| ||||||||||
Democracy vs DictatorshipWritten by: screamingbutterfly Imagine the next time you step into the voting booth your ballot only lists one candidate to choose from. Or perhaps your ballot lists four candidates, but they are all from the Liberal party. Dictatorships are one party political systems that are ruled by one leader or an elite group of people under the principle of authoritarianism. Some feel that dictatorships are the most effective form of government because decisions are made quickly and extreme nationalism benefits the military and economy. These individuals value order, nationalism, and authority. However, these systems often result in violence, repression of the public, and few provisions for changes to the system. Democracies are multiparty political systems that rest on the principle of rule by the people. Most people that live in democracies have civil liberties1, and political rights2. Individuals who feel that multiparty systems are the best government value equality, accountability, and freedom. Nations that have multiparty political systems will meet the needs of the public better through the means of political equality, a higher standard of living3, and civil liberties. Dictatorships often occur when a nation is economically and politically unstable. An example of this is Napoleon’s coup d’ etat in 1799 France. In a system of authoritarian rule decisions are made efficiently because very few people are involved in the decision making process. The leader or elite group at the head of the government decides on new policies and economic measures, then makes sure that the public abides by them by using tactics of force and indoctrination. Dictatorial systems have helped nations recover from economic turmoil many times in the past. The extreme nationalism that is born from propaganda and government sponsored youth organizations encourages people to work harder for the benefit of their country. Newly motivated work forces easily meet their production goals. If the leader of a dictatorship is capable the country can rise to hold a great amount of international power. Building up the military is an important step to gain power. A strong military will discourage other countries from attacking and also discourage the citizens of the country from rebelling. The force of nationalism, and new laws that can be easily passed regarding education (such that every male of a certain age must serve time in the military) allow military strength of dictatorships to multiply. The Soviet Union experienced a dictatorial system from 1917 to 1985. Under the rule of Vladimir Lenin, and later Joseph Stalin, one political party attempted to control all aspects of political, economic, and social life. The people of the USSR endured rapid industrial development, victory in World War II, and improved literacy rates. They also experienced elements of force, indoctrination, controlled participation, limits on dissent, and a lack of the accountability of government. In 1917 Lenin initiated the Bolshevik seizure of power and became the first soviet government. Lenin established communist4 society in Russia before passing away shortly after (1924). Stalin, the general secretary for the communist party gradually gained power and by 1928 was in control of the government. Under Joseph Stalin’s leadership the USSR was transformed into a world power, and a totalitarian state. Lenin had introduced the New Economic Policy in 1921, which proposed the creation of a mixed economy. In this system the state controlled large industries but small scale enterprises and farming were run privately. By 1936 the NEP had helped The Soviet economy to recover to the levels it was at before WWI. Stalin introduced his famous 5 year plans, to develop industry further, and the NEP was abandoned for a communist economy. The first 5 year plan (1928-1932) expanded heavy industry such as steel making and mining. Private farming was eliminated, with much bloodshed, and collective farms were established. The second 5 year plan (1933-1937) began the development of natural resources in Siberia and the far east. It also further expanded heavy industry at the expense of consumer goods. Stalin’s third 5 year plan (1938-1941) directed funds to areas of defense. In WWII Nazi Germany invaded the USSR, creating an instant alliance between the USSR and two of the world’s greatest powers; Britain and the USA. The Soviet Union pushed the Germans out of its territory and Eastern Europe, thus accelerating the end of the war. Trade increased between USSR and the two other powers, and the Soviet has been recognized and commended for helping to end WWII. Another benefit of central planning was the massive educational effort that raised literacy rates in the USSR. The communist government wanted to develop a skilled and educated labor force. Millions of people learned to read and write, in an education system that centered on scientific training. In order to enforce communist policies the Soviet Union built a large militia5. The secret police (consisting of agents and informants) were used as an instrument of terror to ensure that the communist party stayed in power. The secret police kept foreigners and those who traveled abroad under close surveillance. They also censored the mail, and monitored telephone conversations. Indoctrination and censorship encouraged nationalism and spread the communist ideology. The government