I disagree, democracy is literally the power of the people. A dictator who serves the people's interests is effectively concretizing that power, as opposed to a corrupt/inept elected official who will deny it.
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.