Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development

A government, no matter which kind, can surely make good or bad decisions. But there are things that can stifle, dilute and postpone any good idea. It will have a tendency to get better in direct relation to the quality and merits of people thinking about it. In some instances the ideas have to be implemented swiftly.

Dictatorships fare better when these factors are taken into account. They are superior to democracies in the expediency in which they can arrive to policies and implement laws that could resolve problems. They can easily calibrate the institutional and legal framework, since they don’t need a political coalition for passing or repealing acts. This framework can be efficiently managed, ignoring the special interests that need to be relatively reconciled in democracies, through a time consuming process. So a pro-development government has greater capacity to modernize a society with a dictatorship than under a democracy.

After the 1936 Spanish elections, the Republican coalition, was formed out of more than ten parties including anarchists, socialists, and social democrats. Supported by Basque nationalists, and other separatist movements, they seized power. Reaching agreement among them was nearly impossible. Under Francisco Franco, all rightist factions were unified. His uncontested leadership managed to take the necessary step to maintain a unified Spain, survive a blockade, and start the so called “Spanish Miracle”. [[http://countrystudies.us/spain/22.htm De Menses, Filipe Ribeiro Franco and the Spanish Civil War, p. 87, Routledge]]

Because the can do as they please, dictators can surround themselves and employ technocrats instead of popular personalities, which is helpful in modernizing the nation even when the majority of the population are reluctant to abandon their traditional ways. Dictators do not need to ensure the support of or appeal to a specific constituency by including them (for example by picking a Latino for the supreme court)[[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/aug/07/risking-hispanic-vote/]]. In that sense, a dictator’s decisions will have a tendency to represent his own economic interest in development, rather than the popularity or political affiliation of the decision.

To do the latter is an inefficiency displayed widely in democracies. Here, the head of government must surround himself with a cabinet composed of fellow party members and allies, regardless of their credentials, in order to secure parliamentary and electoral support, which means he cannot go against the views of the people, who sometimes elect a candidate because they espouse their own views, because they belong to the same clan, or even because they are simply popular and charismatic.
We want to contrast examples of two Latin American countries. The first is Chile, a dictatorship where Pinochet, helped by the Chicago Boys (advisors) applied a plan consisting in privatizations. The consequence was known as the Chilean Miracle.

The second, Venezuela, was a consolidated democracy in 1989 when the President, Carlos Andrés Pérez, employed a cabinet full of technocrats from the venezuelan Institute IESA (the IESA boys) who, just like the Chicago boys prescribed a treatment of free market and privatizations. But the president had run on a platform of populism.

Dictatorships manage crisis situations well. Most of the modern societies, even liberal democratic systems have states of emergency, states of siege, or martial law to deal with catastrophes, crisis and threats. Examples of Martial Law include: Germany and Japan after World War II. The American South during the early stages of Reconstruction, the Canadian October Crisis of 1970. A State of emergency was declared in France due to the 2005 civil unrest[[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/08/international/europe/08cnd-france.html]], and in 2005 in the US state of Louisiana due to hurricane Katrina.[[http://en.allexperts.com/e/s/st/state_of_emergency.htm]]This special states are very similar to dictatorships, but they are justified because, these are the largest threats to the well-being of their citizens, and swift decisions have to be made to solve them. For developing nations their lack of development is a very big threat to the well-being of their citizens, and so swift decision making is crucial to solve this as well. All the countries that have it and have resolved crisis with that:

Dictatorships better control the elements of discipline and order in society. They enforce personal discipline because they promote a State founded on patriarchal and hierarchical value (Carl Henrik Knutsen), through the implementation of strict policies based on personal security and global respect on a community basis.

Evidence of this argument, is Taiwan, where Confucianism is the primarly ideology promoted in the society. This ideology focuses on the importance of interpersonal relationships based on the performance of individual roles in society and also based on fixed principles of authority. Trans-cultural nursing by Madeleine M. Leininger and Marilyn R. McFarland. [[ http://books.google.co.ve/books?id=Bp9QQvEn_9gC&pg=PA420&lpg=PA420&dq=patriarcal+and+hierarchical+values+TAIWAN&source=bl&ots=82RFVGQrjK&sig=LVZQTPRYFq9QBymL7q0Rarpslo4&hl=es&ei=pWaCSu_qJOavtgeK5_3KCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false ]]. Resulting in a productive based society triggering the continues economic growth showed in the last years.[[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod4.nr0.htm]]

These variables are (in broad strokes): education, health and economic welfare. Although dictators don’t always get optimal results, this failure or success comes from their decisions and not from a lack of control over these variables.

Dictatorships can control the health and education of its population better because they can decide how to allocate the resources (funding, students, professors, infrastructure, supplies) to prepare new professionals for the health and education sectors; and they can determine the curricula, salaries and place of employment in a way democracies can’t.

Cuba, the sole remaining dictatorship in Latin America has more doctors per capita than the average western nations, including the US and provides education advisors to several developing nations, and one of the best human development indexes in the region, while its culturally, socially, geographically and historically similar neighbors, who turned to democracy have a shortage of doctors and teachers and average a lower human development index. A dictators survival depends on economic success of his country. There is a need to arrive to a balance between predation (taxation of subjects) and the repression necessary to avoid the risk of insurrection. He can’t take away too much or repress too much lest he is deposed. There is evidence of this incentive to have economic welfare in the case of Nicaragua where was “a growing disparity in land distribution and gaps between the rich and the poor led to increasing discontent”, which ended up in an ”alienation of the middle class and evaporation of business support for the regime” . And on 19 July 1979 the Sandinista guerrillas overthrew the dictatorship and implemented a leftist revolutionary government” overthrowing the Somoza Dictatorship. For a dictator, the economic success of his country ensures: 1. That the citizens have money he can extort. 2. That the citizens have more material wealth to risk in a transition to another government. On this point Lionel Artige says “Then, people have to compare their welfare in dictatorship with that in anarchy. If the households consider that repression is too high and their economic welfare too low, they may plan an insurrection and depose the dictator” and 3. That they are generally happier and more content.

Authoritarian states’ resistance to income distributional pressures is key to their successful development, because the decision makers can organize against the sirens of short term pork-barrel politics that plague democracy, spearheaded by interest groups or “distributional coalitions” which pursue their own selfish interests at the expense of overall economic eficiency [[Olson, The Rise and Decline of Nations, 1982]].

The impact of doing this can be appreciated in the contrast between the steady growth of the Asian Tigers: Taiwan, South Korea, Hong-Kong and PR China, where political authoritarianism was coupled with the opening to free markets; and the failure of leftist populist governments in Latin America, where the attemp was made to tackle income redistribution through macroeconomic means, in the case of Allende in Chile and the first term of Garcia in Peru, which achieved the opposite of what they set out to accomplish, resulting in massive political instability, high inflation, violence and even a coup[[Wintrobe,The Political Economy of Dictatorship,2000]]

The resources needed to maintain democratic institutions and regular elections -the costs of electoral process, and electoral propaganda, political patronage, the interruption of long term government plans and projects- are a unnecessary expense that developing nations can’t fork over.
For example, the most recent US presidential election had a price tag of US$ 5 billion[[http://ibnlive.in.com/news/us-presidential-election-could-cost-more-than-5-bn/76556-2.html?from=search-relatedstories]], with that money an NGO such as Brad Pitt’s “Make It Right” project could build more than 33.300 houses, (at $150,000 per house)[[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/arts/design/03pitt.html]] for the people of New Orleans that were affected by hurricane Katrina in 2005, and house approximatelly 150,000 people in total (5 people per house), which is by far an important aspect of life for those affected by Katrina, than presidential elections could ever be.

When a country is going through a civil war or has internal tensions escalating, a dictatorship can resolve this conflicts in a more definite way than in democracies. Because under a democracy the minority can wait until the conditions are met for them to come to power and once they do, take revenge on the other group, thus escalating the conflict between the factions. However under a dictatorship, the ruler has total power and hence, there are no more power quotas to fight for anymore.

A clear example of this was lived in Latin America, that saw the years immediate to its independence submerged in internal struggles among “Caudillos” (warlords) who wanted to keep their local fiefdoms or overthrow and replace the President at the time. This went on until a caudillo could take full control of the nation, one example being Venezuela: “In Venezuela, a long period of caudillismo and political instability was ended by the dictatorship of Juan Vicente Gomez 1908 and 1935” [[Acemoglu, Robinson, Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, 2005.]]

Dictatorships have the flexibility to establish the proper incentives to attract Foreign Direct Investment (which is directly attached to Economic Growth, and by consequence, to Development)[[http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/1/3/4/p151341_index.html]]
Dictatorships can define and establish a pro-investment legal and institutional framework (e.g. Low taxes, subsidies, ensuring economical liberties) without facing the boundaries that a Democracy encounters on it’s political process (e.g. opposition from parties or coalitions ideologically opposed to these measures). Once established, this institutional framework motivates Foreign Direct Investments, which increases the demand of labor and other internal supplies,[[http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/4/40848277.pdf]] which creates a virtuous circle towards significant and homogeneous income growth, which is directly linked to the development of societies.[[http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/3563/]]

China, under the command of a strict political regime that has open discretion on the economic policies of the country, has been implementing sustained institutional reforms towards promoting Foreign Direct Investments. This produced the improvement of more than 400MM Chinese citizens that moved from poverty to the mid class. In the last 10 years, the country has had an average GDP growth rate of 10% per year; the highest sustained Economic Growth Rate in the world.[[http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/0,,contentMDK:20634060~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:469382,00.html]]

One of the main prerequisites for democracy is periodical elections, and each election in a democracy is a time when the continuity of rule of law is put in jeopardy, especially when the former opposition party becomes the new governing party and vice-versa, because the ministries and government agencies have to switch their policies and because partisan hiring is commonplace. When the results of the election are very close, there is a chance of anarchy whilst the votes are recounted. After the 2006 Mexican presidential election, popular unrest with the tight results led to mass protests, asking for a recount, and the president-elect had to deal with a strong faction in the parliament that refused to recognize him, and with the contender refused to admit defeat. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5161862.stm]][[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6199356.stm]]

On the other hand, dictatorships are the most stable form of government due to no dilution of power and because the opposition has no real chance to become government, a consequence of this is that they avoid electoral turmoil altogether.

In addition, the social control exercised by dictatorships allow them to prevent financial losses due to strikes, riots, and keep low criminality rates. Thus providing a bargain for investors.

The PAP subjugates politics in Singapore since its independence in 1965. Singapore has been tagged as a de facto one-party state and several foreign analysts and internal political parties have accused the PAP of taking harsh action against opposition parties to discourage and impede their success. One former Singaporean Foreign Minister asked: “How many Singaporeans really want free speech anyway? They want orderliness, a decent living” (S. Rajaratnam quoted in Bellows,1989:153) [[http://www.statsvitenskap.uio.no/konferanser/nf09/kp2/chk.pdf]]

Thus dictatorships are better at safeguarding order and stability against anarchy than democracies. And without stability, the lack of confidence may translate in stifled development, since they are closely related [[http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200504/22/eng20050422_182327.html]].

When talking about economic miracles, as in the Chilean miracle, academics are referring to states where there has been registered unprecedented growth. The comprehensive list includes: The Baltic Tiger (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), Brazil, Ireland, The Asian tigers (Taiwan, South Korea, Hong-Kong and Singapore), Italy, Greece, Japan, Massachusetts (US), Chile, Spain, Austria and W. Germany after WWII and France after WWII. We contend that the economic miracles of greater magnitude and with longest lasting effects have occurred in countries under a dictatorship: “The most rapidly growing country in the 1970’s was the military-ruled Brazil. The economic tigers of the 1980 were the dictatorships of South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. In the 1990’s the leader was China. And those spectacular successes repeatedly sowed the minds of even committed democrats.” [[ Prezworsky, Adam; Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and well being in the world, 1950-1990, p.2)]][[http://books.google.co.ve/books?id=uiFH5dh12p0C&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+most+rapidly+growing+country+in+the+1970%E2%80%99s+was+the+military-ruled+Brazil%22&source=bl&ots=xij96Vxvmy&sig=OC7DpzEu4Mvut–VE7JrwlDaElo&hl=en&ei=P9mESrD5PKKNtgfAluiuCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false]] Is undeniable that in number most (11 of 17 countries) of these miracles happened under democracies but if we look closely, France, Japan, Italy, Austria and West Germany were already developed when the growth happened. Spain was a dictatorship that wasn’t fully modern when the miracle happened. The Celtic tiger miracle lasted from 1995 till 2007 and know Ireland, a democracy is now almost in a depression. [[http://money.asia/2009/05/13/news/international/tully_ireland.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009051409]] Meanwhile, the most radical changes and the longer lasting happened in Chile during Pinochet dictatorial rule, which is still buoyant and the Asian tigers, where three of the four were o are dictatorships.

The radical dimension of this growth is shown in the following quote: “In 1950 South Korea was the economic equal of Kenya or Nigeria, while Taiwan was comparable to Egypt. But during the next 30 years the economies of Taiwan grew by leaps and bounds. By 1983, economists noted that 18 million people of Taiwan exported more goods than 130 million of Brazilians or 75 million Mexicans.” [[Schaeffer, Robert K. Understanding Globalization: The Social Consequences of Political, Economic, and Environmental Change]] [[http://books.google.co.ve/books?id=bSTqbu7dWSYC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=CHIANG+DICTATORSHIP+in+Taiwan&source=bl&ots=LaDTTxgoi_&sig=_xZFRUyrMXbUIzveLOBDLyFZ-uQ&hl=es&ei=m3mESofRLor-M_7KpdwL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false]]

One of the best ways to measure the impact of the government system a state implements, is comparing it vs similar states who took different choices. One of this comparisons can be made between is between India and China, both countries are comparable in the time they have been a state, since India gained its independence in 1947 [[http://nbs.gmnews.com/news/2009/0813/front_page/003.html]] and the People’s Republic of China was proclaimed in 1949 [[http://china.org.cn/english/features/Brief/192265.htm]], and also in that they are populous, by 1951 India had a population of 361,090,000 [[http://www.mapsofindia.com/india-demographics.html]] and China had a population of 563,000,000 [[http://www.npfpc.gov.cn/en/about/detail.aspx?articleid=090505113410937991]] and by 2007 India had a population of 1,169,016,000[[http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/india_statistics.html]] and China had a population of 1,328,630,000. Both have experienced a lot of growth and are highly competitive in today’s global economy.

