Democracy is far more cumbersome government when compared to dictatorship
Democracy is a policy which is heavily rooted in the manner in which collective people form opinions. The basic reasoning behind it is - for the people, by the people and with the people. It pushes people power to a great extent. Dictatorship on the other hand, is totally the opposite of democracy where in an individual is responsible for all the actions made in that region and its equal and sometimes opposite reactions. I agree with the author's statement suggesting that democracy has many an obstacle in its path when compared to a dictatorship.
Like the saying goes, “Too many cooks spoil the broth”, Democracy is built on this principle. Now when there are too many cooks around, one can be sure that the broth that is made is going to have extremes of all the cooks individual ingredients. Democracy focuses on generating an answer to a problem by group storming the question Now when many people are involved in making the decision, there is a high probability that tensions will rise, allegations will be made, many will have to reconsider their proposals and eventually this might lead to a never ending debate. A very good example to cite here would be the India – U.S nuclear deal. Though the party in power in India which is the Congress party tried to push for this deal rapidly, all the other opposing parties and some alliances as well voiced their disapproval loudly. It took a lot of time, energy and efforts from all fronts to make progress on this deal which eventually turned to reality. But there are many such cases where an amicable solution is not within the boundaries of the picture. It takes an extremely large amount of time for the decision made to be cemented.
Dictatorship, on the other hand, with all its negativity in terms of being dominated by the egotistical whims of an individual, tends to have no problems when it comes to decision making. Since there is no collective opinion but more of an advice presented to the dictator, the dictator has to make the call at the end of the day. There are no hardships like with the bureaucratic misfits a democracy produces. Another example here is when the U.S republican party in power was trying to pump back money into its dwindling financial sector, the motion was initially denied by majority of the policy movers. George Bush had to reformat the deal to make it rosy for all sides participating in it from the financial houses to the policy makers and the opposition. The only negative impact that a dictatorship will face while passing judgments is that the individual will be responsible for the negative impact of the decision made. Many examples can be quoted in this context, Hitler, Mussolini and Saddam Hussein to name a few.
When an unstoppable force comes across an immovable object, something has to budge. This is the situation when it comes to being a democratic country. There is also a chance of hoodwinking many a person in a democracy that is corruption, bribery, theft, cheating, losing moral high grounds etc. all run in large numbers. But when it comes to a dictatorship, the dictator need not break any of these rules because if he were to do so, it becomes a law and his country will have to abide with it and face its repercussions. So I end my essay saying that in a dictatorship bureaucratic hassles would not exist and this form of government would end up sailing smoothly till it drops anchor.
Democracy is a policy which is heavily rooted in the manner in which collective people form opinions. The basic reasoning behind it is - for the people, by the people and with the people. It pushes people power to a great extent. Dictatorship on the other hand, is totally the opposite of democracy where in an individual is responsible for all the actions made in that region and its equal and sometimes opposite reactions. I agree with the author's statement suggesting that democracy has many an obstacle in its path when compared to a dictatorship.
Like the saying goes, “Too many cooks spoil the broth”, Democracy is built on this principle. Now when there are too many cooks around, one can be sure that the broth that is made is going to have extremes of all the cooks individual ingredients. Democracy focuses on generating an answer to a problem by group storming the question Now when many people are involved in making the decision, there is a high probability that tensions will rise, allegations will be made, many will have to reconsider their proposals and eventually this might lead to a never ending debate. A very good example to cite here would be the India – U.S nuclear deal. Though the party in power in India which is the Congress party tried to push for this deal rapidly, all the other opposing parties and some alliances as well voiced their disapproval loudly. It took a lot of time, energy and efforts from all fronts to make progress on this deal which eventually turned to reality. But there are many such cases where an amicable solution is not within the boundaries of the picture. It takes an extremely large amount of time for the decision made to be cemented.
Dictatorship, on the other hand, with all its negativity in terms of being dominated by the egotistical whims of an individual, tends to have no problems when it comes to decision making. Since there is no collective opinion but more of an advice presented to the dictator, the dictator has to make the call at the end of the day. There are no hardships like with the bureaucratic misfits a democracy produces. Another example here is when the U.S republican party in power was trying to pump back money into its dwindling financial sector, the motion was initially denied by majority of the policy movers. George Bush had to reformat the deal to make it rosy for all sides participating in it from the financial houses to the policy makers and the opposition. The only negative impact that a dictatorship will face while passing judgments is that the individual will be responsible for the negative impact of the decision made. Many examples can be quoted in this context, Hitler, Mussolini and Saddam Hussein to name a few.
When an unstoppable force comes across an immovable object, something has to budge. This is the situation when it comes to being a democratic country. There is also a chance of hoodwinking many a person in a democracy that is corruption, bribery, theft, cheating, losing moral high grounds etc. all run in large numbers. But when it comes to a dictatorship, the dictator need not break any of these rules because if he were to do so, it becomes a law and his country will have to abide with it and face its repercussions. So I end my essay saying that in a dictatorship bureaucratic hassles would not exist and this form of government would end up sailing smoothly till it drops anchor.
