Dictatorship is an appropriate temporary step toward freedom, agree or disagree?

This question stemmed from the Free Thoughts thread Political Ideology Quiz. So... is it?

I think yes, it is. Though dictatorship is not a desirable permanent system of government, it has been demonstrated to act as a bridge to democracy and freedom throughout history. Many countries, formerly weak and unstable, have been strengthened and vitalized by dictatorships, making them ready for the transition. Just look at Spain, France, and Taiwan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I strongly agree, and also think they should remain "dictatorships" if the system is benevolent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree, chaos and anarchy are an appropriate transitional state towards freedom.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

strongly disagree, dictatorships never lead to democrasy. They might start out with that goal but in the end the leaders only want to hang on to there power not to help there people.

 

We're assuming "democracy" is desirable; dictatorships are more efficient, and thus more potential to do good for the people

 

and evil against them.

 

So we're going to throw away all of that potential simply because of chance? We need to take risks to learn and advance.

 

And how many people will die because of that risk ?
How many who had nothing to do with politics and wanted to live their lives as it is ?

We've taken enough risks, we've stood by while Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, slaughtered millions. All in the name of efficiency and freedom.

We aren't going to make those mistakes again.

 

And democracy is absolute trash as well; what has it achieved? Absolutely nothing. Therefore you could say both systems are foolish.

 

It's not chance. Given history and human nature, tyranny is the certain result of unshared power.

 

As this is a history forum, what examples are there of a dictatorship leading to greater freedom? Freedom need not be democracy, it might also be simply personal libery for the masses, so I suppose we need to define what "freedom" we mean.

Other than the 16 day dictatorship of Cincinnatus (followed by his resignatuion and the restoration of the Republic), I am not sure what example there are. Examples of dictators leading the people to ruin are more numerous, so far as I can see.

 

That's because it's never the right leader. We need people in charge who genuinly want to help people, not just want power for the sake of power. Such people do exist.

 

Such people don't want long term power though, not if they truly want to help people. People are fundamentally selfish, and power tends to corrupt. Even if you could find a good person who wants to help, they could not likely withstand the urge to abuse, eventually, their own power for their own benefit.

Cincinnatus and Washington are considered great men because they were able to walk away from power, and people recognize that that is a hard thing to do.

 

even in democrasy this is evident. Howard's own party were BEGGING him to leave because they knew they would lose if he was still party leader but he refused to give up the reins of power. So the australian people not only evicted his goverment but also took away his own seat.

 

However without power you can't do good.

 

Dictatorial power is of a different category though, as it is, by definition, the power to curtail the rights of others, without anyone having the ability to check your exercise of that power. It's that check that makes all the difference. We all have power, but it's the ability of others and of society to check us that keeps us in line.

All power will eventually be abused, but the having checks and balances on power keeps range of that abuse limited and bearable. With effective checks and balances in place, you cannot have a dictator; without checks and balances, even the best of us will eventually be seduced into abuses of our authority. The best we can hope for is a Cincinnatus, who will be wise enough to give up his power in less than a month, before being tempted to abuse it.

 

Democracy is that system of checks and balances. The system may not always be the best, but it's the safest.

 

Lee Kwan Yew was a dictator and he brought progress and development to the city-state of Singapore. Yes he sacrificed personal freedoms for economic growth but in the end it was worth it, what's more he did it without anyone pointing the finger of corruption. Yew stamped out corruption with an iron fist, nationalized their airlines and today Singapore Airlines is considered one of the best. Basically through his dictatorship he brought turned a third world country into a first world country, and is widely respected by Singaporians. He encouraged education, diminished ethnic differences, gave tax breaks to the populace engaging in business, implemented anti-smoking campaigns and yes its true you are fined for spitting on the streets of singapore. The country is clean clean clean!

People in the West don't seem to realize that the introduction of 'democracy' can at critical times be a country's undoing. A democracy doesn't necessarily mean fair elections, does not ensure social equity, peace or justice. It doesn't provide economic progress nor national stability (just look at the phillipines!). Even now without Yew Singapore is able to stand on its own, its an economic powerhouse.

Western models do not necessarily work everywhere.

 

Lee kuan Yew was not a dictator, he didn't have unlimited power, and he couldn't just on a whim turn the statue of the merlion pink.

Yes, his party is still in power unchallenged for decades now, but he himself does not have unlimited power, but rather power is shared by the parliment and his people, there are other parties present , and they are not actively supressed. (that is, arrested en masse, despite the SDP leader being arrested).

Democracy has worked in countless other countries, the things that affect its success are how fair and open the elections are and whether there is any foreign intervention.

 

Challenger78: You're wrong.

Lee Kwan Yew was indeed a dictator and the fact that there is a parliment didn't make him any less than one, I mean even Castro's Cuba has a parliment. Yew was wise, if he wanted to he could have used unlimited power and there would have been little dissent but that was never his intention. His intention was to create a country that could stand long after he left power. Even in biographies on Lee Kwan Yew he is described as a dictator, 'the dictator of singapore...'. Yew's son has been prime minister since 2004, he is also deputy chairman of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, Yew himself is chairman of the GIC.

From Wiki:

'Lee's younger son, Lee Hsien Yang, is a former Brigadier-General and also a former President and Chief Executive Officer of SingTel, a pan-Asian telecommunications giant and Singapore's largest company by market capitalisation (listed on the Singapore Exchange, SGX). Fifty-six percent of SingTel is owned by Temasek Holdings, a prominent government holding company with controlling stakes in a variety of very large government-linked companies such as Singapore Airlines and DBS Bank. Temasek Holdings in turn is run by Executive Director and CEO Ho Ching, the wife of Lee's elder son, the Prime Minister. Lee's daughter, Lee Wei Ling, runs the National Neuroscience Institute, and remains unmarried. Lee's wife Kwa Geok Choo used to be a partner of the prominent legal firm Lee & Lee. His younger brothers, Dennis, Freddy, and Suan Yew were partners of the same firm. He also has a younger sister, Monica.
Lee has consistently denied charges of nepotism, arguing that his family members' privileged positions are based on personal merit. However, these charges have persisted and international publications such as The Economist, International Herald Tribune and the Far Eastern Economic Review have been threatened, sued or banned in Singapore for implying the existence of nepotism.'


Even the absolute monarchs of England for example consulted with nobles and clergy while holding absolute power. The best way to hold on to power is to allocate power to others who in turn protect the status quo.

In Cambodia the ruling party is the CPP its head is Hun Sen. They have elections where the CPP always wins, Hun Sen allows the presence of an opposition, absorbs them when he feels like it, creates laws to jail its leaders when he feels like it. He is in control of the police, the military and the judicial system, he is in control of all foreign and local investment. Anyone under his auspices acts with impunity. There is a democratic system in place and its run by a dictator.

Let's not forget Zimbabwe also has a parliment...and Mugabe.