Political Science: No Democracy Has Ever Experienced A Famine
Dean
Among the more startling things that people don't know about democracies--aside from the fact that they never make war on each other--is that democracies never experience famine.
Never, as in, never.
If you doubt it, Rudy Rummel will set you straight.
All of this points to what is wrong with some people's thinking on the matter of democracy. Sean Hackbarth, for example, thinks that individual economic freedom is more important than democracy. What Sean, and others, so often miss with such thinking is that individual economic freedom has never been secure without some form of representative government being secured first and foremost.
Sean mentions how "free" Hong Kong was under British rule. Yet Sean's example all but proves the point: the economic freedom Hong Kong enjoyed came about because a democratic power gave that freedom to them--yet because that same democratic power refused to treat them as equal citizens deserving of representation and protection, it turned them over to the despotic People's Republic with very little fuss. The long-term hope is that Hong Kong's economic freedom will help turn the rest of China into a freer state--but that hope may be in vain, and in the meantime Hong Kong is much less free today than it was ten years ago.
Had those people had full democratic representation, it's all but unthinkable that this would have been allowed. By any of the Western powers.
Sean--and many like him--say they would be happy to live under a "benevolent dictator" so long as that dictator guaranteed certain fundamental rights. There's a problem with this thinking: such a dictator has never existed. You might as well say you'd be perfectly happy to live under the rule of Santa Claus or Peter Pan.
The only thing which has ever been shown to be a reliable protector of economic freedom, of civil rights in general, or a guarantor against war and famine, is democracy.
Which is why, again, if we are going to talk about ending poverty, ending famine, helping the poor nations of the world, then we need to stop, once and for all, our habit of coddling the tyrants and facists who rule them. Whether it's in the UN or in our own direct diplomatic efforts: treating despots like they are the legitimate equals of democratically elected leaders is not only abhorrent, long-term it is a threat to our own national security.
We may sometimes have to hold our noses and be kind to dictators because we have no other choice--the example of Pakistan comes to mind--but that doesn't mean we have to like it, and it doesn't mean we should not try to avoid it whenever we can avoid it.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Freedom Rankings
- Defining "Democracy" and The Democratic Peace Theory
- No Democracy Has Ever Experienced A Famine: Part II
- Political Science: No Democracy Has Ever Experienced A Famine
- Africa and Aid money...
- Reforming the UN Step #1: No More Despots
- More on Democracy
- Islamic states want permanent seat on UN Security Council
Didn't the Irish Potato Famine strike a country that was a democracy? I believe at that time, Ireland was part of Great Britain - which was pretty much a democratic country.
Or Mom and Dad.
The idea of a benevolent dictator strikes me as a bit of regression to childhood. Those who yearn for it want freedom without the responsibility that childhood entails.
Freedom demands responsibility. The former cannot exist without the latter. The only time it does is during childhood, and that freedom is an illusion when you get right down to it.
I limit my Kid's freedom all the time. It is my duty as a parent. Granted, most of the time he may not notice, but there are times when he does - and those times usually result in a battle of wills that he always loses.
As noted the term is oxymoronic by definition, an impossibility that exists only in the writings of a few (Marx comes to mind, and I don't know about Rand).
What amazes me is how Democracy seems to have become a bad word on the Left at a time when huge populations of the world are newly freed. You'd think that Lefty salons would be trumpeting freedom instead of yearning for a childlike fantasy.
Yours,
Wince
If I had to choose, I'd say freedom was more important than democracy (a 51% majority absolute tyranny isn't very desirable), but democracy, as the freedom to choose our leaders, is certainly the most important freedom, and the only form of gov't that will preserve the other freedoms. Liberal, benevolent autocrats are fleeting, and few and far between.
Even relatively benign autocrats who pushed economic freedoms, like Pinochet, always seem to commit various atrocities along the way.
Yes, sometimes democracies cease to be democracies. Once that happens, all the other liberties that the former democracy once enshrined are in peril and almost inevitably fall away--unless the democracy is restored.
Scott, although he doesn't use the actual term "benevolent dictator," I think Plato beat Marx to the punch by a couple of millennia. Unlike Marx, however, Plato had the good sense to realize that his whacked-out Daddy fantasies wouldn't come to fruition. Which is why Plato was a wiser philosopher than Marx.
Yep. Proof once again that we merely annotate what the Greeks wrote 3000 years ago.
Since men must govern over men, putting democracy in place provides the greatest protection to the many. The lust for power is too much temptation, as in 'if you would just give me the power I'll make all this right' and it ends up with mass graves. I offer no proof, the cold record of history bears witness.
So Democracy is illusory. What other illusion is better?
As for Santa Claus and Peter Pan, they apparently don't need limits and checks and balances as we mortals do. Our Founding Fathers established a Constitutional republic (whether you want to call that a democracy or not) with legislative, executive, and judicial branches set against each other, and power divided also between federal, state, and local governments, plus a Bill of Rights. That's the only way to guarantee freedom, and, hence, the wealth that is produced by free men and women.
"As noted the term [benevolent dictator] is oxymoronic by definition, an impossibility that exists only in the writings of a few (Marx comes to mind, and I don't know about Rand)."
Ayn Rand believed in the Constitutional republic established by our Founding Fathers, as I described, not in pure democracy nor in any kind of dictator.
Pure democracy is a bad idea, and in fact would result in things like property rights being scrapped pretty quickly.
When did "democracy" become a bad word on the left. Can you point me to where that was said. The lefties I hang with are pissed that corporations are trampling our right by buying the pretend democracy we have now. (Specifically by buying our representatives.)
The United States is one of the freest and most liberal democracies in the world by any sane standard. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a paranoid fantasy land.
