would authoritarian governments and tyrannies disappear if.....?

Question

non democratic governments can only survive because banks and big corporations support them and invest with them. if that goverment is replaced by a democracy then the people are still liable for the debts to these banks and corporations that have been run up by the previous non democratic regime. if the banks and corporations had to invest at their own risk and any subsequent democratic government was not liable for the debts run up by the dictators, would the investment dry up and democracy triumph without a shot being fired?

just watched a tv programme on burma. the military government buy their shiney new guns with the help of total, unical and haliburton. would they do othis if they thought they might not get their money back?

the esscence of this question is do you think that democracies that follow tyrannies should be responsible for the tyrannies debts?

Answer 1

No - China is an authoritarian government which would not go away if the democracies did not trade with it. Plus investors would not think it risky to thus trade. Finally where the democracies have withdrawn financial dealings in some African tyrannies China has stepped in.

Not that I have any problems with China it has recently improved the lot of most of its people by staggering amounts.

Answer 2

Wow, you have made some assumptions that are not always true.
1st of all you stated.
"non democratic governments can only survive because banks and big corporations support them and invest with them. "
Plenty of non democratic governments survive simply because of their military might. Banks and Corporations tend to "NOT" invest in these types of governments because the risk of loss is so very High.
Example..North Korea, The Congo in the 1960's, The Soviet Union 1920's to 1980. all these examples economies suffered because Banks and Corporations pulled out due to the losses suffered during their times of Crisis.
2nd: "if the banks and corporations had to invest at their own risk and any subsequent democratic government was not liable for the debts run up by the dictators, would the investment dry up and democracy triumph without a shot being fired?"
Banks and Corportations do invest at their own risk, they simple try to minimize the amount of risk they must bear.
"IF" they invested in a nondemocracy and it later became a democracy, so much the better because that would lower their risk of loss even more.

Here is a piece of thought for you.
The United States is NOT a democracy, it is a Republic.
there is plenty of investment by both banks and corporations in this country and from abroad.
do you think is we became a democracy the investment would dry up? Hardley.

Answer 3

Don"t be silly, when have you ever heard of a Bank investing at their own risk. Have you ever tried to get a loan when you have no assets? If you have a house and money in the bank they will bombard you with application forms for personal loans. If you have nothing but a good moneymaking idea, they won"t help. Look how many banks refused to back Dyson [Dyson vacuum cleaners] It took him years to get finance. THEY WON"T TAKE LITTLE RISKS, never mind investing, at their own risk, in an unstable Dictatorship.

Answer 4

Just question but no. Non democratic governments often have power due to fear (North Korea) or the ability to hold on to one resource that makes them exceptionally rich (any middle east country you care to name). So your hypothesis is essentially flawed. Destabilising a dictatorship often doesn't lead to democracy anyway and can lead to a complete meltdown of the country eg Iraq.

Answer 5

All governments are authoritarian.

Democracy is only really possible if people come together and organise how to administer and legislate their own lives, WITHOUT needing a government to do it for them.