Cybernetics
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 841
- Reaction score
- 48
- Country
- Location
Just based off evidence, many (all? since counting resource rich nations wont be helpful) nations that transitioned from poor to developed in a short span of time post-WW2 had at least a generation of authoritarian government. Singapore had one authoritarian party, Taiwan had KMT and martial law, South Korea had martial law.Historically the centralized nature of authoritarian rule in Pakistan lead to short term bursts of progress and development but hampered the country with aftershocks.
Throughout the post colonial era, authoritarian governments had successfully uplifted the populace and when they were ready to rule themselves, they ruled themselves well. (many East/South East Asian dictatorships like South Korea come into mind)
Democracy is incredibly new isn't it when we look at the grand history of humanity. It wasn't seen as the ideal form of governance until the end of WW2.
One of the big distinguishing factors between an underdeveloped/developing nation and a developed nation is the development level of its institutions. From my perspective it seems to be vital that there is an authority that can unite the people to make them respect and be apart of these various institutions that separate developed and underdeveloped. In the transition times, many people would resist the formation of these institutions for various reasons. For the transition to be successful there must be some sort of central authority with enough power.
Though I think each country must apply an unique system that suits its domestic and external environment. These factors are important to consider before deciding as South Korea had certain unique circumstances and the backdrop of the cold war.