[seankenny]

Dictators can be highly competent, they can create cohesive societies with services working etc.

For clarity of debate I think you should provide a list of competent dictators who created cohesive, functioning societies.

[Oldmanmatt]

It is desirable to have a political system where the incompetent or the unlucky can be removed from office and someone new take their place in an orderly fashion. I cannot believe that I felt like I had to write that sentence.

Your definition of a 'desirable political system' is interesting jwi. Personally I think for the system to be 'desirable' it must include 'competence', but competence doesn't equal desirable. Dictators can be highly competent, they can create cohesive societies with services working etc. That doesn't mean having a competent dictator is necessarily desirable - it also depends on benevolence.
Isn't it possible that it might be more desirable to have a competent (benevolent) leader who can't be easily replaced, than to have a series of incompetent (benevolent) leaders who can?

I mean, at least Mussolini got the trains to run on time…

[Bradders]

Surely depends on your definition of functioning, but you could point to any one of Saddam Hussain, Bashar Al Assad, Muammar Gaddafi, Josef Stalin, etc. and make an argument that things functioned under them. Evidenced by the breakdown which occurred when they were ousted e.g. Hussain and Gaddafi; both Iraq and Libya have been in a state of civil war for much of the period after their respective removals.

[petejh]

Dictators can be highly competent, they can create cohesive societies with services working etc.

For clarity of debate I think you should provide a list of competent dictators who created cohesive, functioning societies.

Or the inverse - those that weren't cohesive functioning societies.

edit: actually in an ideal world I'd add on 'high overall levels of individual well-being' as an essential ingredient of a functioning society. This hasn't been studied until recently, so would be difficult to compare different societies through history.

[andy popp]

edit: actually in an ideal world I'd add on 'high overall levels of individual well-being' as an essential ingredient of a functioning society. This hasn't been studied until recently, so would be difficult to compare different societies through history.

Do you mean "happiness" (or similar) which has only been studied quite recently, or "standard of living," on which there are vast realms of historical literature, or some more complex aggregate measure? Genuine question.

I'm also struggling to think of many (any?) competent dictators. The list would certainly be shorter than for functioning democracies.

[Will Hunt]

I wouldn't describe myself as a monarchist; if designing a new state I don't think anybody would choose to have a monarchy, however I am pretty tolerant of our monarchy as it seems to function reasonably (for now) and I'm sceptical of the worth of changing to an alternative (again, for now).

Decision-making power is contained in parliament and, bar the need for some reform of the Lords, that's enough. I'm not enthused about having a president for all the reasons that Toby described.

The Queen enjoyed approval ratings that were, frankly, ludicrous. Charles is a much less likeable figure and I suspect lots of people will become less tolerant of the monarchy as a result. That's dangerous for the institution because if people decide not to tolerate them any longer then parliament can get rid of them. To take Duncan's example of King Andrew, I just don't think it would happen. If Charles had died before producing an heir then Andrew, by now, would have publicly stated that he would abdicate (even if he didn't want to the rest of the institution would have leant on him), and if he didn't then parliament would have forced him to do it or threatened to dissolve the institution. The other examples ignore the fact that we now have mass media and the royals are subject to very high levels of scrutiny.

People will deride this, but I pity the royals in the immediate family and line of succession. They may have immense privilege but they are not free and are subject to intense scrutiny; they live a life that they did not choose. Their schedule of public events is my idea of hell. If you offered that life to me I would reject it instantly. The extended family and hangers-on are different in that they get most of the privilege and much less of the duty.

As to TV coverage of Lizzie's death, well, it's not every day that a head of the state who's been on the clock for 70 years snuffs it. Press the red button or read a book!

[jwi]

edit: actually in an ideal world I'd add on 'high overall levels of individual well-being' as an essential ingredient of a functioning society. This hasn't been studied until recently, so would be difficult to compare different societies through history.

I'm also struggling to think of many (any?) competent dictators. The list would certainly be shorter than for functioning democracies.

Here is my list of competent autocrats:
Lee Kuan Yew
end of list

Here is my list of benevolent autocrats:
end of list.

