Head for a better world

My controversial answer would be no! Well, it’s far from being that simple. This is likely to be the subject I’ve given the most thought on, and this is my opinion.

The only basic, undisputable about fact dictatorships is that the ruler has absolute power over all his subordinates and that is the very key to a truly better world.

There will always be brainless people whose contribution to the greater good is close to none and their lack of intelligence has since the dawn of democracy mined great countries.

That means democracy is a ticking bomb since it empowers masses, which are improbable to be smart and are not only incapable of weighing and understanding the characteristics of each candidate but are also much more likely to be influenced by taboos, social standards and the media.

Having in mind it is not possible to keep such individuals from voting (because there is no objective test that can measure someone’s ability and competence to vote), the only possible solution is to ‘ignore’ their opinions, as well as the one of all others and put our trust on the elected dictator’s wisdom and guidance. This is the biggest risk taken when relying on a single leader whose power is unlimited: he can turn over night, become an insane dictator in the true sense of the word or lose his abilities….there are never ending possibilities.

The political system that I think might have a chance of success is a ‘liberal dictatorship’ (try to ignore the obvious paradox) which would be a lifetime-election based system.

Candidates would be put through a series of 100% public tests on intelligence, knowledge, ideology, natural skills and mental agility for about two years. Their private records would be thoroughly examined to make sure their intentions were the right ones, making sure they hadn’t run for president for personal profit.

After results were made public, in case the results weren’t absolutely clear and well over an established percentage the candidate would not be chosen and we’d return to a democratic nation temporarily though.

If there was a tie or a minimal difference between two candidates, we’d than turn to an election in which only conscious candidates were allowed to vote.

He’d then be president for a trial period of four years.

The country’s welfare would be measured after the trial period and were the results satisfying by pre-established standards, he’d stay for the rest of his life or until he resigned. Once he took possession he’d be absolutely untouchable, except by an international organisation (like the UN) which could relieve him of his duties if a high established amount of all the other countries chose to.

Now, why is it so important to have a single president/prime-minister/dictator? Mostly because most social and political long-term plans take decades to take form.

Moreover, as truly good presidents are very few and cannot be spotted as such in a few years (4/5),they usually only get one term since the good ones don’t get the time to convince the ‘brainless people’ of what they’re doing and can not run for more than two terms.