<< One counter argument may be that Democratic countries are the most powerful, however Western countries have largely inherited the assets and opportunities of past empires. >>

arguement is also easily debunked by looking at China and the world supremacy it is surely going to obtain in the coming few decades.

another arguement for why democracy fails is that in a democracy not one party tends to stay in power for a long time. Power switches from party to party, as parties who make laws the people don't like are quickly removed from power. Democracies are also very vulnerable to populists, who can easily get a lot of votes in a short time by just shouting out things many people have problems with but not giving actual arguements or viable/effective solutions, or if they give solutions not telling how they would fund these solutions (examples: Sarah Palin, Geert Wilders, Hitler in the past).
This makes it impossible to do long term planning and causes governments to be reactionary, and not willing to take strong measures (as those would make them lose votes), and so they tend to not have a big impact on the country.
Democratic countries tend to stagnate politically and economicaly due to this lack of long term plans and governments erasing unpopular but much needed legislature from their predecessors (as is happening to the Western world and Japan at the moment), as opposed to stable autocratic countries who do tend to have long term plans, are able to impose unpopular laws, and have a steady growth in their economy (China).

Western democracy is failing because following special interests and ignoring the voters has no consequence.
People have become too  peaceful.

The solution to the prolbem is to bring violence back into politics.
Politicans have to fear the wrath of the mob

> Omega Man wrote:

> >.The autocrat is powerful enough to monitor, regulate, and punish any private interests who threaten the state. <

AKA "their self interest", the pursuit of which drags down the whole state

being autocratic doesn't necessarily drag down the whole state. just look at china and its economic prosperity . denying the succes of the stable autocratic state of china is just ignorant.

*Throws out democracy*

Now political parties lobby autocrats.

"In a Democratic/Constitutional Republican government, the parties intended to represent the people are actually motivated by the private interests of individuals who dominate them."
Same counts for an autocracy really. Difference is, there is no control system at all.

"Their pursuit of self interest creates state wide externalities that cause severe harm to the state as a whole."
Same counts for your system.

"One counter argument may be that Democratic countries are the most powerful,"
And it works vice versa, as not every nation can afford a democracy. Its an expense that brings forth itself in stability.

"however Western countries have largely inherited the assets and opportunities of past empires."
That is an undeniable fact. Yet no modern country in the western world with same opportunities that wasn't democratic has prospered. Eg spain. USSR also had good carts when it started off. Much land, large empire, huge resources, colonies aka satellite states. Don't come bragging about communism ideology. For it is only propaganda of those in power to maintain power.

"In an autocracy, the enlightened self interest of the ruling individual is to care for the state as a whole."
Why? Its even possible the leader isn't smart enough.

"I don't mean an ancient monarchy with a powerful nobility to check the power of the monarch as they tear apart the state in the same way I spoke of with a representative government, I mean an autocracy. The autocrat is powerful enough to monitor, regulate, and punish any private interests who threaten the state. Exemplary individuals would be Augustus Caesar, Vlad Tepes and Napoleon."
Napoleon was an emotional idiot with luck and charisma. But there is no way to compare these times with modern times and their actual problems. I agree a democracy wouldn't have worked in eg middle ages. Society couldn't afford it.

"And for those who have been brainwashed that Napoleon was responsible for the bloodiest European war before WW1, I remind you that the nobility of Europe had to eliminate the revolution, and Napoleon by extension, or face ruin."
Or face democracy you mean. It doesn't look like a ruin in Europe now does it?

What gives you such faith in autocrats, Imperator? I did not think you a man of faith. Do you forget that they are men, selfish and ignoble? An ignorant populace can, in theory, be educated and take care of themselves. An ignoble autocrat... has you by the balls. There is no recourse. You're screwed. Democratic republics contain within them a means for recourse.

