1. Democracy is excellent at maintaining the status quo. This works for developed nations because they don't want or need to create wholesale changes. Democratic elections ensure a governing body doesn't have the power or time to create big change (unless supported by a rare and dominant mandate).
2. Relatively short term periods mean that the changes are often started by a government, but then repealed or modified by the 2nd government just a few years later (Obamacare).
3. You can have a look at a country like Belgium/Netherlands, where you need a coalition of multiple parties just to form a government. This means you're trying to appease too many stakeholders which leads to no progress.
4. Even the ideology and beliefs of opposing parties are not that far apart (see New Labour & Conservative Party or the Republicans and pre-Bernie Democrats) because they're all vying for the same votes.
5. Democracy inherently relies on a the electorate being well educated & well informed. Lack of education is one of the reasons 'developing countries' are indeed still developing. Now, what I would add is that this requirement also usually falls short in the west too.
6. For developing nations to really get in the fast lane, they need a visionary. Someone with a single-minded determination to implement change through hook or crook. Someone who's not trying to appease everyone but will improve the lives of the collective group. Now where this point fails is that it relies on the person being competent, resistant to nepotism, corruption & religious influences.
What do you guys think?
2. Relatively short term periods mean that the changes are often started by a government, but then repealed or modified by the 2nd government just a few years later (Obamacare).
3. You can have a look at a country like Belgium/Netherlands, where you need a coalition of multiple parties just to form a government. This means you're trying to appease too many stakeholders which leads to no progress.
4. Even the ideology and beliefs of opposing parties are not that far apart (see New Labour & Conservative Party or the Republicans and pre-Bernie Democrats) because they're all vying for the same votes.
5. Democracy inherently relies on a the electorate being well educated & well informed. Lack of education is one of the reasons 'developing countries' are indeed still developing. Now, what I would add is that this requirement also usually falls short in the west too.
6. For developing nations to really get in the fast lane, they need a visionary. Someone with a single-minded determination to implement change through hook or crook. Someone who's not trying to appease everyone but will improve the lives of the collective group. Now where this point fails is that it relies on the person being competent, resistant to nepotism, corruption & religious influences.
What do you guys think?
