ohwilleke

I've identified two strains of democracy which are worst than dicatorships describe as:

Grossly Incompetent Representative Democracy (like pre-coup governments throughout third world).
Unhealthy Direct Democracy (Salem in 1600s or French Revolution)

Grossly incompetent representative democracies are characterized by elected officials who are incompetent, rampant corruption, instability, and economic malaise. Usually these kind of democracies are found in relatively young countries without a strong tradition of democratic government or a good idea of what is necessary to make the system work. Some of the Southern Reconstruction legislatures in the American South, Weimar Germany, Haiti's experience with seventeen months of deadlock in 1996-1998 (and some other elements of the democratic Haitian experience), Argentina in the 1980s, the Congo Republic's 1992-1997 regime, and Laos in the 1950s are examples of this.

Related but not quite the same are regimes like Fujimori in Peru, and Marcos in the Phillipines which float somewhere in the netherworld between democracy and dictatorship.

The direct democratic examples, I think, as the classic examples of mob rule require no explaination. Rwanda, while strictly speaking not a direct democracy, is also a classic example of democratic rule being used to wipe out the minority.

Ultron

At least you are justifying your arguement, that's the main thing I get out of this. Those types of govts you hate more than someone like Bush having absolute control of a govt (as a dictatorship) is what I'm looking for.

If Bush would be in greater control in those two forms of Democracy than he would in an outright dictatorship, that's the standard.

nerv111

A government is as good as its policies. That being said there is no inherently better way to be governed. Be it dictatorship or democracy one suffers under bad policies of those in power, or prospers under good policies.

The possible advantage of one over the other would be that limited governments (i.e. those whose powers are limited by the rule of law) because of the restrictions places on the powers of those in control tend to reduce the effects of the bad policies. Likewise they also reduce the effects of the good policies.

Conversely so under unlimited governments (i.e. where the government has absolute power) the good policies of such governments have a greater effect, and likewise so do the bad. This would be why paradoxically dictatorships would be the best and worst form of government to live under. If the dictator is 'benevolent' the people prosper under his rule, if tyrannical they suffer.

As for which government I would prefer to live under, ideally benevolent despotism. On a more practical level probably a constitutional republic, because despite the corruption of such governments and its ineffectiveness they maintain a certain level of mediocrity refraining from falling into both the extremes of good government and bad government.

conkermaniac

One example of a benevolent dictatorship is Brunei. I've been there, and the people there really like their Sultan. They get good housing from the government at a very cheap price, free education including college abroad if necessary, and quite a bit of freedom compared to most Asian nations. I don't even think they pay taxes to the government at all. Then again, Brunei is a very small country with a tiny population, and they're oil rich.

nerv111

This just goes to show that benevolent dictatorship is possible under the right conditions.

Peter Kirby

What about a democracy that elects a 'dictator' every 4 years? In other words, unlike a constitutional republic, the elected leader would have the power to define law for his/her term, except perhaps the law that there is another election in 4 years. Doesn't that sort of blur the categories?

best,
Peter Kirby

nerv111

Good point, this discussion oversimplifies the topic by focusing on only two possible systems.

The system you describe above, with an effective elected dictatorship still falls under the classification of an unlimited government and tends more toward the despotic than it does toward the democratic. This would be because a) the elected dictator would in effect have absolute power to do as he pleases for those 4-years, within the limit of not being able to extend his term; and b) democracy means government by the people, in effect the people would have no say on the policies, only on who will rule them.

Strictly speaking there do not exist many democratic states in the world today, most of the Western democracies are in fact republics, here again some would argue that the people do not really have a say in the policies of a government, only on who will rule them.

ohwilleke

Change 4 years to five and you have an apt description of the government of the United Kingdom. This constitutional monarchy is commonly considered democratic.

meritocrat

I don't think it would.

Still I don't think such a situation would be a true liberal democracy. Couldn't leader outlaw all rival political parties? Or lessen some of the people's rights?

Gurdur

Solon.
Read some history.

________

Goddamn, 6660. I really will have to stop posting till I've got my 6666th pre-written.