When enough people want it, yes. Until that time, enjoy the ride...
The #1 problem in the DR isn't corruption; that's a byproduct of the real issue.
The issue is too many people chasing too few resources.
- Thread starter Kemo
- Start date
Politics in the D.R
The #1 problem in the DR isn't corruption; that's a byproduct of the real issue.
The issue is too many people chasing too few resources.
I was too hasty with the glib comment - Italy and Spain, both strongly Catholic, are among the countries with the lowest birthrates in the world, and I would say that both improved education and prosperity were important factors in bringing about this change - as people are more educated, they are more likely to question some religious teachings.
And although this is bordering on the taboo as far as this site is concerned, it has to be pointed out that the Church has not really been wildly successful in implementing much of its moral ethos in this country.
And although this is bordering on the taboo as far as this site is concerned, it has to be pointed out that the Church has not really been wildly successful in implementing much of its moral ethos in this country.
One can be edumacated and spiritual at the same time (this, coming from a heathen).
But secular edumacation and religious edumacation are fundamentally different.
Ethos aside, large families (a typical RC situation) beget large families, and feed into the "too many needs chasing too few resources" issue the DR has. Other more mature RC cultures (i.e. Italy and Spain) have figured that out; but they both have a larger resource base.
IMO, the political corruption inherent in the DR (and other similar cultures) is created ~because~ of the "too many rats in a cage" scenario. Politicians have to get "theirs" NOW, like a thirsty man gorging himself at a garden hose.
Whatever 'spiritual' means... yes, and you can be educated and religious at the same time, but the more educated you are, the less likely you are to accept, or be intimidated into accepting, the less practical/more outdated teachings of your religion without question.
Sure - as I said, prosperity definitely plays its part - and prosperity and improved state education went hand in hand anyway.
Up to a point, certainly, but there are other factors involved too. The DR is in many ways still a feudal society - certainly when it comes to the economic and cultural dynamics of patronage.
Semi-feudal, that's the case with the entire Third World.
As for the 'dynamics of patronage', its mostly based on common sense that seems to have escaped the mind of many Westerners. For example, for many Westerners putting faith on strangers over family and friends is considered morally acceptable. Hence, Western culture promotes the idea of advancement solely on merit.
Not so when in the Third World. Only an immoral person would put more faith on strangers than those who form his family and acquaintance social circles. Family and friends come first, always; because they are your blood, your soul, they were there when you needed them, they are the only one's that truly suffer when you are in pain of some sort. Hence, you put your trust in your relationships with family and friends above all else, lest you be an immoral person who is much more concerned with material things than people.
At least, that's the logic behind that aspect.
Westerners value material things to the degree that they do what it takes to become rich, either personally or as a society, even if that means putting your trust on strangers rather than those who help shape you into the person you have become. Most of the people of the Third World value people and relationships more than material things and they do whatever it takes to keep those relationships in good standing, out of gratitude and sincere interest.
This does not mean that many Third World people don't desire economic and material well being, but rather that they would first focus on their relationships and later on the attainment of material things, as long that everyone close to them benefit from such. There is no progress in the Third World without sharing it with those closest to you. You always think in terms of progressing for the sake of others, for the sake of expressing gratitude to your closest family and friends, not solely for yourself or for the benefit of strangers.
The "funny" part is that both sides view the other as being immoral, the Westerner views those of Third World mentality as immoral because such way of thinking slows economic and material progress while those of the Third World view Westerners as immoral for putting material things ahead of people.
Sometimes contradictions comes to the surface on both sides and some of that is visible right here on DR1. More often than not, many DR1ers would criticize the Dominican patronage system and yet, almost a the same time, be amazed at the close relationship bonds and genuine interest in people that many Dominicans have. In fact, one of the things I read more often here when expatriates want to explain why they moved to the DR is that their Dominican friends talk about people and life and such, while their friends in their First World country seem to only talk about things and money and progressing materially.
Often times I wonder if anyone else here see the connection between the aspect many expatriates like about the DR (the focus on people) and the aspect they despise of the DR (clientelism, etc).
The fact of the matter is that they are both from the same string and you can't have one without the other.
-NALs
Last edited:
You're right, Nals. I find the connection between the focus on people/family ties and the practice of leaving people to languish in ignorance and poverty by tossing a few titbits in their direction at election time a little hard to digest.
Would this explain why, when DR politicians appear on the campaign trail, the local populace needs to produce posters begging for infrastructure projects (schools, roads etc)? Begging for things which first world residents would see as their right by virtue of paying their taxes.
