It is a brilliant question, used nowadays by some middle east dictators e.g. Jordan, Egypt...not to allow democracy in their countries! What I think the best solution is slow changes are better than sudden aggressive ways. I believe Saddam had to go, the reason why this dictator was so powerful because he was heavily supported by some democratic countries (USA). My point is if the west stop supporting these dictators mainly for their own interest in oil, money and strategy, the dictators will disappear eventually. YES for democracy but not in the way USA is trying to apply in Afghanistan, Iraq...We all now that these leaders in Afghanistan and Iraq are just puppets and employers for the US.
2006-09-12 20:35:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by Abularaby 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
About 10 years ago, I was on holiday in Greece. A waiter in the hotel was Albanian. I started to talk to him and asked him what life was like in Albania after the fall of the dictator, Enver Hoxhe. He said that there was more freedom but also more poverty and unemployment. He thought that many Albanians would prefer to go back to full State control. At least, there would be jobs for everyone. Of course, this is a transition period. Life may slowly get better for the Albanian people.
So, I suppose my answer is: some of the time, one may seem better than the other but, at other times, not. This probably depends on which form of Government is better suited to handling the current economic conditions and whether restrictions of personal freedom are acceptable to ensure a stable lifestyle for the population.
2006-09-12 05:45:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Barks-at-Parrots 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
In history, yes. The original concept of 'Dictator' in ancient Rome was a temporary position with emergency powers, to sort out an immediate and specific crisis of the state - usually, but not always military. Sometimes the person chosen was reluctant to take it up, and the expectation - often realised - was that on completion they would step down and hand power back to the senate of the republic.
Read Livy - it worked, and Rome was saved many times by it's dictators. It was only when the likes of Sula tired to abuse the position that dictator acquired the sinister reputation it has now. A case of absolute power corrupting absolutely?
2006-09-12 05:25:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by Avondrow 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Certainly. China is a good example. And North Korea and Cuba. Most of their woes are caused by western government economic embargo( the latter 2). In real economic models, the capitalist system as practised is only successful for a small percentage of the populations of those countries. By this I mean that the advantages perceived by a majority of the population is simply buttressed by propaganda. For Example, Click on Beyonce. Also read what she does and how the stars live. Does it actually do you any physical good?
2006-09-12 12:37:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. General Franco may have been a dictator, but he stopped the communists holding on to power in Spain, and before he died, he hand-picked Prince Juan-Carlos of the Asturias to succeed him, heralding a restoration of the monarchy and a return to democracy in the country.
General Pinochet. Again, perhaps a dictator, but a fervent anti-communist who did not want his country becoming a puppet of the USSR or Cuba.
2006-09-12 11:01:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by TrueBrit 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Look at the first Democracies, the ancient Greeks and the Roman Republic.
Both accepted that in a time of trial, they would hand over power to a leader. The Greeks called them 'Tyrants', the Romans had 'Dictators'. These people had executive powers to rule until the crisis was over, and were expected to hand it over.
However, i think Democracy is simply the best way forward. Hopefully, the age of Tyrants may be coming to an end
2006-09-12 05:10:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by thomas p 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Germany 1932 to 1939
2006-09-12 11:33:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by "Call me Dave" 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Carpanone Kid needs to do a bit of study before boosting corrupt Ferdinand Marcos . When he was in power if you didn't toe his line the dungeons were waiting. He was supported by the likes of George Bush Snr and Ronald Reagan,famous liberal democrats both. Check your history Kid.
2006-09-12 05:38:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by Rob Roy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that a dictator that really cares about a country could do just as good as a democracy.....the problem is that people get to power hungry.....That is why a system of checks and balances is in place here....
POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTLY. can't remember who said that but it rings true...
I think in a time of war there needs to be that person who can just make decisions though....in war there is no time to go through the whole system.
2006-09-12 05:17:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by yetti 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
PORTUGAL
Portugal had dictatorship from 1920 to 1975, the longest ever in Europe and it was very good for the country's development. We had the best healthcare, roads, wages were fair, etc. Then communist came and screwed it up. Now it's total rubbish. That's why I came to England coz it sucks there!
2006-09-12 05:14:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Hacker 3
·
3⤊
2⤋