A question, on dictatorships.

[15357]

Do you think that all dictators are naturally and indiscriminately(edit: without exclusions) bad and evil?


Just a question.

For me, it's no.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Not naturally, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[bliink]

Do you think that all dictators are naturally and indiscriminately bad and evil?


Just a question.

For me, it's no.

Bad and Evil are subjective terms, and you're trying to assign an absolute to them. It cannot be logically done!

EDIT: Plus, I could prove it is "No" with the following:
Hitler loved his dog "Blondi"
Therefore, Hitler did not dispense 'indiscriminate' evil.
Hitler was a dictator
Since 'all dictators' includes Hitler, the answer must be "No"

 

[15357]

D:

I hadn't thought of that..... But this is actually an opinion thread... So..

EDIT: Plus, I could prove it is "No" with the following:
Hitler loved his dog "Blondi"
Therefore, Hitler did not dispense 'indiscriminate' evil.
Hitler was a dictator
Since 'all dictators' includes Hitler, the answer must be "No"

I wasn't actually talking about them being indiscriminate, but in the way that every dictator is, without exclusions, evil/bad generally.

 

[kirovman]

Not necessarily, but dictators have to adopt heavy handed techniques if they want to keep a hold of their power.

 

[Nemesis6]

That depends on the nature of the dictatorship.

Is it a dictatorship that needs a scapegoat to turn all attention away from itself like the Arab countries?

Or is it a dictatorship that's mainly the product of corruption, like the ones in South America for example.

The first one is. The second one isn't.

 

[Gray Fox]

No Singapore and Yugoslavia under Tito are good examples of benevolent dictators.

 

[bvasgm]

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Dictatorships can't work.

 

[Solaris]

I believe in a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Half-heartedly of course.

 

[kirovman]

I believe in the dictatorship of me.

Otherwise, I take orders from no man!

 

[Ennui]

I'm not sure if 100% of dictatorships are evil, but 99% at least, and I don't trust anyone who believes they're in that remaining 1%.

 

[zleppelin]

No. They are actually not bad and evil. If they were "bad," of poor quality, they wouldn't have been succesful in rising to power. As for being evil, or morally bad, any person who exercises social control over others is fundamentally evil.

 

[Solaris]

No. They are actually not bad and evil. If they were "bad," of poor quality, they wouldn't have been succesful in rising to power. As for being evil, or morally bad, any person who exercises social control over others is fundamentally evil.

I am so bringing this into the Taser thread.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I believe in the dictatorship of me.

Otherwise, I take orders from no man!

Go to your room.

 

[kirovman]

Go to your room.

I don't remember legislating this.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Dictatorships are always of lower quality than constitutional democracies because they lack the same checks and balances on power.

The only "check" on the power of the dictator is hope that he will be nice.
So, dictatorship is fundamentally unsafe, as any faith-based enterprise is.
A dictator is thus removing a great deal of safety from people simply by existing, whether he is benevolent or not.

That is bad in relation with a constitutional democracy, in much the same way a car without functional seatbelts is worse than a car with functional seatbelts.
Is it evil to manufacture a car without working seatbelts?
I'd say yes.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I don't remember legislating this.

The only legislation I need is my taser.

TASED!

TASED!

TAS - er - shit. Doesn't work in this forum.

 

[kirovman]

Damn you skull dudds. Yes, images don't work in politics



What about elective dictatorship?

 

[Sulkdodds]

I don't think that counts.

I misread it as first 'electric dictatorship' and then as 'eclectic dictatorship'.

 

[kirovman]

A chocolate eclair dictatorship? D:

 

[Mechagodzilla]

If it's an elective dictatorship, then the people are too stupid to vote in their own interest of safety.

That's something the average constitution is designed to prevent from happening, by checking and balancing the power of the majority.

 

[Sulkdodds]

A chocolate eclair dictatorship?-

That's a dictatorship I'd vote for!

With that, I think it might be expedient to stop clogging up this thread. We could make our own, perhaps.

It's as Mecha said: a dictator is not necessarily or fundamentally evil, but there is no protection if he is. The concept of dictatorship, then, can be considered an evil one.

 

[Dan]

Hitler was elected. Castro wasn't. Augustus Caeser ruled the world's largest empire for something like 50 or 60 years.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Bingo.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Mecha, I think he meant 'electic dictatorship' in the sense of the (apparently uniquely) British buzz-phrase describing executive dominance of parliament, and how most governments are 4-5 year dictatorships.

It was a theory of some guy in the 1970s reacting to the Labour governments of the time. I don't agree with him, because so much depends on individualsm, circumstances and events. Just look at Major's government. Plus, while he screamed dictatorship while Labour was in power, he was silent during Thatcher's era - and Thatcher was one of the most control-freak Prime Ministers of recent years. If anybody's administration is a good example of executive dominance in Britain, it's hers.

EDIT: Oh, here we are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_dictatorship

 

[kirovman]

Or alternatively, the British Empire.

Britain was a democracy at home, elected by the people (well, maybe not total Universal Sufferage) but the other countries under the Empire were essentially dictated to.

 

[Sulkdodds]

But their governments weren't elected by their people. And Britain can't be considered a proper democracy until around 19-something-or-other when everybody over 21 gets the right to vote.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Man, britain's all whackey.
I did think you meant elected earlier.

This elective dictatorship thing sounds a great deal like what bush had going before the recent congress shift.
It's certainly not good, but also not as bad as the distopian paradise that Numbers is always onanating over.

Constitutional democracy isn't perfect, but it does succeed by virtue of being "better".
It could certainly use reforms in such aspects.

Ideally, my analogy car would have airbags and dent-resistant side panels too.

 

[kirovman]

But their governments weren't elected by their people.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying(I think?). They were elected by a population yet still dictated to other populations.

