Opposition defines ambiguity

Our definition of dictatorship is: "A form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique". This not only is the definition stated in the Merriam-Webster dictionary [[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictatorship]], but it's open enough to recognize the range of features and shades that different dictatorial regimes may present, in contrast to the extreme narrowness of the definition proposed by the counterpart. Differences among dictatorial regimes are rooted on different aspects of their performance. They can differ on the magnitude of the governing clique, the military or civil nature of the authority, economic liberties granted for citizens, legality of political associations, legal framework, etc. The feature that all dictatorial regimes share is that they centralize public power and apply it without the people’s consent. In the book “Comparative Politics”, Professor Danièle Caramani of the Institute of Political Science of University of St. Gallen identifies and explains many of the different regimes that can be considered dictatorships, since they accumulate absolute power in a small group or in a single person. These include military dictatorships, presidential dictatorships, and dynastic monarchies, among others. (http://books.google.com/books?id=sgYF9Us4UNIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=%22one%20party%22&f=false) The definition proposed by the counterpart describes dictatorship as “a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)”. This narrow alternative for a definition would indeed lead to an unproductive and unfair debate, since only regimes led by a single person could be accounted as dictatorships, excluding historical examples of dictatorial regimes, such as the the U.R.S.S. (led by the communist party in a one party dictatorship) or all of the Military Juntas in the 20th century. Another incorrect assumption in the counterpart’s alternative is that lacking of a constitution or legal framework for the functioning of a regime is a necessary feature of a dictatorial one. If this was the case, we would have to consider the lack of formal constitutions in Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom to be somewhat undemocratic systems (even when political power in these countries is subject to the popular will). Burma and Pinochet’s Chile would be accounted as non-dictatorships because they had constitutions and laws [[http://www.thailawforum.com/database1/constmyanmar.html]] [[http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Chile/chile.html]], regardless on how intrusive and unjust they were, and of the fact that political power was centralized in a military “Junta”. Again, what sets democracies and dictatorships apart from one another is whether political power is held by the people in general or by a small clique or even a single person. Moving away from that would only diminish the debate’s quality. Another point we wish to make is one regarding the validity of our examples. What we called dictatorship are o were in the past in fact dictatorships. We are delighted to be given the opportunity of reaffirming why they fit our definition and provide examples of instances where they have been called so (not merely by us, but by reputed sources). Singapore is a de facto one party system[[http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/01636600260046226?cookieSet=1&journalCode=wash]], the opposition has no real chance to rule. Since it's indepence in 1965 it has been governed by the same party (a small clique), the PAP. We cite about Singapore "Singapore’s dictatorship has delivered such riches that popular opposition is half-hearted..." [[http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2006/01/book_review_eco.html]]. South Korea had a pro development dictatorship for almost twenty years only to be followed by another dictatorship that ended in a democratic election where the winning candidate was aligned with the previously ruling clique. The solid economic fundamentals of South Korean Economy were settled under dictatorship. On South Korea: "During 1987 popular opposition to South Korea's military dictatorship again burst into the streets of South Korean cities and into the U.S. news media." [[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n7_v39/ai_6261945/]] On Taiwan: from 1927 to 1949 the KMT ruled over all of China in a one party system, and from then on only in Taiwan, staying as a one party system throughout the Taiwan Miracle[[http://www.taiwan.com.au/Polieco/History/ROC/report04.htm]] during the 1960s and 1970s, and it wasn't until 1986 when the first opposition party was allowed to exist, and until 1989 that multiparty elections were held[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/asia_pacific/2000/taiwan_elections2000/1986_1999.stm]]We also found this quote: Taiwan is evidence that a developing society can move peacefully from dictatorship to democracy and thrive." [[http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10581]] The People's Republic of China is a strong example not only in times of Mao's rule but also today, because they are ruled by the Chinese Comunist Party (small clique). The opposition rejected "the notion of China being a dictatorship; even though Chairman Mao is the central figure of the Chinese Communist Party, he is not above the law". On this subject we quote this:'A quarter of the world's population was thereby brought under communist rule, which within a decade had clearly become the personal rule of Chairman Mao Zedong." [[http://books.google.com/books?id=sgYF9Us4UNIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=%22one%20party%22&f=false]] The opposition proposes that "There is an existing mechanism that conducts a 'check and balance' inside the system which is the Politburo Standing Committee which maintains a separation of power in the government". But this committee is formed by 5 to 9 people of the ruling party [[http://english.gov.cn/2007-10/22/content_781682.htm]], not precisely a big group of people. So if the power was in fact the Chairman plus up to 9 other people it's still means power was vested on 10 people which indeed classifies as a very small clique. Chile was ruled by dictator Augusto Pinochet from 1973 till 1990. He ruled as the head of a military junta[[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,91534,00.html]]. About Pinochet: "On March 11, 1998, in the National Congress in Valparaiso, the former dictator was sworn in as a lifetime senator -- a condition of the transition to democracy..." [[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/pinochet/overview.htm]] Venezuela was ruled by Perez Jiménez through a militar junta and then by him as an individual dictator. On Perez Jiménez: "Suspicious of outsiders, the dictator also concentrated power in the hands of six army colonels from his home state." [[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/22/world/marcos-perez-jimenez-87-venezuela-ruler.html]] Spain had Generalísimo Franco from 1946 till 1975. On the news article regarding his dead we read: "Leaders of European countries have been guarded in their reaction the dictator's death and expressed hope that the new king would introduce modern democracy to Spain" [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/20/newsid_4421000/4421636.stm]] On the example of Portugal not only is he a dictator but: "Former dictator Antonio Oliveira Salazar was chosen as the greatest Portuguese of all times by viewers of a TV show." [[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/former-dictator-salazar-chosen-as-greatest-portuguese-of-all-time-by-tv-viewers-442008.html]]. And in case you intend to express doubt about the fact that Cuba is a dictatorship[[http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue19/farber19.htm]] here is a description of Castro given by the New York Times: "It was a striking tableau — two men in their 60s, one a sports journalist in coat and tie, the other a Communist dictator in uniform, raised in different cultures but both educated by Jesuits and able to find a common ground in sport." [[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/sports/15mckay.html?_r=1]] We want to reaffirm that the debate has had a clear definition of dictatorship from it’s beginning, and it has been proven that it is the more appropriate one. Also, the examples and evidences presented in our arguments perfectly fit the definition given. In short, we don’t understand the opposition's concerns on the issue, or on how it is supposed to justify the fact that they didn’t establish any arguments on how other systems are hypothetically better than dictatorships for development, or on why the developed democracies should keep on undermining dictatorships in underdeveloped countries. Lastly we applaud the opposition calls for a meaningful debate but we think that should include the presentation of their arguments in their first contest phase so that they may be discussed and responded, and excluding unreliable sources as Wikipedia[[http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwriting/2008/11/texas-appellate.html]], which "anyone can edit".