Democracy vs Dictatorship Essay written by heather Imagine the next time you step into the voting booth your ballot only lists one candidate to choose from. Or perhaps your ballot lists four candidates, but they are all from the Liberal party. Dictatorships are one party political systems that are ruled by one leader or an elite group of people under the principle of authoritarianism. Some feel that dictatorships are the most effective form of government because decisions are made quickly and extreme nationalism benefits the military and economy. These individuals value order, nationalism, and authority. However, these systems often result in violence, repression of the public, and few provisions for changes to the system.

Democracies are multiparty political systems that rest on the principle of rule by the people. Most people that live in democracies have civil liberties1, and political rights2. Individuals who feel that multiparty systems are the best government value equality, accountability, and freedom. Nations that have multiparty political systems will meet the needs of the public better through the means of political equality, a higher standard of living3, and civil liberties. Dictatorships often occur when a nation is economically and politically unstable. An example of this is Napoleon’s coup d’ etat in 1799 France. In a system of authoritarian rule decisions are made efficiently because very few people are involved in the decision making process. The leader or elite group at the head of the government decides on new policies and economic measures, then makes sure that the public abides by them by using tactics of force and indoctrination.

Dictatorial systems have helped nations recover from economic turmoil many times in the past. The extreme nationalism that is born from propaganda and government sponsored youth organizations encourages people to work harder for the benefit of their country. Newly motivated work forces easily meet their production goals. If the leader of a dictatorship is capable the country can rise to hold a great amount of international power. Building up the military is an important step to gain power. A strong military will discourage other countries from attacking and also discourage the citizens of the country from rebelling. The force of nationalism, and new laws that can be easily passed regarding education (such that every male of a certain age must serve time in the military) allow military strength of dictatorships to multiply. The Soviet Union experienced a dictatorial system from 1917 to 1985. Under the rule of Vladimir Lenin, and later Joseph Stalin, one political party attempted to control all aspects of political, economic, and social life. The people of the USSR endured rapid industrial development, victory in World War II, and improved literacy rates.

They also experienced elements of force, indoctrination, controlled participation, limits on dissent, and a lack of the accountability of government. In 1917 Lenin initiated the Bolshevik seizure of power and became the first soviet government. Lenin established communist4 society in Russia before passing away shortly after (1924). Stalin, the general secretary for the communist party gradually gained power and by 1928 was in control of the government. Under Joseph Stalin’s leadership the USSR was transformed into a world power, and a totalitarian state. Lenin had introduced the New Economic Policy in 1921, which proposed the creation of a mixed economy. In this system the state controlled large industries but small scale enterprises and farming were run privately. By 1936 the NEP had helped The Soviet economy to recover to the levels it was at before WWI. Stalin introduced his famous 5 year plans, to develop industry further, and the NEP was abandoned for a communist economy. The first 5 year plan (1928-1932) expanded heavy industry such as steel making and mining. Private farming was eliminated, with much bloodshed, and collective farms were established. The second 5 year plan (1933-1937) began the development of natural resources in Siberia and the far east.

It also further expanded heavy industry at the expense of consumer goods. Stalin’s third 5 year plan (1938-1941) directed funds to areas of defense. In WWII Nazi Germany invaded the USSR, creating an instant alliance between the USSR and two of the world’s greatest powers; Britain and the USA. The Soviet Union pushed the Germans out of its territory and Eastern Europe, thus accelerating the end of the war. Trade increased between USSR and the two other powers, and the Soviet has been recognized and commended for helping to end WWII. Another benefit of central planning was the massive educational effort that raised literacy rates in the USSR. The communist government wanted to develop a skilled and educated labor force. Millions of people learned to read and write, in an education system that centered on scientific training. In order to enforce communist policies the Soviet Union built a large militia5. The secret police (consisting of agents and informants) were used as an instrument of terror to ensure that the communist party stayed in power. The secret police kept foreigners and those who traveled abroad under close surveillance. They also censored the mail, and monitored telephone conversations. Indoctrination and censorship encouraged nationalism and spread the communist ideology.

