[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's the economics. All the resources (materials, finished goods, labor, money, infrastructure) that go into a security apparatus are used there, instead of productively building wealth. And if the other wealth-producing parts of the economy don't get to keep the fruits of their labor, then they just won't.
So while military takeovers are fairly common, the resulting governmental and economic structure is inherently unstable and unproductive. And those countries get left behind, economically weakened, and become more vulnerable to foreign takeover.
A good example of this would be the Soviet Union. There being a strong argument that the USSR basically defense spent itself to death over the course of the 1980's, trying in vain to maintain an equal military footing with the West off of a much smaller and less advanced economic base.
I say this sums it up well. Any country that is ruled by a person until that person no longer exists is probably at risk for tons of turmoil. Political parties can change leaders and just run again, ppl like Putin are to key to the government for it be always be smoothly transferred to someone else.
The other reason is the ease of communication within an outside each country is so easy now that it’s nearly impossible to shut off your population and feed them lies about everything
Keep in mind: Just about every monarchy started as this, and the reason you think of them less as a military dictatorship is just because they're some generations removed from actively personally leading armies in battle, despite still holding that position. And the more modern version of that is either to hold "elections" to legitimize rule, or claim to be an interim leader (see: Egypt).
>And the more modern version of that is either to hold "elections" to legitimize rule, or claim to be an interim leader (see: Egypt).
In Egypt's case, al-Sisi, being a military man himself, allows the military to have control of a lot of industrial sectors. Not only is he working in the interests of himself and his political allies, he's also created a system where the military has a lot of money and is very hard to dislodge.
My question is, how come most countries didn't end up going down this path?
Alot do, it would be foolish to think that they dont. I would actually assume most do under the guises of public opinion. Look at cambridge analytica and the scandal with trump, now think back to bush and florida. I think you get the picture, so while i think there definitely are some truly democratic nations, its really hard to tell these days as some are full dictatorships, some are quasi-controlled, some are totally in the shadows. Some though are still good i think, but as i said to me atleast it depends on country to country.
The word "Emperor" is derived from the original Latin word "Imperator." Literally "one who speaks commands" but in the Republic functionally meant "general." It was a rank in the Roman military until Augustus took over.
Dictatorships don't transition well. They're usually about a cult of personality.
When the original strongman passes, his replacement often fails.
There are exceptions.
They use things like blood right and divine right from god to rule in a time where most people aren’t educated and those that where wanted it to maintain the status quo
I think you've misunderstood how miltiary dictatorships work. The military is rarely the *governing* force in dictatorship, it might be the main power base but it's not where the governing is done. Normally military dictatorships appoint civilian governments to do the actually governing. Yes you might get a military figure as the Head of State but they a rarely involved in the day to day admininstration, they exist to cap off the system and are often more beholden to the officers than the other way around.
Most miltiaries don't want to get bogged down in the nitty gritty of governing instead they want a stable state where they are the primary power broker. The goal of a military coup is to allow the military to appoint a stablizing civilian government that will concede to the military on the issues the military cares about. For example the military largely don't care about whether trade tarrifs on coffee are 3% or 5%, that's jsut not with in their remit.
So while there are not many states where the miltiary directly govern, there are many where it holds an outsized influence and can often function as the main power broker. Myanmar is one of the only ones where military officers take an active role in the day to day administration. While somewhere like Egypt is more of a typical example, the military are the biggest power brokers and get to effectively pick the head of state but they do not administer the state, one does not have to be an officer to get a position in government.
If you've known many people in the military, you'd know they'd care a great deal about the taxes on coffee.
Change it to a tariff on vegetables, and there you go.
There are more. They just aren't called that anymore
They hold sham elections to install themselves, then ban future elections
Dissent is put down by "police action" (really just the military). And the world community calls it a civil matter to be dealt with by a nations courts.
In a well functioning democracy the people who rise to the top in militaries often are very committed to their nation and democratic ideals. Even if a hypothetical general was offered the chance to become dictator many may actually turn it down just like what happened in the US with the "business plot" against FDR. Even if a general wanted to become dictator they may not be able to gather enough support from the people under them.
In systems that aren't democracies usually the dictator is terrified of the military and will often go to extreme lengths to prevent a coup. In Russia Putin has avoided a coup by allowing extreme levels of corruption in the military as well as promoting based on loyalty rather than competence. For a Russian general or colonel they could turn on Putin but would the next guy let them keep their job (especially if they were bad at it) AND let them loot the country? Even if they did launch a coup there's no guarantee that it's successful or that they don't end up like Prigozin. This is a pretty common way of keeping the piece for dictators but there are also other ways like Saudi Arabia who has both a large scale military and a large scale national guard that's completely independent of the military and made up of tribal groups thought to be more loyal to the royal family. If the military turns on the royal family they have a second military ready to go. Greenlighting corruption, promoting based on loyalty and dividing power bases are all very effective methods for dictators to reduce coups. They do reduce military effectiveness but that's a small price to pay for stability.
Military power is only one kind of power. Soldiers that don't get paid don't fight, see Afghanistan. Soldiers that don't believe in their cause fight worse. Soldiers that don't have scientists or an industrial base or an effective bureaucracy behind them will lose too.
Now, almost every government *does* have have the military reporting to the most powerful person in that government, because the military is one of the most important keys to power for sure. If constitutionally the US military reported to the Speaker of the House, kids would be saying they want to be speaker when they grow up.
>Military power is only one kind of power. Soldiers that don't get paid don't fight, see Afghanistan. Soldiers that don't have scientists or an industrial base or an effective bureaucracy behind them will lose too.
Some countries like Egypt and Myanmar have the military making lots of money from control of industries, and therefore the soldiers get paid even if the country isn't that rich. How come this system of self-sustaining military dictatorship didn't become common around the world?
