AIUI, the Turks still have fond memories of Mustapha Kemal Ataturk. He was a vigorous modernizer, which the Turks needed at the time.
Are there 20th century examples of dictators who were good leaders and better than elected polticos?
King Hussein of Jordan is an excellent (and possibly only) example, as well as his successor, King Hassan. Unelected European royalty has no governing authority and are certainly not dictators
What about Daniel Ortega? As I understand it, he was essentially a dictator of Nicauragua from 1979-1984, at which point he was elected into office in elections described as free-and-fair but disputed by opposition parties, and he gave up power in 1990 when he was voted out of office, and then we reelected into office in 2007.
While there were serious human rights abuses under his dictatorship and presidency, they were far milder than the abuses both of his predecessor and the atrocities committed by US-backed forces in his country during his reign; he vastly improved health and literacy among his country’s citizens; and his efficacy is demonstrated by his popularity.
-
The figure of one million Vietnamese purged after the war is absurdly high. The highest end estimates are only a third of that. Let’s not forget who the opposition was either, Diem had 12,000 political opponents executed in 1955-57 and didn’t even have the flimsy excuse of having finally won a ten year long war to reunite the country. He was also ‘elected’ in 1955 with 98.2 of the vote; add to that campaigning by opposition parties was prohibited and supporters of Bao Dai were openly attacked by workers of Diem’s brother Nhu. Diem then declared the creation of the Republic of Vietnam with himself as the president and further announced the scheduled election in 1956 to reunify the country that had been agreed upon in the 1954 Geneva Accords was not going to take place. There was every indication that Ho Chi Minh would have won said election in a landslide, in the words of President Eisenhower “I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly eighty percent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai. Indeed, the lack of leadership and drive on the part of Bao Dai was a factor in the feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for.”
-
Ho Chi Minh died September 2nd, 1969, so he’s out, but not for the reasons you seem to think.
Seeing this is now in GD, I think I can justify putting another plug in for Tito. As this Wiki link describes, he introduced a large number of economic, political, and social reforms, something no other ‘Eastern Bloc’ leader could seriously claim. Indeed, the people of Yugoslavia enjoyed much more freedom than their counterparts throughout the Warsaw Pact.
Bottom line, life under Tito was peaceful and relatively comfortable (described succinctly here and here).
So, again, I submit Tito as an answer to the OP.
And won!
And what in your opinion would have happened if the generals hadn’t started the civil war to begin with? Because you can’t forget his responsibility in starting this mess (nitpickers : I know he wasn’t the original leader of the coup).
I’m not sure why there are so many posters here who are so lenient with Franco. It’s not the first time I notice this. Is considering Franco a benign dictator an American thing?
Why?
I find unqualified veneration of “democracy” as the supreme end in itself to be very naive. In my view democracy is not an end to which other things should be sacrificed, it is a means towards other ends like freedom, economic progress, cultural progress, etc. those are true ends in themselves, and “democracy" is purely a tool which helps in achieving those ends under certain circumstances, but not always.
This consideration we have these days for democracy as the unqualified end is frankly, stupid, and has led to trying to implement elections in countries and cultures which have no use for them.
So, yes, dictators can be good leaders for their countries.
Franco. These days the pendulum has swung so far the other way in Spain that it is illegal to defend Franco or his regime. You can go to jail just like you can go to jail for defending terrorists. That’s “democracy” and “freedom of expression” in Spain these days.
Things are not good or bad in an absolute sense; they are good or bad in context. Like the old joke:
-
How’s your wife?
-
Compared to what?
The history of Spain during the entire 19th century is a history of civil wars and unrest. No stability.
The second republic (1931) was a disaster. Yes there were elections. So what? There was also a permanent state of civil unrest and the government had no control of the situation. Political killings were common. It was total disorder. The government did nothing while the uncontrolled masses burnt churches and killed priests and nuns. To say such a government is legitimate just because it came out of some election is stupid. The leader of the opposition, Calvo Sotelo, was assassinated by government police. And the military (not Franco) got fed up and revolted. I was not alive then but, frankly, if I was living in that state of quasy civil war I probably would have supported the coup. Later the military rebels chose Franco as leader and generalissimo.
During Franco’s dictatorship there was almost 40 years of civil order which is the first thing a society needs to progress. The economic development was astounding and created a middle class which was necessary for social and political stability.
When Franco died in 1975 the situation was very tense but there was a successful transition to democracy.
So I would say on the whole Franco’s regime was successful. Especially when compared to the disaster that was the Second Republic.
Franco was ruthless. Well, yes. The whole of the Spanish people had fallen into barbaric extremism. The different factions of the republican forces were not any better. At that time the Spanish people believed that enemies needed killing. That is what extremism is.
