Poll: A Humanitarian Dictator is Better than a Weak Democratic Leader

[PrimoThePro]

I was out biking through the snow the other day, when a patch of black ice made my wheels slip out. I proceeded to fall, and crack my head on said ice. This made me think, is a Humanitarian Dictator better than a Weak Democratic Leader?
Even though the dictator is all powerful, they are a humanitarian, and thus are working to the benefit of ALL of society. The downside is that they work to a moral compass. Their moral compass, not everyone's.
The weak democratic leader could be considered better if you consider that they wouldn't actually do anything, and if they do nothing, than nothing is negative. However this can be catastrophic in times of war or crisis, as the crisis invariably will get worse, and the war will be lost.

 

[Twilight_guy]

When the will of the one is imposed on the many, the many lose. The loss of freedom can not be abided even if made in the name of the general good. That said, a weak democratic leader doesn't help much either, unless people actually want to do the right thing (which they don't).

 

[DefunctTheory]

When the will of the one is imposed on the many, the many lose. The loss of freedom can not be abided even if made in the name of the general good. That said, a weak democratic leader doesn't help much either, unless people actually want to do the right thing (which they don't).

I wish I could top this, but...

Well, this is your answer.

 

[Brawndo]

No, because we can replace a weak democratic leader without bloodshed. Any destruction on society and the economy he wracks will only last for one term. Besides, even a humanitarian dictator will end up oppressing some group's liberties, because you can never make everyone happy.

 

[SturmDolch]

A humanitarian dictator is a weak dictator. In a dictatorship, if the people are not afraid of their leader, they will feel that he is weak. Then one or more will naturally try to replace the leader. The leader would have to eliminate his foes, but doing so might go against the will of the people.

A dictator must be able to destroy his enemies or they will try to replace him. He must suppress his people from speaking against him, or the thoughts will grow. Without even a representative "democracy", like we see in most modern countries, the people would have no outlet for their anger against the dictator.

So I would go with the weak democratic leader, if only for stability.

 

[TheLefty]

I don't understand the bit about the bike and the ice...

Anyway, I guess it depends. The dictator would have to be a truly good person, and maybe even let a few general freedoms. In my mind it would play out as a free country, you can go and do whatever you want, but instead of voting and the like the dictator just kind of says "This is what is going to happen. Enjoy."

 

[Warchiefwill]

Not in the long run. I would rather have a government were i can choose my leaders in future then dread the thought that my humanitarian dictator has an asshole of an heir.

 

[Blue_vision]

A humanitarian dictator is a weak dictator. In a dictatorship, if the people are not afraid of their leader, they will feel that he is weak. Then one or more will naturally try to replace the leader. The leader would have to eliminate his foes, but doing so might go against the will of the people.

A dictator must be able to destroy his enemies or they will try to replace him. He must suppress his people from speaking against him, or the thoughts will grow. Without even a representative "democracy", like we see in most modern countries, the people would have no outlet for their anger against the dictator.

So I would go with the weak democratic leader, if only for stability.

But would a humanitarian dictator, a person who would by definition be working for the good of all the people, not tend to get people on his side in a similar fashion to what good democratic leaders would? They'd try their very best to have a happy and well-functioning populace. The only people that I could imagine losing in a Humanitarian dictatorship would be people on the far libertarian-right corner of politics, and I'd imagine that even they'd be hard pressed to seriously hate the person after their policies start coming into effect.

 

[SturmDolch]

But would a humanitarian dictator, a person who would by definition be working for the good of all the people, not tend to get people on his side in a similar fashion to what good democratic leaders would? They'd try their very best to have a happy and well-functioning populace. The only people that I could imagine losing in a Humanitarian dictatorship would be people on the far libertarian-right corner of politics, and I'd imagine that even they'd be hard pressed to seriously hate the person after their policies start coming into effect.

As long as there is a person in a higher position, there will be others trying to reach that position. Someone will try to replace the leader, no matter how good he is.

And one person's happiness might be another's hell. They will support the usurper, unless he is dealt with quickly.

