Are there 20th century examples of dictators who were good leaders and better than elected polticos?

Why should I accept any government that has no popular legitimacy? Who gets to decides if it works well enough?

Call me crazy, or a fundamentalist republican if you wish, but anybody who seizes power without the people’s assent needs to be kicked out pronto, regardless of whether or not you find it works well enough.

How could a government without legitimacy have any authority over me and my fellows citizens? Apart from using brute force, jailing, torture and execution, I mean. Why on earth should I care the slighest bit about this government decisions, laws, regulations, statements or whatnot?

No legitimacy means exactly that : whatever this government orders, it has as much value as the ramblings of any random individual. Only force allow this particular individual over here to rule rather than this other one over there. It’s just a matter of who holds the larger stick.

I’ll take the dysfunctional separatist democratic government over the efficient benevolent dictatorship every day and twice on sunday.

:smack: Oh well, in that case, cancel my second suggestion.

Most of the other dictators listed here also practised torture. And the Shah at least seriously pursued secularism and gender egalitarianism.

By adding these two provisos, you’ve pretty much excluded any possible candidates. Dictators are dictators because they rule through the use of force rather than by the consent of the governed. In order to maintain power, at some point they are going to have to exercise lethal force. I doubt there are any full dictatorships in which no opponents were “disappeared” or “killed while trying to avoid arrest.”

The question was what dictator was as good or better leader than elected officials. Not which dictator is better than other dictators. The Shah was very modestly less barbaric than Saddam Hussein. Doesn’t make him a good leader. He was in fact a pretty shitty one.

Always by fiat and not occasionally by force. Whether you are mandating headscarves ( the mullahs ) or banning them ( the Shah ), you are being repressive and patriarchal either way. In fact the Shah did accomplish some bits of real good in his half-assed progressivism. But he was so ham-handed at how he went about it that it caused a severe backlash even among the educated secular middle-class. You had young secular college women wearing scarves as an expression of solidarity with their middle-aged bazaari mothers who were humiliated to be forced to be out in public without them. Which led all the easier to Khomeini and company seizing control. Just like French absolutism helped set the stage for Robespierre, that Shah and his corrupt, plutocratic cronies gets to share just a bit in the excesses of his successors.

The crazy thing about the picture is the intact buildings. I mean, I get the bombs break everything and burn it all down, that is what they are for. But, there’s buildings in the lower right that do not appear to have a scratch on them!

Alberto Fujimori:
Ended that hiperinflation crisis
Put Peru on the road the success it’s on (and that all his successors have continued)
Reduced terrorism from a being a threat to national stability to a very localised proble. It’s grown back beause supporting the army against terrorists meant being labled a human rights abuser, e.g. soldiers and police were put to trial for shooting after being shot at (and not telling the terrorists to go to their happy place) or taking the bodies of their dead comareds (because the coroner didn0t authotize the move).

Sure, human rights abuses, but an order of magnitude less than his democratic predecessors.
Corruption on a new level, but basically his problem was that the bribing was filmed.

The motherfucker saved my country.

As to Franco, Nava had a killer post almost four years ago

Tamerlane answered this one very eloquently. Pursuing secularism and gender egalitarianism aren’t what defines a good leader or benevolent dictator, particularly when they are done in the manner that the Shah did. The Shah was absolutely reviled by his own people, and the brutally repressive actions of SAVAK were the only things keeping him in power. Calling him a good leader because what followed was worse in some ways makes as much sense as calling the tsars good leaders because what followed them was worse in some ways, or calling Louis XVI a good leader because of the Reign of Terror. The failures, horrors, or excesses of those who deposed them (or whoever wound up on top after the revolution ate itself) doesn’t retroactively make them good leaders. That they were so universally reviled that they were deposed by their own subjects in purely internal revolutions speaks to their failure as leaders.

This an extremely ignorant view of Queen Victoria – she had never remotely been anything like a dictator, and of all the monarchies of Europe, the British was the least absolute. Victoria never simply “stopped struggling” with Parliament. In fact, the tradition of the royal family being non-partisan and such was due to the influence of her husband, Prince Albert.

But she was in no way a dictator, and it’s ridiculous to suggest it. You also show a complete lack of knowledge of what the Bedchamber Plot was all about – it wasn’t just about keeping Melbourne in office.

