew's philosophy was that 'if you want to cross swords with me, you have to be willing to be stabbed'. What separated Lee Kuan Yew's philosophy from say the American position (that the marketplace of ideas automatically separates the good and the bad) was that he understood very well how emotive issues very easily lends itself to populism. He would say that 'bad ideas had to be demolished' before they gain credence, meaning he believed that good and bad ideas are not readily identifiable, and that the State has to be proactive and constantly play a role of defending its position so that the good ideas can emerge. Which is why if the foreign press were to publish what the government deems as falsehoods, the government would say that they have a right to reply. Perhaps to people from the outside, sueing your political opponents is an abuse of state machinery, but the implicit assumption made is that the judiciary is already not independent. Lee Kuan Yew would say that sueing someone in a court of law would allow the facts to be litigated so that whoever is lying will be on the record. In other words, he believed that freedom of speech does not come with freedom of consequence, and that he would proactively try to use whatever is in his disposal in the contest of ideas. I'm not saying it's a perfect system. But for a small country like Singapore that could collapse in one term with bad governance, the position taken is not unreasonable. That is why if in fact dissenting voices made sense, they would be recruited into government. So to say that Lee Kuan Yew perpetuated a culture that didn't tolerate dissent is baseless.
China is same as india
But see China's devlopment its dictatorship
India is largest democracy and for this lag behind
If your country is democracy and yuor country still keep going it is not failed
fun fact theres no developing country that successfully turn into developed countries under Ful Democracy
Just didn't answer the question.
Why democracy fails in developing nations
democracy doent work in developping countries example: india
Can you explain Malaysia?, they're hitting a developed status within 2024-2028.
It is the democracy that is saving INDIA and the patriotism that comes with it. Remember our history has proven that one person can never rule this nation for a long term.. however good or bad he might be. We INDIANS are most free and cannot be ruled with a dictator's sword and the main reason for this could be our hindu heritage unlike islam and christianity that could be ruled on the basis of there limited viewpoint about reality. When it comes to China.. it is not a dictator. It is one party democracy.. the president has to listen to the cpc members who in turn are elected by citizens. If you ask me it is the best system for INDIA.
BULLSHIT
India was the most powerful when it was under Ashoka, Chandragupta,Aurengzeb like one man show @@kushagrashah4160
@@Renormal Malaysia is Monarchy
@@Renormalthe fuck Malaysia is monarchy wtf Indonesia is democracy
One factor that make some country have advanced economy is they're flexible, quick to adapt, practical, and never talk too much about ideology asling as it can provide them prosperity.
Meanwhile democracy is make the process of unification, nimble, and practicality much more worse and complicated, because you must lobby everyone and only populat people that get vote not the one that have expertiy in certain area
There is a list of authoritarian regimes, that built their economies and industries well under the management of "benevolent rulers". S Korea , Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania,UAE,Iraq, Lybia. In fact the last four suffered decline and even destruction by democrats and crusaders from liberal democracies like NATO. Try to promote liberal democracy, USA style in Saudi Arabia and listen how Arabs would condemn it. Ask Romanian about Chaushesku or serb about Broz Tito. Their countries became rubbish dutchies and outcasts of EU instead of solid respected countries they were in times of rulers.
The hypothesis of this video assumes that Democracy works for Developed or Rich countries. Really? So democracy works in the UK when the people democratically decided on Brexit? And democracy works in the US when the people (thru the electoral college system) elected Donald Trump in 2016? And it is democracy at work when Kevin McCarthy was elected Speaker of the House after 15 rounds of voting and was dethrone with a simple majority some months later, and US Congress (when controlled by Republicans) regularly threatened to shut down the government because... democracy?
Democracy doesn't work in developed countries. But these countries survive in spite of the follies/failures of democracy because they are big, rich, and have deep stock.
Developing (or less developed) countries do not have wealth and deep stock to back them up when "democracy" throws a spanner in the works.
I would even argue that Democracy does not even provide the conditions for economic growth.
Take the Philippines. They were a colony of the US, and they learned democracy at the foot of the world's champion of democracy and freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms. Then they were granted independence in 1946.
Singapore was independent in 1965, about 20 years later than Philippines. Singapore did not have the tutelage of the US to teach us Democracy, US-style. All we had was Lee Kuan Yew.
