Since it appears people don't read well, or maybe I should say they read too well and read things that weren't said, let me turn to what is wrong with dictatorships.
Obviously there is a danger the dictator will be or become the wrong person, in many possible ways -- sociopathy, insanity, paranoia (who wouldn't be in such a situation), excessively ideological and lacking practical sense, or just plain brutal. Some legal mechanism for removing el Presidente will be needed, and I can't think of a way such a thing could be set up without the dictator being able to set it aside.
So don't have a dictator, have a central committee. Let them make executive decisions and have figureheads (a monarch perhaps) for intervention purposes in situations of serious mischief.
There is another thing wrong with autocratic government, even if it is as humane and tolerant and sweet and nice as anyone could want. When it makes a mistake it doesn't know it until things are really bad, and even then tends to blame other factors.
It's like an automated accounting system. Hire hundreds of accounting clerks to do the sums and addition mistakes will happen and they affect one or two customers. Let a computer run it and a mistake affects millions, and does immense damage. Now it won't be a mistake in doing sums but in programming -- the point is that power to get things done efficiently brings power to mess things up efficiently.
There is another problem; the public is fickle. A given set of leaders is popular for a while and eventually becomes unpopular and by some, hated just because people often decide "it's time for a change" about practically everything. So terms have to be limited and retirements mandated. Otherwise at some point you have demonstrations in the streets and the army having to decide whether to fire on citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment