Poll: A Humanitarian Dictator is Better than a Weak Democratic Leader

MetroidNut

New member
Sep 2, 2009
969
0
0
I'd rather have freedom than prosperity; democracy for the win.

Besides, though I think the existence of a "humanitarian dictator" is entirely possible, how long before he's corrupted by power? A democratic leader, at least, can be thrown out of office. A once-benign dictator who slowly degrades into a totalitarian maniac? Good luck getting rid of him....
 

Riobux

New member
Apr 15, 2009
1,955
0
0
A Humanitarian Dictator, something that sometimes I wish I could be during those small rages of "wow, this common sense thing can't happen due to some pathetic individuals yelling "no!" ".
 

Mikodite

New member
Dec 8, 2010
211
0
0
As others have pointed out, there is no such thing as a humanitarian dictator. If one exists I want someone to mention hir by name please.

And don't say Fedal Castro. That guy kills political opponents, limits freedom of speech and censors the media up the ass, and is a lying tool: just like every other communistic-style dictator.

Now, however, there are plenty of examples of weak democratic leaders that can be tossed around, and heaven forbid if your parimentry democracy is in minority governments where all of the parties don't want to deal with the others (as you are forced to in a minority government to do so if you want parament to last more then a year). Again, as many have mentioned, a weak democratic leader can be removed from power within four-five years, or sooner if there is a vote of no confidence or criminal activity.

Now, the sad reality is that shit gets done in a dictatorship, and it gets done fast. Usually, in most democratic nations, there is something known as War-Time Measures, or Martial Law, where the leader gains dictator powers for a certain period of time - normally during a war as the name War-Time Measures implies. In Canada, this has been used four times
1) During World War I
2) During World War II
3) During the October Crisis
4) During the last G20 summit to take place in Toronto, ON.

Now, thankfully Canada at the moment isn't under War-Time Measures, in fact, the 3rd example only lasted a month and the 4th example only lasted a weekend. Still, it address the ineffectiveness of democracies during a time of war. Of all the strengths of democracy, speed was always its greatest weakness.

Though, I should quickly note that communism is a economic structure, not a government structure.

Now, in any given place, the people are only willing to put up with a dictator if their basic needs are being met. You can bet your ass that once the dictator gets too cruel and greedy, and the people have nothing to lose a rebellion will insight.
 

Kiefer13

Wizzard
Jul 31, 2008
1,548
0
0
The idea of a benevolent dictatorship is certainly not entirely without merit. Indeed, I've mused on the idea myself quite a bit.

The big issue that keeps coming back is accountability. A democratic leader may be weak, but they are accountable. If the people are unhappy with a democratic leader, they'll soon know come the next election. If the people are unhappy with a dictator, ousting them is a great deal more difficult. Not impossible, mind. Revolutions and assassinations do happen, but it's certainly not going to be nearly as easy (or bloodless) as simply voting him out of office. Especially if they have the loyalty of the vast majority of the armed forces and/or police.

Sure, in a perfect world, where the perfect incorruptible individual could be found that would always do the thing that was best for everyone, a dictatorship would be a brilliant idea. It's probably why the whole idea of kings and kingdoms still has that romantic ideal to it. It has a lovely sense of order to it.

But we don't live in Fluffy Pony Rainbow Land, sadly. This is the real world. No one's perfect. Power corrupts, as they say, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So no, democracy for me please. At least when elected politicians cock up enough, we can tell them to bugger off.

...Unless the humanitarian dictator in question would be me. Because y'know, I'm all for that.


[sub][sub][sub]The world is a mess and I just need to rule it...[/sub][/sub][/sub]​
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Weak Democratic Leaders are pushed around. Dictators are pushed out.

I'd rather lose a year to madman than a decade to tax mistakes. The many are happy with the rulings of the few as long as they can understand them, and are followed by all.
 

SimuLord

Whom Gods Annoy
Aug 20, 2008
10,077
0
0
I think Aristotle had it right: "A multitude of rulers is not a good thing. Let there be one ruler, one king."

Or maybe Winston Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute chat with the average voter."
 

bushwhacker2k

New member
Jan 27, 2009
1,587
0
0
Wow, I'm surprised so many people want someone to make their decisions for them.

Laissez-Faire, please.
 

dreadedcandiru99

New member
Apr 13, 2009
893
0
0
Wasn't this the basic plot of a Fantastic Four comic? Like, Doctor Doom takes over the world, becomes Supreme Unquestionable Ruler of Everything, and proceeds to turn the Earth into a utopia. He ends all wars, launches a massive worldwide disease eradication program, does away with hunger and poverty and illiteracy and so on. He let people have all sorts of liberties and freedoms and even elections; the one and only thing they couldn't do was replace him.