[Will Hunt]

You beat me to it with Lee Kuan Yew. They still have a very autocratic state with almost no real choice at elections. Perhaps an aberration as there is only one city to administer.

[seankenny]

Surely depends on your definition of functioning, but you could point to any one of Saddam Hussain, Bashar Al Assad, Muammar Gaddafi, Josef Stalin, etc. and make an argument that things functioned under them. Evidenced by the breakdown which occurred when they were ousted e.g. Hussain and Gaddafi; both Iraq and Libya have been in a state of civil war for much of the period after their respective removals.

That’s because dictatorship doesn’t solve political problems, it simply delays them. Rather than building long term and viable ways to handle genuine political problems it prevents their solution and leaves them ready to roar back with even more violence once the dictator has gone. Three of the states you mention were post-colonial constructs that probably weren’t all that viable, so the dictatorial “functioning” only worked in the context of states that were themselves dysfunctional, indeed the nature of the dictatorship may have been an expression of that dysfunction.

I’ve read - but lost, and I did look for them - some stats for WW2 output which show how spectacularly unproductive the USSR under Stalin actually was. I think in some years the U.K. came very close to producing the same amount of stuff as the Soviet Union (happy to be shown wrong on this if I mis-remembered it).

There’s a really good article by historian Adam Tooze on the book Life and Fate by Valerie Grossman (which I have not read but would like to):

“What he indicts is a regime that was wasteful and destructive of its people, their extraordinary talents and commitment. The gulag was a crime, but June 22 1941 was, as Talleyrand might have quipped, something worse, it was a mistake.”

https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-21

[Oldmanmatt]

edit: actually in an ideal world I'd add on 'high overall levels of individual well-being' as an essential ingredient of a functioning society. This hasn't been studied until recently, so would be difficult to compare different societies through history.

Do you mean "happiness" (or similar) which has only been studied quite recently, or "standard of living," on which there are vast realms of historical literature, or some more complex aggregate measure? Genuine question.

I'm also struggling to think of many (any?) competent dictators. The list would certainly be shorter than for functioning democracies.

Mustafa Kemal.

At least when sober and not idly gesturing out of his train window, three sheets to the wind, and muttering “that village is ugly, flatten it”…
(Probably apocryphal, but a good take on the problems with dictators).
I vote for infallible Robot Overlords, but I’ll settle for strong Judiciary counterweight to a proportional representation Democracy and an upper house of life senators selected on achievement and merit.
We’re not there yet.

[andy popp]

There’s a really good article by historian Adam Tooze on the book Life and Fate by Valerie Grossman (which I have not read but would like to)

Life and Fate is superb, do read it.

[petejh]

edit: actually in an ideal world I'd add on 'high overall levels of individual well-being' as an essential ingredient of a functioning society. This hasn't been studied until recently, so would be difficult to compare different societies through history.

Do you mean "happiness" (or similar) which has only been studied quite recently, or "standard of living," on which there are vast realms of historical literature, or some more complex aggregate measure? Genuine question.

I'm also struggling to think of many (any?) competent dictators. The list would certainly be shorter than for functioning democracies.

Yes happiness.

Pinochet? Tito? Hitler...? Franco? (although only recently, after he'd displayed competency outside north york moors).
(and the point is not to ask were they 'nice' or 'good'. Nor to ask if they were popular - although that might perhaps indicate some level of competency in making a nation function)

What about the most obvious? The second and imminently most powerful nation on earth - Xi Jingping is not a democrat.

[seankenny]

There’s a really good article by historian Adam Tooze on the book Life and Fate by Valerie Grossman (which I have not read but would like to)

Life and Fate is superb, do read it.

I currently can’t concentrate on novels with a large cast of characters, so it will have to wait.

[andy popp]

There’s a really good article by historian Adam Tooze on the book Life and Fate by Valerie Grossman (which I have not read but would like to)

Life and Fate is superb, do read it.

I currently can’t concentrate on novels with a large cast of characters, so it will have to wait.

Sorry Sean, I should have thought of that. It'll still be there when you feel up to it.

