quote:

---

Originally posted by turk

I believe the history will prove that I am right. This is not about Jammeh or Karamba, it is about the realities of Gambia. Gambia does not have conditions for for democracy. With the proper planning and along with wealth improvement, I say 50 years time is realistic.

I close my argument with agreement on disagreement.

---

quote:

---

Wealth. A higher GDP/capita correlates with democracy and the wealthiest democracies have never been observed to fall into authoritarianism.[1] There is also the general observation that democracy was very rare before the industrial revolution. Empirical research thus lead many to believe that economic development either increases chances for a transition to democracy (modernization theory), or helps newly established democracies consolidate.[1] Some campaigners for democracy even believe that as economic development progresses, democratization will become inevitable. However, the debate about whether democracy is a consequence of wealth, a cause of it, or both processes are unrelated, is far from conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Education. Wealth also correlates with education, though their effects on democratic consolidation seem to be independent.[1] Better educated people tend to share more liberal and pro-democratic values. On the other hand, a poorly educated and illiterate population may elect populist politicians who soon abandon democracy and become dictators even if there have been free elections.

---

quote:

---

The resource curse theory suggests that states whose sole source of wealth derives from abundant natural resources, such as oil, often fail to democratize because the well-being of the elite depends more on the direct control of the resource than on the popular support. On the other hand, elites who invested in the physical capital rather than in land or oil, fear that their investment can be easily damaged in case of a revolution. Consequently, they would rather make concessions and democratize than risk a violent clash with the opposition.[2]

---

quote:

---

Capitalism. Some claim that democracy and capitalism are intrinsically linked. This belief generally centers on the idea that democracy and capitalism are simply two different aspects of freedom. A widespread capitalist market culture may encourage norms such as individualism, negotiations, compromise, respect for the law, and equality before the law. These are seen as supportive for democratization. By contrast, many Marxists would claim that capitalism is inherently undemocratic, and that true democracy can only be achieved if the economy is controlled by the people as a whole rather than by private individuals.

---

quote:

---

Culture of Capitalism. Some argue that a widespread capitalist market culture may encourage norms such as individualism, negotiations, compromise, respect for the law, and equality before the law.[3]

---

quote:

---

Social equality. Acemoglu and Robinson argued that the relationship between social equality and democratic transition should be nonlinear: People have less incentive to revolt in an egalitarian society (Singapore), so the likelihood of democratization is lower. In a highly unequal society (South Africa under the Apartheid), the redistribution of wealth and power in a democracy would be so harmful to elites that these would do everything to prevent democratization. Democratization is more likely to emerge somewhere in the middle, in the countries, whose elites offer concessions because (1) they consider the threat of a revolution credible and (2) the cost of the concessions is not too high.[2] This expectation is in line with the empirical research showing that democracy is more stable in egalitarian societies.[1]

---

quote:

---

Middle class. According to some models,[2] the existence of a substantial body of citizens who are of intermediate wealth can exert a stabilizing influence, allowing democracy to flourish. This is usually explained by saying that while the upper classes may want political power to preserve their position, and the lower classes may want it to lift themselves up, the middle class balances these extreme positions.

---

quote:

---

Civil society. A healthy civil society (NGOs, unions, academia, human rights organizations) are considered by some theorists to be important for democratization, as they give people a unity and a common purpose, and a social network through which to organize and challenge the power of the state hierarchy. Involvement in civic associations also prepares citizens for their future political participation in a democratic regime.[4] Finally, horizontally organized social networks build trust among people and trust is essential for functioning of democratic institutions.[4]

---

quote:

---

Civic culture. In The Civic Culture and The Civic Culture Revisited, Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba (editors) conducted a comprehensive study of civic cultures. The main findings is that a certain civic culture is necessary for the survival of democracy. This study truly challenged the common thought that cultures can preserve their uniqueness and practices and still remain democratic.
Culture. It is claimed by some that certain cultures are simply more conductive to democratic values than others. This view is likely to be ethnocentric. Typically, it is Western culture which is cited as "best suited" to democracy, with other cultures portrayed as containing values which make democracy difficult or undesirable. This argument is sometimes used by undemocratic regimes to justify their failure to implement democratic reforms. Today, however, there are many non-Western democracies. Examples include India, Japan, Indonesia, Namibia, Botswana, Taiwan, and South Korea.

---

quote:

---

Homogeneous population. Some believe that a country which is deeply divided, whether by ethnic group, religion, or language, have difficulty establishing a working democracy.[5] The basis of this theory is that the different components of the country will be more interested in advancing their own position than in sharing power with each other. India is one prominent example of a nation being democratic despite its great heterogeneity.

---

quote:

---

Previous experience with democracy. According to some theorists, the presence or absence of democracy in a country's past can have a significant effect on its later dealings with democracy. Some argue, for example, that it is very difficult (or even impossible) for democracy to be implemented immediately in a country that has no prior experience with it. Instead, they say, democracy must evolve gradually. Others, however, say that past experiences with democracy can actually be bad for democratization — a country, such as Pakistan, in which democracy has previously failed may be less willing or able to go down the same path again.

---

quote:

---

Foreign intervention. Some believe that foreign involvement in a democratization is a crucial factor in its success or failure. For some, foreign involvement is advantageous for democracy—these people believe that democracy should be actively promoted and fostered by those countries which have already established it, and that democracy may not otherwise take hold. Others, however, take the opposite stance, and say that democratization must come "from the bottom up", and that attempts to impose democracy from the outside are often doomed to failure. The most extreme form is military intervention to create democracy, with advocates pointing to the creation of stable democracies in Japan and Germany (disputed[2]) after WWII, while critics point out, for example, the failures of colonialism and decolonization to create stable democracies in most developing nations, where dictators often quickly took power after a brief democratic period following independence.

---

quote:

---

Age distribution. Countries which have a higher degree of elderly people seems to be able to maintain democracy, when it has evolved once, according to a thesis brought forward by Richard P Concotta in this article in Foreign Policy. When the young population (defined as people aged 29 and under) is less than 40%, a democracy is more safe, according to this research.

---

quote:

---

For example, what studies would have backed your good opinion etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by turk

Karamba,

quote:

---

For example, what studies would have backed your good opinion etc.

---

So far I have failed to see 'you' or anyone else to provide any facts, studies supporting that Gambia's capacity for full fledge democracy. Or did you provide something and I miss. All I hear is rhetoric. Newspaper articles. Show me a facts/studies Gambia's capacity about democracy. Don't give me your opinion. Present me fact. Typical bunch of people are complaining about Jammeh. The reason is I am giving up because you don't get my point, or fail to recognize even little bid. I came to conclusion I must be wrong, all the facts I provided worthless or I just give up. I had told what is my opinion, there is no need to repeat for endless discussion.

One ask me not to discuss because 'i ain't no gambian', the other asks you not to debate with me because 'terrible turk', other delete my posts :) Excellent examples for people advocating 'freedom of expression as part of democracy'.

I am disappointed that you did not appreciate my angle looking at the democracization in Gambia.

---

quote:

---

It is you who tags numbers on issues.

---