Authoritarian Rule: When is it worth it?

[CaptainF]

I notice that many people are quick to denounce dictators, except when they are actually good at running their country. Easy to denounce Saddam, the country he ruled was in crap condition, and stayed that way under his aegis. Roman Emperors, Egyptian Pharoahs, Chinese Emperors, Japanese Emperors, all were adept at governing their respective nations.

Why don't people denounce these characters? Probably because they ruled countries with strong economies, and considerable wealth, which was often beneficial to their people.

For example: Park Chung Hee was quite the autocrat, yet he essentially transformed South Korea from a peasant nation to the "East Asian Tiger" it is known as today. Quite a feat indeed. But was his dictatorial rule worth it?

Is any such beneficial dictatorship worth it?

EDIT-Spelling and symantec errors.

 

[Pyrite]

Dictators are okay when they are facists and not communists.

 

[Kozmos]

Benevolent dicatorship is the ideal. For this we need an man merged with an AI through nanotech, so the AI gains understanding of the human and social factors.

Yeah call me crazy.

 

[Pyrite]

You are crazy.

 

[Masquerouge]

Dictators are okay when they are facists and not communists.

because... ?

I think some cases justify authoritarian rule. The Roman republic had it allright with the elected dictator, except for the patrician part of course.

 

[Narz]

Dictatorship is never worth it. Even if beneficial, when the charasmatic leader dies generally the country plunges into disorder again.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Of course it is worth it.
Dictator doesn't mean Tyrant, and our so called "Democracy" isn't too democratic.
We just keep exchanging idiots every four years. What can you do in four years ? People who know they will be in power for a while can really plan ahead.
Democracy only works when the people are educated, informed and motivated enough to participate in politics and elect their representatives on logic.
In my opinion most people are either too stupid or too lazy for Democracy.

 

[Pyrite]

"because... ?"

Isn't that US policy? If so it must be right.

 

[Stegyre]

Democracy is good: a voice in one's fate is important.
But Democracy is neither the only good nor the chief good. If I don't have water to drink, food to eat, a safe place to sleep, I'm not all that excited about my right to vote, and I would arguably surrender it for more fundamental, unmet, needs.

It's Maslow's Heirarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow#Hierarchy_of_Human_Needs

Democracy (which would come under "actualization") falls pretty far down the list.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

i consider myself to be the only acceptable modern dictator

times change, now its possible for the common people to be smarter. thus making the idea of one leader obsolete

 

[Stylesjl]

Autocratic leaders are very rarely beneficial, they often supress liberties or take repressive measures to keep themselves in power

 

[Xenocrates]

This is a good question, I don't know the answer becuse I can't say I know what government is for.

There's a good report on Egypt in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1798915,00.html

"It's suicidal here to be seen as pro-American,"

Ayman Nour, who dared to stand against Mubarak in last year's presidential election, was sent to jail for five years.

Although the Brotherhood is an illegal organisation, the candidates it put up as independents won a fifth of the seats in parliament. That might not seem much, except that this was more than half the constituencies it contested. Allowing for government-sponsored fraud, it probably won two-thirds of the seats it fought, a sign of immense popularity.

Basically democracy is flawed in the West because the Governments have become masters at manipulating the plebs and because we vote for men and not for policies. Egypt, Pakistan etc etc are no less authoritarian than Iraq ever was.

Wise words from Civ 4: 'You've got to learn to respect our diferences Mr Bush'! Basically any attempt to push another government into a particular civic is counterprodutive.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

I notice that many people are quick to denounce dictators, except when they are actually good at running their country. Easy to denounce Saddam, his country was in crap condition. Roman Emperors, Egyptian Pharoahs, Chinese Emperors, Japanese Emperors, all were adept at running their country.

Why don't people denounce these characters? Probably because they ruled countries with strong economies, and considerable wealth, which was often beneficial to their people.

For example: Park Chung Hee was quite the autocrat, yet he essentially transformed South Korea from a peasant nation to the "East Asian Tiger" it is known as today. Quite a feat indeed. But whas his dictatorial rule worth it?

Is any such beneficial dictatorship worth it?

Despotism can be a double edged sword. Good despots provide strength, unity and leadership. Three things that modern democracies seem to lack. But but bad despots bring weakness, instability, and sheer nuttiness. It all depends on the personality and goals of the despots. Some are relatively gentle, while others don't mind killing millions to achieve their goals. It all depends on the skill of the despot, people will forgive cruelty and mass murder of successful or awe inspiring leaders(see Stalin, Augustus, and the guy in my avatar), but if they fail they will be shunned.(see Hitler, Caligula, Nero, and Saddam)

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Basically democracy is flawed in the West because the Governments have become masters at manipulating the plebs and because we vote for men and not for policies. Egypt, Pakistan etc etc are no less authoritarian than Iraq ever was.