The government sponsored youth groups such as the “little octoberists”, and the communist ideology was taught in school. With only one newspaper and one radio station (both government owned) people had very little control over their own beliefs because they were constantly exposed to only one side of every issue. This excerpt is from the Soviet’s only newspaper, “Pravda6” . “Stalin is the architect of the tremendous creation called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. he is the source of all life in the he soviet union. His thoughts set the whole mechanism of Soviet life in motion.” Glorification of a leader is common technique used in dictatorships to ensure that citizens are faithful and committed to the government in power. In the early 1920’s and 30’s people of the USSR were expected to vote publicly by raising their hands. This caused a very low voter turnout so a secret ballot system was instilled. All candidates (if their was more than one) were selected by the communist party, so the voting was quite meaningless since it lacked the element of real choice.

Officials manipulated counts to make voter turnout appear higher than it actually was, and if one were to disagree with the choices listed on the ballot they were to mark the ballot publicly and be subject to the wrath of the secret police. The lack of accountability in the USSR was so shocking that anyone who observed it and still lives will be emotionally scarred forever. The “great purge” from 1936 - 1939, began with few show trials that symbolized fair justice but never provided enough real evidence to base a conviction on. These trials were for members of the government who had supposedly plotted against Joseph Stalin. Following these trials, the secret police purged all institutions (education, media, government) of possible threats to the communist party, and sent millions of people to forced labour camps. When this horror came to an end in 1939 it was too late for the millions of people who died, completely innocent of any crime. It is true that Stalin’s reign enabled many people to learn to read and write, but at what cost? If they were not killed in a labour camp, the point of having employability skills seems faint when every adult after 1938 was required to have a “labour book.” Without a labour book one could not be employed, and once a person way employed their labor book was kept with the employer. This way employees could not easily change jobs.

Developing employability skills if you are not able to pressure the employment that truly interests you is a wasted effort. In the USSR political rights and political equality were merely a facade. Although the show of voting made it appear that people had the right to elect the leader of their choice, the public was not given the option of free choice. Also in the USSR speaking out against the government and dissenting was strogly forbidden and could result in exile or execution. Civil liberties were virtually non existent. People did not have the freedom to develop their own views and ideas because they were constantly being indoctrinated with the ideas of the government. If one were to exercise the freedom of assembly or demonstration in a dictatorial system they would be killed or imprisoned (Tienneman square in China). It is difficult to find exact numbers that help us determine the standerd of living in the USSR during Stalin’s regime. However, from the stories of the forced concentration camps and black market for food and other consumer goods anyone can deduct that the standard of living was low. Russia’s standard of living today emphasizes the effect that a previous authoritarian government can have on a nation.

In Russia the adult literacy rate is quite impressive, 98%. The GDP per capita is very low $3050 (in US dollars). The average life expectancy is also low at 66.9 years, and approximately 2.6% of the population owns computers. In democratic systems the public decides what economic and social policies work best for them. Democracy originated in ancient Athens. Besides the fact that only men could vote ancient Athens exhibited a model direct democracy. On every issue each voter was able to freely vote. The Athenians choose from two main political parties, and no one person had any more power than another person. Decision making and decision enforcing were the duties of every citizen. Democracy is a logical concept. Since the public has to abide by the policies made by the government, they should be able to help make those decisions. The United States of America has been a democracy since it became a country.

The system of government ensures that no branch of government (executive, legislative, or judicial) has more power than another branch. Each American voter votes to elect a president from the political party that has a platform most similar to his or her views. They also elect the senators and members of the house of representatives (who make up the legislative branch). The supreme court judges are not elected, but appointed for life by the president and senate in order to keep their interests pure. Most laws that are made in democratic systems reflect the views of the public. In the Us, any member of the House can introduce a piece of legislation. This illustrates how all members are equal and are given the right to represent the people from their state. The bill is printed and prepared so that all members of the government can understand the details of it.

The bill will then be refereed to the appropriate committee by the House or Senate parliamentarian. The committee ensures that the bill meets with the guidelines of the constitution, and makes revisions and amendments to it. Now the committee of a whole7 debates and amends the bill but cannot technically pass it. Debate is limited in the committee by certain rules and opposing side have a scheduled amount of time to speak. The bill is also debated in the senate, without any time limit on how long The debate can run. If the House of Representatives and the senate pass the same bill it is then sent to the president. If the House and the senate pass different bills they are sent to the conference committee.