Chickenwingz presumes that all peoples in democratic nations are ignorant heathens, dependent upon elites to ever be successful. Needless to say, not everybody is so dumb, and intelligent and educated people are capable of planning for a future they would like to be successful in. To give up one's right to make one's own choices only gives up the possibility of success. Whoever is given that power will surely enjoy your success for you. Whatever wealth China amasses, thanks to the retardation of Western states such as my own, their people will still live in squalor.

LP,

My point about Napoleon was that he was faced with the difficulty of the ruling elite of Europe wanting nothing less than him to be removed from power, and he was not the aggressive imperialist that he is portrayed as. And overall, his rule in the precious years of peace he had was prudent and beneficial to France.

Speaking of Spain, they really don't count. The Spanish Empire was effectively crippled long before representative government was broadly viable in Europe. They never invested their gold in anything meaningful like infrastructure, and so they never capitalized on the good foundation they built. The other empires that survived in to the 1900s, however, were more prudent with the resources they had at their disposal.

Secondly, with all the benefits of representative government regurgitated, the ability to remove an incompetent leader or for government accountability to the people, they don't seem to be actually true, for long anyway. Whether ancient or modern, representative governments are consistently dominated by private interests. There are periods of strong leadership, such as the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt, but usually the government is more concerned about the private interests they depend on than they are with the people. And over time, the representative government gets elitist to the point of the late Roman Republic, where an Emperor became an absolute necessity. And I dare say that America is getting to that point now.

An autocracy, while not necessarily true, can provide a long-term period of strong leadership. It is in the interest of the autocrat to nurture the state, because their power depends on how well the state is doing. It would be imprudent for an independent autocrat to cater to private interests that harm the state, because that would weaken their own power by channeling it to other individuals as well as weaken the state.

Yes, an autocrat's successor can be, and often is, a short sighted moron. However, an autocracy does not need to base succession on family. During the period of the Five Good Emperors, succession was decided on merit. Little wonder why those Five Emperors were so great aye?

A weak government is dependent on private interests, and when private interests are highly influential the state is weakened by their short-sighted greed. And the only way to have a consistently strong government is to have an autocrat, and perhaps we should learn from the Romans that these autocrats should be selected on merit.

> Omega Man wrote:

> My point about Napoleon was that he was faced with the difficulty of the ruling elite of Europe wanting nothing less than him to be removed from power, and he was not the aggressive imperialist that he is portrayed as. "

He did not conquer, depose and loot all Europe from Portugal to Poland as part of a defensive war.  If he is NOT an aggressive imperialist then nobody was>

Of course it was a defensive war. France was continually invaded after the Bourbon dynasty was deposed from power. Napoleon knew that if there was to be peace, he had to force the European powers to accept peace by going on the offensive. Of course, Britain was least inclined to allow peace.

> Omega Man wrote:

> Of course it was not a defensive war, and since he got a peace treaty in 1805 it was not just one war but several.  He declared war, invaded, deposed monarchs, put up his own kinfolk as King, and then looted the place for more wars.  Spain wasn't trying to invade France in 1810.  Russia wanted to be left alone.>

In 1805, France was again at war with Britain, by Britain's own declaration. It was Britain who formed the third coalition with Russia and Austria, and they organized an attack against him.

In 1806, the fourth coalition was formed within months of the third's defeat at Austerlitz. This time it was Prussia, considered one of the greatest land powers in Europe, who fueled courage to the defeated third coalition. So Napoleon had to launch an offensive again, where he humiliated the Prussians at Jenna before the fourth coalition could link their forces.

As for the Czar Alexander I, he wanted nothing but to be seen as the savior of Europe who defeated Napoleon. Of course, he was pwned at Austerlitz, and was fortunate to be able to defeat Napoleon with scorched earth tactics by goading him in to attacking Russia by betraying his alliance with Napoleon. Of course, it was largely Britain's fault for not giving up, and it was hard on Russia to participate in the blockade, but Alexander I was still focused on defeating Napoleon himself at the soonest opportunity.

Of course Napoleon installed his own family and generals as kings. What better way to ensure the loyalty of conquered lands taken from defeated empires?

