A Strong Dictatorship is Better than a Weak Democracy free essay sample

This house would rather have a strong dictatorship than a weak democracy Pros of having a dictatorship include: No elections, imagine not having to deal with all the political rhetoric, you already have your leader for life. Difference in opinions is ubiquitous and inevitable, and arises on every topic. For every opinion one man may have, there will always be another man opposing him (look at this debate, for example) and this may not always end well, maybe even resulting in potential Civil Wars. With a dictator, you have one ruler, one voice, a united voice. he  economy  could be more controlled and sustained by a  dictatorship, as the economy would be run by the state. Though a small minority of the population suffers from violence from the dictator, the vast majority of the population will exist in a nearly crime free society in large part because the smallest infraction of the law (or even the the perceived infraction) is dealt with severe punishments. The  Soviet Union  had very little street crime, and the Russian mafia was never grew to the size of the Italian-American mafia, or the plethora of other American criminal organizations because of the brutality of the Soviet regime. Saddam Husseins regime provided free health care, access to affordable higher education, enviable for the region transportation systems, and other benefits. The Chinese government provides has better roads, railways, airports, ports, manufacturing facilities, than neighboring democratic India. The dictatorial nature of theChinese government  and unquestioned decisions has benefits of massive infrastructure improvements. The Chinese building several hydro-electric dams, and moved several million people, which wouldnt have been able accomplished in a country with personal rights to property, or the power to self determine their own existence. Taxes are usually low, because income is not an issue. Free-market-oriented economists since  Milton Friedman  have strongly criticized the efficiency of democracy. They base this on the argument that voters are irrational, among other things. Their criticism towards democracy is that voters are highly uninformed about many political issues, especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which they are fairly knowledgeable. The masses are not adequately educated to be able to foresee the betterment of the community they belong to, and therefore are unable to cast a vote to that effect. But given the right to vote, an uneducated man would certainly cast a vote which will more likely be wrong as effected by the personality charisma of the candidate or some other superficial reasons. An ordinary voter may also be lured into casting a vote on the basis of financial help or some other petty promises. Chicago economist Donald Wittman has written numerous works attempting to counter these common views of his colleagues. He argues democracy is efficient based on the premise of rational voters, competitive elections, and relatively low political transactions costs. Economist Bryan Caplan argues, while Wittman makes strong arguments for the latter two points, he cannot overcome the insurmountable evidence in favor of voter irrationality. It still remains the Achilles heel of democratic government. The problem is not mere lack of information; it is that voters badly interpret and judge the information they do have. Unfortunately, according to Caplan, the problem lies in the fact that the relative cost of learning about a particular issue is very high compared to the cost of not knowing that information. This really becomes an issue when those ignorant people vote, which they will do because of the good feeling it gives them. [1]  Other economists, such as Meltzer and Richard, have added that as industrial activity in a democracy increases, so too do the peoples demands for welfare. However, because of the  median voter theorem, only a few people actually make the decisions in the country, and many may be unhappy with those decisions. In this way, they argue, democracies are inefficient. This could result in a wealth disparity in such a country, or even racial discrimination. Fierlbeck (1998) points out that such a result is not necessarily due to a failing in the democratic process, but rather, because democracy is too responsive to the desires of a large middle class increasingly willing to disregard the muted voices of economically marginalized groups within its own borders. [3]The criticism remains that the will of the democratic majority may not always be in the best interest of all citizens within the country or beneficial to the future of the country itself. Furthermore, some have argued that voters may not be educated enough to exercise their democratic right. A population with low intellect may not be capable of making beneficial decisions. They argue that the lack of rationality or even education is being taken advantage of by politicians, that compete more in the way of  public relations  and tactics, than in ideology. One such argument is that the benefits of a specialised society may be compromised by democracy. As ordinary citizens are encouraged to take part in the political life of the country, they have the power to directly influence the outcome of government policies through the democratic procedures of