Political Science: The Study of GlubberMints

See a lot talk of philosophy and History on this board but not so much but not whole lot about social science on here. So let's talk PoliSci. Today's Topic: Authoritarianism and Democracy. Is authoritarian civil society on the rise in devolved democracies particularly in Europe? Do you think Autocracy is beneficial to economic development? What are your Case Studies of either form of Governance?
Personally I think Mongolia is fucking based as it strong democracy despite being a land locked, former soviet state, and surrounded by authoritarian regimes.
Also didn't bother posting on /pol/ because they don't articulate arguments very well or use theory beyond social Darwinism.

Other urls found in this thread:

muse.jhu.edu/article/16897
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

There is a board for this, you know?

If yall are Interested this article that talks about how Mongolia challenges alot of Democratization Theory.
muse.jhu.edu/article/16897

Pol is contemporary politics Poltical Science is more about explaining trends across time and regions.

>Is authoritarian civil society on the rise in devolved democracies particularly in Europe?

Partly. While the authoritarian right and left have both been making a lot more noise recently, they still havn't won power. If you look through the winners of this year, it's much more Merkel and Macron than Le Pen and Corbyn.

>Do you think Autocracy is beneficial to economic development?

No, extractive political institutions are not conductive to economic growth. This case is laid out in Robinson and Acemoglu's 'Why Nations Fail'.

come on now, don't pretend there's any real discussion of politics on /pol other than memes, shitposting & bait threads

Very cool, central asia is so fascinating.

>Authoritarianism and Democracy
A meaningless dichotomy.

>makes a thread about the study of politics

>calls modern, western governments "democratic"

lmao just close this fucking thread and delete it now, thank you. The Western World is entirely under the control of moderate, popular oligarchies who have run an excellent propaganda campaign to pretend that their form of government is (A) democratic and decended from the glory days of Hellas, and therefore (B) the only legitimate political model.

Under your definition Greece was literally never democratic. Slaves couldn't vote and they were 30-40% of the population. Women couldn't vote either. So that's what, 20% enfranchisement? Fucking nonsense.

don't pretend there's any real discussion on Veeky Forums either

>Why Nations Fail
My nigger

I'm currently reading Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920 by Stephen Skrowronek.

As a His major, I've been wondering: have governments gotten more totalitarian over time?

lmao, you literally think that direct elections are democratic, and that how many people can participate in a direct election determines whether a system is democratic.

Please read a text from the 5th or 4th c. BCE before you embarrass yourself further, thanks. Direct election is an oligarchic practice, and in our modern systems it is simple a peaceful way of transferring power between oligarchs while still maintaining a degree of popularity and calm. It has nothing to do with democracy.

Any Classical Hellene worth his salt would punch you square in the face and shatter your entire peasant-tier world-view.

What the fuck are you talking about. I'm talking enfranchisement. When only 20% of the adult population can actually have a voice in policy that isn't democracy.

Enfranchisement means what, exactly? THE RIGHT TO PLACE A VOTE IN A DIRECT ELECTION OF AN OLIGARCH.

The enfranchisement in any given Western country is a tiny, tiny, microscopic fraction of the population. That is because the modern "citizen" is not a citizen in the democratic sense; the actual citizenry, if we are forced to call something a democracy, consists solely of the oligarchs. Who are, in turn, a tiny fraction of a percentage of the population.

Are you saying that there's no citizen-initiated policy changes decided by vote? Are you fucking dumb?

*means what TO YOU, I should say.

Democratic enfranchisement is restricted to the oligarchy in modern society.

"Citizen-initiated" lmao, which one of us is supposed to be retarded?

Yes, oligarchs can share and express the will of various commoners. Who is debating that? Nobody. Don't fool yourself, though: you have no authority to have the assembly consider and vote on a particular decision, no authority to take the floor and speak in its favour, and no authority to actually cast a vote for it.

You are closer to a metic. You must register, you must pay your tax, and you will be represented by a real citizen. That is your fate.

We haven't even touched upon other institutions and practices, such as the court. You live in an oligarchy, you are a commoner, and you better deal with it and make up your mind whether you want democracy or you would rather some other form of government (such as what you have now).

You've never actually participated in your local government have you. Are you trying to advocate for city-states write large because that's retarded. You're retarded.

I Started With the Greeks and Never Moved Beyond That: The Post

When Lykourgos said "In your home first", he didn't mean that when democracy is practiced on the very lowest level of social organisation, the society is democratic.

Not only is local government not democratic, but even if it were you would still be largely subordinate to county, state, and federal government. All of which would still be oligarchic.

>I want to claim the heritage, legitimacy, and glory of Classical Hellenic democracy!

>oh wait I want to have a system that would instantly be identified as a moderate oligarchy by any Classical Hellene.