posted
One thing I have noticed that may be wrong is that tyrannies seem to cause a country to thrive and remain united.
I'm not advocating that, but I look at Sadaam pre-Desert Storm. I look at Cuba. I look at the former Soviet Union. I look at China, Vietnam, etc. I look at pre-WWII Japan and it seems like other than a Majority Democracy, the quickest way to take a country from ashes to viability is to have some form of totalitarian goverment where one ruler makes all laws or one group (communism) makes all the laws.
It also seems that although a viable platform for launching a unified, successful country that they are not viable "long term" as people tend to yearn for freedom and will only hold the official line for so long.
I may be totally wrong, but it's just an observation.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you don't know jack about Cuba, for one thing. Castro did not take Cuba "from ashes to viability," he took a nation with the third highest standard of living in this hemisphere and starved it to a subsistence existence. It has not thrived, and it has only "remained united" insofar as everyone able to has left the country.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
But wasn't there a large portion of the government behind Fidel and Che'(was he around then?) that weren't happy with the way Cuba was that lead to the revolt and that it had backing enough to succeed?
I thought the "third highest standard" only applied to the rich in the country and that it was very heavily divided between the poor average Cuban and the rich capitalist "American business friendly" Cubans.
Like I said, I don't know, but Cuba doesn't seem to be hurting sufficiently enough for the people to overthrow Castro and the government/country seems very stable and controlled.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the biggest contributor to Castro's success was the US. At the beginning of the century, after their unnecessary interference in Cuba's war of independence (which was already nearing completion, and which the US needed to manufacture a cause to enter, since neither Cuba nor Spain wanted them involved), the US forced the new "sovereign" nation to include an ammendment in their constitution allowing the US to intervene in Cuba's affair any time they thought it necessary. Over the course of the next five decades, the US did so numerously, contributing to the political instability of the island. By the time Castro was mounting his revolution from deep in the mountains, there had come to be a sense of complacency in the population, that there was no sense in sticking their own necks out, and the US would soon intervene any time they decided it was time for a regime change (the Platt Ammendment Mentality).
Castro's brilliant move was inforestalling US interference by allying himself with the Soviet Union, and winning their protection (at a time when the US had a coward for a president.)
He also very shrewdly use the US as a pressure release valve any time things got too bad in his country, as in the Mariel Boatlift and again in the late 1990s.
As far as the standard of living being heavily divided, I have never read any source to imply that this was the case--are you just merely assuming that it is the case of any "Banana Republic"? Cuba had several thriving industries. They had basically the top rum, cigar, and sugar industries of any country (and still produce arguably the finest rum and cigars, FYI) and a very successful tourist industry (more so than most other latin nations, given their proximity to the US). So they had a lot more going for them than your typical one-product economy.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I don't know much about Cuba but I do know that the US supported the dictator Ballista and Cuba overthrew him, as the poor standard of living now may very well be actually higher for poorer cubans now with the wealth a little more equalized then before, but still low because the blockade of Cuba "we don't like you so no more trade for you hahahaha!"
And you are right mostly, once the older more complacent or corrupt government has been overthrown the newer one does tend to make good headway towards modernization and economic strength (though we still don't know how things would be any other way :/), China's initial growth in steel and heavy and light industry, the increase of the urban populace from .01%-15%, and dispite generally catastropic setbacks these setbacks did in their own way accomplish great things such as the elimination of ALOT (70-80%) of corruption and bearocracy.
Russia grew from a backwards serfdom to a modern Pan Eurasian state with a strong industry and national sense, Germany recovery under the National Socialists excellerated (though they didn't start it they should thank the Wiemar Republic for alot of things), and so on.
However from what I can tell through observation that Dictatorships never last, they always desolve eventually when in the Chinese sense "when they lsoe the mandate of Heaven" essentially when the people nolonger want it.
For Russia this was Glasno, for China it was Deng in 1978 and the introduction of Market capitalism into the Soviet system allowing for a mixed economy with the benefits of both systems. Japan had a brief phase when the government between the Year of the Meiji and the full establishment of a fledgling democracy when the Imperialists made all the decisions inorder to build Japan into a nation-state. I could list alternative scenarios as well if things had gone differently in WWII but you should read "In the Midst of Mine Enemies" by Harry Turteldove for that.
