[JohnRawls]

@JohnRawls the word for you want to describe is 'liberal democracy' you don't need to mutilate 'Western' to make it fit. No one will understand you if you do that.



The US is the principal cause of this sort of national regression. Hegemonic status of the West is a historical aberration - 500 years of the last 10,000 - and is not permanently sustainable. The West needs to prepare for a world in which the global center of economics and political power are not in the West, but in Africa and Asia. They are failing. The US needs to show its commitment to a true international rules-based order, which means accepting that the rules will sometimes constrain their freedom to act. The US has refused to do so - they even have a law letting them bomb the International Criminal Court if they try to enforce human rights laws against Americans. Because of this, there is little trust in the validity of the rules based order or American hegemony in rising powers such as India, China, Nigeria, or others.

The West needs to accept the inevitability of the loss of its position of prestige and start setting the groundwork for an equitable world order that can replace it without devolving into petty regional fiefdoms, as you say. But I can't blame Russia or China for this, as they're not in the driver's seat.

Actually not. Liberal democracy is a form of governence that is related to being Western but being Western is more than that I suppose. Western means a set of values that a certain "blob" of nations possesses also. Pre-WW1 and Pre-WW2 it is hard to talk about Western since although the values did exist, the blob itself was all over the place and you would usually consider them on an individual basis. After WW2 it changed and the processes continued up to today.

[Rancid]

Multipolarity led to WWI and WWII and the Cold War.

INdeed,

It is a fallacy to believe a multi-polar world is safer. Multi-polar is code for imperialistic world.

[JohnRawls]

INdeed,

It is a fallacy to believe a multi-polar world is safer. Multi-polar is code for imperialistic world.

There is a theory that exists whos author name I don't remember that says that multi-polar leads to the world being divided in spheres of influence. So if in a situation of one ultra hegemon naive politics or idealistic politics/relations can be conducted but in a multipolar world that is no longer possible. A side note here is that we never had a multi-polar world where 2 Hegemons are both liberal democratic so all assumption are between liberal democracy and then authoritarian/communist/not liberal democratic 2nd Hegemon. But then again, the person who proposed this theory also admitted that two liberal democratic hegemons are unlikely since we there is no point in outright conflict between the two since core issues are anyways settled most likely. (Perhaps EU and US are an example of that but not ideal. EU never really tried to contest the US although it has way more resources than both Russia or China)

I think that it was Mearsheimer.

[Rancid]

There is a theory that exists whos author name I don't remember that says that multi-polar leads to the world being divided in spheres of influence. So if in a situation of one ultra hegemon naive politics or idealistic politics/relations can be conducted but in a multipolar world that is no longer possible. A side note here is that we never had a multi-polar world where 2 Hegemons are both liberal democratic so all assumption are between liberal democracy and then authoritarian/communist/not liberal democratic 2nd Hegemon. But then again, the person who proposed this theory also admitted that two liberal democratic hegemons are unlikely since we there is no point in outright conflict between the two since core issues are anyways settled most likely. (Perhaps EU and US are an example of that but not ideal. EU never really tried to contest the US although it has way more resources than both Russia or China)

I think that it was Mearsheimer.

If we have a multi-polar world where only one pole is a liberal democracy (or trying to be one anyway). What does this means for the rest of the world?

Doesn't sound good, doesn't sound like a world I'd want to live in. This desire for a multi-polar world by westerners is bizarre to me. It's certainly a situation of running away from one devil, to an even worse one.

I think this happens for two reasons:

- People allow their emotions & biases to guide them a little too much.
- People don't think this through much (i.e. not enough critical thinking)

The end result, is these wild swings of support towards shit hole authoritarians as saviors.

[Rich]

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. The USSR was equally responsible for creating the UN, and had FDR and Williams remained in office until 1945, I think there is a much that could have been done to avoid the Cold War because these parties had an understanding. Truman, Bynes, and Acheson, all die-hard anti communists, set the tone for things and pushed the USSR out, completely reversing course on US foreign policy in the early 40s. It's a problem that has plagued the State Department since. But we've had this rodeo before, no need to rehash it.