The main difference is that India took the democratic route[[http://sundaytimes.lk/070812/International/i512.html]] and China “established a one party dictatorship of the CCP to replace the one party dictatorship of the KMT”[[http://books.google.co.ve/books?ei=aiaFSoz5Dp2vtgekt8GuCg&ct=result&hl=en&id=CN-DMxl_XtEC&dq=china+%22one+party%22+1949+dictatorship&ots=WQ1JDQl2Tf&q=%22one+party%22+dictatorship#v=snippet&q=%22one%20party%22%20dictatorship&f=false]]. But “over the last thirty years, the Chinese state has successfully created physical infrastructure and delivered essential services” whilst the on other side “the Indian state despite rapid economic growth has deteriorated over time. Whether it is providing basic law and order, or ensuring sanctity of contract, or delivering public services, the stench of decline is hard to ignore.” [[http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1585]]

“The core of the matter is that radical reforms in China have paved the way for economic development and a number of non-economic changes which have benefited the population and provided a decent level of living for the large majority. This could not have been done without strong leadership bent on pushing such policies, perhaps even to the point of employing coercion against opponents”. [[http://books.google.com/books?id=QElPOh_hEKUC&pg=PA234&dq=requisite&ei=yuWESqjWE43AygSz6tS0Dg#v=snippet&q=versus%20authoritarianism&f=false]]
The result has been that the growth in India has relied more on the private sector as state capacity deteriorates, while China has a much better state infrastructure, but an unripe private sector. The thing is that creating markets is about setting a reasonable framework and letting go, but state capacity involves the creation of public institutions, and its respectives mechanisms for accountability, conflict management, etc, as a time will come when the private sector will no longer be able to compensate the lack of an efficient state when it comes to core state functions, for example. From this derives that the odds are still favor the prospect that China, rather than India will sustain its current growth rate.[[http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1585]]

The Chinese case allows to analyze another interesting comparison: Russia and China. “The People’s Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics both faced lethal crises as they attempted to reform their communist systems” [[http://books.google.com/books?id=jTV25IJ4VQAC&pg=PA103&dq=perestroika+chinese+reform&as_brr=3&ei=HQOFSpb9F4XgywTL0NyHDg#v=onepage&q=perestroika%20chinese%20reform&f=false]]. Their situations were similar up until the Perestroika times, when they engaged on parallel but different initiatives to break from classical Communism. The Soviet Union engaged in political liberalization, with small changes occurring in the economic side. China went on with large and increasing economic liberties, but established no political rights or liberties. During the 90’s, China did much better than Russia. We could argue that, since Russia was moving toward democratic institutions, Gorbachev couldn’t take the necessary steps toward economic liberalization, because as a logical part of the democratic political process he couldn’t break directly with the dinosaurs in the communist party, so in the end Russia didn’t chose a path and stagnated. On the contrary, China could engage in a committed path toward economic liberty because it’s governing group did not need to consult others. [[www.acg.ru/english/news2.phtml?m=2866]]

Thus China provides a unique opportunity to contrast the appropriateness of democratization as a path to development, as China twice chose dictatorship in a crossroads, and twice out-performed its similar neighbors. We can show in this argument that, being developing nations, China did much better than India, by staying as a one party dictatorship, rather than establishing a multi-party democracy; and then that, as a centrally planned economy with a one-party dictatorship in crisis, China was better off than the (now extinct) Soviet Union, and its successor states by transitioning into a free market one party dictatorship, rather than transitioning into a planned economy democracy.

On this point we want to quote Aristotle: “Only a wealthy society in which relatively few citizens lived in real poverty could a situation exist in which the mass of the population could intelligently participate in politics and could develop the self-restraint necessary to avoid succumbing to the appeals of irresponsible demagogues”. Given that inter-group inequality, and social instability require a centralization of decisions, and given that special crisis as natural disasters require rapid decision making and the diminishing of liberties, there are surely cases in which democracy is not viable. Under these conditions economical development is promoted by dictatorships i.e., the Asian Tigers.
The historic experience shows that richer, more educated and more equal countries are more likely to be democratic. Countries which once reached a level of development and social maturity will then seek to be liberated from the restrictions imposed by the dictatorship using from passive resistance to insurrection against the system; transitioning from dictatorship to democracy, exemplified in cases such as Chile or Spain.

Robert Marsh, conducted a survey of 98 countries for the period 1955-70 and found that: “Political competition/democracy does have a significant effect on later rates of economic development; its influence is to retard the development rate, rather than to facilitate it. In short, among the poor nations, an authoritarian political system increases the rate of economic development, while a democratic political system appears to be a luxury which hinders development.” From: The role of the state in development. [[http://books.google.com/books?id=QElPOh_hEKUC&lpg=PA40&dq=democracy%20exclusion&hl=es&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q=Marsh&f=false]]

Dictatorships have great incentives to achieve greater inter-group equality: “In most unequal societies (e.g., South Africa prior to 1994), the citizens have a great reason to be unhappy and try to rise up against the authority of non-democracy.” [[http://books.google.com/books?id=gzdbfu55IGgC&lpg=PA37&dq=democracy%20equal&hl=es&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q=democracy%20equal&f=false]]
Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson make the point on Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy [[http://books.google.com/books?id=gzdbfu55IGgC&lpg=PA37&dq=democracy%20equal&hl=es&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q=democracy%20equal&f=false]] that this equality might explain the fact that democracy was slow to arrive to South Korea and Taiwan, that were at the time growing rapidly, and hasn’t arrived yet to Singapore. On the other hand, highly unequal societies are a breeding ground for revolution as the pressure comes for better redistribution. The more equal a society is the fewer incentives they will have to go through an uprising so then the ruling elite goes unchallenged, or, if they are challenged, they can make small redistribution gestures to appease people. The dictator or governing clique is much better off maintaining their citizens equal and happier. Of course equality is not enough. He also has an incentive to keep them making money and generating riches the dictator can predate on.

Best Path to Development:

• Acceptable and Useful: One of our main points in this debate is that concentrating power in one person or a small clique is a widely accepted way in modern societies to solve problems and crisis and how for developing nations not being developed is a crisis that justifies doing exactly the same thing, through a dictatorship, so they can benefit from the swift and efficient decision making that it enables. The opposition chose to deal with this utilitarian argument by resorting to Ad Hitlerum and dismissing it as just propaganda, and even stating that “false decisions” would have no “safety net”, when in reality, in times of trouble, accidents and mistakes, dictatorship IS a safety net in itself, and for democracies, institutionalized in the mechanisms mentioned before.

• Able and Willing: The opposition conceded to us “The evidence shows that dictatorship can gives better control to the variables” which includes determining the allocation of resources and defining the specifications, for services such as health care and education to improve the quality of life of the citizens or to spread the values needed to modernize; but they doubted that this power would be used appropriately. However, when the discussion centered around incentives, the opposition claimed that the dictator had strong incentives to stay in power, but since we explained how to stay in power a dictator must balance predation and repression, and yield enough results, and seek the best advisors available, since it is in its best interest to keep a functioning system.

