yamindinda
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 29, 2011
- 1,581
- 1,318
Dictatorial can be understood as a “form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique”. It is a government, characterised by a single leader or group of leaders with either no party or a weak party, little mass mobilisation, and limited political pluralism. In this government, the absolute rule lies in one person or a very small group of people who hold all political power. While a dictatorial government is criticised of oppressing people and deny them the freedom they are entitled to, the literature shows that this type of government is the only condition that leads to development. It is also vital to understand that this form of government can be classified into two groups. Positive or progressive dictatorial and negative, oppressive and or colonial dictatorial government. However, it is only the former that when practiced by political leaders who are patriotic that is a path to development.
Differences among dictatorial regimes are rooted on different aspects of their performance and the economic development growth in their countries. This difference can be seen in their magnitude of the governing clique, the military or civil nature of the authority, economic liberties granted to citizens, legality of political associations, legal framework, among others. Moreover, the characteristic that all dictatorial government share is that public power is centralised and leaders apply it sometimes without consulting or without consent from the population. Leaders also accumulate absolute power in a small group or a single person; these include military dictatorships, presidential dictatorships, and dynastic monarchies, among others.
Hence, one can argue that western literature which describes dictatorship as “a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) is not correct. This is because this understanding leads to an unproductive and unfair debate. For example, it is undoubtedly correct that only governments led by a single person could be accounted as dictatorships. However, historical examples of dictatorial governments such the USSR and China (led by the communist party in a one party dictatorship).
Another absolute lie presented in the literature on dictatorial governments is the argument that this kind of government lacks a constitution or rule of law or legal framework, which leads to oppression, corruption, undemocratic decisions, and poverty. This argument is naïve and lacks academic support. For instance, why are countries like Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom lack constitution? Are they dictatorial regimes? Of course they are, lacking constitution means they are undemocratic, this make them to be dictatorial in nature but their dictatorship is that of positive and progressive which leads to economic development growth. It is because development and problems facing them can only be solved through a dictatorial government with an absolute leaders whose people’s interests are in their hearts. This absolute leader must be patriotic in nature. It is important to note that in the above-mentioned countries political power is subject to the popular will.
Negative dictatorship does not necessarily result in development, defined by human well-being (which incorporates education, health, income, and safety from internal and external threats) and even by personal discipline. There is no conclusive evidence that shows that either dictatorship or democracy cause development. Development is in the minds. It is important to note that democratic regime development is hampered by unnecessary debates and as seen in Africa, a change of leader means a change of ideas. This has led to slowness of the development on the continent. This is because the leader goes with his or her own ideas. Thus, I argue that a dictatorial leader incorporates more control over the variables that define development so in consequence are a better course to get to it. Moreover, a dictatorial leader guarantees social order, which is a requirement for any kind of economic development to occur and be feasible.
It is important to argue that democratic states should not take punitive actions against dictatorial governments in order to diminish their legitimacy, their power, and to promote their overthrown in exchange for a democratic alternative. The democratic states forget that to be where they are now, they once were dictatorial; hence, they want to hold other states into captivity by preventing them from taking the path they led them to development. Example is in Libya where Gaddafi the late president was charged of being a dictator, but after invading him to introduce western form of democracy, the country has deteriorated into an ungovernable state. The aid coming from democratic states in the West to African countries is another trap because they undermine the possibility of development finally kicking in these countries, since dictatorship is the best way to achieve it.
The history of western and now Asia countries economic development prove that dictatorial leaders are better control the elements of discipline and order in society. This is because they enforce personal discipline; promote a state founded on patriarchal and hierarchical value, through the implementation of strict policies based on personal security and global respect on a community basis. To support and understand this argument, one needs to study the evidence from the Taiwanese government, where Confucianism is the primarily ideology promoted in the society. Literature shows that Confucianism put an emphasis on the role of “interpersonal relationships based on the performance of individual roles in society and also based on fixed principles of authority”.
Dictatorial governments are able to control variables of human development. It has been proved that a dictatorial leader is able to control health and education of its population. They decide how to allocate the resources (funding, students, professors, infrastructure, supplies) to prepare new professionals for the health and education sectors; and they can determine the curricula, salaries and place of employment in a way democratic states cannot.
The example in this is the Cuba state, which is solely dictatorial in Latin America. This country has more doctors per capita than the average western nations, including the USA. It provides education advisors to several developing nations, and one of the best human development indexes in the region, while its culturally, socially, geographically and historically similar neighbours, who turned to democracy have a shortage of doctors and teachers and average a lower human development index. However, it should be known that any absolute leader seen as a dictator, their survival depends on economic success of his/her country.
