He can take critical decisions as he deems fit without any delays and uprisings in the decision making process. In dictatorship the power belongs to the dictator whereas in democracy people are the ultimate rulers. In democracy, people have their rights recognized in the very Constitution of their state which are called fundamental rights that can never be suspended by the government.
In democracy, people are indulged in all decisions related to economic, social, political and military affairs whereas in dictatorship who are people to decide?
They just sit back and follow. Overall, democracy is regarded as the purest form of government. It is the most stable system under which both the ruled as well as the rulers are content. Next: Difference Between Patent and Design. Research findings and cooperation have strengthened her view that black and white interpretations of politics should be replaced with a prism: power systems should be studied in all their hues.
Industrial towns polluted all the way down to their groundwater, the Aral Sea and Chernobyl must not be forgotten, but other things have happened in authoritarian countries as well, not just catastrophes. However, joining up these scientific traditions has been uneven thus far.
On the one hand, Russians like to point out phenomena that break the division between the Good West and the Bad East. On the other hand, in the United States researchers focusing on global questions tend to be stuck in their Cold War positions even though they do analyse the political history of their own country from a fresh perspective. The burden of Finlandisation continues to be so heavy that you might easily be labelled a Putinist.
Simo Laakkonen , docent of social and economic history, who has specialised in the environmental history of the Baltic Sea and the Cold War, agrees.
Often there is good reason to do so, but you should still study the background carefully. The dictatorship of comparison is partially responsible for the copycat approach adopted by many governments. Doing as others do became critically important to reassure the public that the situation is under control — in the case of the coronavirus pandemic, that meant persuading them of the necessity of staying at home, wearing masks, closing businesses and complying with whatever additional policies were put in place.
Imagine that half the countries in the world had decided to proceed with a lockdown, while the others, following the example of Sweden, had chosen to avoid strict measures; the political pressure on both sides to change course would have been almost unbearable. Had some democratic governments introduced a state of emergency and others not done so, despite the figures for people infected and dying from the virus being comparable, such diverse responses might have provoked a collapse in public confidence.
It is easy to see why governments choose to copy the policies adopted by the countries that were hit earliest by the pandemic, even if they were unconvinced that they were following the best approach. Another much more dangerous legacy of the pandemic-induced appetite for instant comparisons is the fact that if several governments had adopted certain antidemocratic practices people would have become much more inclined to tolerate them.
Moreover, democracies are better for some situations as unpopular leaders can be replaced whereas dictators have to be removed by force. In addition, businesses often find it easier to work in countries where they are treated with respect and ease of doing business is prevalent. This means that business leaders often do not give that much importance to the political systems and are instead contended with how they are treated and whether their firms can grow and deliver prosperity to their stakeholders.
Indeed, as can be seen from the events of the last few years world over, many prominent business leaders often prefer to mind their business literally and figuratively. Last, while the debate over the kind of system that is better for economic growth goes on, it is worth remembering that no matter the type of system, ultimately, the people have to benefit and this is where the crux of the issue lies.
As long as there is just and equitable growth, any system manages to thrive and survive and once, people perceive that prosperity is only for the few, then the system starts to implode gradually.
View All Articles. Which is Better for Economic Growth of Nations.
0コメント