[deleted]
I think that ultimately, the problem with authoritarian regimes and dictatorships is an efficiency vs resilience problem. Dictatorships are super efficient. There is no back and forth, no debate, no bureaucracy except that allowed to be. This can create an illusion of progress early on, as all those things that were eternally in the future will start to get tackled. The problem is that it is not a resilient system. It relies exclusively upon the dictator and their understanding of the world. This is not a problem in the areas of expertise or if the dictator is smart enough to understand their limits. But at some point, there will be a mismatch between what the dictator thinks is important, necessary, or true, and what really is. Be it ego, being surrounded by yes men, being detached from the general population or a minority group, or anything else, the dictator will make bad choices, and there is nothing in the system that can prevent that.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 month ago
This, but unironically.
The problem with dictators is that you need to be an evil shit to climb all the way to the top. Just grabbing some asshole at random would arguably produce a better guy. (Or, at least, a guy who would get thrown out a window faster if they fucked up).
oce@jlai.lu 1 month ago
Some monarchist defend their views by saying that it allows to have a successor determined without being biased by a populiraty contest and which can be educated from birth to become the perfect monarch.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
History shows that that’s a load of bullshit.
Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Practice rarely matches theory once you introduce people.
Steve@startrek.website 1 month ago
I have said it before- all of our elected representatives should be chosen at random from the general population the way we do with jury duty.
These people would serve one term only and be well paid.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
I would prefer a mix: keep the Senate composed of actual legal experts, but stock the House by sortition (also expand it to equalize the ratio of representatives to constituents).
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
You also need to be an evil shit to stay at the top
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
There are plenty of examples of regular people who turned into dictators. Power corrupts. There is no such thing as a “benevolent dictator”.
IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
There absolutely is such a thing as a benevolent dictator. The problem is that it’s impossible to tell ahead of time who they are.
adarza@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
i’ve read more than one book where the elections were like that. the incumbent essentially just faces a vote of confidence before each term. if they lose (no majority support) or are term limited (or otherwise lose their place in office), they get replaced by a random draw from the constituency.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That’s only half of it. The other half is staying in power and dealing with all the people under you.
The problem is that the dictator is never the only “evil shit” in the regime. Dictators are evil shit magnets for entire bureaucracies full of ladder-climbing sycophants.
Then comes the long-term problem: information and trust. When you’re the dictator everyone wants to be your best friend. They will tell you anything to get what they want. You will soon realize that you can’t trust anyone. That’s when the paranoia sets in. You’ll reorganize your entire government around loyalty to you, not beliefs or abilities, because that’s the only way to survive.
This is why all dictatorships end up looking the same over the long run. They have only one goal: continued survival of the dictatorship. Anything else leads to collapse and death or exile of the dictator.