Argument: Dictatorships can prevent social unrest

Dictatorships are better at controlling discipline and order within society. They generally promote a state based on hierarchical values, through strict policies based on security. This allows them to prevent financial losses due to strikes and riots, and reduce crime rates, making the country more stable.

Singapore is a de-facto one party state, in which the ruling People’s Action Party, is accused of stopping the operation of opposition parties. A former Foreign Minister of Singapore has asked “How many Singaporeans really want free speech anyway? They want orderliness, a decent living” [1] . This both makes the country more competitive because there are more productive days and more attractive to invest in as expats will want to live in countries with little crime. Moreover when it comes to attracting immigration for sectors of the economy there is none of the opposition that would occur in democracies.

Autocracy may be the only way to stabilize some countries that have never had a democratic government. It has been suggested by Mancur Olson, a leading economist, that “anarchy not only involves loss of life but also increases the incentives to steal and to defend against theft, and thereby reduces the incentive to produce [2] ”. A dictatorship may be the only way to restore order and create a political framework stable enough for trade and investment.

[1] Huff, W.G. (1994). The economic growth of Singapore: trade and development in twentieth century”. Cambridge; New York; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. p. 358

[2] Olson, M. (2000). Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships. New York: Basic Books. p. 64

Candidate 1: "In addition to the moral concerns, it is not proven that dictatorships are sustainable in the long term. There will always be groups seeking a democratic government, which could lead to revolution.

There is a particular issue with handovers of power in dictatorships, especially those with personality cults – for example the transition to democracy after the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, or the collapse and disintegration of Yugoslavia in to ethnic conflict following the death of Tito. Many authoritarian regimes require a lot of upkeep in terms of propaganda which counterbalances the cost of elections [1] .

An election may be costly but it is also a good indicator of the performance of a government, providing a mechanism of monitoring the performance of the “social contract”. Democratic governments are accountable to their people at the ballot box, which gives those in power an incentive to perform well. If the government is not performing well they will be thrown out. In an authoritarian country if the government performs badly the people have no way to remove them and so change policies to ones that work.

Dictatorships have a different problem with political stability and that is on a smaller scale; it is difficult to know if an investment is safe because the government is arbitrary not bound by the rule of law. The results of this may not be the sweeping changes in economic policy found in democracies but can be more significant locally such as demands for high payments to operate, confiscation, or preferential treatment for competitors.

[1] Marquand, Robert, ‘N. Korea escalates ‘cult of Kim’ to counter West’s influence’, The Christian Science Monitor, 3 January 2007 http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0103/p01s04-woap.html"
Candidate 2: "Dictatorships generally focus only on supporting one element of society, which means that there are often opposition groups from other demographics ready to oppose them. When the repression fails, the state will no longer be stable. Even if a dictatorship can create economic growth, it will not necessarily permeate through all elements of society, making them more likely to object to the government.

If a dictatorship manages to create an inclusive economy, demands for an inclusive political system will follow. While a dictatorship may work in the short term, political change will then result from this very success as shown by the countries like South Korea and Taiwan that grew rapidly as autocracies before having democratic revolutions.

According to Adam Smith, ““[c]ommerce and manufactures can seldom ﬂourish long in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice, in which the people do not feel themselves secure in the possession of their property, in which the faith of contracts is not supported by law, and in which the authority of the state is not supposed to be regularly employed in enforcing the payment of debts from all those who are able to pay. Commerce and manufactures, in short, can seldom ﬂourish in any state in which there is not a certain degree of conﬁdence in the justice of government” [1] .

[1] Smith, A. (2009). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Digireads.com. [1776]. p. 546"
Candidate 3: "This makes the assumption that dictators are rational, wise and seek to encourage development, rather than operate as kleptocrats. This is why dictatorship usually does not benefit development; the very concentration of power means when they make poor decisions the effect on the country is much greater. There is a similar result with corruption, a lack of checks and balances mean that decisions can be taken and implemented quickly but this same lack also means there is little to prevent corruption.

Corruption is often rife in non-democratic societies. For example, in Cuba the healthcare system is largely reliant on bribery and is often under-resourced. One US diplomatic cable points out “[i]n one Cuban hospital, patients had to bring their own light bulbs. In another, the staff used "a primitive manual vacuum" on a woman who had miscarried. In others, Cuban patients pay bribes to obtain better treatment.” [1]

[1] ‘Wikileaks cables highlight Cuba’s health care issues’, McClatchyDC, 29 December 2010, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/29/105902/wikileaks-cables-highlight-cubas.html"

Dictatorships generally focus only on supporting one element of society, which means that there are often opposition groups from other demographics ready to oppose them. When the repression fails, the state will no longer be stable. Even if a dictatorship can create economic growth, it will not necessarily permeate through all elements of society, making them more likely to object to the government.

If a dictatorship manages to create an inclusive economy, demands for an inclusive political system will follow. While a dictatorship may work in the short term, political change will then result from this very success as shown by the countries like South Korea and Taiwan that grew rapidly as autocracies before having democratic revolutions.

According to Adam Smith, ““[c]ommerce and manufactures can seldom ﬂourish long in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice, in which the people do not feel themselves secure in the possession of their property, in which the faith of contracts is not supported by law, and in which the authority of the state is not supposed to be regularly employed in enforcing the payment of debts from all those who are able to pay. Commerce and manufactures, in short, can seldom ﬂourish in any state in which there is not a certain degree of conﬁdence in the justice of government” [1] .

[1] Smith, A. (2009). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Digireads.com. [1776]. p. 546
