Democracy is the form of government applied in most nations of the world,
whether directly or indirectly. However,
not all countries have the privilege of choosing their representatives
if we can consider this a privilege. More than a third of the world's population
do not live under a democracy, that is more than 2 billion people.
Let's take China for example
the nation with the largest population in the world, where more than
1.4 billion people are ruled by the Chinese communist party
and its president, Xi Jinping. Can China be described as a dictatorship?
Not really, but we cannot exactly say that its a democracy
But following the same logic, we can't consider the US
as a true democracy either.
Of course, the concept of democracy is quite abstract, and confusing in reality
For example, the word "democracy" is not mentioned once in the
American constitution. And in the same way,
in the vast majority of countries considered to be democratic,
the word "democracy" is not explicitly written
into their constitutions. Democracy is very subjective
and its interpretation varies from one country to another.
For the first time since the Second World War, the continued expansion of democracy
has stopped and decreased in the last three years.
The argument that a country can become prosperous and achieve its development
only through democracy has been ruled out
There are many examples of states that have developed and significantly improved
the standard of living of their citizens
without necessarily making a democratic transition.
Does that mean we're witnessing the death or disappearance of democracy? Is democracy
really necessary for development?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of democracy in and of itself?
We will analyse all these factors and possible alternatives
in this video
The word "democracy" comes from the ancient greek "demokratia,"
which comes from the word "demos" which means "the people"
and "kratia" which means power. The cradle of democracy
is in ancient Greece. The Pantheon of Athens has become its symbol,
it is therefore not that surprising that many world leaders
enjoy taking pictures next to this historic monument.
But in reality, democracy is a relatively new phenomenon.
Of the thousands of years of human history, it wasn't until the past
70 years that we can finally say that most countries
are in fact governed by democratic regimes.
After the end of the Second World War, the continued democratisation
allowed fewer countries to enter in conflicts, along with opening up
to international trade, at least in America, Europe
and parts of Asia. In the period between the 17th
and the 20th century, humanity was plagued by wars,
conflicts, invasions, conquests and so on.
In 1816 for example, more than 99%
of the world's population lived either under an authoritarian
regime, or in a country ruled as a colony.
Today, 200 years later, 55%
of the world's population lives under a democracy,
although around 30% still live in authoritarian states.
However, what is the criteria that allows us to say that
a certain country is a democracy and another is not.
In reality, no nation is a pure and perfect democracy
that would be too utopian and unrealistic to consider. On the other hand,
no country is a perfect dictatorship, not even North Korea,
which holds presidential elections, with only one candidate.
Countries with the highest index of democracy in the world are
generally parliamentary monarchies. And what is democratic in a monarchy?
Nothing really, but that doesn't determine the quality of a country's
democratic institutions. Venezuela is not a monarchy,
it is a republic, but next to Norway,
which is a parliamentary monarchy, the index of democracy leaves a lot
to be desired. It has been long argued
that the only way for a country to become a developed,
egalitarian, prosperous state is through democracy. Countries such as,
the US, Canada, the UK
and France have long been considered to be proof for this theory.
However, some examples dispute this argument as an absolute truth,
and have even rethought the idea that democracy is truly
necessary for the development of a country. Who could've predicted
that authoritarian China, the most populated country in the world,
would have managed to reach its current state of wealth
and development, without necessarily following the path of democracy?
In fact, part of China's success is due to the leadership and
planning that allowed the Chinese regime to liberalise the economy
without necessarily involving democratisation of the country's
political regime. Political power remained intact as the country progressed
economically with giant leaps.
The Chinese people themselves have not been so dissatisfied
with the lack of democracy and freedom, and they had no reason to be.
They're compensated by an increase in wealth, and
a high quality of life. Although, it is undeniable that
there are groups and a certain percentage of the population
that demand democratisation of the nation,
and more freedom for the press, especially in Hong Kong
which will soon be officially incorporated into mainland China.
In a way, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and
other rights of expression have never truly existed in China's recent growth.
Tragedies such as the Tianenmen Square
Massacre have been largely concealed by the Chinese government up until today,
so it is still taboo to talk about certain events that took place
that year. As China is getting richer and richer, and adapting to the higher
lifestyle, Xi Jinping has been proclaimed the "eternal president
of China," inscribing his
own name into the Chinese constitution.
Xi Jinping knows exactly what he is doing, he will certainly be
the president of the People's Republic of China for decades to come.
With China's economic power,
he will be the most powerful man in the world. He doesn't need to run election campaigns,
or worry about approval ratings, he will remain present,
whatever happens,
while other democratic world leaders will come and go.
The same reasoning could applied for countries such as Vietnam,
the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia,
among others. Certain countries are resistant to democratisation,
perhaps because of their culture, but they have grown
significantly through their resources or other factors
economic openness has been vital and necessary
for the development of these countries,
but with regard to political openness and freedom of expression
little or no progress has even been made at all.
