In public policy discussions, exploring the rationality of authoritarianism on the grounds of economic crisis is a complex and sensitive issue, involving the intersection of political philosophy, economics and ethics. Although this view has been proposed or practiced in specific historical contexts, it needs to analyze its logical framework, potential risks and disputes with critical thinking and academic neutrality. ###1. Logic of possible arguments 1. **Efficiency and fast decision-making** Economic crises often require rapid policy responses (such as large-scale fiscal intervention and resource allocation). Authoritarian systems may reduce procedural delays in democratic systems by concentrating decision-making power, such as legislative gridlock or interest group games. Some historical cases (such as Singapore's early economic reforms) are regarded by some scholars as the embodiment of “efficient authoritarianism”. 2. **Long-term planning ability** Authoritarian governments may be more likely to implement policies that are not affected by short-term election cycles (such as infrastructure investment and industrial transformation), thereby avoiding the short-sighted policies common in democratic countries. For example, China's special economic zone policy in the early stages of reform and opening up is often cited as a case of concentrating on promoting development. 3. **Stabilization of social order** The economic crisis will exacerbate social contradictions (such as unemployment and the gap between the rich and the poor). The authoritarian system may suppress social turmoil through coercion and provide a “stable environment” for economic recovery. But this view needs to be wary of the risk of suppressing basic rights in the name of stability. ###2. Historical context and controversy -**Limitations of selective cases** Some East Asian economies (such as South Korea during the Park Chung-hee period) did achieve economic growth under the authoritarian system, but such cases have special historical conditions (cold War geopolitical, external market opening, etc.), and are often accompanied by late democratization and transformation. Authoritarian regimes in Latin America or Africa are more related to economic stagnation or even collapse. -**The paradox of short-term gains and long-term costs** Authoritarianism may restore order through coercive measures in the early stages of a crisis, but the concentration of power can easily lead to corruption, policy rigidity, and suppression of innovation. After the 2008 financial crisis, democratic countries achieved a balance between crisis response and rights protection through institutional resilience (such as judicial independence and media supervision). ###3. Ethical and institutional risks 1. **The inevitability of abuse of power** The lack of checks and balances in the decision-making mechanism makes it easy for crisis response policies to serve the interests of the ruling group rather than the public interest. For example, expanding surveillance or suppressing dissent in the name of an “economic emergency” may form path dependence and not withdraw after the crisis. 2. **Information distortion and decision-making errors** Under the authoritarian system, the flow of information is limited, and decision makers may misjudge the economic situation due to the lack of diversified feedback. The collapse of the Soviet Union's planned economy in the late period was partly due to the bureaucratic system covering up real economic data. 3. **The paradox of legitimacy** Even if authoritarian policies alleviate economic problems in the short term, the legitimacy of their governance still depends on continuous performance. Once the economy fluctuates again, it may trigger a more serious crisis of confidence (such as the North African countries before the Arab Spring). ###4. Alternative discussion framework Instead of dualizing authoritarianism and democracy, more constructive discussion directions include： -Strengthening democratic resilience in crisis**: How to balance efficiency and accountability through institutional design (such as the time limit of the state of emergency law and independent supervisory agencies). -**Hybrid governance model**: Some democratic countries temporarily expand executive power in crises (such as the New Deal of FDR), but retain legislative and judicial checks and balances, which can be used as a reference case. -**Global collaboration mechanism**: Economic crises are often transnational (such as the impact of the new Crown epidemic), international organizations (International Monetary Fund)、