You can have dictators or authoritarian regimes that are actually, in some regards, more democratically-minded in spirit than some ‘democratic’ systems. The strength of each system is also its weakness. With an authoritarian regime like the CCP, there can be competent bureaucratic administration or you can end up with a wildly incompetent autocrat like Chairman Mao. With a democratic system, you can have a functional and healthy democracy like that of Canada or EU nations, or you can have ignorant as hell MAGA voters.
Strictly speaking and from a logical point of view you are absolutely right, but it was only an example to clarify what I meant. But it was not the most important part of my post. The rest still stands.
I will go contrarian and say that if I witnessed the emergence of a malevolent dictator who seemed unstoppable by mere democracy, then any sane person should conclude that democracy is cooked, and root for the next best thing (a benevolent dictator).
I have no delusions about the long-term beneficence of a benevolent dictator. When we reach that point, societal failure is already in the can, and we’re just kicking it down the road for a bit. At least a benevolent dictator might, perhaps, maybe at some point accede to pluralistic rule once again.
Yep. The Trump Debacle should have made this clear to everyone: it doesn’t matter what your system is, it doesn’t matter how “well-designed” it is, it doesn’t matter how many “checks and balances” you have in place: if the people tasked with implementing that system are corrupt, and choose not to follow the rules as laid down, none of the rules matter.
In that situation, I’d much rather just have an open civil war. I suppose you could argue that the leader of the anti-dictator faction of the civil war is the “benevolent dictator”, but there’s one key difference: we generally acknowledge that leadership in a time of war is fundamentally different from leadership in a time of peace. If we win, there’s an expectation that the war leader will help transition to a more normal system of government.
Just installing our own dictator doesn’t have that underlying expectation.
Essentially, if our society becomes that broken, let’s just admit it’s broken and have it out.
You seem awfully certain that resorting to mass violence and social disintegration would lead to a restoration of a liberal society. Can you think of any historical examples of that happening, not including instances where an external party stepped in to serve as the benevolent dictator who re-established democratic norms?
It surely has to have a better chance of that than just letting the dictator take over.
US Civil War? The American Revolution?
That mud turned into today’s dust. (Another Spanish saying: de esos lodos vinieron estos polvos)
The American Revolution produced a white-supremacist hegemony that ultimately collapsed into the US Civil War. The US served as a benevolent dictator in the rebel states for a time, and then allowed them to relapse into white-supremacist hegemony again. Perfect example of when a benevolent dictatorship could have suppressed a malevolent one.
If we count Black people as Americans, then America really isn’t really a good model of pluralistic governance, or really anything. If it were, we’d have seen the US imposing its form of constitutional democracy on countries it conquered. That hasn’t happened AFAIK.
The “benign dictatorship” is a myth because people’s greed and lust for power always prevail. All you have to do is look at history (assuming people even bother to study it anymore) to see the results of one horrid dictatorship after another.
The OP’s premise is the mantra of the extreme right as can be easily recognized in their unending efforts to overturn our democratic vote and restrict voting rights.
What existed prior to the revolution was already a white-supremacist hegemony, so that’s a bit of a wash. They did establish the rule of law and a working civil government that was, while imperfect, a notable improvement on the arbitrary rule of a far-off king and his compliant parliament. And “ultimately collapsed into the US Civil War”? Sure, like 85 years later. 85 years of unprecedented industrial, scientific and economic development. At this point, I’d love to think we could have 85 years of stability and growth, that would be awesome.
History is an ever-moving river, the best we can hope for is that our section doesn’t have too many rapids. I’ll let the people of 85 years from now worry about how they’re going to paddle their own canoe, because it’s a near-certainty that at least some of them will think we were monsters and/or idiots, anyways.
Except that Rule of Law is expressly about the relationship between a government/governmental institutions and the Law itself, not in the outcomes of the judicial system. It’s about the government having to obey its own laws, which wasn’t a thing in the days of absolute monarchs, or when there are dictators/authoritarian governments.
…and thus applying them, which is precisely the point. I see no contradiction.
The whole point is that Rule of Law is pretty much wholly about the relationship between a government and its laws, not about the workings of a nation’s judicial system and how effective it might be.
The point is that ALL, government included, are subject to the law. Unjust outcomes don’t mean they’re not subject to it in a de jure sense; it means that the judicial system has flaws or problems with execution.
But the thrust has always been that the Divine Right of Kings was bullshit, and that Kings, governments, etc… should be subject to the same laws as everyone else. It’s not about the fairness of the judicial system, but about who the law applies to.
I disagree: Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary renditions, drone executions (the list could be longer) do not look like a government that feels bound by its own laws. And that was under Bush Jr., Obama and Trump, three different administrations.
ETA: You have edited your post, that makes me look like I misquoted you. I have not, but I fear this is turning into a parallel thread, I’ll stop here. You have not convinced me.
Democracy is always better? How would we know that? Who has one? That’s a silly reply to a silly hypothetical!
Yours on the other hand is so erudite I will now write several pages refuting in detail its precise and well argued premises. Just wait patiently and my next reply will appear. I promise.
A reminder again that “better” does not necessarily mean “good”. Sometimes it just means “less bad”.
As for who has a democracy - lots of countries. But there are lots of types of democracy, including some quite illiberal ones. There is no one ideal form for applied democracy, and “No True Democracy” arguments remain unhelpful.
I think a dictatorship is most likely better than a democracy on message boards like this one.
I don’t know this for sure as my experience with message boards is slim.
Reading the FAQS section of this board I discovered that there is one Grand Dictator named Cecil. Below Cecil is a series of Mini-Cecils known as “moderators”. Moderators are empowered to make any decision they want, about any issue they want, at any time they want, for any reason(s) they feel inclined to do so.
This strikes me as being about as hardcore a description as an online dictatorship could use in describing itself and the authority granted moderators.
I would assume this would be due to the fact that I’ve never owned a website and discovered that it might very well be a requisite feature if you want your website to be operated as you want it to be.
So I guess I am learning about one of the most basic building blocks of websites designed to work with the type of dissension that could be expected on such a site. It might also be similar to parenthood where parents have dictatorial rights and are empowered to describe them that way if they choose. I suppose that being a moderator with such delegated authority does not serve to make them unreasonable beyond some point that would displease Cecil.
I am realizing as I go that I am using the terms of this threads title in a way most likely not intended by the poster, but do not feel as though I am “hijacking”
the thread.
A previous reply from me in this thread shows that I understood the threads intent, but the
faqs language prompted me to make my point, and learn about my point as I wrote this reply.
Message to the mods-
I think I’ve explained myself such that you don’t need to suggest a new thread or warn me away. I understand what happened with my thinking and hope you do too!
The substantive legal differences aside, one of the main differences between a private messageboard and a country is that the costs of leaving if you don’t like the way things are run here are minimal to nil. If your country is run by a government you don’t like, the costs of leaving are substantial to oppressive.
Plus Ed Zotti is unlikely to kick in your door in the middle of the night. At least I hope so…