If democracy provided the conditions for economic growth, the Philippines would be way ahead of Singapore, economically, having had a grounding in Democracy, and a twenty year headstart over Singapore. Instead, Filipinos, today, are migrating to Singapore for better paying jobs and a better life.
Democracy, at its most fundamental, is just a popularity contest. And the most popular candidate elected has at best a 50% chance of being good at governing (or whatever he is elected for. In the US, Sheriffs are elected. Whether they are any good at law enforcement is a valid question.)
The fundamental question for developing countries is, how do we ensure that our government is competent, capable, and effective? Then the US (or some other Western Democrat) comes along and says, "you should have an election!" or "Democracy is the answer!"
To a democrat, every problem can be solved with democracy. Just as to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The answer to the first paragraph are yes, yes, and yes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@gorilladisco9108 If "democracy works" as in it reflects the will of the people, you are correct. If "democracy works" as in it produced the best or at least the better or more rational result - good government, good decision, good candidate etc, then you are incorrect. Or my point (which may elude you) is that Democracy does not lead to the best choice, or even the better choice. But you can assure yourself, and be satisfied with the lower standard or definition of "democracy works." And enjoy the chaos of democracy working with Brexit, Trump, and a gridlocked congress/government. And assure yourself that this is DEMOCRACY. AT. ITS. BEST. (At least as far as the West is concerned.)
@@angeluscorpius Democracy doesn't always lead to the best choice. Welcome to the real world. After all, it's the worst type of government, except for other types ever tried by humanity.
I'll take democracy over other types of government. At least the odds to have the best choice is higher.
And as libertarian leaning person, I'll take the gridlock as a win. In libertarian view, most of the time when everybody in government agree to something, it's more likely to screw us.
@@gorilladisco9108 wrote: "Democracy doesn't always lead to the best choice. " Yes. And you are willing to settle for less than the best choice, or even the better choice, or even the rational choice, or the reasonable choice or even a satisfactory choice and pat yourself on the back for being a libertarian and "living in the real world" and the compromises to your security and quality of life and economic development that that entails.
But "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination". You do you and you take "gridlock as a win". My point, (and the point of the video) is that for small developing countries without the wealth, history or
"stock" of developed countries, gridlock and/or a populist government erupting from (Western-evangelised) Democracy is crippling at best, and possibly deadly at worst.
Take the US for example (I'm not assuming you are US citizen - some may consider that an "insult". Just using it because that media circus is on show for the whole world, and even non-US citizens might have a passing familiarity with that circus.) A developing country would not have the institutions and structures and history and wealth and stock of (in this case) the Democratic Party, to field a rational, reasonable, and credible candidate as an alternative to the populist clown (hence, circus) running for POTUS.
In a developing, third world country without an established Democratic Party (or its equivlaent) with wealth, history, stock, and structure to defend the democratic process, their only viable candidate against a populist candidate is ANOTHER populist candidate. Because democracy is at its basic premise, a popularity contest. And people have one vote. And there is NO MECHANISM to ensure people vote base on rational, reasonable, logical, and sane basis. Instead, they will vote their gut, their biases, their fear, their loathing, their hunger, their need, their visceral emotions, the popularity of the candidate, his promises outlandish or not, his professed ideology hypocritical or not, his lies believable or not. But that, as you defend, is democracy, warts and all. Good, bad, ugly, or infantile.
You do you.
@@angeluscorpius You can only get the best choice in heaven. Welcome to real world, kiddo. While we live in this world, we have to content ourselves with good enough choices, and even those are not always available that we have to choose the best of the worse.
Your pursue of the best choice will only lead you into dystopia. It's okay for me if it's only you in dystopia, but as usual, you will drag others into it. But of course, real communism has never been tried. Amirite? Amirite?
Developing? I don’t think it works for further developed countries either 😂 Greece fell USA is falling
You're not wrong about that 😂😂😂
Canada has fallen 😂
Almost all European nations are falling.
@@warnasamika What do you think is the reason of that?
@@gukagudashvili corruption and ease of manipulation of the public. very easy to buy your way to power by promising free stuff.
This is very detailed
Sure na 😊😊😊
It is all about rule of law and not democracy even if a democratic country don't have rule of law it will fall.
