Napoleon Bonaparte

The source states that in certain situations one strong, powerful leader would be the best option for the nation. A strong all powerful leader can lead to dictatorship. By definition, a dictator is a ruler with complete power over a country, which is sometimes obtained by force. A dictator provides a sense of unity and makes it easier to tame out of control situations. Under a dictatorship, the nation being governed is easily controlled by censorship of the media that does not have much say in the actions of its leader.
There is little to no power assigned to the people. A democracy, on the other hand, allocates power to the people. In this form of government, all members of the legislature are elected by the population of the nation. An efficient democracy needs a coexistence between a ruling party and an opposing party so that all views of the population may be heard and considered, although in the end the majority rules. A democratic leader must be thoughtful and consider change when wanted and/or needed. A democratic leader is there to serve the individual, rather than in a dictatorship where the individual serves the leader. Citizens are trusted in a democracy and given the ability to make their own decisions and act based on their own beliefs. Within a democracy, it may take loner to react to an emergency, unlike a dictatorship where an action may be taken immediately.
In a democracy the government must answer to the voters which can take long periods of time to execute and approve while a dictator can make a quick decision based on his/ her judgements and jump to action. A national emergency could be a war, a natural disaster, a shortage of essential goods, an economic deficit, or any other major even impacting the nation as a whole. Napoleon Bonaparte is an example of a fast acting dictator. He showed strength, ingenuity on the battlefield, and the ability to think quickly while making beneficial decisions. Upon his escape from exile he jumped directly back into power, raising an army to fight the battle of Waterloo in 1815. Although at the end of his career he did fall, through most of his lifetime he managed to bring his country into power. Those who agree with the source would likely be someone aspiring to power.
Very few citizens would want a single person controlling their country. The population of a nation, in most cases, would like a democracy because they would feel they have a voice in how their country is governed. Those living in an already democratic nation, or wishing to live in a democracy would likely disagree with the source. The source should not be embraced, as no one person should hold ultimate power over a country.

Before one can take a position on a source, the assigned source must be given an in depth analysis. This source is stating which form of government would be best to run a country during a crisis/emergency. The source is extremely biased and makes a democracy look destructive, while making a dictatorship seem like the better option. The source is most likely written by a supporter of dictatorship. It mentions how one ruler is
“better equipped” to rule a nation and how democracy is “inefficient” and “corrupt” while looking at none of the the negatives of a dictatorship of the positives of a democracy.
The source is about social nationalism because it is partly about how a form of government affects the individual, while also being about political nationalism because it talks about which form of government is best for the populace. The source can also be lightly related to national identity because how a country is run can change the rest of the world’s view of a country. The source mentions Napoleon Bonaparte and how the world needs more of strong rulers like him but the source fails to mention Napoleon’s downfall or how he abused his power.

One reason one should not embrace the source, is the number of failed dictators outweigh the number of failed democracies. It is easy for a dictator to abuse their power and completely dominate a nation or country. Looking at history, we see multiple examples of this including, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Sadam Hussein. All have had common negative impacts on their people. Many have used internment camps to get rid of people who oppose them, and who they oppose. Each leader killed over a million people, including countless of the individuals they were meant to govern. They used inhumane methods to control their people, like forced famine (Stalin), chemical warfare
(Hussein), and mass murder (Hitler). Although the purpose of a government is to serve the people, few individuals have any quality of life under a dictator. Their power is usually taken by force, and most often abused. Even with the best intentions like
Robespierre during the French revolution. Although the intent was to free the French people and unite France, the revolution resulted in those who supported the monarchy being slaughtered like those who originally opposed it. On the other hand, no true form of democracy has failed. Most citizens living under a democracy would agree the system offers them the freedom to live their lives the way they want and help in the decisions made by the government. While some democracies have failed, all failing democracies have had negatively been influenced by other forms of government that caused them to fail.

Another reason to oppose the source is it is less likely for corruption to be found within a democracy. When one person has all the decisions making power there is much that can go wrong. One persons opinion on an issue will not reflect the views of the nation as a whole, but rather the view of a single person ruling the nation. This individual can impose any laws they please without regard for the wishes of the people.
This gives them the power to destroy a nation as easily as they could create one. One might say that democracy takes too long for a decision to be made within a democracy, and the potential of corruption is worth the ability to act quickly. Democracy does sacrifice efficiency for quality but making, but blindly jumping to action can have negative effects. Take Napoleon Bonaparte for example. Following his return from exile he jumped into building an army without much time to consider the consequences, which led him to his greatest failure and ultimately the French revolution going full circle with a king at the head of the country once again. A well thought out decision will usually have a better impact than a quick one made on impulse. The opinions of many will impact decisions in a democracy as choices have to be passed through the many stages of the government. Any decision reached in a democracy will reflect the views of the majority and be the best decision possible.

In conclusion one should not embrace the source because democracy has had more successes than dictatorships, and democracies are much more secure and less prone to corruption.