In public policy discussions, when arguing that authoritarianism may be an effective way of governing, especially in the context of an economic crisis, the following aspects are often used to argue for it. However, it is important to note that these arguments may be controversial and should not be seen as a negation of democratic governance, but rather as different perspectives for the sake of balance in the discussion: 1. **Fast decision-making and execution**: In an economic crisis, markets and society may experience rapidly changing conditions, and authoritarianism allows leaders to quickly formulate and implement policies without being constrained by cumbersome democratic procedures. This efficiency can play a role in crisis response, ensuring that necessary economic measures are taken in a timely manner. 2. **Long-term planning and stability**: Authoritarian governments are generally able to formulate longer-term economic strategies without being affected by frequent elections and political cycles. This long-term stability may contribute to economic recovery and sustained growth. 3. **Unified policy direction**: In an economic crisis, political differences may lead to delays in decision-making or inconsistent policies. By centralizing power, authoritarian systems can unify ideas and concentrate resources to avoid policy fragmentation caused by decentralized power. 4. **Eliminating corruption and privilege**: Some viewpoints argue that centralized systems can fight corruption more effectively and eliminate privileged monopolies in economic development, although this is controversial in practice because authoritarianism itself can also breed corruption. 5. **Social order and security**: In the case of an economic crisis, social unrest and security issues may intensify. Authoritarian means may appear more effective in maintaining social order, thereby creating a relatively stable environment for economic recovery. 6. **Forced implementation of economic reforms**: Economic crises often require painful structural reforms, which may be difficult to implement in a democratic system because stakeholders may hinder the reform process. Authoritarian systems may encounter less resistance when implementing major economic reforms. However, these views may not always hold true in actual applications, and authoritarianism may also lead to human rights issues, economic inefficiency, and institutional corruption. Therefore, in public policy discussions, in addition to considering efficiency, the fairness and legitimacy of governance, as well as the possible impact on democratic systems and individual freedoms, should also be carefully considered.