SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Authoritarian leaders are seen as far more trustworthy than politicians in more openly democratic countries across the emerging world, according to data compiled by the World Economic Forum.
Leaders in Singapore, the Gulf states and Rwanda are rated as having the highest ethical standards in the emerging markets, closely followed by their Chinese and central Asian counterparts.
In contrast, politicians in democracies such as Brazil, Paraguay, Nigeria, Mexico and Romania are seen as exhibiting the lowest ethical standards.
Overall, among the 20 emerging market countries rated as having the most trustworthy politicians in the 2016 survey, 13 are rated as "not free" by Freedom House, a US government-funded non-governmental organisation, with three classed as partly free and just four classed as free.
Among the 20 emerging markets whose politicians are seen as having the lowest ethical standards, not one is classed by Freedom House as not free, with six free and 14 partly free.
https://www.ft.com/content/79d1ce36-8ca9-11e6-8aa5-f79f5696c731
Might be paywalled, but I got in using my normal combination of noscript, self-destructing cookies, and referrer spoofing (from google.com).
Text without charts: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2016/10/1823541-polls-show-low-approval-of-the-ethical-standards-of-leaders-in-latin-america.shtml
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday October 19 2016, @07:39AM
Democracy means the people rules. Now, statistically, if you ruled, then sometimes, what you or your peers want, would get done. When did it ever happen, huh?
The truth is probably along these lines: the industrial revolution shat out a new class of people whose strength was not political nor military like the old aristocrat bullies were. Ruling through wealth they pushed for public elections of representatives, calling it democracy, because it provided the best environment for a buyable system.
Once your equation becomes democracy=buying many little men and dictatorship = letting some bully have fun as long as he does not screw with the really powerful interests, then it is quite obvious that the people find the latter more trustworthy, even if declaring otherwise were not a danger (ask a n. Korean about his great leader...)
The bad news, technological advancement makes an orwellian regime as feasible as a democracy. Knowing that the powerful like two poles (right vs. left, nationalism vs. globalism, but they are both masonic in origin, ask yourself where does your current flags come from), then it is possible that the two poles for the near future are leftist democracy vs. fascist technocracy, to the detriment of leftists who value freedom and fascists who value order and the preservation of tradition.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 19 2016, @09:59AM
"letting some bully have fun as long as he does not screw with the really powerful interests,"
That's a jeapordy question? The answer would be "Banana Republics".
(Score: 2) by gidds on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:27PM
'Brexit'...
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday October 28 2016, @01:46PM
We will see the fruit of Brexit. If the UK really secedes and EU thrives, then you are right. Else it was just tactics with the semblance of voters popularity.
Account abandoned.