There is not a single poor citizen of the UAE, everyone of them got land, education and healthcare for free, abroad if they wanted to and with extra pocket money to boot. And he was very benevolent to fascist japanese war criminals he released. He put down an invasion and then promptly gave up all the power of a dictator of Rome to go back to his farm.
Now, given the nature of dictatorships, and the fact that power often corrupts, benevolent dictators are few and far between, making this theory that a dictatorship is the best political system fundamentally flawed. There are no choices without tradeoffs, and everything you do to help some people will have consequences for others. Where the people praise the dictator without guys with guns just off-camera?Edit 1: thanks for all the names and links.
Even if you find someone great, this incredible, perfect, once-in-a-generation leader, power can be corrupting and there's no telling if he'll go off the deep end a year later. The country achieved independence in 1966, and Khama became its first president.Jordan’s King Abdullah II welcomes Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas before a meeting at the Royal Palace in AmmanAbdullah oversaw the upgrading of Jordan’s armed forces, which allowed Jordan to avoid the violence that plagued its neighbors.Abdullah also promoted economic and social reform, introducing free-market policies and initiatives to improve the status of woman.
Often proponents of the idea view themselves as being the paragons of virtue who would manage a country this way successfully. The government is huge. What a great guy! Logistically, he is acting (or believes he is acting) out of the greater interest of his nation. Is 10000 years of darkness and totalitarianism worth a golden age in which mankind will submit to no ruler? But I'm sure many of you will see the inherent problems there.Also, we are not very good at multitasking, as a society. If the dictator had time to research the issue in its entirety perhaps this could be avoided, but the dictator isn't just deciding legislation on this particular issue, under the system you propose the dictator would be forced to make educated decisions on all manner of policy, and without the assistant of perhaps less benevolent/more corruptible aides giving him advice I can't imagine how such a dictator would keep up with his kingdom.The other big issue with this is that it hinges on a single human to remain completely benevolent and good-willed throughout his or her reign. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. A state form can be what sort of relation the state has with capital, if it is centralized or decentralized, if it is a federal system or multiple semi-autonomous regions together.
So all the citizens that have an interest in music would get the short straw, and the ones who are in fields I am interested in would get preference.Of course, I PERSONALLY believe that is actually a good way to go for society, music really doesn't add much in my own opinion. Well treated by the standards of the time. Simply because committees take time to make decisions, time that you cannot afford to waste in a military situation.But the reason this doesn't exactly translate to an entire government system is that you don't need such split second decisions for the majority of issues.Leaders don't always make the right or best decision, they simply make a quick one because they are the end of the chain. At that point, you essentially have a constitution, by which the dictator is somewhat obligated to stand.So having a dictator is actually saying that the man or woman on top who is the last word and can change anything he or she wants without process would be the most efficient way to do things, but the general structure of government would need to be about the same. "They've got their holidays, which I didn't even need to give them," says he. Would there be a system in place to oust them in a negative situation? That way, there is already an infrastructure and government in place.