Nonetheless, we will prove dictatorships incorporate more control over the variables that define development so in consequence are a better course to get to it. Given that inter-group inequality, and social instability require a centralization of decisions, and given that special crisis as natural disasters require rapid decision making and the diminishing of liberties, there are surely cases in which democracy is not viable. Boris: (interrupting) Ooh, yos, yos, well call it AUKUS. (Source). Also, do you like books, kind Sir/Madam/Other? Therefore the society is not being developed, it is being destroyed. Maybe some form of theocracy, emirate, sultanate, monarchy? Dictatorships breed development though efficient and straightforward decision making2. Now we can look at the ideal for each form. Democracy is the best of the worst Im afraid.No system is perfect,but Democracy,for all its flaws,is superior to Dictatorship for realising human potential. Deng Xiao Ping is famous for the quote It doesnt matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.By this point, it is clear that the proposition is trying to contest between the black cat with the white cat, but bending it to become A black and white cat that is smart in catching mouse to win the case.EVEN IF we put ourselves in their shoes and follow their dictatorship model, their deduction is still unclear. Rather, we clearly defined dictatorship from the beginning and we have stuck with that definition. Lybia has never had a transition, so its difficult to diagnose. Advising country to accept dictatorship as an early stage of development, to hand over the blind faith of the people to the so called goodwill of the Dictators in hopes that in the future it will pave way to a greater society with equality and a Democracy is comparable to the lies of Adolf Hitler, BLATANT LIES.To assert that Dictatorship is needed in times for a centralization of decisions, when certain disaster requires rapid decision making is exactly the propaganda used by Dictators to justify their act of taking power.We want to reveal the truth about Chile that was misused as an example by the proposition. Twenty four hours before the announcement of the deal, a press release was issued: Top government officials in Australia were called to an emergency meeting today for news supposed to be announced out of the U.S. at 7:00 a.m. Thursday morning, Australia time. Quite often, if they're stupid enough to make such a comment they're also stupid enough to stick by it. Informal logical deals with probalility, not mathematical certainty. Yes, the example of the proposition is valid, but the example is just an example of fail implementation, but not a fail mechanism.The problem of the democracy system only appears when the implementation is bad, as been showed by the mexican election on 2006. I'm for a direct democracy of the people. Its just that the corruption is sanctioned. Once Venezuela was proven to have enormous oil reserves, the contracts were reviewed on the governments of Gral. [[http://books.google.co.id/books?id=Bgr7BTA5Gt4C&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=yugoslavia+economic+success&source=bl&ots=fdZah4C9gc&sig=LhxVoAB_dMWiFLY_2xfHtNGOEKQ&hl=id&ei=_YSGSrmBD4b_kAWg_aGhBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=The%20Economic%20Structure%20and%20Failure%20of%20Yugoslavia&f=false]]It comes to show that dictatorship operates a very dangerous form of government that cannot guarantee stability and safety for their people. Being ruled by ruthless dictators is the path of the coward, and shows how ignorant you are of history. A democracy is supposed to represent the interests of the people but anyone who still believes that happens is living on their own planet far from reality. Who can deny that the end of the monarchy was the first and foremost event which lead us to our modern society? A benevolent dictator would be infinitely better. The opposition asserts that dictatorships dont need a constitution, well, democracies dont need them either. Under these conditions economical development is promoted by dictatorships i.e., the Asian Tigers.The historic experience shows that richer, more educated and more equal countries are more likely to be democratic. Secondly, the opposition talks about so called magicians and we would love to know: Who calls them so? For example, the success factors of Singapores economy is unclear, whether it is because of the dominant party system (which is promoted as dictatorship by the proposition), or because of the liberalization of the economic system.We should see that the economy of China on its classical age had slow growth. These include military dictatorships, presidential dictatorships, and dynastic monarchies, among others. We must also look at what the theoretical possibilities are with the two options. Hereditary rule eliminates all need for the leader to be talented, and aristocratic rule would likely descend into hereditary rule, seeing as the elite are often determined by birth. Economic suffers badly in dictatorship as no country wants to make relationship with a country ruled by dictator while in democracy every country strives to make the favorable relationships. In other words, the communism vs. democracy debate is discussed in the corridors of academia or otherwise all the time. This is specially true when the lack of development reaches such a low level that people is incapable of administering any political liberties in a productive fashion. Yes, india was politically democratic, but it was also economically Leninist. [[http://www.kansascyclist.com/news/2009/08/proposals-to-ban-bicycles-in-colorado-and-iowa/]] We indeed agree that the proposition has to show that even if these dictators apply un-accountable and irregular decisions, it is permissible for the sake of development. But it should be noticed, that