Benevolent dictatorships are more efficient than representative democracies because they have the ability to take essential decisions in a shorter amount of time and can act faster against a grave problem. Due to the saving of time, risk can be reduced as every moment counts. In a benevolent dictatorship, there are relatively fewer people heading the council while in a representative democracy so many opinions have to be put into perspective that it takes an irrational amount of time to act and till then, the problem has become worse and difficult to handle. In a benevolent dictatorship the heads act by taking into interest the welfare of the entire society while in a representative democracy people are biased and act in a way that would show their particular party as superior from their counterparts.I would like to quote an idiom “Too many cooks spoil the broth.”
Innovation and infrastructure is given a lot of importance in a benevolent dictatorship and due to this, post conflict societies are able to rise from a damage struck situation and advance to become a respectable community in the world once again. They have a face to show the world and technology to lead it. Due to this, economies and employment rates rise and happiness and satisfaction spreads all around the capital and they get that inspiration to work even harder and do wonders.
A benevolent democracy also provides a stable base of administration for the country. In a representative democracy, the government is divided into several parties such as BJP and Congress and the leaders change constantly. They all have different points of views and have their individual thoughts on the development of the country and due to this, the country can not be set on a particular path and they are not able to invest a lot of time in perfecting the vision of a pioneer.
Under a representative government , criminal activities are always on the rise, we can take India as an example but under a benevolent dictatorship,criminals live under the conception of the dictators and do not tend to engage in any criminal activities and therefore peace is restored in the society.
Side opp is only providing hypothetical situations where we have provided evidence of dictators being better for post conflict nations, in the form of germany.
Side opp is contradicting themselves, by stating that side prop hasn’t offered ways of “electing” dictators, they themselves answered it, we are gonna elect them. that means we know who we are voting for.
A corrupt dictator can be spotted easier than a corrupt democracy
The opposition has agrees on several points that relate to our speeches and I would like to thank them for that,
I would like to propose a quote “A leader who is a benevolent dictator, is a great democrat by nature.”
I am proud to propose .
I would hereby like to rest my case.
REMARKS
Who can contribute more to society and why?
No comment