looks easy for someone used to live in democracy but maybe democracy is not
always the best of the political regimes. Sometimes the attempt to move to a
more democratic regime can bring even more mess and chaos to the country,
bringing more problems in its own development, example of this are the many
cases coming from the Arab Spring.
In Libya, for example, after an external military intervention, which helped to remove the dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi, has put the country in a complete chaos, having regions that are controlled by militias, where the transitory government have no control. This makes that terrorists organizations, like Daesh, can enter in the country easily, provoking more problems for a peaceful resolution of Libya’s problems.
In other case, the Syrian civil war has put the country into the international media centre of attentions for bad reasons. A peace process will not be easy in the current situation, many are the fractions who claim more autonomy for themselves, as is the case of the Kurds in Northern Syria. To complicate even more this complex situation Daesh is in control of a big part of the Syrian and Iraqi territory, which make them a big treat to both countries but also Daesh is turning into a global threat, as we seen everyday new terrorist attacks organized by them around the world.
In these two cases, the dictators were the guarantee of a stability that was lost when the population, in search of better life conditions and more freedom, started to protest against them. This stability was guarantee by the oppression of the populations, taking from them their freedom of speech and other freedoms, which for the Western populations is something untouchable.
However, despite the freedom of speech that is something normal in democratic regimes, we can also find in these democratic regimes media control. Turkey, for example, where a few months ago the Turkish authorities took control of the best-selling Turkish newspaper because its owner was Fethullah Gülen, founder of the Hizmet Movement.
He was an old ally of the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, but after a corruption scandal a few years ago the movement is now considered a terrorist organization by Turkish authorities. Turkey has intensified the “war” against the Hizmet Movement after the 15th July attempted coup, putting the freedom of speech in a dangerous situation.
Turkey is seen as emerging economy and a democratic country, with Parliamentary and Presidential elections, but nowadays we can see that the freedom of speech and other freedoms are more and more under government control, as it was a dictatorship. Despite the high economic grow, when compared with Western European economies, the Turkish welfare is suffering setbacks.
This shows that democracy do not mean the guarantee of fundamental freedoms, not even the populations’ welfare. Democracy can be used to hide aspects normally seen in dictatorships. However, democracy is one of the regimes that make less problems to their population. It can help them to develop more quickly, having worked well in Western realities as Portugal and Spain.
However, looking to China, we can see that the communist regime is not a barrier to its development; contrariwise, China was able to have the biggest rates of economic growing in this century. Today China is a great economic power; it is helping in its own development, but also permitted to have an international cooperation for development program for developing countries.
Looking to other dictatorial regimes which are less open to the outside, we can see that dictatorships do not permit a quick development, but sometimes they are the guarantee of the necessary stability that will permit to keep some peace. Peace is a necessary column for a sustainable development. One country in constant war cannot use the official development assistance to improve their infrastructures in order to achieve the welfare of its population.
Turning back to the initial question, the acceptable regime will depend always from the local reality. The international community must never try to implement regimes who are more similar to Western ideals, in favor of a fast development of that countries, because-as explained before-these regimes may not help in a sustainable development.
Each country or society has its own development rhythm, independently of the regime, faster or slowly they are going in their own way of development. Setbacks have to be waited; it is part of the process because the societies' life it is made of cycles.
The developed countries must invest in the stability of the developing countries, and not wait for a stable democracy to invest. The idea that democracies are the best regimes it is wrong, even Western democracies are passing through big crisis, which make them shiver with the rise of far-right (or far-left) political parties, but with all problems democracy is still the best of the bad regimes.