by Crescent Pulsar S » Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:40 pm
Which isn't the same, although I think that dictators are liable to pass the reins to family members as well, if given the chance. I'd say that monarchy is worse because power is expected to pass down through the family, so the prospective rulers are born with entitlement, likely indoctrinated by their forebearer(s) (wow; neither spelling of that word is recognized by my spellchecker ;/), and are very unlikely to be sympathetic or empathetic to those they rule over. Power and authority, for them, is like answering the call of nature: why hate them for doing what comes naturally?
If I went the democratically-elected dictator route, I'd have them stay in office only so long as the population was satisfied that they were doing what they wanted them to do. The dictator can act freely, but the people hold the leash. The government's nature would basically put the people at the head of power, with the dictator acting on their behalf. (Which kind of defeats what makes a dictator a dictator, but I've no other reference to use to describe the type of government it is.) This mainly stems from my dislike of parties and multiple branches of government: there's too many cooks in the kitchen, and divided against each other on top of that, often serving based on profiling people rather than giving them a menu so they can pick whatever they feel like at the time.
Mind you, I don't have any more faith in the population doing any better than any leadership that consists of a comparatively-smaller group, entity or person. But most people like the idea of having (the) power, which is no wonder why so many leaders of history abuse their station. It just seems to be human nature that so many people who seek positions of power -- and get it -- are ones who are corrupted and morally bankrupt.