Western Civilization homework help?

Question

Under what circumstances would a country choose to be ruled by a dictator? What possible benefits could dictators offer over a democracy like we have in the US?

Answer 1

in ancient times it was usually war or political/economic upheaval or unrest that inspired people to give up their right to vote. I doubt that a dictator could do the U.S. any good... people tend to be corrupted by that kind of power. although Bush seemed to be pretty close to being a dictator.... There's no one to keep the president in check it seems. That's what you call a false democracy.

Answer 2

No country has ever "choosen" to be ruled by a dictator.

A dictator rules by authoritainism. Generally obtained by military take over.

Answer 3

As far as I can tell no country would choose to be controlled by a dictator. Primarily the only people to prosper under a dictator are those who are in the controlling class or party and everyone else is oppressed. But since you brought up the question I would speculate it has to do with order.

If a country is in complete disarray and there is rampant poverty, crime, and civil unrest than a country may turn to a dictator in hopes of bringing the country under control and creating an ordered and livable society. A single leader could also create a national identity without the long process that most countries can take decades or even centuries to build.

As for the second part of your question of benefits over a republic like that in the United States of America is a tricky one. The only things that I can think of are not benefits in my mind. Laws passed quickly with little or no debate, judgments carried out without process, a single national idea, a tighter control of the population.

Those are good questions that you propose and I wish you the best of luck on finding both sides of the argument.

Answer 4

Countries rarely or openly "choose" to be ruled by a dictatorship.  When it happens it is usually due to an election where a socialist candidate "cons" an election by promising the poor everything and damns the middle and upper class as the "bad rich people" implying they've taken advantage of the poor.  Historically, socialist themes have appealed to the poor and impoverish classes in society, and this is one way a dictator assumes power.  The second way, very popular in previous times, was by a military takeover  like in Cuba with Castro's military coup in 1958-59.  Same in Chile with Che Guevara and in Marxists and communists European countries, most were the result of military takeovers; and Asian countries, China and Korea, Vietnam, as well.  

The appeal of a "socialist agenda" is that it promises that the government will take over and oversee every aspect of a citizen's lives: socialist medicine, socialist education, socialized income re-distribution; and of course, the result of that is that everything becomes government-run and free enterprise becomes illegal--only the government can make money, not you.  That is the case of Cuba's dictatorship, everyone is poor, no one can own or sell anything, same as were the communist, Marxist, European countries, were sole dictatorships, and in Asia, Korea, Vietnam, are still in that form; China is the exception as it has evolved into a free-enterprise system than ever before and the communist government is evolving to embrace capitalism.  An interesting development.  

Venezuela is an excellent study case as the dictatorship has been evolving over recent years: Chavez promised a socialist government as relief to poor people and slowly has changed the constitution and has given himself more power over every government agency and justice system that is resulting in a dictatorship.  With oil revenues, Venezuela is a wealthy country, and since he controls those revenues he is able to bribe and buy himself the power, silencing those with money or with persecution.  

In the U.S. the rich tend to think the poor are unable to ever reach the American dream and tend to prefer socialist political agendas, (a very arrogant attitude) and tend to want to eliminate that same opportunity that made them wealthy from being available to everyone who wants to works towards that goal.  It is as if they have little confidence in people, when our history shows us and proves it consistently that it is not the case.  

As free-enterprise is illegal under dictatorships, only the government can make money, not you; this prevents a vibrant economy from developing and the reason why dictatorships tend to be the most poorest countries for its citizens.

Hope this gets you started into understanding the issue of dictatorships.