voting, campaigning and the use of press. The result is that government policies may be more influenced by non-specialist opinions and thereby the effectiveness compromised, especially if a policy is very technically sophisticated and/or the general public inadequately informed. For example, there is no guarantee that those who campaign about the governments economic policies are themselves professional economists or academically competent in this particular discipline, regardless of whether they were well-educated. Essentially this means that a democratic government may not be providing the most good for the most amount of people. Additionally, some political scientists question the notion that democracy is an uncontested good. [7]  If we base our critique on the definition of democracy as governance based on the will of the majority, there can be some foreseeable consequences to this form of rule. For example, Fierlbeck (1998: 12) points out that the middle class majority in a country may decide to redistribute wealth and resources into the hands of those that they feel are most capable of investing or increasing them. Machiavelli  put forth the idea that democracies will tend to cater to the whims of the people, who then follow false ideas to entertain themselves, squander their reserves, and do not deal with potential threats to their rule until it is too late to oppose them. He put forth a cyclical theory of government where monarchies always decay into aristocracies, that then decay into democracies, which decay into anarchy, then tyranny, then monarchy. An Example is the timeline of France before, during, and after the French Revolution until the last Bourbon Monarch. More recently, democracy is criticised for not offering enough political stability. As governments are frequently elected on and off, there tend to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and internationally. Even if a political party maintains power, vociferous, headline grabbing protests and harsh criticism from the mass media are often enough to force sudden, unexpected political change. Frequent policy changes with regard to business and immigration are likely to deter investment and so hinder economic growth. For this reason, many people have put forward the idea that democracy is undesirable for a developing country in which economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top priority. [9]  However, Downs argued that the political market works much the same way as the economic market, and that there could potentially be an equilibrium in the system because of democratic process. However, he eventually argued that imperfect knowledge in politicians and voters prevented the reaching of that equilibrium. The  constitutions  of many countries have parts of them that restrict the nature of the types of laws that  legislatures  can pass. A fundamental idea behind some of these restrictions, is that the majority of a population and its elected legislature can often be the source of minority persecutions, such as with  racial discrimination. Some countries throughout the world have judiciaries where judges can serve for long periods of time, and often serve under appointed posts. This is often balanced, however, by the fact that some trials are decided by  juries. While many, like Wittman, have argued that democracies work much the same way as the free market and that there is competition among parties to prevent oppression by the majority, others have argued that there is actually very little competition among political parties in democracies due to the high cost associated with campaigning. Some  Right-Libertarians  criticize democracy because they claim it is impractical or immoral. [13]  The criticism for impracticality is essentially that in order to be logically consistent people would need to vote on all action, and that this would lead to the extermination of the human species. Others criticize democracy for being immoral on the grounds that it coercively involves people, i. e. it violates  voluntarism Some thinkers believe democracy will result in the peoples distrust and disrespect of governments or religious sanctity. The distrust and disrespect pervades to all parts of society whenever and wherever there is  seniority  and juniority, for example between a  parent  and a  child, a  teacher  and a  student. This in turn is suggested to be the cause of frequent  divorces,  teenage crimes,vandalism,  hooliganism  and low education attainment in Western societies, all of which are lower in Asian societies. Even a democracy can become corrupt. This is a simple form of appealing to the short term interests of the voters. This tactic has been known to be heavily used in north and north-east region of  Thailand. Another form is commonly called  Pork barrel  where local areas or political sectors are given special benefits but whose costs are spread among all  taxpayers. Mere elections are just one aspect of the democratic process. Other tenets of democracy, like relative equality and freedom, are frequently absent in ostensibly democratic countries. Moreover, in many countries, democratic participation is less than 50% at times, and it can be argued that election of individual(s) instead of ideas disrupts democracy. Rebuttals: If people say that a â€Å"nearly crime free society in large part because the smallest infraction