Dictatorships are not always a bad thing...

[NaptownKnight]

It is my firm belief that a dictatorship can do good, and have done good in the past and present around the world. First off, a dictatorship is much more quick and efficient in it's descision making, their are no hour long debates over petty issues, a Dictator will go at a problem quickly and with the full support of his country behind him. Democracies are a failure for the simple reason that often one side is to scared to bring up a contraversial, but very important issue, because they want to stay in office. In other words, they worry more about themselves than the people, yet Democracies are lauded as governments for the people by the people. You want to see how democracy fails? Watch CSPAN. Nothing important is debated, and old, rich, white men make up the majority of the seats. Also, money is the thing that will move a democracy, and that means that unless the common man can win the lotto or something the rich people will ALWAYS get their way. In a dictatorship, the dictator can focus his attention on the people. Can he bribed? Sure, but it is very unlikely, what would a hundred million dollars be to a guy that controls the entire country by himself? Of course, you need a good, rare type of person to be a succesfull dictator, one that is ruthless but has his people in his heart. The great monarchs of old were all dictators, and their have been countless that served their people till the end. The media would have us believe that just because someone is a dictator they are evil. This is far from the truth, look at Hugo Chavez, he has improved Venezuela by leaps and bounds, and seeks to destroy the imperialistic and capitalist intrests of the U.S. and Britain, a noble cause. He is tired of his people and his country being exploited by the west, and we are supposed to believe this man is evil? Give me a break. I would rather have a dictator in the U.S. instead of this corporate democracy that we now have. I only hope more men like Hugo Chavez can rise to the helm of their respective countries, we need more strong willed dictators in this world.

[Drtad]

I agree completely. (+ rep)

[Da Skinna]

Dictators only answer to themselves, democratic leaders have to listen to the ones who got them there, and when it comes down to it, their name is on that ballot the public gets to look at, only because they didn't upset the ones who made that paper. Get it?

[mongrel]

I think Hugo might be offended if you call him a dictator. After all wasn't he elected in free and fair manner?

Anyway I disagree.

A dictator can make quick decisions but what if he or his successor became senile, or was incompetent, intellectually challenged or otherwise not up to the job? You are stuck with them.

Robert Mugabe would be a good example. He was certain decisive when he honoured his promise to his supporters to grant them land by seizing property from White farmers. He did not need to consider the economic implications of this, in particular whether former guerillas are the best people to farm wheat, tobacco etc. He also need not consider the fact that his people are starving because as long as the army and police are fed and watered that all that mattered. He has now come up with a wheeze for combatting inflation by forcing businesses to trade their goods at 50% of the market rate or face gaol. Oddly enough businessmren would rather close or maintain next to no stock rather than face instant bankruptcy. He wouldn't last 5 minutes if subjected to fair elections.

Saddam Hussain, has to be the worst Commander-in-Chief in living memory, if not all time, given his war record. No politician In a democracy could have survived the mess he made of the Iran - Iraq war. Despite his lack of strategic nous he tried it again, twice. For the Gulf War he had months to plan his defence. and he would have known roughly what the Coalition objectives were, their lines of attack and likely choke points. Being a dictator he did not have the need to seek wise counsel or devise a sensible plan. He could decisively tell the generals to park their tanks in static positions in the desert without any air cover, or cover of any kind. so that the A-10s could gratefully target them. The generals were not in a position to question his judgement,so they were unable to point out that military vehicles have wheels and tracks for a purpose. Thus, decisively, Saddam messed things up. If subjected to the will of the people he would have certainly have been ejected following the carnage in the Gulf War, saving his people the misery of the current benighted conflict.

Nero, was perhaps the greatest patron of the arts Rome had ever known. Through the sheer force of his personality he rebulit Rome and made it a showpiece city. Problem was that without any oversight the treasury was bankrupted. Nero was thus forced to raise increasingly onerous taxes and when this wasn't enough forced a number of noblemen to kill themselves and beqeath their estates to Rome. Not surprisingly, he went bonkers, the empire faced collapse and had to be killed. Civil war followed not long after.

What I am trying to say that although the democratic process may seem slow and riddled with competing interests the truly incompetent or incapable cannot survive in the long run in such an environment. Individuals will lose office, or the party will lose power. You can see this happening in the US with the string of resignations of Republican politicians recently and here in the UK with the recent defenestration of Tony Blair. With a dictatorship you have one shot as getting it right. Any short term advantages would in time be more that outweighed by the damage done in the long term. Pick the wrong man, and inevitably it will happen, particular under an hereditary system, you've got him for life although I suppose his lifespan could be shortened.

