Which would you prefer

[TheFifthElement]

an honest dictatorship or a corrupt democracy?

[subterranean]

To quote Lord Acton, power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. So if I had to choose, I'd still choose the later.

[librarius_qui]

What's democracy? This bureaucracy we inherited from the French revolution, named with a fancy Greek word?

I question this we call "democracy". We aren't Greeks. Greek democracy had kings ...

&
No reasonable man will ever choose corruption.

But, to me, the problem isn't with corruption, because there will always, while lasts this world, be honest men and corrupt men. The problem of corruption is a problem with men, not with systems.

But there is a problem with democracy. We don't live democracy. We live a bureaucracy badly named. Corruption in this bureaucracy begins in its way of speaking of itself. Things are named of other things, to get people confused discussing what doesn't make any difference at all.

And we had an industrial bureaucracy, and a bellic bureaucracy, and now we're living a digital bureaucracy, which might turn up to an end of bureaucracy. Maybe.

As long as all this don't stray us human beings in managing to live all throughout the Solar system, it'll do fine. If we don't find ways of getting out o' here, we'll all die (or most of us), because the planet is too small for our growth. So, there is a problem, and something should be done. But I don't work in Spaceships ... I work in books.

These are some thoughts.

Let me try to come back to subject, so that you could go on ...

Question was: "what would you choose?: honest dictatorship or corrupt democracy".




L#

[Silas Thorne]

Certainly an Honest dictatorship, with excellent and wise advisors and a ruler able to listen carefully to them. That would be ideal. I don't believe that a political system called 'democracy' or 'dictatorship' is either good or bad in itself.

[andave_ya]

To quote Lord Acton, power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. So if I had to choose, I'd still choose the later.

I wasn't sure what to chose till I read this. Very aptly said.

[aBIGsheep]

What's democracy? This bureaucracy we inherited from the French revolution, named with a fancy Greek word?

I question this we call "democracy". We aren't Greeks. Greek democracy had kings ...

&
No reasonable man will ever choose corruption.

But, to me, the problem isn't with corruption, because there will always, while lasts this world, be honest men and corrupt men. The problem of corruption is a problem with men, not with systems.

But there is a problem with democracy. We don't live democracy. We live a bureaucracy badly named. Corruption in this bureaucracy begins in its way of speaking of itself. Things are named of other things, to get people confused discussing what doesn't make any difference at all.

And we had an industrial bureaucracy, and a bellic bureaucracy, and now we're living a digital bureaucracy, which might turn up to an end of bureaucracy. Maybe.

As long as all this don't stray us human beings in managing to live all throughout the Solar system, it'll do fine. If we don't find ways of getting out o' here, we'll all die (or most of us), because the planet is too small for our growth. So, there is a problem, and something should be done. But I don't work in Spaceships ... I work in books.

These are some thoughts.

Let me try to come back to subject, so that you could go on ...

Question was: "what would you choose?: honest dictatorship or corrupt democracy".




L#

You're wrong buddy. Every government is a bureaucracy in a sense.
I don't think you should judge a government just because its name is taken elsewhere.
Your own name must've been taken or inspired from elsewhere. Just because you share a name with someone else does it mean you're the same person?
Derrrr

I like U.S. democracy. Every issue is viewed from a different stand point, whether from the corrupt officer to the honest joe, it's a (slow) efficient system. I can't say that U.S. democracy is a perfect government but it works.

[jon1jt]

I agree with Librarius's questioning of what this democracy is supposed to be. Sure, every democracy requires some form a bureaucracy to function, especially the US or English brand of representative government, which is corrupt from the top-down. The Ancient Greeks (mid-5th Century) used a form known as direct democracy, which was for the most part non-bureaucratic in that people participated directly in the political process at popular assemblies. There were no elections and no representatives, which minimized political corruption. Of course disenfranchising provisions existed similar to those the founding fathers wrote into the US Constitution.

Founding father James Madison said in The Federalist Papers that the only way American democracy would flourish is if the wealthy remained "disinterested" rulers. We know that is not the case. Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, would be rolling over in their graves if they could see American poliitics as it's run today.

American democracy is a failure.


Honest dictator or corrupt democracy? Neither. ;)

[Lily Adams]

I wasn't sure what to chose till I read this. Very aptly said.


Same.

But this thread made me laugh a little. I was just writing up a nice quote a wise man said about democracy's current condition.

[aBIGsheep]

Founding father James Madison said in The Federalist Papers that the only way American democracy would flourish is if the wealthy remained "disinterested" rulers. We know that is not the case. Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, would be rolling over in their graves if they could see American poliitics as it's run today.

American democracy is a failure.


Honest dictator or corrupt democracy? Neither. ;)

Pffttttt
Madison was wrong, then wasn't he? Jefferson, Washington, and practically every other Framer was a wealthy plantation owner.
Look at the last 200 years. Who was flourishing? Americans. I don't want to sound arrogant, because other nations were floushing as well and because I know America too has had its ups and downs, but to say that American Democracy is a failure is total crap.

[jon1jt]

Pffttttt
Madison was wrong, then wasn't he? Jefferson, Washington, and practically every other Framer was a wealthy plantation owner.

No, he was not wrong. Just because the founders were wealthy didn't mean they didn't know the difference between right and wrong. Consider John Adams was adamantly opposed to the institution of slavey and never owned a slave at a time when slavery was as "normal" a practice as buying a car. Madison was not wrong, my friend.


Look at the last 200 years. Who was flourishing? Americans.

Well, if you consider 200 years of institutionalized slavery, or the systematic brutality of Native Americans from the time of Christopher Columbus (the great discoverer); or the de facto slavery that came with Jim Crow Laws and the racial segregation laws, or the disenfrancishment of women from participatory government (until 1915), or the rounding up of Japanese-Americans who were placed in American internment camps. If you call the arrest and imprisonment of Martin Luther King to prevent blacks from protesting oppression, or Chinese Exclusionary Laws that barred Chinese from immigrating to the USA even though thousands were killed making the transcontinental railroad that became a harbinger of American hope and economic prosperity; or the government-backed crusade to destroy American unions, or the way the American government colonized Cuba and brutalized their people (give a listen to Bob Marley's Buffalo Soldier song); the acquisitions of Hawaii, New Mexico, Florida; or how it ignored pleas for US military intervention to halt Germany's extermination of Jews, etc etc etc.

There's Ronald Reagan and the Iran contras and the long string of puppet governments installed but not without brutal violence by the US CIA, et al. Democratic, eh?


I don't want to sound arrogant, because other nations were floushing as well and because I know America too has had its ups and downs, but to say that American Democracy is a failure is total crap.

Flourishing as defined as what: that other nations were building Empires at the expense of human dignity and rights? Is what the English did to India noble? or what it did to Africa? Or what the French did to Laos, or Americans in Vietnam??

Maybe we should talk about how the United States refuses to sign cooperative international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees, "the inherent dignity of the human person...whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights..."

Sounds like it came right out of Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points, eh?




My only advice is for you to read history and get back to me in a few years.

[Virgil]

We all live in corrupt democracies. Well, most of us. I wouldn't want it any other way. ;)

[Dori]

We all live in corrupt democracies. Well, most of us. I wouldn't want it any other way. ;)

:lol:

[Joreads]

We all live in corrupt democracies. Well, most of us. I wouldn't want it any other way. ;)

Could not agree more

[aBIGsheep]

No, he was not wrong. Just because the founders were wealthy didn't mean they didn't know the difference between right and wrong. Consider John Adams was adamantly opposed to the institution of slavey and never owned a slave at a time when slavery was as "normal" a practice as buying a car. Madison was not wrong, my friend.
This can be taken to a completely different discussion over what's right and what's wrong.

Madison was wrong almost in the same way that he was right.
America flourished because the wealthy were interested in politics in the same way that the poor have been interested in politics. Their wealth gives them a few more options whether from their influence or from bribes and it seems unfair.
But time and time again the good of the majority overlook the desires of the few because the wealthy understand that they depend on the majority.
Madison's quote was wrong.



Well, if you consider 200 years of institutionalized slavery, or the systematic brutality of Native Americans from the time of Christopher Columbus (the great discoverer); or the de facto slavery that came with Jim Crow Laws and the racial segregation laws, or the disenfrancishment of women from participatory government (until 1915), or the rounding up of Japanese-Americans who were placed in American internment camps. If you call the arrest and imprisonment of Martin Luther King to prevent blacks from protesting oppression, or Chinese Exclusionary Laws that barred Chinese from immigrating to the USA even though thousands were killed making the transcontinental railroad that became a harbinger of American hope and economic prosperity; or the government-backed crusade to destroy American unions, or the way the American government colonized Cuba and brutalized their people (give a listen to Bob Marley's Buffalo Soldier song); the acquisitions of Hawaii, New Mexico, Florida; or how it ignored pleas for US military intervention to halt Germany's extermination of Jews, etc etc etc.

