Would Buddha have made a good dictator?

[SeifuSnow]

I started thinking of this as I was reading through Saii's last closed poll. Someone started up with a "It-would-be-better-to-have-a-dictator-than-no-rule-at-all" thing and it got me to thinking... "There may be all those racist and unrighteous leaders out there that don't believe in anything but kicking others around to make themselves feel important, but what would happen if we actually got someone that cared for the rights and happiness of people, and would only serve to teach them to better themselves?"
Then I started thinking of peaceful people of the past, like Jesus and Gandhi and Buddha; you know, all those really cool people that wanted everyone to love eachother, and wouldn't necessarily resort to violence if they had a choice (and they always chose not to... sadface as to why they're not alive [AND YES THEY WOULD HAVE LIVED FOR 10,000 YEARS BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL COOL <_<!] )
But yeah. Do you think it would be right to have someone pure of heart be a dictator (peacefully ftw)?

[TPC]

In one book, I think it was one in the discworld series, the author experiments with a similar system. I haven't actually read it myself, only had it described to me, so this description may not be 100% accurate. But they had a system where a person who really doesn't want to be a leader gets elected, he is forced to be a dictator for the next 10 years. During this time he has absolute control and can do anything, except change the terms of the leadership selection. When the 10 years is up they hang him.

The theory in the book is that someone who doesn't want to be a leader and who doesn't have any interests beyond the time he serves as a leader (since he will be dead) will be the perfect leader since he has no other motives than doing what is best for everyone.

Interesting system, even if it might not work in reality (or would it?).

[Captain Usopp]

Buddha would be a horrible leader/ dictator based on our definition of one. Buddha is passive and would only make an ideal leader in a perfect system, ,but a system that would require change or reform he could not accomplish. Of course if he actually abandons his principles to attempts to be a good leader he would become corrupted as all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That being said the most ideal form of government is a benevolent monarchy. It is a system without bureaucracy, without waste, without corruption and that is why it has never existed.

[The Legendary Joe]

the more iron fisted their rule, the more things would slip through their fingers. As good as they may be, there will always be SOME seeds of rebellion due to not agreeing with their views. Though, with an Iron fisted rule, it'd be much wiser to try to keep that to yourself and people you KNOW you can trust.


I don't think buddha would do very well as a dictator. The whole shedding earthly desires and trying to acchieve the path to enlightenment would sorta contradict his duties as a leader. Granted, I think he'd be a very powerful diplomat.

[Kenshiro-san]

No system is the best system.

[Session]

Kenshiro-san Wrote:No system is the best system.

Annnarrrrrchyyyyyyy !

[SeifuSnow]

Captain Usopp Wrote:Buddha would be a horrible leader/ dictator based on our definition of one. Buddha is passive and would only make an ideal leader in a perfect system...

In retrospect of my previous post, I would like to change the definition of "dictator" in the sense I used to mean "absolute ruler" instead, removing the whole bit of "tyranny" from the definition.

If we take into account that the word dictator solely means a ruler who is unconstrained by law, we can understand that, instantly, the ruler is not necessarily tyrannical as they are simply having power over all others.

But I digress.

Captain Usopp Wrote:...the most ideal form of government is a benevolent monarchy. It is a system without bureaucracy, without waste, without corruption and that is why it has never existed.

The Legendary Joe Wrote:As good as they may be, there will always be SOME seeds of rebellion due to not agreeing with their views

Should we take Buddha's pacifism in mind, we would understand he would only require entire peace... Though, this is the fault in the matter, whereas peace cannot reign over all. Understanding that, an order might be put together to ensure the happiness of everyone, as individuals rather than a whole, which will keep peace as its main objective. Possible? I think so.

[Whispers]

The Buddha would not take a position of power regardless of if he would be good at it or not.??It is not in his interest at all.

He would be very good at ruling his own kingdom, however.??The problem comes when another country wants to attack the Buddha's country.??The Buddha would do his very best to convince the other party not to and has a fair chance of being very successful at this.??However, the karma some people possess can not even the Buddha penetrate, sadly.

[mahawirasd]

imho the notion that "man has to be shackled to be orderly" is simply infantile.

Sure you can chain and bind people, but the will can never be restrained. Thing is, the more they are bound the wilder they become.

