Temporary Dictatorships and their benefits

Oct 2010
198
London, UK
I feel there is a trend for nations that were significantly benefited economically and militarily under short-term dictatorships, but at some ethical and social cost - but not as bad as those dictatorships which exploited their power and took their nations into unnecessary wars or oppression etc. Dictators seem to provide a good transitional phase or unsteady-state, as long as their reign is temporary - and it is the latter part that's the most difficult bit, for the quite simple reason that people in power would generally like to stay in it.

I got this idea from reading up on South Korea and it's success story of being under a dictatorship and then without one. It's authoritarian leader, Park Chung-hee allowed for a cultural and economic reform, rapidly developing the country for two decades without interruption until his forceful removal by assassination, allowing for democratic government to return.

In England, Cromwell pretty much removed the incompetent monarchy, didn't allow the parliament in power, who were just as incompetent, remodeled the army and made the nation strong in the time that he ruled. From what I've understood, this paved the way for England becoming a strong constitutional monarchy.

I guess France was a similar story with Napoleon - except more from a military point of view. How stable or strong would the country be if the republic ruled and Napoleon never became emperor?

On the other hand, individuals like Hitler and Stalin, although achieved economic and military improvement in a decade or so, took unnecessary measures at massive human costs and would happily do so until the end of their life (we all know the story).



What do people think here?
 
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
It is still dictatorship, and it is not appealing at all.
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
I feel there is a trend for nations that were significantly benefited economically and militarily under short-term dictatorships, but at some ethical and social cost - but not as bad as those dictatorships which exploited their power and took their nations into unnecessary wars or oppression etc. Dictators seem to provide a good transitional phase or unsteady-state, as long as their reign is temporary - and it is the latter part that's the most difficult bit, for the quite simple reason that people in power would generally like to stay in it.

I got this idea from reading up on South Korea and it's success story of being under a dictatorship and then without one. It's authoritarian leader, Park Chung-hee allowed for a cultural and economic reform, rapidly developing the country for two decades without interruption until his forceful removal by assassination, allowing for democratic government to return.

In England, Cromwell pretty much removed the incompetent monarchy, didn't allow the parliament in power, who were just as incompetent, remodeled the army and made the nation strong in the time that he ruled. From what I've understood, this paved the way for England becoming a strong constitutional monarchy.

I guess France was a similar story with Napoleon - except more from a military point of view. How stable or strong would the country be if the republic ruled and Napoleon never became emperor?

On the other hand, individuals like Hitler and Stalin, although achieved economic and military improvement in a decade or so, took unnecessary measures at massive human costs and would happily do so until the end of their life (we all know the story).



What do people think here?
When I read the title of your thread, South Korea's past immediately sprang to mind, so it's interesting that you mentioned it.

I definitely think there are times -- especially when the populace is poor and ill-educated -- where a temporary, enlightened dictatorship or oligarchy is necessary to pave the way to circumstances under which voting-based systems of rule can thrive. Mix poverty, poor education, and voting together, and you've got a fine recipe for enduring corruption at a totally unacceptable level.

If one is presented with a frail, sickly man, one does not press that man to go out the next day and run a marathon. Rather, one builds up his health and strength until he is capable of running the marathon, and only then sends him off to run it.
 

bunyip

Ad Honorem
Sep 2010
2,960
A benign dictatorship is just the ticket for the US for about 5 years.

Nah,it would never work,millions of gun owners would become exercised,and there would be a civil war.

If one is going to recommend a dictatorship for others,I think one should be willing to accept one for one's own country. I'm not. :cool:
 

pixi666

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
2,534
The Great Indoors
It worked for the Romans. Until, you know, it didn't.

The problem with having a temporary dictatorship, apart from the obvious affront to all things democratic, free, and fair, is that it's very easy to exploit. Not everyone can be a Cincinnatus.
 