Please quit digging yourself in deeper, I’m experiencing some serious second-hand embarassment here watching you argue this.

No it didn’t. That’s the absorption of Aragon into Castille: it did not affect Navarre, which did not join “her sister Castille” in forming the single Kingdom of Spain until the Tratado de Hermandad, which the rest of you refer to as the Ley Paccionada. In fact, the Foral territories were the biggest hemorroid of Philip V’s reign, as he could not force any of us into following the general laws of Castille. The Vascongados, because their Fueros were considered part of Castillian law (but one part whose application was territorially limited); us, because we were still a separate Kingdom. Heck, we were the one to which he owed his crowns… what was he going to do, invade us? We would still have told him to stick his contrafueros where the sun don’t shine (that is, in a covered wastebasket).

I understand most teachers of Administrative Law have conniptions when it comes time to teach a Union Treaty which was signed by Pamplona and Madrid as equal partners.

Though his hands weren’t clean (especially the second time around), Peron wasn’t a dictator, IMHO, since he was popularly elected in relatively free elections.

Except that the Shah was better than certain elected leaders-namely the current leadership of Iran.

I agree that some of his secularist policies were heavy-handed but banning handscarves were practiced by other secularizing leaders such as Ataturk, and even practiced by some democratic states such as France in some areas such as public schools. Not that I support it personally but it isn’t exactly something limited to totalitarian regimes.

I’m pretty sure when the OP mentioned “elected leaders” they meant democratically elected not those elected by the Assembly of Experts.

I don’t think any modern dictator would qualify then. **Colibri **is correct.

I suppose it’d be possible to search thru history and find some Tyrant who was pushed into office for the interim during an emergency and who left right after who might then qualify. Some of the early Roman republican “Dictators” would fit. And, those would be “dictators” then in name only since they did govern with the consent of the Senate & People. There might be a Roman Emperor or two that qualified.

I don’t think it’s sinking in for you just how hated the Shah was when he was deposed. The current leadership most certainly has its problems, but lack of popular support from the Iranian people, much less open hostility from the Iranian people certainly isn’t one of them. The Shah managed to piss off just about everyone, hardly the sign of a competent, much less a good leader. He was hated by the poor, the middle class and the wealthy, the secular and the religious, the educated and the illiterate, the political radicals and the apolitical. For examples:

His vast personal wealth obtained through gross corruption also hardly made him popular as the ruler of a nation with severe problems with poverty:

Wait a minute. If this applies equally and in the same way to “democratically elected leaders” as it does to “dictators” then the whole thing is impossible. Franco, as far as I know and everybody else knows, did not “murder” anybody himself. He signed or endorsed plenty of death warrants issued by courts. Now we enter into what can be considered a “fair trial” and probably many of Franco’s trials would not be considered fair by today’s standards but many American trials of the time, and even later, would not be considered fair either. Even today there is much question about the fairness in the application of the death penalty in America. Why would democratically elected leaders get a pass? Is the death penalty in China not acceptable but acceptable in America? Who defines “fair trial”? Who defines “democracy”? Who defines dictatorship? Because it is not a discrete distinction, it is a continuum full of shades. Most so-called dictatorships have elections. You can say they are rigged. What makes Iranian or Chinese elections rigged and American or European elections not rigged?

So Pinochet bears responsibility for the deaths of those killed under his regime. Why does the responsibility stop there? How about extending it to some of those who put him in power and helped him carry out his plans?

How far does responsibiity reach? Is the president of the USA responsible for the killings and tortures carried out by the USA? If not, why not?

The way the question is asked seems disingenuous to me. It is like trying to define “terrorism” with the condtion that the same act committed by the USA is not terrorism but committed by the enemies of the USA IS terrorism.

The only way to make the comparison meaningful is to have the exact same conditions for all leaders being compared. And I think there is probably no leader of any large country who is not responsible for some deaths which can be considered " unfair. People who are kind and wouldn’t hurt anyone do not usually make it to the top because others more ruthless push them out of the way.

Sheikh Mohammad, the current ruler of Dubai is generally considered to be a good ruler.

To be fair, he subcontracted the job to the Americans and their buddies. :slight_smile:

I don’t want to sidetrack or hijack the thread over this point but I will say that I take your point but also that there is enough room and nuance that I could argue the point round or flat so I’ll just drop it.