The UN was FDR's project. The original plan was for China to be the fourth permanent member of the security council in order to effectively give the US 2 votes. Churchill and Stalin thought the whole thing a bit of a joke, but were happy to humour Roosevelt as he held the Lend Lease purse strings. FDR was completely deluded about Stalin. His decision to demand the unconditional surrender of Germany consigned central and eastern Europe to Stalin's communist terror machine. As well as setting things up for the loss of China.

[Tainari88]

If we have a multi-polar world where only one pole is a liberal democracy (or trying to be one anyway). What does this means for the rest of the world?

Doesn't sound good, doesn't sound like a world I'd want to live in. This desire for a multi-polar world by westerners is bizarre to me. It's certainly a situation of running away from one devil, to an even worse one.

I think this happens for two reasons:

- People allow their emotions & biases to guide them a little too much.
- People don't think this through much (i.e. not enough critical thinking)

The end result, is these wild swings of support towards shit hole authoritarians as saviors.

I hate authoritarians too Rancid. At the same time, people don't do enough to rid themselves of them. So we are stuck with co-existence. That is the way it is. You either oust them or you live with them. That is reality. My first choice would be to oust them. But? Go and tell that to the MAGA crowd or the ones who continue to love monarchical rulers and Kings and Queens and class-conscious societies. All of the class-conscious societies and the right-wing love authoritarian types. That is fascism for you.

[JohnRawls]

I hate authoritarians too Rancid. At the same time, people don't do enough to rid themselves of them. So we are stuck with co-existence. That is the way it is. You either oust them or you live with them. That is reality. My first choice would be to oust them. But? Go and tell that to the MAGA crowd or the ones who continue to love monarchical rulers and Kings and Queens and class-conscious societies. All of the class-conscious societies and the right-wing love authoritarian types. That is fascism for you.

Authoritarians and dictators have very little to do with being right wing or left wing or even centrist. There are plenty dictators of every sort and flavour that has been or will be. Hitler was right, Stalin was left, Franco was religious right, Singapore is a centrist authoritarian regime....

[Tainari88]

Authoritarians and dictators have very little to do with being right wing or left wing or even centrist. There are plenty dictators of every sort and flavour that has been or will be. Hitler was right, Stalin was left, Franco was religious right, Singapore is a centrist authoritarian regime....

Then let us call them authoritarians who don't like any competition or dissent? Lol.

[Fasces]

Singapore is as democratic as Japan. The whole world is just "vibes" for you? Singapore is populated by Chinese so they're authoritarian?

[Tainari88]

Singapore is as democratic as Japan. The whole world is just "vibes" for you? Singapore is populated by Chinese so they're authoritarian?

People do not really understand that the more authoritarian and controlling any superpower gets? The less they wind up controlling things in the end.

People only obey when they think they have no other choice. The nature of humans is to want to have choices, and not be exploited and to be able to make their own choices on their own conscience. Authoritarian rulers are like overly strict fathers than everyone runs around obeying when he is around, but once his back is turned, they go and do their own thing.

What people should always do, is create systems that deal with basic needs, and that give people great opportunities, stability, security and a way of building the society in the greatest benefit to the ones sacrificing for that society. That is not hard to do.

What makes it all difficult is when there is a need for exclusivity and for irresponsibility and lack of respect for the needs of the vast majority of people.

Usually that can only be solved by enough people getting involved again in change. Got to change society by involvement.

[JohnRawls]

Singapore is as democratic as Japan. The whole world is just "vibes" for you? Singapore is populated by Chinese so they're authoritarian?

Singapore is authoritarian and consider that by most rating/government agencies and institutions in the world. It is in no way, shape or form close to the Japanese model. It is the only not resource dependent successful authoritarian state also. Not sure what your gripe with my statement is.

[Fasces]

It's not authoritarian, anymore than Japan is. Similar one-party democracy with similar levels of political participation. In fact, Singapore has higher rates of political participation per capita, as measured by party membership, and registered voters.

Every complaint about Singaporean democracy is the same: elections are free and fair but incumbency is powerful. Well no shit, but the same applies to Japan. Then the panel arbitrarily gives extra points to Japan despite this, and less to Singapore.

https://freedomhouse.org/country/japan/ ... world/2022

https://freedomhouse.org/country/singap ... world/2021

Look at the different language used to describe identical situations.

