Was just looking at the Heritage Foundation’s “Index of Economic Freedom” and then it dawned upon me.
Why is it that the freest economies in the world, all the top five, seem to be dispropotionatly parliamentary democracies? The top two, Hong Kong and Singapore, are very un-democratic, but are still parliamentary. Is it just by chance, or is there a reason?
Here are the countries here:
I could guess that under some conditions, parliamentary democracy could =greater freedom namely, competition between parties and lobbyists which decreases the rate of corruption, and also, say if a multiplicity of parties are trying to pass a law, but there are so many (parties)that the only way to get anything passed is to attain a near-unanimous vote. This could definitely become an impediment to making new law.
Think of it like a bunch of germs being blocked in a door to mr. burns’ immune system.
Competition between parties increases corruption.
I don’t think that is true. It is, in fact, usually much easier to pass laws in many Parliamentry democracy. Take New Zealand for example, there is no written constitution, parliament only needs a 50 percent vote to pass a law and there is no upper house (a Unicameral system), Consider too, that NZ used too have a first past the post system (FPTP), so politics was dominated by only two parties. Now, however, under MMP we have many parties. Most Westminster style democracies, like Britain, have probably retained FPTP.
Or consider Hong Kong and Singapore, the freest economies in the world, they could hardly be said to be limited by much, not even by, that ugly word, democracy (at least universal franchise). In fact, I think Singapore’s government even heavily manipulates its media and has many draconian laws against civil disobedience.
Does it not seem strange that the Presidential model of government, designed to limit government in our private lives, doesn’t promote economic freedom as well as the Parliamentry model?
It would appear that we are mixing two different issues here: voting and political systems.
In this means that the only thing over which everyone agrees all the time is to raise spending. Deficits go over the roof as no party would risk loosing the 300 votes it has by increasing taxes. Truth is that on practical terms plurality parliaments always agree on to do the worst, whereas majority bicameral parliament can opt for better courses.
Is it a case that economic reforms, be they limited, are always undertaken in FPTP systems? Thatcher, Reagan, Erdogan (), , even goddamn France had its moments. When it comes to voting systems FPTP wins hand down.
As in ’s case, the only thing that happens when you have many braches of government is that they always agree to do the worst: increase spending but not taxes. No one really controls the government and no one ever gets what he wants. The system is as it was alive, uncontrollable by anyone.
The British system of the fusion of power (parliament and the government are one, whereas courts are theoretically privat-ish and non-state run) would suggest dictatorial powers, but strangely has been able to do some impressing turn arounds with Thatcher.
The bottom-line: a single government can be controlled and it is possible that, should lone party be convinced (out of necessity) that market reforms need be implemented to avoid some disaster, such reform could be implemented. If there is any hope for some decent freedom-enhancing measures, they can be instituted only by a FPTF, mono-cameral, parliamentary system.
Yet, I would not care what government system does a country have provided that it is small enough: and are not rich because that have the right form of government, but rather because leaving is easy. An inefficient government could not function at all in such small countries.
I wasn’t really trying to bring voting systems into in per se, but rather, I was just pointing out that in a parliamentry system there are many different factors that could be seen as making the policy process easier.
Ok, I take your point about Singapore and Hong Kong. But if you consider the next on the list: Aussie, NZ, Ireland ect. They are all Parliamentry, mostly Westminster, up until the USA.
It seems a contradiction that free markets, be they not completly free, get a better chance in “elective dictatorships”.
New Zealand, which was “more Westminster than Westminster,” in that it barely limited, had the most sweeping reforms happen to it in the 80s. These reforms were more radical than Thatcher’s or Regan’s.
Mind you, all these countries dabbled in extensive social democratic states at different times.
Perhaps when an extensively regulated economy is on the edge of bankruptcy, it is far easier to reform the economy extensively for because the polity wants dramatic change, politicians are less susseptable to lobbying and that change is much much easier to make.
So, basically:
-A Westminster system is transplanted somewhere and after a while it becomes almost socialist
-The country in question does ok for a while until it gets into trouble (eg. Britain, NZ, Ireland)
-So called “neo-liberalism” is seen as a solution and is adopted by the government.
-Government can undertake these reforms without a house of commons, a written constitution, a senate ect.
I fully agree. Let some plurality-vote, division-of-power system try to do that.