NationStates Jolt Archive

It's probably really bad, but anyway: Democracy breeds mediocre leaders, while dictators/absolute monarchs are most either really good or really bad. This is because in democracy, leaders are too restricted from doing good or bad things. Whereas absolutists can do whatever they want, but can turn bad because absolute power corrupts.

Agree or disagree?

Disagree.

Where are the opportunities and incentives for Absolutist leaders to turn out good?

Disagree.

Where are the opportunities and incentives for Absolutist leaders to turn out good?

Some just do. They just feel like it. They're just good people, or have had life experiences that influence them into doing good. Examples are Frederick II of Prussia, or HRE Joseph II.

Some just do. They just feel like it. They're just good people, or have had life experiences that influence them into doing good. Examples are Frederick II of Prussia, or HRE Joseph II.


*head askew*
Who?

If they were, somehow, absolute good, I would have remembered the names.
Frederick II - the chap between William I and William II who had a very short reign?

*head askew*
Who?

If they were, somehow, absolute good, I would have remembered the names.
Frederick II - the chap between William I and William II who had a very short reign?

No, that was Frederick III of Germany. Frederick II made Prussia a major power, and was apparently quite liberal.

No, that was Frederick III of Germany. Frederick II made Prussia a major power, and was apparently quite liberal.

Quite liberal doesn't exactly make for absolute good ( in the absolute sense that Hitler was absolutely bad ).
Doesn't say 'Greatness' to me...

No, that was Frederick III of Germany. Frederick II made Prussia a major power, and was apparently quite liberal."Enlightened Absolutist leaders" are a very rare breed, however. And sadly, it's unlikely for anyone that can be considered enlightened to turn a state into a dictatorship. And even if that was the case, people die and will eventually be replaced by the person most effective at pushing themselves higher up the ranks. Compassion isn't necessarily a key to getting that done.

It's probably really bad, but anyway: Democracy breeds mediocre leaders, while dictators/absolute monarchs are most either really good or really bad. This is because in democracy, leaders are too restricted from doing good or bad things. Whereas absolutists can do whatever they want, but can turn bad because absolute power corrupts.

Agree or disagree?

Great leadership is a quality that can't be claimed by any particular form of governance. It's an inherent ability, that one can use to gravitate to the top of their social structure, or simply find within themselves when under pressure.

While democracies may impose more restrictions upon leaders, the fact that those leaders must prove their mettle by not only convincing other 'elite' members of society, but by also meeting the token 'nod' of the electorate, means that a certain degree of leadership is needed before one could even take the reigns of governance. The same cannot necessarily be said about non-democratic nations.

The problem with the non-democratic systems, is that while they may lend strength to the administration by allowing a great leader to accomplish his objectives, the issue of sucession or transition of government usually results in sub-standard leaders, despite the 'grooming' that often goes hand-in-hand with monarchies, etc.

Truth be told, sometimes the only way to tell the quality of someone's leadership is through adversity, and I'm sure most people would admit that Churchill, Roosevelt, etc. were great examples of leaders spawned in democratic nations.

most democratic systems will, within a few generations, produce politicians who have no interest what so ever in running the country well, and instead care only about getting re-elected and payed, and/or pushing their own [useusally distorted] ideological view of reality.

the problem: colectivly, people are stupid.

dictatorships, however, will regularly produce rulers rangeing from those of Saddam like quality to those similar to Hitler. simply because these are the types of people who rise through the ranks fastest. there are of course, occasional exceptions

the problem: people suck. only the evil ones have any interest in doing what it takes to rise through the system.

monarchys, of any sort, have this tendancey to produce a mix of compitant and incompitant, good and evil. so sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad. they generaly have to worry about any large groups of underlings and so on, but they do have more right to their position than "hahahah. i kill you all and i win!"

my Personal opinion is that, on a national scale, the better system is a Well Set Up constitutional monarchy. some of the ex-british coloneys come close, but are flawed in various places.

i have a whole theory of government that would actually work. it generaly gets slamed because it's "unfair"... people don't like it. but it's more fair than a pure dictatorship, more functional than a democracy, and more stable than your average monarchy.

yeah, i got a little off topic there.

leadership qualitys are inate to the individual. both dictatorship and democracy exlude those with that skill and with inteligance and good moral consiance from government by their very nature.

to be honest, government works best, i suspect, at aproximatly the "county" level. above that, you either need some form of fudal system or some form of represntative senate, where by MOST things are handled by a pure democracy/monarchy/whatever in a small area, and only far reaching things such as trade laws and wars etc etc are really the domaine of those higher up the system.

bah. i'm rambleing again. i'll stop now.

If you make me dictator, I'll give you candy.

If you make me dictator, I'll give you candy.
What kind of candy?

What kind of candy?
It's laced with LSD, PCP and love.