Dictatorial government can resist the income redistribution pressures. Many scholars have shown that resistance to income distributional pressures is the key to their successful development. This is because the decision makers can organize against the sirens of short term pork-barrel politics that plague democracy, spearheaded by interest groups or distributional coalitions, which pursue their own selfish interests at the expense of overall economic efficiency. The example that support this argument is the economic growth of the Asian Tigers: Taiwan, South Korea, Hong-Kong and China, where political authoritarianism coupled with the opening to free markets took place.
In the continent like ours which is marred by intractable civil wars, dictatorial governments are better path to help move on from civil wars and focus on development endeavours. When a country is going through a civil war or has internal tensions escalating, a dictatorship can resolve these conflicts in a more definite way than in democracies. Because under a democracy the minority can wait until the conditions are met for them to come to power and once they do, take revenge on the other group, thus escalating the conflict between the factions. However, under a dictatorship, the ruler has total power and hence, there are no more power quotas to fight for anymore.
Dictatorial governments are flexible in nature. This means this flexibility helps make flexible economic policies that breed economic development growth. Dictatorships have the needed flexibility to establish the proper incentives to attract Foreign Direct Investment, which directly strengthen economic development growth. It is in this manner that dictatorial regimes lead to development. A dictator can define and establish a pro-investment legal and institutional framework. For example, he can lower taxes, subsidies, ensuring economical liberties without facing limitations that a democrat leader encounters on its political process. For instance, a democrat encounters opposition from parties or coalitions ideologically opposed to these measures. Once established, this institutional framework motivates Foreign Direct Investments, which increases the demand of labour and other internal supplies. It also creates a virtuous circle towards significant and homogeneous income growth, which is directly linked to the development of societies.
China, under the command of a strict political regime that has open discretion on the economic policies of the country, has been implementing sustained institutional reforms towards promoting Foreign direct Investments. This produced material improvement with more than 400 million Chinese citizens being moved from poverty to the middle class. In the last 10 years, the country has had an average GDP growth rate of 10% per year; the highest sustained Economic Growth Rate in the world”.
Dictatorial government helps achieve social stability. One of the main prerequisites for democracy is periodical elections, and each election in a democracy is a time when the continuity of rule of law is put in jeopardy, especially when the former opposition party becomes the new governing party and vice-versa. In Africa, the results of the election are very close, there is a chance of anarchy whilst the votes are recounted. On the other hand, dictatorships are the most stable form of government due to no dilution of power and because the opposition has no real chance to become government, a consequence of this is that they avoid electoral turmoil altogether. In addition, the social control exercised by dictatorships allow them to prevent financial losses due to strikes, riots, and keep low criminality rates. Thus providing a bargain for investors. Thus dictatorships are better at safeguarding order and stability against anarchy than democracies.
History tells us that the longer lasting and biggest economic miracles have occurred under dictatorships. The comprehensive list includes the “Baltic Tiger (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), Brazil, Ireland, the Asian tigers (Taiwan, South Korea, Hong-Kong and Singapore), Italy, Greece, Japan, Massachusetts (US), Chile, Spain, Austria and Western Germany after WWII and France after WWII”. It is important therefore to argue that the economic miracles of greater magnitude and with longest lasting effects have occurred in countries under a dictatorship. “The most rapidly growing country in the 1970’s was the military-ruled Brazil. The economic tigers of the 1980 were the dictatorships of South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. In the 1990’s the leader was China. And those spectacular successes repeatedly sowed the minds of even committed democrats.”
In conclusion, with the above evidences, it is vital to argue that positive dictatorship built on the patriotism is the best way for Africa to overcome colonial leaders and solve her problems, hence pave way for sustainable economic development. As history shows us, dictatorial governments played a major role in helping western states and now Asian Tigers and Latin America countries to overcome their problems of poverty and raised their GDP to a tremendous rate. In Africa, we have had the negative and oppressive dictatorial form of government, which acts as a colonial governance with support from colonial masters. Its purpose has been to rely on the colonial masters and to oppress citizens, corruption and root resources, etc. Western scholars know that dictatorial form of government is the only path to development, but Africans do not know this and it is the time to wake up and know these realities. We refused to learn from the history hence these facts have escaped our minds. This ignorance or backward mentality so to speak have made African problems to be intractable. There is need to overcome the naivety and to successfully learn from the history or events behind the development we see in the West and the in Eastern Asia, or else we perish. Therefore, dictatorial government lead by an absolute patriotic leader at this time is the only alternative solutions to Africa’s problems and raise the continent to a higher level.