So in conclusion, if they are sufficient technocrats in the inner circle of government and enough people working for the state then dictatorships with good decision making can and will make spectacular progress mostly through policies that in a democracy would never work out, however after a while when the standard of living has raised sufficiently the dicatotship will desolve and democracy will follow seeing the past both the good and the bad in even light and learn from past mistakes for the sake of a better future.
IP: Logged |
posted
And as far as why there hasn't been a rebellion, people have sort of forgotten about Castro recently, and "softened" his reputation into merely some sort of cantankerous demogogue. But the fact is that he is an absolutely brutal totalitarian, who has had people tortured and killed for as little as refusing to repeat praise for "the revolution" in their workplaces. He has also fomented an atmosphere of distrust by organizing neighborhoods and workplaces into committees, with party members spying on others (and it not always clear who is a party member).
He could write the book on using fear to prop up a totalitarian regime. He has done it longer than anyone.Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
This 1999 Human Rights Watch report is a good place to begin learning about how Castro remains in power.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has been said that the best form of government is that of a benevolent despot. It has stability and fairness, rule of law (by definition), etc.
The unfortunate thing is that benevolent despots are in such short supply and you can never tell, when backing a despot, just how benevolent he or she will turn out to be. Usually, they go heavy on the despot part and sort of forget about the benevolent part.
As a result, there is almost always a redistribution of wealth (or resources) in their favor, or that of their cronies.
So, the real choice is between one set of power elite or another set. Would you rather have some strong-arm military types running things or some strong-arm industrialist/financiers types running things?
posted
Japan was mostly strong arm military types in the prewar period after they took over manchuria but the Zaibatsu's held alot of the mover and shaker power.
So essentially both have power just that one is more visible then the other.
And they were plenty of enlightened despots, Louis 14th, Old Fritz, Catherine the Great, Tokugawa Ieyasu, the First Emperor of China. etc etc.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure your "etc., etc." is hiding a long list.
Another problem with benevolent despots, of course, is that they don't live forever. So, even if they are great, there's usually a power struggle after they die and there's no orderly succession plan that can guarantee quality leadership in the next generation.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, let's see. The USSR took Russia from being a backwards nation on the outskirts of Europe, to being a vast killing field, to a world power, and then back to being a backwards nation on the outskirts of Europe.
The Third Reich took Germany from being an economy recovering from a devastating recession to being a vast no-man's-land of rubble and corpses.
Practically every African nation became a despotate immediately after independence, and drained the wealth away.
Hussein took a backwards 3rd-world country and turned it into a backwards 3rd-world country in a war zone, while his neighbors with oil were getting rich.
There are exceptions. The oil sheikdoms got rich. The Asian tigers were mostly benevolent despotates; China recently joined them. But the economic track record for dictatorships is not high. (I'll note also that the ones that succeeded are far from totalitarian.)
Now let's look at the record for democracies.
USA, Canada, Oz, NZ, western and now eastern Europe, Israel, post-WWII Japan. Stunningly good.
India, Philippines. Not as bad as Africa, but hardly good.
I know something about India. They regulated industry out of existence. I'm not sure what went wrong in the Philippines.
A special case: Bangladesh. It's still dirt poor. However, you can check an almanac: when it was a dictatorship, it regularly topped the list for natural disaster death tolls, going up to hundreds of thousands per disaster. It became democratic, and the death tolls dropped to a few hundred. There's a lot to be said for democracy.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure your correlation equals causation in the case of Bangladesh. The recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean is a case in point. The reason the death toll was so low in Bangladesh was that the wave didn't really hit there with much force and so the flooding wasn't nearly as bad as it could've been.
Bangladesh is still poised to be one of the places where natural disasters take an inordinate toll in human lives lost. It's just been lucky lately.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: And they were plenty of enlightened despots, Louis 14th, Old Fritz, Catherine the Great, Tokugawa Ieyasu, the First Emperor of China
*blink* I'm not sure "enlightened" is an applicable adjective in a number of these cases.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Frederick the Great and King Louis the XIV, Catherine the Great, St Peter, are ALL DESCRIBED as being enlightened despots, they coined the freaking term.
Since it was a book about European politics and history it didn't mention Japan and China these I took from the few sources I have (and trust me in the case of Japan most Daimyo's were enlightened and took care of the people if they didn't they died).
