.

« Who cares! Whether or not Australia remains a democracy under increasingly Lefist politicians in both major parties … »

.

Ah, my dear anonymous poster, self-confidence is etched deep into our psyche. We drown out doubt with a flood of certainty instead of frankly acknowledging the complexity of a problem or the hesitation that should accompany what we claim to be the solution.

Certainty is an illusion. We live in an uncertain world.

“If you want to make God laugh – just tell Him your plans” (Yiddish joke).

Self-doubt is the hallmark of a great thinker. Doubt deflates the pressure to deliver “the right solution” with conviction. Instead, it provides room to experiment and play with tentative ideas.

Einstein began his article on how light is made up of photons with a hesitant “it seems to me.” Darwin introduced evolution with “I think.” Faraday spoke of the “hesitation” he experienced when he introduced magnetic fields.

Although the expression of self-doubt is a non-starter for most politicians, John F. Kennedy embraced it when he pledged to put a man on the Moon. He was unusually candid in admitting that he was asking his country to leap into the unknown: “This is in some measure an act of faith and vision,” he explained to the American public, “for we do not now know what benefits await us.”

Conviction breeds arrogance and hubris. It leads to complacency. The moment we think we have the right solution is the moment we start ignoring inconvenient facts and stop learning.

Self-doubt opens up the mind. If we doubt our answers, we’ll be receptive to revising them.

And maybe getting it right !

Self-confidence is like sand in an oyster : a little produces a pearl, too much kills the animal”.

.

Hi Foxy, a good topic.

You said; "Russia had two chances at democracy in the 20th century.In 1917, in the months before the Bolshevik revolution
began. And again, in 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed."

I don't believe so, conditions did not exist at the time for the development of a liberal style democracy as we know it. Russia, like China and others has a history of political and economic instability, with no history of democratic processes. Liberal democracies develop over time, over a long period of time, when the conditions are right. Australia and other new democracies didn't develop their political and economic structure in unique isolation, we imported it from Europe, particularly Britain, where it had developed over a couple of hundred years.

Who is to say, that countries without a liberal democracy now, have a desire to develop such a thing. For example I don't believe China could be run on the same political and economic lines as Australia, that probably applies to Russia as well, and most of the world as it is now.

What about all the former Soviet states that are now democracies, the Czech Republic for example? What of the ability of migrants from autocracies to "fit into" the democracy they migrate to? And how many centuries before the descendants of these inherently undemocratic people become democratically inclined? What is fundamentally different about these human beings that makes them unsuitable for a democracy? To me, that sounds like the same guff that seeks to establish a "them and us" mentality, much like cult leader Albo tried with his referendum, and I note that he still has not given up his crusade for inequality. Perhaps it is more a matter of the system evolving than the people in it?

Yes, we are all going to Hell and the end is nigh. It has ever been thus.

"No European imperial powers have managed to retain their
empires in perpetuity. "

No imperial powers have managed to retain their empires in perpetuity.

There, fixed it for you.

I think we'd have a much greater chance of these autocratic nations becoming more democratic-like, if the west didn't use democracy as a tool of war.

That is, if it gave these nations space to evolve on their own.
But no, the West can't help itself to meddle in these countries.
They use civil society groups and NGO's to cause civil unrest, protests, overthrow elected leaders, install puppet rulers.
If the West acts this way, of course these nations will tighten their rules and reduce liberties to protect themselves from foreign threats.

What's happening in Venezuela is a perfect example of this.

The nation would be doing much better if it wasn't engaged in an endless battle trying to fend off attacks from the west specifically designed to undermine the country, and steal it's wealth.

I mean they're sitting on billions in oil.
But yet the west has them eating cats and dogs.

Imagine that, you have to go and find a stray cat to feed your kids.
All while your country sits on billions in wealth, but America won't let you use your nations resources to better the lives of your people.

I'm not saying autocrats are great people.
I'm just saying the West is no better and it's attitude and actions certainly help to foster these kinds of leaders and situations.

Until the world comes to this understanding I don't think things will change, and ultimately so long as this reality exists, then these autocratic leaders are probably doing the best they can for their people, whist remaining somewhat guarded when it comes to the Wests intentions.

Australians should be concentrating on their own country. Russia and Russians would have no interest in what some Australian thinks about them and their country.

Unfortunately, when the likes of Albanese and Dutton are the best our country can come up with, it has had the richard. Along with non-Anglo/Saxon/Celts enamoured with their 'roots' and multiculturalism, rabbiting on about foreigners and things they have no say in, Australia has been divided into tribes, working in their own interests, and not the good of Australia.

I'm seeing the beginning of the collapse of Australia; I'm very glad that I won't be here for the actual event.