India is a big exception to your theory. There were no violent revolutions and it got a pretty stable democracy right in the first attempt. Although it may be attributed to help from the British while designing the Indian constitution.
Dude, don't whitewash India's modern history. Except for two brief periods, the Congress ruled India pretty much from 1947 all the way to 1998. Even the 1998 NDA govt isn't really a stable transitional govt because it couldn't last for more than 1 term. The 2014 BJP govt is the first transitional govt that is strong, stable and is a prove that finally, India has a proper democracy where more than 1 party/coalition can form a stable govt at center at any given time. Anyway India's problem isn't really democracy, but adherence to rule-of-law; there's no point in having a govt and a court if very few people follow what they say. Coming back to politics, you could find a similar history in modern Japan. It basically reinforces the idea that democracy takes a long time to properly function.
It seems like very few westerners ask the question of why a "stable, well-functioning democracy" is necessary in the first place. After all, there are ZERO historical examples of democratic governance propelling nation-states from poverty & backwardness to prosperity & modernity. If India succeeds, it would arguably be the first. But a sample size of one is hardly a good record. All the hype generated by liberal democratic dogma has obscured the fact that it has yielded absolutely ZERO results in terms of actually moving societies forward.
India won't succeed and there's a simple reason for it. Corruption and the lack of rule of law. Add that with foreign media not willing to criticize India for anything so the world doesn't compare it's horrible system and development to China, India will never learn nor grow into a developed democracy. They are only democracy in name.
@@horstnietzsche1923 All of those were/are fake "democracies" during their respective periods of rise to power (ESPECIALLY the US). They were (& are) de facto oligarchies where the monied elites were real decision makers. Just because you have a veneer of democracy where people go through the motions of casting votes doesn't mean they actually make impactful day to day policy decisions.
The truth is you need people to be well educated first in order to have a properly functioning democracy ... thats why its so difficult to get democracy going in the arab world where most of the population are so deeply steeped in their religious beliefs that they will just use the democratic system to give power to any religious theocractic body to exercise power in undemocratic ways to unfairly suppress the freedoms of anyone who does not share their religious beliefs..
@@88feji I agree only with the first part of your speech . Secular parties in the Arab world , backed usually by the military , always subvert the democratically elected regimes. This happened in Egypt and in Algeria where I live . Of course the military always subvert democracies everywhere in the world. Another key party that always subvert the democracy are the businessmen elite . ( businessmen and the military ) are the enemies of democracy everywhere in the world . ( workers and the masses are always pro democracy..
Democracy needs an update. For example, Great-Britain never had a 100% democracy. And it never had a democracy by sortiton. It's new but old too, once worked very well in old Athens. Ireland and Iceland are doing this now, not just as an experiment. Please check 'sortition' on youtube. In French it's 'Tirage au sort'. It means randomly selected citizens will work together in order to govern, with or without professional politicians. I think it's worthwhile to examine, and probably the path to take.
Congrats for the presentation, I´ll use some intersting fragments to quote in my job. Im a positive creative lawyer working in give more life to democracy. In Mexico we have a democracy in construction, but with a lot of problems, I´m working in put the power in the right hands. blessings
Watched this but couldn't get the real reasons why democracies fail which is the title of the argument, also some countries mentioned as examples never had successful democracies before their democratic experience failed.
thoughtful content well presented. Thank you, Ms Berman, I really enjoyed this. Glad that you emphasised the importance of global institutions. That's a piece of the puzzle that's too weak at the moment - we need stronger and veto-less institutions for the 21st century (think global warming and migration)
I think real democracy depends on empathy. We're in it together and we have to do it together, and with caring and love. I like Riane Eisler's (The Chalice, The Blade 1987) tracing of gylany from before the age of empire into our coming era after empire. It is David Korten's and Joanna Macy's Earth Community. Coming soon.
WOW qué conjunto de impresiciones. Confundir dictadura con monarquía y definir según su propio parecer lo que es o no democracia. Según ella, el voto universal (una persona, un voto, como en Rusia) es MENOS democrático que la democracia estadounidense, en la que el pueblo no vota por su presidente, sino lo hacen los colegios electorales. IMPRESENTABLE!!!