Napoleon's invasion of Spain could be seen as a possible exception, although Spain was being a haphazard ally. A mistake on his part no less, but that doesn't change the fact that he was not responsible for the majority of the wars waged against him.

>and I guess you'd argue coming back from Elba and setting up the Empire again was a defensive move?>

Yup. They were planning to change their arrangement with him to something less favorable.

"China giving more freedom to its inhabitants doesn't mean it is a democracy or growing towards being one, as there still is only one single party."
Depends on your definition. If you only count systems with free ellections as democraties maybe. But it is the opposite of a regime with limited freedom (like free opinion,free speech) and surely makes autocratic regimes unstable. It made USSR collaps and there are 1000 other examples. China has a lot of tension and the only reason why there are no nationwide revolts threatening the state system yet is because the elite is still prospering. But once the rich guys in the city see economic growth slow down, which is based on cheap labour, those educated people will revolt large scale and the poor man will folow for multiple reasons. They cannot maintain current growth.

"It means it has given up on communism, or at least the strictest forms of communism. But you have to remember there are more types of totalitarian/autocratic regimes than just communism."
In this case, it is exactly the same. They use an ideal as propaganda to keep the population in line. Meanwhile they stay in power trough a strong centralised gov oppressing the people in the name of nazism, fascism, allah, communism, take your pick. There is far little difference in how they are organised. But propaganda/populism is cheeper then brute force and very effective.

"The day it does become a democracy it will most likely stagnate like the Western democracies and Japan, for the reasons i gave in my post."
The day it becomes a democracy it can grow to become rich, more healthy stable nation like ours. Our democracies only "stagnate" because we already are rich. That I do not consider a problem. But you also seem to forget how we progress everyday with new technology and new inovation. Most of all our regimes are fairly stable until a populist autocrat manages to take our precious democracy away.

"you could argue India, being a democracy, still has a huge economic growth, maybe even bigger than China does. However, this economic growth is entirely based on the skills of their cheap work force and has nothing to do with the government at all, as the government in India has close to no influence on the people."
India has the inharitage of the past, like china. Its not easy to climb out of that, but cheap labour compensates, we both agree on that. One advantage india has on china is their stability. It looks very instable because WE KNOW what is going on. Most tensions in china we hear little about, except for maybe tibet, but are much higher, with riots going on every day. Their ethnic, religeous and crime problems make an unstable explosive mix. Also note how democracy has its cost, and it is not always possible for a nation to afford this cost. That is why in middle ages a demoracy would have had less chances on survival if it where even possible to maintain. India is a third world country growing rich fast, but still poor compared to western nations. If they continue their growth their democracy will also become more effective. I don't know if they will survive the race to become like our economies or collaps before the finish. It depends on more then the name of the regime how their future will look like. Their old system of castes is a huge drawback though.

"Stalin is a good example of why autocracies can fail. He probably ruined the Soviet Union so badly that it came to implode in later years. That is true."
Stalin also industrialised the USSR at the speed of light. But what good does that do if you use like almost everything for the army and loose a lot on corruption and bureaucracy?

"But Stalin was corrupted by power and only wanted more power for himself."
This is a human instinct almost everybody has. People craving power will do more effort to get it, so they will more likely be in power. That is why you need a system to control them and force them not only to care for themselves.

"Another example of this is Mao Zedong, who  had almost ruined China with his reign, especially the cultural revolution. When you have a good and stable political party (stable autocracy) you can prevent this from happening."
Are you advocating multiple people in power? Because in an autocracy that only causes intern struggles and fights till someone gets out on top like in china or north korea.

"Also it is not like democracies don't face the same dangers. Hitler was chosen in a democracy."
He was never supported by the majority. He was cunning enough to take power. I never say a democracy has no chances to fall into an autocracy. I have some sollutions to this but if you want to know them I open another thread for it. Even with those sollutions you can never exclude the risk completely.

