Since the ancient civilizations, the world has seen its share of diverse forms of governance. Countries elicit disparities when it comes to the type of government that is in power. The differences in leadership are attributed to the geographical location, culture, religion, and political affiliation (ideologies) associated with the country. Democracies and dictatorships are the most common forms of government found in most sovereign states. Although they both share similarities, the bulk of the discourses have delved into determining the superior structure of governance between the two ( Cheibub, Gandhi, & Vreeland, 2010). The question which form of government is best makes for interesting polemics every time it comes up. Is it democracy or dictatorships? While there are shining examples of progressive advancement among some dictatorships, they pale in comparison to the many benefits of democratic governments, thus proving that democracy is superior to dictatorship.
Democracy refers to a government where the people have the power to elect leaders to positions of power. The civil liberties of the people are given top priority, and they have a crucial part to play in the implementation of legislation. This is considered to be the ideal government for a country concerned about the interest of the citizens. The various features of democratic government have been attributed to the argument that they are superior to dictatorships. In most instances, the regime is usually a reflection of the point of view of the majority vote during the national elections. Opponents of democracy are convinced that it is better than any form of governance, particularly dictatorships. The paper will, therefore, discuss the aspects of a democratic government that make it outweigh dictatorial authority.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Human rights
Democracy is considered to be an embodiment of the rule of law, as stipulated in the constitution. One of the relevant statutes of the constitution is the Bill of Rights that stipulates the fundamental rights of citizens. Human rights are universal and are concerned with the protection of the civil liberties of individuals residing in a country. It eliminates any discriminatory practices that may culminate in the oppression of civilians for whatever reason. The foundations of a democratic government are built on the protection of the human rights and dignity of the public. In a representative democracy, the people elect representatives who address the critical issues affecting them on their behalf. Following this, the audience feels contented with the leadership in power, boosting the Human Development Index (HDI).
The HDI has a positive impact on the nation-building mechanism, increasing the overall productivity of the populace. For instance, with the right leaders in society is assured of access to healthcare bolstering the life expectancy and well-being ( Knutsen, 2011). When the civilians are satisfied with the administration, there is widespread happiness in the community. Additionally, the people and government are united by common goals eliminating any chances of political upheaval. Marginalized groups such as the LGBT community whose rights have been violated in the past have an opportunity to voice their grievances by electing a representative. Democracies are associated with the egalitarianism ideologies that focus on equal protection and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation. People with disabilities will also be included in the deliberations on legislation creating a diverse labor force committed to nation-building.
Separation of Power
The doctrine of separation of powers is a vital component of a democratic government whereby the tasks of the state are divided into three branches, namely the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Under this model of governance, the problem of abuse of power is eliminated because the separation of powers ensures that no branch has more authority than the rest. This is because it establishes a check and balance system that is characterized by the assignment of authority to the offices of government. The checks and balances provide rights for mutual control among the arms of government. The separation of powers reinforces freedom for all by making it impossible for individuals with unlimited authority to suppress the rights of others.
Furthermore, representative democracies' political structure comprises of the ruling party and the opposition. The opposition, in this case, creates competition in parliament when it comes to state affairs preventing the ruling party from misusing their power. Therefore, issues such as corruption are kept in check since the leaders are constantly scrutinized by their opponents and, most importantly, by the public ( Przeworski, 2017). One of the significant benefits of separation of power is that it paves the way for the accountability of the leaders and the civilians. Since the people govern democracies, every individual is responsible for decisions made concerning the leadership. Those found guilty of violating the rule of law are held accountable for their actions by paying attention to the doctrine of fairness. Moreover, the principles of democracy allow leaders to resign for the sake of public interest, but for dictatorships, the leaders are intoxicated with the intent to remain in power.
Less Civil Unrest
As mentioned earlier, democracies have a consensus between the public and the elected leaders. This implies that the public is satisfied and contented with the personalities selected to take the reins of power after the elections. A democratic government ensures that the electoral process is free and fair for all eligible voters in the country. Therefore, the results of the polls are a true reflection of the people's choice.
Consequently, the people elect those leaders whose manifestos are aligned with the core issues affecting society. Moreover, the leaders in parliament are the chosen representatives of the voters, and this eliminates any chance of civil unrest. When it comes to a dictatorship, the leaders exert full control of the government and undermine the will of the people. The desire to be in power outdoes their commitment to the well-being of the community.