The president signs the bill, making it become law. The president does have the power to veto legislation, but it is rarely used. This is because the chamber that provided the legislation has a right to overthrow the veto if 2/3 of the members present feel that they should do so. Also the congress has the power to impeach8 the president if the public feels he is not performing his job adequately. In America, every person over the age of 18 (who has not been convicted of a felony or declared mentally incompetent by a court) has the right to vote through the practice of secret ballot. People also have the right to speak out against the government and dissent freely. Civil liberties are guaranteed to the people in the constitution, and no legislation will be passed that violates any citizens civil liberties. If people feel their civil liberties have been violated they can take the case to various courts, who will make a fair ruling based on the constitution. Today the USA has a high standard of living compared to other countries. It is a major world power with a democratic system and a market economy. In 1997 the adult literacy rate was 95%, the GDP9 per capita was $29, 181 US dollars, the average life expectancy was 76 years, and approximately 37% of people owned computers.

The individuals who believe that dictatorial systems are more efficient and beneficial than democracies have never experienced life in such a system, or have never been a victim of the elite. Dictatorships do not meet the needs of the public adequately, result in a lower standard of living than democracies, and often result in violence. For a new policy to be implemented in a democracy thousands of people do not have to die. This is because for the most part in democracies the policies that exist are the will of the people. Democratic systems have been very successful in the US, Canada, Sweden, and other countries. The freedom of choice is ultimately important, and since the public makes the industry in nations, they will choose what is best for the nation.

the essay was quite good. One more thing said about democracy which I would like to add

Democracy is good. I say this because all other systems are worse - Jawahaur Lal Nehru

Democracy versus Dictatorship: From Pakistan's Perspective



ALTHOUGH Pakistan was established on the basis of democratic modus operandi of political institutions, but unfortunately 56 years of Pakistan’s independence has got remarkable influence of military administrative body rather than the democratic governmental organization. Coup d’etat of Nawaz Shariff government on October 12, 1999 was dubbed as the fourth episode of democratic turned militarization of the political structure of Pakistan.

From constitutional suspension to judiciary, executive and legislative lobby transaction from democratic setup to military structure has never been so smooth but a tough ride to the organizational institutions. Perhaps it would be more judicious to state that battle zones shifting from barracks to governmental setup have been witnessed each time when ever coups felt penchant towards democratic ruling style. However, there’s always involved a noble cause behind this extensive conspiracy, either there’s corruption involved or financial forgery, from ministerial dictatorial powers to serious threats to social security all the weaken democratic bourgeois institutions contributed at large to de rigueur military dictatorial engagements in political setup.

The question is how do we define democracy and then compare this widely accepted perception towards arrogant aristocratic dictatorial power. Why there’s always an open option fore military to invade or to invite uncertainty without any option to exit? Why the democratic institutional lobby is gripped under weakens corrupted, destabilized and demoralized features enough to invade by the outcastes? Or why democratic provisions are difficult to execute or implement in any environment?

Gore Vidal once stated his views regarding democracy that “Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates.” Three things in Gore’s perception are thought provoking and acceptably portrayed i.e. elections, issues less favorable environment and candidature criteria. In this regard where ever Human Rights execution is prevailing, principle of equality are adopted, government representative are elected via general consensus, rigging in elections and in electoral body is out of question, this scenario represent the democratic style of government. I must quote an unknown perception in the light of above definition i.e. “Democracy is a government where you can say what you think even if you don't think.”

Therefore, to establish democracy, participation by common people and accountability from top to bottom are the core principles to cater. To say the least, democracy is a carefully nurtured political institutional lobby rather than a sacrosanct concept. Unfortunately, west had restricted the dictatorial Sega to the religion of Islam. However, Islam is the only religion that advocate justice in the form of democracy and declared sate power as a sacred trust. Qaid-e-'Azam the Great Leader & founder of Pakistan once stated that; “There are no people in the world who are more democratic even in their religion than the Muslims." From the Islamic traditions the cure of leadership dilemma lies is public consultation, participation and anticipation, absentia from each of the factors will alter not only the credibility of authoritative public representation but create much hindrance in the progress and performances of over all democratically established political institutions.

Democracy is the only terminology that merges political, religious and philosophical perception across the globe. I can confidently admit that every politically conscious thinker will advocate that democracy is a basic right essential to each and every sect of the society.