"Parties want to stay in power and yell out crazy things like "hey lets lower the taxes on everyone, especially the rich, so our government has less of a stable income, but we trust on the trinkle down effect which has never been proven by anyone and is highly doubtable judging by the luxury lifes of the wealthy. Who cares we are in an economic crisis... no one right?".
You are stating the opinion of a faction you dislike. But the truth is, no party lowers taxes to zero or increases them to 100 percent. It decreases and increases slightly over time and yes it has an undeniable effect but in both scenario's one could have a moderately rich economy. If you have an autocracy, zero or 100% taxes are actual possibilities, but you are almost certain a large part of it gets spoiled and your economy suffers a penalty for less freedom that regime would need to survive.

"The worst part is in a democracy where everyone can vote, a large amount of people will vote for this."
It tends to go both ways actually. It changes over time. Both looks like a simple sollution to a complicated problem.

"On democratically elected people turning autocratic: the fact that people would even vote for a person with such a shady background such as Berluzconi or a neo-communist making a lot of promises but delivering none like Chavez shows you one of the failures of democracy."
If he shows one thing, he shows one of the backdraws of a lack of democracy. By controling the media, he decreases the effectiveness of the democratic control system. He shows how easely people convert to authocracy and shows how fragile democracy and its welfare are. That itself doesn't make (his) autocracy a good system.

"The most important reason for why Ireland boomed was becoming part of the EU and receiving massive amounts of aids. Ireland, as having to please it's citizens for governments to remain in power, used it's income in the wrong places (i.e. not in infrastructure, telecommunications and public services, as a  Davy Research (an irish stockbroking, wealth management and financial advisory company) report concluded. Also Ireland suffered from numerous banking scandals, as the Irish government didn't impose strict regulations on the financial sector, as China does."
China needs to control its financial sector, but that also slows their economy down. They have no choice really, but as long as cheep labour makes up for it they can continue.

"I can see how the injection of freedom stimulated their economy, causing a large economic growth. I can also see how their economy is based on cheap labor, and yes the pollution in china is becoming unbearable."
And very costly. In some areas entire generations of future children will never be fit to work because of that. And that is only one example.

"But as the government still has a lot of power they could in fact impose enviromental regulations. This would slow down their economic growth however, that is true."
It would slow it down so much, they cannot do it without huge riots or total collapse.

"However, can you see that the freedom they give has to do with their government becoming less totalitarian?"
Yes. When the gov has less control over the people or companies, they tend to make more proffit. It lowers corruption considirably because they don't have to pass 20 bureaucrats to place a new door. But when the gov loosens their grip over civilians and institutions, and give them more freedom, they cannot oppres their people as effective as they did before. Large cities already become centres of anti-gov sentiment. People are allowed to surf the internet more freely, make agreements with foreign investors, travel more freely inside and outside the country or choose their work. Also they become richer, more educated, and more aware of how their gov oppresses them. There is also more influence of foreign cultures and idees, especially Western cultures. Especially the youth keeps western culture and even values in the highest regard.

To keep the population down they either control and opress them, or keep them happy. If they don't keep the population down, it will start to make decissions for itself.

"not that it is becoming less autocratic (or more democratic)."
Not in the sence of free ellections, but people are allowed a lot more as before and make more decissions for themselves. The same counts for companies and institutions.

"Another cause for the failure of democracy. People get attached to their political party, so that even when their party is not able to adept to the changing political climate they still vote for the party (here in the Netherlands we have an extremely reformed Christian political party, which still gets 2 seats in the parliament). Also the voting for the lesser of two evils is a weakness of a democracy."
it is undeniable a weakness in the control system of a democracy but does not outweigh the good.

Let me also note another argument in favor of a democracy: You see all the bad things because you are informed, however flawed. In an autocracy maybe more goes wrong but you never find out and they say everything is alright.

no more arguments?

Maybe in 2 months or so Justinian should jump this one up and continue the debate for the first time in the history of IC politics.