When is 'dictatorship' good for a country?

[ray245]

Right now, I'm writing an essay on the idea or theory that 'bad' can be good at times.

Which brings me the idea that 'dictatorship' can be well not that bad at certain times.

So when can a dictatorship be well...better than democracy at certain times. I would say Iraq because the country is so...you know . Right now, the only chance of Iraq being able to build a country is basically zero with a democratic government with close to no influence in their own country.

So when is dictatorship better for a country? Emphasis on when .

[Ender]

When you are the dictator.

[Darth Wong]

You can't create hard-and-fast rules, but in any situation where the absence of a dictator would swiftly lead to chaos, it seems reasonable to surmise that they're better off with the dictator.

[Zor]

A stable, sane, autocratic dictator ruling over a developing nation with no democratic tradition that had been in a state of tribal barbarism beforehand which he is in the process of purging is better for said nation than a democracy.

Zor

[Flagg]

When a dictatorship is the only thing that can keep it from degenerating into total anarchy due to civil strife or disaster. I'd also include invasion causing representative government unable to function. Which is pretty much the same as anarchy.

[Darth Wong]

One of the problems with political discourse in America is that certain political views are treated as universal truths, and thus immune from questioning. Chief among those perceived "truths" is the universal superiority of democracy and the free market, with no allowance made for extenuating circumstances.

It's ironic that Thomas Jefferson once said that we should "Boldly question even the existence of God", in an effort to remind us that when men put something beyond question, then their ability to think is stunted accordingly. Today, Americans have learned to accept that it is OK to question the existence of God, but they have put something else up on that pedestal: their own political system. And the rest of the world, enthralled as it is with American media, has absorbed some (albeit not all) of this mindset.

[Flagg]

One of the problems with political discourse in America is that certain political views are treated as universal truths, and thus immune from questioning. Chief among those perceived "truths" is the universal superiority of democracy and the free market, with no allowance made for extenuating circumstances.

It's ironic that Thomas Jefferson once said that we should "Boldly question even the existence of God", in an effort to remind us that when men put something beyond question, then their ability to think is stunted accordingly. Today, Americans have learned to accept that it is OK to question the existence of God, but they have put something else up on that pedestal: their own political system.

I can sort of see why, though. Even during foreign invasion and a civil war we still held Presidential elections. That said, I don't know that we've ever really been in a position where a dictatorship was necessary.

Though I agree completely that our political system isn't going to work for everyone or that it's even the best one there is.

I like the idea of an equal executive branch, but I also find the Parliamentary system pretty appealing.

[Darth Wong]

I can sort of see why, though. Even during foreign invasion and a civil war we still held Presidential elections. That said, I don't know that we've ever really been in a position where a dictatorship was necessary.

Though I agree completely that our political system isn't going to work for everyone or that it's even the best one there is.

I like the idea of an equal executive branch, but I also find the Parliamentary system pretty appealing.

The problem with attempting to apply the American perspective to other nations is that Americans take great pride in their own democracy. When you go to a country which has no particular democratic tradition, then models developed for the American example don't work too well. I used to think this way myself, until I ran into people who sincerely opposed democracy. The mere existence of such people puts the lie to the idea that everyone wants democracy.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The main problem with dictatorships is the transfer of power from one leader to another. For the most part, even the totalitarian powers like the Soviet Union and China installed a system where it was a power struggle between factions, but ultimately, no one took up arms and entered into a civil war. Holding power collectively is a lot more stable than all powers centered on a single person and gives rise to either extreme intolerance or extreme ineffectiveness.

And of course, the state of the country is hugely dependent on how good a leader is. Unlike a democracy, it is near impossible to remove the dictator short of an internal coup, or at the extreme end, a civil war. The latter often has a habit of killing the best and brightest in a country and it can be devastating in the long run.

