Well, as long as you realize you’re assuming that what the majority wants is good. More generally, if you operate under the assumption that civil rights are a good thing, then there can’t be a good dictator, because a dictatorial government doesn’t give the people political or civil power.
So, in order to answer the question, we need to define what’s “good”.
I would say King Aleksandar of Yugoslavia. He was a constitutional monarch who declared a temporary dictatorship because of infighting in his country, in 1929. He partially restored the constitution in 1931, and was going to go back to a complete constitutional system but he was assassinated in 1934.
While I disagree with what he did, at that time, Yugoslavia was a nightmare.
It seems that “dictator” and “dictatorship” has come to mean all that which is not “democratically elected” and “democracy”.
That would seem to include every society that ever existed minus ancient greece and the modern democracies of the 19th and 20th centuries… Am i wrong?
Ah, here is a link from the site Flying_Monk provided, about the situation in Yugoslavia:
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pavelic.html
(GREAT site!)
This is one of those controverted questions that defies an answer, because each man’s judgment will be different.
Most of the U.S. Founding Fathers thought very highly of Cincinnatus, the old Roman dictator (Italics to indicate the Latin title, not the English word) who was given extraordinary power in a time of crisis by the Roman Republic, got things straightened out, resigned, and went back to farming. George Washington is said to have consciously modeled how he behaved as President on Cincinnatus.
In countries without the concept of the “loyal opposition” (and it’s disturbing to me that the U.S. is gradually losing that concept), often the winner of an election will act without limit, imprisoning or exiling the leaders of his opponents. This leads to coup and countercoup. Or the incumbent may not be the brightest bulb in the flashlight, and totally screw something up, usually the country’s economy.
In such a case, especially in Latin America, there is a time-honored tradition of a military leader stepping in with a coup, stabilizing the existing chaotic conditions, arranging for free elections, and then stepping down (or, occasionally, running for office himself). These “strongmen” are technically dictators – they assume power without the formal consent of the people, rule by decree rather than by representative government – but certainly accomplish some good in what they do (how much so depends on the individual).
Castro is IMHO the epitome of an originally well-meaning dictator who has let the lust for power take him over; in the late 1950s American leftists thought he was a good man, out to get rid of the totally corrupt Fulgencio Batista. They were unaware (as was almost everybody) of his connections to the Comintern.
I don’t think the issue is so much that power would corrupt even a saint as it is that a perfect saint would never get or be able to retain, power. The unsaintly have more tactics to use to get and preserve power, and anyone who can’t play along in inevitably sidelined. This dosen’t mean that you don’t find highly moral people in positions of power: you do. But I suspect that every single one of them has, in the past, done something they felt was morally dubious at best (even if it was just keeping silent) in the service of the greater good they could do my obtaining/keeping power. And who’s to say that isn’t the best thing for a moral person to do?
Damn. This board really IS the center of the leftist universe.
Hardly. We just get visitors from the fringes of all the known universes.
Not a country of course, but the Pope could be considered a good dictator.
He is selected rather than elected to a lifetime position and the process is secret. Those selecting were appointed or approved by the previous office holder. On certain matters, his view is totally correct and hopefully he is working for the good of those in the Church.
With regards to the Roman model of dictatorship wasn’t there a time limit on how long the dictator could remain in office? I think it was about six months and they were usually only elected to deal with a crisis situation.
The Pope may be a “dictator” within the organization of his own church. But his “dicta” are not supported throughout the world, or even within the Vatican, by soldiers. Those Swiss guys in the funny tutus are protectors, not enforcers. He may very well threaten dissenters with punishment hereafter, but he doesn’t threaten anyone’s life here and now. His “rule” depends upon people’s willingness to follow, rather than on their fear not to (at least in a temporal sense).
Now, as to whether he’s a “good” dicatator…well, YMMV.
The people of Kuwait, despite not being a democracy, like their monarchy, who takes pretty good care of their people.
There aren’t really any “good” dictators (and, hlujarn, Freedom House puts Castro as one of the worst dictators of modern times, if not of all time), though Admiral Horthy, Regent of Hungary from 1919 to 1944, did a decent job at stabilizing the country.
Being from Florida I know many Cubans, and the general consensus is they hate Castro, which leads me to believe he is not a good dictator. But maybe they’re biased because they left the country.
Maria Theresa of Austria and Empress Catherine of Russia, maybe? At least some contemporary obersevers, if I recall correctly, considered Maria Theresa the best example of benign totalitarianism the age had produced, and Catherine seemed to institute at least some relatively risky reforms that benefited the common people. Anybody out there have a comment?
Locke’s point wasn’t that what the majority, or the dictatory, wants is “good” or “bad,” but that the ruler couldn’t get his way against what the majority wants without using coercion and using coercion isn’t benevolent, even in a “good cause.”
Yoweri Museveni of Uganda might qualify as a dictator in that he’s been in power for 17 years and the fact that his party wins every election because all other political parties are banned. Dictator or not he’s done a bang up job running Uganda considering the condition Idi Amin and Milton Obote left the country in before he took over. From the March 1st edition of The Economist:
By western standards he’s something of a dictator, maybe a quasi-dictator but he I think he qualifies as “good” as most people understand the definition, especially when compared to most other African leaders.
What about King Boris of Bulgaria, father of the current Prime Minister (and former King) was also a royal dictator who was rather benevolent.
King Boris did largely prevent the deportation of Jews from Bulgaria. I think there is controversy though because he was unable (if not unwilling) to prevent the deportation of Jews from places occupied by Bulgarian troops - mainly a sliver of northern Greece and Macedonia. I believe in Israel for instance there is some dispute over whether he should be counted as one of the “Righteous Among the Nations”.
My mother.