adc8f - 2y
For those sometimes confused by having missed what is encompassed by the word "dictator" and as a consequence also "dictatorship", even though many seem to believe it means or at least requires there a state of "no elections" or "illegal"/"unconstitutional" rule. That is not it. Many dictators have elections, nominally. Almost all dictatorships are/become "legal", often through what laws they impose(d) to make it so. If a person is able to rule by decree (by dictate) whether de jure or de facto, that's dictatorial rule. It is usually only when a dictatorship starts falling or never had a crushing grasp that they feel forced to remove the charade of performing "elections" to generate false image of legitimacy. Often dictatorship "elections" can be held by e.g. banning any real opposition on pretexts such as their parliamentary participation is "terrorism" or actually burning/replacing cast ballots whether by explicit order or implicit "spontaneously" by supporters. Thus one achieves a non-fungible tyranny, lowering dissent amongst the local populace and enabling other governments and NGOs to whilst claiming to never ever support dictatorship, still fund arm and defend dictatorships, making it often arguably worse. #[0] #[1] #[2] #[3] #[4], etc, etc...
5735c - 2y
#[0] Can you explain why NATO qualifies as a dictatorship in your opinion?
ee75e - 2y
#[0] So yeah, a constitution should not allow any leader to rule by decree if states must exist. No executive orders either.
93f3b - 2y
#[0]
#[0] In the original post which I expanded expanded upon when writing this toot... ...and the first time out of many I called a Dicktato to their their face (a many years imprisonment "crime"). :-] https://todon.eu/system/media_attachments/files/110/077/268/787/888/763/original/4f32d98ea194971d.png
