Dictatorships - Possible?

[Universezero]

I have an idea: an idea to benefit the community for the common good. It would be very hard to implement; but if it was, it could revolutionise the face of modern politics. The crux of my idea is simple. Every day, politicians have to lie to the people they are trying to represent. This is because the people who they are representing are idiots; they want things that are bad for them, and don’t care for the things that they need. This is why politicians have to balance the things that people need and the things that people want in order to stay elected. If they do things too right, then that could leave an opening: an opening for the opposition to pray on the peoples’ wants in order to get elected.

Now you may say ‘So what are we going to do? We’re obviously tied between two obligations, one of which bad and one of which good. But how do we cancel out the bad?’ The answer is simple: we create a government that takes in people’s opinions, but doesn’t let that govern the government! At the moment, whatever the country wants is delivered, just so that the party currently in control doesn’t lose it. And that’s where my idea comes into play. It removes that incentive for political parties to stay in government.

But that’s a dictatorship, isn’t it? Yes, to some extent it is. But! Most dictatorships are set up around a sole leader, who is there because they want power. My government won’t be like that. I won’t be set up around a sole leader, it will be set up around a group of people; a party, if you will. And the goal of the party will not simply be to gain power. It’s main and only purpose will be to govern a country the way it’s supposed to; the way the people need it to be.

Let’s take a common example: tax cuts. Governments always promise tax cuts before they get elected, but doesn’t it ever happen? No! But there’s a reason for this, a reason which most citizens don’t seem to understand. To them, tax simply equals bad. They never think about the benefits for which the tax is going towards: health care, education, defence; all of which are good things. In my government, tax will be kept the same, meaning that people never pay too much but that our benefits will function properly and expertly. The tax may be raised or lowered, but this will only be done because of the current situation, and will not be done in order to gain popularity amongst the people.

People are often quick to point out the dictatorships have never worked, mentioning Hitler and the Nazi party as an example. But to gain perspective on the argument, you must first look at both sides of the story: where has a dictatorship worked? A lot will say nowhere, but this is in no means true. What about Singapore? Singapore is a classic example of a case where a benign dictatorship has been effective.

In Singapore, the streets are clean, the economy is booming, the people are friendly, and public services (such as health care and education) are first-class. And yet the current political party has been in power since just after the Second World War. Singapore will argue that they are a democracy; but then again, so does Zimbabwe. However, their system has appeared to work: the people seem to be mostly okay with the government, because while they may have less freedom around who stays in power, they don’t need it. The current government has being extremely effective in providing the people of Singapore what they need, not what they want. They may want lower taxes, but in the end, the government makes the decision as to what would be best for the country, not what would be the best compromise in order to keep themselves in power.

Another positive is that money wouldn’t be wasted on pointless things, such as elections, campaigns, and other initiatives that would not be needed if there was no need to gain public support.

Now, the main question is “What are you going to do about it?” At the moment, nothing. This idea would be very hard for me to implement for two main reasons. One: that the current government and population would oppose the change, claiming that democracy works. It doesn’t, but not efficiently as it could. And two: that it would be nearly impossible for a fifteen-year-old to convince an entire country that their idea for a new government would be effective.

In conclusion, my main point is this: that a benign dictatorship would be hard (but not impossible) to implement into society, but that if it were implemented, it would create a better environment for the population as a whole.

[Scrivener]

i'm going to skip my knee-jerk towerpost response to the myriad things i disagree with you on, and simply ask, how will the system be maintained? how are the leaders chosen, and what happens when they die?

[formica]

Two quick things:

I have an idea: an idea to benefit the community for the common good. It would be very hard to implement; but if it was, it could revolutionise the face of modern politics. The crux of my idea is simple. Every day, politicians have to lie to the people they are trying to represent. This is because the people who they are representing are idiots; they want things that are bad for them, and don’t care for the things that they need. This is why politicians have to balance the things that people need and the things that people want in order to stay elected.

That's... not really how governments work. Not now, not ever.

Democracy might be flawed because following the rule of the majority breaks down big- time when the majority, say, thinks a certain ethnic group is at the heart of all their problems (though this is almost always provoked by governments seeking to establish/ maintain power anyway- what happened in Southern Sudan in the 80's is a neat, obvious example) but the reason governments don't follow what the majority of people want has very little to do with what's best for people, and a lot to do with what's best for that country's wealthiest, capital- owning class. This can coincide with what's best for the bulk of the population, insofar as it's necessary for the dominant classes to stop the average joes from getting mad and overthrowing the party in power and causing havoc, but doesn't necessarily stretch that much further.

Politics and politicians aren't altruistic, and our completely limited political power (one vote between two or three parties sharing a LOT of common values- say, in the US, the maintenance of an expensive, pretty horrible military empire) has NOTHING to do with them trying to do what's best for us.

I think you'd have to figure out how to prevent this from happening in the party you give unconditional license to run a country.




Out of curiosity, how does the approach taken by Vietnam and Uganda in the 1980's sit with you? They basically had one- party participatory democracies: No elections, but a lot of general involvement in politics. In Vietnam, a range of unions and local organisations were tied to the decision- making structures of the government, allowing Vietnamese citizens to play an active role in policy creation. So, say, women were able to gain a range of rights still unavailable in most liberal democracies, including free day care, maternity leave, and a one- day paid holiday during menstruation. In Uganda, no political parties were allowed. Instead, all residents were members of the National Resistance Movement (NRM) and members of their village councils, an arrangement which led NRM President Museveni to landslide victories.

Neither of these arrangements are multi- party, and they're definitely not liberal democracies, but nor do they hand complete political control over to a political party which should just "know best", facist- style. Instead, they involve everybody more directly in politics, without giving them the option to just kick out the government in power based on a knee- jerk reaction to taxes. or whatever.



Or- how about taking Michael Walzer's approach, and saying that any style of government is fine, provided it "fits" with its people? (With some exceptions- say, Hitler's Germany wouldn't be allowed, because even if it "fit" with the majority of Germans (which it didn't), you can't argue that it "fit" with the jews). It's basically a much gentler way of saying "Dictatorships are fine! State socialism is fine! Liberal democracy is fine! Direct democracy is fine! Fundamentalist religious states are fine! 's all good, provided the people want/ accept that method of being governed, and the state isn't overruling other communities' rights to self- determination in any major way at the same time."

Therefore, Singapore is fine and good, but it doesn't have to be the universal model.

Thoughts?

[Universezero]

I agree in most cases, formica. However, you said the people in Uganda got to decide upon laws, yes? Well, the problem with that is that... well, say I'm part of a religion. And that religion has a sacred day every month. I suggest that I should get a paid day off every month, because of this day. It gets accepted, and I get a day off. You can probably see where I'm going with this; what stops anyone from asking for a few days off here and there? Surely if you give one religion a day off on their sacred days, you'd have to give all religions a day off?

The idea behind my government is to generalise; to decide what laws would be best for the country and best for the general population.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

I'm not sure what the revolutionary part of your benevolent dictatorship idea is.

Also, Singapore is not universally loved, e.g. "Disneyland with the Death Penalty".

I would not trust you with my country.

Is freedom not worth paying a price for?

Power corrupts. (Though apparently not in Singapore, so maybe pretend I didn't say that.)

[Rose]

Isn't this a lot like the ancient Roman republic system?

[otters~1]

Isn't this a lot like the ancient Roman republic system?

Which was a "republic" in name only. And it didn't work out, either.

[Kablizzy]

Yes, dictatorships are good if the dictators never do anything bad.

I'm tempted to post this in the "moot talks at TED" thread.

[Brainwasher]

another flaw in the plan is that the government would be filled with moral people that resist corruption, but have to lie to get into power >.>

[SkyPanda]

I wouldn't think that even a benevolent dictatorship would be at all okay. There'd always be the possibility that someone else can govern better, but there'd be no option for political participation. And I would think there'd be problems with information, control, law, etc.

