This may be IMHO or border on a Great Debate, but I’d really like a factual answer to this question. I’d like to think “if I ran things” as a dictator I’d be a benevolent leader, do things for the common good, and do it right. I’d make the best decisions for the country based on instinct, not polls.
So, are there any ‘good’ dictators in the world? Is this even possible? Or is exposure to such immense power just too much for one man to handle without checks and balances?
This doesn’t have a factual answer. It’s a matter of opinion.
Fidel Castro
Currently, I can think of no one who holds absolute power in his or her country who is not, basically, corrupt.
If you want a view (still open to challenge, of course) of people who exercised their (nearly) absolute power in generally beneficent ways, consider looking at the eighteenth century monarchs Joseph II of Austria, Frederick the Great of Prussia, and Charles II of Spain. None of them would get a clean bill of health from Amnesty International, today, but given the attitudes toward and expected of rulers in the era in which they lived, they did expend more effort trying to improve their countries and the lot of their people than they did glorifying themselves.
Caesar Augustus (although a truly harsh opponent, politically) also invested much of his time and energy trying to make the new Roman Empire into a reasonably safe and healthy place to live–certainly moreso than several of his successors whose only goals were self-enrichment and luxury.
For more information, check an encyclopedia or general history for “benevolent despot” or “enlightened despot.” (Google doesn’y work really well, for this, although you can give it a try. Use the “-microsoft” search argument to eliminate the hundred or so MS references to those terms.)
Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore, now “retired”
Fidel Castro is responsible for the murder of many thousands of people. How exactly does that make him “good?”
I don’t see how this could possibly have a factual answer; any answer could/would turn into a Great Debate.
Off to Great Debates.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
Julius Caesar was a rat-bastard, who got what he had coming to him!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Anyhoo, blame Cassius…
Sorry to reign on your parade Brutus, but Augustus wasn’t emperor of Rome until 27 B.C.E., about 17 years after his great uncle Julius Caesar was murdered. By that time, Cassius (and your namesake) were long dead as well. Julius had refused to accept the crown of emperor. That’s why some refer to Augustus as the “first emperor.”
As for absolute dictators being benevolent, I think John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (a.k.a. Lord Acton) said it best. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” There ain’t no such animal as a benevolent dictator.
Ya, but I couldn’t sit idle while talk of Roman emperor’s was to be had. 
Towards the OP, I think it could be said that many ‘dictators’ start off with what may be construed as noble intentions. But with no checks on their power, well, read the second part of Desertgeezer’s post.
Says who? The US government? No, they would never lie about something like that would they? And they would never make plans to attack US population in order to blame it on Castro, now would they?
link:
http://yesrick.com/rh112597.htm
I vote for Castro as a good dictator.
The King of Jordan. I don’t know if he’s continuing in his father’s footsteps, but his father was attempting to make the country more democratic (or so he claimed).
Amir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, current monarch of Qatar, seems pretty benign. The Al-Jazeera network is run from that nation and Hamad claims (according to Sixty Minutes) to be implementing reforms that will eventually bring about a functioning parlimentary democracy will full suffrage.
Of course, Qatar is a tricky example, because its huge oil revenues ($16.3 billion est. 2001) and low population (~800,000) made it almost impossible to keep some of the citizens living in poverty, which thug dictators love to do.
Fidel Castro? Puh-leeze.
I agree it’s a matter of opinion / perspective. For example, Saddam was a ‘good’ dictator for at least 20 years in the view of the US/CIA (who supplied him with, for example, arms, munitions and bio cultures) and the French (supplying, for example a nuclear reactor) – thing is, Saddam ain’t changed a whole lot since then. Afaik, the coup that put Saddam on the road to power was specifically engineered for him by tax dollars via Langley … even after the gassing of the Kurds (the WOMD thing), Washington was turning a blind eye … a ‘boys will be boys’ kinda deal.
Oh, and the Brits also supplied him with conventional hardware during that period (when he was fighting the Iranian Ayatollah’s)
Unfortunately he gravitated from being a good evil dictator to a bad evil dictator – whodathunk. In other words, he’s always been mad, he’s just no longer ‘our’ kind of mad … ‘loose cannon’ and all that.
I am very intrigued by this (now) debate but can you define what you mean by dictator? I usually think of a dictator as an absolute ruler who comes to power as a result of a coup or revolt and generally with a fair amount of military support (like Saddam, Castro, Franco, etc). The rulers of Jordan and Qatar are monarchs more than revolutionaries. Even though Hamad came to power in a sort of coup, it was still his dad he replaced. What makes a ruler a dictator? (not trying to hijack, I swear 
)
I’d say that depends on the definition of dictator. If you just mean an absolute ruler, then I am convinced without giving examles that there could be “good” dictators.
If you mean dictator in the sense of tyrant, then obviously the definition already rules out any good dictators.
To me, governments with an absoulte ruler like former kingdoms and such are more likely to favour extremes. Either you’ll get a competent “good” or “bad” leader.
The more opinions you infuse, the more diluted the final decision gets, because you need to make compromises and do your best to at least try to please everyone. However, while you’re achieving an average result in democracies, you won’t suffer from bad leadership as much. Until recently that was my outlook on democracies at least.
It seems to me that John Locke addressed the question of “benevolent dictatorship.” I think it was in one of the essays on government.
His argument, which I agree with, is that such a thing is not possible. There will always come a time when the wishes of the ruler and most of the ruled don’t agree. If the ruler overrules the people he or she isn’t “benevolent.” and if the people’s wishes rule, he isn’t a dictator.
I love it when they call Castro a “communist”.
“All I know is I’m not a Marxist.” - Karl Marx
It couldn’t really be said that every Roman Emperor was evil - apart from Augustus, there is a case to think of Claudius, Marcus Aurelius, Hadrian, Constantine and perhaps half of the rest as being relatively benevolent dictators- although they all had opponents executed, I suppose…
if they tried to carry on like that today, they would be regarded as tryants, but they were mostly well regarded at the time.
Here’s a link with a lot of figures…check out both the “Heros” & the “Killers” sections.