There are two camps to the argument, some would claim that Dictatorship is the way to go, while others would claim that Democracy is the way to further a country.
Why do you think that Dictatorship or Democracy is good for a developed country?
My definition of Dictatorship is a government full of cronies (poodles) who only obeys the order of her Marionette Master.
Democracy tends to distribute it's power amongst her population, so everybody has equal rights as an individual of this democratic country.
Democracy:
Pros:
1) Freedom of the press to expose wrong doings of politicians
This is essentially the eyes and ears of the people, they act as a deterrent to keep politicians in check to prevent corruption and other ills.
Something which is lacking in a Dictatorial regime, because the regime wants to limit your sphere of information. What you don't see and don't hear won't hurt you.
2) Freedom of speech to speak up for your rights as an individual. If your eyes and ears hear something which is against what you believe is right or wrong. What you believe is right or wrong is a personal opinion, others may have opposite views with respect to yours. So we must tolerate differing views and not prosecute them.
Instead politicians who have been accused of misdeeds should step forward to allay the concerns of citizens, all in the interest of public policy. Essentially being appointed a President, Prime Minister, Minister, Permanent Secretary is a public office, public office is subjected to public scrutiny amongst all the citizens. I can without a shadow of a doubt that not everybody is opined to think the way the President, Prime Minister, Minister or Permanent Secretary thinks. So is it in the government's interest to prosecute every single individual with differeing opinions.
e.g.
If you have a conversation with a group of friends or you address the public during a talk show, you tell them that you think a certain celebrity is gay or another celebrity might be sleeping with another celebrity. Is it a crime to form your own opinion about certain issues? Essentially politicians and celebrities are public figures, celebrity in Hollywood are paid in the tens of millions per movie, certainly celebrities have more to lose if they public image is marred. Take the instance of the recent Edison Chen case, his career in the film industry is kaput.
What a dictatorial regime does is suppress freedom of speech, to curtail the dissension so as to prevent the snowball from building up and gaining momentum. Most often the techniques employed can range from detention without trial, physical torture, house arrest and death, in the more draconian regimes; to defamation lawsuits and tacit removal of certain rights in the more pliable regimes.
3) Freedom of assembly is basically the power to assemble and show your displeasure. It's an inalienable right in any true democracy. If you live in a condo or buy shares in a certain public company. Is it possible to gather in force to call an EGM to vote out the current CEO and management team?
A dictatorial regime seeks to limit these rights, so that they can remain in power in pepertuity. Just look at Myanmar, where peaceful protest is subdued by the military.
I will leave the Pros of a Dictatorial regimes and the Cons of Democracy to our P4P counterparts here.
Dictatorship breeds fear, suppression of freedom.
Democracy can lead to effective running of the country. If govt is open to accept the views and good suggestions from the people on how to improve their policies, Singapore would be a better place to live. Thus this may lead to fewer people migrating.
Originally posted by Civilgoh:Dictatorship breeds fear, suppression of freedom.
Democracy can lead to effective running of the country. If govt is open to accept the views and good suggestions from the people on how to improve their policies, Singapore would be a better place to live. Thus this may lead to fewer people migrating.
Democracy doesn't favour the dictator and his cronies, that's why most dictators are against moving to a system of democracy. e.g. The Myanmar Generals living a life of luxury at the expense of her citizens.
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Democracy doesn't favour the dictator and his cronies, that's why most dictators are against moving to a system of democracy. e.g. The Myanmar Generals living a life of luxury at the expense of her citizens.
Precisely. Dictators merely use the people in the country as tools to get what they want. Thus "tools" are not supposed to voice out, they are to obey. Look at LKY, he is a very excellent example of a typical evil dictator. To certain extent, I view him as low class.
Originally posted by Civilgoh:Precisely. Dictators merely use the people in the country as tools to get what they want. Thus "tools" are not supposed to voice out, they are to obey. Look at LKY, he is a very excellent example of a typical evil dictator. To certain extent, I view him as low class.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. -- Lord Acton.
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. -- Lord Acton.
