Benevolent Oppressive Dictatorship?

Great Debates
1

I was just wondering this.

Would a benevolent, oppressive dictatorship work?

If you think about it, all the previous oppressive dictatorships were seriously antagonistic towards their populace or to other countries.

These dictatorships didn’t work because of their extremism and antagonism:
[ul]
[li]Nazi Germany - Attacked significant portions of its population. Invaded much of the surrounding area.[/li][li]Communist Russia - Killed large portions of its population. Engaged in a polarizing war with a significant part of the world. Failed economically.[/li][li]Communist China - I’d like to say that China is failing. However, they do seem to be gaining power economically and politically, largely because of the size of their populace and–I may be reaching here–that the difference in their culture from that of the western world gives them a more receptive population to a more oppressive form of government. Still, they are a third world–maybe second world now–nation. [/li][/ul]

Would a very socialist benevolent government in control of the economy and the way of life of the populace bring a great increase in the standard of living? If a great president, say FDR, was giving control of the entirety of America, would people be much happier.

I was thinking about this in the context of reading an article stating that Scandinavia and Europe, to a lesser extent, have higher standards of living than the US. Much of Europe and all of Scandinavia (IIRC) are socialist welfare states, albiet democratic.

If there were a few highly competent, benevolent people were put in absolute power over the entirety of the United States, would people be better off.

This also brings to mind a post a few months ago about democracy. It was said that democracy is good in the fact that it prevents both extremely bad and extremely good ideas. Churchill did say, paraphrasing here, that democracy was the worst form of government except for all the others previously tried.

So, would a benevolent dictatorship bring a new era to modern civilization and bring about an Eden for humanity?

2

What’s considered good treatment from the point of view of the dictator may be bad for me. I.E, Benevolent Dictator thinks say, going to church is good, builds healthy sense of morals and community, and whatnot, and makes me go to church every sunday. I gets pissed because I lose sleep.

May not be nearly as bad a Malevolent Dictators, but could still be annoying.

3

No. It would be horrible.

Its BEEN tried, and sooner or later (most likely sooner than later) it would end in tyrany. They always do in the end. All it takes is one Benevolent Dictator for Life, and it can ruin your whole day. Contrast that to Democracy. Even if we get a total goofball (take your choice of recent presidents, Clinton or Bush), we only have to suffer through with them for 8 years max. And if they totally fuck up (say, like Nixon) we can boot their ass. In England they can call a vote of no confidence anytime to get rid of them. I trust you see the obvious difference.

The biggest problems, IMO, is that, benevolent or not, people have no input into the system at all. How would you like to live in a benevolent dictatorship that, say, was completely against abortion and birth control. Its benevolent. It does good things. But if you want an abortion or to use birth control you need to be ‘reconditioned’ so you WON’T want those things anymore. The point being, you have no say, no input into the system. Thats a Bad Thing, IMO.

-XT

4

Maybe, except I’d bet that just about every dictator that took over thought he was benevolent, at least in the confines of his own head.

Basically, you need the frame of reference of the People to establish whether someone is truly benevolent or not - then said person would have to be put into control and then taken out of it if the situation changes.

(Which is essentially democracy, if you ask me.)

Also, there are things intrinsic in a dictatorship that may be irreconcilable with a high standard of living; for example, freedom and a say in one’s governance (ask a teenager about that one ;)) are pretty counter to a dictatorship.

Anyway, I have a feeling that a “very socialist, benevolent government” would go broke pretty quick.

5

If you had a perfect dictatorship, run by a perfect, all-knowing, compassionate dictator, it’d be the best conceivable system of government. Short of God running everything directly, that can’t possibly exist, so I say we stick with democracy. :slight_smile:

6

To begin with, a “benevolent, opressive” whatever is an oxymoron, don´t you think? :wink:

Perhaps we could find some examples in history, specifically monarchies; I have a vague memorie of one or two benevolent kings; some history aficionado could be handy now…

Regarding dictators, the original ones were not the kind of dictators you may have in mind.

My take on this is that a temporal dictatorship could be benevolent if the people still maintain some level of power, like being able to vote the dictator out through a referendum, for example. The advantage of a benevolent dicatatorship would be a whooping reduction of burocratic waits and the elimination of political parties that tend to segrete the people. The bad part is that the dictator may be at best a complete inept; at worse turn into a tyrant.

As ZOmegaZ said, that would be the perfect system of goverment, however, human nature beign what it is I don´t see that happening any time soon, at least at a state level.

7

Would Singapore qualify?

I still think once the current ruler dies or retires, the possibility of getting a rotten dictator increase as times goes by.

While many researchers have found evidence that Communist nations were doomed to failure, I need to ask: Has been there any research done to find economic failure in Fascist ones?

8

well under the leadership of general park chung hee south korea went from a 3rd world country to a first world country. He wasn’t benevolent though.

Are you asking if there are monarches/dictators who aren’t oppressive? im sure there are but nobody has really heard about them.

Napoleon might qualify as a benevolent dictator. He stablizied france, brought fame and glory to it, helped rewrite the laws to make them more liberal, etc.

9

Yugoslavia certainly faired better under Tito’s iron fist than it has in the last decade. Zagreb was not a workers paradise in 1978, but all the apartment buildings were bedecked with TV antennae, and even poor little old ladies who rented rooms to students had washing machines.

