beaurocracy vs. dictatorship

sometimes i wonder if a beaurocracy is necessarily less strong, or dynamic, than a dictatorship, because in a beaurocracy all decision and action has to be filtered by the average opinion. that nullifies a cohesive philosophy of action, and also any radical change. it’s like statistically you have 2.5 children, but actually acheiving children always implies an integer…

discuss!

It’s not less “strong”… I mean look at America, it’s pretty much the strongest nation in the world (debatable, but oh well). The only dictatorship that I would compare in power was under Hitler or Stalin, and both failed because dictatorship is too unstable to world peace.

I wouldn’t confuse dynamism with strength. Dictatorships are very dynamic systems, which means that they are very good at creating nations or expanding nations, so a strong centralized government is most often associated with these times. However, having built a nation or expanded their territory, dictatorships tend to have a real problem, and quickly collapse. Bureaucracies work the other way, they aren’t dynamic but they are incredibly stable, so while nations won’t get built by bureaucracies and expansion tends to be a slow process, they are actually quite effective at the business of governing the territory they do control.

So, it really becomes more a question about which system, which strength, you want at any particular time. In the modern world, I’m not sure how good a thing expansion can be said to be . . .