What are some examples of democratic countries where corruption is low?
Ask yourself why so many cabinet ministers retire and end up on the boards of large conglomerates that specialise in bidding for government outsourcing contracts, or why so many long-term viable agencies of government
Doesn't this happen elsewhere too? Example - revolving door in financial institutions
(Pressure for social change tends to come from the young, voters skew old, so in practice many direct democracies tend to be very slow to adapt to widespread grassroots social change.)
Unless you have some sort of constitutional provisions protecting people from each other, 51% of your fellow citizens will trod all over the other 49%.
And you may or may not have noticed, but most citizens don't seem to take the time to be up on the pros and cons for each and every provision of each and every piece of legislation that are debated today on the floor of parliamentary bodies.
In other words: it might solve what economists call the "principal-agent problem", but at a (potentially very high) cost.
A person who should not necessarily be considered a political system theorist once declared that freedom and democracy are incompatible. This may or may not be true, and for those pushing for democracy, maybe freedom is a non-issue from the start, but I think it needs to be at least considered whenever pushes for "moar democracy" come around.
Thats why I said "kind of". Real direct democracy should have those 3 fatures:
-mandatory referendum each year (question added to referendum once enough votes have been gathered) - anyone avoiding taking a vote is fined.
-3 answers under each question - Yes, No and Not Voting (so people wont just cast votes for subjects they are not interested in)
-2/3rds votes needed to pass the vote (to avoid 51% vs 49% - votes that count are only yes or no votes, "Not Voting" is not included)
-Then once the system matures proper democracy should have vote strength system - lets say 3 stages. 1st stage gets 1 vote, 3rd stage gets 3 votes. Higher stage = less taxes and more votes. You work + do some community voluntary work + have no issues with criminal law = you are 3rd stage.
Hmm. Interesting. Democracy, but with something like super-majority rules.
I'd like to see a feature that allowed cooler heads to prevail over time (like the US Senate was originally designed for). How would you keep the passions of the moment from being inflamed enough to blow by your almost super-majority rules?
In the US, you'd have problems getting your stage concept past "disparate impact" studies, but since we're speaking in hypotheticals anyway - this seems very Jeffersonian. How do you get something like this past the people who would cry (rightly or not) that your stage-3 continues to favor the historically privileged?
Any citizen of 18 years or older who works, do community work and avoid criminal charges would be stage 3. If someone cant pass those 3 rules, then what value he will bring to society anyways? His vote should be penalized. Dont get me wrong, its not to favorite good people, its to penalize people that cant do good to society. Vote strength should be based on your involvement in society and helping the community. Alcoholic bum should not have same amount of voting power as doctor. Yet, system would not discriminate poor people, since the rules are easy to follow. Rich people as part of their community work could speak at schools, drivers help people pass driving tests and unskilled workers clean woods from wild dumping places. Simple system that would allow lower taxes since the government would need less resources for public work done.
I would see many people avoiding doing the 40 hours of mandatory public work per year, so that would release them from being strong majority and their passion/patriotism would be graded this way.
Singapore is a oligarchic dictatorship and so corruption is somewhat irrelevant there. You have the most important institutions controlled by the Lee family, who's cult of personality remains unquestioned by those in outside Singapore, I mean did Lee Hsien Loong really deserve to be senior wrangler at Cambridge or is that just PR?
Yes, public sector competence is very high but that's not exactly difficult in an authoritarian and highly educated city state.
I'm sure there's a lot wrong with Singapore but the closest countries with comparable quality of government are Australia and Taiwan or Japan.
If the Lee family have a cult of personality it's invisible to tourists too. And Cambridge didn't even put the thumb on the scales to let in the current generation of the royal family, you really think they care about the Lees?
Of course a top University in the UK cares about the Lees. If you were like Lee Hsien Loong and nearly guaranteed to be a next generation political leader, any sane self-interested educational institution would give you preference.
Universities do this all the time, accepting children of foreign oligarchs who have CVs and test results padded with dubious measures. Why do you think the LSE brushed under the table Saif Gaddafi's ghostwritten doctorate? (a) because they didn't notice, or (b) the network effect of having the presumed (at that time) next dictator of Libya?
Cambridge never needed to put the thumbs on the scale for the current generation of the UK Royal Family because they never applied.
Lee Hsien Loong's story just seems like a propaganda story tailored for the perfect Singaporean technocrat (clever, driven, and can fit himself into any institution). While he's no idiot, his life could have been dreamed up by the North Koreans, a meteoric career in the army, receiving the title 'Chief Wrangler' at Cambridge. It sounds like propaganda.
Not that I disagree entirely however if Singapore is an oligarchic dictatorship then most democracies are. This includes UK & USA which we are discussing here.
Regardless Singapore has very low levels of corruption from what I have seen and experienced.
not at all true. Singapore is known for having draconian laws (such as no gum chewing) and it's government is high corrupted oligarchy. I've read about the previous leader Lee Kew that ruled with a iron first and died recently . He was the one that revitalized Singapore in the late 1970s to where it is today and its rampant corruption was an effect of his harsh rule and greed
You have read, I have experienced. Lee Kuan Yew was extremely anti-corruption and his actions back this up. When the CIA tried bribe him with $3.3m (about $25+m in todays cash) he turned it down. The guy was a master strategist and made it work for Singapore anyhow. You can read about it here: http://singapore.coconuts.co/2015/03/24/lee-kuan-yew-once-un...
...or if you are interested just google it and read about it somewhere else.
If Singapore were corrupt it would be more like Malaysia (it used to be a part of Malaysia). Instead Singapore is an economic miracle surrounded by hostile countries. The anti-corruption culture Lee Kuan Yew developed permeates every layer of society here. Try bribe a Singaporean cop and see how far you get. My brother-in-law works for the Land Transport Authority. He will not discuss the details of any up-coming projects with anyone, not even close family members, for fear that word will get out and speculators will take advantage.
Finally if you think the chewing gum law is draconian I can't really help you. It is completely inconsequential and I say that as someone who likes to chew gum. More worrying are the corporal punishment laws, lack of press freedom and civil rights violations (gays sex is still illegal for example) however 2 of 3 of these problems also exist in the USA today and 1 in the UK.
How so? Singapore has open and free elections. Anyone can run, it's just that the PAP, for all their flaws, do such a good job that there is no reason to vote them out. This is a reflection of the low corruption environment.
Or, lest we forget PRI, it is a sign of insanely high corruption. (Not saying it's the case in Singapore, just pointing out that a one party system doesn't necessarily point towards low corruption).
There's other possibilities (low press freedom, etc).
Ask yourself why so many cabinet ministers retire and end up on the boards of large conglomerates that specialise in bidding for government outsourcing contracts, or why so many long-term viable agencies of government
Doesn't this happen elsewhere too? Example - revolving door in financial institutions