Topic "Democracy is far more cumbersome form of government than dictatorship"
The above argument claims that democracy is far more cumbersome than dictatorship. Solely from the cumbersome point of view, dictatorship tops the list of policies far higher than democracy. Dictatorship is more prone to erroneous decision-makings, which necessitates more labor to get corrected than to have labored in making right decision in the first place. Also, dictatorship is more cumbersome to replace the wrongful leader than poor ruling party in democracy.
For instance, North Korea has been ruled by Dictator Kim family for generations. Under its lead, the country achieved poor economic and technological advancement. This is because Kim Jong-Il spent 90 percent of the annual budget for military expansion and cared little for individual welfare, which is clearly a wrongful approach to lead the nation. And even after his son Kim Jong-Un's inauguration, the situation is not much better. For over six decades the nation suffered Kim's reign of dictatorship, and there seems to be no reconciliation in foreseeable future either. On the other hand, democracy prevents such hassle by deploying means like filibuster and propositions to reject or correct wrongful decision makings. Clearly, dictatorship is more cumbersome to correct mistakes than democracy.
Also, when a ruling party is deemed inappropriate, dictatorship takes more effort to overthrow the prevailing powerhouse than democracy does. Democracy deploys some form of vote or ballot system at the end of each term to prevent any single party from gaining too much power. In contrast, dictatorship virtually allows only few ways to overthrow the government. Those ways are usually violent and tragic, such as bloodshed revolution, military coup, and assassination of the current leader. The cost of correction is devastatingly higher for dictatorship than democracy.
Some may argue that dictatorship is capable of faster decision making, and able leader taking the office can lead the nation to faster economic success. While superficially and logically sound, this claim is practically false. First, faster decision means less consideration of consequences, which may lead to greater failure that costs more to get reconciled. For example, Zimbabwe had been an exemplary African state for centuries under British democracy but became one of the worst in matter of few years, after a dictator Mugabe took over when the country declared independence. The downfall of Zimbabwe is solely caused by swift decisions made by Mugabe to restrict Caucasian rights in the nation that chased Caucasian people, the knowledgeable class, out of the nation, leaving uneducated locals to administration. Fast decision making in dictatorship, while seemingly less cumbersome than slow democratic legislation, entails risks that could bring forth greater troubles.
In conclusion, dictatorship is more troublesome than democracy. Leaving the fate of one nation consist of hundreds of tens of millions of people to a hand of one man, when given consideration, is absolutely ridiculous. Any policy would work just as perfectly if people are good. But policies exist to prevent ill-intentioned people from causing harm to the nation, and people have never been perfect, or never will. Therefore democracy, which merits highest standard of failsafe, remains the popular choice of government for developed nations.
The above argument claims that democracy is far more cumbersome than dictatorship. Solely from the cumbersome point of view, dictatorship tops the list of policies far higher than democracy. Dictatorship is more prone to erroneous decision-makings, which necessitates more labor to get corrected than to have labored in making right decision in the first place. Also, dictatorship is more cumbersome to replace the wrongful leader than poor ruling party in democracy.
For instance, North Korea has been ruled by Dictator Kim family for generations. Under its lead, the country achieved poor economic and technological advancement. This is because Kim Jong-Il spent 90 percent of the annual budget for military expansion and cared little for individual welfare, which is clearly a wrongful approach to lead the nation. And even after his son Kim Jong-Un's inauguration, the situation is not much better. For over six decades the nation suffered Kim's reign of dictatorship, and there seems to be no reconciliation in foreseeable future either. On the other hand, democracy prevents such hassle by deploying means like filibuster and propositions to reject or correct wrongful decision makings. Clearly, dictatorship is more cumbersome to correct mistakes than democracy.
Also, when a ruling party is deemed inappropriate, dictatorship takes more effort to overthrow the prevailing powerhouse than democracy does. Democracy deploys some form of vote or ballot system at the end of each term to prevent any single party from gaining too much power. In contrast, dictatorship virtually allows only few ways to overthrow the government. Those ways are usually violent and tragic, such as bloodshed revolution, military coup, and assassination of the current leader. The cost of correction is devastatingly higher for dictatorship than democracy.
Some may argue that dictatorship is capable of faster decision making, and able leader taking the office can lead the nation to faster economic success. While superficially and logically sound, this claim is practically false. First, faster decision means less consideration of consequences, which may lead to greater failure that costs more to get reconciled. For example, Zimbabwe had been an exemplary African state for centuries under British democracy but became one of the worst in matter of few years, after a dictator Mugabe took over when the country declared independence. The downfall of Zimbabwe is solely caused by swift decisions made by Mugabe to restrict Caucasian rights in the nation that chased Caucasian people, the knowledgeable class, out of the nation, leaving uneducated locals to administration. Fast decision making in dictatorship, while seemingly less cumbersome than slow democratic legislation, entails risks that could bring forth greater troubles.
In conclusion, dictatorship is more troublesome than democracy. Leaving the fate of one nation consist of hundreds of tens of millions of people to a hand of one man, when given consideration, is absolutely ridiculous. Any policy would work just as perfectly if people are good. But policies exist to prevent ill-intentioned people from causing harm to the nation, and people have never been perfect, or never will. Therefore democracy, which merits highest standard of failsafe, remains the popular choice of government for developed nations.