Franco’s regime laid the foundation for the welfare state, health care, etc.
After Franco died, there was a successful transition to democracy and … after some decades of democracy Spain is again in turmoil. “Democracy” today in Spain is a joke. Yes, you can vote but it won’t do you any good because the game is rigged and the country is run by a bunch of thieves who are stealing al they can. There has never been so much corruption. The country is in ruins. Unemployment is sky high. People are losing their homes, their savings, it is a disaster. But hey, they can vote!
And when regimes cannot give people a good economy they give them ideology. So for some years now the Spanish people are presented with laws condemning Franco and his regime while totally ignoring what caused Franco and his regime.
Of course nobody who is not insane would propose a return to a Franco-style regime. But for the time he lived Franco was better than the republic which preceded him. And the Spanish people need to gain a lot of political maturity before “democracy” works really well. For now it is just a cover for politicians who are stealing all they can while the people are suffering. And “democracy” is used as the cover for all the stealing and corruption. And you don’t want to question “democracy”! It can land you in jail!
Franco benefits from being compared to other dictators of his era. In comparison to figures like Hitler and Stalin, he looks pretty good.
Of course, that’s setting the bar pretty low. Franco may not have been in the worst tier but he was definitely in a bad tier: he can credibly be compared to figures like Chiang or Mussolini.
I also don’t give Franco much credit for Spain’s transition to democracy after his death. That was really more Juan Carlos’ idea. Franco chose to restore Juan Carlos because he thought the king would maintain a Franco-style dictatorship. But Juan Carlos, either out of conviction or a recognition of changing reality, worked to restore a democratic system of government after Franco died.
The important thing about Franco is, he was not an ideological fascist (though he was supported by fascists, called Falangists in Spain). I’ve seen him described as “a cop, not an artist.” Fascism is revolutionary and forward-looking. Franco was much more old-fashioned; his notion was to turn back the Spanish clock to the 18th Century so far as possible. And, unlike Hitler and Mussolini, he had no interest in territorial aggression (it just upsets things). But, he was a pretty oppressive ruler at home.
No, Franco does not need to be compared to other dictators because the title of the thread is “Are there 20th century examples of dictators who were good leaders and better than elected polticos?”.
Franco and his regime, when compared with the Second Spanish Republic which preceded them, come out looking pretty good. The problem is that in western cultures these days there is the automatic belief that democracy = good and authoritarian=bad because the so-called democratic countries have repeated it so much. So franco is bad by definition and the republic was good by definition and people are totally ignorant of the reality of Franco’s regime and the republic. The Republic was “democratic” and therefore good. Well, no. It was an unqualifed disaster. It exarcebated social tensionsto the point where… they caused a civil war.
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
– H. L. Mencken
Democracy is not a theory of good government, it is a theory of legitimate government. It is simply the notion that a state’s sovereignty properly rests with the people collectively, because, well, who else? Either you accept that or you don’t.
Anticommunism is an American thing – the U.S. backed a lot of anticommunist dictators during the Cold War – and the Spanish Republican government included Communists (and Anarchists).
Who claimed he was a “benign dictator “? He was a rat bastard. Sure, I guess compared to Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini- not so bad. But evil, none-the-less. Just better than the alternative.
And altho his party made the first military move in the Civil war, there was a back and forth escalation during the entire “two black years” period where it can’t be said either ‘side” actually ‘started” the civil war.
If the generals hadn’t intervened? Chaos and anarchy , with the nation splitting up, several going communist. Hitler invades during WWII. Bad things occur.
Why?
I would suggest Augusto Pinochet? Chile is a very prosperous country today b/c of his reforms and the war he waged on communists.
If having a parliament which votes on taxes disqualfies you from being a dictator, there would be a lot less of them.
One of Victoria’s early actions was to keep a Whig prime minister, Melbourne, despite the conservatives having won the election. I don’t know the details of British parliamentary procedure, but I’m pretty sure that if Obama had kept Pelosi on as speaker for few years, even though the GOP had won a majority of the House, most people would think the US was turning into a dictatorship – and we wouldn’t have had the shutdown or sequestration.
It’s true that when Victoria struggled with parliament, she didn’t always win. I didn’t say she was an absolute dictator.
Of course, she wasn’t a 20th century dictator because, in the 1850’s, she stopped struggling with parliament.
Maybe this isn’t a better known because the idea of a woman voluntarily giving up power for the greater good, however wise a decision it was, doesn’t totally fit with a feminist narrative.
That’s the way it was headed before the Civil war. I just assume things would have continued. Of course there could have been a miracle. In fact Spain, for most purposes is now split up, the “Autonomous communitie” are almost independent nations. Catalonia is pretty much there.
Dudes really need to read some unbiased Spanish history, especially that concerning the “two black years” .