NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed a rather large number of UN resolutions aimed at eliminating dictatorships and establishing this "democracy" thing. I ask you leaders: what is wrong with benevolent dictatorship? Yes, some rulers feel "inadequate" and thus choose to brutally crush the peasantry. However, there are many of us who have assumed command because we truly have our population's best interest at heart. I take no delight in squelching dissidents. In fact, in my Dominion such behavior is not punished, merely ignored. It is possible to assume absolute w/o become absolutely corrupted.

Enlightened despotism is not given its proper due. If a ruler treats his citizens as he would wish to be treated, he will always have their best interests at heart.

I happen to be a dictatorship. Besides, all of those attempts are not allowed to actually eliminate government types.

Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Stalin gave dictatorship a bad name.
It is much better to let one person rule but only when he or she has the nations best interest at heart.
Parliments and/or Congress take to damn long to make progress, all that talk leads to problems.

Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Stalin gave dictatorship a bad name.
It is much better to let one person rule but only when he or she has the nations best interest at heart.
Parliments and/or Congress take to damn long to make progress, all that talk leads to problems.

The C.R.o.T. has never had a problem making progress.

Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Stalin gave dictatorship a bad name.
It is much better to let one person rule but only when he or she has the nations best interest at heart.
Parliments and/or Congress take to damn long to make progress, all that talk leads to problems.

You forgot Hussein.

The Cuban one seems to be doing a good job, though.

I've noticed a rather large number of UN resolutions aimed at eliminating dictatorships and establishing this "democracy" thing. I ask you leaders: what is wrong with benevolent dictatorship? Yes, some rulers feel "inadequate" and thus choose to brutally crush the peasantry. However, there are many of us who have assumed command because we truly have our population's best interest at heart. I take no delight in squelching dissidents. In fact, in my Dominion such behavior is not punished, merely ignored. It is possible to assume absolute w/o become absolutely corrupted.

Enlightened despotism is not given its proper due. If a ruler treats his citizens as he would wish to be treated, he will always have their best interests at heart.

*cough* Vastiva is a Sultanate. Citizens vote directly for their local representatives. Above that, it is a meritocracy for the most part, with our Sultan being "in office for life".

Controlled democracy works just fine, thank you.

Hussein, Amin, Pot, Miolsevic, Minh, Marcos and Pinochet the list goes on...
Kings and Queens with full power (unlike the old liz in england), Cheifteins and dictators that all have full power but work to better their nation is a good thing, one man or one women is all that is needed.
I am not saying that congress, parliments or c.r.o.t aree allways in trouble but I am saying that it takes far longer to make things happen.
And yes Castro has changed, it's kind of like he got wiser with age :)

Let's not forget the corrupted republics, the democratic systems that gave rise to dictators, the struggles any system has to maintain a form of democracy without going too far in either direction...

If you want to point out the flaws, remember that they all have been very widely abused.

Very true. Governments are by nature corrupt in some way or another -- but they're absolutely necessary.

Meh, I'll just keep up with my bizarre combination of absolute oligarchy and non-party democracy.

How exactly does that work Enn?

We're not going to object to dictatorships as long as they respect the rights and freedoms that we believe all sapient beings should have.

Yeah, if dictators don't respect the rights and freedoms we do then they would probably enjoy exclusion from the UN

I am a Communist but I try to keep my people at mind. It calls me a dictator all the time but i try to let people have a say sometimes too. I dont like too much Democracy but a little isnt bad.

DLE attempts to establish a different form of government: 6.
Times DLE people have rejected it by a 90% majority: 5.
Times DLE people have rejected it by a 60% majority: 1.

When was the 60%? The first attempt.

If any of you lived in a dictatorship, you would most likely not be able to play a potentially seditious game such as Nation States.

If any of you lived in a dictatorship, you would most likely not be able to play a potentially seditious game such as Nation States.

OOC: The point being made is that dictatorships don't necessarily have to be oppressive. It may often turn out that way in RL, but here in NS we ARE the rulers, so if we say we're being benevolent then you have a benevolent dictatorship.