There's Ronald Reagan and the Iran contras and the long string of puppet governments installed but not without brutal violence by the US CIA, et al. Democratic, eh?

Let's not completely disregard America's first steps in the moon, Truman's middle eastern interventions, America's influence in French Democracy, America's influences in music, art, literature, its involvement in the 2 world wars, its formation of the UN, its influences in the Indian revolution, its now-reverent appreciation for the races and peoples it once wronged, its ongoing involvement for maintaining peace in conjunction with other nations abroad, the Red Cross, its leading contributions to science, and so on and son on and so on.

I can name a million horrible things that America has done. That's all that people often hear because that's all that they want to hear. You do understand that most of those things that you listed have been banned, criticized, and more-over embarassed from or by the U.S., right? Every nation makes mistakes. I have no clue where you're from but if I wanted too I could just as easily make a laundry list of all the dumb and shameful things that your country has done and continues to do. Just like the U.S., eh? Its gonna suck when you're from Nebraska or Michigan or some other state.
Excuse the digression.
But the thing is, it's all progress. We're striving for peace and perfection with little hope of achieving either. We just want to get as close to it as possible and that is at the heart of every American person. There are some big name companies in the way, but its only something we have to push past.



Flourishing as defined as what: that other nations were building Empires at the expense of human dignity and rights? Is what the English did to India noble? or what it did to Africa? Or what the French did to Laos, or Americans in Vietnam??
You look at everything from a dirty capitalists' point of view. Flourishing, in my definition at least, is the overall satisfaction of majority of the population. Our economy is in shambles but for the most part Americans are pretty happy with their lives.


Maybe we should talk about how the United States refuses to sign cooperative international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees, "the inherent dignity of the human person...whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights..."

Sounds like it came right out of Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points, eh?
I slept through those lectures, excuse me.




My only advice is for you to read history and get back to me in a few years.

Likewise.

[Dori]

I have no clue where you're from but if I wanted too I could just as easily make a laundry list of all the dumb and shameful things that your country has done and continues to do. Just like the U.S., eh? Its gonna suck when you're from Nebraska or Michigan or some other state.

He's from Upstate New York, like me.

[aBIGsheep]

You're giving a one sided outlook on the Kyoto Protocols and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Similar agreements have already been passed in the U.S. to the point that signing either would mean little.
The Kyoto Protocols places a lot of stress on the more industrialized on the basis that larger more industrialized countries are to blame. Justly so, sure, but the Kyoto Protocols give no timetables or set goals for lesser industrialized countries. What kind of agreement is that? Although smaller natiosn probably wouldn't be producing the same amount of green house gases as the larger countries, they should still be held accountable for what they produce. They're going to inherit the same world that we do, and what's the point of this agreement when we've already passed similar eco-friendly laws?

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would do little because their international laws are already maintained by our own domestic laws. Once again, what's the poitn of signing something that's already been established and maintained?

[aBIGsheep]

He's from Upstate New York, like me.

O' gawd.

[jon1jt]

:
Madison was wrong almost in the same way that he was right. America flourished because the wealthy were interested in politics in the same way that the poor have been interested in politics. Their wealth gives them a few more options whether from their influence or from bribes and it seems unfair. But time and time again the good of the majority overlook the desires of the few because the wealthy understand that they depend on the majority.

Madison's quote was wrong.


The poor were hardly a part of political government in colonial America. "But time and time again the good of the majority overlook the desires of the few because the wealthy understand that they depend on the majority." ??? Relevance?? :rolleyes: You know, I'm not even going to read the rest of your post unless you clarify it because I have absolutely no clue what the hell you're saying as it pertains to my remark about James Madison. Madison, who I'll say again, stated that a democracy that precludes "disinterested" representatives defined by wealth could be neither democratic nor a republican form of government.