[seankenny]

edit: actually in an ideal world I'd add on 'high overall levels of individual well-being' as an essential ingredient of a functioning society. This hasn't been studied until recently, so would be difficult to compare different societies through history.

Do you mean "happiness" (or similar) which has only been studied quite recently, or "standard of living," on which there are vast realms of historical literature, or some more complex aggregate measure? Genuine question.

I'm also struggling to think of many (any?) competent dictators. The list would certainly be shorter than for functioning democracies.

Yes happiness.

Pinochet? Tito? Hitler...? Franco? (although only recently, after he'd displayed competency outside north york moors).
(and the point is not to ask were they 'nice' or 'good'. Nor to ask if they were popular - although that might perhaps indicate some level of competency in making a nation function)

What about the most obvious? The second and imminently most powerful nation on earth - Xi Jingping is not a democrat.

Nice analysis of Pinochet here:

https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/pinochets-economic-policy-is-vastly

Good kicker, in case anyone doesn’t make it through all the graphs, which is kind of relevant to this discussion:

“There was a dictator in recent history who slaughtered thousands of his own people, but who liberalized his country’s economy, privatizing state-owned enterprises, dropping price controls, and opening up to trade, and whose country did experience a miraculous and sustained economic boom as a result. Heck, he even took economic advice from Milton Friedman.

His name was Deng Xiaoping.”

[petejh]

I think focussing just on economic policy (I realise you're an economist) is only part of the story of though. Rather than looking overall at a country and whether or not competence in making a society function is the sole preserve of democratic leaders, which was the point. I'm sure we could find economic policy failures in democratic countries just as easily, if we put our minds to it. Japan through the 90s, Ireland post 2008, Southern Europe since forever, Turkey (although not really democratic!)

And of course it's easy to find policies not to like about any of these people - they were (nonbenevolent) dictators after all!


edit: btw Sean I love this paragraph from the article.

It’s possible for commodity exporters to get rich — look at Norway, Australia, and Saudi Arabia. But you’re inherently limited by the ratio of resource endowments to population, and vulnerable to commodity price swings. Chile has undoubtedly managed its economy well since 1990, but a well-managed copper mine is still just a copper mine. Unlike authoritarian modernizers in Asia, Pinochet did nothing to switch Chile toward an industrial model that could propel it into the ranks of the developed countries.

Clearly written by somebody with very little knowledge of the base-metals mining industry, and its essential role in the coming energy transition and the drive for net zero. A bit like writing in the 1950s, just prior to the explosion of the petro-chemicals industry, about how a vast oil reserve in Norway or Saudi is 'still just a vast oil reserve'.  .

[Falling Down]

As a complete non-relevant aside but interesting nevertheless. 

One of my friends, a fellow psychotherapy student (we’re very close to qualifying now) was born in the Basque region and speaks about a dozen languages. She came to the UK in the 70’s as a teenager ‘cos she liked punk music and wanted to get away from what was happening back home region.  She ended up as a translator for the Met Police and part of her work was translating intercepts from ETA. Anyway I’ll get to the point.

One day she was asked to accompany some senior Met officers, Spanish police and intelligence officials. She was to be Pinochet’s interpreter during his arrest and subsequent year-long house arrest.  I nearly fell of my chair when she told me about it. Fascinating..

[TobyD]

My original post was supposed to be pretty light-hearted! I'm not really arguing that a benevolent dictatorship is a good idea.
I'm completely tolerant of our monarchy, you'd never design our system from scratch but it more or less seems to work. I think that Charles fully recognises that he cannot continue to express his views on politics as king (one of his friends - Nicholas Soams - has said that he does in an interview on BBC)
His mother had the benefit that she was queen so young, that no-one knew what she thought beforehand, Charles can hardly be expected to get to 74 without expressing an opinion on anything.
The royals seem, on balance to be no better or worse than elected leaders. Occasionally you get Prince Andrew or Donald Trump but most of them are sort of okay.

