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

[JediMB]

But if I vote, doesn't that make both choices democratic?

 

[PrototypeC]

I would usually be all over that weak Democrat... but that's Stephen Harper in a nutshell, and Canada's not doing so great right now... better someone with the backbone to make a decision for their country's well-being even if it's not popular (a green revolution would not be a popular plan at all, for instance). Even if they're wrong, at least they won't be a weak-kneed squirrel who gives unsavoury people whatever they want to avoid a fuss and look unpopular for a fraction of a second.

 

[Ipsen]

OT: I'm sorry about your fall.

I'm a dreamer, so my last vote in life goes with...benevolent dictator. While this is a dream situation in itself, a dictator who could manage to control his/her populace without harm, while at the same time enrich his/her populace (see how this is a dream? What government ever manages this much?) I don' think anyone can say they don't want, in general.

As for successors, I'll even muse that this government would not fall to typical dictatorship issues; since the people (including children and government officials) are happy, the next in line would continue the predecessor's policy. I'm not sure what humanitarianism says about death (or governing human civilizations for that matter), but if the people end up good, then you've got gold.

But this all depends on the people being happy; happiness pretty much has to be the controlling factor, the lock and key, in this utopia of mine.

Not to mention humanitarianism strives for equal treatment of all humans by saving lives and alleviating suffering, so I don't know how far this goes to provide a stable lifestyle for a country.

Oh, but to dream...

 

[OliverTwist72]

Wow, I'm kind of surprised at the results of this. When one man wields so much power, he will become corrupt. The ideal of a humanitarian leader is nice and rosy. However, I think it is impossible to ever become accomplished.

The downside is that they work to a moral compass. Their moral compass, not everyone's.

This is what I believe ppl are missing. Who's to say that their moral compass won't have you ousted from the country, or detained infinately because you are an enemy of the state. Perhaps you just had a meeting with some people about freedom of speech or something of the sort and he sees that as a threat to his power. There WILL be meetings like that with a dictator of any sort no matter how benevolent. Not everyone is going to agree with his policies and if he has any interest whatsoever in staying in power, he will quell these movements.

 

[SirDoom]

You have to define "humanitarian" to get a good answer for this. A humanitarian dictator would likely oppress the few to benefit the vast majority (Say, taking a lot of money from the ultra-rich to feed all the poor, or something of that nature), whereas the weak democratic leader would likely do nothing. Neither is good, but the way I see it, one is directly causing harm while the other is causing no change whatsoever. (In my mind, the ends don't justify the means, so it's never ok to harm some for the benefit of others)

 

[Sonic Doctor]

You can replace a democratic leader, so the dictator still loses, although that's a pretty good question.

That is exactly what I was thinking, except for the good question part.

---------

Humanitarian Dictator is an oxymoron.

True humanitarians are going to help others through their own personal resources and resources that are collected through only willing charity.

A dictator is going to use his power to force people to be charitable, which goes against people being able to be free and decide for themselves, and that is doing things against humans.

By nature, a dictator is an anti-humanitarian. It doesn't even matter if the person takes the money from those "evil" rich people, or so called rich people(because what people in power today consider rich, is not rich); it is still taking freedom away from people to run their lives the way they want to.

I certainly don't want my government to slap money out of my hand and say, "No, you can't use that for your family, you have to give it to these people." When I know that a majority of those people don't need it because they are perfectly able to do things for themselves and go out and make money, but they just don't want to get off their asses and do it.

Point being, the moment a person takes away freedoms, no matter how small, they can't be called a humanitarian.

So, I rather have a weak Democratic leader than a Humanitarian Dictator.