Look, if Arianna Huffington made $315 million out of search engine optimization, I can give it a shot, too.
The American Conservative's intimidatingly well-informed blogger Daniel Larison digs up some quotes from Amy Chua's 2003 book World on Fire of relevance to optimism over Egypt of the all Egypt needs is democracy to become a prosperous free market nation variety:
Amy Chua assessed the likely effects of rapid democratization in the region in World on Fire, and her judgment still seems correct:Meanwhile, even if the turn to fundamentalism in the Middle East is a product of closed or repressive political regimes, it sadly does not follow that political liberalization in the region today would lead to moderation–or, for that matter, to pro-market regimes. On the contrary, rapid democratization in the Arab states would likely be a recipe for extremist politics, dominated by ethnonationalist (if not fundamentalist) parties unified in their hatred of Israel and the West.
She wrote at the end of the same chapter:
While free market democracy may well be the optimal end point in the Middle East, the simultaneous pursuit today of laissez-faire markets and immediate majority rule would almost certainly produce even more government-sponsored bloodshed and ethnic warfare.
... While we’re on the subject, it is worth citing Chua again:On the contrary, for at least a generation, the effects of marketization in the Middle East would at best produce only marginal benefits for the great mass of Arab poor. However correct in theory, free trade agreements and privatization–in the absence of major structural reforms, which are highly unlikely to occur–cannot in the short term alter the pervasive illiteracy, corruption, and Third World conditions prevailing throughout the Arab states. (p. 226)
A generation is an exceptionally long time in politics, especially democratic politics, and it is difficult to imagine that a democratic electorate is going to tolerate a generation’s worth of free trade and privatization policies that mostly benefit the upper and upper-middle classes. If Egypt were subjected to the sort of shock therapy privatization and democratization that Russia experienced in the early ’90s, it is easy to see how a democratic system would turn into an authoritarian populist one in very short order. Poor countries in economic distress are just about the worst candidates for democratization, and any democratic government that has to confront such problems is going to become rapidly discredited because it will not be able to address them all in a satisfactory way.
Posts
29 comments:
American democracy began by extending vote only to only white males with property, who made up 20% of the population.
Maybe what the Third World needs is a selective democracy where people have to either have high school diplomas or own property(and pay taxes) in order to vote. As the economy expands and more people become educated and gain property, the electorate will gradually expand. If you allow universal suffrage to all at once, the dummies will either (1) vote for some demagogue thug (2) vote to strip the property of the haves(who are the engines of economic growth) (3) vote for majority tyranny without minority rights.
u may be under-estimiating huffpost a little bit
it's a great one-stop site for seriousl news, politics and also gossip...
if facebook can be worth billions, ...
I'm still amazed that India has been relatively stable for decades. By most measures it should have imploded into tribal warfare. But it hasn't. Something keeps enough order to maintain the system. Possibly much more extra-legal violence then I realize. I've known rich Indians who say that back in India if you hit and kill somebody with your car, then you just keep driving. Cause otherwise the local villagers will simply murder you before the cops get there.
Steve Sailer Poor countries in economic distress are just about the worst candidates for democratization, and any democratic government that has to confront such problems is going to become rapidly discredited because it will not be able to address them all in a satisfactory way.
Steve - you're working your way into a little bit of a semantic trap here.
"Democracy" is demos kratos - "people power", aka "the rule of the mob".
In "Democracy", the people get exactly what they deserve, which is, namely, themselves.
You're thinking of a "Republican" form of government, and "republicanization".
"Ethnonationalist" is redundant.
Nationalism is "ethnonationalism."
Everything else is imperialism.
Egypt will never be successful (in Western terms) as a democracy until they stop inbreeding:
http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/aigyptos/
I read a comment by a Palestinian intellectual (whose name i forget) that the best deal for the Palestinians would be integration with Israel without the right to vote (although with all other civil rights), since if they had a right to vote they would end up bringing in a corrupt and crazy Muslim regime. Obviously a non-starter but that would probably be the best the solution for at least a generation.
I have listened to Amy Chua's earlier podcasts from the history department at Berkeley.
This is the one on her World on fire book
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUrfo5cyeDA&playnext=1&list=PL0825EAAFD43CF624
She is the academic Steve Sailer although I doubt she would ever mention HBD.
