• If you are using hotmail, outlook, live or rediffmail email and are trying to register or have registered with the website, please read this post.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Are Dictatorships More Successful Than Democracies?

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Elsewhere in this forum, some idealists claimed that Dictatorship is a better form of government than Democracy for India.
They extolled Bose (who aspired to be a dictator for 20 years) over Gandhi, Nehru, Patel's vision of Democracy for India.

Anybody who sits in the comfort of a Democracy and preaches dictatorship for others is being mischievous, or even cynical to say the least.
How people suffer under dictatorship is quietly forgotten. Just see the struggle of the people of North Korea even today.
I would not want anybody to suffer like that.

If you capture a bird from the wild and cage it in a golden cage, and feed it 3 times a day, do you think the bird will be happy or will it be happier among its own kind and free in the wild? I would rather be free.

This is an old discussion that resurfaces from time to time. The success enjoyed nowadays by autocracies awash in natural resources has reignited it. A recent article in the online magazine American.com measures economic performance against the degree of political and civil freedom existing in various nations. The conclusion is that in the last 15 years, the economies of nations ruled by despots have grown at an annual rate of 6.8 percent on average—two and a half times faster than politically free countries. Those autocracies that have opened their markets in recent decades but continued to restrict or prevent democracy—China, Russia, Malaysia, and Singapore, for example—have done better than most of the developed or underdeveloped countries that enjoy a considerable measure of political and civil freedom.

It would be silly to deny that a dictatorship can boast sound economic results. Any political system, free or unfree, that removes some obstacles to entrepreneurship, investment and trade, and makes a credible commitment to safeguard property rights to a certain extent will trigger a virtuous economic cycle. Spain’s Francisco Franco and Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew discovered that in the 1960s, as did China’s Deng Xiaoping at the end of the 1970s, Chile’s Augusto Pinochet in the 1980s, and many others at various times.

But this is not the end of the story. Of the 15 richest countries in the world, 13 are liberal democracies. The other two are Hong Kong, a Chinese territory that enjoys far greater civil liberties than mainland China, and Qatar, where the abundance of oil and natural gas, and the tiny population, translate into a large per capita income average.

What this picture really tells us is that stability and reliability are most important when it comes to economic prosperity over the long term. Spain, a modern success story, has seen its wealth double since 1985 and yet at no point in the last quarter-century did the Spaniards achieve annual growth figures comparable to those of China. Similarly, the U.S. economy has grown by a factor of 13 since 1940, but never experienced “Asian” growth figures.

When the environment in which the economy breathes depends on institutions rather than on the commitment of an autocrat or a party, stability and reliability generate the sort of long-term results that we call “development.” That is probably why Chile’s economic performance after Pinochet compares favorably to the years when the general was in power. Not to mention the fact that dictatorships that enjoy economic success are heavily dependent on technology invented in countries where exercising a creative imagination does not land one in jail.

Another reason dictatorships are outperforming liberal democracies has to do with the fact that many of the latter countries are fully developed. Once a country starts to move forward, spare capacity and unrealized potential tend to allow it to grow faster than developed nations. Furthermore, if we consider that China is a disproportionately big component of the group of unfree nations outperforming liberal democracies, the growth rate gap is not surprising.

In fact, liberal democracies can compete favorably with dictatorships even in the short term. India, one of the world’s fastest growing economies, is a liberal democracy. So is Peru, whose economy is experiencing 7 percent annual growth. These are imperfect democracies, for sure, and in the case of Peru there has been little poverty reduction. But the recent success indicates that elections, freedom of the press and freedom of association can coexist with high economic growth.

From a moral point of view, the relative prosperity that a dictatorship can trigger is a double-edged sword—it brings relief to people who are otherwise oppressed but also serves as an argument for the indefinite postponement of political and civil liberty.

