Daniil (question accompanied by a donation of 149.25 rubles)

What is so good about an effective autocracy? An autocrat can very quickly place people who will strictly follow his instructions in all managerial positions, and then very quickly carry out the necessary reforms. Where a team of reformers using democratic methods manages to cope poorly during the first year and then gets bogged down in endless delays, an autocrat’s team simply goes and does everything in a matter of months.

The second argument in favor of autocracy is that a democratic government leaves after a few years, the opposition takes its place, and begins to pleasurably destroy what was newly built. An autocrat sits on the throne longer, and during this time, the reality he has built has time to take root.

So what kind of madman would actually speak out against an effective autocracy?

The biggest difficulty is that far from every autocracy is effective. I can point as an example to a chapter from The Machinery of Freedom about libertarian foreign policy.

The problem with an interventionist foreign policy is that doing it poorly is much worse than not doing it at all. But that which is worthwhile only if done well is done by the very same people who run the state postal service, and with roughly the same chances of success.

David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom

Is it possible to estimate in advance whether a candidate for autocrat will be good, and whether his reign will be marked by minarchist reforms? Alas, all of history is full of examples showing that this is difficult to do. Lee Kuan Yew came to power under left-wing slogans and then began to suppress the communists. Deng Xiaoping was one of the leaders of the CPC even under Mao, and generally, nothing foreshadowed the sharp turnaround he would eventually make. Liberal reforms in New Zealand, one of the freest economies in the modern world, were also carried out by a government elected under left-wing slogans. Thus, if a future decisive reformer wishes to come to power democratically, he will most likely broadcast a left-wing agenda until the election, and his real plans will surface only afterward. Those who initially position themselves as right-wing are left only with coming to power through a military coup, which means they will have difficulties implementing reforms at the grassroots level — illegitimate orders are often sabotaged by those executing them.

So what, are autocracies not needed, and should we humble our pride and limp along in the mainstream current of democracy with universal suffrage? No, this is a disgusting form of social organization, which is only capable of delaying important decisions and squandering huge budgets, but is incapable of carrying out sustainable reforms to reduce the state.

The main problem with autocracy is the monopoly on power, and the solution lies, naturally, in launching competitive mechanisms. Under panarchy, where citizenship is determined by signing a contract, autocracy reveals all its strengths: it is a compact, fast management mechanism that does not procrastinate, but acts. But panarchy allows for the mitigation of autocracy’s weaknesses because a very powerful feedback loop operates within it: citizens support only effective autocrats with their wallets.

Exactly the same arguments can be made regarding a scientific approach to politics. Scientific theories must evolve, while implementing them in practice on an exclusive basis freezes the theory. A different matter is the competition of approaches. Evolutionary development mechanisms work there, and instead of simply trusting a great teacher, be he Mises three times over, we get the opportunity to test theories in action and improve them.