Since I've noticed there's a lot of ardent freedom-loving democrats here on NSG, this leads me to pose a question - in what cases, if any, is the imposition of a dictatorship justified?
---
Let's use a fictional Third World-nation of Bananistan as an example.
Bananistan is, for all practical means and purposes, a typical Third World "developing" country - low GDP, low HDI, widespread poverty, crime and corruption, lack of infrastructure and basic utilities, ethnic division and tensions, warlordism and general lawlesness in the more remote regions, economic dependence on a few cash crop and natural resource exports. The people of Bananistan used to suffer under a brutal and corrupt dictator before his regime was overthrown in a bloody civil war. For the past decade, Bananistan has been trying to build some semblance of democracy (courtesy of Uncle Sam and his carrier battlegroup off Bananistani coast), but success has been rather limited. The government is weak owing to the bickering of political parties led by corrupt oligarchs, what few officials remain incorrupt are either young and naive idealists kept away from any real power by the entrenched elite, and they too have little idea on how to run a state, the only people with any real experience in statecraft being the former officials of the previous dictatorial government. Separatist movements have formed in the border regions, the warlords and crime barons also largely ignore the central government, and at times it seems that the aforementioned carrier battlegroup protecting business interests of Western corporations is the only thing keeping Bananistan from falling apart in (yet another) civil war.
There is a powerful and well-respected general in the country who has the interest, the knowledge and the means to stage a coup and overthrow the present ineffective, but lawful democratic government. He commands the loyalty of the army and has supporters among all ethnic groups. He is also supported by a number of the old regime's most experienced officials. He promises his followers to end corruption and lawlesness, crack down harshly on crime, revitalize economy and launch broad social programs to alleviate poverty and promote education - but on the condition that his absolute authority be recognized.
---
Now, it is quite obvious that the people of Bananistan are incapable of governing themselves, as the present miserable state of their country attests. Having no experience with self-government, they cannot be expected to start up a functional democracy out of nowhere, and especially not when the majority of the population cannot meet even their most basic needs. For their country to survive, it needs a strong leader and an administration that has at least some clue of what they're doing and why.
I think that for democracy to function, a certain degree of prosperity must be attained first before such form of government can even be considered. People cannot be expected to look out for the needs of their nation when they are preoccupied with looking out each for their own, as a matter of survival and also a matter of habit. So I think the people of Bananistan need to be governed with an iron fist for at least two more generations, the said fist only very gradually loosening it's grip before a proper democracy with multiple political parties can even be considered.
Let's hear your thoughts on the matter, NSG!
