Hello! Today we’re going to discuss “dictatorship”. No one would be pleased to be labeled as a “dictator” because it sounds like being a villain Like Thanos Broadly, dictatorship can be defined at many levels of description. Let’s begin with the term “democracy”. Democracy means “rule by the people”, but if sovereignty does not belong to the people then it is called Oligarchy, a form of government which power rests with a small number of people. The next one is “Autocracy”, a form of government in which power is held by a single individual. Let’s sum up “Dictatorship” means a form of government in which a small group of people or a person rules with unrestraint power and unlimited time. Sort of absolute power! Immortal! Kind of You die!! In these days some people may have been wondering about a new hybrid form of government, that is claimed to be democracy along with dictatorship, which is called “Democratic dictatorship” Or “Parliamentary dictatorship” How does it look like? Does it really exist? Before discussing on Parliamentary dictatorship. Let’s do some poll. What is “Democratic dictatorship” in your opinion? A. Dictatorship concealed with Democracy B. Democracy concealed with Dictatorship C. There is no such thing! Dictatorship is dictatorship please vote Let me know what you think. Just try to imagine of class president vote. Suppose there is a boy who has continually got the highest votes for years, but he is indeed abusive, rude, boastful and always showing off. Causing resentment among the minority Because the minority did not vote for him. The minority calls the bad boy a “Dictator of Classroom council” But according to the theory, “Dictator of Classroom council” doesn’t really exist. Because the class president Will be in power just for a semester. He will no longer hold power, when the semester ends or when the following semester starts. Untill the next vote. In this case, his power is in time-limited, obvious and restricted. Next semester the majority probably would not vote for him again. And his power is just ending. He holds no more power. “Dictatorship of Classroom council” can happen only when the class president exercises unlimited power. Excessive power. Power that can force his classmates to vote for himself, and to be his supporters. Then the boy can set up a time span of his power. If he does so, you can call him a “dictator” And you don’t need to create a new word “Democracy” is “Democracy” “Dictatorship” is “Dictatorship” That’s it. There is no “Democratic dictatorship” Nor “Dictatorial democracy” Actually, there are many countries that have been ruled almost single-handedly by a single political party because the party continuously won elections. Such as Japan and Germany I just mentioned them for an example And didn’t mean to compare with any others. The principle of dictatorship includes 1. Dictator must have weapon powers In other words, they use weapons to show the highest power in their countries. Who dares? I have guns. Anyway, just holding guns is not enough. If holding guns alone can put someone into a dictator, it would be a little bit too easy. One would just plunder a lot of guns and become a leader. Then, what is the line between a dictator and a thief? The difference between a dictator and a thief is that a dictator can rule the country. A Dictator can’t stand alone by himself. At least, there must be some people who support him and let him rule the country. If the whole country resists dictatorship, there will be no room for a dictator. Or he would be crunched by the whole country. In order to avoid resistance, a dictator needs to earn “Moral authority” as a tool for preventing criticism and disagreement. By claiming that his actions are taken in the pursuit of legitimacy. It is kind of “transcendental virtue” which stands “above the prosperity of the country”, above the economic system. And the most important is It stands above the notion “All humans are equal” For example, most of South American countries, between 1950s and 1970s, were ruled by military dictatorship. They believed that only military power could wipe out communism. Fighting communism was a virtue in those days. During the World War II, the NAZI claimed that German tradition was corrupted by foreigners. And who were the victims of the NAZI regime? The Jews, of course!! In some “Religious states” the leaders would claim absolute power to protect religious. Some might convince people that the country is surrounded by enemies and would be survived only by great capability of the individual leader. Like North Korea In order to maintain dictatorship, it is necessary to eliminate those that oppose dictator’s view. People must think the same way. Dictators have to prove that different ideas are dangerous, and will definitely lead to quarrel and conflict. Most of dictatorial countries tend to use compulsory education for shaping the sets of ideas, beliefs, and values, which go along the lines of dictator. By offering one-sided information, which is not based on facts or proof. It’s called “propaganda” While democracy believes that although each person has their own understandings and opinions, they can still peacefully live together Only by adhering to the rules or queuing. Someday the voices of the minority might become the votes of the majority. The dictatorship has no clue about rules and regulation. For them, a single way to hold up society is to motivate people to pursue the same goal. Could it be possible? Probably not And we haven’t seen any society that thinks and acts all the same. What does it look like? Even husband and wife can be at odds. But yes, it goes back to the beginning. “A dictator” could survive only when there are supporters. And in the eyes of dictatorship supporters lies the firm belief that “people are not equal”. It’s fine to discard someone for the sake of “peace”. Some groups are exterminated If a dictator sees them as “trying to disunite” Now you’ve got some information and details. I want to ask for your opinion. Do you think dictatorial government is suitable for Thailand or not? A. No, it is not. B. It could not be more suitable. Please vote!! And what do you think? Do you believe in queuing up? Or you think that it would be much more convenient to convince people to conform to one’s moral convictions? And which one do you prefer? Moral or rule? If you would like to follow more clips from SpokeDark Please subscribe to Our channel So you won’t miss the latest one See you in the next clip. Bye!