democratic country can do the same thing. It didnt of course.Still, that wasnt the biggest mistake the opposition made on this point. Not all dictators are evil oppression machines. We are sold the idea that dictatorships are inherently corrupt, but they arent. So if the power was in fact the Chairman plus up to 9 other people its still means power was vested on 10 people which indeed classifies as a very small clique.Chile was ruled by dictator Augusto Pinochet from 1973 till 1990. But we have talked about incentives of dictatorships to have objective information for good decisions. There are advantages on control, and the ease of making decision (because no one controls them). By definition alone a dictatorship breeds dissent from the people they govern, since dictatorship uses repression to gain loyalty. Countries which once reached a level of development and social maturity will then seek to be liberated from the restrictions imposed by the dictatorship using from passive resistance to insurrection against the system; transitioning from dictatorship to democracy, exemplified in cases such as Chile or Spain.Robert Marsh, conducted a survey of 98 countries for the period 1955-70 and found that: Political competition/democracy does have a significant effect on later rates of economic development; its influence is to retard the development rate, rather than to facilitate it. Disciplines is the backbone of any constitutional countries to exist. There are empirical evidence leading to the fact that dictatorship doesnt bring development. Unfortunately Benevolent Dictators quite often become Tyrants, So true TheAshman So true! He didnt get his way. If I want to get my human rights bill through, I must wine and dine several other people. A dictator only cares about himself. It is after Deng Xiao Ping took office, the economy of China is moving fast. Do you mind? For a dictator, the economic success of his country ensures: 1. Yes, if you could have a highly intelligent, wise and benevolent Dictator. To get them to agree to vote for my bill, In turn, I have to agree to vote for their pro-fracking bill or whatever. We should think about these issues. In short, among the poor nations, an authoritarian political system increases the rate of economic development, while a democratic political system appears to be a luxury which hinders development. From: The role of the state in development. Singapore did the election [[http://www.elections.gov.sg/index.html]], was built based on constitution [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Singapore]], and having a separation of power as check and balances mechanism. In the 1990s the leader was China. Appeal to popularity is an informal logical fallacy, and you thus can't conclude that appeal to popularity is a categorically useless argument. The first is that the military dictatorship of 1976-83 was a dreadful failure. In contrast, dictatorship is a rigid form of government in which people are not given the liberties they could otherwise get in the democratic form of government. Since before most of us were born, governments have tried to figure out ways to stop us from questioning democracy as a political model. But ask yourself this: Do you think they just knock on the door politely? Because dictatorship rules without the peoples consent, there is no urgency for them to hear their citizen. the try to say that because there is a dictatorship, the ruler cannot know what the people need. None | By Asian News International, Lahore Former Pakistan cricketer turned politician Imran Khan has said that even the worst form of democracy was better than military dictatorship.. First, the goal of the dictatorships stated by proposition where based on the first definition, aiming to the achievement of development as well as the guaranteeing of Social. The opposition should have explained how development is conditioned by succession. The Soviet Union engaged in political liberalization, with small changes occurring in the economic side. Some feel that dictatorships are the most effective form of government because decisions are made quickly and extreme nationalism benefits the military and economy. Then well just tell them to join the group they need to buy subs from us. However, when the discussion centered around incentives, the opposition claimed that the dictator had strong incentives to stay in power, but since we explained how to stay in power a dictator must balance predation and repression, and yield enough results, and seek the best advisors available, since it is in its best interest to keep a functioning system. Flexibility and Timely:And since the dictators need not consult other bodies, or go through lengthy legislative or bureaucratic processes, they can take decisions in a timely manner, without the need to create political will, compromise due to political alliances, or postpone it for electoral reasons.On the point of political freedoms, we consider that these may account as desirable features in a society, but they are not part of the concept of development, and they have the potential to undermine sustainable development (in terms of health, education, income and security) through the improper incentives raised by the democratic decision making mechanisms and institutions. But the president had run on a platform of populism.Dictatorships manage crisis situations well. Any countries with any system can manage it. Was magician General Suhartos nickname perchance? Low taxes, subsidies, ensuring economical liberties) without facing the boundaries that a Democracy encounters on its political process (e.g. Gral. No way. Singapore has a very liberal economy and a questionnable record on freedom of speech rights. Disciplines made an order that came from public awareness, not by public security. Pros of having a dictatorship include: No elections, imagine not having to deal