Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Why sometimes Autocracy is better than Democracy ?

Okay, I know this title is against the old popular belief about democracy and I am also aware of the number of wars and movements against autocracy. But in reality, sometimes (but not always) autocracy can be better and be more effective than a democracy.

As we know, democracy is all about the people, for the people, by the people and to the people. It is all about representation and about the approval of the majority. And at times, infact at most of the times, this takes time, and hence decrease the efficiency of the government. In a democracy subject to a parliament, in most cases, a draft bill is constituted, presented in the public forum which is inturn subjected to debate and discussion, and going through various modifications and 'versions' of the draft, a bill is passed from that particular forum. In many cases, as in the case of India, there is no single public forum, and so that bill is passed to another level, which again undergoes debate and discussion, and finally after the approval of the bill from all the public forums, the bill is implemented. In most of the cases, there is a huge difference between the drafted and the implemented bill.

In a democracy, as in the case of India, there are representatives, which are elected by a particular group of people as their representative. The more large the country, the more diverse the country, and hence more representatives. 
What if instead of so many representatives, we have a single person who can be considered as a whole and sole representative of the whole of the country, who would look into the needs of all kinds of people. And would actually work for the welfare of the country and it's people, who would think in favor of the country before than his own favor. That way the time in the approval of any bill could notably increase the efficiency of the government.

This is the case with China. Why India lacks infront of the India? The answer is here. China is an autocratic country with visionary leaders, who want to see their country at the top of the world. India lacks in this. Even it has a few of them who thinks the same, their ideology gets diluted in the crowd of numerous representatives. Better law implementation, fast actions, this makes a country stronger. 

According to statistics, the time required to implement a bill in India (Democratic nation) is 1,420 days while in China (Autocratic nation) is a mere 292 days. 

The stats shows us all, an autocratic country, with visionary leaders works in a more efficient way. It makes some obvious decisions in a faster way. For example, prosecution of criminals, like Kasab, it's been nearly 2.5 years( that's nearly, 912.5 days) he has not been punished. While the whole nation knows what he did, and there is no doubt what his punishment should be, there is still on-going cases in the courts. This was an obvious case, and the prosecution of a criminal like Kasab in an autocratic country would have been much easier, faster and thus more efficient. 

So, all I want to say is that though democracy is considered to be better than autocracy, but at times autocracy can prove to be more efficient and work in a better way, provided we have the right kind of leaders, who are power visionaries and would genuinely work for the betterment of the country and the countrymen.


  1. Chinese autocracy has caused couteless tragedy and deaths of millions of people.Praising autocracy is a kind of crime!!!

    Chinese Communist Party(CCP)is one of the evilist organization in the world and destined to be eliminated!!

    1. I completely agree with you. I just wanted to prove a point, autocracy can be better sometimes, "WITH A GOOD LEADER".
      I know the countless battles have been fought against this, this was just to put forward a point, a hypothetical one.

  2. Autocracy if implemented can make decisions in a faster and a more efficient way, but thats the case in the shorter run. In the long run it has almost always resulted into widespread bloodshed, hatred and helplessness for people living in a country.. You are right in a way that people don't realize about the good things that some "evil" autocrats have done, for eg.Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. (He provided free education to youngsters for higher studies in foreign land or homeland, free electricity in relatively needy and poor places etc.)
    But the terror and widespread anger against him because of him inflicting cruelty upon his countrymen for the "sake of his country" as he said it lead to his downfall...and that more or less has been the end of every autocrat dictator in history... Democracy: though it takes time and with more than half of faulty decisions is still a wiser way to go I think... "many heads together can think better than just 1"

  3. @Yatharth I just wanted to give a situation, an idealist situation. Autocracy, provided we have a good leader, that would take care of all aspects of the society, can prove to be beneficial than democracy. I'll give you an example. Lord Ram and Akbar. Both are considered as great emperors, they were autocratic. They were great rulers, who actually took care of all the people of the society. IF we too have leaders like that in today's time, Autocracy might prove to be a better option than democracy.
    But this is just an idealistic situation. :-)

  4. Ritvik.. I had been thinking along similar lines.Then I came up with a post--

    1. I read that. We do think quite similarly! :-)