To an extent it is. If the local mayor or governor or whomever is a close friend of the main political figure, then such province or municipality will see great improvements in its infrastructure and general well being. If, however, the local political figure is not well known or too close to the main political figure, well then, he might receive some attention only after the former have been given theirs. If you value your relationships and people more than material things, that's the way you would act; especially when you are morally obligated to not disrupt your relationships lest you want to be excommunicated and considered an outcast of some sort.
Its simply not polite and immoral to put the needs of any stranger above those of your closest and most trusted family members and friends and even acquaintances. If you do that, you will be excommunicated and without valuable relationships, you are pretty much finished and powerless.
You don't put material things ahead of people. That's true in politics, in personal relationships, in business, in everything. And the word "people" here means those whom you have the greatest trust and gratitude towards.
-NALs
Maybe it says something about the sort of people I know in "my First World countries". My experience has been not quite the opposite, but I certainly have been confronted with more crude and unabashed materialism here in the DR than anywhere else. Not my DR friends though, I hasten to add!NALs said:
But NALs - there is politics, and there is personal relationships. Politicians are elected to serve everyone, not only their personal network of friends and family. There has to be a balance between serving both, which does not exist in the DR. E.g. there is a fair amount of corruption and nepotism in Spain, but at the same time enough is usually put to the common good for the country to move forward.
Clientilism is about power. It is not about concern for others. (You know, like rape isn't about sex, it's about power). Clientilism - 'where relatively powerful and rich "patrons" promise to provide relatively powerless and poor "clients" with jobs, protection, infrastructure, and other benefits in exchange for votes and other forms of loyalty including labour. While this definition suggests a kind of "socioeconomic mutualism," these relationships are typically exploitative, often resulting in the perpetual indebtedness of the clients in what is described as a "debt-peonage" relationship. In some instances, patrons employ coercion, intimidation, sabotage, and even violence to maintain control, and some fail to deliver on their promises. Moreover, patrons are oftentimes unaccountable for their actions. Thus, clientelistic relationships are often corrupt and unfair, thereby obstructing the processes of implementing true sustainability.' See Clientilism, Credibility and the Policy Choices of young democracies by Philip Keefer 2005, Development Research Group of the World Bank (the World Bank did I just type that? :cheeky
http://www.qog.pol.gu.se/conferences/november2005/papers/Keefer.pdf
http://www.qog.pol.gu.se/conferences/november2005/papers/Keefer.pdf
That's your First World view. To everyone without such point of view, they don't see it as leaving people to languish in ignorance and poverty, since everyone has a number of close trusted family members and friends. Hence, the same obligations exist there and their lack of material progress is not only the result of not knowing the right people, but also of not jeopardizing the relationships they do have.
If something will jeopardize your relationship with people -regardless in what social status you find yourself in, all are based on relationships and all are bound by the moral obligations to maintain such relationships first and foremost of anything else- then you will choose something else that will not jeopardize such.
Your mentality is based on being focused on material well being and not putting too much emphasis on relationships if they will impede material progress, but the complete opposite is true with people with more traditional value systems and mindsets, which is what I call the "Third World mind".
To put this another way, in order for the DR to reach the level of development that is present in the First World, Dominicans will have to be less Dominican and more like Americans or Europeans. In other words, be more money conscious and less people conscious. Put material success as your definite chief aim in life and not people. Become individualistic, focused on self, focused on the progress of the self which eventually leads to greater social wealth and well being.
What is sacrificed in the process are the genuine interest in people and relationships.
This is not hard to comprehend since in every rich country, there is more emphasis on material well being than people, while in every poor country its the opposite.
And, like I previously stated, both sides sees the other as being immoral; but it all depends on the value system each sides develops and that depends on the culture. Hence, for the DR to drastically change, Dominicans must drastically becomes less Dominican and more like Americans or Europeans.
Putting this into perspective, I doubt many expatriates who love the emphasis Dominicans put to relationships and people would be thrilled of having Dominicans lose such and become like their former countrymen, who despite living in relative abundance, don't quite match the personal human side that is very much appreciated in the DR.
BTW, I'm not defending either side, simply presenting both sides. Personally, I don't think one is better than the other since it all depends on what you value most, material things or the human connection you have with people.
-NALs
That's why the DR is semi-feudal. The other part is modern and well, being modern is all about being secular above all else.
-NALs
OK, I accept some of this in that I understand how and why clientilism happens. It is easier than the alternative, and it fulfils a function for both patron and client in the short term.
However, I refuse to accept that it is the fact that we are foreign that informs our rejection of it. Adriano Miguel Tejada, who is Dominican, is not exactly a lone voice.
However, I refuse to accept that it is the fact that we are foreign that informs our rejection of it. Adriano Miguel Tejada, who is Dominican, is not exactly a lone voice.