[lukeyboy]

This smooth transition between monarchs seems like a good argument for monarchy.
Charles may well have his flaws, and you can go on about privilege and things, but he seems like a generally decent bloke , has a long commitment to environmental issues.
What do you get with democracy? Divisive, expensive elections, and then you get Boris Johnson, Donald Trump, Brexit and Boaty McBoatface.

Yes, after the past decade, the idea of a benevolent dictator is becoming increasingly appealing

Is that irony? If not, you’re not alone. https://twitter.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1567443028364742658?s=20&t=m42W8ZavJhRptqFYTZEISQ

. J.L. Partners poll of 8,004 UK adults for @ukonward
% support for running the UK with "a strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament/elections"

All: 46%
18-34s: 61%
35-54s: 49%
Over-55s: 29%

Be careful what you wish for. Mummy/ daddy will not make everything ok. Dictators don’t do benign, they mostly just do dominance and the exercise of power. It can happen here, because it can happen anywhere. Even just ‘democracy lite’ will bring a lot of harm.

As for Charles and hereditary power Toby,  Charles is at heart an interventionist fruitcake, nothing like his wiley mother. Maybe, as a good environmentalist, he’ll forgo the exemption from environmental legislation negotiated by his mother for the Crown estates? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption

Forfeiting the (now) King’s prerogative so that the royals are subject to the same democratic processes as the rest of us might be a good step too. The black spider memosdon’t offer hope.

Don't worry, I don't really want a dictator (of any sort). But there was a serious point that our democracy is not producing competent leaders who are anything other than self interested, and the constant treadmill of leaders and policy direction is very poorly suited to the long term challenges we face (e.g. climate change, Russia, China etc.)

[TobyD]

But there was a serious point that our democracy is not producing competent leaders who are anything other than self interested, and the constant treadmill of leaders and policy direction is very poorly suited to the long term challenges we face (e.g. climate change, Russia, China etc.)

Indeed. Charles may have many eccentricities and you can question the relevance of the royal family, but if more people had listened to him on environmental issues in the eighties, we'd be better off now.

[Nails]

Though taking over 20 private flights last year to "avoid traffic", doesn't exactly make him a green champion in my eyes.

[Johnny Brown]

Charles may have many eccentricities and you can question the relevance of the royal family, but if more people had listened to him on environmental issues in the eighties, we'd be better off now.

Or we could have listened to actual experts. The fact that we ignored a jug-eared titled inbred too is hardly an argument for the monarchy is it?

How many of you bootlickers agree with their exemption from inheritance tax? My problem with the royals is not the behaviour of the individuals, it is the normalisation of the special treatments that the so-called aristocracy get in the Uk. For centuries the development of our government and laws was done by the land-owning classes in their own interest - for only they had the vote. It was only in the Victorian era that this was granted to any other than the landed gentry (1832), but it took WW1 to seriously extend that to everyone. We remember the fight for women's suffrage as being embarrassingly recent (vote granted 1928) but not that it was only ten years earlier that the 40% of men who didn't own property were included.

Guy Shrubsole's Who Owns Britain is well worth reading for anyone with a passing interest in access to the countryside. It is, in the 2020's, staggering just how pervasively so many of these privileges endure and effect the country we live in. It is no accident the transfer of power is swift and smooth as this is exactly when its legitimacy is most likely to be questioned.

[Bradders]

Though taking over 20 private flights last year to "avoid traffic", doesn't exactly make him a green champion in my eyes.

Almost spat my coffee out when I read this morning that Heads of State invited to the funeral are being encouraged to use only commercial flights to travel, whilst Charles has been up and down the country like a lift in the last few days (e.g. addressing parliament this morning, then up to Edinburgh to walk behind the coffin this afternoon)!

[SA Chris]

I agree they should be subject to inheritance and all other taxes, capital gains etc. No reason they shouldn't. Also if their gaff needs some work they should pay up too https://www.itv.com/news/2022-06-29/buckingham-palace-spending-tops-100-million-as-repair-work-is-ramped-up

[Will Hunt]

How many of you bootlickers agree with their exemption from inheritance tax?

Probably not many on this forum. It's within parliament's gift to regulate the royals better