Is a stable dictatorship better than an unstable democracy?

Question

Hey, thats my debate topic and frankly I have no material as such, plzzzzzz help.....I am against the motion

Answer 1

Better for whom? So many variables.
Dictatorships can be benovelent to tyranical. Stable can be efficient and vibrant to stagnant and corrupt.

Emerging democracies or a democracy on the verge of collapse?
Democracy is generally most involving when it is unstable and people are working hard to save it.

Dictatorships are like a big rock, it takes a lot of effort to make any change and when you do it all goes crashing downhill. People suffer a little, some greatly but all suffer except the elite few. Most are quarnteed to suffer.

Democracies are more likely to have benifits for all the people as well as the elite few. Some suffer but most do not.

Answer 2

Unstable democracies, such as the US (in its early years) and most of Western Europe, tend to stabilize over time. Stable dictatorships, such as Germany in the 1930s or the USSR, tend to become less stable over time. So, in the long run, an unstable democracy is better than a stable dictatorship. I don't know how you can argue against the proposition. Perhaps you could use the idea of benevolent dictatorships such as Turkey or Singapore, both of which have slowly become more democratic.
To help get ideas for your debate, I suggest you study the early history of the USA or the 16th/17th century history of Britain and Europe. Also, study the history of the USSR in the 1980s.

Answer 3

Any "stable" dictatorship is most likely to be a highly represive one. Change is what dictators fear the most and strive the most to avoid. No public debate is allowed on any question regarding the governing of the country... and if u choose to do so anyway you will most likely be putting your life in danger.

Democracy probably isn't a system as perfect as many world leaders want to make us believe. But at least democracy allows ALL citizens to voice their opinion even though it might not be taken into consideration... Its all about the numbers. If thousands of people protest each day on an important issue... it will sooner or later cause political unrest and trigger some change... But of course if its just you with ur buddies smoking spliffs and using the opportunity to have a "public" party.... well chances are the news wont even mention the protest... But still, u wont be beaten or shot in the head by the cops for doing so.

Answer 4

I personally believe so, especially with how our country is performing currently. There are many pros and cons, but here's my opinion.

First off, although a democracy claims freedom, there is sometimes too much freedom. Children get to choose whether or not they go to school, people can get by in life with horrible manners and being rude, and children have the "right" to not be punished by parents when they have done something wrong and they need to learn from it. Having too many rights doesn't help anyone. It's like not punishing your child, so they get so unrully that you don't even want to be around them. Same thing.

Meanwhile, along the lines of dictatorship, a lot of people overlook some of the things there. The children behave because they can be punished, people aren't rude because they know that it won't get by there, and people actually care about education unlike in the US. That's the big ticker for me. Being in the class of '09, I already know that (statisticly) only 70% of my class will graduate, and most of them will barely get by. In countries where you can never be sure about the education, children try their hardest because they actually want to make something of theirselves, or because they know that if they don't, they'll be sent into the labor workforce at 16. If America could grasp that part of communism or dictatorship, I think that it would help our children with education more than anything in the world.

On top of all of that, most people in America don't vote in the first place. Seriously, for most of you, when was the last time you voted? Are you going to vote this month? Are you going to vote this November? And if you ARE going to vote, do you even know who to vote for? Most Americans simply don't care. They're brought up to either be Democratic or Republican, and they just vote for the person in that party. Please, people, use your brains, or else, a dictatorship will just take that away since nobody seems to care anyway. Most of America wouldn't miss voting for their representatives.

Lastly, a stable dictatorship means no world domination, no wars, no nothing that we usually think of when we come apon this subject. An unstable democracy, though, my that's horrible. I'm scared for our country, I really am. An unstable democracy wastes its money, doesn't care about education, and usually isn't helping the ones who really need the help. There are people in the poverty level in America who need help, too, but we aren't helping them. We're allowing our children to drop out of school so that they lose their only chance to have a future, and then they turn around and blame the government when they are in poverty. Our country can't keep everyone on welfare, either!

Come on everybody, this question should get you all thinking! Save our country, learn, and think really hard about this.

So, yes. A stable dictatorship is much better than an unstable democracy, and there you have it. Here's to all of us helping to rebuild America!

-Lella^_^

Answer 5

The dictatorship has to be more than just stable. In that case it can be better. I'm convinced that some people cannot live with a democracy and make it work.

Answer 6

I think a dictatorship is inherently unstable. It may take a while but sooner or later every dictatorship collapses. The resources consumed in trying to control a population often becomes too much of a burden.
Like a soldier who must keep his gun pointed at the citizens, sooner or later his arm will get tired.

Answer 7

Possibly, but a stable dictatorship has no chance of becoming a stable democracy. An unstable democracy does have that chance.

Answer 8

Maybe. Depends on the strictness or lack of freedom the dictatorship has. How it remains stable. Is it through terror of the people or secret police?

IF no fighting wars or coups are going on in the Democracy Id take the Democracy.

Answer 9

Stability is nice, but hardly the most important measurement of a government. Stalin's regime was pretty stable, but he killed millions of his own people. How does stability even matter in that case? And sure, democracy has its faults, and it does not immediately appeal to everyone, but I'll defer to Churchill, who said, "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Answer 10

It was recently shown in Iraq that the only thing keeping it from a bloody civil war was Saddam's reign. The consequences of the American invasion are terrible and one must be blind to ignore them. Even after "taking over" and "establishing a democracy" the bloodshed continued and still does at a much larger rate than under Saddam. So, if we believe that the Americans really went in to liberate the Iraqi people, how much good did they really do? I hope that satisfies your question.