Is Dictatorship Inherently Bad?

[Omar del Sur]

The word you're looking for is centralised authority

No, I chose the word I chose.

"Dictator" is like "propaganda"- the words were originally neutral. Just because other people have internalized liberal democratic thinking and they believe a "dictator" is inherently a bad thing doesn't mean I have the same viewpoint.

Besides- a centralized authority could mean for example rule by the Communist party... or the Democrats, for example. That is basically like YouTube- a dictatorship by elitist liberals. I mean a dictatorship by a single person not by some vague "central authority". An unspecified "central authority" could be rule by a Communist party or a cabal of smug liberals working behind the scenes at YouTube.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Libya under Gaddafi was a direct democracy and the people could make laws.

That's basically the same thing Fidel Castro claimed about his regime.

You really think Gaddafi was not a dictator? I do not believe that.

But people have this liberal democratic thinking engrained in them= "dictator" equals "bad" and Gaddafi is seen as good so he supposedly couldn't have been a dictator.

 

[Omar del Sur]

I mean you look at Museveni, for example



from what I can tell, he seems to do an alright job besides being a non-Muslim and not ruling by the sharia...

but if Museveni does a relatively alright job, what's wrong with him having stayed in power (besides the non-Muslim aspect)?

or you look at Saddam

you would have to be a crazy person or a Shia to think Iraq wasn't better off under Saddam

 

[reer]

@Omar del Sur idi amin deported colonial asians brought by the british and gave the colonial wealth to ugandans. when museveni took power the population was mostly very poor he improved the country alot in alleviating poverty. if not for those two dictators uganda might look like south africa or namibia where colonizers own most of the wealth and are 1st class citizens.

 

[celidheere]

Dictatorship is good for development and in times of crisis because one man having all the power allows for decisions to be made faster. The problem with that is that too much power in the hands of one person leaves everyone vulnerable to the whims of a single man, who may do anything to preserve their own power. The Romans had the position of a dictator who had absolute power but only for a given period of time, after which they had to resign the position.

 

[SOMALI GENERAL]

No, case in point: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Lee Kuan Yew and Park Chung-Hee.

The key is for benevolent dictators to allow for democratic transition when their citizenry become more affluent & educated, since they'll inevitably want more participation in their Nation's politics.

 

[Juke]

No, case in point: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Lee Kuan Yew and Park Chung-Hee.

The key is for benevolent dictators to allow for democratic transition when their citizenry become more affluent & educated, since they'll inevitably want more participation in their Nation's politics.

Agree with Lee Kuan Yew, his leadership and reforms grew his country from a back water town in the Malay federation to a megacity and international commerce hub. Ataturk destroyed Ottoman power and Park was just an American figurehead.

 

[Omar del Sur]

No Ataturk praise in this thread, people. We shouldn't praise him. He was a bad guy.

 

[SOMALI GENERAL]

Agree with Lee Kuan Yew, his leadership and reforms grew his country from a back water town in the Malay federation to a megacity and international commerce hub. Ataturk destroyed Ottoman power and Park was just an American figurehead.

Ottoman Power was eroding long before Ataturk came on to the scene, since nearly all the Nations within the Empire hated Ottoman rule and wanted independence. Ataturk accepted the inevitable fate of the weak Ottoman empire & was smart enough to put his people first [Anatolian & Balkan Turks] and saved Western Anatolia & the Black Sea region from Greek conquest.

In the aftermath of the War, Kemal pursued developmental policies to build a modern Turkey & modernized the country's industries. As for Park, he was smart enough to play of the Americans to advance his own country's interests and also utilized Japanese economic assistance to build the South Korea we know today.

 

[GemState]

The problem with dictatorships is like the problem with a Monarchy, even if the current one is good, what about the next one? What happens when there is a dispute over succession? It almost always leads to a civil war

Dictatorships are only good for pulling a country out from a bad position and steering it in the right direction until the populace is educated and ready for a democracy.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Ottoman Power was eroding long before Ataturk came on to the scene, since nearly all the Nations within the Empire hated Ottoman rule and wanted independence. Ataturk accepted the inevitable fate of the weak Ottoman empire & was smart enough to put his people first [Anatolian & Balkan Turks] and saved Western Anatolia & the Black Sea region from Greek conquest.

In the aftermath of the War, Kemal pursued developmental policies to build a modern Turkey & modernized the country's industries. As for Park, he was smart enough to play of the Americans to advance his own country's interests and also utilized Japanese economic assistance to build the South Korea we know today.

I don't understand why on earth you are praising someone who was an enemy of Islam.

 

[The alchemist]

No, case in point: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Lee Kuan Yew and Park Chung-Hee.

The key is for benevolent dictators to allow for democratic transition when their citizenry become more affluent & educated, since they'll inevitably want more participation in their Nation's politics.

There is much to learn from others' experiences. With that said, much of what happened with those countries was very circumstantial and unique to that time and place, applying the same without taking current conditions, even conditions that on the surface look similar but have totally different underlying processes will lead to a failure. What people need is serious inspection and tailor a framework to which they direct actions that specifically address what is exactly going on.

 

[Aurelian]

Libya under Gaddafi was a direct democracy and the people could make laws.

Lybia was an example for being a democratic country

 

[Aurelian]

I mean you look at Museveni, for example



from what I can tell, he seems to do an alright job besides being a non-Muslim and not ruling by the sharia...

but if Museveni does a relatively alright job, what's wrong with him having stayed in power (besides the non-Muslim aspect)?

or you look at Saddam

you would have to be a crazy person or a Shia to think Iraq wasn't better off under Saddam

I assume that you had all of your knowledge of Saddam's Iraq from YouTube. The amount of injustice and brutality under his regime were unbelievable. His actions of the acts of his relatives, generals or closes ones were over looked, even if his son for instance shoot football players just because they lost.

 

[Shimbiris]

I assume that you had all of your knowledge of Saddam's Iraq from YouTube. The amount of injustice and brutality under his regime were unbelievable. His actions of the acts of his relatives, generals or closes ones were over looked, even if his son for instance shoot football players just because they lost.

Didn't he gas Kurds? Sure, the country is perhaps more "chaotic" without him but picking him over the current state of affairs seems like choosing one evil over another.

 

[Muzaffer]

Didn't he gas Kurds? Sure, the country is perhaps more "chaotic" without him but picking him over the current state of affairs seems like choosing one evil over another.

he is a dictator who destroyed Iraq, he made Iraq a bomb waiting for a spark to explode.

 

[Omar del Sur]

I assume that you had all of your knowledge of Saddam's Iraq from YouTube. The amount of injustice and brutality under his regime were unbelievable. His actions of the acts of his relatives, generals or closes ones were over looked, even if his son for instance shoot football players just because they lost.

No, my view on Saddam is from talking to my co-worker who lived under Saddam as well as research.

No reasonable Iraqi unless they are Shia is going to deny that they were better off under Saddam.

Not everything Saddam did was bad. I am sympathetic to Saddam. He was an enemy of the Zionists- that is clear.

But it's not even a matter of whether Saddam personally was good or bad.

Whether what you say about killing football players is true or just propaganda from the media, it doesn't actually make a difference.

Ordinary Iraqis were way safer under Saddam than they are right now. Iraq was way safer for the ordinary person. And now they're run by the Shia. But independently of what anyone thinks about Saddam or the Shia government.... the Iraqis were better off under Saddam. You cannot reasonably claim that they are better off living in danger without security and it is an objective fact that the ordinary people were safer.

 

[Muzaffer]

maybe but in the end, he is a dictator and a murderer and a criminal

 

[Omar del Sur]

Didn't he gas Kurds? Sure, the country is perhaps more "chaotic" without him but picking him over the current state of affairs seems like choosing one evil over another.

Would you rather be punched or shot? If you say you'd rather be punched, you are choosing one evil over another.

 

[Omar del Sur]

maybe but in the end, he is a dictator and a murderer and a criminal

I don't think you'd be lackadaisical about the security situation of ordinary Iraqis if you yourself lived there.