sponsored youth groups such as the “little octoberists”, and the communist ideology was taught in school. With only one newspaper and one radio station (both government owned) people had very little control over their own beliefs because they were constantly exposed to only one side of every issue. This excerpt is from the Soviet’s only newspaper, “Pravda6” . “Stalin is the architect of the tremendous creation called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. he is the source of all life in the he soviet union. His thoughts set the whole mechanism of Soviet life in motion.” Glorification of a leader is common technique used in dictatorships to ensure that citizens are faithful and committed to the government in power. In the early 1920’s and 30’s people of the USSR were expected to vote publicly by raising their hands. This caused a very low voter turnout so a secret ballot system was instilled. All candidates (if their was more than one) were selected by the communist party, so the voting was quite meaningless since it lacked the element of real choice. Officials manipulated counts to make voter turnout appear higher than it actually was, and if one were to disagree with the choices listed on the ballot they were to mark the ballot publicly and be subject to the wrath of the secret police. The lack of accountability in the USSR was so shocking that anyone who observed it and still lives will be emotionally scarred forever. The “great purge” from 1936 - 1939, began with few show trials that symbolized fair justice but never provided enough real evidence to base a conviction on. These trials were for members of the government who had supposedly plotted against Joseph Stalin. Following these trials, the secret police purged all institutions (education, media, government) of possible threats to the communist party, and sent millions of people to forced labour camps. When this horror came to an end in 1939 it was too late for the millions of people who died, completely innocent of any crime. It is true that Stalin’s reign enabled many people to learn to read and write, but at what cost? If they were not killed in a labour camp, the point of having employability skills seems faint when every adult after 1938 was required to have a “labour book.” Without a labour book one could not be employed, and once a person way employed their labor book was kept with the employer. This way employees could not easily change jobs. Developing employability skills if you are not able to pressure the employment that truly interests you is a wasted effort. In the USSR political rights and political equality were merely a facade. Although the show of voting made it appear that people had the right to elect the leader of their choice, the public was not given the option of free choice. Also in the USSR speaking out against the government and dissenting was strogly forbidden and could result in exile or execution. Civil liberties were virtually non existent. People did not have the freedom to develop their own views and ideas because they were constantly being indoctrinated with the ideas of the government. If one were to exercise the freedom of assembly or demonstration in a dictatorial system they would be killed or imprisoned (Tienneman square in China). It is difficult to find exact numbers that help us determine the standerd of living in the USSR during Stalin’s regime. However, from the stories of the forced concentration camps and black market for food and other consumer goods anyone can deduct that the standard of living was low. Russia’s standard of living today emphasizes the effect that a previous authoritarian government can have on a nation. In Russia the adult literacy rate is quite impressive, 98%. The GDP per capita is very low $3050 (in US dollars). The average life expectancy is also low at 66.9 years, and approximately 2.6% of the population owns computers. In democratic systems the public decides what economic and social policies work best for them. Democracy originated in ancient Athens. Besides the fact that only men could vote ancient Athens exhibited a model direct democracy. On every issue each voter was able to freely vote. The Athenians choose from two main political parties, and no one person had any more power than another person. Decision making and decision enforcing were the duties of every citizen. Democracy is a logical concept. Since the public has to abide by the policies made by the government, they should be able to help make those decisions. The United States of America has been a democracy since it became a country. The system of government ensures that no branch of government (executive, legislative, or judicial) has more power than another branch. Each American voter votes to elect a president from the political party that has a platform most similar to his or her views. They also elect the senators and members of the house of representatives (who make up the legislative branch). The supreme court judges are not elected, but appointed for life by the president and senate in order to keep their interests pure. Most laws that are made in democratic systems reflect the views of the public. In the Us, any member of the House can introduce a piece of legislation. This illustrates how all members are equal and are given the right to represent the people from their state. The bill is printed and prepared so that all members of the government can