[NachoCheese]

Unfortunately, people are stupid. Yeah.

Let us take a common example. Let's take Karate Kid, the most recent. It has two major flaws. First, the guy's doing kung-fu. And second, they should be in Japan.
Now, regardless of these extremely important facts, people fail to see past them, and consider it to be a "good movie", cause of fight sequences and detail. Flashy stuff. And herein lies the problem. In a government, most people can only see the surface, and fail to see past it. No consequences, until it comes round and effects them. Lets take another example - energy efficient lightbulbs. People protested, and got the benzene in lightbulbs replaced with mercury. There is only one disposal plant in my city, and nobody knows where the hell it is. So it goes into our water. However, the people are still content, because of the original mindset, "We got rid of the bad thing." Until they get poisoning.

So, if these people are this blind to see, what's to say a politician ism't the same? Just because they have an overview of the situation, doesn't mean they know what's best. In order to do this, they need effective advisors. Right off the bat, dictatorship is gone.

I rest my case.

Oh, and a joke for good measure.If poly means many, and ticks are blood sucking insects, what does that make politics?
:)

[Tanner]

Unfortunately, people are stupid. Yeah.

Let us take a common example. Let's take Karate Kid, the most recent. It has two major flaws. First, the guy's doing kung-fu. And second, they should be in Japan.
Now, regardless of these extremely important facts, people fail to see past them, and consider it to be a "good movie", cause of fight sequences and detail. Flashy stuff. And herein lies the problem. In a government, most people can only see the surface, and fail to see past it. No consequences, until it comes round and effects them. Lets take another example - energy efficient lightbulbs. People protested, and got the benzene in lightbulbs replaced with mercury. There is only one disposal plant in my city, and nobody knows where the hell it is. So it goes into our water. However, the people are still content, because of the original mindset, "We got rid of the bad thing." Until they get poisoning.

So, if these people are this blind to see, what's to say a politician ism't the same? Just because they have an overview of the situation, doesn't mean they know what's best. In order to do this, they need effective advisors. Right off the bat, dictatorship is gone.

I rest my case.

Oh, and a joke for good measure.If poly means many, and ticks are blood sucking insects, what does that make politics?
:)

qflulz

[Rose]

So, if these people are this blind to see, what's to say a politician ism't the same? Just because they have an overview of the situation, doesn't mean they know what's best. In order to do this, they need effective advisors. Right off the bat, dictatorship is gone.

That doesn't necessarily rule out dictatorship. A benevolent dictator could have ultimate power, but be smart enough to use his advisers to help him make decisions.

Also, according to firefox, "advisors" isn't a word. I have never heard this before.

[NachoCheese]

Advisors is here. It is a word :) And a useful one at that.

Benevolent dictator? That's almost an oxymoron. Don't make me laugh. Dictatorship usually suggests power was obtained forcibly because the people can't fight back. And regardless, who's to call his/her reign to a stop when it gets out of hand? They are completely unrestricted. I would only agree to dictatorship in times of emergency. Then it would pass as the emergency did too. And regardless, if there was a benevolent dictator, it would slip to democracy, as normal.

[SlappyMcGee]

The problem with a dictatorship is that they only have to keep the most violent of the population content.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

"There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless." -Thomas Paine, Common Sense

[scythe]

"There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless." -Thomas Paine, Common Sense

I was thinking of a different quote, personally:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers #51

Let us take a common example. Let's take Karate Kid, the most recent. It has two major flaws. First, the guy's doing kung-fu. And second, they should be in Japan.

Kung fu is Chinese, fool.

[NachoCheese]

I think I explained what I meant wrong.

Two things wrong.

Either
A) He's doing kung-fu
OR/AND
B) He should be in Japan...

Fool. :/

I agree with you SlappyMcGee, but if you make the violent people happy, who knows what could happen? Violent people in power. Ring any bells?

I like this quote.

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.
-Plato