What's new

Dictatorships Vs Democracy... Your Thoughts?

H. Dawary

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
565
Reaction score
-2
Country
Afghanistan
Location
Canada
What is better, Dictatorships or Democracies? Here are the Arguments for both exemplified by Author Yoshiki Tanaka in his series Legend of the galactic heroes which was later made into an anime... Enjoy!

Video starts at 2:00



Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
.
In theory, the democratic system should provide more accountability and means to change governments. But if the worst people command each of the key posts, then it'll go to the gutter (see Pakistan). In theory, a dictatorship can work as long as benevolent people command it, but when they don't, it'll go to the gutter.

See the issue? If the people in charge are corrupt, you're going to have problems with (realistically speaking) very few paths of recourse.

The UK, US, France, Germany, etc, are able to make democracy work because their political elites believe in the national cause and work towards fulfilling national interests. Likewise the US et. al were much more repressive in the 18th and 19th centuries (only democratic in the most technical sense, but not as liberal), yet they materially prospered too.

The key to national progress is having an intellectual and political elite that believes in the national cause, and diligently works to achieve national interests. Some systems may work better for some than others, but you need better people to achieve better results.
 
.
In theory, the democratic system should provide more accountability and means to change governments. But if the worst people command each of the key posts, then it'll go to the gutter (see Pakistan). In theory, a dictatorship can work as long as benevolent people command it, but when they don't, it'll go to the gutter.

See the issue? If the people in charge are corrupt, you're going to have problems with (realistically speaking) very few paths of recourse.

The UK, US, France, Germany, etc, are able to make democracy work because their political elites believe in the national cause and work towards fulfilling national interests. Likewise the US et. al were much more repressive in the 18th and 19th centuries (only democratic in the most technical sense, but not as liberal), yet they materially prospered too.

The key to national progress is having an intellectual and political elite that believes in the national cause, and diligently works to achieve national interests. Some systems may work better for some than others, but you need better people to achieve better results.

You are speaking of an aristocracy/oligarchy, that is not the same as Democracy. Democracies in time become oligarchies and as Machiavelli put it beautifully when he said "The people desire not to be oppressed by the elites (1%) while the elites desire to oppress the people and from these two humors arise the frictions in cities".

But you are right in saying that a dictatorship can work if there is someone benevolent, otherwise its bad for all. I agree that if there is a political/intellectual elite that works towards the national cause then progress can happen, but how are you ever going to have such elites work with one another? This is why Rome had its Social war and its Civil war in the late Republic. It did however work in the Early Republic...
 
.
There is no single definition of democracy in political science and reality. Democracy generally means rule of the majority. If majority people are Savage as most nations are, the results are not so unpredictable. Democracy also means the dictatorship of the majority. On the other hand, a Republic can be either democratic or dictatorship.
 
.
Both solve the same underlying issue in a society: how to quiet the discontent to avoid social instability? Which one ends up being used highly depends on the power balance at that time. Having a dominating faction often leads to dictatorship. Having multiple factions but no one dominating often leads to democracy.
 
.
There are countries where no cracy will ever work as seen from the last few hundred years . Because the people are so Savage. The best option for them is the corona virus to wipe out that nation all together. It may sound outrageous but I sincerely believe that epidemic like Corona virus may be the ultimate remedy for some nations.
 
.
You are speaking of an aristocracy/oligarchy, that is not the same as Democracy. Democracies in time become oligarchies and as Machiavelli put it beautifully when he said "The people desire not to be oppressed by the elites (1%) while the elites desire to oppress the people and from these two humors arise the frictions in cities".

But you are right in saying that a dictatorship can work if there is someone benevolent, otherwise its bad for all. I agree that if there is a political/intellectual elite that works towards the national cause then progress can happen, but how are you ever going to have such elites work with one another? This is why Rome had its Social war and its Civil war in the late Republic. It did however work in the Early Republic...
Unless you're talking about a direct democracy, the majority of democratic systems are fundamentally aristocratic and limited to the hands of a few. But these systems didn't 'become' like that, they were designed to be exactly as much -- e.g., the lobbying laws that allow the elite to shape laws to their favour. That wealth is always limited to only a few, though that few may arise from different factors (e.g., lineage/old money or Steve Jobs-types).

Some regress even further into an oligarchic rule (e.g., in Pakistan), but that's when you have bad design + bad people. I mean, they are democratic in as far as just following the technical processes (elections, legislation, etc), but otherwise, they're oligarchs.

However, unless the US, UK, Germany, France, etc, are shook to the core by an event (e.g., a world war, total economic collapse, etc), they will not regress into oligarchies. They will stay as they are and maintain the course, albeit with shifts between liberal and illiberal regimes.

Realistically, the people are usually a non-factor in rule, even in democracies. We elect trustees who will decide on our behalf, but these trustees seldom consult us, much less obey us. They'll tow the party line in most cases, or when given the opportunity, go with their own opinion.

What matters for the people is (1) the ability to remove a despotic or incompetent regime and (2) the ability to hold the ones above them accountable easily and without retribution.

It's here where every Muslim country fails spectacularly, and you'll even see people be OK with this (e.g., on this very forum) not understanding that they're screwing themselves.

However, for (1) and (2) the US, EU, etc do OK.
 
Last edited:
.
I think power needs to be more centralized where corruption and abuse of power can be monitored more effectively. Democratic systems and decentralised power is a recipe of disaster especially for a country like Pakistan. Pakistan should give presidential system a try and get rid of this filthy parliamentary system for elites.
 
.
Of course democracy is much better especially for personal freedom. Democracy with its free press will also create check and balance for the ruling power. Despite so democracy system in US with only 2 parties fighting to one another and a parliamentary system that can result 4 election being made just within a year just like happening in Israel are not a good example.

Indonesian Presidential System with multiple political parties are the best IMO. We have parliamentary system in the beginning of our democracy but later is changed because we want to have a strong government.

We also choose our own leader (Presidential System), so there is satisfaction feeling over that, as far as what I have experienced, my candidates are always win. I hope in the future my candidate will win again. And since PDF sees me as a rational guy that make them choose me as one of their think thank, so I guess Indonesian people in majority can be regarded as quite rational in choosing their own leader.
 
Last edited:
. . . . . .
Why do you believe in it?


Too much evidence regarding IQ, body type, climate, weather, geography etc...That said I believe a country like India can make it to Scandanavian level if it performed ruthless eugenics in a timespan of 35 years...A country like Pakistan would achieve the same in 25 to 30 years
 
.
Back
Top Bottom