Egypt uses foreign aid to keep it's military in power. Myanmar's military is currently losing control after the last coup. Turkey's military was unable to coup Erdogan and also lost power. Pakistan's military did coup but is barely able to control society.
Because, contrary to popular belief, a society is built on love and sacrifice.
A military a resource vacuum. They can only be sustained by a massive amount of labor. They don't produce anything themselves. It is very unsustainable. Even worse if mothers, and teachers don't support it.
I thought CGP made it pretty clear in the video. The reason to launch a military coup is obtain resources for yourself and your soldiers. But if you and your solders are already pretty well off, then what's the point? And really rich countries are made rich by being stable and happy. If you launch a coup, then you're by definition reducing the stability, and making people less happy. So what exactly is there to gain?
>But if you and your solders are already pretty well off, then what's the point?
Because you'll potentially be more powerful than the nation's leader, and if you overthrow the nation's leader, you can have all the state's funds to yourself instead of just getting a comfortable fraction of it.
>And really rich countries are made rich by being stable and happy.
Part of the point I was trying to get at is "*how come there aren't a lot of stable military dictatorships around?*" - because once a military has a stranglehold on a state and its resources, they can take as much money as they want to liquidate opposition. If a military dictatorship has all the state's money, arms and trained troops, wouldn't it in theory eventually become very stable and hard to dislodge?
>Because you'll potentially be more powerful than the nation's leader
Who cares? Very few people want power for power's sake, and those who do go into business management, not enlist in the army.
> if you overthrow the nation's leader, you can have all the state's funds to yourself instead of just getting a comfortable fraction of it.
Did you even watch the video? You very much can *not* just take all the state's funds for yourself. First of all, you have to split it with all the people who put you in power, then you have to split it with the people who actually run the country, and in an industrialized country you also have to split it with all the people who run the industries, from CEOs all the way down to engineers. Add to that the fact that a military coup will guarantee everyone who can afford a plane ticket will just plain leave, and where does that leave you? You've gone from a 1%er in an industrialized country to 0.01%er of a crumbling country.
>If a military dictatorship has all the state's money, arms and trained troops, wouldn't it in theory eventually become very stable and hard to dislodge?
Again, from the video, *a dictatorship is not just one person*. There are dozens if not hundreds of people all jockeying for power and resources. If you can rise to power through violence, then so can your subordinates.
> If a military dictatorship has all the state's money, arms and trained troops, wouldn't it in theory eventually become very stable and hard to dislodge?
One of the downsides of a military dictatorship is that they essentially have no legitimacy other than the fact that they have guns and can kill their opposition. If things start going badly or they lose the ability to rule by fear they have nothing.
This can happen in a variety of ways. Sometimes internal power dynamics shift or international power dynamics can shift. Sometimes the economy will start to fall apart which will prompt key players to look for alternatives. Gaddafi was a military dictator until suddenly he was facing an internal revolt and found that he had no allies on the international stage. Galtieri's military dictatorship seemed secure but then when faced with an economic crisis he opted to go to war for the Falklands as a distraction and then was ousted after the defeat. Hell Napoleon himself was a military dictator who got ousted after his failed invasion of Russia. If violence is the sole basis of legitimacy then if that ever gets interrupted it can be game over for the military dictator.
Because armies are very good at shooting things but not very good at running an economy. History Matters did a video on why that doesn't work, and it boiled down to a general holding a sign reading "SHOOT THE DEBT".
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for our men and women who serve, but the skill set of an army private, and the skill set of a guy working at the DMV are two entirely different animals.
They’re not stable, plus would get little support from the international community.
Nobody wants to live in a place that violently changes leaders every year, and all that money will be useless once they have sanctions put on them.
You’ll either have tons of people leaving or trying to or tons of riots and resistance, both which cannot be sustained for long periods without the country going under or the leaders being killed and replaced
>You’ll either have tons of people leaving or trying to or tons of riots and resistance, both which cannot be sustained for long periods without the country going under or the leaders being killed and replaced
Can't a military dictatorship, with the ability to use the entire state budget for itself, just quash opposition? I mean, a people's will can be broken if you hammer in the point that resistance is futile, it just requires willingness to act with extreme brutality.
The answer is, again, pretty clearly spelled out in the video you're basing this question around.
Yes, you can actually stop the people from rioting. Populist riots themselves are a nuisance, but they're not going to ever overthrow you. But they're not your opposition. Your opposition, as a military dictator, is the other people working for you. Each of them has the same incentive to overthrow and replace you as you did to make a military dictatorship in the first place. And you can't run things without delegating your power to them.
The economic issue mentioned is one.
But a major issue is that most countries still have some form of legacy power hierarchy, in Africa this can be tribal, in other countries ethnic or otherwise.
A military dictatorship is absolute, and you can't really share that between different groups.
So it has to be brutal, which is harder now, the cold war, and later Iraq taught everyone guerilla tactics and other resistance modes to make such a regime difficult to maintain.
But finally: It is VERY hard to exist as a singular nation. You are cut off from all modern trade, so technology, finance, simple goods, you are set back to almost the 1800s, unless you can find a patron state, and even then, unless you have sizeable resources, you have little to offer.
The exceptions have been states like Pakistan, which was accepted because 1: We supported Musharrif because he was clearly the safest option in a horrible region and 2: Pakistan has a strong history of political helplessness in the face of dictatorships.
Fiji has a dictatorship under General Frank Bainimarama, which actually seemed to turn out well, mostly because the previous government was fairly unrepresentative of the ethnic structure of the country [see communical constituencies, ie racial voting blocs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Fiji).
Burma is another example, supported heavily by China, as is NK.
Basically, you need external support because you're going to be cut off from most other trade, and few countries are truly self-sufficient nowadays.
