Democracy

...

Elections are usually matters of propaganda. Another critic of democracy is that it is wanting in efficiency. For prompt and effective actions, unity of action is essential.

“One bad general", said Napoleon “is better than two good ones". In a multitude of minds, much unprofitable discussion takes place, whereas unity of control is needed for a vigorous national life. For example, a democratic government cannot cope with the emergencies created by war as effectively as a dictator can. This criticism, however, is not very convincing because in times of war for example the British prime minister usually wields the powers of a dictator. During world wars, for example, Sir Winston Churchill faced few real difficulties as a result of the system of democracy in England (Gale 2016). A sounder criticism of democracy in times of war would be to say that secrecy in military affairs becomes difficult, if not impossible, and that the oppositions usually lowers the morale of people by its loud condemnations of the actions of the Cabinet.

After WWII it was thought that the world would be safe for democracy, but this forecast proved to be wrong. While democracy worked quite well in France and the English speaking countries, most other countries swung towards dictatorship. So successful and powerful did their dictatorships become, that the days of democracy seemed to be almost over (McCormick 2017). Unfortunately, the methods of dictatorship are, and have to be, ruthless. Dictatorship employed force and violence in order to maintain itself. It resorts to physical compulsion, person, concentrations camps censored, intimidation purges and execution. Both in Russia and Germany countless execution was ordered for the sanity of dictatorship. A dictatorship cannot stand against constant opposition.

Dictatorship is certainly not without its merits. "Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike." (Adam p286) society is a organism and not a machine. Just as mechanical system leak the ballot-box can also thou, therefore, the safer course is to gives all power to a dictator.

Both Socrates and Plato shared similar criticisms of democracy, suggesting that it gives an equal voice to those who do and don’t deserve to be heard. Socrates went even further, implying that the very nature of democracy makes the system corrupt. Irrational voters, those who are uninformed about political and economic issues, can poorly interpret information presented to them and thus make ignorant decisions when they vote. Socrates also argued that a majority would inevitably do a poorer job of governing than a few capable people with the necessary knowledge. This situation would result in government policies being influenced by non-experts, compromising their effectiveness. Plato favored a form of aristocracy called "Kallipolis" that would be led by philosopher-kings, wise men who governed unwillingly (Plato). The dictator must, of course, be one who has possessed the ability to organize, direct and administer. Parliamentary rule all government officials working together for many different goals , while a dictator on the other hand, can concentrate all his energy towards the improvement of his country.

Main point three: Since there can be no freedom of thought or speech under such a government system. Intensive propaganda is employed in order to retain the support of the people. Dictatorship, therefore by its very nature hampers the free development of the human personality. It does not allow for diverse of political opinion and belief, but tends towards political regimentation or standardizations of human beings (Lohmann 2000). The greatest danger of dictatorship, however, is its propensity for war as an instrument of national pronouncement. It preaches war, and its ideologies. Due to it’s sufferance and partly because it suffers from an exaggerated form nationalism due to one individual’s desires?

When researching any type of government, or political philosophy, it is important to remember that the way these ideals read on paper is sometimes different than the way they ultimately play out in practice – sometimes considerably so. People are living, thinking beings with needs, wants, tendencies and feelings. Therefore, it is somewhat expected that they will behave in ways the philosophers and law makers did not anticipate (Gale 2016). How the government reacts to these unexpected changes, and whether or not they bend to the will of the people has a lot to do with those in power at the time. Regardless, there are recognizable core values and beliefs at play in both a democracy and a dictatorship. Even though they may not exactly align with their written origins, there are still plenty of differences to explore between the two. When comparing the two political philosophies of government, democracy and dictatorship. Why we must examine why these two terms come up together so often? It is probably because one could argue that they are exact opposites of one another. Where a democracy is based upon allowing the people to govern the land by majority rules voting, a dictatorship takes any and all influence away of the general population, and instead places it all in the hands of a single, absolute ruler.

But what makes up and Is a Democracy? Ideally, the power in a democratic government comes from the people. Elections are held where the citizens of a given location are able to vote for the candidate whom they feel will best represent their personal wants and needs when in a position of power. Therefore, the main principle behind democracy is that of representation. Even though the people themselves are not able to create and enforce laws, there is an expectation that the elected representatives will act on their behalf (Gale 2016). Naturally, this means there are necessarily people who are underrepresented in their district, assuming their preferred candidate was not elected. This can lead to a bit of a backlash, and if there is enough support for a new candidate, the current official may not win re-election. Of course, there are also cases where the elected official fails to come through on their promises to the people who voted for them, making it unlikely, or at least less likely that they will win re-election either.

What’s so great about a democracy? Democracies are sometimes said to be the best form of government. Namely because it derives its power from all of the people, and not just a small group. This is also part of the reason democracy is thought to be a safeguard against a revolution (Gale 2016). Considering the people in charge were put there by the people themselves, there is less of a need to overthrow the government violently. Instead, the people can simply