I don't think there is one person that seriously denies what Madison is saying as a first principle of effective, efficient government. Plato and Aristotle also emphasized the importance of acquiring rulers that are accountable---who were referred to then as "Statesman." Madison had read his Plato and admired the Ancient Greeks and Romans, incorporating parts of their political systems into the US Constitution.

State and federal campaign spending is in the millions because first and foremost money equals a bottom-up control of power that starts with the political electorate on whom they rely to get elected, but who are all too often quickly forgotten. Oh of course politicians make concessions to "the people." I'm talking about the lion's share of budgets and legislation that go to special interests who paid for all that political advertising and marketing that has had the effect of numbing the viewer to the message.

To reduce major issues to soundbites and to turn the majority of voters into people who hold open their mouths like seals begging for fish are the greatest offenses waged in the name of democracy.

This reminds me of a person I had the misfortune to intern for in college---Senator Robert Torricelli, a career politician who was found taking tens of thousands of dollars in illegal gifts, including cash, appliances, as well as large sums for his 1996 Senate campaign bid. In 2002 it all came crashing down on him as six of his "donors" were convicted for making illegal contributions. It's no surprise that Fortune 500 called the state of New Jersey, "the most politically corrupt state in the nation." And from what I recall in that study, New York wasn't far behind. There's soft money, Political Action Committees, bloated budget spending, a foreign aid which hands out tens of millions to international orgs like World Bank and International Monetary Fund who remain instruments of control for capitalist countries and their cohorts, multinational firms. Yeah I know reforms have been made, just not enough to make these organizations for the people, by the people, of the people.

There's a great line I still remember that goes: Foreign Aid is when you take money from the poor people in a rich country and give it to the rich people in a poor country.

American politicians have a vested interest in maintaining a two party monopoly over elections and keeping out progressive parties and ideas--- which, one would think, is the essence of true democratic governance. Disenfrancishing 3rd parties has gone on since as early as the American Populist Movement in the late 1800s that was crushed. Later it would be Progressivism, which, for all its accomplishments, was divided and conquered by corporate and political elites. A modern day example is the barring of Ralph Nader from the building in which the 2004 Presidential Debate was held, even though he had a ticket! The state trooper at the gate told him, "All I was told was that you're not to come in. Now get out of here or I'll arrest you." See for yourself, American democracy at its best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ZRRimf3Ps&feature=PlayList&p=CDA3562E2C3B9A67&playnext=1&index=35


This is your America, aBIGsheep. :lol: Now gimme something with substance or I ain't playing no mo'. ;)

[jon1jt]

O' gawd.


Don't worry O aBIGsheep---I don't require that because I live in America that you must live in America to have an educated opinion about the system. Oh hi Virge top of the morning to you, old sport?! :p

[librarius_qui]

hey, people ...

We'd better hold our horses here, otherwise, someone will have to democratically report this thread to moderators to close it, because we're far from general chat here ... We're into politics, and moods aren't much under control, here.

So, "what would you have better: a corrupt democracy or an honest dictatorship?"

---

[TheFifthElement]

Lib I think you raised a very valid question. It is a question of mine too. I am way beyond finding an answer.



Same.

But this thread made me laugh a little. I was just writing up a nice quote a wise man said about democracy's current condition.

but Lily...what was that quote?...

Can't believe you're leaving us hanging here ;)

[jon1jt]

hey, people ...

We'd better hold our horses here, otherwise, someone will have to democratically report this thread to moderators to close it, because we're far from general chat here ... We're into politics, and moods aren't much under control, here.

So, "what would you have better: a corrupt democracy or an honest dictatorship?"

---


No, we're not into politics because the discussion is not a political one. There is opinion supported by historical fact, there's a difference. Who said a general discussion can't also be an educated discussion? But yeah sure let's return to general discussion and leave that to you then. :rolleyes: I'm outta here.

[Lily Adams]

Lib I think you raised a very valid question. It is a question of mine too. I am way beyond finding an answer.



but Lily...what was that quote?...

Can't believe you're leaving us hanging here ;)

:) It's because it's a bit political, I guess. Like Lib said.

If you really wanna know, go to Youtube and put in "DEVO Was Right" (I know, I know) and "Minordian". I would post a link but I'm at a public computer...no Y-Tube access. :( It's the guy saying "It's all over."

It is.

I am off of my soapbox now.