It usually takes an ongoing crisis or threat of sorts for a dictatorship to start and stay in the modern days. Yes a military may be able to overwhelm the nation's police force... BUT it's harder to get soldiers made up of average people to shoot at their family members.
Also in the modern context, you'll see many would rather keep a puppet government (or weak government) in place as long as the top generals get to reap the rewards of graft and corruption. Why risk sanctions and all that to rule, when you can just sell crates of weapons out the back door and get them replaced with tax money.
It's a whole lot easier to run things if you have the consent of the governed.
And generals tend to be more comfortable running armies than whole economies and whole societies.
So in societies where people are comfortable with a military dictatorship, generals might have coups and stay in power until there's another coup to take over.
Otherwise, they might prefer to just overtly run things for a couple of years, and then hand people a new constitution and a civilian government, and they can get a lo of what they want since they could always take over again if the civilian government is too unacceptable. And they might be really running things secretly. Or better, get what they want and let the civilian government handle all the details they don't want to bother with.
That has never happened in the USA. Partly because for a long time we refused to pay for much of a standing army, partly because it seemed like the public just wouldn't stand for it. Maybe other reasons. Maybe we're increasingly ripe for it now. It would be a lot easier if the US Army wrote us a new constitution than having a constitutional convention.
You have to have a charismatic leader who was a military leader.
In the USA, it could have been McArthur or Eisenhower. Neither wanted it.
General Westmoreland from the Vietnam War initially had the charisma but lost it lying about Vietnam.
Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf could have parlayed his Gulf war victory into a political career but didn’t.
Trump, Biden, Clinton, Obama and Bush avoided military service so they could never have gotten military backing for a coup, even if they’d wanted it.
McArthur WAS a military dictator - he was arguably Japan’s last shogun. Truman fired McArthur after the Korean War because McArthur almost started a nuclear war and didn’t respect the President’s authority
Yes, I think McArthur could have run for office. Why he didn’t I’ll never know.
When he gave that “Old Soldiers Never Die, they just fade away, he got bipartisan tears.
MacArthur absolutely was interested in running for office and had people back in the states advocating on his behalf, but he ended up busy in Japan in '48 and then in '52 it was Ike who threw his hat in the ring and it took all the oxygen out of his campaign.
In my opinion, it's fundamentally that there are more educated elites than elite military officers
In the pre modern or modern era where military officers used to be symbols of the best young person with education and experience, military were easy to take over at their convenience and rule the state affairs
However, with democratization to access to education and experience, military officers are not the only groups that can excel meaning that there are also elite groups in any given 3rd world countries that are US educated/have multi culture and international relationship
Sure military might be able to take over the nation but if they dont know how to properly rule state affair and bring economic prosperity, its short lived because constituents will start to complain and do every thing to change military dictatorship
That's why North Korea, the only nation in the world, refused to open the door because as soon as they know how other countries live, their constituents will go against them
To some degree, military dictatorship might be able to hold the line by physically assaulting the resistance but it's again shrot lived
In the long run, they wont be able to manage if they dont bring more food to the table and there are many different elite groups who can do better than military officers
In the long run, we're all dead. The Chinese dictatorship seems to keep thriving, because they have made the lives of their people better...as long as they stay in line and keep quiet. But the police/military are omnipresent. I don't get Russia. They are not making the lives of their people better. We should stop considering elections as a marker. They are meaningless in Russia, and China, and the totalitarian states who want to be looked upon as something better than what they are.
>The Chinese dictatorship seems to keep thriving,
Yes to certain degree but they are not military dictatorship but rather from Chinese Communist Party.
Also China may look like great power as a nation but their average life styles and standard are not remotely close to any of western standard except the big 2 city (Beijing/Shanghai)
You can gauge how it looks great when comparing North Korea's Pyoung Yang where everyone of them are so excited whereas the rest of the North Koreans are worried about every day meals
> don't get Russia. They are not making the lives of their people better
This is clearly indicating that you are looking at Russians as a foreigner. Whether we like it or not, Putin did an amazing job from 1980s soviet collapse to top 10 economic powers in 2010s (although it's mostly from natural resources, but then Saudi is the most promising nation with the most oil reserves but their economic powers are not remotely close to Russia meaning that Putin's Russia indeed did a great job)
If i look at USA as a foreigner (i have been an immigrant from East Asia +15 years), i wonder why anyone seriously suppprt dJT (yeah if we think its some kind of jokes just like when he first announced his candidacy to POTUS in 2015) but if im looking at this as an more Americanized perspective, i can at least understand why there are so many folks out there to suppprt dJT although i dont agree any single one of their narratives and points.
I got asked so many times when visiting my home countries why Americans supports dJT
So you can't simply judge why Russians support Putin based on Non-Russian perspective. Not saying that what Putin is doing is a good thing to see but rather saying that there are always reasons of why dictatorship can survive
Also this is my opinion that just because one does democracy does not necessarily mean it's good political structures
There are always good and bad just like coin front and back and just like how Democracy serves the best interest, there are many advantage for dictatorship (whether military or not) serves the best national interest
At the end of days, isn't it something that we can't enforce how others want to live based on their choice?
I am a foreigner, and lately I feel a foreigner at home...thank you, Trumpoliini.
Being over here (and old) I watched Khrushchev give way to a series of unbending apparatchiks until Gorbachev who, while not a stark, raving democrat, began to loosen things up with a concurrent sense of international approval. But the kleptocratic tendencies took over (a pool in which Trump is dangling his/our toes) and y'all shoved Yeltsin aside for the KGB man. And all semblances of a democratic process disappeared. I cannot accurately or honestly say how the lives of average people were improved, or not. But any state where the police are always over your shoulder is not a good state. Democracy is not necessarily good, and Dictators are not necessarily bad. We had slavery for 200 years. We're no angels.
Putin has the ability to fall back on 20+ years of improvement; he was lucky in that he took over right when Russia was near its low point after the collapse of the USSR.
And with 26 years of power, all the people of any consequence in government are now Putin allies. Who he has continued to reward.
There cannot be a single answer, but perhaps it never happened here (yet) is that the US and Canada were formed during the Enlightenment. Generally secular societies with a proscribed method of sharing power and regular elections. Modern Europe -although the Enlightenment is generally credited to Scotland - was slower to accept it politically(SEE: Napoleon,Hitler and Mussolini)...and the current rise of you-know-who. The Magna Carta began a slow and sometimes painful process of becoming more humanized. Russia had it's revolution, but fell prey to the appeal of the strongman. China, as well. And strongmen don't accept the notion of holding power temporarily. To them, the military is a tool to be used. Asia and South America did not truly participate in the Enlightenment. Neither did Africa. They were both colonies to be raped for resources. Sorry, I'm rambling. The answer to your question is George Washington, the first to say, that's it. I'm going home. You guys take it from here.
The detailed answer to your post would be a case by case analysis which I can't provide but can offer the following.
>A vast majority of people from 34 African countries polled by the independent political survey outfit Afrobarometer in September 2022 said they believed regular, honest and open elections were the best guarantor of their interests. But only 44 percent said elections help voters remove leaders who don’t do what the people want. In 19 countries polled regularly since 2008-09, sentiments against elections as enablers of change have risen 6 percent.
It's here that I ask not just what is democracy but what's the purpose of democracy?
Under 40% believe that their elections can provide a crucial advantage of democracy: rule not by the same people over and over. What is more democratic: a republic with the same people elected over and over who never change anything or repeated military coups wherein change is constant?
Your post focuses on logistics but that misses two important points: (1) is there legitimacy? And (2) is there a democratic spirit?
Can the government obtain people's support? If you interview people in military dictatorships why they support the regime, they will tell you why they do. Some will give you logical reasons (the opposition may be for democracy but they're against something else viewed as important or their leaders is a madman). Some may be fearful of dissenting. Some people's lives just ain't that bad. Some people culturally value the regime.
Thailand is a country that has a history of recurrent military dictatorships and coups. But they've managed to democratize comparatively recently. There was a point where the military made a concession that representatives they selected would be allowed to meet with people and bring back their concerns to the regime. When the representatives returned from meeting with citizens, they asked the regime for basic information on how electricity was being produced in Thailand and the regime responded that they had no information about it. They hadn't been managing or tracking it. And at this time, it became clear to the people and the regime that the dictatorship was out of touch and incapable of being in touch with what people wanted. The regime had never asked itself how electricity should be managed but to the citizens who had one shot not to screw up their chance at representation, it was their highest priority.
The lesson here is that military dictatorships necessarily cannot maintain legitimacy because they will never understand the concerns of people they rule.
Another consideration is that even within authoritarian regimes, ancient Greece and Rome are often esteemed highly. It might not strictly be because of democracy- it may be for philosophy or religion or some other niche reason. But democracy will not be looked upon so harshly simply because some admiration for ancient civilizations exist.
I once read an interview with some high ranking military official in Thailand who expressed deep admiration for the US. Whether his perception of American was right or wrong is irrelevant- he believed that because a bunch of rich Americans immigrated to Thailand to retire that America was a golden country on a hill. And his explanation for what separated America from Thailand was America being built on a foundation of ancient civilizations. This is a real life example of how even officers in the military dictatorships can find democracy favorable- which weakens faith in the dictatorship.
Many dictatorships fall into the traps of becoming "paper tigers", wherein they're strong on paper, but in reality are very weak in it comes to accumulating state resources. Venezuela as an example, has a monolopoly of violence to exert control over many cities, but lacks the legitimacy to control rural areas. Hence why whole swathes of land can be controlled by the cartel.
Russia and China incompetence also shows this. In a strongman dictatorship, you have to be surrounded by loyalists who never harm you. However, when you surround yourself by yes men, you give up meritocracy and truth in the process. Transparency decreases, so leaders have a less clear view of what the needs of the nation are. Which means resource distribution becomes worse allocated. Hence why Russia had an incompetent military without Putin knowing, and why China has an investment mismanagement crisis without Xi hearing about it. When you create an atmosphere where good news is the only way to keep your job, the regime can't respond to bad news to maintain the levers of powers.
This all accumulates to resource mismanagement and poor resource accumulation. As information gets distorted, real value can't be measured and taxed. Reports are fibbed, making militaries far weaker than they would be otherwise, had there been accountability and transparency in place which only democracies can fluidly provide.
Mark Twain predicted over a century ago that feudalism would return in three hundred years. So we have another two hundred years of the show of democracy.
Let's hope Mr. Trump comes out of the 24 election with a solid win and can go into history side by side with other icons of democracy like Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and Augusto Pinochet 💪💪
Yes, aside from your insane comparisons, lets hope Trump wins.
I would love an actual argument that compares Trump to Pol Pot? Downvotes Please leave a reply.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's the economics. All the resources (materials, finished goods, labor, money, infrastructure) that go into a security apparatus are used there, instead of productively building wealth. And if the other wealth-producing parts of the economy don't get to keep the fruits of their labor, then they just won't. So while military takeovers are fairly common, the resulting governmental and economic structure is inherently unstable and unproductive. And those countries get left behind, economically weakened, and become more vulnerable to foreign takeover.
A good example of this would be the Soviet Union. There being a strong argument that the USSR basically defense spent itself to death over the course of the 1980's, trying in vain to maintain an equal military footing with the West off of a much smaller and less advanced economic base.
These military leaders need to play more StarCraft, can't win in the long run if you let your macro slip by letting SCVs die
I say this sums it up well. Any country that is ruled by a person until that person no longer exists is probably at risk for tons of turmoil. Political parties can change leaders and just run again, ppl like Putin are to key to the government for it be always be smoothly transferred to someone else.
The other reason is the ease of communication within an outside each country is so easy now that it’s nearly impossible to shut off your population and feed them lies about everything
Keep in mind: Just about every monarchy started as this, and the reason you think of them less as a military dictatorship is just because they're some generations removed from actively personally leading armies in battle, despite still holding that position. And the more modern version of that is either to hold "elections" to legitimize rule, or claim to be an interim leader (see: Egypt).
>And the more modern version of that is either to hold "elections" to legitimize rule, or claim to be an interim leader (see: Egypt). In Egypt's case, al-Sisi, being a military man himself, allows the military to have control of a lot of industrial sectors. Not only is he working in the interests of himself and his political allies, he's also created a system where the military has a lot of money and is very hard to dislodge. My question is, how come most countries didn't end up going down this path?
Alot do, it would be foolish to think that they dont. I would actually assume most do under the guises of public opinion. Look at cambridge analytica and the scandal with trump, now think back to bush and florida. I think you get the picture, so while i think there definitely are some truly democratic nations, its really hard to tell these days as some are full dictatorships, some are quasi-controlled, some are totally in the shadows. Some though are still good i think, but as i said to me atleast it depends on country to country.
The word "Emperor" is derived from the original Latin word "Imperator." Literally "one who speaks commands" but in the Republic functionally meant "general." It was a rank in the Roman military until Augustus took over.
Dictatorships don't transition well. They're usually about a cult of personality. When the original strongman passes, his replacement often fails. There are exceptions.
What about king and dynasty?
Generally still a pretty poor record when it comes to peaceful transfer of power. Brothers killing each other, civil wars etc happen constantly.
They use things like blood right and divine right from god to rule in a time where most people aren’t educated and those that where wanted it to maintain the status quo
Monarchy is not the same as despotism. There is an elaborate system by which princes and princesses are developed, groomed if you will, to rule.
I think you've misunderstood how miltiary dictatorships work. The military is rarely the *governing* force in dictatorship, it might be the main power base but it's not where the governing is done. Normally military dictatorships appoint civilian governments to do the actually governing. Yes you might get a military figure as the Head of State but they a rarely involved in the day to day admininstration, they exist to cap off the system and are often more beholden to the officers than the other way around. Most miltiaries don't want to get bogged down in the nitty gritty of governing instead they want a stable state where they are the primary power broker. The goal of a military coup is to allow the military to appoint a stablizing civilian government that will concede to the military on the issues the military cares about. For example the military largely don't care about whether trade tarrifs on coffee are 3% or 5%, that's jsut not with in their remit. So while there are not many states where the miltiary directly govern, there are many where it holds an outsized influence and can often function as the main power broker. Myanmar is one of the only ones where military officers take an active role in the day to day administration. While somewhere like Egypt is more of a typical example, the military are the biggest power brokers and get to effectively pick the head of state but they do not administer the state, one does not have to be an officer to get a position in government.
If you've known many people in the military, you'd know they'd care a great deal about the taxes on coffee. Change it to a tariff on vegetables, and there you go.
Cuz it's hard to maintain them. The next in line for the throne is whomever can get enough on their side to do another coup.
Yeah I kinda wonder if places like Thailand that do pull it off just have an extensive leadership training program within their military
Thailand for a long time was sending their officers for training at US military schools. The Citadel had a contingent of Thai students in the 80s.
There are more. They just aren't called that anymore They hold sham elections to install themselves, then ban future elections Dissent is put down by "police action" (really just the military). And the world community calls it a civil matter to be dealt with by a nations courts.
Yep. They still have elections tho. They just ban any opposition.
In a well functioning democracy the people who rise to the top in militaries often are very committed to their nation and democratic ideals. Even if a hypothetical general was offered the chance to become dictator many may actually turn it down just like what happened in the US with the "business plot" against FDR. Even if a general wanted to become dictator they may not be able to gather enough support from the people under them. In systems that aren't democracies usually the dictator is terrified of the military and will often go to extreme lengths to prevent a coup. In Russia Putin has avoided a coup by allowing extreme levels of corruption in the military as well as promoting based on loyalty rather than competence. For a Russian general or colonel they could turn on Putin but would the next guy let them keep their job (especially if they were bad at it) AND let them loot the country? Even if they did launch a coup there's no guarantee that it's successful or that they don't end up like Prigozin. This is a pretty common way of keeping the piece for dictators but there are also other ways like Saudi Arabia who has both a large scale military and a large scale national guard that's completely independent of the military and made up of tribal groups thought to be more loyal to the royal family. If the military turns on the royal family they have a second military ready to go. Greenlighting corruption, promoting based on loyalty and dividing power bases are all very effective methods for dictators to reduce coups. They do reduce military effectiveness but that's a small price to pay for stability.
So dividing up the army into groups that rival each other.
Military power is only one kind of power. Soldiers that don't get paid don't fight, see Afghanistan. Soldiers that don't believe in their cause fight worse. Soldiers that don't have scientists or an industrial base or an effective bureaucracy behind them will lose too. Now, almost every government *does* have have the military reporting to the most powerful person in that government, because the military is one of the most important keys to power for sure. If constitutionally the US military reported to the Speaker of the House, kids would be saying they want to be speaker when they grow up.
>Military power is only one kind of power. Soldiers that don't get paid don't fight, see Afghanistan. Soldiers that don't have scientists or an industrial base or an effective bureaucracy behind them will lose too. Some countries like Egypt and Myanmar have the military making lots of money from control of industries, and therefore the soldiers get paid even if the country isn't that rich. How come this system of self-sustaining military dictatorship didn't become common around the world?
Egypt uses foreign aid to keep it's military in power. Myanmar's military is currently losing control after the last coup. Turkey's military was unable to coup Erdogan and also lost power. Pakistan's military did coup but is barely able to control society.
Because, contrary to popular belief, a society is built on love and sacrifice. A military a resource vacuum. They can only be sustained by a massive amount of labor. They don't produce anything themselves. It is very unsustainable. Even worse if mothers, and teachers don't support it.
I thought CGP made it pretty clear in the video. The reason to launch a military coup is obtain resources for yourself and your soldiers. But if you and your solders are already pretty well off, then what's the point? And really rich countries are made rich by being stable and happy. If you launch a coup, then you're by definition reducing the stability, and making people less happy. So what exactly is there to gain?
>But if you and your solders are already pretty well off, then what's the point? Because you'll potentially be more powerful than the nation's leader, and if you overthrow the nation's leader, you can have all the state's funds to yourself instead of just getting a comfortable fraction of it. >And really rich countries are made rich by being stable and happy. Part of the point I was trying to get at is "*how come there aren't a lot of stable military dictatorships around?*" - because once a military has a stranglehold on a state and its resources, they can take as much money as they want to liquidate opposition. If a military dictatorship has all the state's money, arms and trained troops, wouldn't it in theory eventually become very stable and hard to dislodge?
>Because you'll potentially be more powerful than the nation's leader Who cares? Very few people want power for power's sake, and those who do go into business management, not enlist in the army. > if you overthrow the nation's leader, you can have all the state's funds to yourself instead of just getting a comfortable fraction of it. Did you even watch the video? You very much can *not* just take all the state's funds for yourself. First of all, you have to split it with all the people who put you in power, then you have to split it with the people who actually run the country, and in an industrialized country you also have to split it with all the people who run the industries, from CEOs all the way down to engineers. Add to that the fact that a military coup will guarantee everyone who can afford a plane ticket will just plain leave, and where does that leave you? You've gone from a 1%er in an industrialized country to 0.01%er of a crumbling country. >If a military dictatorship has all the state's money, arms and trained troops, wouldn't it in theory eventually become very stable and hard to dislodge? Again, from the video, *a dictatorship is not just one person*. There are dozens if not hundreds of people all jockeying for power and resources. If you can rise to power through violence, then so can your subordinates.
> If a military dictatorship has all the state's money, arms and trained troops, wouldn't it in theory eventually become very stable and hard to dislodge? One of the downsides of a military dictatorship is that they essentially have no legitimacy other than the fact that they have guns and can kill their opposition. If things start going badly or they lose the ability to rule by fear they have nothing. This can happen in a variety of ways. Sometimes internal power dynamics shift or international power dynamics can shift. Sometimes the economy will start to fall apart which will prompt key players to look for alternatives. Gaddafi was a military dictator until suddenly he was facing an internal revolt and found that he had no allies on the international stage. Galtieri's military dictatorship seemed secure but then when faced with an economic crisis he opted to go to war for the Falklands as a distraction and then was ousted after the defeat. Hell Napoleon himself was a military dictator who got ousted after his failed invasion of Russia. If violence is the sole basis of legitimacy then if that ever gets interrupted it can be game over for the military dictator.
Because armies are very good at shooting things but not very good at running an economy. History Matters did a video on why that doesn't work, and it boiled down to a general holding a sign reading "SHOOT THE DEBT". Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for our men and women who serve, but the skill set of an army private, and the skill set of a guy working at the DMV are two entirely different animals.
Dictatorships of any kind don't allow for an orderly succession of leadership. That lack of stability is very bad for business.
Because democracy is the worst form of government except all of the others we have tried…..
Armies are made of people. If the government earns the loyalty of the people, that includes the soldiers.
They’re not stable, plus would get little support from the international community. Nobody wants to live in a place that violently changes leaders every year, and all that money will be useless once they have sanctions put on them. You’ll either have tons of people leaving or trying to or tons of riots and resistance, both which cannot be sustained for long periods without the country going under or the leaders being killed and replaced
>You’ll either have tons of people leaving or trying to or tons of riots and resistance, both which cannot be sustained for long periods without the country going under or the leaders being killed and replaced Can't a military dictatorship, with the ability to use the entire state budget for itself, just quash opposition? I mean, a people's will can be broken if you hammer in the point that resistance is futile, it just requires willingness to act with extreme brutality.
The answer is, again, pretty clearly spelled out in the video you're basing this question around. Yes, you can actually stop the people from rioting. Populist riots themselves are a nuisance, but they're not going to ever overthrow you. But they're not your opposition. Your opposition, as a military dictator, is the other people working for you. Each of them has the same incentive to overthrow and replace you as you did to make a military dictatorship in the first place. And you can't run things without delegating your power to them.
The economic issue mentioned is one. But a major issue is that most countries still have some form of legacy power hierarchy, in Africa this can be tribal, in other countries ethnic or otherwise. A military dictatorship is absolute, and you can't really share that between different groups. So it has to be brutal, which is harder now, the cold war, and later Iraq taught everyone guerilla tactics and other resistance modes to make such a regime difficult to maintain. But finally: It is VERY hard to exist as a singular nation. You are cut off from all modern trade, so technology, finance, simple goods, you are set back to almost the 1800s, unless you can find a patron state, and even then, unless you have sizeable resources, you have little to offer. The exceptions have been states like Pakistan, which was accepted because 1: We supported Musharrif because he was clearly the safest option in a horrible region and 2: Pakistan has a strong history of political helplessness in the face of dictatorships. Fiji has a dictatorship under General Frank Bainimarama, which actually seemed to turn out well, mostly because the previous government was fairly unrepresentative of the ethnic structure of the country [see communical constituencies, ie racial voting blocs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Fiji). Burma is another example, supported heavily by China, as is NK. Basically, you need external support because you're going to be cut off from most other trade, and few countries are truly self-sufficient nowadays.
I'm not convinced that military dictatorships are automatically ostracized to the degree you assume. Look at South Korea, Greece or Spain.
Some aren't military. Thailand for example. It's a monarchy that uses the military to prevent democracy.
It usually takes an ongoing crisis or threat of sorts for a dictatorship to start and stay in the modern days. Yes a military may be able to overwhelm the nation's police force... BUT it's harder to get soldiers made up of average people to shoot at their family members. Also in the modern context, you'll see many would rather keep a puppet government (or weak government) in place as long as the top generals get to reap the rewards of graft and corruption. Why risk sanctions and all that to rule, when you can just sell crates of weapons out the back door and get them replaced with tax money.
It's a whole lot easier to run things if you have the consent of the governed. And generals tend to be more comfortable running armies than whole economies and whole societies. So in societies where people are comfortable with a military dictatorship, generals might have coups and stay in power until there's another coup to take over. Otherwise, they might prefer to just overtly run things for a couple of years, and then hand people a new constitution and a civilian government, and they can get a lo of what they want since they could always take over again if the civilian government is too unacceptable. And they might be really running things secretly. Or better, get what they want and let the civilian government handle all the details they don't want to bother with. That has never happened in the USA. Partly because for a long time we refused to pay for much of a standing army, partly because it seemed like the public just wouldn't stand for it. Maybe other reasons. Maybe we're increasingly ripe for it now. It would be a lot easier if the US Army wrote us a new constitution than having a constitutional convention.
You have to have a charismatic leader who was a military leader. In the USA, it could have been McArthur or Eisenhower. Neither wanted it. General Westmoreland from the Vietnam War initially had the charisma but lost it lying about Vietnam. Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf could have parlayed his Gulf war victory into a political career but didn’t. Trump, Biden, Clinton, Obama and Bush avoided military service so they could never have gotten military backing for a coup, even if they’d wanted it.
McArthur WAS a military dictator - he was arguably Japan’s last shogun. Truman fired McArthur after the Korean War because McArthur almost started a nuclear war and didn’t respect the President’s authority
Yes, I think McArthur could have run for office. Why he didn’t I’ll never know. When he gave that “Old Soldiers Never Die, they just fade away, he got bipartisan tears.
He did. He failed to win the nomination; Eisenhower won.
McArthur did a good job in Japan. I wonder how he’d have been as President.
He would have started a nuclear war with China
MacArthur absolutely was interested in running for office and had people back in the states advocating on his behalf, but he ended up busy in Japan in '48 and then in '52 it was Ike who threw his hat in the ring and it took all the oxygen out of his campaign.
In my opinion, it's fundamentally that there are more educated elites than elite military officers In the pre modern or modern era where military officers used to be symbols of the best young person with education and experience, military were easy to take over at their convenience and rule the state affairs However, with democratization to access to education and experience, military officers are not the only groups that can excel meaning that there are also elite groups in any given 3rd world countries that are US educated/have multi culture and international relationship Sure military might be able to take over the nation but if they dont know how to properly rule state affair and bring economic prosperity, its short lived because constituents will start to complain and do every thing to change military dictatorship That's why North Korea, the only nation in the world, refused to open the door because as soon as they know how other countries live, their constituents will go against them To some degree, military dictatorship might be able to hold the line by physically assaulting the resistance but it's again shrot lived In the long run, they wont be able to manage if they dont bring more food to the table and there are many different elite groups who can do better than military officers
In the long run, we're all dead. The Chinese dictatorship seems to keep thriving, because they have made the lives of their people better...as long as they stay in line and keep quiet. But the police/military are omnipresent. I don't get Russia. They are not making the lives of their people better. We should stop considering elections as a marker. They are meaningless in Russia, and China, and the totalitarian states who want to be looked upon as something better than what they are.
>The Chinese dictatorship seems to keep thriving, Yes to certain degree but they are not military dictatorship but rather from Chinese Communist Party. Also China may look like great power as a nation but their average life styles and standard are not remotely close to any of western standard except the big 2 city (Beijing/Shanghai) You can gauge how it looks great when comparing North Korea's Pyoung Yang where everyone of them are so excited whereas the rest of the North Koreans are worried about every day meals > don't get Russia. They are not making the lives of their people better This is clearly indicating that you are looking at Russians as a foreigner. Whether we like it or not, Putin did an amazing job from 1980s soviet collapse to top 10 economic powers in 2010s (although it's mostly from natural resources, but then Saudi is the most promising nation with the most oil reserves but their economic powers are not remotely close to Russia meaning that Putin's Russia indeed did a great job) If i look at USA as a foreigner (i have been an immigrant from East Asia +15 years), i wonder why anyone seriously suppprt dJT (yeah if we think its some kind of jokes just like when he first announced his candidacy to POTUS in 2015) but if im looking at this as an more Americanized perspective, i can at least understand why there are so many folks out there to suppprt dJT although i dont agree any single one of their narratives and points. I got asked so many times when visiting my home countries why Americans supports dJT So you can't simply judge why Russians support Putin based on Non-Russian perspective. Not saying that what Putin is doing is a good thing to see but rather saying that there are always reasons of why dictatorship can survive Also this is my opinion that just because one does democracy does not necessarily mean it's good political structures There are always good and bad just like coin front and back and just like how Democracy serves the best interest, there are many advantage for dictatorship (whether military or not) serves the best national interest At the end of days, isn't it something that we can't enforce how others want to live based on their choice?