• Flexibility and Timely:And since the dictators need not consult other bodies, or go through lengthy legislative or bureaucratic processes, they can take decisions in a timely manner, without the need to create political will, compromise due to political alliances, or postpone it for electoral reasons.

On the point of political freedoms, we consider that these may account as desirable features in a society, but they are not part of the concept of development, and they have the potential to undermine sustainable development (in terms of health, education, income and security) through the improper incentives raised by the democratic decision making mechanisms and institutions. This is specially true when the lack of development reaches such a low level that people is incapable of administering any political liberties in a productive fashion. We’ve seen evidence of this in the examples of Venezuela, Yugoslavia, the USSR and other cases commented throughout the debate.

Apart from this, both teams have agreed that it is economic and social development what leads to democratic demands from the citizens. This is so because it is when people have their basic needs well more than solved that they may start valuing the increase of political freedoms over further increases in development. In this context, democracy advocates should understand that the swiftest path to development (a prerequisite for a sustainable liberal democracy) is a dictatorship.

Our concerns about a popularity based system, that has incentives to yield results in between elections, to postpone unpopular yet necessary elections were only met with abstract appeals to check and balances, they both said that their unconcrete proposal would work just for having check and balances, and that ours wouldn’t, partly for lacking them. The thing is, separation of powers is not a prerequisite to democracy, as parliamentary systems under the “Fusion of Powers” paradigm can attest.
Thus we have provided a system that is acceptable and useful to overcome difficulties, is willing and able achieve development, and is flexible and timely for doing so vs a system that can not properly function in a society not fully developed, and that hinders development, if judged on whether dictatorship has been proven to be the best path for development, the proposition team wins.

• Consistency and Definitions:
One of the most important aspects of the debate is making the appropriate definitions and being consistent with them.

On this count we contend that we defined dictatorship in a clear and constructive way from the beginning, using the definition: “A form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique”, we also explained, one by one, how each of our examples complied with our definition, when the opposition team felt the need to challenge our definition.

However, the opposition team defined dictatorship in a extremely narrow and nonconstructive way, as we stated in our response to their first argument, stating that “A Dictatorship is a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)”. But we were further appalled upon reading the arguments the opposition team during their second speech, since not one the examples of dictatorships they provided out of their own free will and initiative (that is, without the proposition first presenting that example) met their own definition. When in argument no.4 they affirm that “This is the then same problem faced by dictatorship country such as Cuba, North Korea, Burma, and Libya”, we realized that since Cuba, North Korea are one party systems under the Cuban Communist Party and the Korean Worker’s Party, respectively, they do not fit their definition since there’s not just a single person in charge, but rather a group (party), Burma doesn’t either as it is run by a Military Junta known as the State Peace and Development Council, composed by 9 members (and not AN absolute dictator), and since they also establish that the dictator is not restricted by laws, constitution or opposition, then Gaddafi doesn’t count either since he could not approve a measure on his own; then in argument no.5 they say “Or as some dictators comes to prove; changing the constitution to extend their term in office up to 2030” referring to the election where the abolition of terms limits in Venezuela was approved by the people, but if the dictator is “not restricted by a constitution” why would Chavez need the Venezuelan people to amend it? clearly because he IS bound to the constitution in order to stay in office, thus not qualifying under their definition either, and then they also attempted to peg Zimbabwe as a dictatorship, even though a regime where the opposition party can gain a majority in parliament is definitely restricted by the opposition, thus not qualifying under their definition. Not happy with this, they continued to further cripple their definition when they asserted that “the (so-called) dictator amputates its authoritative power and giving it to the market”, thus further restricting “real” dictators only to market-hostile dictatorships, it could certainly be inferred that since their definition didn’t even work for their examples, having a useful definition of dictatorship for the debate was not one of their priorities.

On top of this, the opposition performed a highly inconsistent classification of regimes, taking the big happy family of one party Communist regimes: Cuba, China, North Korea and the USSR, and splitting it between different foster homes, China to a non-dictatorial home, Cuba and North Korea to a dictatorial one, and the USSR seems to be unaccounted for, what is supposed to be the big difference between these single party, originally Marxist-Leninist, communist countries with regimes kick started by revolutions? They never explained that. And then, they put together the current authoritarian government of Venezuela, just recently taking its first steps into a de facto one party system, with the multi-party Zimbabwe, as dictatorships, but then fiercely -yet unsuccessfully- attempted to mis-characterize a country that has long been a de facto one-party system with “Singapore is popular as a democratic country who implement repressive action”.

Since the Proposition clearly put forth the most constructive definitions in the debate, and was able to uphold them throughout, and also had a consistent way to categorize the relevant examples for the debate, if judged on the quality of the definitions and on consistency, the proposition wins this debate.

• Uniqueness of Dictatorships: One of the main themes of the debate is whether Dictatorships’ ability to better control the variables of development (as conceded by the opposition when they agreed “dictatorship can gives better control to the variables”) translates into better performance. There are two clear examples we provided, that the opposition failed to refute, and even conceded. Combining both examples we get that given the same ethnic, temporal, geographic, cultural, historical, linguistic, political, economic and religious background, dictatorship yields better results than democracy. First is Cuba, we first introduced this example in argument yes.3 , stating how this Latin American nation had a health system that rivaled with those of developed nations, and we also quoted how Cuba sends education advisers to other developing nations to aid them, being ahead of its Latin American neighbors. Both counts were conceded by the opposition in as “a good example of human development in Cuba currently”, but the true importance of this example is that we they never even attempted to refute that what separates Cuba from its very similar Latin American brothers is the fact that they have not turned to democracy, thus making dictatorship the defining characteristic. On the other hand, for economic and political background, we relied in the comparison between PR China and India, and between PR China and the USSR. We argued that being two neighboring states, comparable both in age and in population size, differentiated only in that China turned to a one party system, and India to a multi party democracy; China had a more promising future on the base that they had a better bureaucracy, better state institutions and state services than India, who only had a better private sector, but that strengthening its private sector would be easier for China than it would be for India to build a proper public sector. The opposition decided to not only not refute our argument, but to strengthen it by establishing that both nations were also comparable in that they both started with Leninist economies (thus being even more comparable/similar), and that China implemented the needed economic reforms before India did, and also that India implemented them almost too late (“This socialist economic policies that is adopted in Nehru-Gandhi era that virtually bankrupted India by 1991”); this strongly supports our thesis that dictatorships make needed decisions in a more swiftly and timely manner than democracies. As for the comparison with the Soviet Union, in which we established that for a given dictatorship in crisis it was better to liberalize the economy than to democratize, seeing as how China had a better growth rate than its neighbor, and also how its neighbor collapsed and dissolved, unable to; the opposition did not refute this. Thus the proposition team clearly proved that dictatorships do have an advantage over democracies in securing and maintaining development, and if judged under this criteria the proposition should win.

