Best by what criteria, and, examples and/or argument supporting this claim?
> The country ranks as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, while its banking sector is rated as "one of the most corrupt in the world"
It's like saying Norway is prosperous because they eat a lot of fish, no, they're prosperous because they sit on a shit ton of oil. The Swiss case is much more complex than "direct democracy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Economy_and_labour...
What is the situation in 2025?
Dictators' long-term visions for their countries rarely include population's prosperity as a key goal. Benevolent (near-)absolute monarchs existed, but they were even more rare than democratically elected great leaders.
Say, Mr. Putin looked like a benevolent not-even-a-dictator for a decade or so, and his rule coincided with the rather obviously rising prosperity of most Russian citizens. But there is a catch. Always has been, but it became overt in 2022 when the kinda-benevolent leader turned a complete dictator and started a major war.
Xi is already much more of a dictator than Putin can ever dream of. To hope that his benevolence will extend indefinitely, and will match your idea of benevolence, if to be delusional, sorry.
It looked sort of "benevolent", even though the rot under the surface was exposed time and again, with murders, multiple attacks on neighboring countries, and eventually a large-scale war in Europe.
Those who think that Chairman Xi is benevolent and is doing good for China with his long-term wise planning may be up for a very rude awakening. They prefer to somehow push away from their picture of China things like people disappearing, businesses crushed, political commissars at every large business, the whole Xinjiang thing, and the battle dances around Taiwan. When they realize that these are integral parts of the "benevolence", and have been all along, it may be a bit late.
Dictators don’t give people the choice.
You’re just using the word “democratic” wrong.
Wtf? No.
A dictator maintains all the power. The people have no power.
Just because the interests of the people are supported by the actions of a dictator does not mean the people have any power. Because they don’t…
Now you’re using the term “power” incorrectly.
The difference is that in a democracy the people can vote out corrupt individuals, at least theoretically.
That can’t happen in a dictatorship because, again, the people have no power.
A system where elected representatives always serve the interests of a select few is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. When the available choices are just two variations of the same corruption, it becomes difficult to view it as a genuine form of power.
> That can’t happen in a dictatorship because, again, the people have no power.
We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end.
This is pretty much describing the US, which is both not a democracy (it’s a republic. And a bad example of one) and not what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract.
> We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end.
Yes and no. A lot of revolutions against dictators have other nations as sponsors.
Also, having the physical power to revolt is not the same as having political power.
Often post revolution, those with previous political power (who were not the dictator) maintain some, all, or even gain power after a revolution.
You’ll never see Joe Schmoe office worker gaining political power through revolution unless they amass support (a.k.a. Political power) beforehand.
I'm glad we agree on this, but I'll add that all so-called democracies suffer from the same problem.
> I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract.
Yes, talking in the abstract is all we can do, because honestly, I can't find any true examples of democracy at the moment.
https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
USA is #36, a "deficient democracy". Not a surprise and sadly I can see it only dropping further in the near future.
The scale, interestingly, goes:
- Working Democracy
- Deficient Democracy
- Hybrid Regime
- Moderate Autocracy
- Hard Autocracy
Further details on methodology -> https://www.democracymatrix.com/conception/democracy-matrix
Germany is fifth. Tells me all I need to know about this ranking.
Which is why republics have been succesful. Ideally me, as an idividual, should be able to trust a local leader enough to have them represent me in government. That way I am free to live my life and trust the local leader to handle politics in my best interests.
It rarely ends up that clean, but it happens sometimes.
Revolution is the act of changing governments, it is not itself a feature of a particular system of government.
Imagine disagreeing with the dictionary.
“The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they... have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before... the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language" ~F.A. Hayek
Even more ironic is that "use the old words but change their meaning" is something our "democratic" ruling class keeps doing very often.
Those who do this in the ruling class always use it to dupe the people into opposing their own interests--hardly ironic.
[0]https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/09/data-on-mass-murder-by-... [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile