Does Disease Cause Autocracy?

[Gadfly]

Trying to understand Thailand (after living here many years), I found this article fascinating. Its not really about culture, but biology. A snippet:

 

It is well-known that disease prevalence falls the further one gets away from the equator. Hence it is not surprising, Thornhill and Fincher say, that the development of modern democratic institutions began in high-latitude Western Europe and North America.

 

And with modern medicine, better sanitation and, generally, better health in this part of the world, the equator would matter less, meaning the development of modern democratic institutions in places, such as Thailand, that are close to the equator? I need to think about this more, but I thought the article was fascinating enough to post even though my views on this explanation of tropical thugism is not fully formed.

[Coss]

The problem in my mind with ideas like this is cause and effect. On which side of the equation is causality?

 

It's like the recent story that proposed that, fat women eat faster.

 

Are fat women fat because they eat faster? or do they eat faster because they are fat?

 

Hard to tell isn't it?

 

My favorite theory is, that fat women are fat, because they deserve it, but then, I'm a fatalist

[Julian2]

More to do with the climate, Northern Europeans had to work harder to survive and team work lead to democracy as the most competent had to lead.

Democracy in the West is currently under siege as people can now buy power rather than work for it.

[Gadfly]

The problem in my mind with ideas like this is cause and effect. On which side of the equation is causality?

 

It's like the recent story that proposed that, fat women eat faster.

 

Are fat women fat because they eat faster? or do they eat faster because they are fat?

 

Hard to tell isn't it?

 

My favorite theory is, that fat women are fat, because they deserve it, but then, I'm a fatalist

 

It is certainly true that strong arguments can be made that autocracy causes disease and this, by itself, creates a causality problem. But autocracy doesn't cause a society to live closer to the equator. That is a simple fact of geography.

 

This is important because societies that live close to the equator are exposed to more diseases ("It is well-known that disease prevalence falls the further one gets away from the equator.") And more democratic societies developed in countries that are further away from the equator and less disease prone.

 

Although I am not totally convinced either, it's an interesting theory and worth exploring. It is also an optimistic theory. In Southeast Asia, longevity rates are increasing and disease rates are falling because of advances in medicine and material progress generally. If the theory is true, you would expect to also see a greater press for democratic institutions and a fall in xenophobia. And I think we are.

 

Even in Thailand we are starting to see this, albeit flawed and subject to crass manipulation since its still early days. Bangkok has a long way to go, but it is certainly more international now (in the sense that NYC and London are international) than it was when I moved here.

 

And why was Thaksin able to rise to power now but not 20 years ago?

 

He's no democrat, but he plays the populist card much better than the opposition. He's caught them flat footed again and again. The elite here were totally unprepared for the sort of demagoguery that put Thaksin and his subsequent proxies in the PM's seat. Given his human rights and corruption track record, this is rather amazing.

 

This theory about disease also supports my own pet theory that the populism unleashed by Thaksin will prove to be his own undoing. He can fool the poor for now since the opposition has not offered any plausible alternatives, but when his policies fail or his government fails to deliver on their promises and a viable opposition emerges, I suspect we'll also see the fall of Thaksinism. It won't be a smooth transition and I expect plenty of hiccups and a fair bit of violence on the way.

 

OK, I don't want to delve to far away from this very interesting theory of human development that appears to have some traction to my own pet theories about Thailand, so I will leave it at that for now.

[Flashermac]

You've brought back to me my arguments with Fly when we were neighbours in Thaksin's early days. He loathed Takky, but he was dead set against any extra-constitution means to get him out of office. Fly argued that sooner or later the people would see through Takky and get rid of him themselves. I was skeptical, wondering how many years it might take for that to happen. I still wonder.

[Gadfly]

You've brought back to me my arguments with Fly when we were neighbours in Thaksin's early days. He loathed Takky, but he was dead set against any extra-constitution means to get him out of office. Fly argued that sooner or later the people would see through Takky and get rid of him themselves. I was skeptical, wondering how many years it might take for that to happen. I still wonder.

