Autocracy vs. Democracy: Good, Evil, and Everything In Between

Why Comparing Autocracy and Democracy as ‘Better’ or ‘Worse’ Doesn’t Quite Add Up.

As a kid, I thought only children could do bad things. When I say “bad,” I mean things like lying, intentionally hurting someone, being selfish, or wrecking a friend’s toy — basically, all those little things. Conversely, I believed that grown-ups couldn’t do bad stuff. I thought they, like my parents, had to be all good, moral, and fair. After all, they were supposed to know how people should act, right? How else could they teach us the right way?

Yeah, I heard about all the not-so-great stuff happening, especially in the area where I grew up. But, that was TV, you know? Honestly, it took me a while to figure out the difference between news and cartoons in terms of what’s real. Sure, there were some not-so-nice folks out there, but they felt about as accurate as Maleficent, Cinderella’s wicked stepmother, or even Cruella and Ursula.

(Seriously, Disney, could you throw in an evil male human for a change? Maybe a re-remake with Cruello or Urselo would be fun. I’m kidding. Please don’t do that.)

Gosh, was I ever naive back then? I mean, those kids, right? They think that grown-ups can’t do anything wrong, like everything they do is just pure goodness. Ha! Kids.

Or, maybe it is grown-up me who is naive?

On Good and Evil

Figuring out what’s good and what’s bad sounds like an easy question, but the answer can get pretty darn complicated. Usually, we start learning that stuff when we’re just kids. Some of us are lucky enough to have parents or grandparents as guides on that adventure. But for others, it’s all about different sources, like books or stories.

To get the hang of it, we often turn to real-life examples, either stuff that happens to us or someone we know. Or, we dive into those classic tales, fairytales, and myths to make sense of things.

Back in those days, we started figuring out the whole good and bad deal. Inside our heads, we kind of matched those concepts with our take on what’s right and wrong. Eventually, we set up our moral pillars, sort out what matters to us, and use our internal sense of morality to judge what’s good and bad.

But, there is a catch.

The Context matters

Picture this: There’s this company. And over in one corner of that company, there’s this guy, Bob. He’s spent his whole short professional life there, and he’s got a young wife and a baby to take care of. Then, one fine day, his boss, Alice, walks up to him and drops the bombshell: “Sorry to say, but we have to let you go.” Okay, so maybe Alice doesn’t say it quite that bluntly; there might be some long, empathetic story involved. But the result is the same: Bob, with a wife and a baby, finds himself out on the street. Clearly, in this story, the company, with Alice as its face, is the villain.

Now, picture this scene. The morning before Bob got the boot, there was an email sent out to all the department heads. It said that the company’s finances were in deep trouble thanks to the ongoing recession. To stand a chance at making it through, every department had to trim down its workforce by 30%. If they didn’t cut that many jobs collectively, the company wouldn’t even survive until summer. In Bob’s department, 30% meant exactly one person had to go. And here’s the twist: besides Bob, there were two other contenders for the chopping block. One was a single mom with three kids to support, and the other was one of the most seasoned and invaluable employees in the whole company.

Now, who is good and who is bad? It’s not so clear, right?

Without the complete context (the first story), it is clear who is a villain. Wrap it up with the full context (the second story), and we can clearly see victims, but not villains.

I understand that this example may seem simplistic, but it’s based on a real-world situation that many companies face. In reality, making tough decisions about layoffs due to financial challenges is a common occurrence in the business world. And that’s exactly what I also experienced in the past.

The point of View matters

So, last year, I picked up this book called “20,000 Years in Sing Sing” on a recommendation from someone else. Right after that, I dove into “The Righteous Mind.” And, I enjoyed both of them. It was like a breath of fresh air to get into the minds of people we might usually label as “bad.” It wasn’t just about their take on society, politics, and human rights, but also about their willingness to play by the rules and stay out of trouble with the law.

Let’s get real for a second: Nobody out there truly believes they’re doing something bad, at least not in their own eyes. Or to put it a bit closer to the truth, everyone does something that makes them feel good. What we think is good, though, that’s a whole different story, and it’s all tied up with the situation and our moral compass. Sure, some things we do might end up causing harm to someone (remember Bob?). But most of the time, those consequences slip past our radar, or we tell ourselves it’s the lesser of two evils.

Our moral compass sets up these algorithms for figuring out what’s the lesser evil, and that’s where you start seeing other making different calls, whether they’re liberals or conservatives, young or old, introverts or extroverts.

Now, here’s the catch: Even when someone’s doing their thing, totally believing it’s all about spreading rainbows and butterflies, and they can’t spot any dark clouds on the horizon, it’s still not some universal good. Here’s why: another person, using their moral compass, might see that very same action as partly or entirely wicked. I mean, isn’t that basically what we call marriage, right?

