Most functioning democracies slowly expanded voting rights until everyone could vote. At first only the aristocracy could vote, that was the norm, then you add nobles, rich people, land owners, then go down to soldiers, women and eventually every adult.
Going from no voting to every adult can vote is probably too much. Having elites create a parliament and make the foundation before full voting is how basically every well functioning modern democracy was formed.
Didn't Apartheid South Africa effectively have the exact same kind of limited franchise you're discussing?
IE, it didn't go from "no voting" to "every adult can vote". Millions of people voted in every single election from '48 onward.
There was a massive jump in voters in the first multiracial election of '94 (10+ million). But that's not the same as going from zero to full franchise.
I think the difference is that South Africa expanded the voting population such that the election results completely changed. It replaced the entire government in a single election and the old rulers haven't gotten any power since, that isn't what happened when other democracies expanded the voting population.
Not sure how it should have been done, the old rulers were associated with apartheid so of course the population would want to replace them, but totally replacing a government in a single election and starting over from basically scratch doesn't seem to lead to good outcomes.
I don't think there would have been any alternative. Given how overdue the change of government was, the political pressure to change and the need for a full change from white minority rule to black majority rule, I don't think there's any other politically and morally acceptable transition other than totally extending the franchise to everyone.
The years 1990-1994 could even be regarded as some type of unofficial transitionary government though.
To the credit of the '94 administration they did extend an olive branch to those existing pre-94 staff to remain/join their government. In fact FW De Clerk (president before Mandela) was Mandela's Vice President.
As a South African those early years of the ANC government still have a rosy tint as I still genuinely believe the ANC of that era (Mandela, maybe Mbeki to some degree) did try their best to move the country forward. The later Mbeki years and obviously JZ years are were things went backwards a few decades.
> As a South African those early years of the ANC government still have a rosy tint as I still genuinely believe the ANC of that era
I'll argue that Mandela and Mbeki gathered up all that goodwill and did exactly nothing with it. Zuma was more publicly corrupt, but policy-wise, I don't think there was any daylight between him and his predecessors.
Yeah I see the distinction you're making here. I believe this is the path Ian Smith advocated for Rhodesia. Wonder how effective it would have been.
I suppose the gold standard for smooth regime change in Southern Africa would have to be Botswana. Don't know enough about their history to understand how they got it right when it was so bloody for all their neighbours.
>I wish we could discuss things without zingers or memes.
If a zinger or meme effectively and accurately communicates the message, why not?
>Like what is your point here?
This is your way of avoiding actually addressing what the "zinger or meme" in this case communicates, which is that life in Zimbabwe is immeasurably worse across the board since Mugabe took power.
Japan has a long history of national government prior to the introduction of democracy. Even during the shogunate Japan had an elaborate national government with delegation of responsibility to elites. It’s worth remembering that the British “Parliament” arose from the king’s advisory body of nobles. The Meiji period saw further sophisticated administration and delegation of power to the imperial diet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Meiji_Japan.
By the time Japan became a democracy, the people were already accustomed to functional and orderly governance.
By the time Japan came into conflict with the USA, it was essentially a military dictatorship.
Afterwards it became a one-party democracy to an unusual extent. I am not sure what could or should be made of that, other than perhaps that one should be wary of general theories of political development.
> The Lower House, or House of Representatives was directly elected by all males who paid at least 15 yen in property taxes, effectively limiting the suffrage to 1.1 percent of the population.
That 1.1 percent was expanded over the years. Then after WW2 USA just needed to finalize the expansion and you got a well functioning modern democracy.
Going from no voting to every adult can vote is probably too much. Having elites create a parliament and make the foundation before full voting is how basically every well functioning modern democracy was formed.