Japan and (West) Germany were in economic and every other kind of stress in 1945.
That's when the US rammed democracy down their throats.
I'm not saying that's what the US should be constantly doing. But it did work in those places.
I'm still amazed that India has been relatively stable for decades. By most measures it should have imploded into tribal warfare.
it's a lot more violent than you think. but the states operate almost like a confederacy with vast amounts of autonomy, in fact, if you drove a truck across india you'd be subject to tariffs of all sorts, just like the pre-EU europe.
@rtg,
*Historically most rural India has been self-sustaining mini-republics that followed their own laws.
*Most people know what acts will set off violence and carefully stay within these unwritten rules.
A man eloping with a woman of another caste or religion will set off violence in India.
*69% Affirmative action quotas in South India and 49% affirmative action quotas in North India.
*Religion and Caste over-ride poverty, meaning a muslim peasant will be unwilling to join a Hindu peasant to loot a rich muslim landlord. A poor upper caste man will not join hands with a poor lower caste man to loot a rich upper caste man.
*A lot of vigilante justice.
Nah, we just need to get Chua to be Egypt's tiger mother. 20 years to straighten up? She'll get 'em to do it in 20 days.
maybe we can send a bunch of Jewish harvard intellectuals over to help privatise their economy, worked so well in russia.
Next time mention Angry Birds in your subject to get the tweens clicking.
"A generation is an exceptionally long time in politics, especially democratic politics, and it is difficult to imagine that a democratic electorate is going to tolerate a generation’s worth of free trade and privatization policies that mostly benefit the upper and upper-middle classes"
Nafta and Gatt passed in 1993. That's 18 years, almost a generation.
Yeah, I wish I had some stats on the the violence rate in India. Sounds like a lot of the extra-legal violence isn't officially recorded, so their official stats would be misleading.
Then again maybe tribal vigilante justice works well to keep the overall violence rate down. You can't just ignore your violent, dumbass cousin cause if he acts out he could bring down violence against your whole family.
"The simultaneous pursuit today of laissez-faire markets and immediate majority rule would almost certainly produce even more government-sponsored bloodshed and ethnic warfare."
Umm, the immediate majority rule in Egypt would produce bloodshed and warfare whether the economy is laissez-faire or not. So why mention it?
If Egypt were subjected to the sort of shock therapy privatization and democratization that Russia experienced in the early ’90s, it is easy to see how a democratic system would turn into an authoritarian populist one in very short order. Poor countries in economic distress are just about the worst candidates for democratization, and any democratic government that has to confront such problems is going to become rapidly discredited because it will not be able to address them all in a satisfactory way.
The analysis you sketch out, while I tend to agree with it, is contradicted by certain former Eastern Bloc countries.
In terms of transitional, post-communist economic distress, many countries experienced declines in output that matched or exceeded that of Russia yet managed to sustain the drive to democratization (or at least didn't become authoritarian).
Bulgaria underwent a peak-to-trough decline in total GDP (measured in units of constant national currency; IMF figures) of 46% from 1990 (the transition year) through the end of 1997, has still not reached previous peak (although quality of life improved through the 2000s due to participation in technological advancement). Throughout the period there was little threat of authoritarianism.
Serbia rejected authoritarianism as a result of the wars, hyperinflation, and international ostracism.
Poland, slighly poorer than Bulgaria (on PPP per capita basis) for most of the communist era, suffered through year-on-year per capita declines from the late 70s until 1990, then endured a further 15% decline during the first two years of transition. No authoritarianism on the horizon.
Romania, the second poorest Eastern Bloc country (after Albania; see Angus Maddison, the man when it comes to historical GDP), took a further 25% dip after transition to the end of 1992 and didn't recover to communist era levels until the turn of the millenium. No authoritarianism.
Macedonia, the poorest Yugoslav republic, and wracked by ethnic turmoil (including armed conflict), declined until 1996. No authoritarianism.
Ukraine suffered a decline as severe as Russia's but has resisted authoritarianism more successfully than Russia.
"Ethnonationalist" is redundant.
Nationalism is "ethnonationalism."
Everything else is imperialism.
