That's my thinking basically, yes. In particular, the gradually escalating power differential as money flows to the top will slowly and then rapidly destabilise a democracy.
All that says is dumping money into an election in a constitutional republic designed specifically to put limits on authoritarian power does not guarantee victory.
I'm comfortable saying there is considerable evidence to back up the argument. However, I suspect any researcher who put forth such a hypothesis might have difficulty finding a grant. Take from that what you will.
IF they are weakening institutions, then those institutions were already developed, hence it does not apply. The advent of authoritarianism does corrupt a functioning state. But statebuilding with democracy has been tried countless times, especially in ex-colonial countries and i don't know many cases where it worked.
Representative democracy can be done right. An independent Anticorruption Agency with investigatory and prosecutory powers irrevocably granted by the constitution, but with narrow scope, can work wonders.
Of course, above a critical mass of amassed power/popularity, nothing can stop a dictator to simply do re-found the state with a new constitution, but at that point it's very much a coup anyway.
Yes, of course. Democracy is very important, so in order to protect it, even such extreme measures can be morally justified. And before you try to mirror this argument with what was happening in the USSR: the USSR was not democratic, it was totalitarian, and protecting totalitarism is never morally correct, period.
Only if there's no mechanism for bad governments to be replaced, peacefully.
We'll see if we still have that mechanism in 4 or 8 years, but in the meantime, I'll remain cautiously optimistic. The U.S. has had terrible presidents & strong political leaders before, ones who drove the country down a terrible path, and they've usually been forced out of power and their policies reversed within a decade. That's the great strength of democracy: it's not that it governs efficiently (it doesn't), but it provides an escape hatch so if a government is seriously going down the wrong path and everyone realizes it, the government doesn't last long.
The most terrifying part of this article is that I have no idea whether this is true or not. And I'll probably only find out when the next major financial scandal erupts.
How is democracy supposed to function if our civilization becomes so complex that bureaucrats can make up reasonable-sounding policy for anything that serves their personal interests, and you'd need to be an expert to tell that it's self-serving?
That's always like that from the start, then autocratic system will get corrupted by power from inside and because it is autocratic, it can't be replaced. Autocratic systems are destined to fail.
I think the jury is still out on whether a corrupt elite cannot hijack a democratic system.
I don't think the jury's out, so to speak. It can definitely happen, and I think US plutocracy is definitely corroding the democracy. Democracy is a complex system and needs a lot of safeguards; a constitution and an electoral process are only two of many necessary ingredients.
Exactly. Not to mention they've been found guilty of corruption and bribery in the past. Naturally allowed to continue to operate devices critical to democracy.
reply