 

[DarkLordofDevon]

People do not care who rules as long as they are kept happy. Bread and circus'. There is a reason Julius Caesar and his successor Augustus managed to over turn decades of 'Democratic' senate rule in favour of a single supreme leader. Gain the love of the people and you can do anything.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

That's the thing about Democracy, it isn't about getting things done, its making sure that certain things (hopefully bad) don't happen. Dictatorships are all built around doing things, where its listen to the whim of the dictator, rebuild the economy, fight a war, or burn the "heretics".

So yeah, I'm all for a Humanitarian Dictator. If the person is effective that's what matters to me. A weak and ineffectual democratic leader can't get anything done. Although this depends alot upon the situation. During stable peace-time having a democracy isn't that bad as it keeps things from flying out of control (maybe). On the other hand having someone who says "This needs to be done" and then its gets done is very useful during wartime.

And yes, I know the tendencies of dictators: once there in they can be hard to get out.

 

[PrimoThePro]

But would a humanitarian dictator, a person who would by definition be working for the good of all the people, not tend to get people on his side in a similar fashion to what good democratic leaders would? They'd try their very best to have a happy and well-functioning populace. The only people that I could imagine losing in a Humanitarian dictatorship would be people on the far libertarian-right corner of politics, and I'd imagine that even they'd be hard pressed to seriously hate the person after their policies start coming into effect.

As long as there is a person in a higher position, there will be others trying to reach that position. Someone will try to replace the leader, no matter how good he is.

And one person's happiness might be another's hell. They will support the usurper, unless he is dealt with quickly.

Sorry about that, internet hiccup.

Well, then consider the possibility that your country is at war. Your democratic leader will not have the strength, persuasion, or charisma to rally troops. In this instance, if you vote in the Dictator, he will have all of those things, and if he wins the war for the country, than he would be a war hero. The people would protect him from assassins, or kill the assassin if they accomplish the job. No one can get power from them that way.

As long as there is a person in a higher position, there will be others trying to reach that position. Someone will try to replace the leader, no matter how good he is.

And one person's happiness might be another's hell. They will support the usurper, unless he is dealt with quickly.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.'

Although all of the other political theories purport to have found a perfect style of government, where they fall down is that they rely on people acting a certain way that so far there has been no evidence of (people not being selfish for communism, people not getting corrupted by power for fascism and dictatorship)

And this is the problem I have with your question, is that it is entirely hypothetical because there is no such thing as a humanitarian dictator. Sure s/he might start out humanitarian with the best interests of the people at heart, but then they would become corrupted by power and start oppressing people as inevitably as the tides.

You cannot ever place one person in a position of absolute power because it will go wrong, there is no way to stop it.

So in a hypothetical situation, yes, a benevolent dictator would work, the same way a perfect communist society would work, or an anarchist state would work, or a divine monarchy.

In the real world that we live in, democracy, the only political theory that wasn't worked out to try and be perfect, really is the best we've got.

 

[Lilani]

At least with the democratic leader it's easier to get someone else into the position if you don't like them. And if they are breaking laws, we can get them out even faster.

 

[Biosophilogical]

At least with the democratic leader it's easier to get someone else into the position if you don't like them. And if they are breaking laws, we can get them out even faster.

Bingo, in a humatiarian dictatorship, eventually there will be a war causing the dictator to have to restrict freedoms for the greater good, or the dictator will die from disease/assassination/old age/etc and then we have no control voer hwo gets in next. With a weak democratic leader, we just vote him/her out (also, a democratic leader,as far as I know, doesn't have much real power, they are more like the figure-head for their respective parties).

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

When the will of the one is imposed on the many, the many lose. The loss of freedom can not be abided even if made in the name of the general good. That said, a weak democratic leader doesn't help much either, unless people actually want to do the right thing (which they don't).

The problem with this seemingly excellent answer lies in the simple fact that society in general functions as a result of having one entities will imposed on another. The will of the many will often run counter to the will of the few after all. As such, judging how morally correct one system is over another by virtue of the excuse used to bend people to a particular will is folly. As the famous saying goes, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

There's no such thing as a Humanitarian Dictator.

 

[Geekiest]

The first option is some form of pun I do not get, yes?