General Satisfaction
In contrast to democracies, dictatorships have been blamed for taking part in voting fraud, where the ruling party alters the results to suit their agenda. Ballot integrity is lacking in countries governed by dictators because the outcome of the electoral process is tailored to give the oppressive government authority over the nation's resources. This leads to the birth of the disgruntled community that views the government as the enemy. A totalitarian form of government prevents individuals from publicly criticizing the leadership for its failure to meet the promises made to the people during the campaigns ( Doorenspleet, 2019). The few who are bold enough to face the oppressive rule are exposed to capital punishment under vague charges. In extreme cases, influential and vocal opponents of the authority are killed to eliminate the competition and paralyze opposition. A democracy, on the other hand, ensures that all protocols of the electoral process are followed to the letter. Those who oppose the incumbent leadership are left to exercise their right of expression without any threats to their well-being.
Despite the benefits that can be accrued by both the leadership and the people from democracy, there are instances where such governments have failed. It, therefore, follows that the presence of democracy does not necessarily imply that it is better than dictatorship. Moreover, dictatorships cannot be ruled out as complete failures considering countries such as Libya that thrived under the leadership of dictator ( Magee, & Doces, 2015). In the contemporary world, statistics revealed that a significant portion of the global populace is dissatisfied with democracy in their countries. Proponents of dictatorship have posited that there exist advantages associated with dictatorial regimes that will be discussed in the paper
Stability
Although totalitarian governments acquire power through oppressive means, they are said to be more stable politically when compared to young democracies. Such leaders are supposed to use fear and other coercive tactics to force the citizens into subjugation and thus able to rule unopposed. Since oppositions in a democracy are suppressed, they have no voice in society, making them redundant. Democracies have been observed to fail in instances where a diverse culture characterizes the country. Multiculturalism is a challenge to representative democracy, but for dictatorships, leadership is not affected by cultural differences. Furthermore, elections are nonexistent, making it impossible for civil wars.
Economic Growth
Dictators are, at times, considered to have visions for economic progress in the country. These have been attributed to robust economies that can sustain the populace. Furthermore, dictatorships assume the rights of exploitation of natural resources. Dictators do not have to answer to anyone, and as a result, they are free to initiate mega projects without encountering the problem of bureaucracy and red tape. Human rights are a universal concept that goes beyond borders. All representative democracies are expected to uphold the civil liberties of the citizens. Dictatorships, on the other hand, have no regard for the interests of the public ( Carl Henrik, 2011). This makes them targets of activist movements and the international community for the violation of human rights. The dictators respond to such claims by phasing out foreign investments to avoid scrutiny from abroad. In such instances, totalitarian governments focus on improving the local economy by giving the citizens incentives to conduct business. Moreover, this government intervention facilitates the implementation of regulations to monitor economic activities to ensure that they serve the interests of the leadership.
Less Government Expenditure
Unlike democracies, separation of powers is nonexistent in dictatorial governments. This implies that the government does not necessarily have to be divided into three arms because the leader is the absolute authority. Therefore, no money is allocated to support the functions of the other branches. However, this is not a guarantee that the funds will be used for the good of the people.
Conclusion
In conclusion, stable, economically astute dictatorships might lure one to consider such a form of governance as ideal. However, its shortcomings and the far more numerous advantages of democracy extol it as the superior governance structure.
References
Carl Henrik, K. (2011). The economic effects of democracy and dictatorship (Doctoral dissertation, Department of Political Science,).
Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J., & Vreeland, J. R. (2010). Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public choice , 143 (1-2), 67-101.
Doorenspleet, R. (2019). Democracy and Development. In Rethinking the Value of Democracy (pp. 201-236). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Knutsen, C. H. (2011). Democracy, dictatorship and protection of property rights. The Journal of Development Studies , 47 (1), 164-182.
Magee, C. S., & Doces, J. A. (2015). Reconsidering regime type and growth: lies, dictatorships, and statistics. International Studies Quarterly , 59 (2), 223-237.
Przeworski, A. (2017). A conceptual history of political regimes: Democracy, dictatorship, and authoritarianism. Studia Socjologiczno-Polityczne. Seria Nowa , 7 (2), 9-30.