On the contrary, dictatorial ruling is based on absolute individual sovereign power without any inspection and invasion where the democracy defined by Abraham Lincoln i.e. government of the people, by the people and for the people remain suspended till the winds of revolutionary change restore democracy, or in other words people’s sovereignty. It’s a loss of freedom of expressions, centralization of authoritarian power, paralytic government establishment, surrender of rights & responsibilities where survival of democracy becomes impediment to handle.

Some of the philosophical view points available to reveal the true identity of democracy againstthe un-Islamic dictatorship in Pakistan arise from different perspectives each time country faces. Though it delays the legitimization of dictatorial power in order to shed the hypocrisy involved in coup d’etat of governments, still there’s always present a certain degree of resistance, like; it is wisely said that you cannot make fool all the people all the time. And it’s a fact that leaving behind democratic process will leave the image of Pakistan as an un-civilized nation yet not ready to meet the challenges of the outside world, particularly on democratic front. As also points out the former democratically elected Prime Minister of Pakistan Ms Bhutto; “Walking away from democratisation of nuclear-armed Pakistan could lead to even more horrific results.”

A quick glance over Pakistan’s political perception is definite to analyze its historical performance of democratic dereliction to militarize politics in lieu of rough and frequent transaction from de-centralization to centralized command, both the diversified setups as it has evolved over the past 5 decades?

Losing sagacious leaders like Jinnah, PM Liaquat Ali Khan and Z.A. Bhutto created a never ending vacuum to political set up of Pakistan as dichotomy rises between democracy and dictatorship involving an immense pressure from rival neighboring countries, religious zealots and militant mafia both from inland and abroad.

The turbulent history of democracy vis-à-vis dictatorship persistence started way back to 1950s when General (Late field Marshal) Ayub Khan Stages a coup in 1958. In his militarized rule he contributed new constitution advocated to “Basic Democracy” at the local level with the intention of switching over to civilian system. Though economy prospered during his 10 year tenure but the internal political structure weakened seriously by the extensive corruption and frequent institutional crisis.

In 1969 after extensive agitation of masses Ayub fell from power, then comes General Agha Muhammad Yehya Khan’s era, the then commander-in-chief of the army. Parliamentary set up restored along with the national elections of December 1970 under silhouettes of second military regime. However, amid the depressing civil war resulting bloody episode of Bangladesh formerly East Pakistan’s independence, Yahya’s military power came to an end.

Under the clouds of open criticism, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took power as a CMLA. The credit of introducing 1973 constitution goes to him. Besides that he was an all rounder in political arena of Pakistan. His mandate of Roti, Kapra aur makan (Food, clothing & shelter) makes him the most admirable persona grata in the history of Pakistani politics. In his tenure certain measures were adopted to curtail the military sovereignty over the civilian government. However, like all the regimes, Bhutto’s political career did not enjoy the fruits of democracy for so long. Wide spread riots, severe criticism from opposition and deteriorating law and order situation gave green signal to General Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq to stage a coup d’etat Bhutto on July 5, 1977 and recalled the history of martial law third time.

Zia-ul-Haq ruled over Pakistan for 11 Years as CMLA with suspended constitution and Islamic ideology. The political murder of Bhutto was conducted during his regime. Illegitimacy is the much annoyed aspect of military rulers and of course the major obstacle to the smooth execution of dictatorial powers that introduced the injection of referendum. Therefore, 1984’s referendum was conducted to eradicate the stumbling blocks in order to achieve velvety drive of administrative machinery or to give coup de grace to legitimize power.

The one Way Street of General Zia’s tenure with the penetration of infamous 8th amendment in 1973 constitution, later lifting of martial law in 1985 was marked as added advantage of rulers’ absolute power to dismiss government. One of the distinguish personality carved out by his dictatorial regime was PM Mohammed Khan Junejo, who unsuccessfully tried to convert military control in to democratic rule however, his idea bring an end to National Assembly in May 1988.

However, General Zia’s death in C-130 crash revives much awaited democracy and Ms. Benazir Bhutto becomes new Prime Minister of Pakistan.

On October 12, 1999 while exercising military invasions over political environment on regularity basis country was once again dragged under the fourth military ruling favored by plane conspiracy. The toppled government of Nawaz Shariff from lost opportunity of contesting elections to imprisonment and then to exile forced General Musharaff to restore democracy. Second time in the history of Pakistan referendum was held and won by General Musharaff.

Later under severe pressure of western super powers in particular and international media in general, elections were held in 2002. Although both the democratic leaders were deprived of contest elections on allegation of corruptions but outcome was contradictory.

