In Russia, they have only 1 party left, so the party clearly doesn’t matter. In Usa, it is not an official dictator yet. In other countries with a dictatorship, I don’t know about their parties. So do you know any examples where the parties still matter?
I don’t understand the question, what do you mean by it mattering which party a dictator belongs to? It depends what you’re asking/concerned about.
The word “official” is doing alot of heavy lifting here. Do dictators ever officially announce theyre a dictator or do they swear its the freest best democracy on the planet?
Lukashenko who just fixed the elections in Belarus has called himself a dictator before.
Didnt know that. Brazen of him.
Yeah because if his party is unpopular than no one will know who he is. A two party electoral system is a death sentence for freedom of choice.
Then is not than and it must take effort to get that so wrong.
Yes. It is theoretically possible for a dictator to rule with the actual best interests of the people in mind, rather than a misguided belief about what those are, or else a complete lack of concern for anyone but themselves.
Since political beliefs tend to align along party lines, the party of such a dictator does matter somewhat, however little that might be.
Unfortunately, any benevolent dictatorship would be at constant risk of turning, and almost certainly be doomed to turn, into one of the other two options.
Even less fortunately, most dictatorships skip the benevolent step entirely.
Not exactly a dictatorship, but for example Thailand is a pretty successful and benevolent Monarchy where besides not being allowed to talk badly about the king, people are free.
That’s a constitutional monarchy, with added censorship. The UK was like that 100ish years ago. Now treasonous talk is tolerated
Since no country is perfect, what happen if a person critisize the king for a bad policy?
Thailand has some of the strictest laws of this kind.
Typically you’re looking at serious jail time if found guilty.
I haven’t looked into the details, but it’s more like you can’t criticise the Monarchy, but you can criticise the government, policies and laws. But you can’t incite violence or unrest even online, and cannot demafe government officials. From talking with Thais, this is ok, although they are obviously never too confrotavke speaking openly about it.
It’s actually pretty rare for dictatorships to have only one legal party. Even North Korea is nominally a multi-party state. Such minor parties are just token controlled opposition ofc, but they serve to give a flimsy “democratic” veneer.
America’s trajectory rn is aiming closer to the illiberal/managed democracy of Hungary under Viktor Orban, where there are true opposition parties with an actual chance at winning, but the media, government, and electoral system is strongly biased against them.
I think China in a way is democratic as long as you have allegiance to Xi Jinping. So as long as two people have opposing policies that neither of them contradict “Xi Jinping thought”, then there is some choice I guess?
How is it democratic though? There is some policy deliberation yes but that’s not what democracy means.
Perhaps I used the wrong word, in that case
OK fair enough. I think I get what you mean. China has more of an elaborate bureaucracy than the typical dictatorship. I’m not sure what word best describes this model.
No, the very idea of a dictator is that there is no party. It is pure self interest.
Authoritarianism isn’t an ideology per se, and often dictatorship isn’t official. Even Stalin was the “general secretary” of his party. And yet, authoritarianism of every stripe demonstrates similar styles regardless of their political ideology. Smashing dissent, regressive economics and consolidated power, militarism, etc. These have never been solely the purview of avowed fascists. So no, for most of those that suffer under dictators, the ideology of those thugs rarely matter.
But make no mistake, a multi-party democracy with varied ideologies is not the opposite of authoritarianism. Factions can be just as much a poison pill, if the balance of powers are not subordinate to an informed electorate. The opposite of authoritarianism is anarchism.
Just take a look at the countries that have the word “democratic” in their name. Seems like that’s the unofficial way to let everyone know exactly how authoritarian the country actually is.
The opposite of authoritarianism is anarchism.
But anarchism is the opposite of all governance while authoritarianism is a subset.
When we voted Obama and a democrat congress in, we got universal healthcare 🤡
By definition in a dictatorship, there are either no parties, or there is only one party, or the parties that are not the one the dictator belongs to are not allowed to be in actual opposition to the ruling one or attempt to become the ruling one. (That last one is the case in North Korea and was the case in East Germany for most of its history.)
NK is such an interesting case. They even have a party for North Korean Japanese voters. And with a 13% turnout across all the non-WPK parties, that’s a large amount of social influence they must wield relative to the WPK, even if they are under their control.
Dictatorship of the people versus Fascist dictatorship does matter.
Dictatorship of the people my god I’ve never heard anything so stupid before
Is this your first introduction to Marxism? Lol welcome to leftism 101, if you reacted this way then there is hope for you.
When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called “the People’s Stick”.
-Mikhail Bakunin
It’s a silly term but Deng Xiaoping did do some good for a billion people ;)
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
