yes a good comment.
It's essentially an eternal push and pull between a singular authority figure (monarch) & a collective legislature - each one is intended to act as a check and balance to the other. The collective body is intended to check an out of control monarch, and the monarch is intended to check an out of control legislature. A tyrant is no less evil than a tyrannical legislature, and for the past many decades of history, the problem has been wholly incompetent, corrupt, and tyrannical legislatures. A dictator is necessary to restore the balance by liquidating the corrupt body before restoring a functional collective body (also known as draining the swamp) - this was the precedent & intellectually sound course of action that has been utilized by every successful civilization, most notably (and known from written records, alas we don't have records for many societies e.g. Carthage) Rome with the office of the
dictator. Latin societies have a successful precedent of using a military junta in lieu of a dictator, but dictators also have strong precedent with the office of Caudillo, which was responsible for maintaining order in historical Latin America and more recently Spain itself (yet Spain very quickly regressed right back into communism).
This post was edited by El1te on Jul 30 2025 11:25am