|
While you pose some interesting questions, the examples that you've picked do nothing to further your arguement.
It's a popular misconception that the Russians have always had authoritarian governments when in fact that's a relatively recent invention. The serfs under Tsar Michael (the first of the Romanov dynasty) enjoyed freedom of movement and the ability to leave their landowner if they chose. Their freedoms were restricted slowly until Empress Elizabeth basically codified them as slaves under the law. And there's also the examples of the Novgarod government before it was crushed by Ivan IV, the 1905-1917 Dumas, the Bund and entirety of the Ukraine from c.1500-1850. Also, the 1937 Soviet Constitution grants more freedoms and rights that virtually any other similar document, although it was obviously corrupted and misused by Stalin et al.
The Greeks may have invented democracy but it didn't last long. They lived under monarchs from roughly 300 BC to 1917 AD with no democracy at all. First they had the Romans, then their own monarch in the Byzantines and then the Ottomans. Holding up the Greeks as paragons of democracy is similar to holding up the Soviets as great fosterers of internal dissent.
East Timor has only been an independent nation for 4 years, and prior to their secession, the Indonesians basically raped and pillaged the area for the 27 years that they controlled it. It was never an independent nation prior to the Indonesian invasion (unless you count the 9 days between the Portugese decolonization and the Indonesian invasion), so it may not be the best example since the East Timorese haven't really had a chance to show us what they have.
Your crappy examples aside, I think that it's a combination of things that allow countries to grow and prosper (which is the most obvious benchmark of success). Obviously, Mother Nature hands every country setbacks from time to time, but how the nation and people rise to the occassion generally demonstrates (in my mind at least) how well the system is able to cope with emergencies. Those that have less to start with (for whatever reason) are going to have a harder time arising from the ashes (so to speak), although the world community generally pitches in to some extent if the damage is great enough.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|