Democracy tend to falter at the hands of people. Afterall the pillars and foundation make the democracy a hit or a miss...people tend to forget that they play the most important role they back a leader in the upheavel movement ( arab spring ) they leave it totally up to him to run the nation.
So… outside of England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States the establishment of successful democracy is within living memory. With less than a century of sustained democracy in most democratic countries some would argue that it's too early to tell if democracy is sustainable anywhere outside of the Anglo-ethnic legacy countries. I'm being too pessimistic here, any country can be a successful democracy in my opinion, but I wouldn't want to be the democratic evangelist trying to assure one that if they start now they can become sustainable democracies after a mere 160 years of violent fratricidal chaos. The most successful democracies outside of the Anglo-ethnic legacy countries are in Western Europe and in Northeast Asia. These democracies were incubated during the Cold War and heavily subsidized by the United States. The Asian democracies also followed a politico-economic formula developed by Otto Bismark in which a totalitarian government focused the resources of the country to strategic industries run by aristocratic or quazi-aristocratic families providing industrial employment for its citizens and social modernization investments from surplus funds. The countries that used this model: Germany, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore. All of these countries pulled themselves from the third world to the first, and four of the five represent arguably the four most successful democracies outside of the Anglo-ethnic legacy block. Another country that's using a modified version of the Prussian model is China, but I think, like Singapore, it's not going to become democratic any time soon. As for the other democracies of the world, they should understand that when Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand became democracies the industrial revolution was young and the only competition they had was each other, way across the ocean where it took a long time to deliver goods many of which were spoiled by the voyage. Modern countries are having to compete way above their weight limit, and democracies have a difficult time explaining to their constituencies the need to make long term investments to improve industrial competitiveness. Of course, so do dictatorships. I do think democracy is right for any country that wants it. But if a country is not already wealthy then I would suggest they concentrate first on developing their economy and their industrial capacity so that they can sustain a political system that is inherently precarious, like democracy. And hopefully in the meantime, they can count on something besides sabotage from the already existing democratic states.
Also, can you tell me more about the way existing democracies sabotage nondemocracies. Sincerely, A single democratic citizen who does not wish for such injustice.
@@nielskorpel8860 You certainly see it in China these days with clandestine support of separatist organizations calling for nationalist independence in Tibet, Taiwan, Xinjiang, and even Hong Kong. We have troops in eastern Syria trying to keep that country from coming together. We've backed nationalism and separatism in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Serbia, Russia, Iraq, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Indonesia. We're actively trying to destroy the regime in Iran, and in Venezuela though there's an argument that Venezuela's a democracy. I'm not sure the degree too which we actually played a physical role in the wave of color revolutions that took place a decade or so ago (I wouldn't be surprised if we did), but we certainly sent out signals of support to encourage the overthrow of state governments.
@@nielskorpel8860 Democracy is inherently precarious because in order to get into a position of government you have to make ridiculous promises. It's very difficult to secure power in a democracy and keep it long enough to improve the position of your country and people. Usually democracies stay poor, because they are extremely vulnerable to manipulation. Poor democracies have trouble developing trusted institutions and they eventually slip into dictatorship. Dictatorships are vulnerable during transitions of rule. When a dictator dies, the knives come out. Aside from that a dictatorship's stability is usually dependent upon the government's level of competency. If corruption is low and services are provided, then stability is pretty strong, unless the West has it in for you like Qaddafi in Libya. A strong healthy dictatorship is the most likely nursery of a strong healthy democracy. Examples include Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
Venezuela has gone the direction of other high resource rich countries. They fell into a trap. It’s not their government, but that became too dependent on that resource and then it was gone.
Weird title and weird thesis. Seemed like more of just a history lesson. She said in the 20th century we've reached 'full democracy' and yet we are still 'struggling with the same problems we've seen with democracy' in the past without explaining what those problems are. Just a little underwhelming. Also, why is failure of democracy "okay?"
This girl offers macro-spect via which to strategize anew, well versed in history humanities and civics. Ourselves both problems and solutions. Introspect to scale. Recapitulate. Stop to deliberate.