[Virgil]

American democracy is a failure.


Oh that is ridicuous Jon. I would love to be dictator of our country. I bet you wouldn't prefer me as dictator (boy would I love to implement all the things I've advocated in the last 20 years :p) of this country to its current democracy.


Honest dictator or corrupt democracy? Neither. ;)
Then what? Aristocracy? Theocracy?

Perhaps one needs to be reminded on occaision of Churchill's famous dictum: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

[Dori]

Perhaps one needs to be reminded on occaision of Churchill's famous dictum: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

This reminds me of something my sarcastic wit of an English teacher told me: "Though our democracy isn't by any means perfect, it's the best we got." (Paraphrased, of course.) He also interchanged "democracy" with "capitalism."

But what about anarchism? :D

[Virgil]

This reminds me of something my sarcastic wit of an English teacher told me: "Though our democracy isn't by any means perfect, it's the best we got." (Paraphrased, of course.) He also interchanged "democracy" with "capitalism."

Dori, I think your teacher stole that from Churchill. ;)


But what about anarchism? :D
I bet that's what Jon is after. :lol:

Why don't we let some aliens from out space and come and teach us the perfect government? :alien: :alien:

One can never have perfect government because government is run by people and people are imperfect. Now maybe angels should come down from heaven and people our beuracracy. :angel:

[Chava]

We could all go live in the Kallipolis, be ruled by philosopher kings to the maximum extent of our capacity to understand 'true' happiness.

Seriously, though, democracy or dictatorship, it's all a matter of who the rulers are ruling for. And lets face it, the great greeks hated the idea of democracy, and would have prefered an intellectual aristocracy. A society ruled by experts. I believe there is also a fairly entertaining Simpsons episode which illustrates this form of government.

No one said that a dictator can't be elected by the people, and if it's an honest dictator, why not. A dictator has advisors, even if their not elected by the people, not unlike the leader of a big company, just because he is a dictator doesn't mean that he wants bad things for his country and people.

[Emil Miller]

When you have a corrupt democracy you're well on the road to anarchy.
Hence the murder and mayhem that characterises the one I live in now.

[Lokasenna]

It depends on several factors. If you look at the UK, between 1997 and 2005 the Labour party had such a huge governmental majority, much like the Conservatives from 1978 to 1992, that there was really nothing they couldn't have passed through Parliament. The term "elected dictatorship" was widely bandied about by political scientists - this begs the question, is a dictatorship still a dictatorship if it governs by the will of the people?

Neither is the issue entirely black and white - some dictators can actually be very effective leaders. Attaturk Kemal was the last Turkish dictator, and is even now largely loved by the people, years after his death. He wielded absolute power in order to rescue Turkey from the anarchy caused by the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and part of his legacy was to ensure that after his death Turkey became a secular democracy, which has (arguably) resulted in Turkey being one of the most progressive middle-east states.

Consider also the problem of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia. When Ian Smith was in charge, the people were under his complete hegemonic control - they were not 'free.' Now, under Robert Mugabe, they are superficially allowed the right to vote for a representative government - the right of a free citizen. The fact that their quality of life has reduced dramatically in the transition from theoretical oppression to theoretical freedom is certainly problematic when deciding which was better. As an Brit, I appreciate my opinions on Zimbabwe may be a little coloured by my heritage, but nonetheless as much as I believe that Smith was an evil man, I should rather have lived in his country...

Oh well, those are my thoughts!

[Emil Miller]

It depends on several factors. If you look at the UK, between 1997 and 2005 the Labour party had such a huge governmental majority, much like the Conservatives from 1978 to 1992, that there was really nothing they couldn't have passed through Parliament. The term "elected dictatorship" was widely bandied about by political scientists - this begs the question, is a dictatorship still a dictatorship if it governs by the will of the people?

Neither is the issue entirely black and white - some dictators can actually be very effective leaders. Attaturk Kemal was the last Turkish dictator, and is even now largely loved by the people, years after his death. He wielded absolute power in order to rescue Turkey from the anarchy caused by the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and part of his legacy was to ensure that after his death Turkey became a secular democracy, which has (arguably) resulted in Turkey being one of the most progressive middle-east states.

