Here's something for both 2301 and 2302 to chew on as we review basic terms and observe the pros and cons of different governing systems. Autocracy tends to be efficient - it can get things done - but is also arbitrary - there are no rules which guide its actions. The autocrat is unpredictable.
Add to that the tendency of autocrats to be narcissistic:
There is a school of thought in politics and international relations which holds that all the bluster from dictators under pressure is propaganda, in the sense that the leaders themselves realize it’s untrue. They are just trying to demoralize their opponents and rally their friends by intentionally overstating how well things are going. In their hearts, autocrats know the jig is up and that means a window for a negotiated settlement with them has opened.
That school of thought is usually wrong.
If you take a human being — particularly a male one — and for most or all of his life give him every material comfort while others are starving, encourage him to believe that other people are his inferior, and nurture a sense of entitlement in him through word and deed (e.g., letting him watch or participate in torture sessions), you will often produce what we shrinks call a malignant narcissist (or “A classic Cleckley psychopath” for those of my colleagues who may be scoring at home). I don’t mean “narcissist” in the colloquial sense of someone who worries too much about his looks and is a bit self-involved, I mean someone who literally believes that other human beings are merely objects for his self-gratification, and, that the usual constraints of human existence (e.g., everyone dies, no one gets everything he wants) do not apply to him.
A nice analysis of human nature and a great compliment to some of the material we will dig through during the first couple of weeks of class.