I think there was some reason it didn't work out in the end, but I don't recall exactly what it was. Maybe just because it was a comic book and he was the villain.
 

Mikodite

New member
Dec 8, 2010
211
0
0
bushwhacker2k said:
Wow, I'm surprised so many people want someone to make their decisions for them.

Laissez-Faire, please.
How did Doctor Who's Doctor put it?

"Why is it that humans are so willing let themselves become slaves? Its an easy life I guess."

I might have misquoted the man, but that statement reminded me of that.
 

Twilight_guy

Sight, Sound, and Mind
Nov 24, 2008
7,131
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
Twilight_guy said:
When the will of the one is imposed on the many, the many lose. The loss of freedom can not be abided even if made in the name of the general good. That said, a weak democratic leader doesn't help much either, unless people actually want to do the right thing (which they don't).
The problem with this seemingly excellent answer lies in the simple fact that society in general functions as a result of having one entities will imposed on another. The will of the many will often run counter to the will of the few after all. As such, judging how morally correct one system is over another by virtue of the excuse used to bend people to a particular will is folly. As the famous saying goes, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Funny how I didn't support either side in my post. I simply pointed out problems with both. I don't think any government that exists is perfect and everyone has faults. The only "perfect" government exists in the imagination.
 

Gruchul

New member
Aug 30, 2009
242
0
0
A benevolent dictatorship in which the dictator is highly intelligent is the only type of government that can truely work for the good of the nation. I very much doubt we'll see any of those in my lifetime!
 

BlindTom

New member
Aug 8, 2008
929
0
0
What you are talking about is Enlightened Despotism. The true definition of an Enlightened Despot is of course highly contested but if you want the crash course then it's the dictators who on the surface at least weren't massive assholes. Alexander the Great is the kinda thing I'm talking about.
 

AK47Marine

New member
Aug 29, 2009
240
0
0
Sure for one generation a benevolent dictator might be ok but when he dies someone will take his place, and chances are it isn't going to be a guy in a similar smiley happy vein, it will be who ever is brutal enough to seize power.
 

SimuLord

Whom Gods Annoy
Aug 20, 2008
10,077
0
0
AK47Marine said:
Sure for one generation a benevolent dictator might be ok but when he dies someone will take his place, and chances are it isn't going to be a guy in a similar smiley happy vein, it will be who ever is brutal enough to seize power.
Baby Doc Duvalier comes to mind. Not that his dad was any less of a monster---which provides the corollary to your statement in a dictatorship: "You think this guy's bad, just wait 'til he dies."
 

SenseOfTumour

New member
Jul 11, 2008
4,514
0
0
I'd love a benevolent dictator, purely because it would put an end to politicians picking up the morning papers, reading the front page headlines, then announcing policies in line with whatever the tabloids shat out onto some paper that morning.

With no elections, there's no need to do pointless stuff that harms the nation just to appease the masses. I'd welcome someone coming in and going 'fuck you all, I'm raising taxes to protect education, healthcare, social services etc, and you ain't going to like it, but almost everyone will be better off, even tho you'll all moan.

(Yes, I'm still on my rant about the papers blowing benefit fraud out of proportion, and the government leaping on it, when it's not a big deal compared to say ... politician's expenses fraud, or banker bonuses. Why spend huge amounts of cash getting the sick back to work, when there's millions of healthy people needing jobs. Makes zero sense except to sate the hordes whipped into a frenzy of hate by the tabloids).

He could also bring in long term policies, instead of having to plan everything to stay popular enough to be re-elected in 4 years. "Excuse me, but if we bring this policy in, it will damage our economy for 5 years, but then give us a massive boost for the next 20." That policy won't happen under a democracy.
 

WingedIncubus

New member
Nov 5, 2010
229
0
0
DarkLordofDevon said:
People do not care who rules as long as they are kept happy. Bread and circus'. There is a reason Julius Caesar and his successor Augustus managed to over turn decades of 'Democratic' senate rule in favour of a single supreme leader. Gain the love of the people and you can do anything.
Your argument conveninently passes over the facts that the Republic wasn't functioning at all for the last 100 years, that it was never a democracy in the first place, that it was voting all sorts of dole for its Patrician class, and the Senate didn't want to pass much needed land reforms to limit the tenure of lands of the Patrician class and redistribute the excess conquered lands to Veterans and Equestrians.

The Republic wasn't Paradise lost, it had ceased to function. Couple that with the fact that legions were literally funded and owned by their commanders, and that Roman society extremely encouraged personal ambition and family glory as civic virtues, and you have Roman Commanders like Sulla, Marius, Caesar, Mark Antony, and Octavian that would be ready to sack the rules of law and tradition to gain power.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
You can replace a democratic leader, so the dictator still loses, although that's a pretty good question.