with all the political rhetoric, you already have your leader for life. It is showed that while the democracys succession failure was a case-based failure, dictatorships failure is a systemic failure.SUMMARY OF THE OPPOSITIONObviously this debate was created to prove that dictatorship is the BEST PATH to development. They lack internal democracy. We would like to affirm our position; that citing wikipedia for the examples given by us does not means that it is wrong but instead gives a source for a short history regarding the subject (Josip Broz Tito & The Constitution of Singapore). Debate about Is democracy better than dictatorship: Yes,of course or No If all good things that was claimed is really a natural character of a dictatorship, then we should not have witnessed the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe or the irregularities in Burma.We are not going to play the same game as them, by concluding dictatorship just from the examples of Zimbabwe and Burma. Activists like Amos Yee have been treaten for verbaly expressing their opinions. While democracy is going to be based on the knowledge and wisdom of the average individual. However under a dictatorship, the ruler has total power and hence, there are no more power quotas to fight for anymore.A clear example of this was lived in Latin America, that saw the years immediate to its independence submerged in internal struggles among Caudillos (warlords) who wanted to keep their local fiefdoms or overthrow and replace the President at the time. This has the downside that many candidates may simply pander and lie to get elected, as we see with the current US congressional makeup. Because as history shows Dictatorial regimes can exhibit economic miracles and disasters [[Temple,The New Growth Evidence, 1999 http://www.econ.ox.ac.uk/members/christopher.bowdler/temple99.pdf%5D%5D. A dictator doesnt care if you are tasked with the impossible. Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development, Should the Cell Phones Be Allowed in Schools. Not much action could be taken by the government as it is the fundamental right of people to take out protests and movements to get their rights. As Benjamin Franklin said, Those who give up liberty for more security deserve neither., just want to know that wheather democracy is good or dictatorship or a govt. Debate Leaderboard. While democracy is going to be based on the knowledge and wisdom of the average individual. Health. Thats precisely what happened. Escaping Punishment: France and the US declared youth amnesties for people born after 1 January 1919. In some instances the ideas have to be implemented swiftly.Dictatorships fare better when these factors are taken into account. . While discussing the current Middle East situation in a recent interview, former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf asserted that "good dictatorship is better than bad democracy." Mr Musharraf's quote is reminiscent of the traditional Asharite/Al Ghazzali view that "a bad ruler is preferable to anarchy." Dictators do not need to ensure the support of or appeal to a specific constituency by including them (for example by picking a Latino for the supreme court)[[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/aug/07/risking-hispanic-vote/]]. If you want evidence for this then you can look towards almost every single economy based upon central planning. . That because neither Democratic or Dictatorship government has a conclusive evidence of causing development, Democratic country should not apply sanctions against Dictatorship country.We are then baffled, when the proposition redrew the categories of the worlds previous and current form of government and created a category of a Democratic yet Dictatorship country. In this way each of the branches will be a check to the others and no single group of people will be able to control the machinery of the State [[http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=677&chapter=122664&layout=html&Itemid=27]] Still, the opposition make the crucial mistake of questioning how could any system work without it, even though there are in fact fusion of powers (the opposite of check and balances) and mixed systems in working democracies all over the world. The longer lasting and biggest economic miracles have occurred under dictatorships7. A Dictatorship is a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) This leaves no room for accountability that puts the development of the country (if any) in a pendulum state. The thing is, separation of powers is not a prerequisite to democracy, as parliamentary systems under the Fusion of Powers paradigm can attest.Thus we have provided a system that is acceptable and useful to overcome difficulties, is willing and able achieve development, and is flexible and timely for doing so vs a system that can not properly function in a society not fully developed, and that hinders development, if judged on whether dictatorship has been proven to be the best path for development, the proposition team wins. Consistency and Definitions:One of the most important aspects of the debate is making the appropriate definitions and being consistent with them.On this count we contend that we defined dictatorship in a clear and constructive way from the beginning, using the definition: A form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique, we also explained, one by one, how each of our examples complied with our definition, when the opposition team felt the need to challenge our definition.However, the opposition team defined dictatorship in a extremely narrow and nonconstructive way, as we stated in our response to their first argument, stating that A Dictatorship is a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.). According to me, strong dictatorship is better than the fragile democracy, as people do not survive under rule of law or end with squabbles and arguments. The former comes to prove that any development programs comes only secondary compare to their objective to maintain power. Democracy is freedom in politics, Dictatorship is a form of tyrannical oppression which snuffs out all religious, political, and individual freedoms. the cultural determinants of democracy and dictatorship. During the process, South Korea even doubled the GNP per capita [[http://books.google.co.id/books?id=yHLVt8d4SvMC&pg=PA75&dq=Korea+democratization]], which shows, there were no significance of a dictatorship to the economic growth, since the same, and even better growth, happened in another system Democracy. Because their goal is to try and get back into power every few years - and this means trying to please the majority - instead of doing what they know is best their electorate. 