IP: Logged |
posted
So when it sounded like he was saying, "enlightened despot," he might in fact have been saying something like, "a frightening respite"?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, or even "an ergonomic toilet." Historians aren't in total agreement on the point.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
there goes care bear #2...
The ones I mentioned including the ones that later occured to me are all described by historians of being the first enlightened despots, Frederick is the one the first made Prussia a center european power, Louis is the FIRST THE FIRST monarch to have used to warfare to succesfully strengthen the Crown's power instead of weakening it through setbacks, and war debts. St. Peter of Russia built up Leningrad (or Petrograd or St. Petersburg) to being the intellectual and de facto capitol for the Rodina. Catherine expanded Russian territoary and increased the authority of the Czar's (at the expence of Poland and setting a certain precedent ).
the Shi Huangdi (Meaning "First Emperor") subjugated the warring states and unified China for the first time under real Imperial Power. The Emperor standardized Chinese writing, bureaucracy, scholarship, law, currency, weights and measures. He expanded the Chinese empire, built a capital in Xian, a system of roads, and massive fortifications and palaces.
Shi Huangdi (259-210 B.C.) was a cruel ruler *but hey who wasn't? Don't the past by today's standards) who readily killed or banished those who opposed him or his ideas. He is notorious for burning virtually all the books that remained from previous regimes. He even banned scholarly discussions of the past.
The Qin dynasty ended soon after his death, but a unified China remained for over 2,000 years. China's name is derived from his short but seminal dynasty, Qin (pronounced Chin).
Tokugawa Unified Japan and ended decades of unending civil strife, built the Tokaido(sp?) Road, consolidated the Power of the Shogunate and wiping the shame of the previous Akitishika(sp?) Shogunate. Tokugawa Ieyasu was the most powerful man in Japan after Hideyoshi had died in 1598. Against his promises he did not respect Hideyoshi's successor Hideyori because he wanted to become the absolute ruler of Japan.
In the battle of Sekigahara in 1600, Ieyasu defeated the Hideyori loyalists and other Western rivals. Hence, he achieved almost unlimited power and wealth. In 1603, Ieyasu was appointed Shogun by the emperor and established his government in Edo (Tokyo). The Tokugawa shoguns continued to rule Japan for over remarkable 250 years.
Ieyasu brought the whole country under tight control. He cleverly redistributed the gained land among the daimyo: more loyal vassals (the ones who supported him already before Sekigahara) received strategically more important domains accordingly. Every daimyo was also required to spend every second year in Edo. This meant a huge financial burden for the daimyo and moderated his power at home.
Ieyasu continued to promote foreign trade. He established relations with the English and the Dutch. On the other hand, he enforced the suppression and persecution of Christianity from 1614 on.
After the destruction of the Toyotomi clan in 1615 when Ieyasu captured Osaka Castle, he and his successors had practically no rivals anymore, and peace prevailed throughout the Edo period. Therefore, the warriors (samurai) were educating themselves not only in the martial arts but also in literature, philosophy and the arts, e.g. the tea ceremony.
IP: Logged |
posted
'Cause, you know, you might find that those "enlightened" despots weren't THAT enlightened?! BB, if you are to compare things, at least use the same criteria for all! Otherwise your exercise is pretty meaningless, IMO.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ok Corwin try me in your own words why any one of the above leaders were not enlightened.
Enlightened absolutism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Redirected from Enlightened despotism) Enlightened absolutism (also known as enlightened despotism) is the absolutist rule of an enlightened monarch. This is a reference to the so-called Enlightenment, a historical period of the 18th and early 19th centuries. The main Enlightenment-era proponent of this system was Voltaire, who regularly corresponded with several of the rulers of this time.
Enlightened monarchs were monarchs who distinguished themselves from traditional monarchs in the way they governed. Specifically, Enlightened Monarchs ruled their subjects using the principles of the Enlightenment. In order to be considered "enlightened", they must allow religious toleration, freedom of speech and press, and the right to hold private property. They must foster the arts, sciences, and educations. Above all, they must not be arbitrary in their rules; they must obey the laws and enforce them fairly for all subjects.
Although their reigns were influenced by Enlightenment ideas, their beliefs about royal power were often similar to those of traditional monarchs. Many enlightened monarchs believed that they had the right to govern by birth.
In effect, the monarchs ruled with the intent of improving the lives of their subjects in order to strengthen or reinforce their authority. For example, the abolition of serfdom in Europe was achieved by enlightened rulers. In the spirit of Enlightened absolutism, Emperor Joseph II of the Holy Roman Empire once said: "Everything for the people, nothing by the people".