Our definition of dictatorship is: “A form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique”. This not only is the definition stated in the Merriam-Webster dictionary [[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictatorship]], but it’s open enough to recognize the range of features and shades that different dictatorial regimes may present, in contrast to the extreme narrowness of the definition proposed by the counterpart.

Differences among dictatorial regimes are rooted on different aspects of their performance. They can differ on the magnitude of the governing clique, the military or civil nature of the authority, economic liberties granted for citizens, legality of political associations, legal framework, etc. The feature that all dictatorial regimes share is that they centralize public power and apply it without the people’s consent.

In the book “Comparative Politics”, Professor Danièle Caramani of the Institute of Political Science of University of St. Gallen identifies and explains many of the different regimes that can be considered dictatorships, since they accumulate absolute power in a small group or in a single person. These include military dictatorships, presidential dictatorships, and dynastic monarchies, among others. (http://books.google.com/books?id=sgYF9Us4UNIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=%22one%20party%22&f=false)

The definition proposed by the counterpart describes dictatorship as “a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)”.

This narrow alternative for a definition would indeed lead to an unproductive and unfair debate, since only regimes led by a single person could be accounted as dictatorships, excluding historical examples of dictatorial regimes, such as the the U.R.S.S. (led by the communist party in a one party dictatorship) or all of the Military Juntas in the 20th century.

Another incorrect assumption in the counterpart’s alternative is that lacking of a constitution or legal framework for the functioning of a regime is a necessary feature of a dictatorial one. If this was the case, we would have to consider the lack of formal constitutions in Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom to be somewhat undemocratic systems (even when political power in these countries is subject to the popular will). Burma and Pinochet’s Chile would be accounted as non-dictatorships because they had constitutions and laws [[http://www.thailawforum.com/database1/constmyanmar.html]] [[http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Chile/chile.html]], regardless on how intrusive and unjust they were, and of the fact that political power was centralized in a military “Junta”.

Again, what sets democracies and dictatorships apart from one another is whether political power is held by the people in general or by a small clique or even a single person. Moving away from that would only diminish the debate’s quality.

Another point we wish to make is one regarding the validity of our examples. What we called dictatorship are o were in the past in fact dictatorships. We are delighted to be given the opportunity of reaffirming why they fit our definition and provide examples of instances where they have been called so (not merely by us, but by reputed sources).
Singapore is a de facto one party system[[http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/01636600260046226?cookieSet=1&journalCode=wash]], the opposition has no real chance to rule. Since it’s indepence in 1965 it has been governed by the same party (a small clique), the PAP. We cite about Singapore “Singapore’s dictatorship has delivered such riches that popular opposition is half-hearted…” [[http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2006/01/book_review_eco.html]].

South Korea had a pro development dictatorship for almost twenty years only to be followed by another dictatorship that ended in a democratic election where the winning candidate was aligned with the previously ruling clique. The solid economic fundamentals of South Korean Economy were settled under dictatorship. On South Korea: “During 1987 popular opposition to South Korea’s military dictatorship again burst into the streets of South Korean cities and into the U.S. news media.” [[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n7_v39/ai_6261945/]]

On Taiwan: from 1927 to 1949 the KMT ruled over all of China in a one party system, and from then on only in Taiwan, staying as a one party system throughout the Taiwan Miracle[[http://www.taiwan.com.au/Polieco/History/ROC/report04.htm]] during the 1960s and 1970s, and it wasn’t until 1986 when the first opposition party was allowed to exist, and until 1989 that multiparty elections were held[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/asia_pacific/2000/taiwan_elections2000/1986_1999.stm]]We also found this quote: Taiwan is evidence that a developing society can move peacefully from dictatorship to democracy and thrive.” [[http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10581]]

The People’s Republic of China is a strong example not only in times of Mao’s rule but also today, because they are ruled by the Chinese Comunist Party (small clique). The opposition rejected “the notion of China being a dictatorship; even though Chairman Mao is the central figure of the Chinese Communist Party, he is not above the law”. On this subject we quote this:’A quarter of the world’s population was thereby brought under communist rule, which within a decade had clearly become the personal rule of Chairman Mao Zedong.” [[http://books.google.com/books?id=sgYF9Us4UNIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=%22one%20party%22&f=false]]

The opposition proposes that “There is an existing mechanism that conducts a ‘check and balance’ inside the system which is the Politburo Standing Committee which maintains a separation of power in the government”. But this committee is formed by 5 to 9 people of the ruling party [[http://english.gov.cn/2007-10/22/content_781682.htm]], not precisely a big group of people. So if the power was in fact the Chairman plus up to 9 other people it’s still means power was vested on 10 people which indeed classifies as a very small clique.

Chile was ruled by dictator Augusto Pinochet from 1973 till 1990. He ruled as the head of a military junta[[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,91534,00.html]]. About Pinochet: “On March 11, 1998, in the National Congress in Valparaiso, the former dictator was sworn in as a lifetime senator — a condition of the transition to democracy…” [[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/pinochet/overview.htm]]

Venezuela was ruled by Perez Jiménez through a militar junta and then by him as an individual dictator. On Perez Jiménez: “Suspicious of outsiders, the dictator also concentrated power in the hands of six army colonels from his home state.” [[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/22/world/marcos-perez-jimenez-87-venezuela-ruler.html]]

Spain had Generalísimo Franco from 1946 till 1975. On the news article regarding his dead we read: “Leaders of European countries have been guarded in their reaction the dictator’s death and expressed hope that the new king would introduce modern democracy to Spain” [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/20/newsid_4421000/4421636.stm]]

On the example of Portugal not only is he a dictator but: “Former dictator Antonio Oliveira Salazar was chosen as the greatest Portuguese of all times by viewers of a TV show.” [[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/former-dictator-salazar-chosen-as-greatest-portuguese-of-all-time-by-tv-viewers-442008.html]].

And in case you intend to express doubt about the fact that Cuba is a dictatorship[[http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue19/farber19.htm]] here is a description of Castro given by the New York Times: “It was a striking tableau — two men in their 60s, one a sports journalist in coat and tie, the other a Communist dictator in uniform, raised in different cultures but both educated by Jesuits and able to find a common ground in sport.” [[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/sports/15mckay.html?_r=1]]

We want to reaffirm that the debate has had a clear definition of dictatorship from it’s beginning, and it has been proven that it is the more appropriate one. Also, the examples and evidences presented in our arguments perfectly fit the definition given.

In short, we don’t understand the opposition’s concerns on the issue, or on how it is supposed to justify the fact that they didn’t establish any arguments on how other systems are hypothetically better than dictatorships for development, or on why the developed democracies should keep on undermining dictatorships in underdeveloped countries.

Lastly we applaud the opposition calls for a meaningful debate but we think that should include the presentation of their arguments in their first contest phase so that they may be discussed and responded, and excluding unreliable sources as Wikipedia[[http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwriting/2008/11/texas-appellate.html]], which “anyone can edit”.

The opposition is misrepresenting our position: we don’t say that because neither dictatorship nor democracy cause development then the first shouldn’t be persecuted. We say instead that they shouldn’t be persecuted because they control better the variables that cause development, like health and education.

