Saraventon's Waterfall
Closing statement:
All together, dictatorships are more efficient. Dictatorships save money on the elections that democracy’s are always having. And the money can then be spent on something more important like housing or helping victims of natural calamities. Dictatorships are more efficient since only one person is making all of the major decisions. Government is more stable since there is only one person to make decisions. No elections, e.t.c nothing disturbs the power in place. And finally In a dictatorship there is a low crime rate because the dictators have very severe punishments, even for the smallest crimes. People are afraid of these consequences, so they don’t commit crimes. And most dictatorships are police states, which also means that there is low crime rate under these regimes. This means that a lot of the time people are safe from harm. And sure there were some bad dictators, but there were also bad democracies. It all depends on the person. This all sums up how a dictatorship is better, more efficient, and safer than a democracy.
If the government goes through all of those procedures to make the country safer, then why doesn't it show lower crime rates than a dictatorship? Can we please have an example and source of an innocent person who was charged for a crime they didn't do in a dictatorship.
People in a democracy could be against each others ideas. In a way, its all the same thing, just many people instead of one.
Who said that democracies can't end in mass killings? Once again gaps can be created between people (due to reasons I earlier discussed.) Here is a source that will help show that democracy's can end bad too: http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/39/1/
Can we have an example and source please? As this can be seen stereotype or assumption.
But it is more efficient to have one person make all the decisions. And once again, it all really depends on the person. And the people in a democracy could make wrong decisions too if they are influenced, or if they regret their decisions.
Not necessarily. How do you know the majority of people are unhappy? Source and example please.
And political officials make claims sometimes just to win over people’s votes, rather than actually working for the people. Leading the people to making decisions they regret and being unhappy.
Same goes for a democracy. People could make a choice that they end up regretting. And feel uncomfortable in their own country. And who said that the leader wasn't defending/ protecting the people. Can you please give me an example and a source. Because there were lots of great dictatorships too as I mentioned earlier.
Thats a stereotype. It all depends on the person. And the same thing could happen to a democracy. But instead of one person, it would be many people making "bad/ wrong" decisions. Sure laws favor the majority of people, but this is hurtful to the minority. So there still are people who disagree. And if the people who voted got their way, maybe they were influenced and decided that they didn't like it after all. So the majority could be left unhappy.
More things create gaps between the people. Which can cause violence. Sure laws favor the majority of people, but this is hurtful to the minority. Causing a gap, possibly leading to violence. And once again, in a dictatorship, only 1 person is making decisions, preventing this gap from happening.
There were more dictators other than Hitler. Such as:
Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal (1952 to 1984.)
Provided a 2.70x increase in GDP per capita.
Habib Bourguiba (1957 - 1987)
Bourguiba led the fight for Tunisia's independence from France and became the first President of the Republic of Tunisia. During his rule, the country moved from a one- to multi-party state, women were granted the right to vote and polygamy was rejected.
Deng Xiaoping (1980 - 1997)
He re-formed China’s educational system, and lead his country away from Maoism. He is a key as to the beginning of China’s ascent to becoming a global power.
And it could be argued that there are bad democracies. Its all an opinion. Just how some people like Donald Trump, others don't. Its all opinion.
Violence could result if they don't agree on the leader. And people are separated by their political beliefs. In a dictatorship their is only one ruler. So their is nothing much to argue about.
Argument 2: Stable Government. Government is more stable since there is only one person to make decisions. No elections, e.t.c nothing disturbs the power in place.
The exact same goes for a democracy. The people could make a bad decision that tears apart their economic growth. And it depends on the person if the dictatorship lasts long. Thats a stereotype.
Not having an election won't prevent people from becoming interested in politics. Source please.
Citizens aren't always properly informed about things the way they are supposed too. This can result in bad decisions, and regrets.
Having an election won't necessarily end in a "proper" leader. What is a "proper leader." Depending on the situation, a dictatorships leader could be just as good or even better than a democracy.
Doing anything the people want isn't always good. They could always make mistakes. And how do you know they won't take this for granted. Free speech can be offensive to people. And what if people use it inappropriately.
The people in a democracy do basically rule themselves. But the public isn’t always informed on political stuff the way that they should be. And when people lack knowledge of problems in the society, then they might make a bad or wrong decision during elections.The people are easily influenced by mobs. They could make a decision that they end up regretting.
Argument 1:
Dictatorships benefits the economy. Dictatorships save money on the elections that democracy’s are always having. And the money can then be spent on something more important like housing or helping victims of natural calamities.
Opening Statement: In many ways a dictatorship is much more efficient than democracy, including it benefits economy, its government is more stable, more efficient, and shows lower crime rates.
