And as to the the brits and HK. I posted a comment on this post at Delong’s site making the point that DL was simply making a case against nationalist logic as such. “Shorter Brad DeLong: we’d be better off if colonial subjects had put off their nationalist aspirations for a century of so.” I posted in and he removed it. I restructured it as a question and he removed it again. There’s a logical reasoned case to be made for patience, but DeLong is only willing to make it in the context of his own moralizing pedantry. Why someone points out the implications he runs away.

The law may often be an ass, it may be applied imperfectly, but on the whole it is preferable to lawlessness.

In Monarchies the rule of law is above all, even the king, though some quibbled that he was bound only by God’s law (in Catholic lands interpreted by the Pope and enforced threat of excommunication and/or regime change as directed by the Papacy.)

Despite its officially sanctioned racism and other grave defects, such sanctioning the opium trade, it is my impression that the British Empire did bring a (relatively less corrupt than previously) Rule of Law to, say, British Hong Kong (mentioned above) and that this was one benefit that the inhabitants were grateful for.

As for the flipside question – dunno, will have to think on that one.

Cool – let’s hand over international relations to a bouncer! ‘Cos there is absolutely no difference between controlling a bunch of drunken louts in a bar and managing relationships with a foreign dictatorship whose first concern is staying in power – and whom you are very likely going to have to deal with again not just tomorrow for years and years.

Oh, and you don’t just want to keep them from beating up your neighbours, you have to worry about climate change policy and deforestration and them supporting groups of people who are trying to attack your government, and you also have to worry about the other neighbours, and your own government is dependent on votes from people who have strong opinions about what should be happening in the dictatorship country (there are a lot of Pacific Islanders in NZ).

Nope, foreign policy is absolutely dead simple, and anyone who doesn’t immediately appreciate the obvious brilliance of advice like “act like a wise man” is simply expecting you to waste your time listening to bullshit and lies. Simple slogans and talking to bouncers is the way to go!

The flip side of your question would be, “Can you name a democracy that protected the rights of stable, identifiable minorities well?”

On that note, I’m going to have to snort derisively at the Wikipedia list of “benevolent dictators” if it includes Castro on the list. With all the toing and froing on this and the previous thread about how bad or how inevitable Castro was or wasn’t, I never heard anyone deny that he had stomped on various, even numerous, human rights, unless those 69 political prisoners were suddenly freed while I wasn’t looking.

Someone on a previous thread eloquently reminded us that not all human rights are political rights. Some are welfare rights, like health care, economic security, a clean environment, education for one’s children, etc. Some dictators, like Lee Kuan Yew (sp.?), Suharto, and the examples mentioned in #92, do seem to have done a better job securing some welfare rights, at least some of the time, than some purely formally democratic regimes.

But, again, there might be some confusion of cause and effect here. In a place like Noway where there’s little tension of any kind – ethnic, class, religious or whatever – there’s, naturally, little need for coercion, violation of human rights, or dictatorship. But in a place/situation with high level of tensions and contradictions it just may be inevitable.

That may well be the case currently within the UK and the US, but it certainly isn’t inherent to democracy. Witness, for example, the setting up of the welfare state and the NHS in Britain after WWII. Britain was at that time, I do believe, a democracy. I think it is fair to say that that was a sharp turn leftwards.

I note that for all the discussions about the failures of democracy, most of which I agree with, the answer to my question is still no.

Croatia Religions:

Roman Catholic 87.8%, Orthodox 4.4%, other Christian 0.4%, Muslim 1.3%, other and unspecified 0.9%, none 5.2% (2001 census)—CIA Handbook

Um, Cardinal Stepniac?

I think that’s right.

Democracy institutionalizes an orderly process for regime change that favors the majority.

I don’t think it’s true that it favors the majority, necessarily. What typically happens is that the population, pre-conditioned by the mass-media, is given the choice of two directions; for example, they can choose between ‘bear right’ and ‘sharp right’. Perhaps the course that favors the majority is ‘sharp left’ but that can’t be facilitated by democracy because the electoral process, mass-media, and other powerful institutions (internal and external) all favor the direction ‘right’. If the population still refuses to follow recommended direction, they can be convinced by more direct means: sabotaging their economy, military attacks, terrorism, etc.