People are evil on the inside. Democracy is power to the ppl Therefore, democracy is power to the evil Which is rule by the evil for the evil Thusly democracy stands as an evil institution
Neither. See, the Greeks had something called democracy, but that meant meeting in the market square and voting on laws. They didn't elect officials (in most cases). Officials were chosen by lot. There were no professional judges either. So while they had something called democracy, it was very different from what we call democracy. Modern democracy, that is parliamentary democracy in territorial state with a division powers, became popular in England. There were of course republics on a city level throughout Europe, and in fact San Marino is oldest still existing state in Europe, but the large territories, were ruled by lords. The ideas that came together to form our modern democracy of course didn't fell from the sky: - Parliaments are the result of medieval councils of lords that the kings would call. - Due process was made popular by the catholic church who relied strongly on Roman law - The idea of division of power was known among scholars in antiquity, who talked about "mixed constitutions" So who invented democracy? Certainly not the French, see, the American declaration of independence hit a few years before the French Revolution.
The democratic party think America is a democracy however we are a republic so i dont agree with the idea or the ethics of the party not say that the Republican part is better as a system so having that said we need to teach the fact about America being a republic stile of government and then go from there as whole
The failure of democracy is the failure to deliver economic prosperity. S. Korea is a successful democracy because they focused on the economy before instituting democratic reforms. "Democracy is an end not a means" Thomas PM Barnett
@Jotaro97 It has nothing to do Anglo lagacy and a part of it is true. But what most ignore is India already had those system. Indian rural areas, still follows a 2000 year old system which is known as Panchayat Raj. The thing is neither Britishers had control nor Republic of India have control over it. However,modern form is very recent but the thing is Panchayat was always there. However, some were much evolved. For cities and India as a nation it is true. British created the basic institution needed for that.
All I understood from her was: "Democracy keeps failing, but it's just the best system ever. Just look at all those countries with great democratic systems!" Of course, ignoring the fact that each and every single one of those examples still fails as a democracy. If a system keeps failing like that, it just means it's inherently flawed. It fails because it can fail. And because it can fail, it's simply no good.
No mate. It wasn't a criticism of a democracy but of a speech. And when I wrote it was factually incorrect I didn't mean her conclusions about democracy as such but a few points, events she mentioned which were incorrect. In the words of Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
I suppose I misunderstood what you exactly meant, I guess. The one thing I notice for nearly everyone that criticizes democracy is that they always still seem to advocate for it. There are many ways to rule a country. I'd say it's about time for people thinking about a system that takes what's essential for the country as a whole into consideration, rather than just assuming that a democratic system is the only way to go.
@Lavelia Democracy is dangerous exactly because at some point, it stops being the people's fault. The only countries that can still somewhat be called democracies are those who recently adopted the system, since most have already rendered voting useless. Besides that, what I meant by taking what's essential for the country as a whole is thinking properly about what a person needs to live and be happy. Right now, how well a country and its people are doing is pretty much measured solely around its economy. It's also how decisions are made. Even if the manpower is there, even if the materials are there, even if the money is there and even if it would benefit society as a whole... if it doesn't produce results that favour the economy, a country will likely just shut down the idea/plan/etc. I think democracy is outdated and I think and I think measuring a country's success with money is outdated as well. I think it's possible to create a system that puts the well being of its people first. One that provides its people the tools they need to achieve happiness without having to trample over countless other people (whether knowingly or unknowingly). Democracy tends to favour those who are best at persuasion. It doesn't matter if they have good intentions or not, as long as they're charismatic, they can achieve what they want. Those with good intentions who aren't willing to trample on others will get trampled on before long. The thing about humans is that we often don't know what we want, that our knowledge is limited and that we most certainly aren't rational. We aren't all leaders and I can assure you that no one would care how a country is lead as long as they're happy and can do what they want. I'd also say that democracy accounts to a lot more inhuman decisions than most would realize. On a large scale, take the bickering around Turkey. The new president should have been shot the moment he decided to imprison everyone who was against him when he was chosen. And just look at what happened now, he invaded a country, tons died, countries say they're angry, no one actually takes any action. I'd say it's much more inhuman to let a person like that do what they want than it is to kill them. You say killing is wrong? Then look on a small scale, because western society has decided that it's alright for mothers to kill their own unborn children. Fathers be darned, if the mother wants them dead, she has every right to do that. Doesn't matter that she got pregnant because she happened to be reckless. But because some people high up have managed to dehumanize unborn babies (just by definition), the majority of people doesn't even think of them as human... even though abortions are often a gruesome process that requires tearing the limbs from tiny human beings off piece by piece. There's no doubt a ton of things that showcase that democracy makes as many inhuman things happen as they prevent.