In all seriousness, as long as the state does the things I believe it should then I don't think it matters how the decisions are reached. There's nothing essentially wrong with dictatorship as a method of government, it's just that dictators seem to tend to be oppressive in RL.

What if one decided to speak against this benevolent dictator? What if one felt strongly enough that this dictator did not have one's best interests in mind? If this said person had no voice, vote, or ability to change leadership and policy, wouldn't they seek a revolt? If enough citizens supported democracy in a dictatorship (benevolent or not) and had the power to contend with a government, would they not revolt? Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Giving one person that much power is a truly dangerous thing. Everyone here is able to list as many brutal dictators as they have fingers. But, benevolent ones?

What if one decided to speak against this benevolent dictator?

Enigma Bragging Channel at 11 on Tuesday nights: Speaking Against the Dictator. And despite the station being government-owned, the government has no control over what it puts on and what it doesn't. It's basically the DLE version of BBC, only with a badder attitude.

What if one felt strongly enough that this dictator did not have one's best interests in mind?

If they want Enigma out of power that badly, they can call for a referendum on whether he should continue to rule. People are chosen at random to serve on the jury. The jury decides whether or not the evidence is sufficient to have the Dictator removed. As part of the system, whoever the referendum is targetting is not allowed to know the names of the people on the jury.

If this said person had no voice, vote, or ability to change leadership and policy, wouldn't they seek a revolt?

Merlyns has been, but their previous leader was pretty much like Saddam Hussein. The revolts have been unsuccessful and have resulted in severe losses on their side. Considering they have citizenship and the law about referendums, they could try to get Enigma removed in a way that wouldn't cause death and destruction.

If enough citizens supported democracy in a dictatorship (benevolent or not) and had the power to contend with a government, would they not revolt?

They have the power to contend with the government in a way that the government cannot oppose, and the government put that method in place to prevent bloodshed.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Giving one person that much power is a truly dangerous thing. Everyone here is able to list as many brutal dictators as they have fingers. But, benevolent ones?

Actually, yes. They do exist. They sometimes go under the title of King, Queen, Emperor, or something else. Stop and take a look in history to see the people who were beloved by their people despite having absolute power. In Enigma's case, if he gets corrupted, it means there's a glitch in his programming.

History is subjective. One man's benevolent dictator is another man's tyrant.

Thus, the great question of whether history is even to be relied on.

You can relie on history - it is facts for the most part and myth and tales that come from one truth.
If you want to know what a tyrant is read the history of england!

Can anybody really say that the parliments work fast?

If you want speed, democracy isn't your game. That's for sure.

No, I am just saying that one person that has his or her countrys best intentions at heart is good. A person can have advisers and make laws fast. Parliments are talk, talk ,talk for weeks and then one law passes.

Bureacracy - government by paperwork.

Yep.

How exactly does that work Enn?
Well, I said it was bizarre...

But since you asked, here is Ennish Government in a nutshell.

At the top is the oligarchic Council of Enn. Thirteen members. No-one knows who, or what, they are, or how they are chosen. They pretty much run the joint.
Next is the People's Assemble. Non-party democracy in action. The Assembly decides everything the Council doesn't.
Apart from a few external groups, such as Embassies and the UN Consul, that's all there is to Ennish politics. Not much bureaucracy. Not much money, either, but that's another story.

The Constitutional Republic has a normative republic.

An executive branch, headed by the President, elected, can serve only 1, 6 year term. Heads the military forces, and approves budgetary concerns.

A legislative branch, in two houses, Senate, and House of Delegates. Senate is elected, 2 members from each Dominion, can serve only 1, 4 year term. Delegates are elected, members ship from each dominion dependent upon population, 1 Delegate for every 300,000 persons. Delegates serve 2 year terms... Legislature wields almost all the power; to declare war, fund programs, coin money, regulate trade. Though limited in some scope.

The Judiciary exists as the Supreme Court, over any lesser court the Legislature creates. It rules on all matters between people and the government, where the issue is Constitutional. The Judges are Selected by the Executive, and appointed by the Legislature.