Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco were some of the worst dictators and they all had one thing in common and that was to have all the power to themselves so that they would be the one ruler with that would have everything their way.

They also were after one group in their country.

These names were so closely associated with the word “dictator” that now when we hear this word it automatically goes into our heads as the worst thing possible

In a democracy, there is a huge chance of corruption within the government. Because the voting system is very large and spread out (for lots of people), there is bound to be people that can be bribe or threaten others to vote for something that may not be their idea.

First of all, a democracy might support the right to freedom, information, and expression, however, like I said earlier, corruption is a big problem.

Second of all, Germany was actually quite happy under Hitler. For one, Hitler was actually elected in the Parliament (http://school.eb.co.uk/levels/intermediate/article/603781). Also, Hitler may have committed huge crimes OUTSIDE the country, but he did many good things WITHIN the country itself (http://www.topinfopost.com/2015/01/05/things-you-were-not-told-about-hitler).

What you are saying is all the flaws of a dictatorship but you have nothing to say that enhances a democracy. This is because there is nothing good to say about it.

Actually, many dictatorships have lasted much longer than the past democracies have lasted. I would like to see proof of the Guatemala information that you have found.

First of all, your top argument completely lacks proof and is baseless. This is because you said that dictators don't stay very long, and then you said they stay in power until overthrown. Please clarify.

Second of all, the blackmailing incident does not prove why a democracy is better, which I believe is your entire argument. How do you respond?

"A government, no matter which kind, can surely make good or bad decisions. But there are things that can stifle, dilute and postpone any good idea. It will have a tendency to get better in direct relation to the quality and merits of people thinking about it. In some instances the ideas have to be implemented swiftly.

Dictatorships fare better when these factors are taken into account. They are superior to democracies in the expediency in which they can arrive to policies and implement laws that could resolve problems. They can easily calibrate the institutional and legal framework, since they don't need a political coalition for passing or repealing acts. This framework can be efficiently managed, ignoring the special interests that need to be relatively reconciled in democracies, through a time consuming process. So a pro-development government has greater capacity to modernize a society with a dictatorship than under a democracy.

After the 1936 Spanish elections, the Republican coalition, was formed out of more than ten parties including anarchists, socialists, and social democrats. Supported by Basque nationalists, and other separatist movements, they seized power. Reaching agreement among them was nearly impossible. Under Francisco Franco, all rightist factions were unified. His uncontested leadership managed to take the necessary step to maintain a unified Spain, survive a blockade, and start the so called "Spanish Miracle". [[http://countrystudies.us/spain/22.htm De Menses, Filipe Ribeiro Franco and the Spanish Civil War, p. 87, Routledge]]

Because the can do as they please, dictators can surround themselves and employ technocrats instead of popular personalities, which is helpful in modernizing the nation even when the majority of the population are reluctant to abandon their traditional ways. Dictators do not need to ensure the support of or appeal to a specific constituency by including them (for example by picking a Latino for the supreme court)[[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/aug/07/risking-hispanic-vote/]]. In that sense, a dictator's decisions will have a tendency to represent his own economic interest in development, rather than the popularity or political affiliation of the decision.

To do the latter is an inefficiency displayed widely in democracies. Here, the head of government must surround himself with a cabinet composed of fellow party members and allies, regardless of their credentials, in order to secure parliamentary and electoral support, which means he cannot go against the views of the people, who sometimes elect a candidate because they espouse their own views, because they belong to the same clan, or even because they are simply popular and charismatic.

We want to contrast examples of two Latin American countries. The first is Chile, a dictatorship where Pinochet, helped by the Chicago Boys (advisors) applied a plan consisting in privatizations. The consequence was known as the Chilean Miracle. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin america/newsid3192000/3192145.stm]]

The second, Venezuela, was a consolidated democracy in 1989 when the President, Carlos Andrés Pérez, employed a cabinet full of technocrats from the venezuelan Institute IESA (the IESA boys) who, just like the Chicago boys prescribed a treatment of free market and privatizations. But the preside This special states are very similar to dictatorships, but they are justified because, these are the largest threats to the well-being of their citizens, and swift decisions have to be made to solve them. For developing nations their lack of development is a very big threat to the well-being of their citizens, and so swift decision making is crucial to solve this as well. All the countries that have it and have resolved crisis with that:"