[Fasces]

Japan’s electoral laws are generally fair and well enforced. Campaigning is heavily regulated, which typically benefits incumbents, although the rules are applied equally to all candidates. In March 2021, a former LDP justice minister announced his resignation from the lower house after pleading guilty to vote buying in connection with his wife’s campaign for an upper house seat in 2019.

Malapportionment in favor of the rural districts from which the LDP draws significant support has been a persistent problem, despite a series of reforms to reduce the disparity with urban districts. A 2020 Supreme Court ruling upheld the constitutionality of the most recent upper house elections, but called on lawmakers to address the remaining gap in voting power between the most and least populated constituencies. A new round of redistricting was expected to take place in 2022.

SCORE: 4/4

Elections are largely free of fraud and other such irregularities, but they are unfair due to the advantages enjoyed by the incumbent party, including a progovernment media sector, the GRC system, high financial barriers to electoral candidacy, and legal restrictions on free speech.

SCORE: 2/4

Citizens enjoy equal rights to vote and run in elections regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Women remain underrepresented in government. There were two women contenders in the September 2021 contest to select a new LDP president. A nonbinding 2018 gender parity law urges parties to nominate equal numbers of male and female candidates. In the 2021 lower house elections, 17.7 percent of all candidates and 9.7 of winning candidates were women.

Around 600,000 ethnic Koreans born in Japan hold special residency privileges but not Japanese citizenship, meaning they are ineligible to participate in any elections at the national and local levels. Most but not all are South Korean nationals, and they have the option of applying for Japanese citizenship.

The Ainu, an Indigenous people numbering at least 20,000, live mostly on the northern island of Hokkaido. The Ainu Party was launched in 2012 to increase their political representation, though it has yet to win seats in the Diet.

SCORE: 4/4

Ethnic Chinese Singaporeans make up a majority of the population. Members of minority groups, including Malays and people of Indian descent, have full voting rights, but critics—including academics and civil society organizations—have questioned whether the GRC system really achieves its stated aim of ensuring representation for minority populations. Separately, the rules for presidential candidacy have been criticized for excluding non-Malays from the 2017 election. Malays are generally underrepresented in leadership positions.

Women remain underrepresented in senior government and political positions, though women candidates won 27 of the 93 directly elected Parliament seats in 2020, up from 21 out of 89 in 2015, and the president who took office in 2017 is a woman. The cabinet as of 2020 included three women as full ministers. LGBT+ interest groups operate and are generally tolerated, but they do not have vocal representation in Parliament; open LGBT+ identity can be a barrier to election in practice, in part because sex between men remains a criminal offense.

SCORE: 2/4

[JohnRawls]

It's not authoritarian, anymore than Japan is. Similar one-party democracy with similar levels of political participation. In fact, Singapore has higher rates of political participation per capita, as measured by party membership, and registered voters.

Every complaint about Singaporean democracy is the same: elections are free and fair but incumbency is powerful. Well no shit, but the same applies to Japan. Then the panel arbitrarily gives extra points to Japan despite this, and less to Singapore.

https://freedomhouse.org/country/japan/ ... world/2022

https://freedomhouse.org/country/singap ... world/2021

Look at the different language used to describe identical situations.

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is very limited in Singapore. Which allows the incumbent to control and monopolize power. Along with judicial prosecutions of any undesirables supported by their judicial system.

Freedom of expression and assembly
Judicial harassment of independent media workers and government critics continued. In April, Terry Xu and Daniel de Costa, respectively editor and writer with the media outlet The Online Citizen, were sentenced to three weeks’ imprisonment. They were convicted in 2021 of defaming cabinet members. Daniel de Costa was also sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for contravening the Computer Crimes Act.

In January, human rights defender Jolovan Wham was found guilty of holding an illegal public assembly in relation to a 2018 protest against an earlier trial of Terry Xu and Daniel de Costa. He served 15 days in jail after losing his appeal and refusing to pay a fine.

