Writing about dictatorship
Do you know that the laws, what is protecting the dictatorship are created for protecting the state against the outland enemies? When the Roman Empire was under threat the power was put in one hand for protecting the state. After that, some people have thought that the leader of the state must have dictatorial authority in the state.
One of the defense for that thing is simply, what we would do with the head of the state, who has no power? Why we have presidential elections if that person would not have the right to scatter the parliament?
The problem those things is, that when the policy in parliament is similar to policy and opinions of the headman of the state, there is no problem with those laws, what is supporting the personal power of the head of the state. But when the head of state is in opposition to the majority of people or members of the parliament, would there always find people, who are supporting the constitution, what gives the head of the state authorities and justifies the disbanding or scatter the parliament.
And there are many people, who want to support that kind of actions, end their argument is many times that the constitution has given those powers for the head of the state. So why the head of the state might not use those authorizations, because the constitution justifies those kinds of actions? The answer to the differences of opinions would be simple. The riot police would deny the parliamentarians enter their workplace, and then the power would be in the hands of the head of the state. The reason for that is the head of the state would perceive being over politics.
This kind of thing is a very dangerous way to think. When the laws, what supported the limitless power of the monarchy were establish the monarchs were civilized and enlightened persons, but sooner or later the power was given to a person, who was a despot.
In this case, we must say that one thing what could be worse to the state than a dictator is a popular dictator. That means that the popularity in the eyes of the majority would hide the merciless persecution and use of power, and that would drive the nation to chaos.
Sometimes the dictator will get old and after that, the closest men of that person would start to fight, who would get the power in their hand, and that might drive the nation to civil war. The problem with strong leadership is, this kind of places will want to get by using the force.
If the person, who has power self has made crimes against own people, that means that maybe nobody cares, what happens to that dictator. This fate has faced the King of England Henry VIII and Joseph Stalin, who just left without help when they faced their final moments. That tells about the attitude of people to those men. When they couldn't give orders anymore, that thing caused that own men attacked them, because they wanted to get the same power, what those leaders have.
Do you know that the laws, what is protecting the dictatorship are created for protecting the state against the outland enemies? When the Roman Empire was under threat the power was put in one hand for protecting the state. After that, some people have thought that the leader of the state must have dictatorial authority in the state.
One of the defense for that thing is simply, what we would do with the head of the state, who has no power? Why we have presidential elections if that person would not have the right to scatter the parliament?
The problem those things is, that when the policy in parliament is similar to policy and opinions of the headman of the state, there is no problem with those laws, what is supporting the personal power of the head of the state. But when the head of state is in opposition to the majority of people or members of the parliament, would there always find people, who are supporting the constitution, what gives the head of the state authorities and justifies the disbanding or scatter the parliament.
And there are many people, who want to support that kind of actions, end their argument is many times that the constitution has given those powers for the head of the state. So why the head of the state might not use those authorizations, because the constitution justifies those kinds of actions? The answer to the differences of opinions would be simple. The riot police would deny the parliamentarians enter their workplace, and then the power would be in the hands of the head of the state. The reason for that is the head of the state would perceive being over politics.
This kind of thing is a very dangerous way to think. When the laws, what supported the limitless power of the monarchy were establish the monarchs were civilized and enlightened persons, but sooner or later the power was given to a person, who was a despot.
In this case, we must say that one thing what could be worse to the state than a dictator is a popular dictator. That means that the popularity in the eyes of the majority would hide the merciless persecution and use of power, and that would drive the nation to chaos.
Sometimes the dictator will get old and after that, the closest men of that person would start to fight, who would get the power in their hand, and that might drive the nation to civil war. The problem with strong leadership is, this kind of places will want to get by using the force.
If the person, who has power self has made crimes against own people, that means that maybe nobody cares, what happens to that dictator. This fate has faced the King of England Henry VIII and Joseph Stalin, who just left without help when they faced their final moments. That tells about the attitude of people to those men. When they couldn't give orders anymore, that thing caused that own men attacked them, because they wanted to get the same power, what those leaders have.
Comments
Post a Comment