Under a dictatorship, is an assassination a good means of changing regime? |
Under a dictatorship an assassination is a good means of changing regime because usually there is no reasoning with a dictatorship.
There is usually no way to obtain civility in a dictatorship unless you change the leader. Sadly, the leader will not listen to reason since he wants to do what ever he can to stay in power which includes things like murdering people. Because of this, an assassination is pretty much the only way that you can change the regime.
Posted by: eyeslikethatAlthough I don't believe in killing anyone or anything, changing regimes by assassinating the current dictator is a viable solution.
Provided that one can hire a person qualified and capable of performing the assassination, killing a dictator will thoroughly and permanently remove him or her.
Posted by: R4v4g3rPavIAssassination is not often a good thing, but sometimes it has to be done.
Although I am sure society does not wish people to be assassinated, in some situations, an overthrow of government is almost impossible. Governments that are able to organize coups are only overthrowing the current government to usually get the same results with a different person. Some societies just do what they have to do to make life better.
Posted by: WillowsErvYes, I believe it is a quick method of getting rid of a dictator that is creating disturbances in his or her country.
Assassinating a dictator is a quick means to end a problematic leadership. Julius Caesar was assassinated because he appointed himself leader for life. There are times when certain rulers will not leave their thrones, and the people are too impoverished or somehow powerless to conduct an overthrow themselves. If Saddam Hussein were merely assassinated, the U.S. may not now be facing an interminable occupation of Iraq.
Posted by: KinBeachYes Illegitimate tyrants can be assassinated if it's the only way to freedom.
Dictatorial systems are highly personal, so removing the driving force behind such a regime will result in its collapse.
Posted by: JKleinRegime change in a dictatorship is sometimes only understood through the same measures that the dictator uses.
In a dictatorship, the quality of life for the citizens is generally bad. The dictator enforces his policies and views through violence against the people whom he is supposed to be looking after. When you are dealing with a person of this nature, typical politics are not going to work. Usually, the competition is eliminated. Using Saddam Hussein as an example, the people were happy when he was eliminated. He was in power for many years and would not have anyone contest him. When the US came in, they didn't necessarily assassinate him, but the force of a military ousted him. However, given the opportunity, there is no doubt in my mind that a team would have had him assassinated. It has been done in the past to remove dictators from power. It is a quick and efficient way to remove a dictator from power immediately.
Posted by: M4ck3God2iIIaI agree that assassination is a good means of changing regime under dictatorship, because there is no reasoning with dictators.
I agree that assassination is a good means of changing regime under dictatorship because there is no reasoning with dictators. Typically, dictators murder a lot of citizens just to gain power over a country. It is like the death penalty. Assassination is a way to bring justice to all those people who died during the process of dictatorship.
Posted by: SecondNoel50Yes, because a dictator, if willing to kill his citizens unjustifiably, is subject to the same treatment.
We, of course, should seek to eliminate the dictator by other means first. But if an individual of that power is doing great harm to a great many, his death would do little to fix what he has done, nor will the harm be able to compare. This isn't to say we should assassinate anyone we dislike. But if there is no other option, assassination can be justified.
Posted by: daveyxhAssassination is a good way to change regimes because if the regime does not live up to helping its people out, assassination is a good way to change it.
I believe that assassinations is a good way to go around changing a specific regime because if the leader knows he is going to get killed because he fails at making the regime prosperous, he will make the living conditions harsher for his people. However, if he does not know he is going to get assassinated, someone can easily just kill him silently and there will be a change in the regime.
Posted by: N34rIyGaIv
I oppose assassination as a viable means of regime change.
Assassination as a viable means of regime change is not right. I believe that a diplomatic solution should always be the one to be sought out when it comes to a dictator-ruled regime. This type of action would lead to an unsafe country, as quickly deposing of a dictator in such a fashion would cause instability. Through diplomatic solutions and reform would a country be able to safely transition from a dictatorship to a more democratic government.
Posted by: Maximus WaltonAssassination is not a legitimate way of instituting a regime change because it simply causes other, larger problems.