The proposition never created a new category of a “democratic yet dictatorship government [sic] “. Rather, we clearly defined dictatorship from the beginning and we have stuck with that definition. The opposition ascribes us three sins: “We are appalled when the proposition tries to associate single party system with Dictatorship (sin no.1) then goes further as acknowledging economic success due to their form of government (sin no.2), even though the form of government applied an opposing economic policy that they never explained to us (hiding the truth – sin no.3)”. Being truly pure of heart, we want to respond: regarding “Sin no.1” we clearly stated why one party systems are in fact a ruling clique with absolute power. No strangers to sinning, the opposition has conceded as dictatorship various one-party systems (North korea, Yugoslavia, Cuba) and a defacto one party system (Venezuela), but rejected countries that have it like China and Singapore, without really explaining the difference between both groups.

On “sin no.2” they misrepresent our assertion. We propose that dictatorships can make unpopular and necessary decisions that democracies cannot, as explained in our Chile’s Pinochet vs Venezuela’s Carlos Andrés Pérez example.

If we indeed sinned on “sin #3” we’ll never know: it’s not written clearly enough to answer.
On this point: “A country’s economic success can be accredited to their liberalization of the economy but definitely not because of their single party system” we say that when you have the total control of the country you can enact liberalization by decree, while in democracy there is usually opposition from interest groups.

They claim we conceded dictatorships cannot can be defended yet we have defended dictatorships from all the spectrum, without any ideological or geographical bias. They claim that the example of Singapore is contradictory with our calling elections a luxury, because Singapore holds them. But there’s is no contradiction between it being a luxury and Singapore wanting to spend on this luxury maybe to appease some critics. Which sometime dictatorships have to do.

On the subject of our hijacking Singapore to the side of dictatorships we answer: 1. Elections are not the only condition for democracy as several of the countries that the opposition acknowledged as dictatorships have regular elections (Cuba, Venezuela and Zimbawe).

On the subject of Libya we are perplexed by the opposition constant contradiction between the definition they insist is the one and the fact that their examples don’t fall within it. Khadaffi in Libya tried to distribute oil revenues directly and the tribal liders didn’t aprove. He didn’t get his way. [http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2009/03/200933183343913989.html ]]

Lastly, on “silencing the proposition”, we propose to the opposition that debates aren’t about silencing, but about rebuttal, proving, reasoning and evidence.

The opposition asserts that dictatorships don’t need a constitution, well, democracies don’t need them either. On the subject of checks and balance we question the following: 1. They have not defined what it is. But as we need to talk about it our working definition is going to be: “that the government be divided into three branches or departments, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. To each of these three branches there is a corresponding identifiable function of government, legislative, executive, or judicial. Each branch of the government must be confined to the exercise of its own function and not allowed to encroach upon the functions of the other branches. Furthermore, the persons who compose these three agencies of government must be kept separate and distinct, no individual being allowed to be at the same time a member of more than one branch. In this way each of the branches will be a check to the others and no single group of people will be able to control the machinery of the State” [[http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=677&chapter=122664&layout=html&Itemid=27]] Still, the opposition make the crucial mistake of questioning how could any system work without it, even though there are in fact fusion of powers (the opposite of check and balances) and mixed systems in working democracies all over the world. So sound decisions can evidently be made without it. 2. We contend that checks and balances get in they way of swift decisions that many times are good ones. 3. If the separation of powers (the same as check and balances) is so good why is it removed in emergency situations (martial law, state of emergency, state of siege)? 4. The proposition does not explain how checks and balances work to get always good policies. In fact our definition explains that the reason to have a separation of powers is so it won’t be concentrated on a single group. We add, that the reason not to concentrate is so no group can subvert it. So checks and balances don’t really exist for the sake of policies but for the sake of avoiding concentration of power. 5.

Lastly the other team never explained why the separation of powers reaps better policies than the technocrats a dictator can hire. The other team continuously talks about the “wisdom” that the policies of a dictator depend on. Dictator not necessarily are wise but we did say that he has freedom to implement necessary measures in a timely fashion and surround himself with the best advisers available despite popularity, partisan loyalty and political alliances. On the subject of miracles the opposition quotes it as if we were referring to a “the lord works in mysterious way” situation and the examples we gave talked about the parting of the sea by Moses or the multiplying of bread by Jesus, and not in the sense we actually used it: unprecedented economic growth. About the Burma’s 3 bad decisions: 1. After said demonetization a Coup d’etat occurred which proves that there is a fine balance a dictator should strike as to not cause an insurrection [[http://www.gocurrency.com/countries/myanmar.htm]]. 2. On the move capital cities, we can cite the example of the US: changed it’s capital three times. 3. If Burma banned motorcycles and it was a bad idea it’s the same as the banning in Colorado and Iowa (US) of bicycles is bad (in the eyes of cyclists).[[http://www.kansascyclist.com/news/2009/08/proposals-to-ban-bicycles-in-colorado-and-iowa/]] We indeed agree that “the proposition has to show that “even if these dictators apply un-accountable and irregular decisions, it is permissible for the sake of development”.

But we have to ask: what would the problem of unaccountable yet development-causing decisions? And how is an example of the former “irregular”? The opposition proposes: “They would also have to show the benefits of a dictatorship – AS A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT – so that we should allow the blind faith of these people be put upon the so called ‘magicians’ that are expected to perform ‘miracles’ of development at the price of a more democratic and stable government.” But first, the proposition has only to prove dictatorship is the best path to development not best form of government ever for everything. Secondly, the opposition talks about “so called magicians” and we would love to know: Who calls them so? Was “magician” General Suharto’s nickname perchance? Lastly we do not have to defend any kind of democratic values and on the other hand we have stated time and again that dictatorships are a very stable and stabilizing government. We have given the benefits of dictatorships from the very introduction of the debate.

The opposition should have explained how development is conditioned by succession. It didn’t of course.

Still, that wasn’t the biggest mistake the opposition made on this point. The opposition is dead wrong about dictatorships not having successions. Examples abound, starting from North Korea which they introduced to the debate. There is going to be a second successor, from Kim Il-Sung to Kim Yong-Il, the grandson of the original dictator. [[http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1012277]]

Another example of a dictatorial government with a succession where not a drop of blood was shed is Cuba. Raul Castro was designated as the successor of Fidel years ago and everything continues as it was. [[http://www.iammyownreporter.com/ElectionsInCuba.htm]],
In Myanmar the junta is planning multi-party elections in 2010. [[http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=da3ecc3a-3ba0-4426-875c-a888705e9eed]] d [[http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:-fnkjcbSlG8J:fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22742.pdf+cuba+succession&hl=es&gl=ve]].Which is sure to lessen the other team’s worries. The USSR had a lot of sucessions pacific inside politburó. Lybia has never had a transition, so its difficult to diagnose. Maybe Khadaffi has a successor already in mind. Who knows.

Yugoslavia merits more time as here the interpretation of the events by the opposition is completely wrong. It was indeed lead by Tito, a communist dictator and he rebuilt it from the ashes but here is where they get it wrong because they give a false meaning to the word “after”:
“only to find itself disintegrated, overwhelmed with civil war and ethnic cleansing after the death of their dictatorship leader” They present it as this happened just after. When in fact Tito’s death happened in 1980 and it was eleven years after, in 1991, that the war began. The disintegration wasn’t a consequence of the lack of a successor but of the adoption way too early of democracy.