After brief analysis of military influence over democratic set up, what is quite definite to understand is why there’s always certain elements involve inviting or invading political institutions by the responsible armed forces. Or why democratic political institutions are unable to handle their internal menace or what are the reasons behind their failure? Or will it be judicious to put entire blame over ill handled democratic provisions? Why military personnel’s own hysteric attitude towards the wealth of power cannot be question, after all channels from barracks to drawing room contains satisfactory conclusions. Why back to back dictators are often criticized over the question of disintegration and hypocrisy?

Speaking from political institutional point of view, Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government because of the constant people’s pressure resolving or improving state machinery. I do agree that massive corruption, nepotism, dichotomy towards central and provincial finances, legislative and executioner’s powers, low level accountability, unemployment, foreign strategic pressure, weaker administrative lobby, financial loot and plunder, excessive violation of human rights provisions, dilapidated social environment makes over all democratic scenario instable & insecure by hanging future of democratic establishment in jeopardy.

Political instability does not portray at all that the channels of military invasion is the only option left out to resolve the matters absolutely rely on political sphere. There’s always a room of improvement in the form of revolution via election, as choosing peoples representatives by free and fair elections is the essence of democracy. I strongly believe that revolution by ballot not by bullet is the best accountable approach involving common man’s perception can preserve the political ideology. Plus the beauty of democratic environment always involved or engaged a great deal of criticism from the opposition benches having vigilant eye over states affairs, and that enjoy complete absentia under dictatorial power.

Like the way politicians, political leaders, ministers, judges and other executive personals no matter how experienced and rhetoric they are cannot join military band wagon once they entered in the politics. Then why democracy in Pakistan had experienced a massive military’s irretrievable engagement. One may agree that a decorous military front man not necessarily can be a good leader or an astute leader cannot win the battle zone other than diplomatic front. Then why there’s a frequent merger of two diverse classes, when both bear a great burden of responsibility involving national security and consensus.

Whatever may the reasons of the state’s failure, it is unethical, unjustified and against the rule of law when it comes to military's involvement in politics. What they should act to be unbiased is strengthening armed forces in the line of duty and makes all the precautionary arrangements to be less influenced over the political institutions. As suspending constitution, hindering judicial consistency, involving huge finances in referendums and elections (often labeled as rigged)each time to legitimize one man rule is not al all feasible for a country combating with the evils of financial as well as social victimization.

It is a matter of a great concern that neither dictatorship nor democratic institution ever employed expeditious accountability cap-a-pie that could assure justice to all the sects of the under developed society. However, new accountability institutions with feasible performances and expeditious services are established each time new government comes in to horizon. But unfortunately the end results contain severe criticism involving only lower cadre or less influential people. That shows the highest degree of corruption and nepotism engaged at each level of accountability dealing with the affluent class. As long as the accountability process enjoy back, fighting with financial, social and political victimization will remain the prime concerns of state plenipotentiaries.

Parliamentary democracy is must rather unexpected dictatorial involvement via coup d’etat and favorable constitutional provisions that adhere power and position in perpetum. Therefore, legally and peacefully decentralization, rehabilitant, restructuring and restoration of democracy is must for the sake of Pakistan’s social & political integrity.

In my opinion, to bring stability in the political hugger mugger like situation does not mean to bring army in to power. Instead of strengthening political administrative lobby, applying quid pro quo approach over the state affairs can make national security & integrity more fragile and that Pakistan cannot afford. In order to cure political evils the role of army should be restricted to provide alarming information via suggestions.

Dictators should learn their lessons from historical civil disobedience and change their dictatorial perception, that ultimate power is the power dedicated by the people to their representatives that make political leaders more accountable. Therefore, power remains unexcitable if its existence diversifies from through proper channel. On the other hand, democracy without morality is impossible; therefore it is an absolute responsibility of the democratic leadership to take all the necessary measures that could save our country from dictatorial regimes.

No matter how progressive military establishment conceive their achievable ideas, democracy remain the widely acceptable perception where fundamental rights, freedom of expression, preservation of astute political ideology, participation of common people on equality basis, free society but according to Islamic code of conducts, legal electoral system, liberty of legislature, executive and judicial lobby cannot be ignored rather expanded.

__________________
Engr.Aftab