Wouldn’t a Dictatorship with an Extremely Smart Leader Be More Effective than Democracy?

Many argue that a dictatorship led by a smart leader could be more effective than a democracy in terms of efficiency and governance. However, the reality is often far more complex and less optimistic.

Efficiency and Politics

For the dictator, power does allow for increased efficiency in terms of decision-making and implementation. Smaller governments, such as those advocated by libertarians, aim for minimal interference, effectively boiling down to a single leader with very little involvement. This is often seen as an efficient model by those who prefer a hands-off approach.

But for the people under such a regime, it frequently means that wealth and resources are concentrated, with the leader and their associates benefitting at the expense of the general populace. There is little recourse or mechanism for change beyond violence or waiting for the leader to die.

Benevolent Dictatorships

Historically, benevolent dictatorships have indeed brought about rapid positive changes. Leaders like Idi Amin (Tanzania) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Poland) managed to implement significant reforms in a short period of time. However, the stability and benevolence of such regimes tend to be short-lived, often lasting only one generation. Succession often leads to failure, as the new leader may lack the competence or foresight of their predecessor.

The Dangers of Smart Leaders

When it comes to smart leaders, it is crucial to understand that being smart does not equate to being infallible. Intelligence can lead to arrogance, a belief that others are less capable and can be ignored. Such leaders often fail to acknowledge their own mistakes until it is too late, and their eventual downfall is often swift and dramatic.

Even those who recognize the potential risks might not be willing to put themselves in such a position, given the high likelihood of becoming paranoid, damaged, and unduly narcissistic. The inherent instability and political pressures can be overwhelming for even the most capable individuals.

The Case Against Legitimate Coercion

The idea of a benevolent dictatorship places too much trust in a single leader and undermines the principles of a free society. If solutions do not depend on legitimate coercion through the state, it opens the door to more rational and less oppressive forms of governance. Rational anarchy, for instance, challenges the notion of legitimacy and sovereignty, placing all actions under the scrutiny of discourse and law.

This approach ensures that no one is above the law, including government officials, and every decision is open to scrutiny and public debate. For instance, a case where a cop was not able to be sued for shooting a 10-year-old highlights the complexity and need for clear legal boundaries.

Conclusion

While a smart dictatorship might seem appealing in theory, the practical implications and historical precedents reveal the myriad challenges and potential for abuse. It is important to prioritize transparency, accountability, and the rule of law over the aspirations of a single intelligent leader. True progress and stability are more likely to be achieved through democratic and rational means.