It's laced with LSD, PCP and love.
Wrong answer, I wanted chocolate, I'm so not voting for you for dictator! Or supporting your uprising... whatever.

i've got a better platform "support me as your ruler. i won't stuff up the country"

if one could actually follow through on that, it's like, the best platform ever.

most democratic systems will, within a few generations, produce politicians who have no interest what so ever in running the country well, and instead care only about getting re-elected and payed, and/or pushing their own [useusally distorted] ideological view of reality.

the problem: colectivly, people are stupid.

dictatorships, however, will regularly produce rulers rangeing from those of Saddam like quality to those similar to Hitler. simply because these are the types of people who rise through the ranks fastest. there are of course, occasional exceptions

the problem: people suck. only the evil ones have any interest in doing what it takes to rise through the system.

monarchys, of any sort, have this tendancey to produce a mix of compitant and incompitant, good and evil. so sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad. they generaly have to worry about any large groups of underlings and so on, but they do have more right to their position than "hahahah. i kill you all and i win!"

my Personal opinion is that, on a national scale, the better system is a Well Set Up constitutional monarchy. some of the ex-british coloneys come close, but are flawed in various places.

i have a whole theory of government that would actually work. it generaly gets slamed because it's "unfair"... people don't like it. but it's more fair than a pure dictatorship, more functional than a democracy, and more stable than your average monarchy.

yeah, i got a little off topic there.

leadership qualitys are inate to the individual. both dictatorship and democracy exlude those with that skill and with inteligance and good moral consiance from government by their very nature.

to be honest, government works best, i suspect, at aproximatly the "county" level. above that, you either need some form of fudal system or some form of represntative senate, where by MOST things are handled by a pure democracy/monarchy/whatever in a small area, and only far reaching things such as trade laws and wars etc etc are really the domaine of those higher up the system.

bah. i'm rambleing again. i'll stop now.

People are not stupid, nor do they suck. They are simply trying to survive in a system that 1) doesn't give them the information necessary to analyze the situation, and 2) doesn't give them the time to find that information. If you don't believe me, riddle me this pop quiz in the next five minutes or so: what is the impact of the global economic production shift from the West to China in the last 25 years on the macroeconomic global trade pattern and on the microeconomic spending patterns of the average American consumer?

I've got a degree in political science and philosophy, and I could barely scratch the surface of that question.
******************************************************

As for the main question, I would say that democratic governments do not produce mediocre leaders. They in fact often provide some quite dynamic leaders whose goals are, on average, far more benificent and in the interests of the people than autocratic leaders. Autocratic leaders may also be dynamic, but they are rarely magnanimous. Even in the last 30 years, we've seen quite a few very good leaders who, while I do sometimes dispute their policy, nevertheless prove capable leaders and canny politicians.

It is true that we've been failed by our leaders recently, Clinton proved timid, skittish, and gutted the liberal movement, while Bush is the true amiable dunce of the conservative movement. That, however, is the case of leaders in any period of historical prosperity: we're willing to tolerate the incompetent so long as prosperity continues. If you look at history, though, you'll find a repeated pattern of crises in American history, followed by the rise of brilliant statesmen to deal with the problem. The Revolution gave rise to one of the finest assemblages of intellects in human history, the Civil War gave rise to Abraham Lincoln, the Progressive Era gave rise to TR, FDR, and Truman, and the Cold War gave rise to Reagan. So if history is any guide, this period of incompetance is the aberration, not the norm.

All we really need is a mediocre leader. A leader should simply be a formality, someone used to create order and stability. A nation's real decsisions should be made by the people.

There were the five good Roman Emperors. They're commonly seen to have been good despots. Cincinnatus was also a tyrant and viewed as a hero and good. King Hammurabi is the commonly thought to be the orgins of law based societies. Urukagina, the King of Sumer, invented the idea of freedom.

In England/UK Elizabeth I and Victoria are considered to have been good monarchs.

There are lots of examples of good Monarchs. I'd just be too long of a process to poin them all out.

Mind you, I'm saying they are considered to be good, not perfect.

People are not stupid, nor do they suck. They are simply trying to survive in a system that 1) doesn't give them the information necessary to analyze the situation, and 2) doesn't give them the time to find that information. If you don't believe me, riddle me this pop quiz in the next five minutes or so: what is the impact of the global economic production shift from the West to China in the last 25 years on the macroeconomic global trade pattern and on the microeconomic spending patterns of the average American consumer?

I've got a degree in political science and philosophy, and I could barely scratch the surface of that question.



Individual humans are capable of intelligence, yes. large groups? hardly. a lot of the time they Are given the information, and clearly, and they still make silly choices.

on a different note: I'm not american. i was basicly ignoreing the USA. it is Not a true democracy. it's a beurocratic mess. in fact, most "deomocracys" are. much like most "republics" are actually dictatorships.

i live in NZ, so that's what i have the most experiance with, and i know a bit about other places *shrugs* i lack a degree, it is true. then again, university and the like is as much indoctrination as it is education. well, if you want to pass, at least.

meh.. i had a point when i started. i lost it. whatever.

any system, no matter how bad, will occasionaly produce great leaders, and occasionaly produce the equivilant of a genocidal maniac. Most of the time, most don't.

All we really need is a mediocre leader. A leader should simply be a formality, someone used to create order and stability. A nation's real decsisions should be made by the people.


would be great. 'cept it doesn't work when dealing with more than a few thousand people. mediocre leaders would be great, except someone needs to keep a lid on the burocrats and militants.

one of these brilliant ideals, that doesn't really work so well in practice.

I dont agree on theory. Democracy produced Adolf Hitler on Germany. His people suffered because of him.
On the other hand Monarchy produced the founder of Democracy in my country, after the defeat of 1.WW an ex imperial military officer first rallied a congress of people in the country gathering all the peoples chosen represantatives and started an independence war. from the ashes of an empire a democratic nation emerged.

Bad habitat produces bad people and among that one strong good person can born and from good habitat comes a really strong bad guy. Ying yang :p