of the law (or even the the perceived infraction) is dealt with severe punishments† implies that the dictatorship is ruled by fear and people live in fear, oppose it by pointing out that Chinese philosopher Han Fao believed in strict punishment to rule, believing that it is key to a good society. Are we to contradict the teachings of an Ancient Chinese thinker whose words have inspired for so many thousands of years? And it’s not like this punishment is for the innocent, or done in spite. It is done to teach a lesson, one hard to learn. Wrongdoers cannot go unpunished. If people say that with democracy people find freedom, point out that freedom and democracy are different. In words attributed to Scottish historian Alexander Tytler: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. Democracy evolves into kleptocracy. A majority bullying a minority is just as bad as a dictator, communist or otherwise, doing so. Democracy is two coyotes and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. † There is a difference between democracy and freedom. Freedom is not measured by the ability to vote. It is measured by the breadth of those things on which we do not vote. If people say to look at dictators like Stalin or Hitler, say that we are discussing good, strong dictatorships, like that of Napoleon. He built roads and hospitals, helped repay France’s loans, established city sanitation projects and beautification projects, made new, fair laws, made a Central bank for the good of the people, commissioned many beautiful artworks, as well as insisted on freedom. So no, freedom is not limited to democracy. If people say that Dictatorships are situations where your entire life depends on the opinion and oppression of one man, say that a strong dictatorship has advisers that advise the dictator on what the people want and what the people hate. A dictator with a wicked mind like Stalin was not a strong dictator. Strong dictators are not defined by how many people they kill. A strong dictator is defined by how well he can control the country, economy, world status, etc. Also a strong dictator looks after his people because the people are his country and with no people there will not be a country. If people say that people prefer to have democracies where they can make decisions, say that it wasn’t just leaders who were driving these changes. In one study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, only  16 percent of Russians  said it was â€Å"very important† that their nation be governed democratically. The regular Afrobarometer survey of the African continent has found declining levels of support for democracy in many key countries. And in Guatemala, Paraguay, Colombia, Peru, Honduras, and Nicaragua, either a minority or only a small majority of people think democracy is preferable to any other type of government. Even in East Asia, one of the most democratic regions of the world, polls show rising dissatisfaction with democracy. In fact, several countries in the region have developed what Yu-tzung Chang, Yunhan Zhu, and Chong-min Park, who studied data from the regular Asian Barometer surveys, have termed â€Å"authoritarian nostalgia. If they say that democracy cannot achieve much or help, mention that India still continues to be plagued by the same old problems of poverty, economic inequality, illiteracy, population, widespread corruption and so on. It is perhaps the time of an able, strong-minded, powerful dictator to take hold of the country and cleanse the entire system A benevolent visionary, who can lead by example and get the things done with speed and perfection. Terms *A Job Safety Analysis: one of the risk assessment tools used to identify and control workplace hazards. A JSA is a second tier risk assessment with the aim of preventing personal injury to a person, or their colleagues ** Referendum: a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision. *** Voluntarism: the word  voluntary action  means action based on  free will, which in turn means action which is performed free from certain  constraints. The constraint of (government)  coercion  is often considered in this context, where it remains the question what constitutes coercion. Not all dictatorships are composed of men whose first priorities are their own power. I would like to make a well-known example of the famous dictator Napoleon. His reign brought France out of dark times, and although people could argue that his priority was to conquer the world, we cannot deny that he did many good things for France, from building banks to commissioning art to making fair laws. The people were always a priority of his. Then Id like to make a more recent example of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew who is arguably a dictator. His views on education have done wonders for the country, and his ideas for bonds guarantee many, many Singaporeans access to great education such as that found in Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. These types of good dictators still exist. Second, democracies may not always be what they seem. In Ecuador, elected President Rafael Correa, who has displayed a strong authoritarian streak, recently won legislation that would grant him expansive new powers. And, in Russia, Vladimir Putin used the power he won in elections to essentially dismantle the country’s democracy. In terms of economic sense, we can look at US, the land of liberty. In 2013, their budget deficit has reached 600 billion. In 2009, it is 1. 