Saudi Arabia remains an absolute monarchy
but as the gulf nation is en essential military ally
for the US, the US avoids criticising this authoritarian
state, even if its human rights record
leaves a lot to be desired and generates a lot of discomfort
for many international organisations. On the other hand,
the neighbouring state of the Saudi Kingdom, Iran, is criticised
much more often for its lack of human rights, and lack
of freedom of expression or political participation, but
it is interesting to note
that it is much more democratic than Saudi Arabia, because
presidential elections are still held within the country, despite the
fact that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
is concentrating considerable power within the country.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are considered tyrannical regimes
which could be considered good or bad depending on your political stance.
Even in the country that preaches democracy and claims
it as an excuse to intervene in other parts of the world,
the model of democracy that they have is debatable.
The US electoral system is an indirect vote where citizens
vote for the candidate they wish to elect as President, but what they
actually do is vote for the electoral college members who
then make the final decision. This is why
on very rare occasions, like the last presidential election,
the candidate with less popular votes ended up being elected as
president of the United States
*editing mistake here oopsies*
explaining this electoral system will take a whole other video
but in and of itself, the election of the President
of the United States cannot be considered truly democratic
from the traditional point of view
 
 
 
to this day, Trump continues to argue
that millions of people voted illegally in the elections, and that for this reason
Clinton got more votes. This dangerous claim does not only
cast doubt on the confidence in American electoral institutions
but also questions his personal decisions.
Donald Trump's attacks on US institutions have contributed
to American mistrust of electoral entities and other
organisations whose role it is to protect the country.
For this reason, among others, the United States has ceased to be a solid
democracy for the first time in history, according to the index of democracy
in The Economist. Today, countries like Uruguay,
and even Spain outrank the United
States in democratic rankings. The loss of confidence
or hope in democracy, has also been one of the key
factors to this regression. The facts that candidates get
the nominations with the help of lobbyists, or by benefiting from the political
system, discourages people from participating in the political process
altogether. As a matter of fact, the West has always
misinterpreted China's growth. Everyone was convinced that
globalisation would lead to the democratisation of the world's
second economy. China has shown that it is capable
of becoming an important global influence
without going through a democratic transition, and its a big problem for
the world, why? Because,
the substantial growth challenges
the importance of democracy for the development of a society
We now have two giants facing each other. On one side,
an authoritarian China
that is accumulating more and more power militarily,
economically and politically. And opposingly,
we have the so called democratic UNITED STATES, whose notoriety,
due to recent events, is declining world wide.
In the Latin American region, democracy is very subjective.
Yes, there are elections, but that
doesn't give them the automatic status of being democratic.
Of all the latin states, only Uruguay is a solid democracy
in the Economist's Index of Democracy. We have seen how a
Latin American democracy, Venezuela, has
slowly slipped into an authoritarian regime, and along with Cuba,
is one of the only two authoritarian states in America
according to The Economist. Bolivia is also on the same track
although Morales has lost the referendum on the presidential re-election.
Latin America is not the only place where we find that some
democracies are eroding into more authoritarian models of government.
In Europe we have the classic example of Russia.
President Vladimir Putin won the last elections
and another six years in the Kremlin. His victory was already widely
anticipated, not only for his popularity, but also for the
lack of options offering for an alternative to Putin. On the other hand,
it should be clarified that some opposition candidates
such as Navalry were unable to participate because of legal
obstacles imposed by the Kremlin. In the European Union, Poland and
Hungary saw their governments grow increasingly nationalistic
anti European
and xenophobic, while their governments increase their powers.
For example in Hungary, Victor Orban won a new term
in the parliamentary elections, with speeches on anti-
immigration, nationalism and protectionism.
It is interesting to note that Hungary is one of the countries
that receives the least number of immigrants from the Middle East.
The same scenario occurred in the UK, where defamation
campaigns and lies about immigration may have lead the British people
to vote in favour of leaving the EU.
The same could be said of the American campaign, and honestly
pretty much every democratic campaign. To have a candidate
win an election without lying is practically impossible,
even in the most transparent countries of the world.
So is democracy necessary for the development of society?
There are many different points of views  on this question.
Democracy guarantees the people to be sovereign and have the last word.
But this same principle allows people to elect those who are
not truly fit to be in power or unable to run a country
Its for this exact reason that Socrates hated democracy,
not because he loved tyranny,
but he argued against democracy by giving a very clear example.
Imagine that we had a boat with ten sailors,
two of whom know the navigational charts, in an ideal world,
the two most fit are designated by the remaining eight to run the boat
it is a logical and reasonable decision, but the fact is,
the world is not ideal, sailors vote for
people who are able to steer the ship and eventually sink it.
This is the reality of democracy.
This explains why Socrates thought it was a risky idea to give
equal voting to everyone, regardless of their education
and social differences. Nevertheless, it is obvious that by
depriving less educated people within a society of the right to vote
would be extremely exclusionary and denigrating,
which would only make the society more discriminatory
and unequal. Clearly,
the subject gives for a long debate, but personally,
I see democracy as the only way for a society to achieve
economic, social and political progress.
I know that democracy is not perfect, and that sometimes it becomes a weapon against people,
but so far
I don't see an alternative model that could replace the current democratic model.
So I pass the question off to you,
do you think that democracy is still the most ideal way to run things?
Or, should we integrate models, such of that
of the Chinese model in order to sustain societal development and progress
Let us know in the comments below.
