As an Indian, I knew India would be pretty high up, but I would not have guessed topping the list. Here are some of the motivations I have heard over the decades, which I'm only relaying, not endorsing:
* the armed forces perceived as a vastly less corrupt institution
* uncontrollably large population (One neighbour even told me she wished someone would drop a few nuclear bombs on a few places randomly. She was fine with randomly being one of the dead.)
Many believe a "strong leader" would take tough decisions to fix India.
Pakistani military is famous for its claim that the people of our region don't have the "temperament" for democracy. Sometimes I am amazed how far we indians have managed to tenaciously hold on to our democratic values, when one considers all our internal differences and our immediate neighbours. Recent e.g. - Bangladesh: while the western media paints the recent revolution there as a "democratic" movement against an autocrat, like the Maidan revolution, if you look deeper you find there is nothing really democratic about it; the Awami League, a popular national party, has been banned as apparently "democracy" for such "democratic revolutionaries" means allowing right-wing parties to participate in the elections while holding elections without an opposition.
most people just want competent governance, so that the government can provide the basic needs for society - security - internal and external, public infrastructure shared as widely as possible, opportunity to work, time to play.
a political system which is unable to provide this will be (rightly) condemned by the people - witness Edelman trust barometer and the YoY decline in trust of governance models which fail
a political system which is unable to provide this will be (rightly) condemned by the people
That absolves people who condemn their nation's political system of guilt, but it doesn't absolve those among them who choose authoritarianism of stupidity.
Authoritarians tend not to actually deliver, though. Their apparent effectiveness is based on propaganda and catharsis, not results or effective governance.
Trump has been a disaster for his base (even the extremists) yet they only ever even considered turning against him because of the Epstein stuff.
Yes, and the impact of poor governance tends to fall disproportionately on the less wealthy, which may be why poor people more often support the authoritarian who promises to give them a better life (regardless of whether those are empty promises).
A political system is how you resolve political heterogenity; Indeed it is because there are different groups with conflicting interests that it is precisely we have politics. There is no homogenous blob known as the "people". There are farmers associations, homeowners associations, capitalists, religious groups, ethnic groups, intelligista, etc, all with their own aims that may or may not align. "Results" and "Meritocracy" in that sense is just a childish understanding of governance while fully ignoring the realities of politics.
Competence is in high supply at group level, most interest groups are quite competent at pursuing their interests when they have the agency to do so. When they can't, it's because they're getting shafted by another group with more power. Thus then they need to convince other groups to help them or destroy the opposing group.
A democratic system is when they choose to resolve their differences peacefully via voting systems. But that is also means that deadlock can often occur if they cannot actually resolve things at discrete level and nothing happens. Not to mention some groups may choose create to externalities anyways if others won't hound them for it.
A dictatorship/oligarchic system is when one group instead just dominates the other groups by force and declares their own interest as sovereign. And that does work, but can you win the civil war that ensues? Or will you just lead the country to ruin like in so many states in Africa or the Middle East? And there are many groups like Capitalists that you will never fully have control, for they have the support of the larger global capitalist system at their back. Even dicators hesitate to nationalize foreign coporations or cancel their debts.
People who feel they are discriminated against other groups/cultures/etc.
Most of the time that feeling of “discrimination” is not supported by facts but some feel that way nevertheless, so the government leverage that to cut civil liberties, push back the opposition, or be corrupt and not be put on the spot by the society.
As an Indian, I knew India would be pretty high up, but I would not have guessed topping the list. Here are some of the motivations I have heard over the decades, which I'm only relaying, not endorsing:
* rampant corruption
* rampant disorderliness (queues, traffic, crowds)
* rampant votebank appeasement politics
* the armed forces perceived as a vastly less corrupt institution
* uncontrollably large population (One neighbour even told me she wished someone would drop a few nuclear bombs on a few places randomly. She was fine with randomly being one of the dead.)
Many believe a "strong leader" would take tough decisions to fix India.
Pakistani military is famous for its claim that the people of our region don't have the "temperament" for democracy. Sometimes I am amazed how far we indians have managed to tenaciously hold on to our democratic values, when one considers all our internal differences and our immediate neighbours. Recent e.g. - Bangladesh: while the western media paints the recent revolution there as a "democratic" movement against an autocrat, like the Maidan revolution, if you look deeper you find there is nothing really democratic about it; the Awami League, a popular national party, has been banned as apparently "democracy" for such "democratic revolutionaries" means allowing right-wing parties to participate in the elections while holding elections without an opposition.
most people just want competent governance, so that the government can provide the basic needs for society - security - internal and external, public infrastructure shared as widely as possible, opportunity to work, time to play.
a political system which is unable to provide this will be (rightly) condemned by the people - witness Edelman trust barometer and the YoY decline in trust of governance models which fail
What can I say?
You have to deliver. Failure to do so means people - stupid or otherwise - will reach for alternatives.
Authoritarians tend not to actually deliver, though. Their apparent effectiveness is based on propaganda and catharsis, not results or effective governance.
Trump has been a disaster for his base (even the extremists) yet they only ever even considered turning against him because of the Epstein stuff.
Yes, and the impact of poor governance tends to fall disproportionately on the less wealthy, which may be why poor people more often support the authoritarian who promises to give them a better life (regardless of whether those are empty promises).
A political system is how you resolve political heterogenity; Indeed it is because there are different groups with conflicting interests that it is precisely we have politics. There is no homogenous blob known as the "people". There are farmers associations, homeowners associations, capitalists, religious groups, ethnic groups, intelligista, etc, all with their own aims that may or may not align. "Results" and "Meritocracy" in that sense is just a childish understanding of governance while fully ignoring the realities of politics.
Competence is in high supply at group level, most interest groups are quite competent at pursuing their interests when they have the agency to do so. When they can't, it's because they're getting shafted by another group with more power. Thus then they need to convince other groups to help them or destroy the opposing group.
A democratic system is when they choose to resolve their differences peacefully via voting systems. But that is also means that deadlock can often occur if they cannot actually resolve things at discrete level and nothing happens. Not to mention some groups may choose create to externalities anyways if others won't hound them for it.
A dictatorship/oligarchic system is when one group instead just dominates the other groups by force and declares their own interest as sovereign. And that does work, but can you win the civil war that ensues? Or will you just lead the country to ruin like in so many states in Africa or the Middle East? And there are many groups like Capitalists that you will never fully have control, for they have the support of the larger global capitalist system at their back. Even dicators hesitate to nationalize foreign coporations or cancel their debts.
People who feel they are discriminated against other groups/cultures/etc.
Most of the time that feeling of “discrimination” is not supported by facts but some feel that way nevertheless, so the government leverage that to cut civil liberties, push back the opposition, or be corrupt and not be put on the spot by the society.
Very surprised about the Japan data considering how unpopular the army is there. Maybe that changed post-Russo-Ukrainian war.