what would be an argument against why having a republic government is better than a dictatorship?
what would be an argument against why having a republic government is better for the people than a dictatorship?
- neeLv 59 years agoFavorite Answer
You mean against the IDEA that a republic is better than a dictatorship? As in a dictatorship is in fact better, or at least a republican government is no better? Im guessing this is for a paper?
First, start off by defining the two and distinguishing the factual differences. By factual I mean do not make opinions: what is a republican government, what makes it different than that of a dictatorship. Likewise, define what a dictatorship is. Historical examples would help.
Pretty easy to explain, really: It's the people that matters. In real dictatorships, the absolute ruler hands over responsibilities to certain subordinates, it is impossible to have all affairs run by one guy; he will have trusted associates to help or oversee certain things. In reality dictatorships are not so much a one-man show but a typical government with a boss that has absolute authority to make changes as s/he sees fit, something that doesn't always occur since most of his helpers have an idea of what he wants.
Adolf Hitler's reign over Germany is typical of the social reality of a dictatorship: authoritarian yes, but he also left many aspects of government to trusted friends that did whatever they wanted, with Hitler's approval. Heinrich Himmler organized the Holocaust, and Hitler simply gave him a blank cheque, meanwhile Hitler was constantly interfering with the army's plans, hindering their effectiveness in fighting the Allies. Even in a dictatorship, there will be many people working in government positions, often directly responsible for atrocious actions while the dictator merely gave assent. Frankly, this type of government organization is similar to the presidential republic or a parliamentary republic.
Most importantly, these are really just names: the Soviet Union was a conglomerate of republics in formality, but in reality you'll have someone like Stalin keeping a close eye on affairs. Britain is technically a monarchy with a reigning sovereign, and monarchs have traditionally wielded absolute power. There are still clauses that, if exercised by the Queen, would be considered incredibly undemocratic, but it's still there, and the Queen would never use it. The question you can ask is: makes a republic a republic, and what actions would betray the idea and image that makes it different than dictatorship?
The Mel Gibson movie Patriot with it's (likely fictional) quote of "Why trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away?" also comes to mind: countries that have a republican government have had their fair share of rights violations, and the main character in that movie is simply pointing out that people ought not to mistake the form of government as inherently impossible to be tyrannical.
What matters, then, is not only whether the government, republic or dictatorship, is authoritarian/totalitarian, but rather whether or not A) the government is effective in what it was meant to do, and B) the members of that government structure are acting in the interests of the country they are supposed to govern. Any government that does not act in the best interests of the people they represent is not worthy of being in power. It is simply coincidental that most dictatorships were produced because they guys that took over wanted to have power, and most republican governments were originally formed as an alternative to what was perceived as unworthy governments.
A republican government is not better than a dictatorship SIMPLY because it is a republic, you need the right people with the right mindset and motivations for a government to work. A set of people that truly works in the best interests of the state will be good government, regardless of whether it is organized in such a fashion that is labelled as dictatorship, or republic. The common mistake made about governments is it is assumed that only republics can work because of the fact that it's not a dictatorship. Then again pretty much every current republic has it's problems due to corruption and bureaucratic inflexibility.
So the argument is :Republics are not better than dictatorships, simply because they are republics. What often makes dictatorships bad- the individuals in the government- are just as likely to occur in republics. The fact that country A is a republic while country B is a dictatorship, does not inherently mean that country A is better. A bunch of idiots in parliament is not better than a dictator that knows what needs to be done, and how to do it properly and for the people. Back to that Patriot quote, it really is often just 3000 tyrants one mile away because like dictators, they have their own interests.
- nakamuraLv 44 years ago
Communism (= Socialism = possession of the potential of production in undemanding without government or countries or instructions) has in no way existed, nor been tried. Stalin and Mao have been dictators who used Marxist rhetoric to shield their totalitarian structures. Communism can purely be widespread whilst the overpowering majority of the inhabitants pick it and are arranged to make it artwork, so no dictatorship or coercion would be mandatory. Capitalism has additionally been in charge for hundreds of thousands of deaths: community individuals, African slaves, etc.