Ever a case where dictatorship is favorable to democracy?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Can there ever be such a case?

Yes, if you are the dictator.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

The "perfect society" would be one person, alone on a desert island.(if you can swallow the inherant contradiction of 1 person being a society!)

It follows as such.
When you are alone, you have 100% of your political rights.(I don't believe in economic rights, a codeword for socialism)
Alone, on your island, there is no one to murder you, imprison you, enslave you, repress you political opinion, steal from you, or impead your pursuit of happyness.

There is also no one to tax, regulate, or legislate.
If you can't find food, you starve, no welfare.
(hence, no economic rights)
Nature, and reality are your limiting factors, not the will of an other being.
THIS, to me, is freedom. You may TRY, but are only given the chance to try unimpeeded, not guarenteeded sucsess.
Hence one of Mr. Beans sigs. To para phrase "Equal opportunity, not equal results."

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

DOH!
I forgot the most important part!
When 2 or more people get together, some form of government becomes a nescessity, as there will ALLWAYS be some disagreement.
Once you are no longer alone, there is someone elses rights to consider, and there WILL be some conflict.
The best form of government, would be the one that does the least possible, to the fewest.
Hence, majority rule, with minority rights, and inalienable civil rights, NOT revokable.

[beyond hope]

Just a thought: Turkey is (nominally at least) a democracy. The military is the only thing that keeps the Muslims from instituting the sharia over there.

[Stormbringer]

Can there ever be such a case?

Aturk's Turkey though it's subsequently fallen apart. That's no suprise though.

[Guardsman Bass]

In a state of emergency or major crisis, the President of the U.S. effectivelly becomes a dictator until the crisis is over, and can suspend rights. This is also present in most other western governments, and I believe it is the only proper time when an effective dictatorship should be used in place of the traditional democratic government(for temporary use only. Plus this is only possible in governments that have a strong, legitimate democratic government; try doing this in, say, Egypt, and dictatorship will get on that throne and never get off.

As for the idea of a benevolent, altruistic despot, I would like to point out that such a man would never have reached the top spot in the first, and don't bring up men who rise to the top of a party dictatorship, because such men are usually even more machiavellian than their non-party-supported counterparts. Politics acts a culling process for politicians: Only those willing to be corrupted and the fanatical ideologues achieve top power, because only they can eliminate enemies and unite forces for their own well-being. Thus, if a despot DOES do altruism as part of domestic policy, I believe he is simply trying to strengthen the image of his regime.

[Axis Kast]

In my personal opinion, dictatorship is never superior to democracy from a theoretical point of view.

In terms of the United States, I'd prefer our government to remain democratic. In the case of allies, it all depends on whether or not whichever government is in power supports us.

[Stormbringer]

In my personal opinion, dictatorship is never superior to democracy from a theoretical point of view.

There are plenty of such cases. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and plenty of others. Compared to the governments that would be elected but for the dictators, dictatorship is much better from an objective point of view.

[Axis Kast]

Therein lies the problem.

Technically, democracy would result in the kind of government to which I am familiar. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

[Colonel Olrik]

Well, all the nations we describe as democracies are more properly defined as republics.

Look at the swiss. The government there basically produces referends, for the citizens to vote.

All decisions are dependant on the citizens.

The system is much more perfect than in the U.S or most E.U (I can't speak for all). It works due to an incredibly wealthy and informed population, with a strong sense of civic duty. Their proud isolationism also helps.

[Stormbringer]

Therein lies the problem.

Technically, democracy would result in the kind of government to which I am familiar. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

'

Democracy can much more easily turn into a Third Reich as easly, if not more easily, than a US of A. Democracy's biggest weakness are the people that do the voting. Plenty of despicable governments have been voted in and not all dictators are evil thugs.

There's no such thing as an ideal government, just a series of pros and cons. And what is best for one country or people isn't necessarily right for another. I get sick of people (especially my fellow americans) treating democracy as the pinnacle of government. America is in many ways the exception the rules as far as long lived democracies.

[kojikun]

Guardsmen, a benevolent dictator can indeed rise to power, but its very difficult because the benevolent ones are usually not the ones who strive for power in that manner.

However it is possible to have a benevolent dictator if the person never even has to rise to power, but rather is given power like Cincinnatus.

[Steve]

The idea of dictatorship flies in the face of the theories of nearly every political philosopher ever (save Machievelli and sadists like him). Rousseau, Marx and Engels, Donzinger... even Hampshire argued that Justice cannot be achieved without accurate popular representation.

A question: have you ever read Machiavelli? And not just "The Prince" either.

Because, having read Machiavelli, I have to say that your statement "and sadists like him" is completely incorrect and appears to be based off a preconception.

[Joe]

Machiavelli actually had a great love of liberty, IIRC.

