Democracy bad for Africa?

[Adali]

Fuk hassan sheekh he is utterly useless, he turned an entire nation into an episode of Game of thrones what a retard, bring Siad barre back make Somalia great again.

1. secure
2. economy
3. invest in the land: infrastructure
4. invest in the people: education, health care


that is all I want, I don't even care about education and infrastructure, I can afford to send my kids to foreign unis and they are set for life with international jobs, but I know if we leave the rest behind the country will not progress and will be unsafe, we need this to get a healthy intelligent and hard working population with less crime !

[Macarons]

Khalid Ali, you must be on drugs. I would rather live under the most brutal and repressive regime as long as I have a good income and the country has economic and political prestige. I don't give two f#*@s about putting a bit of paper into a box and choosing which tribalis, opportunist tuug gets to rob the country next.

People like you are a cancer to Somaliland. You only care about looking good to whites in exchange for little Aid money.

Just curious, would you mind living in a North Korea with limited access to the outside world/information, restricted freedoms and praising a narcisstic sociopath leader?

I'd say, the above can apply to even Dubai but on a smaller, bearable degree and with similarly poor access to justice.

Nice strawman. North Korea is a hyper-paranoid shithole run by a family cult. UAE is a good example, but China is a better one.

What strawman? It was a simple question.

[SahanGalbeed]

Let's take America for example and the current president we have . With all his childish behavior , people have learnt that the country is bigger than any one man . In fact a lot of people who think he is a clown still will put on a good face to serve him because they are career professionals who serve their country . That's the mentality I am applying to myself . SERVE where I can . If you think you're smarter or more experienced than Hassan Sheikh , go work for him or the country not for you , after all his term in office is constitutionally limited . NO ONE MAN IS BIGGER THAN THE SUM OF ALL MEN and no single clan is more important than the sum of all somali clans !

[theyuusuf143]

NO ONE MAN IS BIGGER THAN THE SUM OF ALL MEN and no single clan is more important than the sum of all somali clans !

Short sighted people don't understand this . Dadkan waxad moodaa inaysan weligood buug taariikha kala furin waxna kama garanayaan halkay ku danbeeyeen dhamaan talisyadii macangaga ahaa ee dunida soo maray. I would rather stick to my slowly moving stable habarmocracy than unpredictable dictatorship. Look at ETHIOPIA it's growing fast but not sustainable, 90 million people are all sharpening their knifes to eliminate the minority TPLF Junta , just because they were denied to exercise their political rights and personal freedom . People prefer dignity and freedom over materials, you cant keep ruling them by force .

[gurey25]

That's your vision of the world , which you are entitled to .
A republic is a system of governance , in opposition to a monarchy for example , where the power is held by the people and their elected representatives . In a republic the head of state can be autocratic , like Russia for example
A democracy in the modern sense is a a space where the free flow of ideas is permitted , an opposition respected and allowed, where people are encouraged to remain engaged in the political process .These precepts are UNIVERSAL , belonging to ALL MANKIND , not just a few .They don't belong to the US , or the "colonials"

About the founding fathers of the US democracy , I think they were debating whether to take the direct universal suffrage or the electoral college as a system of election , I don't think they were afraid of democracy .

You youreself asked how Europe got there?
It was a long and arduos process of evolution, and they have arrived at what you believe to be "liberal Democracy"
This is a farce..
Europe was always ruled by an elite a nobility and royalty.
When the economy and society developed to the level where the middle classes wrenched some power from the nobility, what you had was an expanded size of the elite that run the society.
Democratic elections are a way to manage the conflicts between this new elite, with the added benefit that the average people and lower classes have some voice and some of their interests are catered to.
But your "liberal democarcy" is govered by the elite for the elite.

This naive rosey picture of democracy is pretty childsih and i am surprised a man for your age still believes this.
We are not living in a world of care bears, and beautiful ponies and rainbows, it is dark, terrifying and downright disgusting.