understand the details of it. The bill will then be refereed to the appropriate committee by the House or Senate parliamentarian. The committee ensures that the bill meets with the guidelines of the constitution, and makes revisions and amendments to it. Now the committee of a whole7 debates and amends the bill but cannot technically pass it. Debate is limited in the committee by certain rules and opposing side have a scheduled amount of time to speak. The bill is also debated in the senate, without any time limit on how long The debate can run. If the House of Representatives and the senate pass the same bill it is then sent to the president. If the House and the senate pass different bills they are sent to the conference committee. The president signs the bill, making it become law. The president does have the power to veto legislation, but it is rarely used. This is because the chamber that provided the legislation has a right to overthrow the veto if 2/3 of the members present feel that they should do so. Also the congress has the power to impeach8 the president if the public feels he is not performing his job adequately. In America, every person over the age of 18 (who has not been convicted of a felony or declared mentally incompetent by a court) has the right to vote through the practice of secret ballot. People also have the right to speak out against the government and dissent freely. Civil liberties are guaranteed to the people in the constitution, and no legislation will be passed that violates any citizens civil liberties. If people feel their civil liberties have been violated they can take the case to various courts, who will make a fair ruling based on the constitution. Today the USA has a high standard of living compared to other countries. It is a major world power with a democratic system and a market economy. In 1997 the adult literacy rate was 95%, the GDP9 per capita was $29, 181 US dollars, the average life expectancy was 76 years, and approximately 37% of people owned computers. The individuals who believe that dictatorial systems are more efficient and beneficial than democracies have never experienced life in such a system, or have never been a victim of the elite. Dictatorships do not meet the needs of the public adequately, result in a lower standard of living than democracies, and often result in violence. For a new policy to be implemented in a democracy thousands of people do not have to die. This is because for the most part in democracies the policies that exist are the will of the people. Democratic systems have been very successful in the US, Canada, Sweden, and other countries. The freedom of choice is ultimately important, and since the public makes the industry in nations, they will choose what is best for the nation.
|
| billybassbrett 2002-02-17 07:00AM | |
|
Ok, I just read the article. First, I would like to point out that democracies do not always have an advantage in living standards over dictatorships. The single-party rule of Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, for example, created an average per capita income of $26,000, higher than the United States. Second, although democracies are great, I do not like the current system of election in the United States. This style of multi-party elections essentially means whoever can win a popularity comment with the voters, i.e. average citizens, should rule. Although this means the government is responsible to the voter's viewpoints, it makes it nearly impossible to enact what is sometimes painful restructuring. Second, since politicians are professional, in order to put food on the table, etc., they have to say and do what the voters want, not necessarily what would be good for the United States. For example, I will bet you money that an economist from Yale, if he is running for office, will change his economic viewpoints even to the point of accepting 'voodoo economics,' even if it is economically ridiculous, if it is what the public wants. The fact that unelected officials can take the best course of action, not necessarily the most popular one, gives the dictatorship(with a half-decent dictator) an advantage in decisiveness and effectiveness. You may argue that this is a good thing that it takes forever for a bill to become law; however, it puts such a nation in a severe handicap when circumstances call for decisive leadership. I believe a more ideal government would be one where, in order to recreate stability in leadership without the danger of chaos in the modern electoral system or the danger of inheriting an incompetent in a monarchy or a dynasty, we create this: MY IDEA OF A NEW STYLE OF GOVERNMENT - There is a single strong executive, who is chosen by the executive before him at the end of this executive's 8 year term. The new appointed executive must take a test on his intelligence, and possibly charisma, in order to root out potential tyrants or would be incompetents. This is done under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The executive has the right to pardon any crime other than a political one. -Second, there is a body of legislators, the council or duma, who are simply citizens drafted from the citizen body populace. In order to make sure there are no such councils dominated by one group or class, all citizens are required at the selection time to register their political viewpoints and economic status so the computer can make a fair