Dictator’s decisions undermines the people and are unaccountable

The opposition asserts that dictatorships don't need a constitution, well, democracies don't need them either. On the subject of checks and balance we question the following: 1. They have not defined what it is. But as we need to talk about it our working definition is going to be: "that the government be divided into three branches or departments, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. To each of these three branches there is a corresponding identifiable function of government, legislative, executive, or judicial. Each branch of the government must be confined to the exercise of its own function and not allowed to encroach upon the functions of the other branches. Furthermore, the persons who compose these three agencies of government must be kept separate and distinct, no individual being allowed to be at the same time a member of more than one branch. In this way each of the branches will be a check to the others and no single group of people will be able to control the machinery of the State" [[http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=677&chapter=122664&layout=html&Itemid=27]] Still, the opposition make the crucial mistake of questioning how could any system work without it, even though there are in fact fusion of powers (the opposite of check and balances) and mixed systems in working democracies all over the world. So sound decisions can evidently be made without it. 2. We contend that checks and balances get in they way of swift decisions that many times are good ones. 3. If the separation of powers (the same as check and balances) is so good why is it removed in emergency situations (martial law, state of emergency, state of siege)? 4. The proposition does not explain how checks and balances work to get always good policies. In fact our definition explains that the reason to have a separation of powers is so it won't be concentrated on a single group. We add, that the reason not to concentrate is so no group can subvert it. So checks and balances don't really exist for the sake of policies but for the sake of avoiding concentration of power. 5. Lastly the other team never explained why the separation of powers reaps better policies than the technocrats a dictator can hire. The other team continuously talks about the "wisdom" that the policies of a dictator depend on. Dictator not necessarily are wise but we did say that he has freedom to implement necessary measures in a timely fashion and surround himself with the best advisers available despite popularity, partisan loyalty and political alliances. On the subject of miracles the opposition quotes it as if we were referring to a "the lord works in mysterious way" situation and the examples we gave talked about the parting of the sea by Moses or the multiplying of bread by Jesus, and not in the sense we actually used it: unprecedented economic growth. About the Burma's 3 bad decisions: 1. After said demonetization a Coup d'etat occurred which proves that there is a fine balance a dictator should strike as to not cause an insurrection [[http://www.gocurrency.com/countries/myanmar.htm]]. 2. On the move capital cities, we can cite the example of the US: changed it's capital three times. 3. If Burma banned motorcycles and it was a bad idea it's the same as the banning in Colorado and Iowa (US) of bicycles is bad (in the eyes of cyclists).[[http://www.kansascyclist.com/news/2009/08/proposals-to-ban-bicycles-in-colorado-and-iowa/]] We indeed agree that "the proposition has to show that “even if these dictators apply un-accountable and irregular decisions, it is permissible for the sake of development”. But we have to ask: what would the problem of unaccountable yet development-causing decisions? And how is an example of the former "irregular"? The opposition proposes: "They would also have to show the benefits of a dictatorship - AS A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT - so that we should allow the blind faith of these people be put upon the so called ‘magicians’ that are expected to perform ‘miracles’ of development at the price of a more democratic and stable government." But first, the proposition has only to prove dictatorship is the best path to development not best form of government ever for everything. Secondly, the opposition talks about "so called magicians" and we would love to know: Who calls them so? Was "magician" General Suharto's nickname perchance? Lastly we do not have to defend any kind of democratic values and on the other hand we have stated time and again that dictatorships are a very stable and stabilizing government. We have given the benefits of dictatorships from the very introduction of the debate.