Think about this, a person comes into power of a land that has many warring tribes and factions much like how Saddam Hussien came into power. To clear things up from the start, I do not like Saddam Hussien and I have zero love for majority of the dictators I've heard of unless the were fictional, so please do not take it the wrong way. Now, back on the subject. Say you are that person and you've been dealing with years and years of infighting and different tribes trying to exterminate each other and you just begun to realize that all of your efforts are for not.
What do you do? Do you continue your useless ways or do you get tough and exact martial law? Do you make them fall in line by fearing you? A famous writer and philosopher named Niccolo Machiavelli coined this phrase, "it is better to be feared than loved". Do you agree with this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't agree with it, but I can't deny the fact that oppressive dictatorships exist and sometimes for reasons that seemed practical at the time, like Fidel Castro after he overthrew Batista during the 1959 Cuban revolution.
ReplyDeletePersonally, no. Practical speaking, however, one tends to draw more attention/ have more pull when those they associate with fear them. But, control through fear is a double-edged sword. If ever the method by which one strikes fear becomes compromised, one is rendered relatively defenseless and often ends up dead.
ReplyDeleteSo to re-iterate, morally I disagree. Tactically I agree whole hearted, and cover as many bases as possible
This is were I think your inner hatred towards absolute rule comes only with the censorship that you have been provided. There have been many negative examples of a totalitarian regime: Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Stalin. However you fail to see where there are benefits to having a dictator, or an oligarchy.
ReplyDeleteLike all things political, the favour of the people are won by their hearts, if not, revolution ensues. Hitler had a people who were destitute, impoverished and facing horrendous repurcussions of their war effort in WWI. With a little bit of brute force, and albeit some nasty propaganda, he brought a nation who was withering into another superpower. I cannot commend his international policies, nor tactics of scape-goating, however I will say that he brought back the dignity of a very strong people.
Then there is another dictator to which has brought a great amount of controversy to the American Regime. Fidel Castro was indeed a great man who carried a near-legendary campaign of equality against the overwhelming pressure. Granted, Cuba is not exactly a country that is exceedingly wealthy in resources, however with the all the debacle surrounding this little nation, they have done quite well. They have developed vehicles that run off of sugar, have grown a way of life that is equal for all. And remember, most of the people who escaped Cuba were it's convicts and members of their drug cartels.
Now that we've established that a dictorial rule is not that evil that we read about in our school textbooks (remember, indoctrination goes a long way), we should take a look at the pros and cons of such leadership compared to the mass assembly methods used in today's "democracy".
In a dictorial rule, issues dealing with the people and economics can be resolved in a quick and decisive manner. A dictator could say that under the advisement of his staff (because even dictators have people in departments to keep track of things) there was a need to put more effort into researching some new methods of cleaning rooms; and what s/he says will be done immenently. Whereas the assembly plus figurehead would have to do studies, take votes and all that nonsense so that it might be done (over time, we all forget about the issues, and still procrastinate about cleaning their rooms).
There is the con that it is easy for one man to become corrupt, and that the decision process is limited (we all grow out of touch with the world as we get older), however like all systems ruled by man or can be altered by man can become corrupt. One man can become easily corrupt versus many, however there are always the agendas to consider. If you were to do your research, you will find that the balance of power in our "great" nations have been held by the same people since the time of the Rockerfellers. Nothing is left to chance when so much money is at stake.
There is so much more to this debate that I could go on for a while, however I will keep this more or less brief: a good leadership campaign is won by the people not of fear, but of respect and love. Remember, Hitler tried a coup, but won in elections. And Saddam Hussein is most likely a CIA operative (I am convinced, however I don't think that the CIA would ever admit to that).
no i don't, each faction,tribe may find it hard to agree even with a dictator you still have war take Julius Caesar he started a civil war just to have compleat controll, and with that war came more bloodshed,in the end there were still people whom rebeled agianst him, and killed him, even with an iron fist, and martial law he was assisinated, so how can one truly be feared when people have faith in something that could be possible?
ReplyDelete