I have found a interesting debate site that involves discussion on whether dictators are evil and hence does that mean democracies are good? here is the link http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-all-dictators-evil
Here is another blog, more informative and with a deeper discussion of the subject matter http://debatewise.org/debates/1001-dictatorship-is-the-best-path-to-development/
This presents a yes and no argument for 'Dictatorship is the best path to development.'
I recommend reading through the arguments and making up your own mind regardless of preconceived ideas of good and evil. For myself I came to the conclusion that dictatorships are not inherently bad, just as democracies are not inherently good, however it seems that a functioning competitive democracy is more likely to produce a better social environment for it's people since it is at the whim of the people (national populace).
I cannot quite see why good and evil are useful word to use at all. For that matter Nither is it useful to use 'democracy' as though it were the opposite of a dictatorship. To see them as either oposites, or ends of a single continuom prevents any objective analysis of where things fit. Debate becomes centured around wich catigory something fits into instead of how that something works or can be applied to help understand other somethings.
ReplyDeletePeople championing 'democracy' as the althernative to dictatorship will often talk as though human rights are implisit in states with sufficently competative elections, yet shri lanca thuroughly disproves this.
A fuctioning deffinition of what it means to become democratic cannot just focus on just ability of an individule to potentuly exert power. It must also focus on the power wich is given to an individule. An affective media and informative media is absolutly essentule for given the citizenry any power to exert. Supporting human rights and removeing opression is also a requirement to allow a population to have sufficent power to do any ruling.
Ivan - good points. Yet there is a correlation between countries with competitive elections and the protection of human rights. Lots of exceptions (Sri Lanka, India, etc.), but nevertheless a correlation. This seems to indicate that competitive elections are in fact a form of empowerment for people (though not the only form of empowerment). See here for more: http://abandonedfootnotes.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/of-malevolent-democracies-and.html
Delete#long live the studentariate!!!
ReplyDeleteDraw up your blankets, sip coco and listin to me yarn for the theird tyme. i cannot use this blog well.
Democracy is an atempt at allowing people to rule themselves. Ruling requires power. Giving people tools of ruling, such as elections and public submitions with not power is hardly a democracy. People need to be empowered by instatutions such as an informative and unbias media [dont clame we have one hear. its all owned by 4 people!] and a remova of all oppressive dynamics. If any culture contains axies of oppression then people cannot all be empowered and thus cannot exersise a fair shair of their abibity to rule. [i realise that i have now defined no countires as democrasises but it is true some are more democratic]
Anyway. given the above human rights and social mobility but be considered when desiding is something is a democracy, as well as desent elections. Shri lanka had competative elctions for years but increasing opressed the tammil minority.
Human rights and mobility are compatigle with dictatiorship [singapore?] and as such a democracy cannot be considered as the opperside of democracy.