| Where was the implication of a dictatorship. All Governments tells its citizens what to do (the legal -- particularly statutory law). And when people don't do it, there are consequences (the judicial and enforcement arms of the legal system). This doesn't make a country like the US a dictatorship, it merely means it is not an anarchy. The nature and origin of these laws is likely to determine if it is a dictatorship. Providing the UN with military forces would not make it a dictatorship. Eliminating the essentially demoncratic procedures and charter would.
I see two basic models the UN can follow. One is a judicial model the other is a representative model. Under the judicial model, rules are established these guide the decisions of the members. Under a representative model, the members vote on decisions. I personally favour moving the bulk of the security council decision making under a judicial model -- with representative (voting) decisions reserved for procedural issues (establishing the rules) and for exceptional situations. The success of this model rests on the rules established and the transparency of the system. As I outlined, the rules should be established democratically and the process should be highly transparent. None of this suggests anything like a dictatorship. |