Why Democracies are Superior to Dictatorships

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 the y 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. 

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 discriminato1y 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. 

The United Nations does not advocate for any particular model of government; however, it promotes democratic governance because of its set of principles and values. The process of democratic governance should be followed for human development, security, equality, and greater participation. Democracy creates an environment that respects fundamental freedoms and human rights (United Nations, 2021). Citizens have a say in decisions and have the power to hold decision-makers to account. Men and women have equal rights, and in an ideal democratic society, all people are free from discrimination. According to OHCHR (2021), International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights has been instrumental in covering up group rights (i.e., rights of individuals living with disabilities, minorities, and indigenous people) have been central because they result in ensuring equitable dissemination of wealth, and equity in respect to access to political and civil rights. These factors also underwrite human rights because they provide people within a state have similar opportunities regardless of their gender, race, or class. 

Dictatorships typically undermine human rights. In this form of government, one person holds total control over the entire country. They often use genuine support and propaganda to paint themselves as people's heroes. Dictatorship completely disregards the rights of individual citizens because it attempts to control citizens through oppressive force spying, police, and laws. This form of government often curtails free speech, association, assembly, and competitive elections (Human Rights Watch, 2011). Despots often use human rights abuses to shield themselves from the scrutiny of their business dealings. Therefore, this form of government is not ideal because it undermines individuals' fundamental and inherent rights and often lays the groundwork for atrocities against humanities. Consequently, democracy is better than democracy because it preserves basic human rights. 

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 com1ption 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 Iaw 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. 

The separation of power within the democratic system promotes stability. In the legislative branch of government, great separation of power makes legislation challenging to enact. However, this also means that once these legislations are enacted, they are harder to repeal (Stephenson, 2013). This helps to create stable guidelines that are used by the other branches of government. Additionally, each arm of government can check the other to ensure no one violates the principles of democracy. Consequently, the legislature, executive, and judiciary have to operate within the constitution, which helps to create a stable government that respects the rule of law. Therefore, this is ideal because political stability is critical to preserving human rights and underwrites development and economic growth. On the other hand, dictatorship promotes instability. Dictators often disregard any opposition and often want to be the ultimate figure of power within a nation and can use coercion, intimidation or brute force to implement to secure their position. This contributes to insurrection and protests that contribute to instability. According to Shumetie & Watabaji (2019), political instability often impedes economic development. Therefore, democracies are better than dictatorships because they ensure separation of power, which underwrites political stability. 

Separation of power also makes the work of running a democracy easier and more efficient. There are three arms of government that have different functions. For instance, the legislature is tasked with passing laws. The Executive is tasked with implementing the law. While the judiciary is tasked with interpreting the law (The separation of powers – why is it necessary? 2021). These three arms of government can specialize in their constitutional role, which makes running the government efficiently. On the other hand, the lack of separation of power in a dictatorship affects government since the dictator has the ultimate authority in every aspect of government, and this undermines checks and balances and curtails freedom giving rise to insurrections. 

Less Civil Unrest 

As mentioned earlier democracies ha ve a consensus bet wee n the public and the elected lead e rs. This implies that the public is satisfied and contented, wi th the p e rsonalities selected to take th e reins of power after the e lections. A democratic g o vern ment ensures tha t th e electoral process is free and fair for all eligible voters in the country. Therefore , the res ults o f the polls are a true reflection of th e 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. 

There is more unrest in dictatorships than in democracies. Citizens often use protests to show their displeasure about how the government is running its operations. Citizens use civil unrest to throw dictators off the balance if not out of power in a dictatorship, where the regime abuses the rights of its people or where it fails to deliver quality services. The 1989 protest in Beijing's Tiananmen Square serves as the best illustration for this assertion. Beijing residents and citizens from different provinces joined students in Beijing to protest against inflation, the lack of economic opportunity and corruption within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) (Rubio, 2020). These protests quickly escalated to calls for democracy and freedom in China. Civil unrests are often used as a tool to express frustrations with human rights abuse, restrictions on movements, association and speech and a call for freedom and liberation. Therefore, civil unrest offers a great threat to authoritarian rule. There is less civil unrest in democracies in democracies because democratically elected leaders have greater legitimacy to power since citizens largely support the democratic system and its corresponding institutions. Citizens have a voice in government through their democratically elected officials. Democracies also uphold the rights and freedoms of their citizens. These factors make unrest rare because citizens are primarily satisfied with the democratic system of governance. 