❤No one can predict with certainty. However, some things are for sure :
1. China will remain as authoritarian as it has been. That will not change. CCP is CCP.
2. Democracy is fundamentally flawed and weakened due to Self Interest as Unity never existed in NATO as only perceived unity exist. What existed was merely self interest. So the second certainty is Self Interest.
3. Authoritarianism trumps democracy because it is self destructive. The Opposition is the tool for CCP if it wants CCP to help take over the govt. This is true for usa and tw. In China, there is political stability thats not likely to change the CCP's dominance in foreseeable future.
4. Asians and Russians accept Authoritarian rule because of *Pragmatism.* Authoritarian rule allow all sorts of freedom a citizen to do what the americans do except in politics. As humans are all Selfish, self interest can be taken care of in authoritarian countries as long as they do not touch politics. This is why Asians and russians accept authoritarian rule which offers all sorts of freedoms except political ones. Most Asians are politically apathetic as they are Pragmatic and focussed on Self Interest in terms of wealth or income which they place above politics. To Asians in general, Politics has less value than Ideals which are not pragmatic and cannot supercede their self interest which is what is real and matters.
Please try your best to rebut me.😅
There is "Democracy" and there are "Democratic Principals" in government...very different things. 'Direct' or 'Pure' Democracy is rule by the majority (or masses) with not consideration of the minority...no matter how close that minority is to a majority.
In a democratic form of government the party or candidate that gets the most votes is the winner. Such a system may seem fair but in reality can create unfortunate outcomes. For instance, a large number of candidates can divide votes so that a totally unpopular candidate can squirm his way to power. This has happened most starkly in India where the Congress party ruled India for over five decades despite not getting the majority of the votes. In the US, western democracy could not prevent the theft of the 2000 Presidential elections where Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush and still lost. Bush stepped into the White House and took the US into the senseless war against Iraq, in 2003.
In contrast to Singapore Lee Kuan Yew’s strong sense of nationalism, India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was completely delusional. Instead of raising living standards, Nehru imposed western democracy on a poor and divided country, causing chaos that slowed economic growth and caused numerous caste and religious conflicts. Contrary to most people belief. Democracy doesn't deliver economy prosperity. Look at China, is China a democracy ? Democracy will not automatically transform into prosperity when the elected politicians are incompetent and corrupted. “We don’t know the people we elect, they come in disguise “. Best description of a politician.
wow! our thoughts are so similar. totally agree.
dont know why peoples has stopped criticising democracy in our country.
There is a big difference between direct and indirect democracy. Plato criticised direct democracy of that time. That's why we have indirect democracies now that work much better, the problem is that we have fallen too much onto the oligarchy path
*Meritocracy* works better above all; the Meritocracy person should be elected from the pool of selected people based on their expertise, knowledge, experience, their education and their loyalty to the nation. The people who elected by the people should elect these set of people who could run the Govt. There won't be any time period for the Govt. Till the Govt is doing better and producing results they could go on till max 15 to 20 yrs otherwise, they are doing bad to the people and to the Govt should be sacked immediately by the group of elected people by the people. We can call this kind of governance as *Meritocratic Democracy*
Rwanda voted in hutu government which commited genocide on minority tutsi
Democracy isn't always right
Damn your video is so underrated I think some country didn't want this video watch by people well we all know why hehe
Hope your video have more view and like in future
You could tell more about Saudi Arabia, Oman or UAE
germany used to be an dictatorship with nazi germany but after ww2 with hardwork and reforms with the strong and first chancler konrad adenauer it slowly turn things around and germany now became a powerhouse in the eu and its obviously right with an enlightment and well educated population any country can be successful
germany was already industially very developed even under the dictatorship
u do realize while nazi were insane they were very advanced as a civilization?? they were far ahead of allies in tech and weaponries.
@@octoslut no i didnt know that
Germany always was a powerhouse.
For INDIA---
It is the democracy that is saving INDIA and the patriotism that comes with it. Remember our history has proven that one person can never rule this nation for a long term.. however good or bad he might be. We INDIANS are most free and cannot be ruled with a dictator's sword and the main reason for this could be our hindu heritage unlike islam and christianity that could be ruled on the basis of there limited viewpoint about reality. When it comes to China.. it is not a dictator. It is one party democracy.. the president has to listen to the ccp members who in turn are elected by citizens. If you ask me it is the best system for INDIA.
cant you see chaos in country, we dont have place to shit, streets stink, peoples looting each other for business, going in trains like chicken crates.
and you are talking about china and dictatorship. cant you see their economic prosperity. their local city metro station is even better built than india's best airport. they are travelling in bullet and meglev trains. they're 100's years ahead of india. and all in all their peoples are much sincere than undisciplined indian peoples.