As for the idea that you have to do away with poverty and injustice and whatnot before you have democracy: the history of the 20th century shows that those who say "feed the hungry first, elections later" almost never wind up feeding the hungry OR having the elections.
Nope: Elections first. Transparency, accountability, and freedom of speech and press FIRST. You can count on nothing else without democracy first.
Dean, that's not what I said. I do not believe that economic success is a necessary precursor to democracy.
But there's a gap between believing that and believing that democracy is always possible no matter what other conditions exist. What I believe lies in that gap.
Have you read "The End of History" by Francis Fukuyama? Interesting read. I agree with his premise, and yours, that democracies don't attack other democracies, but it's in the gray area we see trouble with this. First of all, its an absolute statement, which makes it easy to take down by finding a case that doesn't fit. One could make the case, for instance, that Germany was, if not a democracy, then at least similar to one in important ways priot to World War I.
Anyways, Democracies also tend to be very stable politically and economically, relative to other forms of government.
Take care,
f
Can we have a cheese course and still enjoy a sweet dessert?
God, I need to get out of North Carolina. Gotta get back to the city.
"I think we may have a cart and horse question here. Does Democracy lead to fat, well-satisfied people living on foie gras and truffles? Or does an abundance of food lead to Democracy? Or is it, like chicken-and-egg a self-perpetuating cycle? And should we enjoy a glass of Sauternes with that foie gras? Or should we consider one of the fruitier Rieslings? How about with the chicken? Perhaps a lovely sauvignon blanc? If the chicken is prepared with a sauce that incorporates the aforementioned truffles we might even look at a lighter red.
Can we have a cheese course and still enjoy a sweet dessert?"
Delicious. Ahhhh, the succulent taste of Freedom.
"One could make the case, for instance, that Germany was, if not a democracy, then at least similar to one in important ways priot to World War I."
Quite the contrary. Germany under the Second Reich was ruled by the Prussian Junker caste, by the bureaucracy, and by Krupp. It was a thoroughly centralized, authoritarian, socialistic state -- which is precisely why it was praised by its admirers as efficient, scientific, modern, progressive. Their Parliament, the Reichstag, had about as much actual say in the running of things as the Student Council had in my high school.
A childishly silly question. Obviously, abundance and plenty does NOT lead to democracy. This is like saying "colorful clothing leads to democracy" or "religious pluralism leads to democracy" or even "respect for women leads to democracy."
Wrong, wrong, wrong, all of it. Let's not get it upside-down and backwards, m'kay?
Democracy leads to tolerance, stability, and abundance because it bypasses and short-circuits the problems inherent in authoritarianism.
This is why the great conservatives of history were utterly wrong, by the way.
Let me emphasize that:
The single most powerful weapon in the fight for democracy is the rule of law, in conjunction with a respect for private property.
Er, the two most powerful weapons in the fight for democracy are the rule of law, a respect for private property, and equal rights for all citizens.
Ahem. The three most powerful weapons —
Ahhh. Never mind.
Apparently it's the rule to be a democracy, not suffer from famine, but be the cause of famine for other (non-democratic) parties. :)
Go back to the Bible: the King of the Medes and the Persians was an absolute autocrat, but he was subject to his own, unchangeable pronouncements, too (judicial transparancy). The had a stable property system, and I believe one of the earlier double entry accounting systems in history.
They thrived because of those things compared to surrounding Empires, and were justly famous for it.
No democracy in sight.
Rule of law not men is what matters, and it must include well adjudicated property rights. These are the conditions under which nearly all prosperous Republics or Empires have arisen, regardless of the level of democracy in sight.
Not really. In Great Britain 5% of adults had the right to vote at the time. These 5% had a very strong tendency to be wealthier than average, and only the poor starved in Ireland, as there was plenty of food, but it was expensive.
-Ayn Rand
But you can't really guarantee the Rule of Law unless you have a democracy. The wisest and most well-meaning sucession of Kings, Emperors, Ruling Councils, etc. will eventually falter and fail to lead effectively. When things begin to go wrong, as they inevitably do, there's no feedback mechanism for self-correction. Because the power of the government is withheld from the governed, the people under its rule have no opportunity or natural incentive to fix the problems as they arise, short of waiting for the government to collapse or starting a revolution to replace it outright. The built-in capacity for self-correction is the greatest strength of representative government.
I'll look into the question of the 1966 famine in Bihar.
This would seem to invalidate the rule, unless you claim it was a "near miss" as Wikipedia does.
Was it a famine or wasn't it? There are numerous examples of democracies going through periods of privation or tragedies. But there are, according to Rummel, no examples whatsoever of famines.
So was Bihar a famine, or "almost a famine?" Because "close" only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear war.
I believe you are confusing "law" with "organized opression," wherein the local (totalitarian) passes statues to oppress citizens.
The rule of law is exactly that; one of the classic examples is the Magna Carta, which established that even kings are subject to the law.
A good example of the law not ruling would be China. Even today, there is no law. Oh, there's lots of ordinances, rules, and such, but no law. What exists there is the rule of custom, not law.
Iraq under Hussein is another good example. That wasn't the rule of law, but the rule of brute power masked with psuedo-law. Why? Because the law wasn't the final determinant, power was.
The rule of law allowed Jim Crow and refused to grant the franchise to women. The rule of law once allowed for the routine execution of children convicted of such minor offenses as pickpocketing. The rule of German law first required that all Jews register with the state, and that they wear stars of David so they could be easily identified.
These were all written laws.
The rule of law in this country at one time allowed people to be jailed for refusing to acknowledge that Christ was the Son of God. It also allowed people to be jailed for homosexuality.
The rule of law is, of course, important. But without democracy, the laws are quite a bit more likely to be oppressive.