Dittatura

The distinction proposed by Maurice Duverger between technical dictatorship and dictatorship sociological , as pointed out George Duveau, is based on a value judgment that opposes the good dictatorships (sociological) to the bad (technical). What really distinguishes dictatorships appeared in history--if this term is not meant to designate generically, as does Mario Stoppino, in the strict entry written for the Dictionary of Politics-, <the entire class of non-democratic regimes specifically modern, which are found in modern countries in the process of modernization > -- is, indeed, the distinction Revolution / conservation but in a sense different from what mean scholars engagés as Duverger. The revolution, which ultimately brings the nature of the 'sovereign dictatorship', refers to the novus ordo to be established on the ruins of the old and the new order may, at the ideological level, refer to the class, the State, the race but, in any case involves deep and irreparable cracks in the social and political fabric. The preservation, subtended, however, to the 'dictatorship Commissioner', involves too often incurable wounds but more on the political and institutional frameworks than on the social and cultural system. And therefore these wounds are less difficult to remedy, notwithstanding what says Duverger that <the technical dictatorships are more harsh than sociological dictatorships>. In both cases, however, recourse to the dictatorship does not produce the desired results and, if sometimes heals a stagnant economy (as in the classical case of Chile), leads to high prices in terms of revenge and resentment destined to survive for long the protagonists of the events themselves