Brian Eno is a musician and a founding member of the Long Now Foundation. Rizwan Ahmed :. Compared to a decently functioning democracy, probably not. Compared to a nation disintegrating under civil war and sectarian strife? You'd have to ask an Iraqi. If we look at Musharraf in Pakistan, you can say he has improved the economy and allowed much greater press freedoms than his "democratic" predecessors, who had also ransacked the public coffers.
Even if he is the best of a bad range of options for now from the point of view of most Pakistanis, dictatorship skews the political system and makes the prospect of a functioning democracy in the future even harder. So of course dictatorship's never ideal as a system, and in principle I'd probably choose a messier democracy. But people living in poor and unstable countries might tell you there are worse things than living under a dictatorship, and often more pressing problems than simply living under a democracy wouldn't necessarily solve.
Shami Chakrabarti :. Dictatorship is an obvious evil. Some will say that this evil is sometimes necessary, that some societies "are not ready" for democracy, or that some dictators are benign.
Those who would deny universal suffrage abroad say little different from those who denied it at home not so many years ago. Their exotic prejudices must be met by questioning who and what government is for. Progress may be slow if not unbearably painful. Self-evidently democracy cannot be proclaimed down the barrel of a gun. Ultimately however, democracy generally brings more peace, prosperity and individual human dignity. Camille Paglia :. Virtually all of the world's major archaeological zones, except for Athens, were originally produced by some version of dictatorship.
From Karnak and Babylon to Angkor Wat and Chichen Itza, autocratic authority provided the organisational system for massive public works projects that glorified the state. In a dictatorship, a deal like this could be ironed out in seconds.
As soon as the leader comes up with a plan, it becomes the law, and things happen quickly. Only one person has to agree to a dictatorship. The dictator can decide who gets the funds, and they are often granted to those with a specific social status. In a democracy, a person is innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to a trial. When a person breaks the law, the punishment is swift and harsh. This dissuades a person from breaking the law. Because laws can be passed on a whim by the leader, people break the law, but not as many.
Crime in dictatorships tends to be much lower than in a democracy. For example, when the Philippines first became an authoritarian regime, crime immediately dropped by 50 percent. It is the fear of severe punishment and even death that worries them the most. Related: Pros and Cons of Fascism. Most dictators came into power based on their charm and their ability to relate to the people. This shows the people that their leader is just like them, almost like a friend.
This makes people believe that their leader is only interested in giving them a better life. Unfortunately, things soon change, which leads us to the cons of a dictatorship. Now that we have gone through all of the good things about a dictatorship, it is time to get into the downsides. Many people believe that the cons outweigh the pros, so they want to live in a democracy. The word benevolent means well-meaning and kindly.
This term is not often used to describe most government figures. However, this word can be applied to some dictators. Most dictators are not benevolent and kind. As a matter of fact, people believe that dictators are ruthless and controlling. Still, some countries have experienced benevolent dictators that helped their country tremendously.
Dictators such as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a past ruler from Turkey in the early s, former ruler Lee Kuan Yew from Singapore, and France-Albert Rene, who ran Seychelles from — , were all arguably benevolent dictators. Keep in mind that benevolent dictators work for the betterment of their countrymen. They do not fight against them, persecute them, or force them to live inferior lives.
Benevolent dictators ensure that the best policies are being carried out. Benevolent dictators will not allow their country to be misused or endure bad government or policies that could bring it to ruin. That being said, the corruption of power makes the idea of benevolent dictators unlikely.
Most dictators are extreme patriots. A patriot is an individual that wholeheartedly cares for their country. They are prepared to defend it at all costs.
They also believe in expanding their country at all costs. Dictators might oppress their people and even enslave them. Dictatorships might also take this approach with other nations they deem inferior. Taking these actions does not stop them from being committed to patriots.
A dictator will usually go out of their way to ensure that their nation is strongly represented in the world. Dictators can be very charismatic. Individuals that fulfill this role typically must have this type of personality trait.
When a person wants to rule a nation, something about them will make people want to follow or be complacent to overthrow the government. Think about it like this: if the average person decided to take over and rule a nation, how far do you think they will get? Most people are not that charismatic or to take over and rule a nation.
If you go back in history and closely examine the lives of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Edi Amin, you will discover how charismatic these men really were. Their charisma is also put on display to the world. This, however, does not excuse the awful deeds dictators can commit. All people live in a certain way. For example, American people focus on making money, spending time with family and friends, and engaging in social activities.
Some nations, such as Vatican City it is considered an independent nation , focus on religious worship, engaging within a religious activity, and making money. Some countries are more relaxed with their approach to life, such as the people of Costa Rica.
The dynamics of any nation will immediately change with a dictator. That person has the ability to transform a society immediately. They can turn a money-obsessed society into a place of poverty. They could also make a laid-back and happy nation, angry and chaotic.
Dictators can even make people within their society into financial slaves. Their governments can be made rich, or the dictator could become a billionaire by heavily taxing the people. Nearly all dictators who have ever taken power over a country already had some previous political experience. This is a necessary point for people to understand.
That type of thing might have happened in the past among monarchies but not most modern nations. Hitler was a German soldier as a young man. He eventually joined some political parties before rising to national prominence. The same is true for most other dictators. Again, most people cannot rise and become a dictator. Most dictators were already involved in some facet of government. Military leaders are also a part of the government as well, and they too can lay claim to rulership if they can get most of their military forces to back them.