Assassination is not a legitimate way of instituting a regime change because it simply causes other, larger problems. The biggest of those problems is that it causes global strife from other non-involved countries. It could lead to war or a world war. In addition, assassination could lead to internal strife within the country of the assassinated leader as groups clamor for power. Incidentally, there is the whole issue of taking someone's life, which is not justified.
Posted by: SandDariAssasination is wrong, no matter how bad the person is.
Dictators are murders, but the citizens shouldn't murder them because of that. I see no justice in killing someone at all. Murder is wrong, so people should find a better, safer way in changing rule. I'm an American who believes in the constitution and believes that nobody should be sentenced death without a proper trial. Like someone said before, "two wrongs NEVER equal a right"
Posted by: MarysI oppose assassination as a means of changing regime, because it is still murder, which is fundamentally wrong.
There are other ways to get rid of a dictator, including bloodless coups. They might take more planning and be more difficult to pull off, but they can be done. The dictator can then be imprisoned for life, or tried for their crimes. The regime could change daily, if assassination was considered a good means to removing a dictator, as there will always be someone that is unhappy with the current regime.
Posted by: TMaciasAssassination creates an atmosphere of fear and leads to political unrest.
Assassination might accomplish the goal of getting rid of a despotic leader. But would you really want to be governed by a leader who achieved his position by having the last guy killed? The new regime would also have to fear that their current leader would be assassinated by people loyal to the opposition, and that might lead to the kind of atrocities committed by dictators like Saddam Hussein and Nicoli Coucescu against anyone who opposed their regime.
Posted by: N Schroeder 60No, it should be view as a last resort due to the political vacuum left from the leaders death.
The sudden and chaotic loss of a leader puts a nation state at risk for civil war. A leader must be found in hours, and it can mean not the best person, but the loudest meanest one, gets the position. This can cause a worsening situation for the nation state. As such, assassination, MUST be a last resort.
Posted by: StormGraI do not believe that an assassination is a good means of changing a regime during a dictatorship.
To me, using an assassination to displace a dictator is a bad way to start off a new regime, kind of like "two wrongs don't make a right." A world governing body should remove the dictator through diplomacy and the proper political channels.
Posted by: ToughEfrain26Governments are rarely a single person, and there are always other potential dictators available to fill in, if a leader is killed.
Governments, even dictatorships, are rarely based around a single person. They may have a central figure, and that central figure may have unlimited power, but there is always a hierarchy within the system. The more dangerous the dictator, the more likely it is that they have filled this hierarchy with people who would carry on their plans in their absence. In some cases, they fill positions with people considered even worse than they are. This security measure makes assassination the worst solution to dictatorships.
Posted by: KnownEvanNot all people called dictators are actually dictators, and assassinations could start leadership roulette.
If it is alright to kill "dictators", then it is easy to kill any government leader one does not like; just call them a dictator. The twice democratically elected President George W. Bush was called a dictator. Tony Blair, a democratically elected Prime Minister of England, was called a dictator for fighting terrorism. Given this rationale, a terrorist could kill a democratically elected government official who has clamped down on a terrorist group with the intention of reducing freedoms of some to save the freedoms if not lives of the majority.
Posted by: Pir4AndI disagree, because I do not believe murder is ever the best answer.
While I realize that sometimes there is no other way to bring about change, I believe that even the most evil of people should not be murdered outright in the case of an assassination. If they are captured, tried and convicted and sentenced to death, that is fine, but without a trial and examination of the evidence, the wrong person may have been killed.
Posted by: SilentMarcos49Somebody would take their place
In dictatorships the dictator is not the only person who has power. Therefore, somebody else would easily be able and ready to take the dictator's place if they were killed. Also, if the dictator were the only way that country was organized then killing the dictator if nobody was there to take their place would put that country in anarchy. However, say there was already a fully prepared democratic group there to take on power, how would the people just willingly go to a new leader? What about the people who shared the same opinion as the dictator and liked the way their country was run? Would it really be a better possibility for them, or just a different one? A dictatorship could change regime, but an assassination of the dictator would only mean a change and weather it is of dictators or regime depends entirely upon the preparation and thought put into the event.
Posted by: Anonymous