The modern successor to "enlightened absolutism" is the so-called "benevolent dictator". See dictatorship.
Some enlightened monarchs Alexander The Great Akbar The Great (1542–1605) Cyrus II of Persia, "Cyrus the Great" (ca. 576 – July 529 BC) Friedrich II of Prussia (1740-1786) Maria Theresa of Austria (1740-1780) - Note that her status as an enlightened despot is debated Charles III of Spain (1759-1788) (Charles VII of Naples; 1734-1759) Catherine II of Russia, "Catherine the Great" (1762-1796) Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor (1765-1790) Gustav III of Sweden (1771-1792) Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor (1790-1792) Napoleon I of France (1804-1814/1815) William I of the Netherlands (1815-1840) Marquis of Pombal, Prime minister of Portugal
I'ld say pretty much all of my examples (aside from wikipedia) hold at least all of most of the description of a enlightened despot. Also, I don't judge the people from our past with our modern concepts because its pointless and if we did we'ld never get anywhere, we'ld be stuck on a preconceived concept/judgement on these leaders that to my mind is unfair. Why try a dead man for a crime he didn't commit by his own laws in his own period 100+ years after he dies?
IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I don't really have time to read this as I'm leaving work in a couple of minutes, but I haven't forgotten it and promise to take a look.
I *was* probably a little too quick to side with what seemed a reasonable argument from Tom, so I'll see what you wrote and get back to you after that. Peace.
Edit: I'm proud and assumed that you bumped this for me. Might be wrong. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, I don't judge the people from our past with our modern concepts because its pointless and if we did we'ld never get anywhere, we'ld be stuck on a preconceived concept/judgement on these leaders that to my mind is unfair.
But it does make us feel much better about ourselves... and rightly so!
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bangladesh: maybe Bangladesh has been lucky recently, but it was so marked: consistently, several 100K+ disasters in a decade, and then, down to a few hundred per disaster, from about 1980 on. A strong enough correlation to be worth considering.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
corwin! Answer it already man! I expect a good and WELL THOUGHT OUT reply!
IP: Logged |
posted
If numbers are any indicator, no. With extremely rare exceptions, tyrants are interested only in lining their own pocketbooks -- or rather in supporting their own lifestyle and legacy, no matter how wasteful or heinous -- and in helping their corrupt "friends". With "friends" in this case meaning only those who advance the tyrant's agenda to loot their country.
Singapore and postMao China are the only exceptions that I'm can think of at the moment. The books aren't open in China. So I could easily be wrong about China, though there are other indicators (eg their embrace of the Internet) which lead toward that conclusion of being an exception. And Singapore is a city, ie so small that its tyrant can't get out of touch with the people. With large neighbors waiting for the opportunity to ingest it, Singapore's tyrant can't afford to foment discontent, can't afford to create agents who will accept offers of "help" from those larger nations.
Representative democracy is a way of ensuring that those who would be tyrants can't lose contact with the citizens of larger-than-city-size countries, where the leadership can cloister themselves into private enclaves without fear of personal harm. And the Internet might very well be a way for the voice of the people to leapfrog over the stage of representative democracy.
posted
Huh, I didn't know I was THAT important to this argument!? o_O
Ok, I'll try to give you an answer, BB, but don't hold your breath...
I read carefully both the post to which Tom and I responded and the Wiki entry, and I still hold the same opinion. My main problem with those enlightened despots were, just like any other dictator, guaranteeing freedom to those who do not oppose them, and suppressing their opponents. Another problem: did all those people from conquered territories *want* to become part of "a great empire/nation"? I don't think so. Sharing the cultural, political, administrative, etc. advantages could have been done through other ways than wars. It's not like they "freed" those people, they just wanted to conquer and rule them themselves. I don't buy into the "everybody was cruel, so there's no problem" thing: is doing good for a thousand people going to justify doing bad for one? In my view, not really, especially if the "good" was questionable.
Hope this helps you understand why I'm not that fond of this particular form of power. There's *too much* concentrated power and most of the time no easy way to deal with abuses. If you have questions about my post, write them, but please allow me to post at my own speed, 'cause I'm not connected most of the time these days, and when I am it's at work and I try to keep hatracking at a minimum.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). 