[Da Skinna]

Dictators only have to answer to themselves, I said earlier, but their self might not be reasonably sound. That's the gamble.

[Mythos]

The junta in Greece did a lot of things for the people. Lots of roads, hospitals, electricity even to the most remote mountain village. It just sad that we needed a dictatorship for these things to be done, instead of politicians actually putting the nation over their stupid parties and doing something.

[Drtad]

@mongrel
Just because a few dictators are bad doesn't mean all of them are. Quite a few of them actually want things to be done quickly to help their country when decisions must be made decisively and without useless debates and procedures which last God knows how long.

[NaptownKnight]

I mean sure there are plenty of examples of bad and good dictators, but when has there ever been a Democracy that was quick and efficient in it's descision making? The very nature of democracy is based on argument, and arguing is not the answer for most things, especially ones where it so obvious what needs to be done, like the U.S. health care system. It's just disgusting that democracy is associated with freedom and dictatorships are associated with opression, it can and has been the other way around before.

[Ummon]

Actually, I don't remember an example of a good dictator. Can you provide one?

[NaptownKnight]

Augustus Cesar for one, Hugo Chavez for two. I have more, and of course I am sure many would disagree with the Hugo choice, but he is a modern leader.

[humvee2800]

Well theoretically a benevolent dictatorship is the best type of government, its main flaw is that it requires the dictator to be and remain benevolent.

[Ummon]

First of all, Augustus was no dictator: he was an emperor. To be a dictator you need to replace a republican or democratic governement with your autocracy. In the case of Augustus, the job had been done already by Marius, Sulla, the first triumvirate, Julius Caesar.

But let's accept for a moment Augustus as an example of good dictator. One.

Chavez, I'm afraid, doesn't qualify as well as Augustus, you'll forgive me if I do not indulge on the little megalomaniac's fancies.

Any other example? Because you have managed to find one over several hundred cases.

Not a good sign for your stance.

[NaptownKnight]

I'm no historian, are you denying the existence of good dictators? And know, dictator does not mean to replace a democratic government, it means that one man has complete control over a country.

[Blau&Gruen]

I'm no historian, are you denying the existence of good dictators? And know, dictator does not mean to replace a democratic government, it means that one man has complete control over a country.

Naja, to gouvern means to control by decretes or laws, which express a will (= a decision). Is it the will of the 'demos' (people) or is the will of the dictator? You cannot have both. Dictatorship means war sooner or later.

[mongrel]

There were competent emporors, kings, etc in the past, Constantine, Queen Elizabeth I, Genghis Khan, Sargon the Great, whoever, but society was much different then. Plebs and peasants would not owe their alligence directly to the emperor, king, overlord, or what have you, but to their master, feudal landlord, squire, baron etc. A ruler's concerns were those of the nobility, the common people were of no concern. The idea of a dictactor ruling on behalf of the common people is a modern concept. All of us are better educated than our forefathers and in a sizeable part of the world people have become accustomed to living their lives beholdant to no-one. As a result the tried and tested ways of replacing absolute rulers through a dynastic struggle between noble houses has given way to the general repression of the masses.

I struggle to think of any 20th or 21st century dictator who has made a positive and lasting contribution to their country. Musollini was strung up, Hitler's Germany was reduced to dust, every single communist state in Europe has fallen by popular demand and the great majority are members of the EU and NATO. The closest examples I can come up with are Lenin and Stalin, but who nowadays would want to endure their rule and where is their legacy now? I suppose Mao-Tse Tung saved China from foreign domination, but the human cost of bizarre decisions made during the Cultural Revolution was way too much.

[Vladimir Lenin]

The problems with Kings and Emperors:

That really good leader is going to die, and a not quite so brilliant/good guy is going to take control.

Lenin>Stalin

For example.

[Kiljan Arslan]

I can think of one good dictator Mustafa Kemal, and JP he did not "ruin" the middle Eastern economy.

[Blau&Gruen]

Lenin>Stalin

To keep the relations: a terrible morron (Lenin) prepares the situation where a terrible criminal (Stalin) can come to power. Who is worse, the butcher or the one who gave the butcher plenty of scope?

[Vladimir Lenin]

The Butcher.

Lenin is also a bastard though. Killed the Royalty, all they did was get born/married into the Royal Bloodline.

[IndianPrince]

Dictatorship is a good thing only if the ruler is able & the selection process is more democratic.

Ofcourse there always are legal loopholes & some who like to change the rules but it is the ultimate trade off

Prince