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?
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.
Since no country is perfect, what happen if a person critisize the king for a bad policy?
No, the very idea of a dictator is that there is no party. It is pure self interest.
When we voted Obama and a democrat congress in, we got universal healthcare 🤡
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.
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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
