According to the logic of consequence, we choose our actions like a good economist: weighing up the costs and benefits of the alternative options in the light of our personal objectives. This is basically how we get what we want.
But there is also a second logic, the logic of appropriateness. The idea is backed up by psychological research. Human social interactions depend on our tendency to conform to unwritten rules of appropriate behaviour. We are happy to let judges or football referees enforce rules. A recent study showed we even conform to arbitrary norms. The logic of appropriateness is self-enforcing — we disapprove of, ostracise or report people who lie or cheat.
The logic of appropriateness is therefore crucial to understanding how we can organise ourselves into teams, companies and entire nations. We need shared systems of rules to co-operate — it is easy to see how evolution may have shaped this. The psychological foundations for this start early. The biggest objection to autocrats is not that they're automatically bad but that you can't get rid of them easily if they turn out to be.
However, since the outcomes of our "democratic" elections are increasingly shaped by lobbyists, conditional campaign contributions and partisan media, it could be argued that we also aren't able to get rid of the real powers behind the throne, but just to occasionally change its occupant.
Brian Eno is a musician and a founding member of the Long Now Foundation. Rizwan Ahmed :. Compared to a decently functioning democracy, probably not. Compared to a nation disintegrating under civil war and sectarian strife? You'd have to ask an Iraqi. If we look at Musharraf in Pakistan, you can say he has improved the economy and allowed much greater press freedoms than his "democratic" predecessors, who had also ransacked the public coffers.
Even if he is the best of a bad range of options for now from the point of view of most Pakistanis, dictatorship skews the political system and makes the prospect of a functioning democracy in the future even harder. So of course dictatorship's never ideal as a system, and in principle I'd probably choose a messier democracy. But people living in poor and unstable countries might tell you there are worse things than living under a dictatorship, and often more pressing problems than simply living under a democracy wouldn't necessarily solve.
Shami Chakrabarti :. Dictatorship is an obvious evil. Some will say that this evil is sometimes necessary, that some societies "are not ready" for democracy, or that some dictators are benign. Those who would deny universal suffrage abroad say little different from those who denied it at home not so many years ago. The current pandemic situation occurring in the world today is a perfect example. Due to the pandemic, the country and the economy closed down.
To make things better, the government proposed a stimulus package to help bail out the citizens and the government as a whole.
Unfortunately, the Democrats and Republicans had different views regarding the package, and it took time for both sides to agree. During this time, the American people were suffering.
In a dictatorship, a deal like this could be ironed out in seconds. As soon as the leader comes up with a plan, it becomes the law, and things happen quickly. Only one person has to agree to a dictatorship. The dictator can decide who gets the funds, and they are often granted to those with a specific social status.
In a democracy, a person is innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to a trial. When a person breaks the law, the punishment is swift and harsh.
This dissuades a person from breaking the law. Because laws can be passed on a whim by the leader, people break the law, but not as many. Crime in dictatorships tends to be much lower than in a democracy. For example, when the Philippines first became an authoritarian regime, crime immediately dropped by 50 percent. It is the fear of severe punishment and even death that worries them the most. Related: Pros and Cons of Fascism. Most dictators came into power based on their charm and their ability to relate to the people.
This shows the people that their leader is just like them, almost like a friend. This makes people believe that their leader is only interested in giving them a better life. Unfortunately, things soon change, which leads us to the cons of a dictatorship. Now that we have gone through all of the good things about a dictatorship, it is time to get into the downsides. Many people believe that the cons outweigh the pros, so they want to live in a democracy.
The word benevolent means well-meaning and kindly. This term is not often used to describe most government figures. However, this word can be applied to some dictators. Most dictators are not benevolent and kind. As a matter of fact, people believe that dictators are ruthless and controlling. Still, some countries have experienced benevolent dictators that helped their country tremendously. Dictators such as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a past ruler from Turkey in the early s, former ruler Lee Kuan Yew from Singapore, and France-Albert Rene, who ran Seychelles from — , were all arguably benevolent dictators.
Keep in mind that benevolent dictators work for the betterment of their countrymen. They do not fight against them, persecute them, or force them to live inferior lives. Benevolent dictators ensure that the best policies are being carried out. Benevolent dictators will not allow their country to be misused or endure bad government or policies that could bring it to ruin.
That being said, the corruption of power makes the idea of benevolent dictators unlikely. Most dictators are extreme patriots. A patriot is an individual that wholeheartedly cares for their country. They are prepared to defend it at all costs. They also believe in expanding their country at all costs. Dictators might oppress their people and even enslave them. Dictatorships might also take this approach with other nations they deem inferior.
Taking these actions does not stop them from being committed to patriots. A dictator will usually go out of their way to ensure that their nation is strongly represented in the world. Dictators can be very charismatic. Individuals that fulfill this role typically must have this type of personality trait. When a person wants to rule a nation, something about them will make people want to follow or be complacent to overthrow the government.
Think about it like this: if the average person decided to take over and rule a nation, how far do you think they will get? Most people are not that charismatic or to take over and rule a nation.
If you go back in history and closely examine the lives of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Edi Amin, you will discover how charismatic these men really were. Their charisma is also put on display to the world.
This, however, does not excuse the awful deeds dictators can commit. All people live in a certain way. For example, American people focus on making money, spending time with family and friends, and engaging in social activities. Some nations, such as Vatican City it is considered an independent nation , focus on religious worship, engaging within a religious activity, and making money.
Some countries are more relaxed with their approach to life, such as the people of Costa Rica. The dynamics of any nation will immediately change with a dictator. That person has the ability to transform a society immediately.
They can turn a money-obsessed society into a place of poverty. They could also make a laid-back and happy nation, angry and chaotic.
Dictators can even make people within their society into financial slaves. The Enigma of Trumpmania. Sia , Adapa Pratyusha , I have a question. Aung , Excellent, but until humanity. TruthTeller , How to prevent dictatorship. Pratham , India in a way to become dictatorship.
Winston , Add a comment Already a member? Sign In. We welcome your comments and encourage lively debate. However, to ensure the quality of discussion, our moderators reserve the right not to publish personal attacks, abusive comments or overly promotional content.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. What code is in the image? Manfred F. Kets de Vries.
Edouard Polytopoly. Mikel Gutierrez , How to Cultivate Cross-Silo Leadership. Pudding , Rex Stock , Maria Isabel , In the Spotlight.
0コメント