I believe in dictatorships

OK, before I start getting chased down the street and beaten to a pulp, I don't believe in dictatorships. I 'm not joining Mugabe's mailing list any time soon. The main reason (other than the obvious ones) is that I don't believe in one party states. However I don't make bold statements without some element of truth.

I'm not sure if there is a term for what i think but I'm going to christen the idea 'Dictatorial Democracy' (not the Tamil Tigers version of it) . In short I think that poorer countries should have a system that allow their democratically elected president, leader, wise one or numpty to have a slightly longer term in office and have far larger control similar to that of a dictator. I'm not talking military or human rights abuser before some wise one speaks up. Just someone who can have say 2 terms of 7 years where they have complete power.

I'll back up a few steps. I think countries and states are like children with poor 3rd world countries being small babies and large historical forces being old people. When babies are small they need lots of care and attention. They need stability and to be guided on the right path, spoon feed a long the way. As they get older you give them more freedom and access to access to other children. Once then are mature enough, you let them loose in the real world with all the dangers that entails but if they have been well brought up they strive and lead.

Countries I feel are the same. 3rd world countries need stability and lots of government intervention. They need plans and paths to follow. They need the foundations of a society, schools, hospitals and infrastructure. As they become richer I think they should control their trade with other similar countries to generate mutual progression. They should protect themselves against richer 'bullies' until they reach the stage that they capable of competing like to like. Once they are fully developed it is then their job to help others and be a wise owl.

To put this in a more practical perspective countries like North Korea are the ones about to be born (i hope). Cambodia and Laos are the kind of countries that are just over breast feeding. Then you move to the Nigeria's and Ghana's of this world that are young children before coming across South Korea, South Africa and Mexico that are teenagers pushing the limits of power and strutting around but lacking the chest hair to do it. Next you have the BRIC countries (Bra,Rus,Ind,Chi) these are the freak children that come around and use there pure size to get from place to place. From here you have the adults (Turkey, Aus, Canada) who are developed and plodding along making their own legacy. What we are missing is the manager, a person at the top of their career and with only one way to go, on their way to the pension office (no guesses who this is). Lastly but not least is Western Europe and Japan. These are the senior citizens. They've had their time, had a run in with the law and tried all the stuff. They're are past their best but are experienced souls.
(I've realised that I am a geek)

Anyway, back to dictatorships. My problem with true democracy is nothing get done. We see a set of policies and by the time they are in place govt changes and a whole new set of policies come into place. Radical ideas never get through government and governments become tame (probably for the good). Dictatorships though have the ability if it choses too (critical point) to install a set of policies and see them through properly and quickly. (It has been argued that some dictators actually in their first few years, were the best leaders that some countries had had. Kim Il Sung being one). I believe ( I may be unique in this) that the initial stages of development are actual quite simple. I mean it's a well trodden path that doesn't require much innovation but technological catch up. What could go wrong??

Essentially I think that if a country starts from scratch as North Korea will do one day then they have several steps to follow.
1) Find out what is in demand (starts with agriculture, moves to light industry, heavy industry and services)
2) Supply it (use all the labour available. Once you have full employment even inefficient employment the the wheels start turning. People earn then they spend increasing demand which increases supply blah de blah)
3) Improve the labour (build schools, hospitals, infrastructure, legal system)
4) Become more efficient so you can produce more without creating unemployment (technology and machines, business practices)
5) Innovate ( high end innovation, education and research will make the country a leading force)
6) Pay Marc a consultants fee (Optional)

I know I've simplified this a lot (I studied this for my masters and read far to much to condense in 1000 pages) but it should be this simple. So if it's simple then stability and a good consistent plan is what you need. Hence, Dictatorial Democracy.

As a country get more developed then a truer democracy can be brought in. I'm against the notion that there is a one size fits all approach to development. I don't think you can say a democratic capitalist state is perfect for every country at every stage of development. I think it's a gradual thing whereby you start with a protected socialistic country and as it gets richer and can compete it becomes more liberal and more capitalist.

Let us not forget that every developed country has in it's time protected itself, having a government that had firm control of the country. Britain still has an the capabilities of an elective dictatorship and the US a constitutional dictatorship. We're not world leaders because we're dumb so people should stop listening to us and start copying us.