CAN DICTATORSHIP OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION TO AFRICA’S PROBLEMS? — Joburg Post
Differences among dictatorial regimes are rooted on different aspects of their performance and the economic development growth in their countries. This difference can be seen in their magnitude of the governing clique, the military or civil nature of the authority, economic liberties granted to citizens, legality of political associations, legal framework, among others. Moreover, the characteristic that all dictatorial government share is that public power is centralised and leaders apply it sometimes without consulting or without consent from the population. Leaders also accumulate absolute power in a small group or a single person; these include military dictatorships, presidential dictatorships, and dynastic monarchies, among others.
Hence, one can argue that western literature which describes dictatorship as “a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) is not correct. This is because this understanding leads to an unproductive and unfair debate. For example, it is undoubtedly correct that only governments led by a single person could be accounted as dictatorships. However, historical examples of dictatorial governments such the USSR and China (led by the communist party in a one party dictatorship).
Another absolute lie presented in the literature on dictatorial governments is the argument that this kind of government lacks a constitution or rule of law or legal framework, which leads to oppression, corruption, undemocratic decisions, and poverty. This argument is naïve and lacks academic support. For instance, why are countries like Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom lack constitution? Are they dictatorial regimes? Of course they are, lacking constitution means they are undemocratic, this make them to be dictatorial in nature but their dictatorship is that of positive and progressive which leads to economic development growth. It is because development and problems facing them can only be solved through a dictatorial government with an absolute leaders whose people’s interests are in their hearts. This absolute leader must be patriotic in nature. It is important to note that in the above-mentioned countries political power is subject to the popular will.
Negative dictatorship does not necessarily result in development, defined by human well-being (which incorporates education, health, income, and safety from internal and external threats) and even by personal discipline. There is no conclusive evidence that shows that either dictatorship or democracy cause development. Development is in the minds. It is important to note that democratic regime development is hampered by unnecessary debates and as seen in Africa, a change of leader means a change of ideas. This has led to slowness of the development on the continent. This is because the leader goes with his or her own ideas. Thus, I argue that a dictatorial leader incorporates more control over the variables that define development so in consequence are a better course to get to it. Moreover, a dictatorial leader guarantees social order, which is a requirement for any kind of economic development to occur and be feasible.
It is important to argue that democratic states should not take punitive actions against dictatorial governments in order to diminish their legitimacy, their power, and to promote their overthrown in exchange for a democratic alternative. The democratic states forget that to be where they are now, they once were dictatorial; hence, they want to hold other states into captivity by preventing them from taking the path they led them to development. Example is in Libya where Gaddafi the late president was charged of being a dictator, but after invading him to introduce western form of democracy, the country has deteriorated into an ungovernable state. The aid coming from democratic states in the West to African countries is another trap because they undermine the possibility of development finally kicking in these countries, since dictatorship is the best way to achieve it.
The history of western and now Asia countries economic development prove that dictatorial leaders are better control the elements of discipline and order in society. This is because they enforce personal discipline; promote a state founded on patriarchal and hierarchical value, through the implementation of strict policies based on personal security and global respect on a community basis. To support and understand this argument, one needs to study the evidence from the Taiwanese government, where Confucianism is the primarily ideology promoted in the society. Literature shows that Confucianism put an emphasis on the role of “interpersonal relationships based on the performance of individual roles in society and also based on fixed principles of authority”.
Dictatorial governments are able to control variables of human development. It has been proved that a dictatorial leader is able to control health and education of its population. They decide how to allocate the resources (funding, students, professors, infrastructure, supplies) to prepare new professionals for the health and education sectors; and they can determine the curricula, salaries and place of employment in a way democratic states cannot.
The example in this is the Cuba state, which is solely dictatorial in Latin America. This country has more doctors per capita than the average western nations, including the USA. It provides education advisors to several developing nations, and one of the best human development indexes in the region, while its culturally, socially, geographically and historically similar neighbours, who turned to democracy have a shortage of doctors and teachers and average a lower human development index. However, it should be known that any absolute leader seen as a dictator, their survival depends on economic success of his/her country.
