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 Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 19 2016, @08:56PM
I see. So if the Right commits evil acts we shouldn't talk about that or even mention it because "that's just how they are?" I guess it's delusional to discuss how the Right has overthrown democratically elected leaders and destabilized entire countries and oppressed entire ethnicities, because it's ok when we're doing that to other countries or to people who are not white. Let's not talk about that at all, eh khallow, because it's profoundly naive to expect the Right to comport themselves with honor, justice, and compassion?
But let's do fly into a rage when we talk about academics who got a little carried away when they were questioning the use of language. Sure, that didn't physically harm anyone or oppress anyone in a profitable way, but it simply got khallow's dander up, and That. Will. Not. Stand!
Right? Who wouldn't prefer a right-wing fascist with death squads to a democratically elected social democrat? It's almost like people don't want to be disappeared, tortured, murdered, and dumped in unmarked graves. What's the world coming to?!
I'm white. You're black. I get a mortgage and a home. You don't. What's there to figure out?
How dare they live on top of OUR oil, right? I mean, it's almost as if they think the stuff in their country is theirs to do with as they please.
I am never coy.
I don't have a sweet tooth. I prefer acid.
Khallow doesn't. Khallow doesn't know that.
Ah, here at last I think we know how to parse what you write. Much like we are advised to append "...in bed" to the predictions in fortune cookies, we must append "...unless [khallow|the United States] [says so|does it]" to what you write.
It does sound like I triggered you. Sorry about that. Maybe you can check into the safe space nearest you where you can curl up into a little ball while big sweaty men named Bubba can stroke your hair and tell you it's ok to have irrational hatred for everyone who's not a white American man...
Washington DC delenda est.