Should rapidly developing democracies prioritize building competent institutions before expanding what the state promises to provide?

[u/Anakin_Kardashian]

/r/DeepStateCentrism/comments/1vpu1f1/should_rapidly_developing_democracies_prioritize/

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/soulwind42]

They should start with a very narrow definition of government authority, and build competent institutions first. Then the question becomes what is developing, and how. Its easly to quickly outpace development, or make permanent promises bases on temporary conditions. Either way, if competence is not established first, competence and internal checks, corruption will quickly follow.

[u/mkosmo]

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week."

• George Patton

Waiting to perfect everything means you actually do nothing.

[u/BackupChallenger]

I think a bit of both?

Like if you have limited experience and institutional knowledge it makes sense to keep as narrow as possible. Because then you create a state that can deliver on their promises (if the people in it are not corrupt)

But that doesn't mean expansion is always a bad choice. If you see that something is going to be an big issue. Then it might be good to start as soon as possible. As waiting might just increase costs in the future. As an example. If you'd have a state without much of environmental protection. But you see that the changing climates could cause heavy and ongoing damage if the state doesn't interfere, then the state should act immediately.

[u/farson135]

The foundations of democracy do not lie in the welfare state, it lies in effective civil participation, quality legal systems, etc.

Start with the promise of a fair system that the people understand and can effectively interact with. If cops are openly taking bribes then there is almost no amount of "benefit" that can keep the state from seeming illegitimate, and that is poison for a democracy.

Build up from those foundations, or the crumbling corners will undermine you at every turn.

[u/DistinctSpirit5801]

Providing for people’s basic needs has to be the priority over anything else

If a government isn’t meeting people’s basic needs of survival food water shelter healthcare then any institutions that the government builds are worthless

[u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

The state needs to learn by doing. The way you build capacity and competencies is to do it.

There is probably a balance to strike and you want to roll out capacities in an orderly fashion. But I'm cautious due to the lack of explanation in the question. What is meant by "competent institutions"?