In June, police interrogated Kirsten Han and Rocky Howe under the Public Order Act after they participated in a peaceful protest against the death penalty.1 In October, police informed Kirsten Han that she had been found in contempt of court, apparently for a Facebook post critical of the authorities’ harassment of lawyers representing death row inmates. She received a conditional warning to refrain from “criminal conduct” for 12 months. Her legal challenge against the case was still pending at year’s end.

In November, a police investigation was launched against a woman after she held a protest outside the Chinese embassy in solidarity with victims of human rights violations there.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asi ... singapore/

Or more here: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/c ... /singapore

While there are obviously other problems like anti-lgbt or migrant abuse but you can skip that since that is not related to one country being authoritarian. But severe limit of media, aseembly and direct prosecution of opposition or any other group that has political demands and is not inline does make it authoritarian.

[MadMonk]

Democratic ideals often become synonymous with, not exclusively and not absolute; the rule of law, freedom of the press, freedom of expression and association, and this is where Singapore often gets its most flak. They get international recognition for order, security, absence of corruption and effective criminal justice, so they still have a great name brand anyway.

Freedoms of Expression, Assembly, and Association

Singapore's constitution guarantees rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association. However, it also permits broadly interpreted restrictions not only for security, public order, and morality, but also for parliamentary privilege and racial and religious harmony. These restrictions facilitate censorship of broadcast and electronic media, films, video, music, sound recordings, and computer games.

Source

[Pants-of-dog]

A world ruled by the US is not a safe one either.

The US populace has never stepped in to stop the US from bombing civilians, supporting dictatorships, or destablizing whole regions of the world.

While it makes sense to prevent China or Russia or any other country from also doing this kind of stuff, it also makes sense to prevent the US and western forces from doing all of this.

Until there is a system where everyone can be held accountable, any claims of a better world under western hegemony seem hypocritical at best.

But it does not matter. China was already winning the economic war against the west over thirty years ago, and now it is simply a matter of time before the world accepts the new multi-polar paradigm.

[Fasces]

I picked the examples I picked to show that Japan is given the benefit of the doubt due to its alignment to Western interests that Singapore is not. Japan is not one of the best democracies in the world

[Fasces]

A world ruled by the US is not a safe one either.

The US populace has never stepped in to stop the US from bombing civilians, supporting dictatorships, or destablizing whole regions of the world.

While it makes sense to prevent China or Russia or any other country from also doing this kind of stuff, it also makes sense to prevent the US and western forces from doing all of this.

Until there is a system where everyone can be held accountable, any claims of a better world under western hegemony seem hypocritical at best.

But it does not matter. China was already winning the economic war against the west over thirty years ago, and now it is simply a matter of time before the world accepts the new multi-polar paradigm.

As the predator drone screeched over the horizon, bombing their village, Ahmed turned to his crying son and said: "Do not worry about your dead mother child - that drone is American, and in America, at least the people can criticize their President for killing us."

[Rancid]

A world ruled by the US is not a safe one either.

Of course not, but the backwards facing China/Russian world is an even worse proposition.

[Unthinking Majority]

Corrupted democracies are not democracies. Democracies are fragile if you do not protect the core of it. If you allow the plutocrats to dictate all of the politicians policies it is not a functioning democracy UM. The Right in the USA is actively seeking to disenfranchise voters.

For me the Right in the USA is anti-democratic. Both parties are sellout parties with zero real democratic practices. And again, unless they stop that behavior there is nothing of democracy left.

Dictators are out there and so are kings and queens. If you want the entire world to be what? Liberal democracies like the USA has? The reality is that the liberal parts are few. And the democratic process has been seriously dissipated and no one has been actively seeking to respect self-determination and democratic practices for a long long time in the foreign policy of the USA. If you study what the US government says it stands for abroad and what it actually winds up doing? Are totally contradictory. It is not bringing democracy and prosperity to the nations it invades to bring American style democracy to the ignorant peoples. It is not leaving behind any of those nations recently it has been at war with as liberal democracies has it? Afghanistan? Iraq? I see American democracy in the Taliban and the Iraqi Freedom Campaign. I do not think so.

I don't disagree with most of this. But the US have a check on its power with the people's vote. Otherwise, Trump would probably still be in power, or Cheney & Rumsfeld using their puppet Dubya to still drop bombs on Iraqis.