The Opposition…

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior Is Almost Always Good Politics

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita

Discussion: 2012-Jan-Feb-Mar

Why we're reading this: January 23, 2012
[close] January 23, 2012

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

Showing 2 of 3 topics — 3 comments total

2012-Jan-Feb-Mar

This topic has been closed to new comments.

* March 2012
By Tiffany , WristStrong · 1 post · 33 views

last updated Mar 30, 2012 02:48PM

* February 2012
By Tiffany , WristStrong · 1 post · 21 views

last updated Mar 06, 2012 02:22PM

What Members Thought

Feb 10, 2017 Andy rated it it was ok

Basically, this author tells us over and over that powerful people abuse their power if no one checks them. This is not news. Also, there's a certain incoherence to the thesis even in the examples he uses: Bell, California was inevitably corrupt, but he can tell the story because everyone involved went to jail; foreign aid never works but the Marshall Plan was very successful, etc. Something is missing from the model. He needs to explain how the checks on corruption change in strength over time ...more

29 likes · Like · see review

Jan 28, 2020 Manifest Stefany rated it it was amazing

I'd be lying if I said this was not a bit of a textbook my world domination goals.
This breakdown of dictatorships from start to finish was so interesting. You think you know the story. You don't. The patterns seen in all regimes are also interesting at how they end up in the same place taking different routes.
The discussion the 1967 war was from a point of view that was new to me. A new way to look at winners and losers or war and really dig deeper. A lot of good information for business owners ...more

7 likes · Like · see review

May 07, 2018 Dea rated it really liked it

Overall a very good book. Or at least a book that offers a novel perspective on the world. I do have some criticisms, though.

There were some factual omissions made in order to confirm reality to the proposed theory. For example, the authors would offer country A and country B, saying that healthcare and infant mortality rate were better in country A therefore it must have a bigger coalition. However, that would mean they had ignored 30 years of history during which country B was under an embarg Overall a very good book. Or at least a book that offers a novel perspective on the world. I do have some criticisms, though.

There were some factual omissions made in order to confirm reality to the proposed theory. For example, the authors would offer country A and country B, saying that healthcare and infant mortality rate were better in country A therefore it must have a bigger coalition. However, that would mean they had ignored 30 years of history during which country B was under an embargo, meaning that they could not get advanced technology imported leading to worsening of healthcare standards.

My other complaint is with the solutions offered by the authors. Part of me wonders if the only reason they offered solutions was because it is customary for this sort of books, and they themselves did not feel certain in how useful their proposed solutions would actually be. In the beginning of the book we are told about a county in California where a small coalition robbed the population blind. That example shows how useless the suggestions at the end of the book are. People of Bell California had freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, yet they still got taken to the bank by a local tyranny with a small coalition. I fail to see how bringing these freedoms to other countries would ensure that a small coalition government would never happen.

The other problem with the solutions proposed, and I feel like the authors knew it was a problem but had no concrete way to solve it, is that big democracies are not actually interested in spreading democracy to other places. They much more prefer a tyrant, but one that would listen to their orders. So all that long list of what democracies can do to bring democracy to other countries is useless, because democracies do not want to bring democracy to other countries no matter how much they claim they do.

My last complaint is that the book is written with a western capitalist bias, and this makes the authors a bit hypocritical. Allowing democracies in other countries means allowing them to choose their leadership, no matter how much we might dislike it. It also means allowing them to choose their form of government, even if it means they choose one of tyrannical religion. Sure it would be nice if they chose freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but if they choose security over all those freedoms, then we have to let them. Stepping in and telling them their choice is wrong, is not much different from a tyrannical government telling them how to live their lives.

Despite all my criticisms this is a very important book for everyone to read. Especially since I feel like things are not as fixable as the authors claim them to be in the last section. ...more

Like · see review