Well sure, if you take a simple-minded view, like excluding all the second-class citizens brought in as guest workers to supplement an aging population who have now become sources of tension, if you ignore the economic stagnation and social ills that have resulted from ethnocentric exclusionary policies, and if you ignore (as @Auld_Lang_Syne points out) the historical mistreatment of native-born ethnic minorities in the country.
It’s unfortunately and ironically becoming one, thanks to Likud and it’s ultra-nationalist and religious fundie allies. But if you’d bother to study the country’s history you’d know it was founded as a very strong reaction to the phenomenon of ethnostates, which always tend to incorporate or at least tolerate anti-Semitism to a greater degree than open and diverse societies do.
So? He’s not asking you to live there, and I doubt you’d want to move there permanently.
The Economist, by the way, is always happy to give such an award to any country that’s moving away from a command economy toward joining the neoliberal consensus. That doesn’t make Armenia a global beacon of liberal democracy or confer a status as one of the world’s most dynamic economies.
How were the autobahns? Did the trains run on time? I ask because, as we all know, such things completely counterbalance any negative aspects of a de jure ethnostate. Hungary is not a peaceful country with liberal democracy and a strong middle class and a dynamic economy.
There are people in all three countries asking for just that. They’re unfortunately matched or outnumbered by those countries’ Know-Nothing 27%s, who are pandered to by conservative politicians.
And in any case, there are native-born ethnic minorities in these countries, just as there are elsewhere (including the U.S.). And, just as elsewhere, they’re discriminated against by the terms of the ethnostate.
“Backwards” is the correct term. And it is suffering in terms of preserving its own legacy as an immigrant nation (involuntary immigrants, at first, but none-the-less).
It’s an attractive place if you’re from a country that’s poorer and more repressive than Thailand, in other words for desperate refugees. In general, the only Westerners who want to emigrate there permanently tend to fugitives from the law, men with “unusual” sexual desires, and the usual assortment of starry-eyed and naive expats trying to find “authenticity”.
I also still see no answer to this question from you, which I’ll repeat here and in any future topic where you try to push Identitarian views:
You might also answer @Loki’s questions about the English while you’re at it.
