3 ms·

When the dictatorship controls the military you can pretty safely say they're a military dictatorship.

by kbcool 7y ago

9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
No, it's a military dictatorship when the military controls the country, which is fairly obviously not the case in Singapore.
- tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
  Not needing to exercise one's power =/= not being in control of things.
  - 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
    In Singapore, it's the prime minister who calls the shots. Period.
    - tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
      Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general and the eldest son of the previous prime minister. But hey, I said what had to be said, and see no point arguing about the formalities. I'll let HN users decide for themselves.
      - squiggleblaz 7y ago
        > Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general and the eldest son of the previous prime minister. That actually weakens the claim that it's a military dictatorship. If the army is controlled by civilians, its not a military dictatorship. If a person becomes leader of the military due to civilian connections, then it's not a military dictatorship. A military dictatorship is when a person becomes civilian leader by virtue of their military leadership. If the son of the civilian prime minister first gets to take over the army, it doesn't change the fact that he's fundamentally a civilian and the civilians are controlling - inside and out - the military. It reinforces it. He led the army and the country because of his civilian credentials. This sounds more like rule by and for a family or a small group of elites.
      - magduf 7y ago
        >Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general According to this logic, the United States was a military dictatorship for a good portion of its history. Presidents Washington, Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, B. Harrison, and Eisenhower were all generals. Your claim is absurd.
        tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
        You’re taking my words out of context. Washington didn’t rule the USA for 40 years and then get succeeded by his firstborn son.
nl 7y ago
That's the opposite of a military dictatorship. A military dictatorship installs the dictator and the dictator relies on the support the generals to stay in power. That isn't the case in Singapore (nor many other dictatorships, where the dictator controls the military). You can tell by if the dictator has generals replaced, or vice-versa.

When the dictatorship controls the military you can pretty safely say they're a military dictatorship.

by kbcool 7y ago

When the dictatorship controls the military you can pretty safely say they're a military dictatorship.

No, it's a military dictatorship when the military controls the country, which is fairly obviously not the case in Singapore.

tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
Not needing to exercise one's power =/= not being in control of things.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
  In Singapore, it's the prime minister who calls the shots. Period.
  - tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
    Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general and the eldest son of the previous prime minister. But hey, I said what had to be said, and see no point arguing about the formalities. I'll let HN users decide for themselves.
    - squiggleblaz 7y ago
      > Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general and the eldest son of the previous prime minister. That actually weakens the claim that it's a military dictatorship. If the army is controlled by civilians, its not a military dictatorship. If a person becomes leader of the military due to civilian connections, then it's not a military dictatorship. A military dictatorship is when a person becomes civilian leader by virtue of their military leadership. If the son of the civilian prime minister first gets to take over the army, it doesn't change the fact that he's fundamentally a civilian and the civilians are controlling - inside and out - the military. It reinforces it. He led the army and the country because of his civilian credentials. This sounds more like rule by and for a family or a small group of elites.
    - magduf 7y ago
      >Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general According to this logic, the United States was a military dictatorship for a good portion of its history. Presidents Washington, Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, B. Harrison, and Eisenhower were all generals. Your claim is absurd.
      - tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
        You’re taking my words out of context. Washington didn’t rule the USA for 40 years and then get succeeded by his firstborn son.

nl 7y ago

That's the opposite of a military dictatorship. A military dictatorship installs the dictator and the dictator relies on the support the generals to stay in power. That isn't the case in Singapore (nor many other dictatorships, where the dictator controls the military). You can tell by if the dictator has generals replaced, or vice-versa.