Dictatorship is not good for the country

Dictatorship is often defined as absence of liberty or absence of Parliamentary Government. Both interpretations are not clear. There is no liberty even when there is Parliamentary Government. For Law means want of liberty. The difference between Dictatorship and Parliamentary Government lies in this. In Parliamentary Government every citizen has a right to criticize the restraint on liberty imposed by the Government. In Parliament Government you have a duty and a right; the duty to obey the law and the right to criticize it. In Dictatorship you have only the duty to obey but no right to criticize it. -BAWS, vol.3; p.452-3.

History is replete with the dictators who ruled the subjects brutally. Joseph Stalin of Russia, Adolf Hitler of Germany, Benito Mussolini of Italy, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq were extremely dreadful dictators who are no more in this world but their evil doings such as striking down into the society, with punishments, arrests, imprisonment, seizure of printing presses, and the like, are still haunting the populace of their respective countries. These dictators not only committed mass murders during their reigns but also left a rotten society behind them. They left their respective countries in economic catastrophe. When people talk about them in public and private they speak ill of them.

The downfall of these dictatorships has minimally lifted much of the suffering of the victims of oppression, and has opened the way for the rebuilding of these societies with greater political democracy, personal liberties, and social justice. It is often seen that the population becomes weak, lacks self-confidence, and is incapable of resistance. People are often too frightened to share their hatred of the dictatorship and their hunger for freedom even with family and friends. People are often too terrified to think seriously of public resistance.

The successors after the death of these dictators made herculean efforts to restore the economy and rejuvenate the society, culture. Niccolo Machiavelli had much earlier argued that the prince “. . . who has the public as a whole for his enemy can never make himself secure; and the greater his cruelty, the weaker his regime becomes^[1]. Dictators are generally found weak as a person. In the words of Winston Churchill (Former Prime Minister of Britain), “You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police … yet in their hearts there is unspoken fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts: words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home — all the more powerful because forbidden — terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic”.

Dictatorships are not permanent. People living under dictatorships need not remain weak, and dictators need not be allowed to remain powerful indefinitely. Aristotle noted long ago, “. . . oligarchy and tyranny are shorter-lived than any other constitution. . . . [A]ll round, tyrannies have not lasted long. Modern dictatorships are also vulnerable. Their weaknesses can be aggravated and the dictators’ power can be disintegrated^[2]. Yu-li-zi says, “Some men in the world rule their people by tricks and not by righteous principles. Aren’t they just like the monkey master? They are not aware of their muddle headedness. As soon as their people become enlightened, their tricks no longer work.

In the context of India, One Elections, One Nation was repeated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi from the rampart of Red Fort on Independence Day. Dictators despise elections, dictators hate too much public interference; dictators love themselves more than the public. The amount of time they spent on reconstruction is vast. In the past 10 years, we have witnessed that despite parliamentary democracy, Modi as Prime Minister ruled the country like a dictator. The opposition leaders were not only targeted and suffocated but also forced to join BJP. Modi cannot fight corruption only by penalizing the opposition leaders or putting them into jail. the opposition leaders, the time, money and energy he and his close associate Amit Shah spent on destroying the leaders of the opposition, had both utilized huge resources and sources in developing the country, Indian would have been a developed nation. In 10 years (2014-2024), the banking system is on the verge of collapse. From where and how much the Modi government took loan in the name of development is unknown.

India is a parliamentary democracy. It has no space for dictatorship. Therefore, the dictatorial structures need to be dismantled. The constitutional and legal bases and standards of behavior of a durable democracy need to be protected. Dictatorship in any form should be nipped in the bud.

Dr. Rahul Kumar Balley is PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University. He is a freelance columnist. He writes on social, political and international issues. He is editor of Bheem Patrika. Views are personal.

^[1] Niccolo Machiavelli (1950), The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy, in The Discourses of Niccolo Machiavelli, London: Routledge, Vol. I, p. 254.

^[2] Aristotle (1962), The Politics, transl. by T. A. Sinclair (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England and   Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, , Book V, Chapter 12, pp. 231 and 232.