Talk:Dictatorship
|
|
Dictatorship in no way implies "authoritarian" OR "totalatarian". Dictatorships are merely government lead by one person, not following the herity of monarchal rulers. There a Benevolent and Totatalitarian Dictatorships, but "Dictatorship" should never be used to show suppression of rights.
Somebody would redact the human rights article.
Revoved this:
Ironically, several dictatorships include the word democratic in their official names, such as Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The irony is a lot more complex than this reader realizes.
Democratic should be included in dictator page since it is an example of how dictators attempt to hide the fact that only the dictatorial leader of the country will lead the country even though there are 'democratic' elections.
The average citizen would be intimidated into voting 'for' the dictator for fear of imprisionment, torture, or death. See Iraq for a good example.
Other dictatorships allow multiple parties on the ballot all of which are hand picked by the dictator to nominate the dictator as leader.
Other methods include fradulent counting of votes and other election rigging.
The conception of the term "democratic" under Communist regimes refers to more than just voting. It's viewed more in a class or an socio-economic sense than political.
That part about communits regimes gravitating to socio-economic equality would be a welcome addition to the general info on North Korea, Soviet Union, Cuba and other communist countries past and present.
Keep it relevant
This is about the system of government, not the person running it. That information belongs in dictator. Some of the text needs to be removed so we dont repeat ourselves. --Jiang 23:46, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I have moved the following from the article. I don't see much relevance, nor can I verify the authenticy of the quote - google find exactly two hits which are wikipedia mirrors. As I side-note: similar quotes were inserted into Computer science (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Computer_science&diff=3035886&oldid=3035869) and Afterlife (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Afterlife&diff=3035942&oldid=3035930) and reverted as nonsense. andy 07:30, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- "Being in power is like a lady".If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.
This article is more likely an essay. It has not the objectivity and clarity of an encyclopedic article.
- Etimology and definition for dictatorship
I think that definition need to more concise and it should be only one definition for the concept. Special particularities could be moved on chapter "Style".
- Style
"In the 20th century, the term dictatorship has come to mean a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in the hands of a dictator and sometimes his supporters" - It is exactly the political system of the Middle Age, only that the dictator called himself/herself in some other ways. Hitler wanted for his "Reich" to last for 1,000 years, as the Dark Age lasted in Europe. The term of dictatorship re-appears in the 20th century, the concept and the model is far more old. Speaking of "style", it seems there are so many styles of dictatorship.
- Types of dictatorship
I am not sure that I understand what is the difference beetween "type" and "style".
These initials chapters should have a higher degree of abstractisation. And then, the concretisation:
- History of dictatorship
Based on the "types" and "styles" of dictatorship, I think the history of dictatorship will be more clear, complete and objective. This is the place for examples, and I suppose it could be a very good example of collaborative work in order to complete this history.
Or rather the article should refer only on the "modern" dictatorship. In its actual form, the article "Dictatorship" is contradictory with the article about "Napoleon Bonaparte". --Vasile 15:32, 20 May 2004 (UTC)