Consider also the problem of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia. When Ian Smith was in charge, the people were under his complete hegemonic control - they were not 'free.' Now, under Robert Mugabe, they are superficially allowed the right to vote for a representative government - the right of a free citizen. The fact that their quality of life has reduced dramatically in the transition from theoretical oppression to theoretical freedom is certainly problematic when deciding which was better. As an Brit, I appreciate my opinions on Zimbabwe may be a little coloured by my heritage, but nonetheless as much as I believe that Smith was an evil man, I should rather have lived in his country...

Oh well, those are my thoughts!

Oh boy! Do I have a few things to tell you? Unfortunately, it is past my bedtime, and it will have to wait until tomorrow.

[Emil Miller]

Originally Posted by Lokasenna
It depends on several factors. If you look at the UK, between 1997 and 2005 the Labour party had such a huge governmental majority, much like the Conservatives from 1978 to 1992, that there was really nothing they couldn't have passed through Parliament. The term "elected dictatorship" was widely bandied about by political scientists - this begs the question, is a dictatorship still a dictatorship if it governs by the will of the people?

Neither is the issue entirely black and white - some dictators can actually be very effective leaders. Attaturk Kemal was the last Turkish dictator, and is even now largely loved by the people, years after his death. He wielded absolute power in order to rescue Turkey from the anarchy caused by the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and part of his legacy was to ensure that after his death Turkey became a secular democracy, which has (arguably) resulted in Turkey being one of the most progressive middle-east states.

Consider also the problem of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia. When Ian Smith was in charge, the people were under his complete hegemonic control - they were not 'free.' Now, under Robert Mugabe, they are superficially allowed the right to vote for a representative government - the right of a free citizen. The fact that their quality of life has reduced dramatically in the transition from theoretical oppression to theoretical freedom is certainly problematic when deciding which was better. As an Brit, I appreciate my opinions on Zimbabwe may be a little coloured by my heritage, but nonetheless as much as I believe that Smith was an evil man, I should rather have lived in his country...

Oh well, those are my thoughts!


Whilst I am broadly in agreement with your conclusions, the epitome of an elected dictatorship in British parliamentary terms was the Labour party's massive majority following the 1945 general election and subsequent wholesale nationalisation of Britains infrastruture. By the time Mrs Thatcher came to power in 1979, Britain was effectively bankrupt. This period forms the background to my novel Pro Bono publico.

Your comments regarding Attaturk are correct. I was speaking to some Turkish people recently and they agreed that he was the right man at the right time following the fall of the Ottoman Empire; athough it's debatable whether Turkey will be able to maintain its secular stance in the current Islamic surge.

I am pleased to note, in your comments on Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, that you have put the word free in inverted commas. There is, and always has been, a lot of nonsense talked about freedom. Liberty, like everything else, is relative and what is happening in Sub-Saharan Africa today is a good illustration.Zimbabwe is a prime example of why Africans were better off under the colonial powers.
You are quite wrong to accuse Ian Smith of being an evil man. During WW11 he served as a fighter pilot in the RAF. He was shot down by ground fire over Italy during a raid and rescued by Italian partisans. He continued to serve until the war ended.
When the British Labour government tried to force Smith into majority rule, he declared unilateral independence for the country; effectively removing it from British control.We can see now why he did so. One would have be completely stupid not to see that 'independence' has reduced Ian Smith's once prosperous Rhodesia to an evil cesspit.
It is ironic that the Labour party, whose interference brought about the arrival of Robert Mugabe, is now wringing their hands over the very situation that Ian Smith foresaw and fought so desperately to prevent.
I note from your avatar that you are a medievalist. Robert Mugabe pre-dates you by a couple of thousand years, as he's been busy driving Zimbabwe back to the stoneage.

[Lokasenna]

All fair points - thanks for the info!

In terms of Ian Smith, it is perhaps more correct for me to say that I disagreed with a lot of what he stood for in terms of social policy. The man was overtly racist (as indeed is Mugabe) and he used his position to promote a racist agenda. That's my main bone of contention with the man!

And Mugabe actually has a lot in common with the rather bloodthirsty King Eirik Blood-axe of Scandinavia who is rattling about in my neck of the literary woods - lots of coercion, lots of threats, lots of murders, and the apparent mandate of the people. How times don't change...

[crystalmoonshin]

An honest dictatorship would be more preferable anytime. Living in a corrupt democracy is like seeing one of your loved ones get killed before your very eyes.