10 ms·
When strongman-based cults of personality (real or wannabe) appoint themselves ruler for life, policy can go off the rails. Wars, purges, persecution of minorit
by ilamont 9y ago
When strongman-based cults of personality (real or wannabe) appoint themselves ruler for life, policy can go off the rails. Wars, purges, persecution of minority groups, and civil unrest are more likely. Corrupt systems of checks and balances, which may have already been weak, slide ever further.
Mao, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Chiang Kai-Shek ... a few of these strongmen presided over brief periods of spectacular economic growth, but always under unsustainable conditions. Many citizens (and the citizens of neighboring countries) paid a terrible price.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y agoAnd then there's Singapore. Ruled by an authoritarian, gum hating despot who provides nice civic infrastructure for the populace.
- narrator 9y agoWith a dictatorship it really depends on the competence of the leadership. This is not a robust strategy for organizing human civilizations.
- jack9 9y agoReally? Because stable singular hierarchies is exactly how we evolved to have civilization.
- disgruntledphd2 9y agoNot sure if I would agree, given that estimates suggest that homo sapiens had evolved approx 400k years ago, and most of recorded history (with the somewhat stable hierarchies) lasts, at most, 20k years. So potentially much of recorded history, but certainly not proven to be necessary for evolution.
- ericd 9y agoWhen you have a great king, it's among the best forms of government. The problem is that that great king's successor is probably not also great, and under a bad ruler, it's among the worst forms of government, and that bad king can last for your entire lifetime. It's never spectacularly efficient, but the US' form of democracy is meant to be much lower variance. I think it's a good tradeoff.
- liberte82 9y ago> When you have a great king, it's among the best forms of government. citation needed
- ericd 9y agoWhat kind of citation would you put there?
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoSingapore, as kevin_thibedeaux said.
- aoner 9y agoKing of Bhutan?
- balthasar 9y agoTypo there with Chavez? Democratically elected and rose the quality of life of Venezuela.
- ilamont 9y agoHitler came to power on top of a democratic system, too (IIRC, by leveraging political alliances and grassroots violence in the pre-1933 parliamentary system). He surely improved the quality of life for the Nazi base in the mid-30s after he took power. Didn't stop him from dismantling democratic institutions, eliminating all political rivals, invading his neighbors, and murdering millions of people.
- balthasar 9y agoChavez did none of these things. Is your knowledge of history so shallow that you must bring up Hitler appro to nothing every chance that you get?
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoChavez definitely dismantled democracy in Venezuela. (If you want to be technical, he started the project, and Maduro finished it.) Specifically, vote count manipulation, the Supreme Court refusing to allow opposition legislatures to be seated, the constitutional committee stripping the legislature of its power... that's dismantling democracy.
- balthasar 9y agoOutside observers never saw or reported voting manipulation during Chavez's time. Your lie is easily disproved with a bit of research and I encourage readers to do so. I'm not familiar with the Court/Constitutional Committee issues that your raise but I assume they are post Chavez.
- alsetmusic 9y ago> Your lie is easily disproved with a bit of research and I encourage readers to do so. When you call someone a liar, the onus is on you to do the research and present your case for others. Asking everyone else to do the research doesn’t cut it. Your position should include citations that provide evidence that what you say is correct. What you have achieved here is essentially name-calling.