Are democracies more efficient at producing dictatorships?

[Crono]

I rarely venture into P&N (perhaps once a year at most) but this question seems suited for it. I'm not actually of any opinion on this, I genuinely want input. It isn't really directed at any one country (though I do have the "arab spring" countries currently in mind).

Are democracies (take your pick of any past or present for examples) more efficient at producing dictatorships over time than other forms of government?

By "efficient" I mean in terms of: 1) speed and 2) the number and/or extent of political power and controls over the population. And what circumstances would speed the transition process of shifting forms of government along?

Sorry if this question seems poorly phrased or irrelevant. I prefer to be non-political, and usually think about politics (the rare times that I do) from a macro, broad historical perspective.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Not enough data Crono, weve only had them for a few hundred years.

 

[IGBT]

it's obvious to the most casual observer they love dictators. Castro and hugo chavez are among their worshiped idols. The liberal hollywood idiots are endlessly praising their dictatorship. Harry Reid and the obama would fall to his knees in their presence. The obama would find something to apologize about.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

The problem with Democracy is it creates competition and, unless all sides are colluding, it makes it impossible for the power elite to keep control. Once all sides come together and develop collusion they eventually will work to establish a single leader model of government driven by authority and "equality".

This will always be preceeded with a seizure of weapons and the disposal of dissidents. When you democratic government begins to support individual leaders, be it dictators, emperors, or monarchies, you can be sure they are working towards the same form of leadership behind the scenes in your democracy.

Obviously, the reason for this is the elimination of competition which ensures their continued success. The power elite becomes the true power behinds the scenes and appoints a middle management type to handle the actual mantle of leader, who in turn ensures that those power elite and their families will continue to control the huge resource markets within the nation.

The key to making this happen is control of the media, which allows them to run a system of propaganda that works to control and influence thought amongst the masses. The endgame is, of course, to brainwash an entire nation of people into accepting and even preferring the authoritarian socialist government.

There are 4 steps:
1) Demoralization - this started with Vietnam most likely
2) Destabilization - this has been happening more recently, with 2008 economical collapse being the lead in to #3
3) Crisis - this is where we are now, although nobody wants to accept it and do anything else because we are still somewhat wealthy
4) Normalization

This is a great interview from a former Soviet KGB agent in which he details everything that is going on. Obviously, he knows all of this from first hand experience:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvoZCtpYCRI

 

[r3dsh1ft]

Yes democracies can be very efficient at producing dictatorships. In a true democracy the majority rules. Democracies are very temporary forms of Government which usually decay into anarchism or an oligarchy. America's is not a Democracy but actually a Republic. Democracy does not give enough power to laws... laws which protect the minority. Instead the majority rules. So lets say if the majority wants to make homosexuality a crime punishable by death.. then there is theoretically nothing stopping them. Anarchy can follow suit which is another temporary form of government. in the chaos of anarchy it results in people looking for government to solve their problems. On another note socialism or communism is already in a prime position for dictatorships because the peoples reliance and often faith in the Government is very strong. What determines the dictator is not so much the people voting him in, as much as it is in-fighting and alliances within the power structure.

America is slowly but surely turning into a socialist nation. I believe a Republic is the best form of government we could have, but the one problem that we have is that Banksters and Elitists with Huge amounts of money have bought all the main stream media, lobbyist and much of academia; this has caused our people to become ignorant of the true power structure and instead to be preoccupied with mindless sports, sex, and fluff. This isnt money's fault , however. Socialists would like to make that case but the reality is that the American people forgot what it is to defend liberty.

 

[Infohawk]

Compared to what? The only real alternative to democracy throughout history has been autocratic regimes, whether you label them monarchies or dictatorships or something else.

To me, this is like asking if life is efficient at producing death. You can say yes but it fairly meaningless.

 

[fskimospy]

I rarely venture into P&N (perhaps once a year at most) but this question seems suited for it. I'm not actually of any opinion on this, I genuinely want input. It isn't really directed at any one country (though I do have the "arab spring" countries currently in mind).

Are democracies (take your pick of any past or present for examples) more efficient at producing dictatorships over time than other forms of government?

By "efficient" I mean in terms of: 1) speed and 2) the number and/or extent of political power and controls over the population. And what circumstances would speed the transition process of shifting forms of government along?

Sorry if this question seems poorly phrased or irrelevant. I prefer to be non-political, and usually think about politics (the rare times that I do) from a macro, broad historical perspective.

Yes, as Infohawk mentioned, as compared to what? I believe most people would view a monarchy as a hereditary dictatorship. I guess a constitutional monarchy is a bit more of a mixed system, but other than that I'm not sure.

As for the tendency of democracies to fall into dictatorship, overall I would say the record is pretty good. The number of democracies in the world has increased pretty quickly over the last 100 years or so, which tells me that it's good at preserving itself.

 

[techs]

Congratulations on the dumbest thread title ever.

Though I have to admit I LOL'ed.

 

[Anarchist420]

Yes democracy is very efficient at leading to dictatorship. However, a republic is a dictatorship because it has an executive power. Stability depends upon society, not the state. The modern dictatorship is not stable in the long term if it even is in the short term.

 

[feralkid]

*wow, Bob*


]

 

[feralkid]

Yes democracy is very efficient at leading to dictatorship. However, a republic is a dictatorship because it has an executive power. Stability depends upon society, not the state. The modern dictatorship is not stable in the long term if it even is in the short term.