You Are Reading

7

Honesty of true authoritarianism.

Dootzkie Saturday, June 18, 2011
As a law student I do come across a lot of theories connected to the institutions of the state, politics, law and the state it self. There you got whole chapters dedicated to democracy, socialism, constitutional monarchy, and many other systems I will not bother you with. At the end of each section in the book, you get a few words about
authoritarianism which is always presented as a bad thing that never worked and never gave anything good to the civilization.
From there, everything ends on the idea that monarchy is outdated, socialism failed and that democracy is the best way for the future while authoritarianism is the worse.

I somehow disagree with this on the basis of two issues. The first is that democracy doesn't always come in a package with freedoms we crave while the authoritarianism doesn't exclude them. If you take a look on what is happening in Spain and Turkey and the freedom of info flowing over the net or my own country, Serbia, and the neighboring Hungary and the freedom of media, you will see that democratic states can be... No use the "1984" way of speaking, not democratic.

And then, we have the second issue and that is the honesty of regime. I firmly believe that in authoritarian regimes you get one of two cases of public opinion. Either 80 percent and over are happy and satisfied [this is what one could call a good authoritarian regime] or it's the other way around where over then 80 percent are not satisfied [one could say that they are VERY pissed off].
The first case is blissful and joyful and we should leave it as that. The second example is dreadful, but with a hidden benefit. With so many unsatisfied people, the regime will fall because of its acts. The critical mass will form and the true discontent will show for it is not possible for a government to have under control all of it's people.

Alas, today we live in a "democratic" world where you can vote and decide who will rule over you. Tony Benn, a British politician and a member of British Labour Party once said that "If the elections could change anything, those in power would abolish them a long time ago." You get an illusion that you matter, that your vote matters and yet nothing changes. Either you don't have anyone to vote for or you do vote just to be disappointed. It doesn't matter of its a system with two major parties [like USA or GB] or where you have more parties... You end up feeling cheated out of your vote and yet you do nothing for you get used to being content with the little you have and the less that you are given.

When you want to boil a frog you need to put her in a water of mild temperature for if you put her in the boiling water it will jump out. Then you start heating up and before the frog understands what's happening, it's done and ready for serving.

In authoritarianism you live either great for there is no political turmoil and everything is done for the state and it's people OR you live bad enough that you want to do something about it.

In democracy you live bad enough so that resources that should have been yours are taken away and that you feel like nothing and feel replaceable, but you don't live bad enough so you would do something.

This is why I say that authoritarian regimes are more honest. Because they either give you a sponge bath or try to boil you.
This is why the modern democratic world is more interested in preventing the creation of a critical mass of discontent then in how it's people live.

Share your opinions and experiences from the place you live, if you can.

Be well and think with your own head!

7 comments:

ReMs said...

democratic decisions come with authoritarian effects in my opinion, people against the decision, election will feel forced to go with it; or at least that's how i see it

Harmonica Guy said...

Good appointments. I never thought by this way.

JackofBuds said...

I never would have thought that authoritarian governments would be more honest than democratic governments

Dootzkie said...

Jack of Buds, I didn't say that :P

I said that authoritarian system is more honest then then system we call "democratic" for it leaves you very happy or very pissed off and ready to change something rather then just giving up on the voting and being passive.

T. Roger Thomas said...

Good post!

You've got some very good thoughts on the subject here.

NorthernLad said...

Authoritarian > democratic

But only if the authoritarian leader is competent. And as we all know, politicians aren't leaders, they're bureaucrats with a vested interest in themselves. Leaders are one in a billion, if not less.

And yes, authoritarian regimes really are more honest. Either they give you roses, or a bullet to the temple. While politicians in a democracy will lie and sweet talk you to a bureaucratic oblivion. As I see it, at least.

Astronomy Pirate said...

Well, a lot of what are seen as democracies are actually republics, which have representatives that make decisions, you just might be able to pick your representative though. It's fairly loaded, and often it works to keep ideas unfavorable to the status quo out of power.

Post a Comment

 
Copyright 2010 Bite Size Thoughts