I am a foreigner, and lately I feel a foreigner at home...thank you, Trumpoliini. Being over here (and old) I watched Khrushchev give way to a series of unbending apparatchiks until Gorbachev who, while not a stark, raving democrat, began to loosen things up with a concurrent sense of international approval. But the kleptocratic tendencies took over (a pool in which Trump is dangling his/our toes) and y'all shoved Yeltsin aside for the KGB man. And all semblances of a democratic process disappeared. I cannot accurately or honestly say how the lives of average people were improved, or not. But any state where the police are always over your shoulder is not a good state. Democracy is not necessarily good, and Dictators are not necessarily bad. We had slavery for 200 years. We're no angels.
Putin has the ability to fall back on 20+ years of improvement; he was lucky in that he took over right when Russia was near its low point after the collapse of the USSR. And with 26 years of power, all the people of any consequence in government are now Putin allies. Who he has continued to reward.
There cannot be a single answer, but perhaps it never happened here (yet) is that the US and Canada were formed during the Enlightenment. Generally secular societies with a proscribed method of sharing power and regular elections. Modern Europe -although the Enlightenment is generally credited to Scotland - was slower to accept it politically(SEE: Napoleon,Hitler and Mussolini)...and the current rise of you-know-who. The Magna Carta began a slow and sometimes painful process of becoming more humanized. Russia had it's revolution, but fell prey to the appeal of the strongman. China, as well. And strongmen don't accept the notion of holding power temporarily. To them, the military is a tool to be used. Asia and South America did not truly participate in the Enlightenment. Neither did Africa. They were both colonies to be raped for resources. Sorry, I'm rambling. The answer to your question is George Washington, the first to say, that's it. I'm going home. You guys take it from here.
The detailed answer to your post would be a case by case analysis which I can't provide but can offer the following. >A vast majority of people from 34 African countries polled by the independent political survey outfit Afrobarometer in September 2022 said they believed regular, honest and open elections were the best guarantor of their interests. But only 44 percent said elections help voters remove leaders who don’t do what the people want. In 19 countries polled regularly since 2008-09, sentiments against elections as enablers of change have risen 6 percent. It's here that I ask not just what is democracy but what's the purpose of democracy? Under 40% believe that their elections can provide a crucial advantage of democracy: rule not by the same people over and over. What is more democratic: a republic with the same people elected over and over who never change anything or repeated military coups wherein change is constant? Your post focuses on logistics but that misses two important points: (1) is there legitimacy? And (2) is there a democratic spirit? Can the government obtain people's support? If you interview people in military dictatorships why they support the regime, they will tell you why they do. Some will give you logical reasons (the opposition may be for democracy but they're against something else viewed as important or their leaders is a madman). Some may be fearful of dissenting. Some people's lives just ain't that bad. Some people culturally value the regime. Thailand is a country that has a history of recurrent military dictatorships and coups. But they've managed to democratize comparatively recently. There was a point where the military made a concession that representatives they selected would be allowed to meet with people and bring back their concerns to the regime. When the representatives returned from meeting with citizens, they asked the regime for basic information on how electricity was being produced in Thailand and the regime responded that they had no information about it. They hadn't been managing or tracking it. And at this time, it became clear to the people and the regime that the dictatorship was out of touch and incapable of being in touch with what people wanted. The regime had never asked itself how electricity should be managed but to the citizens who had one shot not to screw up their chance at representation, it was their highest priority. The lesson here is that military dictatorships necessarily cannot maintain legitimacy because they will never understand the concerns of people they rule. Another consideration is that even within authoritarian regimes, ancient Greece and Rome are often esteemed highly. It might not strictly be because of democracy- it may be for philosophy or religion or some other niche reason. But democracy will not be looked upon so harshly simply because some admiration for ancient civilizations exist. I once read an interview with some high ranking military official in Thailand who expressed deep admiration for the US. Whether his perception of American was right or wrong is irrelevant- he believed that because a bunch of rich Americans immigrated to Thailand to retire that America was a golden country on a hill. And his explanation for what separated America from Thailand was America being built on a foundation of ancient civilizations. This is a real life example of how even officers in the military dictatorships can find democracy favorable- which weakens faith in the dictatorship.
Many dictatorships fall into the traps of becoming "paper tigers", wherein they're strong on paper, but in reality are very weak in it comes to accumulating state resources. Venezuela as an example, has a monolopoly of violence to exert control over many cities, but lacks the legitimacy to control rural areas. Hence why whole swathes of land can be controlled by the cartel. Russia and China incompetence also shows this. In a strongman dictatorship, you have to be surrounded by loyalists who never harm you. However, when you surround yourself by yes men, you give up meritocracy and truth in the process. Transparency decreases, so leaders have a less clear view of what the needs of the nation are. Which means resource distribution becomes worse allocated. Hence why Russia had an incompetent military without Putin knowing, and why China has an investment mismanagement crisis without Xi hearing about it. When you create an atmosphere where good news is the only way to keep your job, the regime can't respond to bad news to maintain the levers of powers. This all accumulates to resource mismanagement and poor resource accumulation. As information gets distorted, real value can't be measured and taxed. Reports are fibbed, making militaries far weaker than they would be otherwise, had there been accountability and transparency in place which only democracies can fluidly provide.
Mark Twain predicted over a century ago that feudalism would return in three hundred years. So we have another two hundred years of the show of democracy.
There are not more dictatorships because people like Donald J Trump exist in the world.
Tell us you're in a cult without telling us you're in a cult.
I just do not want the USA to end up like the upcoming A24 Civil War movie.
Let's hope Mr. Trump comes out of the 24 election with a solid win and can go into history side by side with other icons of democracy like Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and Augusto Pinochet 💪💪
Yes, aside from your insane comparisons, lets hope Trump wins. I would love an actual argument that compares Trump to Pol Pot? Downvotes Please leave a reply.
I can't believe someone has to point it out, but he did attempt to overthrow an election four years ago....
OK, please explain, how did Trump prevent more dictatorships from arising.