The Trouble with Democracy | Dambisa Moyo

What needs to be done to give people more security and a greater say in their political and economic future?

Watch Dambisa Moyo, global economist, in our latest RSA Spotlight - the edits which take you straight to the heart of the event!

SUBSCRIBE to our channel!

[roidroid]

Were any of these really troubles with Democracy?
They were troubles IN Democratic nations, yes. But they were problems with Judicial systems (non-democratic), Captialism (non-democratic), and such things.

[Achrononmaster]

People like this speaker need to read up on the Mont Pelerin Society and the long sordid but successful history of the neoliberal thought collective. A good reference is Mirowski's "Never Let a Serious Crises Go to Waste." It will tell, you, among many other things, why you've never experienced democracy, so to fall into the trap of claiming something is wrong with democracy is your only original problem. You have to try true democracy first before you can say what is wrong with it. Models do exist, in small nations and small communities, and in a few global organizations run along democratic principles. Neoliberal think tanks and marketing folks are very adept at making people think they have a democracy when in fact they only have voting for pre-selected candidates, selected not democratically, but by party elites. This is the main reason why there is no democracy world-wide, not just in the USA. To have true democracy one thing you need to do is get rid of all political parties. Belief in the all-knowing power of free markets is another, free markets only work for a few simple commodities. If you love market solutions too much you will always corrupt a democracy. That's because human dignity and justice must stand above market forces and liberal so-called "freedoms" to trade, the freedom from market dictates and the undemocratic tyranny which results is more fundamental than the freedom to buy and sell in the markets. This is why Nestle must be boycotted. Next they will be putting a price on clean air. And think of Uber, they have a market for drivers which is pretty efficient because of elasticity, but the result is impoverished drivers who are living in their cars and near suicidal. If you use Uber you are supporting inhuman work conditions. There is nothing wrong with a bit of inefficiency in the old Taxi industry if it gives drivers a decent living. A democracy values people more than profits. Can you say that ordering of priorities has ever been tried in any modern industrial nation?

[SuperGreatSphinx]

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally "rule of the people"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.

Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority".

Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes.

The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.

Western democracy, as distinct from that which existed in pre-modern societies, is generally considered to have originated in city states such as Classical Athens and the Roman Republic, where various schemes and degrees of enfranchisement of the free male population were observed, before the form disappeared in the West at the beginning of late antiquity.

The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.

According to political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; protection of the human rights of all citizens; a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.

The term appeared in the 5th century BC, to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens, to mean "rule of the people", in contrast to aristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία, aristokratía), meaning "rule of an elite".

While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically.

The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation.

In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class, until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy.

Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements.

Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.

[실눈으로야리기]

I know this is irrelevant, but her dress is very eye-catching.

[MysticEnigma]

Interesting. One of the poorest countries is compared to the western world. A person in a village is happy with his simplified economic model. No unemployment in the village

[odanobunaga]

The diagnosis, while accurate in many ways, is rather pedestrian. It would be more interesting to hear her solution. If it involves, as some reviews of her new book mention, 'weighted voting' then a defence of that idea would've been more interesting to highlight.

[ideasofmind]

who read this just after the Al Jazeera program now?

[matts]

Was she really trying to tie authoritarianism to China's growth at the end of her speech? Surely any global economist would know that the reason China's growth was so much higher than developed countries for the last few decades was almost certainly due to the 'catch-up effect' and nothing at all to do with authoritarianism. Trying to paint it the way she did was completely disingenuous.

[wiradillon]

so perhaps it was wrong to think of "the ultimate goal" is merely to achieve economic success? hmm... :3

[실눈으로야리기]

Okay, so basically her general view is that Democracy is NOT essential for economic development (check her other videos) and Democracy embraces many problems that hinder econ & social development. Probably it true that democracy is not necessary for economic development. South Korea, Taiwan exemplifies the efficacy of military regime toward econ growth. But Vietnam or the Philippines under Authoritarian regime did not show good econ result during the 1900s.


Literacy rate, women's participation in industry, etc, are some of the important factors for econ development (Cases of S.Korea during the 1960s demonstrate.. Well, other aspects of human dignity were brutally damaged though)


Maybe, maybe... democracy is not necessary for econ development. However, it is necessary for development. We need democracy for development for different pillars of democracy, like ecological, social development.


hmm... it is hard... I am not convinced by myself. Human dignity or right is deeply considered when people are satisfied with basic needs. And the basic needs mostly comes from economic success. And I am saying economic success can come from the non-democratic regime. Then, it is basically directing Authoritarian regime also can facilitate social development.


What the hell is going on?.. hmm