10 Lines on Democracy Vs Dictatorship Essay. It is not simple to understand Share Markets, it takes several years of understanding the working of Share Markets. In our democracy, it is perfectly legal for a tobacco company to. The Representative Democracy allows people to choose the best leaders to make the rules. Posted on . Yes, as long as the stability occurred, the development can happen. We are delighted to be given the opportunity of reaffirming why they fit our definition and provide examples of instances where they have been called so (not merely by us, but by reputed sources).Singapore is a de facto one party system[[http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/01636600260046226?cookieSet=1&journalCode=wash]], the opposition has no real chance to rule. Since there is so little defined for this question, and both democracy and dictatorship have a ton of various meanings, we can look at two different aspects. We would like to emphasize that Dictators are not restricted by either Law or opposition, making the dictators the ABSOLUTE leader of a country.We would also like to point out that seeing the examples stated that categorizes different type of government to be called as a Dictatorship has caused us to pend our counter arguments. The people are mostly poor (but happy because they help each other), and the state didnt develop itself even a little in the last 40 years. [[http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dictatorship]]. Being in fragile democracy will not create any issue as it can be weaken or broken anytime. A Nation of Enemies: Chile under Pinochet, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1991).]] It is interesting then that our military rulers installed and. When in fact Titos death happened in 1980 and it was eleven years after, in 1991, that the war began. Every action of the government is to be accounted for at the end of the term, this gives the government in power a sense of RESPONSIBILITY when entering and during a term.Therefore one should not value the cost of election by the capital required to conduct an election but by the cost of what would happened if we take out that election. For example, a dictatorship lacks a mechanism to control its policies thus creating irregularities within the countries or that a dictatorship doesnt have a clear succession method between governments. During the 90s, China did much better than Russia. If you consider all the democracies and all the non-democracies between 1950 and 2000, dictatorships have slightly better growth rate. On the other hand, autocratic regimes connect and support each other and promote non-democratic forms of government through systematic and richly financed propaganda and intelligence operations. [[http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_09/uk/doss22.htm)]].Fijis democratic government also has a deep problematic with ethnic segregation. Therefore, this argument is only valid for the motion Dictatorship is the best path to end civil wars, Dictatorships have the flexibility to establish the proper incentives to attract Foreign Direct Investment (which is directly attached to Economic Growth, and by consequence, to Development)[[http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/1/3/4/p151341_index.html]]Dictatorships can define and establish a pro-investment legal and institutional framework (e.g. Are autocracy, totalitarianism, demarchy or anarchy better forms of government? Thats 5:00 p.m. Eastern time today, and it sounds like a big deal (SMH), They even invited the opposition leader and his entourage. And without stability, the lack of confidence may translate in stifled development, since they are closely related [[http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200504/22/eng20050422_182327.html]]. Dictatorship? A dictatorship breeds order and its a needed step for both development and liberal democracy.Maybe the only person that is happy for these arguments is Brad Pitt. Democracy (assuming we are talking about direct democracy, it should really be clarified) is a structure based entirely around this logical fallacy. Levitsky, an expert on Latin America, and Way, an expert on the countries of the former Soviet Union, bring together their immense regional and theoretical expertise in their new book, Revolution and Dictatorship. (Kihl, 2004:75) [[http://books.google.co.id/books?id=yHLVt8d4SvMC&pg=PA75&dq=Korea+democratization+and+development#v=onepage&q=&f=false]] From the 1987 to 1991, when the democratization happened, the GNP per capita growth in South Korea was more than 100%, from $3.110 in 1987, to $6.498 in 1991. It is clear to better have a planned, smooth transitions in a certain period, than having an uncertain succession in the end of a dictator era.In a same objectivity not to put stigma on dictatorship and describing it as a totalitarian ruling party, it is also unfair to put bad democracy example as an evidence of the flaw of democracy itself. Only in 1990s did India begin to reform its Leninist economy. