Not saying it's right but Canada had Trudeau I and II, the US had Bush I and II, and the Clinton and Kennedy families, so it's not like political dynasties aren't common in many countries.
back
3 comments
I don't disagree but I also wouldn't say that I have a very high opinion of the US political system. I didn't know about Trudeau in Canada, and I confess I don't know much about Canada, either.
I certainly haven't noticed the same kind of political dynasty in other EU countries. Not that there are no pathologies in their political systems.
The thing is, in Greece, we could perhaps say that it's OK to be ruled by the sons and grandsons of previous PMs if things were going alright despite that. They are not though. And it's an easy correlation to assume between nepotism and corruption in politics.
What's more interesting is how many scandals those dynasties have been involved in and still remain in power.
Singapore had Lee Kuan Yew & his son Lee Hsen Loong - and it has a squeaky clean model of governance.
I cannot tell whether this is sarcasm or not.
Singapore's governance is well-oiled, but I wouldn't call it squeaky clean...
Transparency Intl. ranks Singapore the 3rd least corrupt country [1] globally. BTW, this thread was about a possible link between political dynasties and corruption, and I was providing a counterexample.
[1] https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/singapore-rises-to-thi...
Yeah if dystopian bubble is your dream of governance then yes. They fared financially better than neighbors, but its a far cry of society I would like to live or raise kids in. Many things we consider progressive in the west are not upheld there, and people are definitely not equal in front of law.
But as colleagues who worked there described it, you are on top of the pyramid as a well-hired westerner. So you don't have to give a fuck about tons of things that make decent human being, as long as you don't cross often draconian local laws and align. It takes a bit of specific personality to thrive there, but many do...