So comes the question of when. Perhaps in time of serious crisis. Most democracies themselves have some emergency powers mechanism, though I am not too familiar with what the US has, which might be more than enough. On the other hand, a democracy can be hijacked. Maybe a dictator might be required to attempt to correct the situation.

[K. A. Pital]

1) to keep from dissolution into anarchy
2) to run a mobilization economy under threat of complete annihilation

[The Yosemite Bear]

When your playing the hive and you want to slap Godwin or Santiago really hard.

[Guardsman Bass]

When there is something that absolutely must be done, usually for a long-term problem, for a society to hold together or even exist, and for which no consensus can be reached among the various factions composing a society.

[Netko]

The main problem with dictatorships is the transfer of power from one leader to another. For the most part, even the totalitarian powers like the Soviet Union and China installed a system where it was a power struggle between factions, but ultimately, no one took up arms and entered into a civil war. Holding power collectively is a lot more stable than all powers centered on a single person and gives rise to either extreme intolerance or extreme ineffectiveness.

Your first sentence is very much true. As an example, look at Tito - he's pretty much considered the ideal benevolent dictator by almost everybody in the ex-Yugoslav states (excepting those persecuted for their political views during that time), with many holding nostalgic feelings (Yugonostalgia) about the good old days when he was in power, yet barely a decade after his death the country disintegrated because of (mainly) an ineffective, buerocratic, incoherent system without clear decision-making centers put in place after his death that led to, and even supported to some extent, the rise of nationalistic leaders (primarily Milošević) that led to the disintegration.

[Nephtys]

Dictatorships are required if the people are incapable of managing ANY sort of stable society on their own. A dictatorship of demogauges is a lot harder to remove (thanks to being 'the voice of the people') than any single tyrant. If your people are worthless, then a strong-man is seriously the best way to ensure stability.

[ArcturusMengsk]

I can sort of see why, though. Even during foreign invasion and a civil war we still held Presidential elections.

Barely. After the American Revolution there were a good many people calling for Washington's coronation(!), and it's well-known that the Civil War-era Union was the result of an unprecedented centralization of executive power under Lincoln - but these are not necessarily bad things. The 'ideal' society would be one capable of voluntarily and knowingly instilling a temporary dictator in place during times of turmoil while retaining provisions to ensure his removal afterwards. The problem, of course, arises in trying to imagine a swift and painless mechanism for that removal.

During any sort of economic revolution and immediately afterwards, i.e. a communist one, the need for a dictator is quite apparent. The problem here however is again that, in theory, the dictator ought to be around only long enough to ensure that the revolution isn't retarded, that it doesn't degenerate into pandemonium or that reactionary forces don't thwart the goals of the revolution (here putting aside questions of the economic feasibility of such efforts for the time being). I suspect the answer to the problem I posed above will be the same as this.

[ray245]

Although, to ensure a stable transfer of power from a dictatorship to a peaceful democratic one will usually takes a longer time.

A good example will be either South Korea or Taiwan for that matter, or USA if you include MacArthur as a 'dictator' .

A bad example of the transfer of powers will be the soviet Union and Iraq. Seriously, I don't get why US don't opt for a WW2 Japan like of occupation for Iraq? Because of the mass media?

What I don't like about a free media is the way they like to report things. Often they would show a biased view on things ending up with decision making even harder. A biased view which is which story would sell better rather than what is well good for the country at times.

Even some media can be very ill-informed on how a real world politics work and end up causing more trouble than good.

A democratic leader doesn't mean he will be better in building up a country than a dictator at times.

[Lagmonster]

A company can be a type of dictatorship, albeit one which answers to the courts and bows to public opinion. One wonders what one of the famous American monopoly companies would look like if armed like a national military.

[Adrian Laguna]

Typically for a democracy to work there must be a large middle class. In nations where the majority of the populace are working class or outright poor, there can be issues, especially if the predominant culture is one of lazy indolence. In such places it can become necessary to either disenfranchise the lower classes or establish a dictatorship in order to ensure knowledgeable management of the country. However, authoritarianism is a double-edged sword, and a dictatorship or oligarchy can lead the country to ruin far more easily than rule of the uneducated and ignorant ever could.