Historical Context for Autocracy and Democracy

Alright, now I’ve got to bring the third book, an absolute gem by Robert Sapolsky: “Behave.” In this one, you dive deep into all the twists and turns of our behavior. You’ll uncover why we do the things we do, what sets us off in our surroundings, our history, our morals, and even our evolution. Some of the conclusions here kind of reminded me of what I picked up from “The Righteous Mind.” We’re talking about the big divide between Western and Eastern cultures, or individualistic versus collectivistic ideologies.

Over the centuries, Western societies have charted their course through a mix of religions, myths, politics, and history. They’ve championed individual initiatives and explorations. Circumstances opened up opportunities for Western people to focus on themselves and their families. With hundreds and even thousands of city-states scattered across Europe, there was just enough space to survive and a safe playground for individuals to shine. Western history is full of assassinated tyrants.

But over in the East, it’s a whole different story. The majority of humanity, not just today but throughout history, has called East Asia home. Combined with the challenge of feeding millions, where vast societies had to join forces to bring in rice crops, it radically altered the moral compass of Eastern people. Survival meant looking out for the collective good and making fast decisions, they could not rely on waiting to get the opinions of hundreds of millions, but one individual. Naturally, that had to be the Chosen One.

Here you’ve got these two massive societies, separated not just by the Himalayas but by centuries of their unique histories. They learned things in their own ways and crafted their own moral compasses. All that wisdom they gathered? It was all about survival, plain and simple. Over the centuries, they’ve been teaching and passing that wisdom down from one generation to the next. In their own ways, they work pretty well.

You can’t free everyone

Believing in democracy is a rational stance, and for good reason. It has played a pivotal role in our survival, growth, and the empowerment of countless individuals to explore, learn, work, earn, and contribute to the prosperity of our society. Democracy inherently aligns with the principles of human rights and individual freedom, values that hold universal appeal. The absence of freedom implies oppression, and in such cases, the presence of a tyrant often becomes evident. We are well-acquainted with the strategies for dealing with such oppressive figures.

This logic has been a cornerstone of Western thinking. When addressing tyrants within our own societies, we advocated for and established democratic systems. However, when we extended our influence to societies with different historical contexts, we encountered a fundamental disparity in their perspective. In these societies, collective well-being takes precedence over individual interests, even if it necessitates harm to certain individuals — sometimes millions for the sake of billions. Imposing the values of liberal democracy on such societies often fails to resonate with their inherent beliefs.

In these societies, the pursuit of greater personal freedom is often regarded negatively, seen as an expression of selfishness that jeopardizes the collective benefits considered essential for survival.

Certainly, I don’t intend to make generalizations. In the Western world, you can undoubtedly find individuals and even entire societies that align more with the Eastern narrative, and vice versa. However, it’s important to acknowledge that the prevailing viewpoints on both sides of Mount Everest are often shaped by these significant differences.

So, what happens when we insist on spreading democracy and dismantling autocracy worldwide? Essentially, we’re attempting to liberate people who may not desire that liberation. We impose our historical context and our perspective to define what is right and wrong. In doing so, we make decisions for others who have entirely different historical backgrounds and viewpoints, presuming to know what is best for them.

We might believe that we’re bestowing freedom and enlightenment upon them, but in reality, we often achieve the opposite. We introduce values derived from a contrasting moral compass into a society that may not be prepared to embrace them, and perhaps they may never be prepared to do so.

In societies where people are averse to having tyrants, they ultimately find a way to remove them, sooner or later. Meanwhile, individuals who seek greater personal freedom often choose to immigrate to another country.

It’s crucial to grasp that the world doesn’t operate according to the models found in Disney’s fairytales or Hollywood movies. There aren’t clear-cut good guys and bad guys, and even more so, there aren’t purely good or bad societies. In reality, everyone, on every side, acts based on what they believe is in their best interest.

Societies that engage more with autocratic regimes aren’t inherently inferior, uneducated, impoverished, or less developed than democratic societies. While it’s true that a significant portion of the world’s wealth remains concentrated in the West, thanks in part to the Industrial Revolution that emerged in individualistic societies, this doesn’t provide the ultimate answer.

The wheel of history is in constant motion, and it may once again place the East at the forefront of humanity, much like during the time of the Agricultural Revolution.

Final Thoughts

I wrote this article at a time when the divide between liberal and conservative values, as well as democratic and autocratic societies, is once again deepening. Presently, it’s becoming increasingly challenging to present an alternative perspective that doesn’t neatly align with either of these opposing narratives. Neither camp seems willing to step into the shoes of the other, no matter the issue at hand. Moreover, abstaining from taking sides often gets you labeled as a supporter of the opposing camp, at least in the eyes of the first group.

I don’t buy into the notion of good guys and bad guys, not just in this context but in any situation, including the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Conforming to the narrative of good versus bad only serves to disconnect us from the possibility of understanding the other side and reaching a mutually beneficial resolution. Negotiating win-win solutions is imperative in every situation because, well, we all call this planet home, and there’s no alternative (yet).