In his defence, he’d been dead for three years.
Are there 20th century examples of dictators who were good leaders and better than elected polticos?
The problem with dictators isn’t that they’re bad leaders - the problem is that they rule dictatorships. A dictatorship will always be inferior to a democracy, not because of the quality of its leaders, but because of the quality of its society.
Queen Vic had very little REAL power - influence certainly, but power always lays in the hands of the people with the money. Parliament controlled the purse strings from Cromwell in the 17th century. The monarchs were the nominal boss, but they could do nothing without parliament voting the money.
The problem with benign dictators is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If Ho Chi Minh and Francisco freakin’ Franco get to be on the list, I’d say Fidel Castro should too. There was certainly political repression, but it’s fairly low key by 20th century dictator standards and he’s definitely got the “better than the last guy” card in that department. His regime has done pretty well on social welfare and by the (admittedly low) standards of the region Cuba has been a pretty nice place to live.
Oops…not 20th century. Sorry.
excuses excuses…
Let’s see, one quarter of the earth globe lived under the rule of her and her ministers. Hardly a good dictator.
I would say General Franco. This man may have actually prevented Germany from winning WWII. While a fascist, he resisted all German attempts to have him join the Axis. had he done so, German forces would have swarmed into Spain, and closed the straits of Gibraltar. With this accomplished, British forces in Egypt would have been cut off, and Hitler’s forces could have seized the Suez Canal.
This would have ended Aramco’s production of Saudi crude oil (a vital factor in the Allies defense of SE Asia from the Japanese.
Franco was too smart to fall for Hitler-he was wise to have done so…other allies (like King Boris of Bulgaria) would up dead.
My vote is for Thubten Gyatso. His successor might have been pretty good, if he hadn’t lost power.
What about Juan Peron? His economics may have been flawed, but he did institute a form of social welfare that helped the population. The governments before and after him were pretty chaotic. the fact that a lot of people remember and love him still, to the point where they elected his widow, says something about his policies.
the trouble is that a dictator still has to defend his right to be in power - which right is generally, “because I said so, no arguing”. This inevitably leads to repression and human rights violations.
You seem to think that Queen Vic was some kind of executive monarch like Henry V111 was. This is far from the case. As a constitutional Monarch she had very little executive power. “Off with his head” belongs strictly to Alice in Wonderland.
How does Castro rank, as dictators go?
I mean, the guy’s not exactly Gandhi F. Roosevelt or anything, but he didn’t starve to death/execute a quarter of his country’s population in four years.
Since the answer to this will largely depend on political viewpoint (and because we’re getting nominees as disparate as Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Franco, and Queen Victoria), let’s move this over to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I am assuming here that Franco’s party lost the Spanish Civil war. Having read histories and analysis’s of that war it’s pretty obvious Spain would have fragmented if the war dragged on. Since the Communist backed Republican party would have won, then, at least in most areas, there would have been Communist Dictatorships.
The Catalans and Basques would have seceded, at least (they almost did several times) . Aragon & Catalonia may have gone into a state of Anarchy. In fact during the “two black year” immediately preceding the Civil war, the nation was pretty much in anarchy. Technically Spain might have been a democracy but in reality it wasn’t.
Strangely, this can be attributed to Admiral Canaris the head of the Abwehr (German Military Intelligence). He was a noted friend of Franco and cordially despised Hitler (and was later hung by piano wire due to his part in the plot) . It seems Canaris warned Franco against trusting Hitler and recommend strongly against a true, active Military alliance. This kept Spain out of WWII.
But yes, letting Hitler into Spain would have been very bad for the Allies, not to mention Spain.
The only power that author lists as Victoria “giving away” was the ability to appoint cabinet members, and I question the extent to which that was even a real power in the first place, and not just a rubber stamp. Victoria had no power to introduce, modify, or reject legislation, or direct the course of the empire, and any attempt to meddle in the political machinery of the state would have led to a crisis in government that almost certainly would have ended in her forced abdication. Calling her a political figure of any kind is a stretch. Calling her a dictator is ridiculous.
Incidentally, the story your cite mentions, about Victoria removing references to lesbianism from the law against homosexuality? Totally apocryphal, plus the guy told it wrong.
I would say that Gorbachev was better than Yeltsin, his democratically elected replacement.
Park Chung-Hee is the obvious example. He took over a South Korea that was dirt poor and in constant danger of communist takeover from within and invasion from the North. For almost 20 years he fended off the communists and put the country on a path to prosperity.
**
Oh, he only ruthlessly cracked down on peaceful demonstrators. Nothing to see here, move along. :rolleyes: