Well John Bull 1 here we meet. First I would want to wish you good luck with the debate. Also I am honored to have this debate with you thanks to
Kano.
I think dictatorship is better than a weak democracy.
First let me briefly describe strong dictatorship and weak democracy. Strong dictatorship is when a country has a ruler that is the only head of the
country and almost nobody can tell him what to do. But he can be advised on what people want and don’t want. Weak democracy as I understand is a
democracy where government has little control over the people. Please If I got it wrong fill me in so I debate the right issue.
A strong dictatorship is good for various reasons. First of all a strong dictatorship can lead a country to power and a wealth economy. Secondly a
strong dictatorship can protect it’s people and offer them comfort in their life. Another way strong dictatorship is better the a weak democracy is
people under strong dictatorship don’t have to worry about rising prices. Also under strong dictatorship people don’t have to worry about having
health insurance because the government looks after them.
In the history of this world you can see that a strong dictatorship leads countries to strong nations. For example under communism Russia went up to a
status of a world power. Also during communism people had comfort in their lives and even the lower class had money to live, buy food, and even own a
car.
Out,
Russian
Round 1. Russian V John bull 1: Dictatorship/Democracy, page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
reply posted on 22-2-2004 @ 03:00 AM by John bull 1
You have decided to concentrate on the USSR of the late 1980's,the Gorbachev years.
There is no doubt that Gorbachev brought in liberal reforms and he is rightly recognised for this but these reforms only seem impressive when compared with what preceded it.If these reforms are compared to every industrialised democracy of the same time they still fall well short of the rights and freedoms that are generally expected.
Russians never had it so good but then they could hardly of had it worse.
On the economy don't take my word for it.I've quoted generously from a site below.
"Gorbachev's new system bore the characteristics of neither central planning nor a market economy. Instead, the Soviet economy went from stagnation to deterioration. At the end of 1991, when the union officially dissolved, the national economy was in a virtual tailspin. In 1991 the Soviet GDP had declined 17 percent and was declining at an accelerating rate. Overt inflation was becoming a major problem. Between 1990 and 1991, retail prices in the Soviet Union increased 140 percent."
"Under these conditions, the general quality of life for Soviet consumers deteriorated. Consumers traditionally faced shortages of durable goods, but under Gorbachev, food, wearing apparel, and other basic necessities were in short supply. Fueled by the liberalized atmosphere of Gorbachev's glasnost (literally, public voicing--see Glossary) and by the general improvement in information access in the late 1980s, public dissatisfaction with economic conditions was much more overt than ever before in the Soviet period. The foreign-trade sector of the Soviet economy also showed signs of deterioration. The total Soviet hard-currency (see Glossary) debt increased appreciably, and the Soviet Union, which had established an impeccable record for debt repayment in earlier decades, had accumulated sizable arrearages by 1990."
"In sum, the Soviet Union left a legacy of economic inefficiency and deterioration to the fifteen constituent republics after its breakup in December 1991. Arguably, the shortcomings of the Gorbachev reforms had contributed to the economic decline and eventual destruction of the Soviet Union, leaving Russia and the other successor states to pick up the pieces and to try to mold modern, market-driven economies. At the same time, the Gorbachev programs did start Russia on the precarious road to full-scale economic reform. Perestroika broke Soviet taboos against private ownership of some types of business, foreign investment in the Soviet Union, foreign trade, and decentralized economic decision making, all of which made it virtually impossible for later policy makers to turn back the clock."
countrystudies.us...
So reforms were being made yet the economy was in a "tailspin".The Russian Empire was shrinking visibly and with it regional influence.
The Cold War was being conceded.It had effectively been lost.These were the dying days of the Soviet Union and financial mismanagement would dog the new Russia that would follow after.
Is this a good example of a strong Dictatorship?
If it is then Democracy need never fear.
I look forward to reading you closing statement Russian.
There is no doubt that Gorbachev brought in liberal reforms and he is rightly recognised for this but these reforms only seem impressive when compared with what preceded it.If these reforms are compared to every industrialised democracy of the same time they still fall well short of the rights and freedoms that are generally expected.
Russians never had it so good but then they could hardly of had it worse.
On the economy don't take my word for it.I've quoted generously from a site below.
"Gorbachev's new system bore the characteristics of neither central planning nor a market economy. Instead, the Soviet economy went from stagnation to deterioration. At the end of 1991, when the union officially dissolved, the national economy was in a virtual tailspin. In 1991 the Soviet GDP had declined 17 percent and was declining at an accelerating rate. Overt inflation was becoming a major problem. Between 1990 and 1991, retail prices in the Soviet Union increased 140 percent."
"Under these conditions, the general quality of life for Soviet consumers deteriorated. Consumers traditionally faced shortages of durable goods, but under Gorbachev, food, wearing apparel, and other basic necessities were in short supply. Fueled by the liberalized atmosphere of Gorbachev's glasnost (literally, public voicing--see Glossary) and by the general improvement in information access in the late 1980s, public dissatisfaction with economic conditions was much more overt than ever before in the Soviet period. The foreign-trade sector of the Soviet economy also showed signs of deterioration. The total Soviet hard-currency (see Glossary) debt increased appreciably, and the Soviet Union, which had established an impeccable record for debt repayment in earlier decades, had accumulated sizable arrearages by 1990."
"In sum, the Soviet Union left a legacy of economic inefficiency and deterioration to the fifteen constituent republics after its breakup in December 1991. Arguably, the shortcomings of the Gorbachev reforms had contributed to the economic decline and eventual destruction of the Soviet Union, leaving Russia and the other successor states to pick up the pieces and to try to mold modern, market-driven economies. At the same time, the Gorbachev programs did start Russia on the precarious road to full-scale economic reform. Perestroika broke Soviet taboos against private ownership of some types of business, foreign investment in the Soviet Union, foreign trade, and decentralized economic decision making, all of which made it virtually impossible for later policy makers to turn back the clock."
countrystudies.us...
So reforms were being made yet the economy was in a "tailspin".The Russian Empire was shrinking visibly and with it regional influence.
The Cold War was being conceded.It had effectively been lost.These were the dying days of the Soviet Union and financial mismanagement would dog the new Russia that would follow after.
Is this a good example of a strong Dictatorship?
If it is then Democracy need never fear.
I look forward to reading you closing statement Russian.
Pages: ^^TOP^^
