Try to Rule Fairly and You'll Be Overthrown

You are correct for the most part, but I think you are drawing the wrong implications. Yes, they are resistant to swings based on mood changes in the population. However, this does not hold for changes of mind or strategy by elected people themselves. They might promise something at some point and then not do it. US history is full of broken promises. A counterpoint is that Trump and Obama are elected directly and specially on foreign relations they have a huge power to do whatever they like. Obama promised some stuff, Trump retracted it. > In contrast, a dictatorship is unreliable, because all decisions are made by one person, whose mood swings can result in lots of unpredictability. That is true in theory but in practice many dictatorships are remarkably stable. A dictator has to please his cronies, he can't do whatever he likes. He can do what he likes as long as it does not touch the interest of the cronies. Check "Selectorate theory" in political science. Or this nice little video: this video

I've read the book The Dictators Handbook (watch the CGP Grey video Rules for Rulers[1] for a good summary) and I can imagine a number of really clear and compelling Job Stories for this technology: * As a ruler facing large-scale protests, I want to clear the crowds of people from the streets without deploying soldiers who might choose to actually side with the protestors. * As a ruler who is afraid of a coup, I want to reduce the personnel-management costs of maintaining my military so that I can reduce the number of officers needed to maintain the same level of force lethality. This will let me purge my officer corps of possibly-disloyal members and lavish rewards on those who remain. * As a ruler from an ethnic/religious minority, I want to restrict membership in the military to that minority without reducing its lethality so that I can prevent members of the majority from having trained members who could seize power or resist marginalization. Technological advances like quinine and the Madsen and Maxim Gun allowed fewer than 1,000 Europeans[2] under Belgian King Leopold to spread the benefits[3] of civilization to The Congo, an area more than 3 times the size of Texas. I am excited to see the world that these new advances will usher in. [1] this video [2] link [3] link (although yes, also link )

> It's not strictly a "wrong leaders" problem. It's much more systemic than that. Elect a good leader and the oil will provide the impetus to tear that leader down. See also, The Dictator's Handbook , summarized well by CGP Grey's video "The Rules for Rulers" ( this video ). It's an unstable equilibrium to run a country on a wide power base, if it has centralized resource-extraction economy; as any dictator who just plans on staging a coup to take the oil and then reward their few revolutionaries with it, will be able to win over pretty much anyone from the previous wide-base government, who was previously getting a much-smaller slice of the pie.

You would probably enjoy CGP Grey's video Rules for Rulers, which covers very reasonable arguments for why politicians don't enact "good" legislation: this video

Lying? Manipulating? What? Is it wrong for a politician to mirror the opinions of their voters? That’s literally what a representative democracy is supposed to be. Is it wrong for a person to express their heart felt opinion to folks who like and trust them? Isn’t that what all human communication is? Obama did the right thing, in both 2008 and 2012. If he does 2008 differently, he remains a Senator with no national platform. If he does 2012 differently and doesn’t use his national platform to advocate for gay rights, maybe it takes longer for it to reach 80% support in the general population. If you’d like to actually understand politics, I’d suggest reading The Dictators Handbook or watching this video for the tldr- this video

More accurately is the ruling class wants to stay rich, and if they can stay rich without needing an educated and non-poor populace, all the better, because the hungry, disconnected and illiterate do not start effective revolutions. You see this in many resource dictatorships, since you don't need your populace to create your wealth. In dictatorships where they need the populace, then they are in a tough spot, because the only way you get rich is having a developed population productive enough to tax, which you see in Singapore, China, Dubai and Iran somewhat. It is this kind of authoritarian regime that needs the internet, but also wishes they didn't need the internet in the case of Iran and China. CGP gray has a great youtube video summary explaining this: this video

Some thoughts for you: Leadership is a taught skill. Start learning. If you want to get promoted, your current company has sent you a strong message... it is up to you to listen to it and understand it. Personally, I've stayed on the technical side of the house, no regrets. As a Principal Software Engineer... you'd have to pay quite a bit for me as a lead. That said, I have led teams, and enjoy it. I recommend the following books to anyone interested in leadership: And if you are a Senior looking to go to Principal, you are. - Getting to Yes. - Difficult Conversations. Now I also recommend: this video The last video seems odd... until you realize it is how power works. Think about why your manager has power, etc... Why odd things happen. And that video often explains it. Good luck. Maybe it is time to pump the brakes on the car, or turn. Just some advice.

Governments are designed primarily to serve it's citizens and not the needs of shareholders or profit. They are designed additionally to prevent externalising of costs to some third party. IE; forced servitude or significant harm to the population while chasing profit. Your same statements could be reflected inward of course: British empire, the several thousand peaceful transfers of power that come and go without fanfare and of course very violent revolutions that pass with very significant fanfare and attention. A seated government, especially a democratically elected one should be capable of serving the needs of people, however governments are made of people and the smaller the government is the easier it is to buy it off. - The smaller the government, the easier the corruption. (which is why "small government" capitalists always end up embroiled in corruption scandals eventually). A good example of this is denoted "the keys to power" in the easy to understand video essay by CGP Grey: this video

the view of coups as one faction replacing another is quite a rabbit hole, but it's a political analysis that has some experimental and predictive power. there has to be guarantor or benefactor on the other side of it. in this view, leaders are figureheads accountable to the small essential coalition who keeps them there. the idea of secret cabals orchestrating these things is usually backwards, where a revolutionary (or politician) is really just an entrepreneurial dealmaker between elite factions. it's essentially demesquita's "logic of political survival," also distilled into the well made cartoon, "rules for rulers" this video

This article is an interesting case study in the difference between "monarchy" and "dictatorship". The way I think about it, the differences are as follows: * Under monarchy, one person is chosen to rule "at random". Under dictatorship, there is a competition where the most ruthless person gets to rule. * Under monarchy, the people believe the monarch rules by divine right. Under dictatorship, the dictator rules by fear. * Monarchies are more stable, meaning the ruler can plan with a long time horizon. Dictators are more likely to siphon resources while the siphoning is good, since they fear a coup. * Lacking popular legitimacy, a dictator is forced to consider the self-interest and loyalty of their underlings. This leads to extractive and regressive policy. See this excellent video explaining the game theory: this video * Under monarchy, criticism is kept in check while maintaining rule of law, via lèse-majesté laws which make it illegal to criticize the monarch. Under dictatorship, criticism is kept in check via repression. That same repression makes the dictator less popular, which triggers more criticism, and thus more repression, in a doom loop. Monarchy is an imperfect system. A lot comes down to the person who is "randomly" chosen to rule. But I do wonder if monarchy should be considered an option in countries where democracy has been consistently dysfunctional and the population is poorly educated -- Haiti perhaps? Most successful democracies were monarchies at some poin

There's a good video from CGP Grey about this: this video Even the most tyrannical, draconian, egotistical ruler has someone to answer to. And the people second and third in power MUST be happy with the regime, or else everything goes bust.