There are many examples of dictatorships that are not personal but cliques (as in one party systems). The small group designates a leader so in those cases the succession is as smooth as silk.

The opposition is wrong in their definition of the goals of dictatorships and there being no succession method. First, the goal of the dictatorships stated by proposition where based on the first definition, aiming to the achievement of development as well as the guaranteeing of Social. Therefore, even though the dictator maintains its power, having or not elections is not relevant, and even more incongruous with the argument. As we must all know dictatorial governments such as Cuba [[http://www.iammyownreporter.com/ElectionsInCuba.htm]], China, North Korea [[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gimZEj8zI99uCXzdaCqn_FoKT97A]], Myanmar [[http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=da3ecc3a-3ba0-4426-875c-a888705e9eed]], among others, have held, are holding and continue to hold elections and referendums for the popular opinion on constitutionals changes, but taking into account the budgets, so no income for education, health, security or personal development be modified. On the other hand, the opposition states there are no successions in dictatorial governments but here we may see the different cases of North Korea between Kim Il-Sung and Kim Yong-Il [[http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1012277]], another case we may quote is Cuba and the succession from Fidel Castro to Raul Castro without any drop of blood shedded [[http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:-fnkjcbSlG8J:fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22742.pdf+cuba+succession&hl=es&gl=ve]]. Regarding the argument “some dictators changing the constitution to extend their term in office”, it’s completely out the question. In the case quoted (Venezuela), the president and the government do no represent a dictatorial regime but a Social State form of government as it’s stated in the Article 2, Title 1 of the Fundamental Principles of the Constitution [[http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:KzLaCoLsk1sJ:www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/venezuela/constitucion_ingles.pdf+venezuelan+constitution&cd=2&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=ve]]. Having said that, we must make clear the fact that President Hugo Chavez came into power by elections, and since his 10 years of mandate there have been 15 electoral processes (1998 presidential elections; 2000 general elections; 2006 presidential elections; 1998 parliamentary elections; 2000 parliamentary elections; 2005 parliamentary elections; 1998, 2000, 2004 and 2008 regional elections, referendum for the debate of a new constitution 1999; for the approval of the new constitution 1999; for the labor unions in 2000; for the president in 2004; for the constitutional reform in 2007; for the constitutional amendment; and in the next November for the regional elections) , which is a contradiction because they both call the Venezuelan government dictatorial but then establish that dictatorial regimes don’t have elections. Now, moving on the following statements, the opposition says that “no matter whatever emergency the state endures” dictatorial governments look for their security first and puts as a last priority the achievement of development and the financial situation of a country, which is kind of paradoxical in the terms of what comes first to do the next, for example (based on whatever emergency the state endures): in a natural disaster (a hurricane, typhoon, tornado, floods, etc) what profit or benefit could any country gain by having a government that does not secures itself so then they can then act as holders of the maximum power to defend, protect their citizens by implementing an appropriate national security plan? None, if a country doesn’t have a government that secures itself, it has no one to hold the power, no one to create and execute the laws (as defined in the first part of the debate) therefore it will be an absence of a government, causing the country to go into Anarchy (absence of government; absence of political authority) [[Diccionario de Ciencias Jurídicas Políticas y Sociales. Manuel Ossorio. Heliasta Editorial N/D]]

Personal income is one of the variables of development we included from the beginning of the debate, along with education, health and internal and external security (definition never contested by the counterpart).

Since underdeveloped countries have higher population growth rates than developed countries (some of the latter have even reduced their population over recent years), it is a foreseeable fact that dictatorships established in underdeveloped countries have a smaller GDP per capita than they developed peers. This fact doesn’t deny that, in aggregate, underdeveloped dictatorships are growing more than democracies, which summed to the fact that underdeveloped countries are decreasing their population growth rate, is sketching a path towards economic convergence.

The counterpart fails to give evidence to back their assertion that dictatorships only bring income to the government and no welfare to the citizens (and does not explain what their concept of welfare means). Also, The counterpart falsely assumes that dictatorships lack incentives and mechanisms for incorporating the citizens needs into public policy.

Regarding the Gómez regime, the counterpart has three mayor blunders, based on the misunderstanding of the political context and the dynamics of the oil business. First, Gómez regime was based on the ideas of political positivism. These ideas, based on the anarchy and civil conflict that rose from the constantly flawed attempts to establish liberal institutions in the 19th century, stated that since Venezuelans were not able to administer political liberties, order should be the main priority of any national government. It would bring with it economic accumulation and the possibility to provide social services to citizens, so that they could become capable of administering further political liberties in the future.

To appease the country by the dismantling of the caudillos’ power, Gómez required to unify the army, create the air force, construct a brand new road infrastructure to effectively communicate the different parts of the country with the Capital, and to increase the presence of internal security forces throughout the country. In the end, all this bred a unified country where there used to be independent sub-regions artificially joined. Achieving this goal of order up until his death, which could enable the country to achieve sustainable social development, logically demanded the most of the budget of the nation.
Following the death of Gómez, governments of General Eleazar López Contreras and of General Isaías Medina Angarita continued to apply the same political positivism ideas. Since order was ensured in the Gómez era, López started to develop social policies in the education and health fields (known as the “Plan de febrero”). Gral. Medina legalized many democratic political parties such as “Acción Democrática”, and allowed the return of many politically exiled. He was overthrown by a pro-democratic military coup in 1945 that led to the first democratically elected government (which was to be overthrown three years later for a new military junta).

This proves that the order and security expenditure in the Gómez era was part of a bigger plan for sustainable development in Venezuela, that came out as an alternative to artificial and unfeasible democratic attempts in the 19th century, and that ended not because of its failure, but because of an early and violent imposition of democracy that didn’t even last three years.

When pop songstress Shakira first started, nobody bet on her success. Investing on her was a very risky thing to do, since there was no certainty of her profitability. The only way in which any music label was to hire her was if the company got the most of the profits if the public did like her.

This is exactly what happened at the start of the Venezuelan oil production. Oil companies must engage in costly exploration and infrastructure building with an enormous uncertainty on their chances of finding oil. Before the oil production began, the 5 American oil companies cartel was not willing to accept anything bellow the agreement. The crossroad for the Gómez regime was actually pretty easy, since it was either accept the terms and bring the Foreign investment, or continue to be the Banana Republic we surely were.

Once a star, the second contract that Shakira signed was much more profitable for her than the first one, but she still worked with a Music Label to coordinate her productive musical career. Once Venezuela was proven to have enormous oil reserves, the contracts were reviewed on the governments of Gral. López Contreras and Gral. Medina Angarita (The latter established the famous 50-50 oil income rate), but the oil contractors still ran the industry with the technology and know how that only they had. Sadly, once Venezuela became fully democratic in 1958, a populist approach of “All the oil to the people” justified pressures over the oil companies. This process led to the nationalization of the industry in 1976, which left the country without the capital (Both human and financial) to exploit and refine our extra heavy oil reserves.

