Democratic Ruler vs. Tyrant

I believe the most important difference between the laws of a tyrant and those of a democratic ruler are that the tyrant’s laws are prescriptive and the democratic ruler’s laws are descriptive of the beliefs of the majority of the people. I also believe both Tyrants and Democratic Rulers have advantage and disadvantages.
Advantages for Tyrant would be if a single person is running the law then the society can be more efficient because of the goals he is trying to achieve. He has a specific goal in mind and he knows where he is going with this, and if the opinion of the society changes, it is up to him whether to take it or leave it versus a democratic ruler who would have to take in with the society says.
A disadvantage of having a tyrant rule the laws would be that individuals would have no say in how the laws are being made, it is just one person deciding how the society is going to function. The people might not necessarily agree with these laws, but yet their opinions don’t really matter when it comes to this.
To sum it up if the Tyrant is thinking bad, then the society will suffer, but if he is trying to bring out the good in society, it might not be contempt with it because the people want some freedom in their lives.
“Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people”. Abraham Lincoln
An advantage for having democratic rulers is that individuals indirectly have a say in what laws are made in that society and it agrees with the majority of the people so they are likely to be more contempt and feel autonomous.
The biggest drawback to a democratic ruler would be that it only considers the opinion of the majority people and the minority gets neglected in a way. To counteract this, the governments have put in provisions such as the Charter of rights and freedom so that the majorities don’t completely dominate the law, but really the law is focused on what majority of the society believes to be acceptable.
Every time the government changes their policies regarding some issues, they just go back and forth and nothing really gets done.
Thus said, I believe laws of democratic rulers are more legit than laws of a tyrant because with having the societies opinions taken into consideration, I believe our society will run smoother, and we have more freedom of say, in contrast to someone who might not even consider our opinions .
“Democracy is terrible, but it is the best system we have”. Jessie Horner


1 Comment

Filed under Musing

One response to “Democratic Ruler vs. Tyrant

  1. This is an interesting post. How can you relate your reflections to the debate between natural legal theorists and positivists? Both have different ways of identifying legitimate law (consider the Hart-Fuller debate).

    Separate from the question of whether a given law or legal regime is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or confers advantages or disadvantages, there is the question of whether it should be regarded as legitimate law.

    What would you say? Is the possibility of public input the essential distinction between democratic legal systems and authoritarian legal systems, and does this necessarily confer legitimacy?

    Finally, while “Democracy is terrible, but it is the best system we have” is a popular saying meant to recognize the many pitfalls of democratic systems in practice, I wonder if you agree with it?

    Is democracy terrible? Is it a lesser evil? I must admit that I see democracy – as an idea and a political and cultural framework – as being profoundly important, inspiring, and worth striving towards.