Junior trips with questions that really sets me scrambling for a response many a times. Whenever he comes across some new word or a character or a concept he will ask about it with his own perspective added as basis behind that question. Recently he came across the word dictator and his immediate thought was it describes school teacher, for they do the dictation in classes. When i told him it is quite different in concept even though the words kind of meant the same, he asked follow up queries. Possibly the way i explained about dictatorship led to the confusion, but his queries made me wonder how to give a response that is convincing for me first up.
I told him that, dictators are kind of bad people, who try to rule everyone with their power. He asked why they are bad and i was stumped for a response. For he had equated dictator to king and since kings rule over their subjects and its their will that is carried out by the people, he wanted to know why dictators are bad but kings are not!! Be it Gadaffi or Saddam, they might've looted their countries resources and lived a lavish life, but looking at their countrymen aftermath of their ouster, at times i feel they might've been better off with a strong leadership albeit bullheaded, rather than a scatterbrain of a leadership that has literally pushed their economies over the brink! When does a dictator becomes bad and are they actually good?! Democracy is the defacto acceptable form of governance world over but weren't we all once kingdoms before and royalty was ruling the world? Weren't kingdoms overthrown and new rulers who were more powerful captured the throne and how different it is from current day coups and all those drama that happens in the name of democracy?
Looking at the perplexed reaction, junior must have left wondering what was wrong with this guy, but i am still not able to bring myself up with a convincing response!! Not that i am favoring dictatorship over democracy, but how do you differentiate it from monarchy?!! Nejamavay theriala!!
Comments
It is tempting to prefer "strongmen" when we see the messiness of democracy. But there are hardly any instances in history where such rulers have been good for the people over a sustained period. After a period where they seem to deliver well, things go south and when that happens they become worse and worse.
Kingdoms and hereditary rulers are a disaster. Its a tragedy in India that except for the BJP and the Communists, every other party is essentially a hereditary dynasty wishing to establish kingdoms. Even these two are this way only because their leaders, for some reason, tend to be bachelors. There is absolutely no evidence over many millenia of human existence that the best next option to govern a country is the son or daughter of the present one.
Democracy is messy. Often it seems that nothing can be done. But that is simply a reflection of people's will. There are many different points of view and reconciling them is hard. But that is more likely to produce a good outcome than the whims of one man. As the cliche goes - democracy is a bad form of government but every other alternative is worse.