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 1s 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 bi1th 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 cow1tries such as Libya that thrived under the leadership of dictator (Magee, & Doces, 2015). In the contemporary world statistics re v ealed that a significant portion of the global populace is dissatisfied with democrac y in their countries. Proponents of dictatorship ha v e posited that there exist ad v antages associated with dictatorial regimes that will be discussed in the paper. 

General satisfaction levels within dictatorships are lower than in democracies. Autocratic governments often go to extreme measures to preserve their power, and there have been numerous instances where the government has banned the use of social media sites to cut communication and beat protestors to quell the fight for liberation (Rubio, 2020). In addition to brute force, despots often use corruption and imprisonment to fight against the calls for freedom. Autocratic regimes that violate human rights and privileges record the lowest general satisfaction among the public. However, it is essential to note that general satisfaction in democracy is also on the decline. According to Foa et al. (2020), citizens of developed democracies continue to experience high levels of democratic dissatisfaction. During the 1990s, over 67 percent of the citizens in Europe, Australia, Northern Asia, and North America felt satisfied with democracy in their nations (Foa et al., 2020). However, today a majority feel dissatisfied. It is important to note that they are not dissatisfied with the democratic system. Citizens' dissatisfaction levels are primarily responsive to objective events and circumstances (Foa et al., 2020). For instance, policy crises, corruption scandals, and economic shocks. Consequently, dissatisfaction in dictatorial regimes often stems from human rights abuse and violation, while dissatisfaction in democracies stems from objective circumstances and events. 

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 coerci v e tactics to force the citi z ens 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 representati v e democracy , but for dicta t orships , leadership is not affected by cultural differences. Furthermore , elections are nonexistent , mak i ng it impossible for ci vi l wars . 

Dictatorships are more stable over time because despots are able to maintain a semblance of political order over time because of their capacity to suppress and restrain political descents and their monopoly on violence. Such regimes can shield themselves from external pressure by purging from the political system or coopting its agenda through corporatism (Tusalem, 2015). Additionally, dictatorships lack significant political pluralism which can threaten the engrained monopoly on political power. Many states in Africa and the Middle East were able to fight against democratic change because of the supremacy of the rentier state economic system. These nations were able to harness oil wealth and were able to pacify mass society's demands for accountable governance with social welfare programs and entitlement that protected the citizens. This system is ideal and underwrites political stability in the long run. However, it is essential to note that not all dictatorships can maintain political stability. If despots are not able to control dissent against the state, then their regimes are more likely to fall because of threats to the legitimacy of the ruler that contributes to economic decline and investment flight. 

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. 

The idea that democratic political institutions foster economic growth has attracted a lot of attention in contemporary society. Indeed, the associations appear intuitive: the democratic system allows for checks and balances in government and fosters strong individual property rights that create a conducive environment for investment in physical and human capital, facilitating growth. However, different studies suggest that the single visions of despots help guide nations towards economic improvement. For instance, in the 1950s, South Korea and North Korea were ruled by dictatorial regimes and both nations were extremely poor. However, by 1980 North Korea's per capita income was approximately $768 whereas South Korea's was $1,589 ( Democracy, dictators, and growth, 2004). Then, after 1980, South Korea began to adopt democracy while North Korea remained an autocracy. While South Korea continued to develop, it could be argued that economic progress made by the autocratic regimes between 1950 and 1980 played an integral in the nation's current economic position. Therefore the choices made by its dictators made a significant impact on the nation's economic progress. 

