Now that you have completed your investigation into a democracy and a dictatorship in the past, watch this clip. See the controversial opinion of Professor David King on the relationship between democracy, dictatorship and change. The debate in this clip is concerned with climate change, whereas our study has focused on freedom, equality and people’s everyday opportunities. What does Professor King say about the advantages of dictatorship and the main problem with democracy? CAN YOU THINK OF EXAMPLES FROM YOUR STUDY OF USA 1945-68 AND CHINA 1945-76 to agree with Professor King’s comments? Or do our history case studies suggest that democracy brings about change in a far more effective manner?
4 comments:
Professor King discusses the ‘merits’ of dictatorship in the clip, saying that this system manages to successfully implement radical policies very quickly, which a democratic state would be unable to do. He uses China as an example, commenting on how the government’s ‘One child per family’ policy has been accepted completely over there in recent years, thus yielding massive results (removing 0.35 billion people from the world’s population). Other democratic countries have had many more problems with controlling their population. According to King, dictatorship is incredibly successful at making big changes such as this happen very quickly- however, he also argues that although democracy is a much slower process, he believes we should 'stick with it' because it's the morally fair option.
The histories of China (1945-76) and the USA (1945-68) largely mirror what Professor King has to say. It is clear from studying Mao’s social reform of China in the early years of the revolution (when the PRC had just been set up, in the late 1940s and early 50s) that his dictatorship rule managed to completely shake up China in less than a decade. Under his regime, social norms were changed, political structure was completely different and a whole new ideological system was put firmly in place, abolishing old ideas and routines. By 1960, China was no longer anything like its old imperialist roots and even now hasn't returned to them.
Contrastingly, African-Americans in the USA had a very long uphill struggle while trying to change their unfair political and social situation. Activists toiled for over fifty years to improve civil rights and achieve racial equality- but even when the 1964 Civil Rights Act finally did bring an end to segregation, inequalities definitely still remained. It could even be argued that not many people’s attitudes were even changed by this time; the only real difference was in legislation. The deep-seated racial prejudices that existed particularly in Southern American states didn't disappear regarding black people’s position in society; this led to enduring racism and discrimination even after it was made ‘illegal’ after 1964. To summarise, even after the Civil Rights Movement’s various victories were achieved, America as a nation didn’t change. It also took a very long time for them to get what they wanted under this democratic system.
So how did China, such a previously imperialist country, change so radically? Dictatorship rule must have had a lot to do with this, as such massive change has never been seen before in any democratic country such as the UK or the USA. It has, however, been seen in countries such as Russia or Germany throughout the 20th century, both of which had dictatorships and a massive revolution led by this individual leader (Stalin, Hitler).
China changed massively under dictatorship rule- whether those changes were good or not is down to personal opinion. The USA, on the other hand, did not experience such a radical change; but these eventual changes were morally just and fair. This supports what Professor King says in the clip- ‘democracy is slower, but we should stick with it’. In conclusion, while dictatorship technically brings about change more effectively because it is much more rapid (and tends to result in a true conversion of ideology and behaviour), democracy is really a more effective way of bringing about change in society as it focuses on what is fair for everyone, rather than the beliefs and rules of one person being adhered to blindly. However, it is a diluted process that can take a long time and not be quite as powerful in terms of real change as a dictatorship regime might be.
Dr. Kings controversial belief can be summed up as being dictatorship is fast, extremely fast, compared to democracy. The examples he gives for dictatorship is China that they managed to "grow their economy by 12% per annum" this is rapid growth,he could be referring to Maos first five year plan or their current economic situation never the less, they can be seen as a highly developmental country, the main reason being dictatorship. Once ruler lead the population to their heights. Furthermore Dr King highlights the amount invested in eduction, economy etc,which isn't possible within a democracy. He calls democracy "painfully slow" which is in line with my American Civil Rights course, highlighting that a supposed democracy can be equally unfair. Furthermore Mao wanted to remove class barriers and make everyone equal, which is centralised democracy,(in theory not in practice- he could have gone about it in a better way, and not killed so many people) whilst America which is the land of the free was so prejudiced against minorites especially the black community, not allowing them to vote until 1965, proving that not even a democracy is completely efficient.
Professor King makes a fairly accurate description of democracy as being "slow and sluggish". Examples which support his description could be the way in which American politicians were able to filibuster the passing of civil rights bills.He also points to problems with the American federal system and the cryptically mentions the eoropean union as examples of how democracy can be slow. However we could support what he is saying about not advocating dictatorship by pointing out the disastrous consequenses of Mao's Great Leap Backwards.
Professor King refers specifically to China's one child policy as an example of a successful dictatorship. He also discusses the economic growth and investment in the future of China, showing how in the sense of running a country and an economy, a dictatorship can be good because everybody works for the same goals, taking China in one direction at a greater speed. An example from our study of China that could disagree with this would be the Great Leap Forward. The fear of Mao meant that party officials lied to him about figures and ultimately led to the famine. In this case a dictatorship wasn't successful because it was used to ignore a difficult situation and apply pressure on the Chinese people to produce when they didn't have the means to. Professor King comments on the painful slowness of a democracy, but from looking at the study of the USA 54-68, we can see how from the take off of non violent direct action after Greensboro in the early 60's, four years later the government had worked with Civil Rights organisations to pass the Civil Rights Act of 64, with the mobilisation of campaigners pulling off mass events like the March on Washington of 63. This wouldn't have been possible in a dictatorship, so we can clearly see how a democracy can bring about change in an effective manner from this example.
Jenny Barker
Post a Comment