Q. Please provide reasons for or against the following proposition:

'A nation is always better off under a benevolent dictatorship rather than an inefficient democracy.'

Ans.
The question presents to us a proposition, which leads us to compare between ‘Benevolent Dictatorship’ and ‘Inefficient Democracy’, and figure out which of these is better for the community as a whole.

So, according to me, to move forward in building a better understanding of which of the two is better, a critique of what is meant by ‘benevolent dictatorship’ and ‘inefficient democracy’ and an understanding of what each of them implies is of grave importance.

Benevolent dictator as I learnt from John Stuart Mill’s writing in ‘Considerations on Representative Government’, is a person who has absolute power within his constitution, no one can say anything against a decision made by the dictator, leading to decreased power in the hands of the general population. Also, under a benevolent dictator the public has the power of voicing its views/thoughts on issues or problems, but if the dictator chooses to turn a dumb ear to the individual’s voice, he can do so without being questioned at all. E.g. taking Saudi Arabia, it is governed by a despot family, where if anyone wants to voice their views to the authority it can, but, that does not imply that their voices will be heard/acted upon. Also, it tolerates no opposition even from its citizen members, against any of their decision and/or control. By this we can see the compression of public views and thoughts, which in time promotes aggression.

One another sacred part of being a dictator, is that once in power, the dictator works accordingly, to remain in power, even if doing a specified act will lead to harm of his people, by doing this he is no longer a ‘benevolent dictator’, and if he does not act to remain in power he is not a dictator, proving that a ‘benevolent dictator’ is a strand of the human imagination and not a part of reality.

Also, I feel in dictatorship or be it ‘benevolent dictatorship’, the participation of the citizen in the life/working of the state is close to nil, which leads to a public that is completely unknown of how things are functioning in their nation and are also uninterested in its working. This is given the term ‘passive population’ by John Stuart Mill. E.g. an example of passive population can be seen in the case of North Korea, where the people are completely under an illusion about the “greatness” of their nation.

By not being able to voice ones views, one is forced to act otherwise in a dictatorship, and I feel if force is exerted overtime can lead to people becoming either slaves of the system or rise against the system. If one becomes a slave of the system it’s never good as, a slave loses his free will, until the time he/she rebels. And, if force fails dictatorship fails, as someone else would want to rise to power.

As, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, talks about, what Emperor Caligula, thought a well-meaning king is, an individual characterized with godly abilities, and categorizes men below demons, and that men are of different capabilities, Grotius and Aristotle, were of the same view, but Rousseau says otherwise, that they mistakenly took ‘cause for effect’, i.e. is to say that the reason a slave is a slave, is not because he is lower than everyone else but because he was born into slavery.

In the case of an ’inefficient democracy’, agreed there is inefficiency but there is always a chance and way to change things by voicing our opinions, inefficient democracy according to me can be transformed into a sufficient democracy, because of the higher freedom and power that democracy entails for the citizen, thus providing a chance to act and change whatever they think is necessary, by simply participating. A democracy or inefficient democracy, promotes voicing of views by the citizens, and thus brings about an ‘active population’. E.g. taking the case of Ukraine, citizens are currently asking to transfer a part of Ukraine into Russia, we can go on hours talking about it being wrong or right, but the point being they are able to raise their voice regarding such a sensitive issue, and that too openly, tells us about the level of freedom they have being a part of a democracy.

Thus, I conclude that according to my views that are stated above, insufficient democracy is better than benevolent dictatorship.