in retrospect with Trump as president we can see why a failed democracy is so disastrous and how wrong this lady had been in 2015. but even back then we could have dismissed her speech as pure nonsense: 1. her interpretation of the french great revolution and the subsequent french revolutions of the 19th century is completely misleading because it ignores extremely crucial points; throughout the 19th century the french middle class solidified and guarded the achievements of the 1789 revolution and spread it to the entire western Europe, the french democracy basically never failed from within 2. drawing conclusions from the french democracy for the entire world is highly misleading, when french democracy fell to Nazism in 1940 there was no other option than military intervention from abroad to restore it, some of which came from USSR. but in many other cases foreign intervention is completely senseless or outright destructive, like the anglo-american Ajax operation of 1953 against a newly born Iranian democracy or the 2003 operation Iraqi Freedom or the foreign intervention in the Libyan civil war 3. there are vastly different types of democracies in the world, to the extent that we now know the US democracy represents only a very small fraction of wealthy american elite, to the extent that US democracy was already on path toward failure starting some time in the 1980s, those checks and balances, that "bipartisan" system was becoming increasingly obsolete 4. Ironically many times in history a foreign force has been required to fix a failed or a failing democracy, for example the 1688 great revolution in the UK was actually a Dutch invasion. 5. this "fix" is not a viable option for United States, no foreign power can fix the american democracy (which is actually a kind of oligarchy because it represents a minute fraction of the top reach people) should it completely fail. 6. most importantly the gradual and invisible failure of US democracy even if fixed has cataclysmic consequences for the entire world, because of climate change which has already triggered a mass extinction, resurgence of racism and anti minority sentiments in the US and around the world, a looming global pandemic and because in 2020 human society is unimaginably different from what it was even in the 1990s.
Jesus by being the Savior of so many people in the history is the Leader of all who accept Him as Messiah and live and behave as His Followers. Heaven is Theocracy but also the ultimate form of democracy where we vote for our Heavenly Leader by remaining Christians till death. Historically, Christians have been and still are the biggest group of voters for a Heavenly Leader and that is how Jesus is in the same time the Only-Begotten Son of God on one side and the all time Favourite and Elected Leader of the biggest group of followers on the other. Amen.
Democracy for themselves. Tyranny for their neighbors. Even democracy for themselves is a misnomer in the sense that there is no voice for the peace-loving minority. The ultra right wing currently has a grip on power in Isreal, to the detriment of all.
Taiwan exemplify chaos when citizens were not ready for democracy; it's economy stagnated for decades when parties devoted energy into opposition and disruption.
Omg, this was the most boring Ted talk ever! I’m sure most people already know that first attempts at democracy tend to fail and those who don’t already know that are unlikely to want to watch a Ted talk this boring.
Government is only immoral when it governs us without our say. The meaning of democratic government is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Without that, there is no way of people getting together to make laws or fund those things which are for the public good. Of course, what Berman assumes here is that countries like the U.S. have fully mature, fully democratic governments. Nothing could be further from the truth! We here in the U.S. have an oligarchy that taxes the middle class and uses that money to fund corporate welfare and wars that benefit the wealthiest among us. We have a very long way to go to achieve actual democracy!
Nahhh, semi-authoritarian regime is not a good way to go. The problem is that many Democratic governments (especially the new ones) have a lot of flaws and have not been fully mature, especially new ones. Many of the same oligarchs in power before the transition to the democracy still hold the power after the transition. These flaws are exploited by the authoritarian figures. At the same time, the Democratic experience did not produce the results that people had hopeful. Russia is a good example of that.
Democracy fails for at least two glaring reasons ...number one? Corruption blotting out the truth specificantly any number of vermin power mongers "volently" harnessing the ears of the public and number two ? widespread ignorance and superstition religions....people too damn lazy to actually care what might be right and not right....just little piggy morons with barely a functioning brain cell
@@KrasMazovHatesYourGuts ah. But then the first modern democracy should be the country where when women first attained the right to vote... Which according to the Internet is Finland...