Again, this is where charisma comes in. Ultimately, many dictators already had some type of experience in government before rising to power. In a democracy, the leader cannot change the laws on a whim. The law first needs to be passed by the House and the Senate.
The leader changes the laws at any time simply by issuing an order. This means that any law, even something entirely unfair to a specific class of people, can go into effect right away. Sadly, it is those in the lower classes who suffer. This is great for the upper-class citizens; however, if the government structure were to fall and the dictator were to lose power, there is a chance that the new regime can strip the wealthy of their net worth.
If the government collapses, a person can be a wealthy, upper-class citizen one day and a peasant the next. Dictatorships force their citizens to work using fear. Unfortunately, fear is not the best motivator.
People do what they need to comply with the law, but their main focus is to get through the day. After a while, this can hurt manufacturing and agriculture. North Korea is a perfect example of this. The leaders of the government can get anything that they want. Some fail, some succeed. Adolf Hitler dies, kills himself. Stalin and Mao die in their beds. I believe that there are two main instruments that dictators use — one is terror and the other one is image.
I thought that was rather striking; so the book does focus quite a bit as well on that cult of personality. Now, why is this cult so important? Because I think there is a paradox at the very heart of modern dictatorship: people in an age of democracy are supposed to be sovereign — it is they who elect those who should represent them. But dictators go for a shortcut; they seize power, and once they do this, through violence, they realise that they must maintain it through violence — violence is a very blunt instrument.
Of course they need the police; they need the praetorian guard; they need to rely on armed forces torturers, spies, informers, you name it … but the cult of personality helps a great deal. They must instil fear into the population at large, but if they compel ordinary people to acclaim them in public, they will last a lot longer. These people were not elected; in other words, they are — rather paradoxically — weak, they seize power, but by seizing power they run the risk that someone else might do exactly the same thing to them.
There might be traitors in the ranks; there might be equally ambitious rivals — so it raises the prospect of a stab in the back. How do you keep control of your inner circle? Of course, there are many techniques — and I go through many of them with my eight dictators. There is manipulation; there are constant purges with people quite literally being dragged out and shot in the back; there is divide and rule.
But again, the cult of personality works rather well. If a dictator can compel not only his allies but also his rivals to acclaim him, in public, it creates a very different sort of context. Most of all, with the cult of personality, there is a point since all of them have to acclaim the dictator in public, all of them become liars.
When people lie, it becomes very difficult to find out who thinks what; it becomes very difficult to organise a coup because you have no idea who stands where. EE: Can you give us a quick introduction to the eight dictators who feature in your work? FD: Yes, I did it chronologically. He is the very first one to start his own cult of personality. It will be the king who will have him arrested at the end of his career, so to speak. The second one seems reasonably straight forward — Adolf Hitler, how can you miss him?
Or Stalin. Or Mao Zedong. All of these being the classic 20th century dictators. I thought I had to take three figures who are not necessarily all that well known, but somehow, I think, shed light on the five big ones. The final one is Mengistu. FD: They work at it tirelessly, from the very beginning.
Adolf Hitler works at his image, and, of course, also works at building up his own party from the very beginning — the early s onwards. It is he who designs those garage-red flyers that attract new recruits; it is he who is behind the marches, the flags, etc. And, of course, he is behind his own image; he hires a photographer, Heinrich Hoffmann, to produce photos that project sheer strength of character and iron determination. And again and again, he works at building up his own image as a charismatic leader.
You can read Mein Kampf , for instance. In there, of course, is a very clear program: aggregate the Versailles treaty; get rid of the Jews, make Germany greater, invade the Soviet Union. But there are also many elements of the Hitler myth — you know, the voracious reader, the born orator, the unrecognised artist driven by destiny to save his people.
Mussolini, by one account, spends pretty much half of his time projecting his own image as the omniscient, omnipotent, indispensable leader of Italy, on top of running about half a dozen ministries. So, again and again, with each dictator it becomes very clear that they are ultimately responsible for building up their own cult. They begin with a low-key approach and with every step that they increase the terror, they manage to compel people to acclaim them in public, to cheer them in public.
And the key point here — coming back to what you said — is that the cult often is seen as brainless enthusiasm. If you want to know whether there is a cult of personality, you go to a country and you find out whether you can find anyone who has anything negative to say about the man in charge. If the answer is no, you will know what a cult of personality is.
EE: So, what about the people they ruled over, and possibly appealed to as well? What conclusions did you draw about them? FD: They are great actors. Dictators are great actors. Mussolini thought of himself as a great actor. We forget, also, that ordinary people have to become great actors themselves; they have to chant on command; they have to parrot the party line; they have to invoke the slogans; they have to cry, cheer, shout… on command.
So it is not just some bizarre ritual that operates under fear. Now the point here, really, about ordinary people is to make clear that the cult of personality is not designed to convince, or to persuade people that their leader truly is a great genius; no, the cult is there to destroy common sense, to destroy reason, to sow confusion, to enforce obedience, to literally isolate individuals and crush their dignity.
People have to self-monitor what they say and how they say it — and in turn they start monitoring other people. FD: Yes. Now all of them realise that control of the press is important; that no good dictator will allow freedom of press to continue for very long.
0コメント