4 trillion. With such a high budget deficit, it has caused economic recession not only to itself but to countries closely related to them. This is mainly due to democracy since politicians are unwilling to increase the tax rate since they might lose votes to opposition parties. As such, tax revnue is lesser than government expenditure, resulting in an increasing budget deficit. When we cross refer to China, we can see that the case is totally different. With no opposition party and no democracy, Chinese government is able to make effective decisions on tax rates and economic policies; hence we can see the rise of China as a power house, which is expected to overtake America in 2015. A strong dictatorship can protect its people and offer them comfort in their life. Another way strong dictatorship is better than a weak democracy is people under strong dictatorship don’t have to worry about rising prices. Under strong dictatorships people also don’t have to worry about having health insurance because the government looks after them. In the history of this world you can see that a strong dictatorship leads countries to strong nations. For example under communism Russia went up to a status of a world power. Also during communism people had comfort in their lives and even the lower class had money to live, buy food, and even own a car. In Russia minimum wage got you a house, food, and even a car. With a strong dictatorship you can have world security, and international relations. A strong dictatorship can provide security for a lot of people. Last but not least it would be the problem of the efficiency. Democracy is never as efficient as dictatorship. Think about it in this way, if many people all have the right to vote on what they want it would never be as efficient as a single ruler deciding on the countrys behalf. With a capable leader, strong dictatorship has an advantage over weak democracy in a sense that the dictator can make decisions efficiently. Whereas in the case of weak democracy while different opposition parties and ruling parties have different opinions on certain policies, resulting in a scenario where a decision is unable to be made, resulting to a loss of many possible opportunities. Difference in opinions is ubiquitous and inevitable, and arises on every topic. For every opinion one man may have, there will always be another man opposing him (look at this debate, for example) and this may not always end well, maybe even resulting in potential Civil Wars. With a dictator, you have one ruler, one voice, a united voice. The economy  could be more controlled and sustained by a  dictatorship, as the economy would be run by the state. Dictatorships usually involve better law enforcement, so the vast majority of the population will exist in a nearly crime free society in large part because the smallest infraction of the law (or even the the perceived infraction) is dealt with severe punishments. The  Soviet Union  had very little street crime, and the Russian mafia was never grew to the size of the Italian-American mafia, or the plethora of other American criminal organizations because of the brutality of the Soviet regime. Saddam Husseins regime provided free health care, access to affordable higher education, enviable for the region transportation systems, and other benefits. The Chinese government provides has better roads, railways, airports, ports, manufacturing facilities, than neighboring democratic India. More recently, democracy is also criticised for not offering enough political stability. As governments are frequently elected on and off, there tend to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and internationally. Another problem is that the people who vote in democracies may not always have a clear perspective of the figures or policies of the issues theyre voting on. For example, the United Kingdom public thinks that 31% of the population is immigrants, when the official figures are 13%. 29% of people living in UK think they spend more on JSA (Job Safety Analysis) than pensions, when in fact they spend ? Furthermore, some have argued that voters may not be educated enough to exercise their democratic right. A population with low intellect may not be capable of making beneficial decisions. They argue that the lack of rationality or even education is being taken advantage of by politicians that compete more in the way of  public relations  and tactics, rather than in ideology. One of the best ways to measure the impact of the government system a state implements is comparing it as opposed to similar states who took different choices. One of this comparisons can be made between is between India and China, both countries are comparable in the time they have been a state, since India gained its independence in 1947 and the Peoples Republic of China was proclaimed in 1949, and also in that they are populous, by 1951 India had a population of 361,090,000 and China had a population of 563,000,000. However, while India chose democracy, China chose a dictatorship of some sorts. If we look at both countries today, we see that China is doing great economically, whereas in India, the economy isnt. All in all, it is evident that dictatorship is not necessarily evil, corrupt.