When your playing the hive and you want to slap Godwin or Santiago really hard.

Though in my case "When playing the Hive, from the moment it's available."

[ArcturusMengsk]

Typically for a democracy to work there must be a large middle class.

I find that assumption to be rather questionable, since most totalitarian dictatorships (which must here be distinguished from the junta, the strong-man, and so forth) also arise in nations with large middle classes.

[Sarevok]

So when is dictatorship better for a country? Emphasis on when .

When democracy is destroyed by corruption and becomes nothing more than revolving rule between several tyrants.

[ArcturusMengsk]

To clarify:

Typically for a democracy to work there must be a large middle class.

I find that assumption to be rather questionable, since most totalitarian dictatorships (which must here be distinguished from the junta, the strong-man, and so forth) also arise in nations with large middle classes.

What I mean here is that the middle class generally acts as a catalyst for reaction under duress of the threat of socialist revolution. Both the Junkers and the proletariat under Hitler's rule, for instance, were excluded from social discourse in favor of the lower-middle and middle classes.

[Adrian Laguna]

Typically for a democracy to work there must be a large middle class.

I find that assumption to be rather questionable, since most totalitarian dictatorships (which must here be distinguished from the junta, the strong-man, and so forth) also arise in nations with large middle classes.

What I mean here is that the middle class generally acts as a catalyst for reaction under duress of the threat of socialist revolution. Both the Junkers and the proletariat under Hitler's rule, for instance, were excluded from social discourse in favor of the lower-middle and middle classes.

The middle-class can be its own worst enemy. I would argue that the totalitarian dictatorship comes to power by hijacking and reversing the way the middle class tries to empower itself. Both democracy and fascism make the middle class feel empowered by aligning government policy with their desires. The difference lies in that the democracy changes its plans to suit the people, and the dictatorship changes the people to suit its plans.

This approach does not work on the lower classes because what they want is control over the means of production. Nor does it work on the upper classes because what they want is exclusivity.

The above is, of course, simplistic but I think it gets the point across.

[Vympel]

One of the problems with political discourse in America is that certain political views are treated as universal truths, and thus immune from questioning. Chief among those perceived "truths" is the universal superiority of democracy and the free market, with no allowance made for extenuating circumstances.

Put into pretty stark relief by the non-reasoning of the Iraq debacle - for some reason, the neocon twits thought that "democracy" was synonymous with "American values", and so they've obviously been quite surprised at how that's worked out for them in the Middle East- when people vote, they vote in Islamic funadementalists.

[Elaro]

Well, when you see the history of the modern democratic governments, with the exceptions of colonies, you see that they all were dictatorships practically from the Middle Ages onwards (until revolutions/wars dislodged the rulers). So historically, there are steps from "anarchist" rural villages to dynamically stable democracies.

It generally goes Villages->feudal dictatorship (leader supported by village rulers)->democracy. So, under this model, dictatorship would only be viable when, as other people have said, the nation is in chaos and there requires an individual to unite the warring factions and "bring peace to the land", so to speak.

[Phantasee]

My Poli Sci prof brought this up last class. He constructed a chart to show some of Aristotle's ideas. Basically, you have this:

It depends on whose interest the government rules in. If it's their own interest, than you have a tyranny, but if the dictator rules in the interest of the people, it's a monarchy.

Obviously you don't need to actually be a king, but as long as you are ruling in the interest of the people you are in the clear. It's just a difference of how many people are ruling. If the population doesn't have a tradition of democracy, then maybe you need fewer people ruling.

Example my prof brought up: African nations that became independent. They were all democratic and stuff, except they didn't have a history of being so. So they ended up electing their hereditary chiefs into the office of President for Life. Democratic on the surface, but really still just a monarchy (or tyranny) underneath.