Democracy is flawed because people take it for granted and just don't care. From this side of the Atlantic it looked like George II won the elections Milosevic-style, and he not only got away with it, he even won the second election after fooling his country into a war in Iraq.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Never, never, never is a dictatorship worth it. You are erasing the individual voice from politics. I don't even care if he/she is not necessarily evil, it's just wrong.

 

[Elrohir]

Democracy is flawed because people take it for granted and just don't care. From this side of the Atlantic it looked like George II won the elections Milosevic-style, and he not only got away with it, he even won the second election after fooling his country into a war in Iraq.

If that's so, then I must admit I was wrong. Apparently Milosevic was a much more honest politician than I previously thought. In all seriousness, Bush didn't steal the '00, or '04 elections. I think it's time we moved on already.

A Benevolent Dictatorship is actually the most efficient form of government. It's almost only when a strong, wise leader seizes the reigns of power, that a civilization truly thrives. (Julius Caeser is the perfect example of this; he siezed power and became a dictator, but under his, and his successors rule, Rome became one of the greatest empires in history) The problem comes when you want a Benevolent Dictator, but you can't tell him from the charming sociopath who intends on lying his way to the top, and then screwing over everyone else for personal gain when there.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well the original purpose of a dictator was an office in the Roman republic. The Senate would elect one of their own to become the "Dictator" in a time of crisis, and he would solve said crisis, then abdicate. Thats exactly what the model Dictator, Cinncinatus, did. If all dictators were Cincinnatuses, then it really wouldnt be that bad.
You see, thats why I love the Roman Republican system. I often thought, i f i was one of the guys on Lost, I'd try to start up a new country there, instead of hoplessly waiting in tents on the beach. I'd have organized the building of a villiage ( with walls to keep those stinkin 'others' out), and a new government modelled exactly off of the Roman Republic.

 

[Shaihulud]

Authoritianism is fine when you have a charismatic leader, and for promoting his/her cult of personality, it is especially good for bringing a country up from poverty. This is because an authoritarian rule is able to bring about extreme changes without people complaining too much, you can seize lands, implement draconian rules, turn your currency over your head and whatever is necessary for your developing economy, however if your supreme commander turns out to be corruptible or insane, you will have your Suhartos and Saddams. Some authoritarian government works because it has good leaders and most fail because it has lousy leaders, a democratic country is more robust because it has the ability to oust lousy leaders, which will eventually come about in an authoritarian government, because power is a corrupting influence.

 

[amadeus]

I think there's been a few leaders whose authoritarian styles have had a generally positive effect in the countries which they ruled.

Augusto Pinochet, Chile. Even the Socialist Party today continues to support the free-market policies adopted by Pinochet.

Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. Modernized Iran's economy and made efforts to liberalize Iranian society, much to the upset of Shiite fanatic clergy.

Nursultan Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan. Maintains stability in the country with solid economic and industrial growth.

Chiang Kai Shek, Republic of China. In 1962, per capita GNP was only $170, about equal to that of the Congo. By 1997, GNP per capita had reached $19,000.

Park Chung Hee, Korea. Even poorer than Taiwan, Korea had a $100 per capita GNP in 1963, roughly that of the poorest countries in Africa. In 2005, per capita GNP is estimated to be above $22,000.

I think those five, sometimes using heavy-handed tactics, have largely done good things for their respective countries.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I think there's been a few leaders whose authoritarian styles have had a generally positive effect in the countries which they ruled.

Augusto Pinochet, Chile. Even the Socialist Party today continues to support the free-market policies adopted by Pinochet.

Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. Modernized Iran's economy and made efforts to liberalize Iranian society, much to the upset of Shiite fanatic clergy.

Nursultan Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan. Maintains stability in the country with solid economic and industrial growth.

Chiang Kai Shek, Republic of China. In 1962, per capita GNP was only $170, about equal to that of the Congo. By 1997, GNP per capita had reached $19,000.

Park Chung Hee, Korea. Even poorer than Taiwan, Korea had a $100 per capita GNP in 1963, roughly that of the poorest countries in Africa. In 2005, per capita GNP is estimated to be above $22,000.

I think those five, sometimes using heavy-handed tactics, have largely done good things for their respective countries.

A nice list of America's buddys.
When I say I'd sometimes prefer a dictatorship I mean universal suffrage doesn't work for larger societies and not that "sometimes using heavy-handed tactics" is in any way acceptable.