One can discern differences. If we define "ethnicity" as the group one is born into and which one is told by his parents he is born into and which one grows up interacting with others who likewise see themselves belonging to the same (particularly if they speak the same language/dialect), "ethnonationalism" could be the political project that revolves around that group's interests.
In this way, "Nationalism" could be contrasted to "ethnonationalism" by defining it as the political project that seeks to unite related ethnic groups into the one overarching ethnic group (and, perhaps, having done so, to pursue that greater group's interests as a unit).
In this way, we could say that while "Nationalism" succeeded in creating a united Germany, "Nationalism" failed in Yugoslavia because it was undermined by "ethnonationalism."
Remember, Germany was as linguistically, historically and religiously divided as Yugoslavia; at any rate, not significantly less so. On the other hand, I'm guessing there was much greater cultural uniformity. (Yugoslavia was divided by a more productive, westwards leaning north, and a less productive, politically orientalized south.)
Italy would be another example of successful "nationalism."
Indians aren't particularly violent, angry, or rebellious people. The personality tends to be submissive, risk-averse, and pro status quo. Tribalism exists on a deep level, but it's counterbalanced by a willingness to tolerate other types of people in the society. You get lots of political and marital divisions along religious and caste lines, but it's not going to provoke significant violence or conflict usually.
India did come apart along religious lines back in the mid 1940s, but that's owing to the Islamic element. Other religious groups get along okay generally and even Indian Muslims are moderate enough. Caste groups, within the same religion, tolerate each other pretty well, but sometimes can get annoyed.
"I'm still amazed that India has been relatively stable for decades. By most measures it should have imploded into tribal warfare."
In spring 2002 there were Gujurati riots and genocides that killed many thousands, with particularly horrendous atrocities such as young girls being raped and then dismembered and burned, small children raped and slaughtered, etc. When I read the reports I remember thinking I can't believe this--it's the new millenium. When a woman (Hindu) politician was driven through and shown some of the devastation she said, "I see nothing here." This stuff isn't supposed to happen any more. Most of the perpetrators were Hindus and the victims were Muslim. But it had started when a Muslim exploded a train with Hindus in it. Anybody can start a conflagration (in many parts of the world) with just a "lone-nut" attack. Rumor had it that the whole thing was deliberately orchestrated for sick political reasons, and that is not peculiar to India.
Other religious groups get along okay generally and even Indian Muslims are moderate enough.
yeah, if you discount the 40+ different violent separatist movements, the anti-sikh riots (something 5000 killed) the Sikh separatist movement, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, (the inventors of the suicide vest, secular marxists) the burning alive and oppression of christians... did I miss anything?
"free trade and privatization policies that mostly benefit the upper and upper-middle classes."
Why would any but the upper and upper-middle class support such a system anywhere, much less Egypt?
It's important to realise Chua's husband is Jewish, so she may have internalized the anti-Arab pathologies which are sadly common within the Jewish community.
40+ seperatist movements? To my knowledge, the only serious movement was among Sikhs in Punjab. There is a small Communist movement too and there is some low level seperatism in the northeast. Kashmir has a seperatist movement, but a lot of that is fomented by Pakistani fighters. India is not Burundi or Latin America, but it's not Switzerland either. Maybe Los Angeles would be a good comparison....
I said Indians got along okay. Not great. Okay, considering the enormous potential for violence. It could be a lot worse.
Christians aren't opppressed in India. Being a Christian in India is probably a better deal than being a non-Christian in some of the NAM countries.
40+ seperatist movements? To my knowledge, the only serious movement was among Sikhs in Punjab
here's a sampling: "The region's seven states are home to more than 200 different ethnic groups that include Christians, Hindus, animists, Muslims, and even a tribe believed to be Jewish. More than 7,400 civilians, 2,100 security personnel, and 4,500 alleged militants have died in a dozen ethnic and religious conflicts throughout the northeast since 1992."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0305/p07s02-wosc.html
attacks on christians:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4727215.ece
OK, that was a start, you have to finish your homework yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_movements_of_India
Almost 18,000 in 18 years.
On a per capita basis, the south had much more violence during the worst of Jim Crowe and Civil Rights.
Almost 18,000 in 18 years.
no ten and that's what's reported and that's just one region, darling.
I wonder how it would have been if Chua had to educate Helen Keller.
Post a Comment