A study was conducted to determine the impact of limiting sovereign power such as judicial independence and proportional representation on economic development. The National Bureau of Economic Research study concluded that constitutional rules that limit sovereign power did not have predictive power for the growth of per capita income in a nation ( Democracy, dictators, and growth, 2004). This means that limiting the power of an autocratic government does not necessarily guarantee per capita income growth. As such, autocrats with a sound vision for economic development, who can launch projects unopposed and who promote home enterprises, can grow their economies. It is the choices made by the authoritarians rather than the limitation on their power that have allowed poor nations to emerge from poverty. 

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. Dictatorships are also less corrupt than emerging democracies in developing nations, and as a consequence, there is less waste in government expenditure. According to Vani (2011), a large proportion of public expenditure in developing nations is lost to corruption, waste, and fraud. According to Rajiv Gandhi, Former Prime Minister of India, only 15% of poverty alleviation programs reach the intended beneficiaries. Further research indicates that government expenditure is wasted in develop nations such as Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom (Vani, 2011). The misappropriation of public funds in democracies can be attributed to the lack of incentives for government departments to save money. This would be different in a dictatorship. Autocrats would assess a nation's earning and expenditure, which would give government departments incentives not to misappropriate finances, resulting in lower expenditure. 

The assertion that dictatorships use less government expenditure than democracies does not apply to dictatorial kleptocracies. Such dictators use their positions of power to increase or gain personal wealth by stealing valuable resources and money from the nations they rule. This form of dictatorship is detrimental to the nations because risk in government projects is nationalized while rewards are privatized (Committee on Foreign Relations U.S. Senate, 2016). Participations in the plunders of kleptocracies are controlled and organized by top political elites who raid state treasuries with impunity and immunity (Committee on Foreign Relations U.S. Senate, 2016). It is important to note that dictatorial kleptocracies often project their corrupt practices past their national borders with a growing impact in established and new democracies alike. There numerous instances where dictatorships use government expenditures than democracies; however, this does not apply to dictatorial kleptocracies. 

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., & Vreel and, J. R. (2010). Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice, 143(1-2), 67-101. 

Committee on Foreign Relations U.S. Senate. (2016). Corruption, violent extremism, kleptocracy, and the dangers of failing governance. The U.S. Government Publishing Office . https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114shrg27955/html/CHRG-114shrg27955.htm 

Democracy, dictators, and growth. (2004). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/digest/dec04/democracy-dictators-and-growth 

Doorenspleet R. (2019). Democracy and Development. In Rethinking the Value of Democracy (pp. 201-236). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. 

Foa, R.S., Klassen, A., Slade, M., Rand, A. and R. Collins. (2020). The global satisfaction with democracy report 2020. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Centre for the Future of Democracy . 

Human Rights Watch. (2011). A dictatorship defaults: When growth without freedom is not enough. HWR.Org https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/02/05/dictatorship-defaults 

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. 

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2021). Rule of law - democracy and human rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/Issues/RuleOfLaw/Pages/Democracy.aspx 

Przeworski A. (2017). A conceptual history of political regimes: Democracy, dictatorship, and authoritarianism. Studia Socjologiczno-Polityczne. Seria Nowa 7(2) 9-30. 

Rubio, M. (2020). Why protests matter: The battle between authoritarianism and democracy, a war we must win. Journal of International Affairs . https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/why-protests-matter-battle-between-authoritarianism-and-democracy-war-we-must-win 

Shumetie, A., & Watabaji, M. D. (2019). Effect of corruption and political instability on enterprises' innovativeness in Ethiopia: pooled data based.  Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 8(1), 1-19. 

Stephenson, M. C. (2013). Does Separation of Powers Promote Stability and Moderation?.  The Journal of Legal Studies,  42(2), 331-368. 

The separation of powers – why is it necessary? (2021). Republic of Australia . https://www.parlament.gv.at/ENGL/PERK/PARL/POL/ParluGewaltenteilung/index.shtml 

Tusalem, R. F. (2015). Democracies, autocracies, and political stability.  International Social Science Review,  90(1),1. United Nations. (2021). Democracy. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/democracy 

Vani, S. (2011). Waste in government expenditures. World Bank . https://blogs.worldbank.org/governance/waste-in-government-expenditures