- To handle inconvenience, temporize not suppress it
According to the article Rome defines dictator as, “to give power to some one man to make decisions without consulting others and to carry them out without anyone having the right to appeal.” Rome chooses to have dictator whenever any thread appears to harm their state. For Rome having dictator at emergency was always helpful to deal with present and future threads. In fact whenever any danger, either internal or external appears citizens get apprehensive. In such situation the safe way to deal with danger is to temporize or to take time to deal with problem instead of directly going to trickle the problem right away. Without taking time and preparation if someone tries to end the danger they mostly end up been weak, which strengthen their enemies.
According to the article internal threads for a state are caused by two reasons. One when citizens allowed more power than they should have and second is when administrative body is corrupted. It is difficult to recognize the internal threads initially because mostly we give power to someone whom we think is able and competent; therefore, it is easy to overlook their mistakes.
In article they have given examples from Rome, here I want to give example of my own country Pakistan. When Musharaf was dictator he without taking any second opinion declared “War on Terror” at the first it seems effective but now Pakistan is fighting “War on No One.” Since, it was a quick decision by a dictator without well preparation of state which made Pakistan weaker and Taliban come up with new plans to fight back. As suggested in article it would have been helpful if other methods like negotiation or peaceful talks were done with Taliban to address the problem instead of going for an unending war.
- In spite of appointed by free how it become harmful
In the article the example taken from Rome talks about the free appointment of 10 people who were responsible to make laws and take all decisions by their own. These ten people were appointed by free election. They were expected to be good but the outcome was contrary of what had been expected. The article says that when “unrestricted authority” is given to someone for longer period means more than a year or so, it may always be dangerous. It may have good or bad consequences according to the nature of that person. It means if a good person is given power for longer time period the results will be good and vice versa. But later on it says that regardless of the person, if absolute power is given to anyone they become arrogant and misuse their power.
Dictators can be helpful in the times of emergency but prolong unrestricted authority makes them arrogant and they mostly abuse their power.