The truth is that dictatorship is achieved with force in fact force is a characteristics of dictatorship such as totalitarianism and anarchy command take for instance when you look at Adolf Hitler's West Germany during the world war, they were actually coordinated when it came to obeying military decree and it seemed as if Hitler's voice was the voice of a god this is because he ran a dictatorship government and he was an authoritarian whose government was only successful as a result of the fear factor that he brought on his people.
The difference between democracy and dictatorship is that democracy is decentralized and liberal why dictatorship has a characteristics of centralisation with a ruler who has absolute power and his voice is considered a decree or a law. For example when you look at the pre colonial government of the hausa / fulani the emir of kano was actually an absolute ruler and that was why it was easier for the white people to actually use him to make money because he used fear to control and co-ordinate its people as a result of this they obeyed him but this doesn't actually mean that they all loved him common fear is different from respect and love in a dictatorship government people can fear you and as a result of this fear they will do whatever you ask of them and you will maintain a perfectly controlled government.
Democracy is still the best form of government but the only thing is that it is still imperfect as a result of tinkering and the improvisation it's undergone from unscrupulous leaders who is actually bending its characteristics to their favour. So the reason why it seems that government under dictatorship flourish is because people are firmly under the control of leaders and as a result of this the economy will flourish because nobody would go against a dictator however this doesn't mean the economy will flourish on all angle there could still be embezzlement of fund and a few sector in a dictatorship government will still falter.
In a democratic government people have voices and power is being given to people so as a result of this agreement in laws and policies it may be difficult for a government to thrive because people aren't united in a democratic setting because everybody is utilising their power and that is why I say democracy is still imperfect , until it attains a stage of perfectness then we can never see the fool advantages and merit of democracy
I agree with @anonsteve's question.
When you say "most countries that were under dictatorship instead flourished when compared to the time democracy is introduced", do you have any proof to back that up? Any statistics?
I don't agree with your statement. Transition is a tough process, the change won't come instantly, you don't go to sleep just to wake up to a flourishing country. But the transition is actually bringing good things to life.
The problem is people don't change overnight. Those who were milking the situation will continue to do so. You can't just eliminate them, you have to deal with them. Laws need to be changed, people need to be educated and need to adapt to the new situation.
Democracy has never been my best model for national administration, especially in the developing world.
Democratic Principles, as good as it is, is flawed with imperfections especially when social maturity of the practicing Society is in doubt!! This is the scenario in most developing Nations where democracy is practiced.
For Democratic governance to be effective, these social foundations must be prevailing. Unfortunately , these has not been institutionised in these Nations . There must be high level of literacy, thereby Enabling the voters to access information about Democratic participants. Also the economic status of the Citizenry must be above critical level of poverty , otherwise rules guiding Democratic principles like conscience voting would be Jettisoned and the the practise derailed. There ought to be a strong moral fabric permeating the society to enable democracy succeeds.
Whenever the Foregoings are absent, democracy can't be expected to be best form of political administration. This account for why many democracies in the world performs woefully below other forms of autocratic governance.
Please tell me if I have misunderstood your question. Are you presupposing that transitioning from dictatorship to democracy causes most countries that do so to go from flourishing to decay? Is that even true? Sure, there are countries that have fallen from being stable to a state of disorganization immediately following the fall of a dictatorial regime and adoption of democracy. Those countries include Russia following the fall of the Soviet Union and a number of other countries in the former socialist bloc. But is democracy to blame? Or is the cause of the decay in the transition from one economic system to another?
All that said, democracy can't work very well if the population is not ready for freedom. For democracy to work, responsible citizenship is needed. A society of self-maximizers without civic responsibility who think in the short term usually produces a chaos and soon a ruthless self-maximizer takes power. Compared to chaos things may work better in comparison to the past but at the top of human development there is not a single country that is a dictatorship.
Dictatorship has an undeniable advantage over democracy, its effectiveness.
Decisions can be made quickly and are not modified by successive filters of diverging interests. So theoretically, a dictatorship can more effectively promote everything it wants, compared to a democracy.
But the other side of the coin is also true. Since decision-making is done between a limited number of people, some interests will be ignored, and an error will be implemented much more quickly, without being planed step by step by a democratic process.
Ultimately, in a democracy, decisions are collegial, and therefore slow and measured. In a dictatorship, it is the opposite, they are fast and can be extreme. Therefore, a dictatorship run by an "enlightened super-dictator" would be much more favorable to development (not only economic) than a democracy.
It remains to be seen whether this qualifier applies to the Chinese power, and if this "perfect" ruler is only possible.
I am not sure if you are exactly referring to dictatorship or non-democratic. Not all non-democratic countries are under dictatorship. You could have considered the way of the government of a certain country, i.e., communism, and socialism.
Well it depends what you consider a flourishing country...If that flourishing includes the prosecution and maybe even execution of political opponents and an overall regime of terror I would not call that exactly flourishing...
It is simply not any kind of reality this claim that supposedly Dictatorship flourished compared to democracy.
FACTS: DEMOCRATC COUNTRIES:
- Have WAY HIGHER GDP PER CAPITA than those that do not.
- Have WAY HIGHER INDEXES of: Development, Peace, Freedom, Human Rights, Health Care, Welfare, Public Services, Education, Technology, Business, Finance, Ethics, Morality
EXAMPLES of Dictatorship which are disasters for the people which prove your point WRONG.
- North Korea
- Thailand (since 2014)
- African Nations which are all total diasters bar South Africa & Kenya under the best democracies supported by Eu&USA
- Muslim Nations which are all total absolute hellhole disasters bar the UK's/Malaysia(with Asian/Chinese influence) & Indonesia w Asian influence.
EXAMPLES OF Succesful Democracy which beat all dictatorships:
- All G30 Nations
- ALL EU Nations
- All South American Nations Bar Venezuela
- Taiwan contrast to china, also Hong Kong, also Japan, South Korea
The facts are that Dictatorships are total disasters in EVERY CASE. There is not one single example opposite in fact in the world showing Dictatorship beats democracy but for in BUSINESS. ALWAYS BEST to have a SOLE FOUNDER with consolidated control. Example: Alibaba, Amazon, Tesla Motors, SpaceX, Virgin, etc.