A Strong Dictatorship Is Better Than a Weak Democracy

(Merely a persuasive essay, content does not reveal stance)

A dictatorship is an authoritarian type of office or government where there is

absolute control by one person. In other words, the dictator has total power and rules
everything.Meanwhile, a democracy is a form of government that empowers the
people to exercise political control, limits the power of the head of state,
provides for the separation of powers between governmental entities, and
ensures the protection of natural rights and civil liberties. A strong
dictatorship is indeed better than a weak democracy, for its ability to bring the
majority together, providing the country a sustainable future.

Democracy is ineffective by nature. ‘People are involved in politics in forms

such as voting for a candidate, they vote for the candidate that suits their
needs, therefore it is beneficial for the citizens. ‘This is what some people
might argue as if weak democracy is superior to a strong
dictatorship.However, a problem with a political system involved with these
people, mostly ordinary citizens , is that they are not entirely informed to
choose a candidate that really benefits them. According to a study in the
United States, less than 30% of the people can name two or more of the rights
listed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, one of the most
fundamental of the Amendments! People do not understand, nor do they care
about their country’s politics as much as they claimed to. Thus, they choose
their candidates without much concern, or worse, without a valid reason.The
politician that is picked out by them, has low quality. Like Donald Trump, who
disregards experts on pandemic science .How could people even trust such
mediocre governors to solve their problems? A strong dictatorship does not
tolerate such low efficacy on repeat, therefore it is better than a weak
democracy.

Besides, a weak democracy is unstable . The power of the head of the state is
limited, meaning that it may not be able to control certain crucial affairs of
citizens and further, its political rivals and corporations. In the case of the
Kyrgyz Republic , a certified fragile democracy according to
freepolicybriefs.org , there is weak bureaucratic support in its economic
development, causing heated competitions between elite groups. This caused a
draw in the economic reforms, making the issue unnecessarily
complicated.Citizen’s lives can’t be improved, resulting in dissatisfaction with
the government, increased risks of instability.A strong dictatorship, however,
is comparably more stable and predictable.Like China, which is ruled by a
single party . China managed to carry out short term, long term reforms and
policies as promised. In 2020, China managed to bring 850million people out
of poverty according to South China Morning Post . If China was in a weak
democratic situation like the Kyrgyz republic, the reforms wouldn’t have been
carried out efficiently due to a lack of direction and responsibility. More
people’s living situation is improved, less complaints and protests.

This brings to my last point, a strong dictatorship, if benevolent, can free

people from worrying about domestic political affairs and focus on the good
sides of different policies . People say that a strong dictatorship uses
propaganda and idealism to stabilize rule. Therefore in this way, people are
comforted by such positivism and have more faith in the nation. With the
addition of a political system which does not require citizens to participate,
people can just relax and let politics play out by themselves.

In conclusion, a strong dictatorship is definitely better than a weak

democracy. This essay has proven the point by addressing the weakness of the
basic concept of democracy, compared the stability of dictatorship and
democratic countries, and provided a social advantage of strong dictatorship.