Even though the proposition team sees no reasonable link between the motion “Dictatorship is the best path towards development” and the multi-ethnicity and diversity of a nation, and considering that no value different than development should be discussed in this debate, we will promptly answer it.

There are many examples in history were democracies have ruled in discriminatory ways.The very first democracy known, Athens, sustained their experiment on direct democracy on the work of thousands of slaves (A history of political thought: from ancient Greece to early Christianity by Janet Coleman [[http://books.google.com/books?id=S8lamu73s08C&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=ancient+greeks+slavery&source=bl&ots=pUj4heOTBT&sig=JHirDk_KgnHNbrDIbcw2FYQUc4Y&hl=en&ei=-9iGSqPHOc2ptgeimtjnDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=ancient%20greeks%20slavery&f=false )]]

The paragon of democracy, The United States of America, lived in a segregated society just some 4 decades ago. Not only that but, “discrimination against blacks in America is not an accident but rather a product of governmental policy and judicial mandates as reflected in patterns of community development.”,( American apartheid: segregation and the making of the underclass By Douglas S. Massey, Nancy A. Denton [[http://books.google.com/books?id=uGslMsIBNBsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=racial+segregation+united+states&ei=a8uGSs2xA57CzQTl_YXvDQ&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=racial%20segregation%20united%20states&f=false)]] More recent examples include the democratic India where “Caste is India’s hidden apartheid,” says Martin Macwan, 41, convenor of the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights.( Gopal Guru, with Shiraz Sidhva. [[http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_09/uk/doss22.htm)]].

Fiji’s democratic government also has a deep problematic with ethnic segregation. A United Nations-sponsored seminar to draw up a People’s Strategy for Peace, Stability and Development in Fiji has found that segregation along ethnic lines is a key concern.[[http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=23319]] Furthermore the opposition’s concerns over dictatorships as focusing on the development of the majority, while neglecting the rights and welfare of the minority, are absolutely applicable to democracies which are “the rule of the majority”.
In any case the only interesting point of your argument for the debate would be that the dictatorships care about the welfare of the majority promoting development for a majority of people.

The opposition point about: “Dictatorship does not hear the aspiration of the people; it only relies on their ‘wisdom’. Because dictatorship rules without the people’s consent, there is no urgency for them to hear their citizen” gives us a chance to repeat what we have said all along. That too unpopular or disturbing decisions on part of the dictator carry an insurrection threat.

Sometimes people don’t aspire necessarily to development or don’t know how to get to it. And then it’s a good thing to impose them the changes. Turkish ruler Kemal Ataturk, decreed his way into modernization and development for his people. Those were no popular changes. They ranged from the abolition of the Califate (Islamic Papacy) that were purely about modernizing to others that were a push for development as the one that happened in “1930—Ford assembly plant opened near Istanbul and President Kemal launched a nation-wide program of building roads on which U. S. cars of all price classes predominate.”[[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,746241-2,00.html]]. By stating that “dictatorship does not hear the aspiration of the people; it only relies on their ‘wisdom’. Because dictatorship rules without the people’s consent, there is no urgency for them to hear their citizen.” the try to say that because there is a dictatorship, the ruler cannot know what the people need. But we have talked about incentives of dictatorships to have objective information for good decisions.

This objective data includes number of hospitals, mortality rate, etc and excludes popularity rate. Its perfectly possible to know the economic, health, education, income and productivity indicators and they can evaluate their policies using (performance indexes.Of course if they were to need it, dictatorships are specially apt to extract information from people because they don’t have to care about privacy. We surmise that by irregularity the opposition means variability which is really flexibility. And we have explained in our yes point no. 7 that dictatorships have more flexibility on the subject of economic policy because “dictatorships can define and establish a pro-investment legal and institutional framework (e.g. Low taxes, subsidies, ensuring economical liberties) without facing the boundaries that a Democracy encounters on it’s political process”.

There is a tautology in the premise of this argument that if validated would render this debate barren. If we agreed on the fact that representation and “people deciding what is best for them” are part of development then there is no way for dictatorship to win as the best path to development. Furthermore, If freedom were to be the sole end of development, then what would a citizen be free to do? At the very start of the debate we defined development as human well-being(which incorporates education, health, income, and safety from internal and external threats)and even by personal discipline. Development, once achieved, may give the necessary leap to democracy and freedom, in that sense at the end of development; once achieved there can be space for freedom, noticeably South Korea and Taiwan’s transition to democracy after decades of growth under dictatorship prove our point. ( Schaeffer, Robert K. Understanding Globalization: The Social Consequences of Political, Economic, and Environmental Change [[http://books.google.co.ve/books?id=bSTqbu7dWSYC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=CHIANG+DICTATORSHIP+in+Taiwan&source=bl&ots=LaDTTxgoi_&sig=_xZFRUyrMXbUIzveLOBDLyFZ-uQ&hl=es&ei=m3mESofRLor-M_7KpdwL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false)]]

Let’s say a mother says to her child: “When you eat your vegetables, only then, you will get dessert.” Even a child can see that “only then” implies a prerequisite.When the opposition establish “Only then, when the momentum is strong enough for change, after the people has witnessed the flaw of dictatorship that it’s people will revert to a more sustainable mechanism; Democracy. But it doesn’t mean that dictatorship is a prerequisite to democracy.” they fail to see that the final phrase is contradictory as they conceded the prerequisite in the first words of the statement.

Dictatorship control the variables necessary to accelerate development and build the foundations for the changes in the country. The opposition put forward the case of South Korea that shows how once established and recognized the social order and a level of economic development a smooth transition can metamorphose into democracy continuing a sustainable growth.
“…later in 1987, when the Korean economy was in a non-crisis situation, with high growth rate and a current account surplus with low inflation, the authoritarian government opted-albeit out of the pressures exerted by political opposition and pro-democracy movement forces in the civil society- for “democratic opening.” this illustrates that democratic transitions can occur in “good times” as well as in “hard times” http://books.google.co.id/books?id=yHLVt8d4SvMC&lpg=PA75&dq=Korea%20democratization%20and%20development&hl=es&pg=PA69#v=onepage&q=&f=false
In the case of Taiwan the same aspect can be evidence that lead to the transition into democratization: “It is not possible to know with certainty all that led to the political reforms of the late 1980s and 1990s.

Typically, political analysts seek causes for the onset of political reform and often specify these causes in term of particular economic preconditions. Many of analysis have been published about the economic evolution that led to the “Taiwan Miracle” and the rise of Taiwan as one of the “four small dragons” in East Asia. The sequence of changes on Taiwan apparently bolsters the idea that economic development in authoritarian regimes leads to political and social pluralism, which brings with it demands for the liberalization of the authoritarian regime under which the economic development was managed. Indeed, many of the socioeconomic facts that theorists generally consider the affect the emergence of democratization, such as “high levels of urbanization, industrialization, rising per capita income, high literacy rates, and mass communication” can be observed on Taiwan. “These socioeconomic factors evidently have influenced teh political climate on the island” [[http://books.google.co.id/books?id=Ovff0QA98kUC&lpg=PA220&ots=9tYD1dZ-MY&dq=democratization%20and%20economy%20of%20taiwan&pg=PA221#v=onepage&q=&f=false]]