0:56 western democratic system? Ever heard of India, phillipines, South Korea, Japan? Also Singapore is a terrible example. It is a city state. There are no rural areas in Singapore. It’s always been urbanized and never had to deal with the problems rural to urban migration creates on urban infrastructure. Rural areas are known to be much less developed in the developing world
India is the biggest failure of a democratic system. And South Korea used to be a dictatorship. Japan was build by a dictatorship.
I'm in the Philippines and the Western style democratic system here is an absolute joke. This country would have been better off as a dictatorship like Vietnam so it could get things done faster.
During their transition to becoming developed nations, South Korea and Japan were ruled by autocratic governments, with Japan being a monarchy.
There are a number of arguments against the assumption that authoritarian regimes are effective because of Singapore's economic success.
First off, it's critical to remember that Singapore's economic development came at a tremendous cost to the country's civil liberties and human rights. The government of Singapore regulates the media, maintains stringent rules against dissent, and imposes limitations on the right to free speech, assembly, and association. Due to this, there is now no political opposition and little room for dissent and civil society, which could have long-term detrimental impacts on society.
Second, outside elements like Singapore's strategic location, advantageous trade agreements, and foreign investment have all contributed to the country's economic success. Although the government has put in place strong economic policies, it is crucial to recognize that outside factors have also had a big impact on the performance of the nation's economy.
Thirdly, Singapore's economic structure could not be long-term viable. Concerns concerning the treatment and rights of these employees arise from the nation's considerable reliance on foreign labor, which accounts for a sizeable section of the population. Moreover, social welfare and environmental protection may suffer as a result of the government's emphasis on economic efficiency and growth.
Fourth, Singapore's administration may not be held accountable or transparent due to a lack of political opposition and checks and balances. This may result in power abuse and corruption, which could have detrimental effects on society and the economy.
Finally, Singapore's administration may not be held accountable or transparent due to a lack of political opposition and checks and balances. This may result in power abuse and corruption, which could have detrimental effects on society and the economy.
Conclusion: Even if Singapore's economic success under a totalitarian government cannot be disputed, it is crucial to recognize the costs and potential drawbacks of this paradigm. Civil rights restrictions, a lack of political opposition, and a lack of accountability and transparency can have long-term detrimental impacts on society and the economy. Strive for a balance between economic growth, the defense of human rights, and democratic principles.
I think there are 2 ways you can look at it. No one more than Lee Kuan Yew believed in the marketplace of ideas and the open confrontation. That's what kept Singapore from being populist, because Lee Kuan Yew never shyed away from rigorously defending his position, both domestically and internationally, even if it was unpopular.
That being said, Lee Kuan Yew's philosophy was that 'if you want to cross swords with me, you have to be willing to be stabbed'. What separated Lee Kuan Yew's philosophy from say the American position (that the marketplace of ideas automatically separates the good and the bad) was that he understood very well how emotive issues very easily lends itself to populism. He would say that 'bad ideas had to be demolished' before they gain credence, meaning he believed that good and bad ideas are not readily identifiable, and that the State has to be proactive and constantly play a role of defending its position so that the good ideas can emerge. Which is why if the foreign press were to publish what the government deems as falsehoods, the government would say that they have a right to reply.
Perhaps to people from the outside, sueing your political opponents is an abuse of state machinery, but the implicit assumption made is that the judiciary is already not independent. Lee Kuan Yew would say that sueing someone in a court of law would allow the facts to be litigated so that whoever is lying will be on the record. In other words, he believed that freedom of speech does not come with freedom of consequence, and that he would proactively try to use whatever is in his disposal in the contest of ideas.
I'm not saying it's a perfect system. But for a small country like Singapore that could collapse in one term with bad governance, the position taken is not unreasonable. That is why if in fact dissenting voices made sense, they would be recruited into government. So to say that Lee Kuan Yew perpetuated a culture that didn't tolerate dissent is baseless.