Battison's Blog

3 comments

• sean

  February 17, 2011 9:07 am

  

  >great post but statistically it is misleading dur to the short measurement period.Basically it could be inferred that the democratic systems gave place to early economic growth (1950s on) that was not mirrored in non-democratic countries during that time.Since the 90s, the main mover in the GDP increases of those un-democratic nations that had been economically backward has been due to the process of globalisation and not the form of government.Democratic countries are more economically mature, and mature economies grow at slower rates. The non-democratic nations are therefore just paying catch-up, hence the statistics are a bit misleading.The interesting question is will these un-democratic nations follow the same growth and decline model of the democratic nations, or will their systems allow for continued prolonged growth.

  Reply
• Rob

  February 17, 2011 9:41 am

  

  >I agree. The interesting question leading on from this is about whether democracies are the best system of government for every country. Do you think there is anything behind the concerns about Egypt that a "strong man" is needed to ensure stability before the transition to democracy can take place? In fact take a more extreme case. In a country which is in a state of virtual anarchy can democracy work or is it best to have a transitional phase where stability and the people's safety is ensured?Also, think about Communism too. Marx initially argued for a transitional phase towards communism just as some democrats are doing today. But Communism never actually got past that phase because dictators are often unwilling to give up power. So firstly, can dictators bring greater stability? And secondly, even if they can does it mean that there is sometimes a case for dictatorship?

  Reply

• Pingback: Does Everyone Deserve Freedom? | Battison's Blog