Democracies and Dictatorships – A compare and contrast essay
Governments are supposed to care about their country. They are supposed to worry about its problems. They are supposed to fix every little detail in every individual citizen’s life. Or at least this is what people believe. They see themselves as individuals, and not part of a collective group. It is why democracies are generally seen to be the best type of government, and dictatorships the worst.
In democracies, everyone has a say on what happens around them. In dictatorships, the country is doomed to poverty and failure. Or so people think. Are democracies really so inclusive? And are dictatorships really as bad as people make them out to be? Let us find out.
Democracies have regular and free elections, where adult citizens of the country are allowed to vote about who they think would be best at running their country. In other words, they vote for whoever has advertised their views in the best light. Nobody really knows what exactly each party has in store for us. We take information from what is offered, without realising that it may not be the whole picture. We may have a right to vote, but our views are clouded. An election is merely a contest of propaganda.
One may say that it does not matter if elections are not as fair as they could be, because voting is a human right. We have a right to have a say in who is running our country. But should rights be compulsory? In Australia it is. But are Human Rights still rights if they are obligatory? Being forced to vote is almost the same as not being allowed to vote at all. And now we are right back where we started.
Another aspect of democracies, one that also gives birth to the idea that this is the best type of government system, is the “freedom of speech” title. They tell us we have rights to say whatever we want, but is it really necessary? For example, if the media was controlled, then articles about the Prime Minister, and other important people’s personal lives, and possible dark sides, would never hit the headlines. But we don’t even really need to know this sort of thing. Okay, so maybe this person was a drug addict when they were younger, but if they are no longer one now, and it does not affect how they run the country, does it really matter? If media was controlled, it wouldn’t be that big of a deal. Anything important would make itself out anyway. “Freedom of speech” is really just another title given to democracies to make people think they have control.
Control. An aspect of human nature demands that each person is in charge of their environment. Retirement homes have a lower death rate when their occupants are able to modify their routines and room themselves. Even thinking we have it is enough to satisfy our ravenous need. In this way, democracies can be seen as the best system of government, because it keeps society happy.
But democracies are not always helpful. In times of poverty and struggle in a country, elections, propaganda, etc. can get in the way of what is really needed: a fixed leader to guide the country through its troubles. It can allow merciless power-hunters to climb through to the top, and we all know where that will lead us. Having fixed leaders in charge of a country, who believe helping it survive, can be a much better alternative when times grow hard.
Dictatorships are seen to be the worst system of government. This can be put down to either lack of knowledge in this area, or the stereotypical nature of dictatorships. For example, a majority of people have heard of Hitler; that he was a dictator, and he caused the Second World War. This alone is enough to convince most people dictatorships are bad. But they are unaware of the big picture. Yes, Hitler was bad. Yes, he caused great suffering around the world. But does this mean all dictators will cause world wars? No, there would have been many more throughout history. And actually, the Second World War was actually the only world war caused by a dictator, not that there have been many.
Falling into dictatorship does not mean the end for a country. For many, it can be a new beginning. Most dictators rise to power while their country is desperate. If the dictator is wise, however, they can avoid being a ‘Hitler’ and help their country see a way through.
One example is Napoleon. While one cannot deny he also became power-mad in the end, he at least made rational decisions of what France could cope with. When he first became in charge, he helped France recover from the monarchy days by adding the Napoleon code, which is the basis of many governments today.
Napoleon was not the only benevolent dictator in history though. There have been many others, for example Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, and Lee Kuan Yew, of Singapore. They both governed with diplomatic principles, and improved the general state of their countries. Under Lee Kuan Yew Singapore was transformed from an underdeveloped colonial outpost with no natural resources into a first world, highly developed economy. Tito may have been authoritarian but he was a unifying figure who successfully maintained the peaceful coexistence of the nations of the Yugoslav federation.
Overall, it is the dictator that determines if the country is going to prosper or sink into poverty, not the system of government. This can also be said for any system of government. The Dictatorship system of government is no worse than any other.
In conclusion, the best system of government really depends on a country’s state. One cannot say that during a crisis, rapid changes of leadership roles will help a country; but when everything is normal, the feeling of control in a society can benefit it in a way that a fixed leader could not. The problem is switching the system of government when times get tough. If, in the future, this can be done rapidly and fluidly, the world will prosper.
