3 ms·

Exactly. It's why authoritarian and/or single-party nations have so much more potential to succeed. It's why China did so well for a while. However, in pract

Exactly. It's why authoritarian and/or single-party nations have so much more potential to succeed. It's why China did so well for a while. However, in practice, as we've seen with China and others, authoritarianism only works well when the people at the top are really smart and don't have some major character flaws (i.e., the "benevolent dictator"). Eventually, you get a dictator who's a narcissist or moron or fruitcake and it all falls apart. In that case, the best case is that the inner circle will murder him in his bathtub and select a better leader before he ruins everything.

anonuser123456 3y ago
Seems to have worked for Russia.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  It has? Russia has a dictator now who's obviously some kind of narcissist, and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. His hold on power is tenuous at best, and there's a good chance he'll be deposed before long.
democracy 3y ago
You cannot have a dictator who is not a "narcissist or moron or fruitcake" - this is not how human mind works.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  Yes, you certainly can. It's happened many times in history, thanks to hereditary rule (i.e., they inherited these positions, they didn't actively seek them). Queen Elizabeth I of England reigned for 40 years and is considered by historians to be a very good ruler. Marcus Aurelius of Rome was also considered very good. The problem wasn't these rulers, it was what happened after they got old and died and their shitty kids replaced them.
rebolek 3y ago
Benevolent dictator is still just a dictator. As he grows older, he cares more about staying in power than following current trends. China wanted to prevent this with their 10 year rule for the general secretary but Xi changfed that and that was his biggest mistake. Democracy's weakness (politicians focusing just on next election cycle) is also its biggest strength. It allows change and adaptation.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  No, a benevolent dictator is the best form of rule. If he cares more about staying in power than anything else, then he's not benevolent. There have been many historical examples of benevolent dictators. I can't think of any in modern history. Xi certainly isn't, and never was. Democracy can avoid the problem of dictatorial systems by allowing the people the ability to get rid of bad rulers, at the expense of usually getting crappy rulers who only focus on the next election cycle, and frequently getting sociopathic narcissists in power.

anonuser123456 3y ago

Seems to have worked for Russia.

shiroiushi 3y ago
It has? Russia has a dictator now who's obviously some kind of narcissist, and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. His hold on power is tenuous at best, and there's a good chance he'll be deposed before long.

democracy 3y ago

You cannot have a dictator who is not a "narcissist or moron or fruitcake" - this is not how human mind works.

shiroiushi 3y ago
Yes, you certainly can. It's happened many times in history, thanks to hereditary rule (i.e., they inherited these positions, they didn't actively seek them). Queen Elizabeth I of England reigned for 40 years and is considered by historians to be a very good ruler. Marcus Aurelius of Rome was also considered very good. The problem wasn't these rulers, it was what happened after they got old and died and their shitty kids replaced them.

rebolek 3y ago

Benevolent dictator is still just a dictator. As he grows older, he cares more about staying in power than following current trends. China wanted to prevent this with their 10 year rule for the general secretary but Xi changfed that and that was his biggest mistake. Democracy's weakness (politicians focusing just on next election cycle) is also its biggest strength. It allows change and adaptation.

shiroiushi 3y ago
No, a benevolent dictator is the best form of rule. If he cares more about staying in power than anything else, then he's not benevolent. There have been many historical examples of benevolent dictators. I can't think of any in modern history. Xi certainly isn't, and never was. Democracy can avoid the problem of dictatorial systems by allowing the people the ability to get rid of bad rulers, at the expense of usually getting crappy rulers who only focus on the next election cycle, and frequently getting sociopathic narcissists in power.