judgement. These people, like the jurors in the court, get professional staff help and advice from the experts, but THEY decide on what laws to pass. All Supreme court judges selected by the executive must be approved by the council. Since they do not have to run for their position and are not politicians in profession, they can afford to take the best course of action. There are 50 councillors in the council(in case of a tie, the chairman of the council, a councillor elected to the position by the coucil members, casts the deciding vote; in a tie vote on a proposed law, his vote counts for two[on non-tie votes, it only counts for one].) The council is chosen by this computer lot every 5 years. -The third part of the government is the Supreme Court. They can strike down any law, settle cases involving the law, and interpret it. There are 7 Judges, and the chief judge is selected by the other 6 judges[and he can vote for himself]. They are also responsible for deposing an Executive if he is convicted of high crimes or gets out of hand and becomes tyrannical. They can strip him of his powers as supreme military commander, and order his bodyguard to execute him if he still refuses to turn over power. The judges serve for life, unless they are deposed by a council ruling[ the executive has no say in judge-removal]. They are selected by the Executive, but must meet minimum standards of understanding law and must be approved by the Council. -This system is somewhat like how De Tocqueville described the monarchy of France when he was alive; within their circles of power, they are absolute. The Executive is the sole executor of the law(except in the case of removing an Executive for treason, incompetence to rule, bribery, and high crimes.) and can cripple a law proposed by the executive. However, he can not create laws; he may propose them, and he enforces them, but he cannot choose which proposed laws are to become law. Only the council can do that, and the executive can not dismiss the council without approval from the Supreme Court. [ In essence, the Court is a referee to the Executive and Council.] In short, the Council and Executive are co-dependent on each other; the Executive needs the Council(with professional staff help) to choose what laws to become law, but the Council needs the Executive to enforce them. One can cripple the other. In times of war, the Executive can make laws without Council consent, but only for a 6 month period, where he then must ask for a 6 month extension on his wartime powers. In order to protect the Supreme Court Judges from the Executive, the Judges can not be put under arrest without consent of the Council and review of the crimes "committed." -As for this government's stand on political rights and free speech, free speech is allowed, along with freedom of expression(as long as it does not defame property). Freedom of Religion is allowed, except on special exceptions, such as religions that encourage revolt and incite riots or civil disorder and danger to the state. If you want to assemble, you must get a permit; if you incite hatred or civil disorder or rioting or revolt in such assemblies, you will be arrested, and the assembly will be broken up without warning by the police. All citizens are allowed a trial by jury when accused of crime, and are allowed habeas corpus except in certain wartime cases, where the executive is allowed to suspend it by approval of Council to do so. Civil Rights as such are permitted to all citizens. -Those convicted of crimes are subject to first, corporal punishment[ Machiavelli said "men will sooner forget the death of their fathers than the loss of their property."]. If the crime gets much worse, then combined heavy corporal punishment with heavy fines. In extreme cases, death. The only crimes that are subject to unwarned police breakup are riots, assemblies where the speaker is inciting violence or hatred towards others or urging civil disorder and/or violence. There are no restrictions on free speech, just as long as it is not in non-personal assemblies and does not incite violence and/or hatred against others. The Executive may use the police force to stop rebellion. He may not use it to dispose of opposers to his rule. The government may regulate trade, and help business and the economy actively. This government is bound in a constitution. Actually, though, most of the work will be done through a bureacracy that essentially studies courses of action, presents them to the Council or Executive. The role of the political part of the government is in making sure the bureacrats perform their jobs efficiently, select new bureacrats, and take the credit of ruling from the bureacrats so the bureaucrats remain "faceless." The bureacracy is protected against popular pressure so it may labor for the betterment of the state and people. None of the bureacrats are elected; all are appointed. THE END Actually, this would be just an overview, but I think it would make for an interesting government, and it was an attempt to compensate for the weaknesses in Monarchy, Police States, and Democracies, and to use all their strengths. --------------------- | |
| bizzywizzy11 2006-11-09 12:01AM | No Rating |
|
thank u so much this has helped my debate between one leader vs. a group of leaders. im the one leader side but w/e. again ty sooooo much | |
| PlanetPapers.com | Contact Me | Copyright © 2009 | Privacy Policy | Add to Favorites |