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! A dictator doesnt care if you suffer from starvation, cold, or disease. This control allows them to promote development and diminish social differences. Democracy is far better option over a controlling figurehead and his ideal driven army. Moreover, from the motives it is done, social benefits in democracy is inbuilt in the power mechanisms of one man one vote and form inevitable nature of society. So basically the 7 things that make Dictatorship better than Democracy are:- 1. Movies. They subsequently maintain their government through the use of violence, terror, and the suspension of civil rights. He doesnt need to create a new Facebook group with a clever name. The gap may be used by the dictator to his and his cliques personal assets, or to increase their military budget, to protect them from both foreign or local attack.Having stated all of the above, it is clearly evident that the proposition has no standing case and that although dictatorship continues to run some countries of the worlds, we shall not, as witness to a democratic system accept reasoning that dictatorship is the best path to development. America Has Had a More Dangerous President Than Trump. This could not have been done without strong leadership bent on pushing such policies, perhaps even to the point of employing coercion against opponents. While power hungry general are able to perform a coup detat (Which how the dictators from the example stated earned that power) and rule through Dictatorship, the rational, wise, and not materialistic person (read: the perfect ruler) will unlikely be able to take control of power (or even join the military at the very beginning) through those method, making the path of dictatorship lacking any competent candidates.Thus, the expectation that a dictator will consecutively implement bullet proof decision making (without needing a proper check and balance mechanism) is a phenomenon that can only be categorized as a Miracle. This house would rather have a strong dictatorship than a weak democracy. There is a tautology in the premise of this argument that if validated would render this debate barren. democracy has expanded during the last hundred years to more and more countries in the world.more than half of the independent countries in the world today are democracies. [[http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1585]]The Chinese case allows to analyze another interesting comparison: Russia and China. I really enjoy reading and also appreciate your work. Democracy, Dictatorship, and What Theory and Real World Examples Indicate So, some experts believe that democracy is better in the longer term as can be seen from the continued success of the United States and other Western countries that have retained their democratic credentials and the at the same time, maintained their steady pace of growth. 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, because the ministries and government agencies have to switch their policies and because partisan hiring is commonplace. It allows the majority, regardless of any moral code or guidance to enact whatever they want. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.. Dictatorship is a rule by a dictator or monarch. Manuel Ossorio. After the 2006 Mexican presidential election, popular unrest with the tight results led to mass protests, asking for a recount, and the president-elect had to deal with a strong faction in the parliament that refused to recognize him, and with the contender refused to admit defeat. We add, that the reason not to concentrate is so no group can subvert it. It was indeed lead by Tito, a communist dictator and he rebuilt it from the ashes but here is where they get it wrong because they give a false meaning to the word after:only to find itself disintegrated, overwhelmed with civil war and ethnic cleansing after the death of their dictatorship leader They present it as this happened just after. I'm only on this side because some members of this site (who need special education) consider Monarchy to be a form of Dictatorship. To proceed, the country needs a more reliable system that can maintain the growth, put the government into an accountable position (where check and balances can be performed), and prevent the government from abusing its power.Only then, when the momentum is strong enough for change, after the people has witnessed the flaw of dictatorship that its people will revert to a more sustainable mechanism; Democracy. Democracy that in the US existed in the social sphere (with lower levels electing their own political "managers") was replicated in the Titoist . Maybe Khadaffi has a successor already in mind. And then, they put together the current authoritarian government of Venezuela, just recently taking its first steps into a de facto one party system, with the multi-party Zimbabwe, as dictatorships, but then fiercely -yet unsuccessfully- attempted to mis-characterize a country that has long been a de facto one-party system with Singapore is popular as a democratic country who implement repressive action.Since the Proposition clearly put forth the most constructive definitions in the debate, and was able to uphold them throughout, and also had a consistent way to categorize the relevant examples for the debate, if judged on the quality of the definitions and on consistency, the proposition wins this debate. Uniqueness of Dictatorships: One of the main themes of the debate is whether Dictatorships ability to better control the variables of development (as conceded by the opposition when they agreed dictatorship can gives better control to the variables) translates into better performance.

Portugal Vs Switzerland Fotmob, Best Mobile Car Valeting Near Me, Concentra Login Employer, Chicken Orzo Salad With Feta Cheese, Characteristics Of Print Media,