It is pathetic for the people to have such an evil, obnoxious, unrepentent, selfish dictator. I don't blame many for wanting him dead. Karma.
Originally posted by Civilgoh:
It is pathetic for the people to have such an evil, obnoxious, unrepentent, selfish dictator. I don't blame many for wanting him dead. Karma.
But even if he made use of people to get what he want, its alot of work and the people made use of him to get what they want else he won't be up there.
Originally posted by kramnave:But even if he made use of people to get what he want, its alot of work and the people made use of him to get what they want else he won't be up there.
I always believe that the success of a country is due to the work of everybody, the leaders and the people, same as the success of a company.
To claim sole credit is self delusional.
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I always believe that the success of a country is due to the work of everybody, the leaders and the people, same as the success of a company.To claim sole credit is self delusional.
It is teamwork that contributes to success in a company, country and even projects in schools.
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I always believe that the success of a country is due to the work of everybody, the leaders and the people, same as the success of a company.To claim sole credit is self delusional.
Yes it is due to the work of everybody, the leaders and the people. He cannot claim sole credit. If it is due to him then we can say our government is described as a "government full of cronies (poodles) who only obeys the order of her Marionette Master". Our success is not due to him alone.
What is the sort of democracy that you have in mind? Democracy by majority rule? Democracy by concensus? Direct democracy?
If you want to be seen as fair, you should also list the cons of the democracy that you have in mind, and then tell us why you think the advantages outweigh them.
All present-day political systems are flawed, because they're dependent on people, and people are flawed. They can be manipulated, they can be selfish and they can behave foolishly. Making decisions dependent on a larger number of people doesn't necessarily negate that.
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:What is the sort of democracy that you have in mind? Democracy by majority rule? Democracy by concensus? Direct democracy?
If you want to be seen as fair, you should also list the cons of the democracy that you have in mind, and then tell us why you think the advantages outweigh them.
All present-day political systems are flawed, because they're dependent on people, and people are flawed. They can be manipulated, they can be selfish and they can behave foolishly. Making decisions dependent on a larger number of people doesn't necessary negate that.
Direct democracy or representative democracy would be good.
I suppose the P4P supporters would be better able to recognize the disadvantages of democracy and advantages of dictatorship, that's why I throw the question back to them.
A political system lopsided by control of the press is even more flawed. It does not represent the different perspectives to an issue, it just gives you one perspective, that's the dictator's perspective.
Making decisions that's based on the large majority of independent electorate would only serve to represent the choice of the people and based on the law of large numbers I believe that the choice of the many would be wiser than the choice of one. Even if choices are wrong, we learn from our mistakes and better ourselves the next time. Life's about learning from our mistakes. No offense. Do we always rely on our parents to make decisions for us?
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Direct democracy or representative democracy would be good.I suppose the P4P supporters would be better able to recognize the disadvantages of democracy and advantages of dictatorship, that's why I throw the question back to them.
A political system lopsided by control of the press is even more flawed. It does not represent the different perspectives to an issue, it just gives you one perspective, that's the dictator's perspective.
Making decisions that's based on the large majority of independent electorate would only serve to represent the choice of the people and based on the law of large numbers I believe that the choice of the many would be wiser than the choice of one. Even if choices are wrong, we learn from our mistakes and better ourselves the next time. Life's about learning from our mistakes. No offense. Do we always rely on our parents to make decisions for us?
We also learn from the mistakes of other people, but that doesn't always happen.
The outcomes of choices may not actually represent interests of people, but to the benefit of interest groups that influence the said masses, such as religious bodies, political movements, businesses and environment groups.
And sadly, the press in other parts of the world are also not innocent of hedging the truth. Being privately-run, stories that sell take priority over other inconvenient things like the truth, and even the state funded media also have their own agenda. Investigative journalism also raises a lot of privacy issues, and it's even more marked these days. It may be for the greater good, but aren't public figures also entitled to their own individual rights, which that contradicts?
Generally, any sort of media should be treated with scepticism, and the same applies to politics.