Strong Dictatorship Is Better Than Weak Democracy

Strong dictatorship is better than weak democracy, that is pretty true and my team will surely try to make our opponents understand this in a very simple way. There are 3 main terms in this topic, strong dictatorship, better & weak democracy. First of all let me define better. The word "better" can be defined in three ways.

a) Better for the country (economy, infrastructure, standing in the world)

b) Better for the people (rights, freedoms, standards of living)

c) Better for the world (International relations and security)

Now I ask doesn't strong dictatorship fulfill all of this, yes it can and it has over the past centuries. I can give you a list of examples. Among the recent can be General Pervez Musharraf and many in the past like, the best example of a strong dictatorship I can think of was probably Mussolini's Italy from 1922 to 1932.In this decade illiteracy and innumeracy were drastically cut, much land was reclaimed and Italians had a better standard of living. Italy was still strategically aligned with it' WW1 Allies and played a leading role in the League of Nations. It was Fascisms apparent success in Italy that encouraged both Germany and Spain to go along the same route. Italy compared well not to weak democracies but to the healthy strong democracies that existed in Europe at that time. Compare this to the post WW2 Governments of Italy where Proportional Representation, corruption and scandal saw Italy have on average over one President per year up until the recent elections of Bellusconi. It was the Nazis that took out Germany from WW1 in full piece and later on till WW2 worked on many development projects and increased Germany's economy to an all time high and even when Hitler killed all of those Jews let me read just one line of Hitler's book "I wanted to kill all of the Jews but I left some alive so all the world can understand why I wanted to kill them" and when I read this line when Israel had attacked Palestine. Should I say more?

Let's proceed to weak democracy now; it is a form of government which has lost its support from the population of that country after their elections. Weak democracy has given nothing compared to what dictatorship has provided. No proper medical facilities, not very popular in its foreign relations, weak in the economy with corrupt leaders sitting at top. Actually I just defined Pakistan at this very moment. Three words and it will all be said and done "Asif Ali Zardari". Most probably the most corrupt man to live on earth and he got promoted from Mr. 10% to Mr. 30%. I don't think it will take him time to reach the perfect 100% mark. The perfect example of a weak democracy is now in Pakistan. Each one of you hates, abuses and gives bad remarks about Zardari and today you are trying to

...