Recipe for developing countries

3 min read
0 Favourites
55 Comments
3K Views
Hi folks! I was thinking about this for a few days. I managed to build a little theory on how to manage theoretical countries on a social level. Here it is:



Level 1: The elite
They are the ones who have diploma from an university or any other high level educational institution. They have full voting rights and are the ones entitled to elect the government.

Level 2: The middle-class
They are the ones who have succeeded in the Matura or any other high school leaving exam. They have limited right to vote and are entitled to elect the local government (Mayor, etc.)

Level 3: The plebs
They are the ones who have only primary education or less. They have no right to vote, given that their lack of knowledge of the world allows them to be easily manipulated.


The Government is made up of capable technocrats, experts from all various fields. The Parliament is unicameral but has a separate branch to interact with the local governments.

There is party plurality but the party that wins the elections takes all places in the Parliament so that the opposition cannot hinder the Government's workings with obstructionism.

Emphasis is to be placed upon industry as well as agriculture, the strengthening of the inner market by protectionism and exports are to be aimed to less-developed countries who provide a foreign market for the products that might not live up to the standards of more developed countries.

Industry should be initiated as according to the needs of the country, its resources and overall capabilities and potentials. Don't force what cannot be achieved. If a country is capable of light industry only, build plants for light industry and not iron works.

The research and development of non-fossil fuels is necessary, but for a short term, nuclear energy is to be preferred. Four or five power plants should be enough for a smaller country.

Never be afraid to admit that there are things you need foreign advice. Foreign experts are to be asked for help and advice. Scientific exchange programs could also strengthen good relations with other countries.

And finally: the people should be brought to the understanding that for at least twenty years, the country they're living in won't be the land of milk and honey. Short-term effects will be critical and might require steps that people won't like. But on the long term, everything will stabilize and a developmental leap shall occur.


That's it, folks! What do you think? Don't be shy to comment!
Published:
© 2010 - 2020 davemetlesits
Comments55
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
MultiFan-01's avatar
In theory it sounds good (but than in theory so does pure Marxism), the major problem is the Human element (In this one economics book I read in school, there was a [admittedly apocryphal] story that Karl Marx himself, having seen what Soviet Russia had become, said "I am not a Marxist").

Hell, we screwed up Eden and that only had one rule: "Don't eat that fruit"; we couldn't even get that right.
davemetlesits's avatar
The story is apocryphal. By the time of the Russian Revolution, Marx was dead for some thirty years.
MultiFan-01's avatar
Oh, oh I see. *Ozzy Osborne impression*: "I didn't know". :D
Draikar's avatar
Interesting design. It wouldn't be easy to implement, but it could possibly work if it were managed properly.
davemetlesits's avatar
It would have tremendous strains on the society, but in the end, it'd work out well.
Draikar's avatar
I agree on both counts.
Zoxesyr's avatar
you should read "Brave New World" again...
davemetlesits's avatar
Oh, Huxley! Great book!
zakarranda's avatar
My first instinct is to inject realism into the scenario, but then I remember what you specifically said this is for a theoretical country. Theoretically, yes, it could work. But you humans :paranoid: are strange creatures ;)
davemetlesits's avatar
Maybe it'd work with hte Na'vi :D
Maphisto86's avatar
I don't like the social order you put forth as it is frankly class based and the rule of the few over the many. Like dragonpyper said, I doubt that such a leadership would meet expectations and will ultimately rule in their own self-interest. That is the tragedy of government actually, no matter how they are organized.
davemetlesits's avatar
On the other hand, I also support anarchy. If you can't have a working state, don't have any state.
Maphisto86's avatar
Sometimes I wonder if that is any better or not. :confused: Speaking of that I have been reading a lot of works by the likes of Proudhon, Tucker and Bakunin.
davemetlesits's avatar
Bakunin, yeah. Mikhail Bakunin had some good ideas but was ahead of his time. He inspired too many kooks, though (Black Redistribution, just to name one group).

Maphisto86's avatar
Yes sadly he did and personally I believe he would have ripped such groups a new asshole if he where alive today. Still I cannot say I am entirely an Anarchist since I can see government working but like any form of society it needs good, trusted people to be in it. However I do appreciate Anarchist criticisms of authority and government. Still it is all so much armchair theorizing until it is tried at the peril of those involved.
davemetlesits's avatar
Yeah, sadly, it's all in the realm of the theoretical spherical cow...
Maphisto86's avatar
The sacred spherical cow is only a theory!? You blaspheming infidel you!!! :fork:
View all replies
zakarranda's avatar
The thing about anarchy is that the strong rise above the weak. And suddenly you have small empires run by warlords, and most people are being slaughtered by them, like what's happening in Africa right now.
davemetlesits's avatar
But it's basically what nature's doing. The weak must perish, simply because they perish in nature. We spend millions and tens of millions of dollars to keep everybody alive, even when it isn't really life anymore, like when their brain activity has ceased. And all the ill babies who would die normally but we keep them alive to be weaklings... Our genome will suffer a major breakdown one day because of all this...

zakarranda's avatar
So the weak are less deserving of living?
davemetlesits's avatar
Yes. The sad and sorry truth is yes. Nature always culls the weak, it's only humans who let the weak live, no other animals do so.
zakarranda's avatar
I'm sorry you feel that way.
davemetlesits's avatar
No need to be sorry. I strongle believe in eugenics, not on a racial level, like Hitler and the other idiots did, but on a medical level. Our DNA is only getting degraded. Of course, with applied genetic surgery, it can be repaired, but the morons just won't allow research...
View all replies
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In