Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
It is a modern democratic myth, oft repeated by the US and English governments, that dictators deprive their subjects of freedom. In fact, "tyrants", "dictators", or whatever one wants to call them, usually (but not always) are the product of the masses and their function is to reduce the power of the middlemen, the aristocracy or whatever variant is in operation. In ancient times and in modern times for the most part, dictators emerge directly from popular upheaval, or else their government derives from the popular upheaval of their predecessors. In the case of Pissistratus, he seems to have been very popular and gave more freedom the citizen population by depriving the aristocrats of their power. The Julio-Claudians are another example; they deprived the Senatorial aristocracy of political power. The soldiers and common people had more practical freedom as a result, because the emperor had to respond to them in order to maintain his position. Remember, Julius Caesar was assassinated by a group of disenchanted aristocrats. To these men, "freedom" did not mean what we would take it to mean, it meant political power for the Roman aristocracy. Nero was probably one of the most popular emperors ever, but he was forced to commit suicide because of a conspiracy of aristocrats. He was subsequently highly slandered by the aristocracy, but his reign was popularly held to be a golden age.
In modern times, there is no need to go through many examples, they are obvious enough. The Soviet dictators emerged in a revolution against the old aristocracy. In Germany, the establishment failed to deal with German nationalist resentment. Hitler was elected through popular support and he brought the strong government that the country needed at the time. In the Saar plebiscite, supervised by the League of Nations, the people voted 90% in favor of unification with Germany, 90% in favor of abandoning democracy and entering a militaristic dictatorship.
The fact is that, with the exception of minorities, dictatorships do not deprive ordinary people of any practical freedom. They simply concentrate the state's power into the hands of one man at the expense of what (is usually) an extremely small but previously dominant (and usually outdated) political class. They can, therefore, be the only and best means for improving government.
In principle therefore, dictators can be good.
But in practise, if dictators become too powerful, they have little check on their authority. They can commit atrocities and without check persecute minorities. But here again, the dictator will hardly ever try to bite off the hand that feeds him. In fact, more often than not, these atrocities serve the needs of the state and have popular support. Stalin's "mass murders" and lack of concern for individual human lives were probably the only means through which modernization was possible. They served the needs of the people and Stalin subsequently saved his people from a worse fate at the hands of the Nazis.
Likewise, dictatorships can be necessary to solve certain political problems. In an age where nationalism and concepts of ethnic or religious identity are the most important factors affecting the stability and economy of more backward nations, dictators will often try to solve the problem by "ethnic cleansing". Here people can often be killed, but most of what consists of ethnic cleansing is simply the separation of groups into more manageable blocs that will cause less tension and less loss of life in the long term. When dictators solve the problem this way, future generations avoid the man-killing civil wars that would have killed millions a few generations later, as they did in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. For these societies, is that such a bad thing?
Society in general is a mechanism for achieving order and safety amongst its members. If a nation is in such a state that dictatorships is the best method for accomplishing this, do we living in sophisticated, stable societies necessarily have a right to become self-righteous and interfere? China is one example of a society that is so large, so diverse, primarily populated by a primitive peasantry with no desire for or need of western style democracy. Here, a civil war could kill hundreds of millions of people. Yet we, with our political arrogance, complain when a few thousand dissidents are locked away. In Chinese society, political dissidents pose are threat infinitely more dreadful than the criminals that we lock away and execute.
Popular views of dictatorships in the West have to change. They are causing unnecessary suffering, and may have catastrophic consequences in the future. We are lucky that so far, western political leaders have protected other nations from the political dogmatism of western chattering classes. But will they continue to do so in the future?
Do you guys agree?
In modern times, there is no need to go through many examples, they are obvious enough. The Soviet dictators emerged in a revolution against the old aristocracy. In Germany, the establishment failed to deal with German nationalist resentment. Hitler was elected through popular support and he brought the strong government that the country needed at the time. In the Saar plebiscite, supervised by the League of Nations, the people voted 90% in favor of unification with Germany, 90% in favor of abandoning democracy and entering a militaristic dictatorship.
The fact is that, with the exception of minorities, dictatorships do not deprive ordinary people of any practical freedom. They simply concentrate the state's power into the hands of one man at the expense of what (is usually) an extremely small but previously dominant (and usually outdated) political class. They can, therefore, be the only and best means for improving government.
In principle therefore, dictators can be good.
But in practise, if dictators become too powerful, they have little check on their authority. They can commit atrocities and without check persecute minorities. But here again, the dictator will hardly ever try to bite off the hand that feeds him. In fact, more often than not, these atrocities serve the needs of the state and have popular support. Stalin's "mass murders" and lack of concern for individual human lives were probably the only means through which modernization was possible. They served the needs of the people and Stalin subsequently saved his people from a worse fate at the hands of the Nazis.
Likewise, dictatorships can be necessary to solve certain political problems. In an age where nationalism and concepts of ethnic or religious identity are the most important factors affecting the stability and economy of more backward nations, dictators will often try to solve the problem by "ethnic cleansing". Here people can often be killed, but most of what consists of ethnic cleansing is simply the separation of groups into more manageable blocs that will cause less tension and less loss of life in the long term. When dictators solve the problem this way, future generations avoid the man-killing civil wars that would have killed millions a few generations later, as they did in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. For these societies, is that such a bad thing?
Society in general is a mechanism for achieving order and safety amongst its members. If a nation is in such a state that dictatorships is the best method for accomplishing this, do we living in sophisticated, stable societies necessarily have a right to become self-righteous and interfere? China is one example of a society that is so large, so diverse, primarily populated by a primitive peasantry with no desire for or need of western style democracy. Here, a civil war could kill hundreds of millions of people. Yet we, with our political arrogance, complain when a few thousand dissidents are locked away. In Chinese society, political dissidents pose are threat infinitely more dreadful than the criminals that we lock away and execute.
Popular views of dictatorships in the West have to change. They are causing unnecessary suffering, and may have catastrophic consequences in the future. We are lucky that so far, western political leaders have protected other nations from the political dogmatism of western chattering classes. But will they continue to do so in the future?
Do you guys agree?