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Looking at what happened to Iraq and it's horrible transition into a democratic republic, I don't see why not.
For justifying an invasion and propagation of democratic ideals, I agree with you, but to live under a dictatorial regime of defunct Saddam administration, I won't, not unless I am a general of the army or a dictator myself.
 
Oct 2010
198
London, UK
For justifying an invasion and propagation of democratic ideals, I agree with you, but to live under a dictatorial regime of defunct Saddam administration, I won't, not unless I am a general of the army or a dictator myself.
What you say is true, but bear in mind I'm speaking about this in the idealistic sense, purely on the benefit of the economy or social development and what not. There's always going to be a cost of freedom and ethics with dictatorships, but sometimes I wonder how much it's worth when a country is becoming de-stabalised.

Looking at Iran after its revolution, there was a massive transition over a short period of time, a theocratic government was voted in, pretty much ending the hope of a real democratic republic. It makes me wonder if there could have been a benefit of having an oligarchic or military provisional rule before having such sudden change.
 
May 2012
181
Gongju-shi, Chungchangnam-do, Republic of Korea
I feel there is a trend for nations that were significantly benefited economically and militarily under short-term dictatorships, but at some ethical and social cost - but not as bad as those dictatorships which exploited their power and took their nations into unnecessary wars or oppression etc. Dictators seem to provide a good transitional phase or unsteady-state, as long as their reign is temporary - and it is the latter part that's the most difficult bit, for the quite simple reason that people in power would generally like to stay in it.

I got this idea from reading up on South Korea and it's success story of being under a dictatorship and then without one. It's authoritarian leader, Park Chung-hee allowed for a cultural and economic reform, rapidly developing the country for two decades without interruption until his forceful removal by assassination, allowing for democratic government to return.

In England, Cromwell pretty much removed the incompetent monarchy, didn't allow the parliament in power, who were just as incompetent, remodeled the army and made the nation strong in the time that he ruled. From what I've understood, this paved the way for England becoming a strong constitutional monarchy.

I guess France was a similar story with Napoleon - except more from a military point of view. How stable or strong would the country be if the republic ruled and Napoleon never became emperor?

On the other hand, individuals like Hitler and Stalin, although achieved economic and military improvement in a decade or so, took unnecessary measures at massive human costs and would happily do so until the end of their life (we all know the story).



What do people think here?
Democracy didnt return after Park's assasination. In fact, Korea had at least
10 more years of authoritarian rule, and his legacy has poisoned South Korea culture ever since. He did develop us economically, but he forever stunted Korea's cultural development. He almost brought Korea to war with the North and could have egged on a war with Japan, if it wasn't for the U.S.
 
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
What you say is true, but bear in mind I'm speaking about this in the idealistic sense, purely on the benefit of the economy or social development and what not. There's always going to be a cost of freedom and ethics with dictatorships, but sometimes I wonder how much it's worth when a country is becoming de-stabalised.

Looking at Iran after its revolution, there was a massive transition over a short period of time, a theocratic government was voted in, pretty much ending the hope of a real democratic republic. It makes me wonder if there could have been a benefit of having an oligarchic or military provisional rule before having such sudden change.
I don't see any advantage to that because, the people should feel the glory of democracy in the most early possible time of their respective civilization. The moments that they were robbed of their freedom will never be repatriated by the goodness of the contemporary observance of law and order, but the kind of life in the dictatorial regime of them shall have huge impact, on the early form of democracy and I can speak for that because the democracy of the Philippines is undergoing it's own kind of development on the basis of the dictatorial regimes of the past by foreign and local leaders.

The result is the desire to abuse power because of long period of deprivation of it, and such is psychologically appropriate demeanor. But to learn from all of it is its objective, because the status quo order should be protected to get free of the cancer of corruption that is leading the entire system to self destruction, but it shall survive, and shall be a better form of democracy. Happiness is great if the people are free, and poverty is nothing but a choice. Thinking to change it can be reflected on the behavior of people.