Is it true that the worst corrupt "democracy" is still better than the best enlighted autocracy?

>The thing is that democracies work
kek

>he said, typing from his functional democracy, ravaged with "grass is greener" syndrome

Not even close. I'd sooner argue just the opposite. 'Democracy' is a polite way of saying 'tyranny of the political elite'.

Can someone give an example of a "corrupt" democracy? it seems to me the very problem of corruption is due to insufficient democratic reform, ie, removing power from the people for the sake of "efficiency" or powermongering or some other goal.

Maybe Venezuela right now?

Corrupt democracies fall prey to the same failings as tyrannical autocracies. You can be have the most efficient form of government possible, but if your leaders are complete shit they will still manage to fuck things up.

Ultimately what matters is the competence of the leaders to run a country efficiently, not the system of government put in place to do so.

>functional democracy
kek

You didn't prove his point wrong. What autocratic dictatorship still around today has a high standard of living for the majority of its citizens?

Singapore, Bahrain, Brunei, Qatar, Monaco, Saudi Arabia(?), Turkey

These are mostly city-states and so can function with a small (autocratic) government. The remainder are oil rich. Actual nation-states can't do this. Turkey is not autocratic. You answered the question, but you're not thinking critically about the similarities between successful autocratic states.

This thread is not even /pol/ with dates, it's just /pol/

>turkey has a despit seizing power in the government, forming a dictatorship
>not autocratic
>implying erdogan isnt "el presidente" in roach form

>Is it true that the worst corrupt "democracy" is still better than the best enlighted autocracy?
I don't think so. Democracy is GENERALLY better than autocracy, because it responds more directly to the needs of the people, but corruption destroys that. When you compare that to an autocrat that cares abut their people, and i trying to create a good country for them, it's not better.

But really, how many of those are there? How well can you really trust an individual to put the needs of others above themselves? That's why democracy is ultimately superior, despite the flawed ones, because it's the form of government that assumes people will act most in their own interests, and gives the most people the power to do that, rather than just the one at the top.

>Turkey is not autocratic.

Modern Turkey is pretty autocratic these days:

wsj.com/articles/turkish-parliament-votes-on-bill-that-would-strip-lawmakers-immunity-1463735376

>turkish-parliament-votes-on-bill

nice weblink you goofball

No absolutely not, anyone who says otherwise is just the product of democracy.
Freedom without responsibility leads to the destruction of civilized man, society descends into barbarism and freedom is in the end lost.

>Majority agrees to harass ethnic minority and give more power to Sultan Erdogan.

"Harass ethnic minorities" should just be the motto of Turkey at this point

The point the anime character made is that a democracy has a minimum level of constituency because of checks and balances. Yang admitted that Reinhard was a bettter ruler than any president would be, but the point is an emperor will die and his son could be completely fuck over the country.

Leaving out this part of the context essentially dumbed down the question into something shallow.

Ultrashit policymaking doesn't mean it's an autocracy (yet). Call me when Erdogoon actually starts detaining Kurds for being enemies of the state.

>Those don't count because I say so
Just fuck off

United States

Glorified plutocracy that exists solely for the benefit of the politically connected and government bureaucrats

Corrupt monarchies are easy to fix

Corrupt democracies are almost impossible to fix

>Turkey rounds up academics who signed petition denouncing attacks on Kurds
>Ankara accused of violating academic freedom by detaining 27 signatories of petition calling for end to ‘massacre’ of Kurdish people
theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/15/turkey-rounds-up-academics-who-signed-petition-denouncing-attacks-on-kurds

>Kurdish Journalists: Forgotten Victims of Turkey's Press War
telesurtv.net/english/analysis/Kurdish-Journalists-Forgotten-Victims-of-Turkeys-Press-War-20160508-0011.html

>Singapore
Fair enough
>Bahrain
Oil
>Brunei
Oil
>Monaco
Not autocratic
>Saudi Arabia
Oil
>Turkey
Dubious claim that they are fully dictatorship.

Take the oil from most of these countries away and your benevolent dictator is long gone. Espeically in Saudi Arabia. Ruling Saud household is barely holding onto power and only does so by 1) giving most important positions to family members 2) complex and bloated welfare state to effectively bribe the populous not to remove them from power.

for one generation

also an actually great leader could just get elected

Since when is Singapore an autocracy?

You're all idiots for supporting a "benevolent" autocracy versus a corrupt democracy because by it's very nature an autocracy HAS to be corrupt in order to function. While corruption is a failure in a democracy it is the intended state of nature in an autocracy. In order for an Autocrat to function he must utilize a hierarchical system that places the desires of a ruling class such as an aristocracy or military junta that supports him over the good of the nation and people, if he does not do this those groups withdraw their support and he is overthrown. This means that everyone not in that ruling class cannot gain a redress of grievances through legal means. thus they must resort either to corruption (such as black markets or bribery) to get anything done, or rebel, which is generally doesn't work and is horrible for everyone involved.

The FPA was basically a dictatorship under Truniht, though. Sad that Yang was a naive moron and thought that any political change was possible through the ballot box when the Patriotic Knight Corps were going around cracking skulls.

>Nations utilizing their country's resources effectively makes them invalid
Holy shit fuck off

it appears to me that the argument being made is "if you fail really hard you might fuck up harder than if you had never tried."

I don't think it's a perfect argument though.

Yang Wenli admitted that he believed this because he was raised in that polity; he concedes that if he had b een born in the ginga teikoku he might have felt differently.

This is not to say that Democracy is an automatic success. in order to function properly a democracy requires both an "advanced" society a history with some notion of the rule of law and a national identity for the populace to rally around and belong to. One can see the failures of the cargo cult attempts to form democracies by much of Africa, The Middle East, and Asia as failing because they did not have these in place.

I'm saying it doesn't initially spell that they are successful because of their government type. In fact they are mostly on thin ice.

The U.S. system is the same system as most of the West. The plutocratic elements are always there, hidden or no. It still has some of the highest quality of life on the planet on average on top of being extreamly politically and economically dominant on a scale that countries are JUST starting to catch up to.
An actually REALLY corrupt democracy would be something like Brazil or Argentina.

This.

>Singapore
Authoritarian but not autocratic. There's a difference.
>Bahrain, Brunei, Qatar
Have literal slave laborers that are trafficked in large numbers that make up a large portion of the population. I'm not even going to get into the secret police shit that goes on in Oil Sheikdoms.
>Monaco
A constitutional monarchy with republican processes.
>Saudi Arabia(?)
Arguabley one of the most oppressive states on earth, both in terms of religious and political suppression.
>Turkey
Erdogan is ruining the secular democratic Turkey that Ataturk envisioned due to his antics.

USA. Not being edgy or trolling but seriously. My cousin tried being a politician once but he was too honorable for the job. He Hated it.

Politicians being shit people doesn't have to do with general corruption though. Truly god awful democracies are facing societal failure and armed uprisings. People who don't realize this have never studied the rise and fall of nations.

Democracies tend to have separation of powers, competitive political parties, and much greater journalistic freedom than autocracies. These aspects mean discourage corruption by making it much more expensive and difficult for individual groups to bribe the government, encouraging competing politicians to strive to at least appear non-corrupt, and making exposure of corruption profitable to non-governmental organizations.

Corruption (by certain favored groups) is much more easily achieved in an autocratic system since it all comes down to groups forming a personal and/or financial relationship with the autocrat.

Brazil is particularly bad, but South Koreas democracy a couple of decades ago was so bad it was meme tier. Like seriously one of the most fucked up systems you can imagine.

no. people are simply too stupid to govern themselves, democracy is just a joke.