 

I also had plenty of squabbles with Fly on this board about a variety of issues, but I also loathe Takky and I am also dead set against any extra-constitution means to get him out of office. I think the coup in 2006 turned him into an undeserved martyr and set back the process of delegitimizing the T regime. Indeed, the fact that he was ousted in a military coup has given him undeserved legitimacy.

 

I guess its natural that the discussion gets around to Mr. T, but I am curious of what others think of the theory that disease plays a role in creating autocracy? Although I complain about various aspects of Thai society, I am ultimately an optimist about Thailand. And this makes me wonder why it has been so difficult for Thailand to achieve more progress in creating democratic institutions. This theory helps explain why and provides optimism for Thailand's future as public health improves and the lives of Thais improve materially (yes, I recognize that the theory feeds into my biases in favor of democratic institutions). If nothing else, it's interesting and merits further thought.

[Flashermac]

I remember one of my professors back in the 1960s (God, is that ancient history) pointing out how democracy had really only taken hold in the former British Empire in the countries actually settled by Brits. It sounds almost racist, but it is hard to disagree with. Takky has aimed his appeal at the least educated and least sophisticated portion of the population.

 

When I came to Thailand as a PCV in 1973, children were only required to complete Pratom 4! Granted they learned more in those 4 years than they may nowadays in 9, but it was still very basic. I wonder what politics would be like in our own countries if the majority of the population only completed primary school. I have had red shirts tell me they care nothing for democracy - unless it helps Thaksin stay in power. The expectations of the rural poor have risen dramatically since when I first arrived here. Still, I wouldn't say they were really any more interested in democracy. They simply expect more - maybe even more without having to work for it. And they expect the government to give it to them.

[Coss]

Free Plasma TVs for every one.

 

Takky loves me this I know, because he bought me a radio

[Flashermac]

And 15,000 baht starting salary for every new university graduate!

 

I've taught part-time at several private universities and the standards are very low, far below those of the "public universities" (formerly known as government unies - Chula, Mahidol, Thammasat, Kasetsart, Chiangmai etc). I doubt if the degrees from private unies other than Assumption would be recognised outside of LOS. They are money making businesses, pure and simple. Even the rajhabats are barely up to minimum western standards. But never mind! Takky will reward you for wasting your time and your parents' money for the last 4 or 5 years. Uh ... if you can find a job, that is.

[Gadfly]

I remember one of my professors back in the 1960s (God, is that ancient history) pointing out how democracy had really only taken hold in the former British Empire in the countries actually settled by Brits. It sounds almost racist, but it is hard to disagree with. Takky has aimed his appeal at the least educated and least sophisticated portion of the population.

 

When I came to Thailand as a PCV in 1973, children were only required to complete Pratom 4! Granted they learned more in those 4 years than they may nowadays in 9, but it was still very basic. I wonder what politics would be like in our own countries if the majority of the population only completed primary school. I have had red shirts tell me they care nothing for democracy - unless it helps Thaksin stay in power. The expectations of the rural poor have risen dramatically since when I first arrived here. Still, I wouldn't say they were really any more interested in democracy. They simply expect more - maybe even more without having to work for it. And they expect the government to give it to them.

 

I have to agree about the appalling education standards here. Those education standards coupled with restrictive work permit standards that make it difficult for qualified foreigners to fill the gap (what I would I do for a decent IT Department) don't do Thailand any favors.

 

I am a bit more optimistic about the rural poor. Yes, many are poorly educated aren't many aren't that interested in democracy. But why? As disease becomes less of an issue and they begin to material prosperity, shouldn't that change. I see a change with the Bangkok middle class as this has occurred during my time here. Why not also with the rural poor?

 

Let me say that I am not 100% convinced by the article I linked to. I thought it was an interesting because it tried to provide an answer to a question that has puzzled me: why is corruption so rampant in this part of the world? I haven't seen too many people try to tackle this question in sensible and what appears to be scientific fashion. Why is corruption is epidemic in some cultures but not others. Saying the cultures are different sort of begs the question why are the cultures different.