Dictatorship, as the word dictate suggests it is ruling on an area by using power and the orders of an individual. In this form of government in which the power is in the hands of an individual or a group of people who gets control on the area by receiving it as a inheritance or by getting control by using force. Pakistan our beloved country got independence from British rule in 1947 and from that day to till now it is ruled by three dictators and estimately in 66 years of independence it is dictated around 35 years. In these three times the government was took over by the army generals who somehow dismissed the government and took over the power. According to many analysts Pakistan is better off in the era of dictatorship instead in the time of democratically elected government. And there are many facts exist to prove this argument. Pakistan was governmentally more stable in the rule of dictatorship, and in those years Pakistan bore less loss due to corruption. Furthermore Pakistan has seen its economic peak in those very years.
It is always seen that more government stability comes when there Is only one individual to control it rather than several people giving their own orders on solving one problem. Thus dictatorship provides more government stability than democracy. The first dictator in Pakistan was General Ayub khan, who took over the government from Iskander Mirza. It was seen clearly that Iskander Mirza was unable to run government in a nice manner and he asked General Ayub khan to help him run the government by imposing marshal law. Later he was exiled by General Ayub khan. After him General Yahya khan succeeded as the second army general to dictate Pakistan. He took every step to stabilize Pakistani government. Later...
... middle of paper ...
...tan to grow at a higher rate. One of the example is that Pakistan textile industry grow in the rule of General Pervaiz Musharraf and General Ayub khan. Making Pakistan one of the largest textile exporter in the world. Furthermore privatization also took place in these periods.
From all the above mentioned points it can be clearly stated that Pakistan was better off being ruled by a dictator than a democratically elected government. But there is always a dark side of every thing and we can not ignore them all of the time. Pakistan is only better off being ruled by a dictator when the dictator is sincere to Pakistan and is selfless towards the improvement in Pakistan. All the four dictators Pakistan has seen somehow tried to do their best but they also made some mistakes which caused many problems. But as stated earlier good exists only when bad exists in the society
You may be thinking how did the constitution stop tyranny? Well we have the answer. Let's start of with what tyranny means, that a leader or king abuses their power. How did the constitution guard against tyranny? Well they abuse their power bad deeds. The constitution guard against tyranny in these four ways. Federalism, separation of power, checks and balances, and small states vs. large states.
In the Summer of 1787, fifty-five delegates representing 12 out of the 13 states in Philadelphia to fix the Articles of Confederation. They met in philadelphia because the Articles of Confederation was too weak. Shay’s rebellion was the end of the Articles of Confederation bringing down the whole network calling for a change of government. They did this to prevent a tyrant or tyranny. A tyrant/tyranny is when someone or a group abuses their power. The Constitution guarded against tyranny through Federalism, Separation of powers, Checks and Balances, and The Great Compromise.
people decide that they want a dictatorship. If I was a ruler during the period of the
Constitution and Tyranny Tyranny is cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control. This one act could ultimately be the downfall of a people, of a government, of a nation. Chaos ensues and the structure of the country collapses. The colonial United States required a plan of protection from tyranny, which led our Founding Fathers to institute the Constitution. The Constitution, written in 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, provides a backbone for our country.
History has known far more authoritarian regimes than any other form of government. Authoritarianism is a form of non-democratic rule defined by state power being centralized in a single person or a small group of people. Unlike democracies, these individuals in power are not dependent on the people for power. Thus, under authoritarianism, state leaders have little accountability to the public and there is little individual freedom. Additionally, authoritarian regimes are not bound by a constitution that might limit their power. Such democratic liberties such as the right to assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are highly controlled or non-existent. State policies are designed to maintain the power status quo in favor of the ruling group and perceived threats are marginalized or, in some cases, extinguished.
The child of a democratic man are exposed to these issues and can later become what is know as the worst form of man. The unstable type of regime leaves the child to want to become a man or power and wealth. Which is the main reason why a democracy would quickly become a tyranny. The children who grew up in a democracy are so ...
a few ways a dictatorship has advantages over democracy it's more efficient. A dictatorship is a
The American democracy is one of the most peaceful kinds of government in the world although it is a long way from utopia. The democracy in which we live has many strengths and weaknesses. Neither strengths or weaknesses out weigh one another, but it is necessary to have both due to the varying definitions. A democracy is a government that is run by the people. The politicians that we elect to run our government are human and they are susceptible to mistakes based on their own strengths and weaknesses. The strengths and weaknesses they possess are reflected into our government but at least “we the people” elect them and they are not chosen for us.
Democracy is not bad or harmful but we must be careful when talking about democracy, whether we actually mean giving power to people to or making those in power more representatives of the people views. Because it all up to us as individuals to how we are using our democracy that gone reflect whether it’s the worst or best form of government. Through democracy we can either build or break our country to how we responded to the situations going on around us, if we stand together and fight for our democracy that we were told about or we sit down and relax watch other people using our democracy to their own good
...a voice and a choice. They have the feeling of being secure and free something which is only achieved through national security. Democracies also share similar beliefs and political ideologies which prevent them from engaging in warfare in the event of an arising conflict. The democratic peace theory states that democratic countries do not engage in interstate wars against each other. This theory has been proven true from time and time again in history. There has never been a case of an independent democratic country raging war on another democratic regime. So definitely when it comes to solving conflict through war regime type does matter since democratic states are 99 percent less likely to engage in a fight with autocracies and 100 prevent less likely to declare war on fellow democracy. Democracy is a preventer of conflict on all levels of human interactions.
In his book International Politics on the World Stage John T. Rourke (2008) states that governments range from the strict authoritarian at one end of the spectrum to a completely unfettered democracy at the other end (p. 78). His definition of an authoritarian style government is a “political system that allows little or no participation in decision making by individuals and groups outside the upper reaches of the government” (p. G-1). Those of us who live in a country that has a democratic government may find it difficult to understand why people who live in countries with authoritarian governments do not revolt and change their system of government, but in fact a truly democratic system of government is a relatively new concept in the age of man.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.
Democracy has come to mean a principle under whose flag has most of the developed countries aced in their race for Imperialism. It has gone beyond all previous governing systems and has made room for progress and development. By offering free and fair elections, democracy has redefined human dignity and patriotism. It has also helped to improve decision-making among the citizens, and brought down the crime level. Democracy is for sure the most fitting among the other types of government, and needs to be implemented fully for effective functioning of a state.
Actually, democracy is deemed to be a difficult form of government regardless if it is favourable circumstances or not. It seems to be all the more difficult when society’s economic environment is weak, civil society is still developing, and finally ...
This is because democratic governance is expected be based on consensus and respect for the wishes and aspirations of the people. A political system where the government depends on repression as a way of increasing regime strength cannot be described as democratic.