Dictatorial government can resist the income redistribution pressures. Many scholars have shown that resistance to income distributional pressures is the key to their successful development. This is because the decision makers can organize against the sirens of short term pork-barrel politics that plague democracy, spearheaded by interest groups or distributional coalitions, which pursue their own selfish interests at the expense of overall economic efficiency. The example that support this argument is the economic growth of the Asian Tigers: Taiwan, South Korea, Hong-Kong and China, where political authoritarianism coupled with the opening to free markets took place.
In the continent like ours which is marred by intractable civil wars, dictatorial governments are better path to help move on from civil wars and focus on development endeavours. When a country is going through a civil war or has internal tensions escalating, a dictatorship can resolve these conflicts in a more definite way than in democracies. Because under a democracy the minority can wait until the conditions are met for them to come to power and once they do, take revenge on the other group, thus escalating the conflict between the factions. However, under a dictatorship, the ruler has total power and hence, there are no more power quotas to fight for anymore.
Dictatorial governments are flexible in nature. This means this flexibility helps make flexible economic policies that breed economic development growth. Dictatorships have the needed flexibility to establish the proper incentives to attract Foreign Direct Investment, which directly strengthen economic development growth. It is in this manner that dictatorial regimes lead to development. A dictator can define and establish a pro-investment legal and institutional framework. For example, he can lower taxes, subsidies, ensuring economical liberties without facing limitations that a democrat leader encounters on its political process. For instance, a democrat encounters opposition from parties or coalitions ideologically opposed to these measures. Once established, this institutional framework motivates Foreign Direct Investments, which increases the demand of labour and other internal supplies. It also creates a virtuous circle towards significant and homogeneous income growth, which is directly linked to the development of societies.
China, under the command of a strict political regime that has open discretion on the economic policies of the country, has been implementing sustained institutional reforms towards promoting Foreign direct Investments. This produced material improvement with more than 400 million Chinese citizens being moved from poverty to the middle class. In the last 10 years, the country has had an average GDP growth rate of 10% per year; the highest sustained Economic Growth Rate in the world”.
Dictatorial government helps achieve social stability. One of the main prerequisites for democracy is periodical elections, and each election in a democracy is a time when the continuity of rule of law is put in jeopardy, especially when the former opposition party becomes the new governing party and vice-versa. In Africa, the results of the election are very close, there is a chance of anarchy whilst the votes are recounted. On the other hand, dictatorships are the most stable form of government due to no dilution of power and because the opposition has no real chance to become government, a consequence of this is that they avoid electoral turmoil altogether. In addition, the social control exercised by dictatorships allow them to prevent financial losses due to strikes, riots, and keep low criminality rates. Thus providing a bargain for investors. Thus dictatorships are better at safeguarding order and stability against anarchy than democracies.
History tells us that the longer lasting and biggest economic miracles have occurred under dictatorships. The comprehensive list includes the “Baltic Tiger (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), Brazil, Ireland, the Asian tigers (Taiwan, South Korea, Hong-Kong and Singapore), Italy, Greece, Japan, Massachusetts (US), Chile, Spain, Austria and Western Germany after WWII and France after WWII”. It is important therefore to argue that the economic miracles of greater magnitude and with longest lasting effects have occurred in countries under a dictatorship. “The most rapidly growing country in the 1970’s was the military-ruled Brazil. The economic tigers of the 1980 were the dictatorships of South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. In the 1990’s the leader was China. And those spectacular successes repeatedly sowed the minds of even committed democrats.”
In conclusion, with the above evidences, it is vital to argue that positive dictatorship built on the patriotism is the best way for Africa to overcome colonial leaders and solve her problems, hence pave way for sustainable economic development. As history shows us, dictatorial governments played a major role in helping western states and now Asian Tigers and Latin America countries to overcome their problems of poverty and raised their GDP to a tremendous rate. In Africa, we have had the negative and oppressive dictatorial form of government, which acts as a colonial governance with support from colonial masters. Its purpose has been to rely on the colonial masters and to oppress citizens, corruption and root resources, etc. Western scholars know that dictatorial form of government is the only path to development, but Africans do not know this and it is the time to wake up and know these realities. We refused to learn from the history hence these facts have escaped our minds. This ignorance or backward mentality so to speak have made African problems to be intractable. There is need to overcome the naivety and to successfully learn from the history or events behind the development we see in the West and the in Eastern Asia, or else we perish. Therefore, dictatorial government lead by an absolute patriotic leader at this time is the only alternative solutions to Africa’s problems and raise the continent to a higher level.
CAN DICTATORSHIP OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION TO AFRICA’S PROBLEMS? — Joburg Post
