Is there a place for Authoritarian governments

[kiwitt]

This quote

Just wondering. For the common people in Africa, does democracy just slow down development? Should the Europeans and Americans do like China and just trade with them without nagging about democracy and human rights. Are we doing it the wrong way when we force Africans to adopt human rights and democracy before growth?

from this thread has touched on something I have been thinking about.

China with it's 1.3 billion people seems to be doing OK in terms of bringing up it's education, development, technology, economy, etc, without any major strides in democracy. It was I believe a very poor backward country that needed education to improve it's lot and I don't think the "cultural revolution" helped.

Now one of the advantages of an "Authoritarian" regime is long planning, whereby the direction of the government does not change with each election. I know this does impact on some basic "human rights", but when the long-term development of the country needs to proceed in order to benefit the majority, something has to give. I know this does not excuse the "abuses", but democracy per se can get in the way of these long-term plans. And if we look at China and from where they began and where they are and the potential they are looking like reaching in the future, they must be doing something right overall; i.e. "The big picture" vision.

NOTE: There are plenty of examples where "Authoritarian" governments are/were going wrong, but the majority of these are/were single person/family dictatorships and not what appears to be a "group" or "party" of like-minded people like in China.

Much like what happens in schools/health/regional boards here in NZ, when democracy fails to make make progress on critical issues they are replaced by a "commission" of respected people to get it back on the right track. In running a country this type of government could be put in place, with specific mandates to achieve major developmental milestones, before "full democracy" could be put in place.

These "commission-type" governments could work in countries who have huge hurdles to overcome. (note: there is probably a better word for this.)

 

[SG-17]

I believe that authoritarianism is a necessary step for a society to go through in its development. So yes, there is a place for it.

 

[pesgores]

While it's the best for development, it certainly isn't the best for individual personality and freedom. Quite a dillemma huh.

 

[Ajidica]

In many ways it is needed at certain times in history for a countries development, especialy when that country is 'behind' others.

An exceptionaly authoritarian government is not good, but a competant and functioning authoritarian goverment for a developing country is in many ways better then an incompetant and broken liberal government.

 

[Hygro]

The United States was the only country to have truly industrialize with a democratic government. India is becoming a second example. All other countries did so under authoritarian regimes. India is becoming the second example.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Authoritarian governments are sometimes a neccessary evil. But you should avoid it if you can.

 

[GhostWriter16]

DICTATORSHIP could be needed in some cases, but AUTHORITARIANISM is ALWAYS a bad idea.

 

[Ajidica]

The United States was the only country to have truly industrialize with a democratic government.

Yet we had many authoritarian tendencies. Government breaking strikes? Check. Imperialism? Check.

EDIT: So, Dommy, still liking Robespierre's idea of tyrannical liberty?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

DICTATORSHIP could be needed in some cases, but AUTHORITARIANISM is ALWAYS a bad idea.

I thought a dicktater was, by definition, always an authoritarian.

 

[GhostWriter16]

By dictatorship, I meant a system of rule, but Authoritarian, I meant the policies of the law.

Rule by One could have a place, but government persecution can never be OK.

 

[Ajidica]

Not nescesarily, but more often then not they are. Cromwell initialy set himself up as a liberal dictator rather then an authoritarian dictator (which is how the Parliamentarians saw Charles I). That said, he did ban fun and severly persecuted the Irish.

Louis Napoleon and the other french king (I'm blanking out on his name, but his monkier was the 'bourgeois monarch) could be considered liberal dictators.

 

[Cheetah]

The United States was the only country to have truly industrialize with a democratic government. India is becoming a second example. All other countries did so under authoritarian regimes. India is becoming the second example.

While you have a good point, and I would agree with you in generality, I would like to submit that most of Norway's industrialisation also came after we had democracy (and independence).

And I believe Switzerland has been without an authoritarian government for quite some time as well. There may be more examples as well. A future Bhutan as well perhaps?

 

[SG-17]

The United States was the only country to have truly industrialize with a democratic government. India is becoming a second example. All other countries did so under authoritarian regimes. India is becoming the second example.

We were both colonies of what was a pseudo-authoritarian power. Most of our important development occurred during that time (IE building of then-modern infrastructure, codifying common laws, etc).

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not nescesarily, but more often then not they are. Cromwell initialy set himself up as a liberal dictator rather then an authoritarian dictator (which is how the Parliamentarians saw Charles I). That said, he did ban fun and severly persecuted the Irish.

Guh. So many problems with this.

 

[Dachs]

The United States was the only country to have truly industrialize with a democratic government. India is becoming a second example. All other countries did so under authoritarian regimes. India is becoming the second example.

United Kingdom? Germany? France? Belgium?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

By dictatorship, I meant a system of rule, but Authoritarian, I meant the policies of the law.

Rule by One could have a place, but government persecution can never be OK.

whats your idea of a good dictator?

 

[Ajidica]

Guh. So many problems with this.

Explain please? He banned theater, persecuted the Irish, and set himself up as a dictator.

 

[GhostWriter16]

whats your idea of a good dictator?

I don't think its ever a GOOD thing, but in some cases it could be a lesser of two evils. Granted, they all seem to do SOMETHING stupid, but they CAN do good. An example would be King David or King Solomon.

 

[Perfection]

History books.

 

[Ajidica]

An example would be King David or King Solomon.

So theocrats that murder their friend so they can marry their wife is good?
Whenever you bring religion into good governance, you raise an important point. How do we know that someone like, Ahmedinijad is not acting according to the will of God?

If you look at the whole history of autocratic rulers I think you will find they were not on the whole bad. If you look at Byzantium, only around 6 or so rulers will jump out at you as undeniably bad. 6 undeniably bad rulers across 1000 years. Autocracy doesn't nescesarily give us bad rulers, but that democracy increases the chances of getting good leaders.