And Britain can't be considered a proper democracy until around 19-something-or-other when everybody over 21 gets the right to vote.

True, but it was a partial democracy at least.

 

[Sulkdodds]

This elective dictatorship thing sounds a great deal like what bush had going before the recent congress shift.
It's certainly not good, but also not as bad as the distopian paradise that Numbers is always onanating over.

Essentially, yes. But one thing about Congress in the US is that Representatives often propose laws, whereas in the UK, though individual MPs can in theory initiate the legislative process, it's very rare for them to. Most if not all legislation is proposed by the executive - the front-benchers, the Cabinet, and thus the government and Prime Minister. And more often than not, the party in governenment gets its way.

The fundamental difference is that in the US, the executive is supposed to be seperate from the legislature. In the UK, that is not the case. Here, the government's primary source of authority is having a majority in the House of Commons. They are in power, and it is accepted they have the right to remain so, because their members comprise most of the legislative body. The Prime Minister is a member of Pthe Commons. The Home Secretary is a member of the Commons. Every Cabinet member must be a member of the Commons.

Because of this, a government can't survive with a House of Commons that opposes it. Obviously, if there are more Conservative than Labour MPs, Labour are going to find it very hard to get anything done. Conversely, US Presidents have a fine tradition of succeeding against Cabinets that oppose them ( eg Clinton afaik).

And whereas in the US, Representatives may often vote against the party line, this is much rarer in the UK because of the stronger party whip system. Firstly, a Prime Minister can call an election at any point, which is like an ultimate 'vote with me or I'll call an election and we'll lose' threat. If the party is so disunited this threat needs to be used then an immediate election would be disasterous - plus, nobody wants to lose their seat. Secondly, MPs can be bribed with the promise of high positions on the Cabinet or committees or suchlike (US executives aren't even allowed into the Congress building if I ain't mistaken). All this means MPs will generally vote along party lines - and when they don't, it can be quite a big thing.

So even if Labour only have a majority of one, if every Labour member votes 'yes', and every member of every other party votes 'no', Labour will still get its agenda through. That's what Lord Hailsham meant when he coined the term - whoever wins the election can do whatever the hell they want.

Obviously, this isn't always true (though he has a point). For a start, Parliament can pass a vote of no confidence and force an election - which can't happen in America. And a small majority often makes a party weak. Then public opinion factors. Thatcher was riding high in the early 90s, but her Poll Tax scheme was so unpopular that all the rioting and crazyness forced her own party to recommend she resign as leader.

The strength or weakness of individuals, the circumstances of the time, and events (such as wars, which can make or break leaders) always play a part.

I'm not sure if that rambling semi-essay was necessary (for all I know you've studied the British political system in depth), but I suppose it was fun to write and look clever.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Wowza, that's kinda messed up.

Sometimes I a-fear that I know too much about american politics and not enough about those of other countries.
This would re-enforce that belief!

This wouldn't happen if I had the BBC instead moldy ol' CNN.

 

[zleppelin]

just because a charismatic dictator fools the people into electing him does not mean he should be in power. people are impressionable and sometimes make bad choices.

 

[kirovman]

Luckily the charisma of knghenry is low.

 

[gick]

Essentially, yes. But one thing about Congress in the US is that Representatives often propose laws, whereas in the UK, though individual MPs can in theory initiate the legislative process, it's very rare for them to. Most if not all legislation is proposed by the executive - the front-benchers, the Cabinet, and thus the government and Prime Minister. And more often than not, the party in governenment gets its way.

The fundamental difference is that in the US, the executive is supposed to be seperate from the legislature. In the UK, that is not the case. Here, the government's primary source of authority is having a majority in the House of Commons. They are in power, and it is accepted they have the right to remain so, because their members comprise most of the legislative body. The Prime Minister is a member of Pthe Commons. The Home Secretary is a member of the Commons. Every Cabinet member must be a member of the Commons.

Because of this, a government can't survive with a House of Commons that opposes it. Obviously, if there are more Conservative than Labour MPs, Labour are going to find it very hard to get anything done. Conversely, US Presidents have a fine tradition of succeeding against Cabinets that oppose them ( eg Clinton afaik).

And whereas in the US, Representatives may often vote against the party line, this is much rarer in the UK because of the stronger party whip system. Firstly, a Prime Minister can call an election at any point, which is like an ultimate 'vote with me or I'll call an election and we'll lose' threat. If the party is so disunited this threat needs to be used then an immediate election would be disasterous - plus, nobody wants to lose their seat. Secondly, MPs can be bribed with the promise of high positions on the Cabinet or committees or suchlike (US executives aren't even allowed into the Congress building if I ain't mistaken). All this means MPs will generally vote along party lines - and when they don't, it can be quite a big thing.

So even if Labour only have a majority of one, if every Labour member votes 'yes', and every member of every other party votes 'no', Labour will still get its agenda through. That's what Lord Hailsham meant when he coined the term - whoever wins the election can do whatever the hell they want.

Obviously, this isn't always true (though he has a point). For a start, Parliament can pass a vote of no confidence and force an election - which can't happen in America. And a small majority often makes a party weak. Then public opinion factors. Thatcher was riding high in the early 90s, but her Poll Tax scheme was so unpopular that all the rioting and crazyness forced her own party to recommend she resign as leader.

The strength or weakness of individuals, the circumstances of the time, and events (such as wars, which can make or break leaders) always play a part.

I'm not sure if that rambling semi-essay was necessary (for all I know you've studied the British political system in depth), but I suppose it was fun to write and look clever.

How very informative. Thank you sir!

On topic: Unchecked power is a very dangerous thing indeed (for obvious reasons). Heavy concentrations of power should be avoided as much as possible.