In a dictatorship, the government leads social change; in a democracy, social change leads the government?
What do you think of this?
It might be a bit simplified but it makes sense imo.
- Mujer AltaLv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
Normally, even dictators have a lot of supporters in the population so, it's more of how social change is implemented (put into effect) than where it comes from, than who's leading the charge. Power resides at the top in dictatorships so policies and programs can be implemented faster and more efficiently than in democracies. Corporate structure is a top-down dictatorship which is why it's thought of as being more efficient than government in a democracy. It is more efficient but it's also not "democratic" and is set up to "rule", not to "govern".
I remember when Castro implemented economic changes in Cuba. Even though the programs and policies were very austere, thousands of plantation workers supported them - because their lives under the plantation managers and owners hadn't been the best, now they were free and starving - but still free. Every major country - Russia, China, etc. - that went Communist had very large segments of the population that had suffered immensely under industrial capitalism. This is why they "went the other way". This is also the justification for welfare in 1st world countries like our own: it helps keep the social organization of the country stable. When a large part of the population has no hope of a better life and has nothing to lose and everything to gain by acting up, they become a threat to the rest - who usually have everything to lose and nothing to gain by revolution.
When you look at countries that have had both democracies and dictators, you usually find that, for the most part, the language, social culture and political culture are stable. The economic system is most liable to change because it's perceived as being the most corrupt and the most unjust.
- AndrewLv 48 years ago
And in a an Oligarchy the Mob rules everything.