Based on what you told me, my thought is that he is hording power and increasingly acting as a dictator, effectively. This means that democracy in the west is being increasingly threatened. Personally, I think this is because Western Democracies are increasingly becoming ineffectual, unable to deliver the services people expect from government. In fact, they are ticking the people off more and more. This is why the extreme right is gaining increasing popularity.

Well, I agree with human rights as services the government delivers, to its citizens. But I see human rights as a service in demand, not as some abstract hoo hoo that's issued by some power in objective reality and that we are required to obey. As a service in demand by citizens, I think it's imperative to guarantee them, even if you are a dictator. But I disagree that it is the case that Democracy has a monopoly on this service.

Well on the historical record, democracies have tended to guarantee human rights better and have been more stable. But I can counter by saying that dictatorship in modern times has not tended to be acquired by military or administrative talent or accomplishment, rather by dynastic succession or demagoguery. In these two cases, crazy idealistic people tend to come to power and they see little need to make pragmatic decisions. They have some idealistic and utopian view of the world, and don't see government as a supplier of services and that to maintain power requires an efficient delivery of those services. Moreover, there have only been a few cases where a talented and accomplished individual ever exercised absolute power, and in most every case they have been exceptional and had a better understanding of this fact. This is proven by the meritocratic succession during the Five Good Emperor in Roman history, Emperors who weren't dumb and they delivered. They had a nice resume before ruling too.

So my point is this. Dictatorships can better guarantee rights, and it is in their best interest to do so. However, the reason dictatorships in modern times have not done so is because of stupidity. It takes an exceptional person with a pragmatic mind to pull it off. A democracy of idiots is better than a dictatorship of one idiot, but why go for the lesser evil when you can have the good? In fact, you can guarantee the good by meritocratic succession, the Romans did it for almost a century defacto.

Oh yes. One more thing. The recipe for consistent success is intelligence and pragmatism.

Haha. Well selection of a Democratic candidate has nothing to do with analysis and merit. Just look at the American election.

And the way the Romans did it was the Emperor selected a younger successor (by adoption), on the basis of merit. He knew who had talent and a good resume in the empire. Not that they were necessarily the best man for the job, but of very high quality nevertheless. There was, after all, a relationship with the Emperor. There wasn't a hiring process, more like a person the Emperor knew, liked, and thought was capable. Still good enough, after all five successive emperors were called "The Five Good Emperors."

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

And there, you highlight the very flaw of your system: that there is no objective "best" candidate.  Hell, there's not even an objective definition for "decent" candidate.  Notice that there were only five good emperors.  If one emperor screws up, the system goes into a tailspin. >>

It wasn't that any of the meritocratic Emperors failed, it was the Marcus Aurelius selected his biological son as his heir, and he messed up bad. Like I said, the system of adoption on merit was defacto for five Emperors, not customary or expected. And technically, there was kind of a quantifiable way to measure merit. Who had accomplishments? Who was pragmatic minded? In addition to that, your relation to the Emperor counted as well. So the successor was someone the Emperor got along with, but who also was effective. Perhaps not the best, but sufficient.

Anyhow, I am not proposing the system the Romans used. It wasn't even formalized, just accidental really. But it shows the effectiveness of meritocratic selection, and that a continuous series of good rulers is possible. As for a future meritocratic autocracy, we may want it more objective, formalized, and some institutions to keep the dictators power in check - as in a weak constitutional autocracy. They would really be no different from the limitations of power placed on Franklin Roosevelt. The man arguably exercised dictator-like power, thanks to the odd circumstances surrounding his presidency, but the man at the helm couldn't be an idiot. As long as that man was FDR, congress wouldn't mess with him. If he went crazy, he would have been legally deposed or kept in check. On the other hand, there seems to be very little risk of a crazy dictator who was put in power based on his merit and pragmatic approach to things.

<< As for the American elections, it doesn't matter that the Presidents aren't the most qualified candidates.  Their staff of advisors, and their organization as a whole, had to plan out the tactics in the election, and are often carried over to the leading government, so you still get the tacticians in power.  Someone had to plan out that election, and there's a pretty good chance that they'll end up in the government when the election's over. >>

Yes, but only a few presidents had the style that could capitalize on this. It's possible to have a 15 year old Emperor do well as long as his cabinet and advisers are listened to, and an atmosphere of questioning and debate is facilitated. However, most presidents have very different styles, like "Do as I say!" Of course, this can lead to problems, where a crazy idealist pushes through what he wants on the executive level while ignoring the guys who could be thinking pragmatically. Bush is a great example of this "yes man" approach to the presidency.

> Einstein wrote:

> If I was a neighboring nation I would arrange a nice little trip to hell via assassin for this man if they thought he was going to make a dictatorship.<

I'm surprised that you would make such a strategically dumb suggestion Michael: The last time someone did exactly that it turned into World War One.
You have to remember that in Europe, unlike in the USA, all of our neighbours can reach us easily, all of our neighbours have armies that are comparable to each other, and we all have very bad tempers.

Assuming the truth never came to light... I suppose it's not so silly after all, IF one could keep the rumour mill under control.

Justinian,
Keep in mind the circumstances during the roman age can't be compared to our age as well. In theory, leaders can have far more control over subjects as during the roman age. They can control every aspect of life. Propaganda tools are much better. The roman tactic was to keep the mob friendly (by both threatening and pleasing).

"The social situation was completely different."

Not overly I'm pretty sure most people consider it fairly reasonable to respond to the assassination of their leaders with war.  In fact I think most people would consider it rather odd if a country's lead was assaniated and they didn't go to war.

Tools change, borders change, words change, people don't.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> > DPS wrote:

>> "The social situation was completely different."

>>Not overly I'm pretty sure most people consider it fairly reasonable to respond to the assassination of their leaders with war.  In fact I think most people would consider it rather odd if a country's lead was assaniated and they didn't go to war.

>>Tools change, borders change, words change, people don't.

>*cough*Kennedy*cough*

Kennedy's assassination was a strictly internal affair.  It was carried out by a single man who was caught and arrested.  The situation Einstein suggested was an external power assassinating a leader.

I don't know enough to understand Italian politics, if he's guilty why isn't he in jail?

Too bad Italy won't elect Milly D'abbraccio

Italian culture is also different. The mob receives more popular praise.