You need to be a cynic to see the world for what it is.
I am actually an idealist that is forced to put on cynic glasses , but when they are off i am back to the extreme optimist that i am.
It will explain why i am a believer in direct democracy and anarchism in the classical sense.
I am a firm believer in real democracy , i identify with the poor and downtrodden and value them more than the rich and powerful.
Advances in communication technology, computing and manufacturing technology as well as energy makes my vision quite feasible
its no longer a pipe dream or sciencefiction.

Real democracy is possible, but you cannot get there in a straight line, there is winding path through a dangerous jungle filled with dangers,
and the path will lead backwards , sidewards more often than forwards.
progress in a straight line is an illusion.

[LiquidHYDROGEN]

Direct democracy is just mob rule. Just look at Brexit, 52% voted for something and they cannot even fathom it's consequences. Democracy is only a luxury of the middle-class.

[InoCabdi]

Somalia needs a military leader who will take a no-nonsense stance. Opposition should be arrested. Parliament should be dissolved. There's no point of having a parliament with khat-chewing guys who's kids are ciyaal suuq in London. There should be a Somali Military Council.
You can't get Somalis to respect their leader out of love. But you can get them to respect him out of fear.

[LiquidHYDROGEN]

Somalia needs a military leader who will take a no-nonsense stance. Opposition should be arrested. Parliament should be dissolved. There's no point of having a parliament with khat-chewing guys who's kids are ciyaal suuq in London. There should be a Somali Military Council.
You can't get Somalis to respect their leader out of love. But you can get them to respect him out of fear.

True, but I prefer the carrot and stick approach. Offer economic prosperity, free enterprise, peace and development, as well as free speech. But crack-down on foreign influence, 5th columns and religious agitators.

[gurey25]

Direct democracy is just mob rule. Just look at Brexit, 52% voted for something and they cannot even fathom it's consequences. Democracy is only a luxury of the middle-class.

Choosing the best words to describe the idea is difficult, words like democracy are loaded with too many conflicting connotations.
Same thing with Rule and Administer they can be quite different things.
Ideally you want to have the smallest size organization to do the job, matters should to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.
The Catholic church calls it Subsidiarity.

Matter of greater scope, such as planning, development, economic policy, foriegn affairs and defence should be concentrated at the top,
centralized.

Democracy should be according to subsidiarity , and electing a president is the dumbest thing you can possibly do.
9/10 times he would be incompetent, beholden to special interests both foreign and domestic and overtime will grow in power and start to
take more power eventually becoming dictatorship in all but name.

True, but I prefer the carrot and stick approach. Offer economic prosperity, free enterprise, peace and development, as well as free speech. But crack-down on foreign influence, 5th columns and religious agitators.

a dictatorship by one person is far worse thana democracy, it is the end result of the progression of " democracy"
why would you want to head directly to where the decaying corpse of "liberal democracy" is heading???

the phrase "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absoutley"
absolute power is like heroin, sooner or later you will get hooked and sell your own mother for another hit, or end up in a street corner sucking D,ick.

You need centralized power at the top but you need to share it with more people, to lessen the corrupting influence of power.

[LiquidHYDROGEN]

Choosing the best words to describe the idea is difficult, words like democracy are loaded with too many conflicting connotations.
Same thing with Rule and Administer they can be quite different things.
Ideally you want to have the smallest size organization to do the job, matters should to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.
The Catholic church calls it Subsidiarity.

Matter of greater scope, such as planning, development, economic policy, foreign affairs and defence should be concentrated at the top,
centralized.

So a bunch of villagers should decide whether or not to lower/increase taxes, defend the village from enemies, build dams to prevent drought etc? That seems very reasonable. But it becomes absurd when you think about how to reconcile these micro-issues with how to deal with macro-issues like climate-change, economic growth, deforestation, illegal fishing, political corruption and incomptence.

Democracy should be according to subsidiarity , and electing a president is the dumbest thing you can possibly do.
9/10 times he would be incompetent, beholden to special interests both foreign and domestic and overtime will grow in power and start to
take more power eventually becoming dictatorship in all but name.

a dictatorship by one person is far worse than a democracy, it is the end result of the progression of " democracy"
why would you want to head directly to where the decaying corpse of "liberal democracy" is heading???

the phrase "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absoutley"
absolute power is like heroin, sooner or later you will get hooked and sell your own mother for another hit, or end up in a street corner sucking D,ick.