[NapoleonGH]

Well about the different dictators there have been plenty of dictators/monarchs who have done considerably better than a democracy would in the same situation (i use democracy to really mean republics).

Ancient rome during the good emperors (Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Gaius Antonnius, Marcus Aurellius) is the perfect example The pax romana was one of the golden ages of human civilization.

Also in rome you had the rule of diocletian and constantine who both did a good job. In the eastern empire Justinian the great was a wise and just and good ruler.

Medieval/Renaissance/Enlightenment europe also produced some good benevolent dictators: you have Joseph II of Austria-Hungary. Charles V of the HRE. several of the french kings were quite decent especially Henry IV, Louis XIV was a very good ruler for the first half of his reign. Elizabeth I and Edward the III of England. Robert Bruce of Scotland.

In the more modern era Napoleon can be debateably said to have done a better job for france than a democracy would have in the same situation, he got rid of the democratic government that was failing and brought about another (albiet short lived) golden age for france and altered governmental and judicial structure accross the world in the process.

After Napoleon it is hard to find decent monarchs and dictators but regardless there have been many who fit the bill of "Enlightened Despots" which to me represents the ideal form of government. The only problem is insuring the next despot to be as enlightened as the first one.

[Steve]

Machiavelli actually had a great love of liberty, IIRC.

Yes he did.

"The Prince" was mainly a work of practicality. And even it had what some would call a laudable goal. Machiavelli wrote it to Lorenzo de Medici to encourage him, and others, to take up the banner of Italian nationalism and freedom from outsiders (as Italy in his time was frequently invaded, both physically and by way of politics, by the French, Spanish, and others). It's plain as day in the twenty-sixth chapter.

Machiavelli was a Florentine and Italian patriot who desired an Italian Republic. That much I get from reading some of the Discourses that were included in my copy of "The Prince".

And in closing, I just have to quote the final paragraph of "The Prince":

This opportunity, therefore, must not be allowed to pass, so that Italy after so long a time may find her redeemer. I cannot describe with how much love, with what thirst for revenge, with what resolute loyalty, with what tenderness, with what tears he would be received in all those provinces which have endured these foreign hordes. What gates would be closed to him? What people would deny him obedience? Whose envy would oppose him? What Italian would withhold his allegiance? This barbarian domination stinks in everyone's nostrils. Let your illustrious house take up this task, then, with that boldness and with that hope which is reserved to just enterprises, so that this nation may be ennobled under your banner and so that under your auspices the words Petrarch wrote may come true:

Against barbarian rage,
Virtue will take the field; then short the fight;
True to their lineage,
Italian hearts will prove their Roman might.

[Steve]

The only problem is insuring the next despot to be as enlightened as the first one.

Or that the first one stays enlightened.

Ivan the Terrible was a just and fair monarch up until his beloved wife was murdered by his boyar rivals. It was his reaction to her death, and his descent into cold-hearted tyranny, that made him "the Terrible".

[Darth Wong]

Democracy works fine in the presence of a well-informed, well-educated populace. However, when you have a shitty public education system, you end up with a populace that lacks critical thinking skills and can easily be manipulated, and that situation inevitably leads to intractable corruption at best.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The only problem is insuring the next despot to be as enlightened as the first one.

Or that the first one stays enlightened.

Ivan the Terrible was a just and fair monarch up until his beloved wife was murdered by his boyar rivals. It was his reaction to her death, and his descent into cold-hearted tyranny, that made him "the Terrible".

Or what of Marcus Aurellius, who exemplifies Plato's ideal of the Philosopher King in every respect? He only had one major fault - He led his son succeed him, who was, of course, the Emperor Commodus.

[Steve]

The only problem is insuring the next despot to be as enlightened as the first one.

Or that the first one stays enlightened.

Ivan the Terrible was a just and fair monarch up until his beloved wife was murdered by his boyar rivals. It was his reaction to her death, and his descent into cold-hearted tyranny, that made him "the Terrible".

Or what of Marcus Aurellius, who exemplifies Plato's ideal of the Philosopher King in every respect? He only had one major fault - He led his son succeed him, who was, of course, the Emperor Commodus.

You mean the guy who was killed by Maximus?

*Ducks Marina's thrown pilum*

I REPENT! I REPENT!

[Thunderfire]

Can there ever be such a case?

Yes dictatorships should be more effective during a crisis.
A democratic leader will not take a radical but necessary
solution to a problem because stupid voters will vote him
out of office if he does it.

[Thirdfain]

Governments, of any sort, get it wrong nine times out of ten. That's why it's best to have a fairly limited government, divided like the American checks and balance system. Government's only job is to protect it's people from outside threats and settle disputes. Anything else a government gets its hands on, it does what is at best a sub-optimal job, and at worst a major screw-up. The problem with a dictatorship is that it is too likely to put one man in absolute power- in other words, in a great position to screw up.