A very real example is Indonesia. Indonesia was ruled by Soeharto for 32 years until 1998. For that 32 years civil liberties, freedom of speech, etc was restrained (or even non-existent). Unrest is quickly subdued by military force. The economy was sustained through oil money, fixed/controlled exchange rate, etc which all collapsed in 1998.
The people was repressed, democracy is just a facade.
But what happened afterward shows just how such repression affects the mentality of the people; "reform" becomes just a backlash of anti-soeharto sentiments. Everyone goes out and seeks to save their own skin. Vassal kings mushroom. It really isn't a pretty sight.
And most laymen would say that the Soeharto years were better due to the simple reason of that illusion of controlled inflation... But if Indonesia didn't go through that change 12 years ago, Indonesia's growth as a nation would have been stunted.

Sure i get what you mean that some people are not ready to act fairly with their freedom. But it still doesn't mean that mankind needs to be forever repressed to achieve order.

And although time and time again wars, feuds, etc keep tarnishing history, i still believe that mankind CAN mature.

In the end i believe it all boils down to insecurity.
People who are insecure tend to aim for self-security. And they usually do so in a manner that would injure/hurt others. Sure there has been good people who tried to allay those insecurities, but some seem to do more harm than good... The road to hell really is lined with good intentions...

man is afraid of what they don't know. It's the fear of "the dark" children tend to have. When you've just started learning the ropes of this existence you're bound to be greatly affected by your senses. "The dark" embodies everything you don't know because it's something even your most-trained of senses can't pierce.
So although science and other methods developed from basic assumptions which intends to shed light to the universe around us keep progressing, there are certain questions that remains unanswered (and will probably remain so for forevermore). So a few good people (or at least people with good intentions) throughout history have tried to create the illusion of the existence of transcendental beings which are postulated as more than assumptions or self-fulfilling prophecies and the likes of it to allay this fear of the unknown. Unbeknown to them how their postulates will shape history and in a way create even more insecurities in the form of existential rifts...

This just goes to show how the notion of "the absolute" always rips (themselves and humanity at the same time) at the seams. Therefore there aren't (and probably never will be) any "absolute best" system.

So although you might think that it's better to have a hive-mind society, and no matter how much i believe that socialism is the best way towards utopia, i still believe that a certain degree of freedom and the responsibility that comes with it is necessary for the growth of mankind's maturity.

So no, i don't think Buddha would have been a good dictator. I don't think he'd agree to the concept anyway. Buddha admits to what he doesn't know, he's not insecure. But he also knows that most people can't free themselves from their own insecurity. And he really doesn't strike me as a man who would force his believes unto others.

So in the end i think it's all up to every individual to value their own humanity and free themselves...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely - Lord Acton

Those who would relegate civil liberties for a moment's repose deserves neither (or something like that) - (i forgot who... anyone care to tell me?)


-w-

[Rei Ayanami]

you do know that they are all basically preaching democracy right? ghandi, jesus, buddha, etc. why would they want to do the opposite of what they preach? plus, people should not have to be babysat all the time. they do have the right to screw their own lives you know. and like what wira said, Suharto is probably one of the best examples. the other is Nazi Germany. you can't force order if the people do not want it. what is the point of keeping order in a place where everyone back stabs everyone else? you can't police everything and any attempt to force order just turns into opportunity for corruption.

the best way to maintain order is democracy. but imo the concept itself is very flawed.

the only way democracy will truly work is if everyone treat each other as equals and do not try to take advantage of everything they can exploit under the sun; and of course this will never happen. so that is why we have an elected government which are a bunch of people given higher authorities by everyone else (thus above equal) to stop those who would abuse the system. if the people are not happy with the way those elected do things, they can take them down. but of course everyone have their own opinion so nobody will ever be 100% happy but at least they are satisfied.

this is a very long debate that i have had with so many people. but i would like to leave you with a famous quote by Plato: good people do not need the laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.

all types of governments are simply degrees of social control. all governments are simply a giant baby sitting programs built by the society to look after everyone in the playhouse (aka. the country). all dictators thought they were doing it for the good of the people when they started off.

ps. how on earth is this game related? and can people please drop religion based debates such as this? are you going to put it up to vote which religion is best next?

edit:
@captain eusop: Buddhas are not passive godlike beings like most people picture. read Buddhist lore and you will find out that Buddha to be can choose to become benevolent supreme rulers and conqueror lands called Dharma Kings instead. However if they choose to take this path they will not attain nibbana (release from karmic cycle). also, Buddha gotama isn't the only Buddha, he listed 27 before him and there will be many more after him.