Dictatorship - the Good and the Bad

Organizations typically have one man as decision-maker. Whether governor CEO general king or Pope, the principle is the same. It is the basic tenet of human organization - top down leadership. This derives from familial and tribal groupings - the head of the family and head of the tribe decides for the rest, with input from whatever council provides counsel. 

Keep in mind, explaining begins with "how things work" not what works best. One man deciding things rightly or wrongly, is how human organization works. Discussion of "rightly or wrongly" must account twenty-five thousand years of derivative system-making - as this is what has derived to be. We can look at the founding of America, the death of Julius Caesar, and French and Russian revolutions, as among historical landmarks that considered this derivative. A discussion of gender roles is here.

So what is the point of top down leadership. Well obviously it derives from organization. There is a need to group, thus "group" needs to be organized and needs leadership. It's the same as explaining how fingers of a hand work to grasp an object - they do what the brain tells them to.

But in the simpler discussion of "how things work" and not the more complex "why" we've scant empirical evidence of "the best way." For example, we could point to the reign of Queen Victoria as great success in duration and prosperity for Brits. But colonized victims of Imperial England might see it otherwise; and thus for every long and prosperous empire.

So let's confine this to "how" which is more evidentiary based, not the theoretical "why" which is continually evolving. Dictatorship works well or poorly per the man in charge. But it's duration depends on two factors - might makes right, and the continuing need to convince the subjugated. 

Abe Lincoln exemplifies this. The founding fathers of America wrestled with how to restrain a dictator. Their efforts led to Civil War because the diverse state governors had more say than the central federal president. But Lincoln had both more might and more wide-spread personal appeal in rallying people to his cause, and so dictated the unification of America.

The obvious counter-argument is - why are these organizations in constant crisis. But again, that's a "why" argument, not a "how" explanation. The great American example is Franklin Roosevelt who dictated our current national empire. But counter examples of fools in leadership roles include Nero who destroyed Rome, Hitler who destroyed Europe, and Trump who is destroying everything that Lincoln and Roosevelt built, i.e., the world as we know it.

I reckon Plato may've said it better, but I aint never read his book.