Democracy versus Dictatorship
Democracy versus Dictatorship :
In theory, democracy is the best form of government. It is the government of the people as distinguished from the government of an individual or of a class of people. It makes all the citizens interested in their country by giving them a voice in legislation. It gives them a feeling of importance and a sense of responsibility. It thus gives a meaning to their personality. Another merit of democracy is that it is less liable to revolution than other forms of government. Since people themselves elect the members of government the need of a revolution does not arise. In additions to this, a democratic government usually guarantees freedom of thought and speech. This twofold freedom is a very great advantage as it enables the individual to grow freely. Democracy thus offers the most favorable atmosphere for the development of the human personality.
Democracy literally means the rule of the people. It has been defined as government of the people, by the people for the people. Modern democracy rests on the principle of representation. The people elect their representatives by vote. These representatives attend the legislature and act on behalf other citizens. If the citizens are not satisfied with their representatives, they may not re-elect them in the next elections.
But democracy has its danger. The greatest of which is that it may be the rule of ignorance. “Nine peoel out of every ten", says Carlyle, “are fools" and citizens who are not sufficiently intelligent or educated are likely to commit errors of judgment in the casting of votes. The best men may this fail to get elected. Elections are usually matters of propaganda. However, the voters in countries like Britain and America have not proved so lacking in judgment as many of the opponents of democracy would have us believe, though it is true that our own country the people, being illiterate, rarely give evidence of sound or independent judgment. Another critic of democracy is that it is wanting in efficiency. For prompt and effective actions, unity of action is essential.
“One bad general", said Napoleon “is better than two good ones". In a multitude of minds, much unprofitable discussion takes place, whereas unity of control is needed for a vigorous national life. According to Newman, for example, the British government cannot cope with the emergencies created by war as effectively as a dictator can. This criticism, however, is not very convincing because in times of war the British prime minter usually wields the powers of a dictator. During world wars, for examples, Sir Winston Churchill faced few real difficulties as a result of the system of democracy in England. A sounder criticism of democracy in times of war would be to say that secrecy in military affairs becomes difficult, if not impossible, and that the oppositions usably lowers the morale of people by its loud condemnations of the actions of the Cabinet.
It was thought that the two world wars had made the world safe for democracy, but this forecast proved to be wrong. While democracy worked quite well in France and the English speaking countries, most other countries swung towards dictatorship. So successful and powerful did their dictatorships become, that the days of democracy seemed to be almost over.
Unfortunately, theemthods of scitatorhsip are, and have to be, ruthless. Dictatorship employed force and violence OT maintain itself. It resorts to physical compulsion, person, concentrations camps censored, intimidation purges and execution. Both n Russia and Germany countless execution was ordered for the sanity of dsicitsorhsip. A dictatorship cannot brook slightest oppositions.
Dictatorship is certainly not without its merits. As carryall poitnsour, society is anorgnaism. And not a machine. Now mechanical sytemliek the ballot-box can, therefore, prove satisfactory. The safer course is OT gives all power to a dictator. The dictator must, of course, be once who has exception amity to organize, direct and admitter. Parliamtary rule usably means gomer by clues ofpoliticans whose purviews dictator on the other hand, can concentrate all his emerges towards theupliftment and improvement of his country.
Thus, there can be no freedom of thought or speech under such asstm. Intesivece propaganda is employed, as was den s germy, to retain the sport of the people. Dictatorship, therefore by its very nature hampers the free devleoepmtn of the human personality. It does not awe for divest of political option and belief, but tends towards political regimentations or standardizations of human beings. The greatest danger of dictatorship, however, is its partiality for war as an instrument of national aggrandizement. Practically very dictate preaches war, partly because he is actuated by person amnion and partly because he suffers from an exaggerated anaionslism.
Democracy versus Dictatorship
To HOME PAGE
Turns out its the same thing
For example look at the United States and the way in which is heading, do you not think is heading towards a dictatorship, a police state? When in history has the government ever not abused of its power? We got the FBI an CIA monitoring our phone calls and emails training and supplying sSyrian rebels taking away our rights such as the second amendment, freedom of the press. Lying to the public targeting conservative groups.
Dictatorship is more better than democracy
Because we can saw in those countries there is not democracy they can developed very fastly. In dictatorship the power is the hand of one man. They can do every thing. They cannot discuss with other that what can i do. In democracy the power is the hand of many persons, in this way they can not do any thing. In democracy a country will be developed but slowly slowly. In this way dictatorship is better than democracy
Freedom and responsibilty
Hjfiguahghjkryrratratra ratr tart tart tart tatr tart tart atr atr t artatr t rrygesuhvgd yhruthbyritojtriohh iii hih hih ih h ih hih hih h ih h ihh hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi ih hin ih ih ijn ghuithgo hi hih hih ih ih hi hi
This question needs to be handled delicately, but I believe both have their negatives and positives.
A dictatorship can be good, but it all depends on who the dictator is and more importantly if he's a good leader who cares about his country and people. A dictatorship also allows for quicker decision making and a better military. But it's also important to realize that the minute you get a bad dictator, then the whole system falls apart. At the same time I personally do not believe that democracy is not a very good system due to poor choices by the people, oppression of minorities, and slow decision making. Another important thing to realize is that the US is not a democracy, but is instead a Constitutional Republic where people make decisions, but these decisions must align with the national laws and constitution. Thank you for hearing me out and may God bless you all.
Democracy is only the name of Corruption
Hummmm Democracy! I think this name is saying itself that people are choses me only for corruption. Dictatorship is mean a person who controls all the country with has own mind, if he dose corrupt or eats lots but its not big problem because only he is eating but in democracy 1000s of leaders have this habit. See in democracy when someone become president of the country then after his time finish he will no more in his own country because he did, he have is own property by being corrupted his time of president. Democracy is not for poor people or not for honest people, in democracy if you do anything good or do honest, you will have all country your enemy. If you give justices any poor and defeats a leader who did bad with poor it means your making enemy as well
Depends on what you consider better.
If you are looking at efficiency then a dictatorship would be the better option due to there being no conflict within the government itself. Whereas if you are looking at it being moral correct and people getting their own say then democracy would be better. The answer in my opinion is completely depending on where the county is in its stage of development whether it needs a quick fix or whether it is already in a good place and trying to keep it stable then democracy would be the better option.
No, republic is not better than democarcy
Republic allows people to vote regardless of whether their voice were heard or not. On the other hand, democracy not only allows people to vote, but also hear public voices and individual voices. When bill is proposed, republic get this done really fast because all the have to do is count the votes. But in democracy, the bills are discussed and voted by the people and the government considering from all kinds of perspectives. What the people wants is the guarantee of their human rights and time have proven that democracy supports human rights better than republic does. Therefore, republic is not better than democracy.
Not if the public is severely backwards
And what if the public wants bigotry? What if the public wants to ban minority religions? What if they want to execute people for being gay? What if there is genocidal public sentiments towards minorities?
And what if these attitudes are so entrenched and the public so unopen to new ideas that "change" in a democracy is not possible.
And what if there is an able clique of intellectuals who have potential access to power in some way who would oppose those tendencies and change the backwards society?
The point being the characteristics of a society determine the best regime. Democracy is not automatically the best.
They are both corrupt
All things said some dictatorships are required to reform a nation but democracy allows people to believe and fight for they're own reforms but none the less the prime minister and the president will always call shots. Therefore democracy or dictatorships wont change the fact that the leaders are all corrupt power hungry men and women!