Two things are certain, however. First, history indicates that the combination of political, civil and economic freedom is a better guarantee of ever-increasing prosperity than a capitalist dictatorship. Second, there are sufficient examples—Portugal or the Baltic countries—of underdeveloped countries that have generated stable and reliable environments through political freedom to invalidate the notion that a country should be kept in political and civil infancy until it reaches economic maturity.

 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
A honest dicatatorship doesn't exist ( at least not sustainably). If we look at history dicators are always percieved to be more honest and progressive than temporary office bearers because they have had followed the policy of relentless progress. In a Autocracy the dictator is supreme and can take decisions without the intervention of legislative or judicial elements. This leads to quicker albeit premature decisions which are often appreciated by the people who desire change and progress. Mussolini, Hitler, Mao were all seen as true honest people by their subjects and were praised numerous times even by their contemporaries for their attitude to get things done and bring real change instead of false promises.

But the fact remains that dictators don't remain honest for long as often with time because of concentration of power in their hands they become corrupt, blind sighted and senile a good example would be the numerous African dictators who have had made their own people into slaves of foreign corporations for petty money.

In a broader sense if we see dictators dont stay honest because they don't need to after all they come to power not through promises of honesty that they have to prove and keep but rather they Grab power through illegitamte coups or similar means. They can't be over thrown easily. Honesty isn't something they stand by.

Meanwhile a democracy has to be honest to a certain extent otherwise the incumbent govt faces the threat of losing election or even being voted out. While you can say that some democracies have escaped consequences with dishonesty I would like to think of these states as pseudo democracies. These states are democartic in name only.

 

athimber

Active member
A honest dicatatorship doesn't exist ( at least not sustainably). If we look at history dicators are always percieved to be more honest and progressive than temporary office bearers because they have had followed the policy of relentless progress. In a Autocracy the dictator is supreme and can take decisions without the intervention of legislative or judicial elements. This leads to quicker albeit premature decisions which are often appreciated by the people who desire change and progress. Mussolini, Hitler, Mao were all seen as true honest people by their subjects and were praised numerous times even by their contemporaries for their attitude to get things done and bring real change instead of false promises.

But the fact remains that dictators don't remain honest for long as often with time because of concentration of power in their hands they become corrupt, blind sighted and senile a good example would be the numerous African dictators who have had made their own people into slaves of foreign corporations for petty money.

In a broader sense if we see dictators dont stay honest because they don't need to after all they come to power not through promises of honesty that they have to prove and keep but rather they Grab power through illegitamte coups or similar means. They can't be over thrown easily. Honesty isn't something they stand by.

Meanwhile a democracy has to be honest to a certain extent otherwise the incumbent govt faces the threat of losing election or even being voted out. While you can say that some democracies have escaped consequences with dishonesty I would like to think of these states as pseudo democracies. These states are democartic in name only.



Don't think Honesty and dictatorship can co exist ever. Dictators are honest only to the extent till they are achieving what is desired by them. When the results doesn't suit them the honesty also start vanishing. Again Democracy is also not honest too, for that matter. It also has its own compulsions It pretends to be honest only ..
 

mskmoorthy

Well-known member
From a pedant:
Prof. Ken Arrow, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arrow a Nobel Prize winning economist and a Polymath proposed Arrows Impossibility theorem. From the wikipedia page: (bold faced by me). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem under Interpretation:

Although Arrow's theorem is a mathematical result, it is often expressed in a non-mathematical way with a statement such as no voting method is fair, every ranked voting method is flawed, or the only voting method that isn't flawed is a dictatorship.[11] These statements are simplifications of Arrow's result which are not universally considered to be true. What Arrow's theorem does state is that a deterministic preferential voting mechanism—that is, one where a preference order is the only information in a vote, and any possible set of votes gives a unique result—cannot comply with all of the conditions given above simultaneously.
 

tbs

Well-known member
hi

even HITLER was elected through democracy....the more power makes towards DICTACTOR type......some are

very successful in control...like china system....
 

Follow Tamil Brahmins on Social Media

Latest posts

Top
  Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.