You need centralized power at the top but you need to share it with more people, to lessen the corrupting influence of power.

I'm not advocating for a one-man dictatorship. I prefer a single-party regime that comprises of experienced and highly educated technocrats.

[LiquidHYDROGEN]

Also, your idea of subsidiarity sounds very similar to libertarianism/neo-liberalism. To me, Anarchism, libertarianism, democracy and, to a large extent, communism are all highly idealistic because they underestimate the human need to dominate, prosper and the power of corporatism.

[gurey25]

So a bunch of villagers should decide whether or not to lower/increase taxes, defend the village from enemies, build dams to prevent drought etc? That seems very reasonable. But it becomes absurd when you think about how to reconcile these micro-issues with how to deal with macro-issues like climate-change, economic growth, deforestation, illegal fishing, political corruption and incomptence.

yes a bunch of villagers are far far more qualified to administer their own village and deal with local issues rather than someone at the top
making decsions based on knowle

I'm not advocating for a one-man dictatorship. I prefer a single-party regime that comprises of experienced and highly educated technocrats.

dge he doesnt have.

The same if you loo at it the other way, The average person in the street is not qualified to judge who would be competent to rule the entire country. They should elect electors who can vote on their behalf.


bingo.
multiparty elections are wasteful and downright dangerous.

[gurey25]

Also, your idea of subsidiarity sounds very similar to libertarianism/neo-liberalism. To me, Anarchism, libertarianism, democracy and, to a large extent, communism are all highly idealistic because they underestimate the human need to dominate, prosper and the power of corporatism.

no i am allot crazier than you think.
I am proposing a single party rule at the top and direct democracy at the bottom,

subsidiarity is nature, its natural, we should always work with nature not against it.


Communism is horrible worng, due to not understanding how people think,
Libertariasm is horrible and frightning in reality far worse than neo-liberalism
its just the dreams and fantasies of spoilt rich people that dont want a government to nanny them.

Anarchism is not understood very well, you probably assumed libertariansm to be a flavour of it, didnt you,.

[LiquidHYDROGEN]

yes a bunch of villagers are far far more qualified to administer their own village and deal with local issues rather than someone at the top
making decsions based on knowledge he doesnt have.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. That's like saying GPs and consultants aren't fit to provide health advice.

The same if you loo at it the other way, The average person in the street is not qualified to judge who would be competent to rule the entire country. They should elect electors who can vote on their behalf.

bingo.
multiparty elections are wasteful and downright dangerous.

I don't follow what you are trying to say. Could you rephrase that?

A judge is only knowledgeable on the law and it's application. They wouldn't be able to successfully run a major telecom corporation, for instance, or administer a whole region because even administration and management are skills that not everyone has. It's why China is so will run, despite it's size - it's leaders are all engineering and administration/management graduates.

[gurey25]

but all this is too much to think about.
Should look at successfull non democratic systems.
The most effective model seems to be Singapore, Malaysia and Japan.
In Japan its the bureaucracy that rules the country and the multi party system is just a useful tool.
Singapore and Malaysia are in reality one party states that pretend to be multiparty systems.

They all have their advantages and disadvantages it good to study them.

We should study the unsuccessful systems too they might have value.
For example Pakistan looks like a democracy but in reality its the Army that rules,
It is said that countries have an army, but in Pakistan the army has a country.
Very inefficient because they ended up with a multi party system that is foriegn controlled and fights against the interests of their own country
but they are an irritant and have no real power. They have enough power to paralize economic and social development of the country however.

Algeria is an interesting case, it is stable but we have the curios case of an intelligence agency having full control over the armed forces , and the political parties. It explains why attempts at subversion were crushed too easily, they didnt even break a sweat.
Algeria will have to be attacked from the outside for it to fall.

We have the old soviet union which was also unique, this time it was a trimuvarate of the Armed forces, KGB and the Communist party.
unfortunately they tended to pull in 3 directions and the soviets slept walked throughout most of the cold war from 1953 to 1991.

The most stable system non democratic system so far would be the chinese.