Is Dictatorship Inherently Bad?

What is wrong with having a dictatorship?

I don't see anything inherently wrong with dictatorship. If he's bad, he's bad but- if the head of state does a good job why not let him stay in power?

I don't think there's any reason why there couldn't be a benevolent dictatorship.
 
I don't get the idea that a president has to stay in power for a brief term and then he has to leave office. If he does a good job, why not president for life? I don't think it's wrong if the president is in power for like twenty, thirty years as long as he does a good job.
 
Power and length of service corrupts. There should be Islamic rule forever but the ruler must change every 5 years.

See this is what I think is crazy. Why does the ruler need to change every five years? If he does a good job, he's relatively less corrupt than the other politicians- why get rid of him? The next guy could be way worse.

I don't buy this "power corrupts" phrase. It's like "only God can judge me"- it's just a phrase. I think it's just propaganda for liberal democracy.

I don't think there's any proof that any ruler is necessarily going to become corrupt. It's a test. He might or he might not. It's not some sort of iron rule like it's made out to be.
 
well what do we mean by dictator?

I use the term in a neutral sense. I just mean a person who is the head of the state and who really is the ruler- I mean he doesn't really need Congress or whatever. And he can stay in power for like twenty, thirty years- he doesn't have to leave after like five years.

I just don't think it's an inherently bad system. I think it might be good or might be bad depending on who the ruler is.

I think there are multiple countries where they were better off under their previous dictatorship, before the introduction of democracy.
 
Nobody is perfect and everyone has different opinions. There needs to be a diversity of leaders, so different opinions and policies can be carried out. If one persons stays in power then how can they be held accountable.
 
@Omar del Sur most people have been brainwashed into believing that democracy is the best system and all the other are bad. It's actually very scary if you think about it, just 100 years ago and people would laugh at you if you said the leader should be changed every 4 years.
 
Nobody is perfect and everyone has different opinions. There needs to be a diversity of leaders, so different opinions and policies can be carried out. If one persons stays in power then how can they be held accountable.

what so... for five years there is a reasonably competent leader who does a relatively alright job.... then the next five years it's a leader who incites mass rioting and chaos, intercommunal violence, provokes a civil war within the country, then the next five years it's a normal leader, then the next five years it's a Communist leader..... that seems crazy to me
 
what so... for five years there is a reasonably competent leader who does a relatively alright job.... then the next five years it's a leader who incites mass rioting and chaos, intercommunal violence, provokes a civil war within the country, then the next five years it's a normal leader, then the next five years it's a Communist leader..... that seems crazy to me
That’s more likely to happen under a dictatorship and we have many case studies like in the Middle East , Africa and East Asia. The dictatorship starts out good then starts a slow, but steady regression into civil war.
 
Last edited:

reer

VIP
That’s more likely to happen under a dictatorship and we have many case studies like in the Middle East , Africa and East Asia. The dictatorship starts out good then starts a slow, but steady regression in civil war.
absolute monarchy>>>

@Omar del Sur most people have been brainwashed into believing that democracy is the best system and all the other are bad. It's actually very scary if you think about it, just 100 years ago and people would laugh at you if you said the leader should be changed every 4 years.
somalia would do well under a monarchy with no elections. that would mean no foreign funds and no heavily corrupt elections and politicians with 10 different foreign agendas every 4 gears.

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
 
It isn't intrinsically bad, there are many ways a dictatorship could actually boost a nation.

But it's immoral and leads to a lot blood being spilt. That's why the world (as of now) unilaterally condemns it.
 
Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven After US Intervention


 

Gacanka Cadmeed

انا عربي, سْنْمْ هَنولاتو‌‌‌‌, Free Azawad, 🇾🇪
Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven After US Intervention


Libya under Gaddafi was a direct democracy and the people could make laws.
 
well what do we mean by dictator?

I use the term in a neutral sense. I just mean a person who is the head of the state and who really is the ruler- I mean he doesn't really need Congress or whatever. And he can stay in power for like twenty, thirty years- he doesn't have to leave after like five years.
The word you're looking for is centralised authority
 

Trending

Latest posts

Top