A prophetable dictatorship

They are just misunderstood.

Dictators are given a pretty bad rap all in all. No one ever seems to give them a fair go to rule and are constantly trying to over throw them. What else can a poor dictator do but oppress the people enough so as to then be able to lead effectively?

I assume that the problem many have with dictators, other than the greed, violence and murdering of opposition of course, is that no one really likes to be told what to do. Especially when who is doing the telling is from a vastly different background, a different present and likely only has their own future interests at heart.

The other issue is that even if a dictator starts off as a 'for the people' kind of person, the chances that they will soon become power hungry, insecure and fearful, overreaching and violent are quite high as wielding ultimate rule is likely to go to one's head and heart.

You know, like a stereotypical government.

Let's just agree to continue.

But, is it possible to have a benevolent dictator who would always do what they thought was in the best interest of the people, be peaceful, play no favorites and be incorruptible? If this person existed, would people willingly accept and support a dictator as a leader?

I find this idea quite interesting, partly because I think I would be a pretty good dictator if given the position. My wife probably thinks I am in training now. But, if people do not wisely choose me, I need a fill in for the example, so Jesus it is.

For this hypothetical I am choosing a Christian figure because surprisingly, if anyone is going to get majority support, it would likely be him. Christianity is the largest global religion with about 32 percent with Muslims making up about 23 percent. In Islam, Jesus is highly revered and plays pivotal roles in both the legend and the future of the religion with some viewing him as the perfect man. So with over half supporting the choice, let's pretend it is all by way of democracy.

Would Jesus make a good dictator?

Facing challenges.

Let's also pretend for a moment that rather than encourage people to act independently, Jesus would actually take the role as dictator of a large country. Would he be corruptible, play favorites, be violent or ignore some sections of society?

Would the dictatorship country with Jesus as the head be successful? Would people accept the directions of someone who is earnestly and with all power trying to do what is right for all involved? Unlikely.

There would probably still be people that would try to undermine and gain advantage and power over others, people who still want total power themselves, people who just don't like being told what to do or having to blindly conform to another's will.

So then what? How does Jesus react to this internal pressure looking to take away power from the position he has been afforded by the people? If he chooses personal sacrifice, that leaves 'his' people at the mercy of those looking to gain advantage over them. If he punishes them directly, he is silencing his opposition like any other dictator.

And what of external pressures from other countries? How does Jesus negotiate the geopolitical landscape when all know or assume that he is unwilling to resort to violence of any kind? Would this leave the country open to unencumbered attack? At what point would he go to war? At what point would he be willing to kill to maintain stability in his own country?

Would it come down to 'the greater good' and reducing collateral damage? Would he be able to maintain 'clean hands' given this leadership position?

What would the country financials look like, the income gaps, equality between sexes, religions and ethnicity, would discrimination be tolerated, are there prisons? Is everything rosy or in turmoil?

To think a little wider.

Now, I am no theologian, I am not religious nor am I well versed in the matters of religions. But this hypothetical is actually not about any religious aspects but more the idea of authority in general.

Would you be willing to give total control to an authority if you knew they would always have your best interest at heart, or would you want independence to think and do as you see fit, even if your actions are at times much less than perfect and may even be harmful to yourself and others?

There are lots of questions in here and no answers but if someone wants to play along and add some detail, feel free. This isn't meant to be too controversial, just a thinking exercise on centralized or decentralized control, individuality, security and perhaps personal morality itself.

I would say that no authority, however intelligent or benevolent would lead to a Utopia unless all unanimously both agreed and acted to support it. But for that to happen, it must be done via the free will of the individual for to do it any other way, would create conflicts that would destroy the concept before it was built. I think. Maybe. I should spend some more time considering it.

What do you think of this nonsense?

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]