10

It could be argued that Cuba is currently under a benevolent but oppressive dictatorship. Under Castro’s rule, Cuba has gained:

A near universal literacy rate, 98% I believe.

Decent quality healthcare for all citizens (on average… I have no idea what kind of healthcare someone living out in the sticks can expect).

Its first true independence from American and Western European (particularly Spanish and English) commercial interests in its entire modern history. This is not to say that these interests have no effect on Cuba, merely that they no longer have a direct hand in its economy.

Etc etc, and so forth and so on.

This is of course beg the question, “come on, does this really make Castro’s dictatorship benevolent?” I think it’s a hard question. Castro has made some real progress for Cuba in several areas. But his regime has been oppressive and dictatorial, and accusations of several unpleasant crimes have been leveled against it.

His rule has certainly been less brutal than that of Stalinist Russia, and may even be compared favorably to Batista’s before his. But does doing some good things for one’s nation make a dictator benevolent? I don’t know.

11

The definition of “work” will decide the truth value of this statement.
Work better for everyone? Certainly not.
Most people? Possible, depend on the people and the dictator.
Work forever? Doubtful short of sci fi like cultural changes.
But does it work work? Sort of, depends quite a bit on the country we’re talking about and on the benevolent dictator (which is why it tends not to work in the long term).

Same story with many democratic countries.

Of course this is only half the story (well much less then half).
Yes, one advantage of US democracy is you only get 8 years out of a bum. Of course the aftereffects of Bush vs Islam will be with us for much longer.
OTOH one big advantage of a dictatorship is that things can actually get done as opposed to the gridlock and pork barrell waste we get.

And as Ale notes, you can put temporal and power limits on a dictator as well. You could even, paradoxically, combine it with democracy in various ways – e.g. you could elect the ruler (cf 19th cen Hawaii) or have the people kill him and chalk it up to the people’s will (cf imperial china’s mandate of heaven).

Perhaps a better question is not of facism vs democracy but of the efficiency of american style democracy and whether that is the “only” way to have a gov’t responsible to the people or the best way to legislate.

12

Castro?

You’ve got to be kidding.

If health care is the magical criterion, I’ll still take Miami.

13

I think everyone would. But that’s a bad comparison since Miami = America -> economic opportunity. I.e. I don’t see hordes of Cuban’s fleeing to Haiti (a shorter, less dangerous boat ride).

People in cuba have been shot for political views. Many yes, tho I’m not sure the “Cuban American Democracy Project’s” numbers should be taken at face value. But people in Cuba also live 10 years longer then they do in every surrounding country with similar circumstances. I’m not going to say it’s a wash but the whole argument of Benev. Dictatorship is that at the end of the day the Cuban gov’t is better then (say) the “democracy” you have in the Dominican Republic and it probably is all else being equal.

14

Or rather “the gist behind the argument for Cuba”. Cuba is a dictatorship and more (socialist, stalinist, latin, etc.) meaning you cannot credit (or blame) “dictatorship” for everything.

15

I think a benevelont dictator might work fine. IMHO the problem is it’s very hard to select someone for the role except by resorting to elections or military force, neither of which selects someone suitable.

But I’m not sure that’s what you’re asking. Are you looking at an oppressive dictatorship as opposed to a non-oppressive dictatorship, or just expanding on dictatorships in general?

16

“Benevolent oppressive” is an oxymoron.

If you just mean “benevolent dicatorship,” I’m with those who say it might work great for awhile. But as the old maxim goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The principle behind democracy is not that all of us are good and wise, and that if we put ourselves in charge, we’ll have a super-great government; it’s that we’re all potentially wicked and stupid, and none of us can be fully trusted.

17

What about an absolute monarch? Would that count?

18

I volunteer! Since there is no one mighty enough to perform the ceremony, we will perform it ourselves. We hereby declare that we are Pithecanthropus the First*, Lord Of The Galaxy!

(Bonus points to anyone who knows what this is paraphrased from).

19

err, despite my magnificence, quite incapable of vb coding, obviously.

20

Frederick II (The Great) of Prussia (1712-1786) was a benevolent dictator, (or “enlightened despot” back in the day) who corresponded with Voltaire and other great thinkers of the age. He wrote political treatises describing the monarch as the “first servant of the state”, condemning princes who acted as though they were raised to highest office to indulge in cruelty, debauchery, or vice. Instead, the monarch was to be a “perpetual sentinel” who must properly attend to the safety and welfare of his people and ensure justice.

Frederick enacted pretty impressive reforms for a dictator. He abolished torture except in cases or murder or treason, permitted some freedom of speech and of the press, and decreed religious tolerance, even allowing Jesuits into Prussia, who were suffering from a PR problem in the late 18th century. He improved the Prussian justice system and codified its laws. He improved agricultural production, drained swamps and settled immigrant farmers, subsidized industries, granted monopolies to encourage new enterprises, introduced cattle breeding and crop rotation, and on and on, generally working the royal ass off to make Prussia self-sufficient. He did all this pretty much himself; he hated delegating authority.

On the other hand, 18th century Prussia was far from egalitarian, and he had zero interest in making it so. I suppose you could say in that sense it was oppressive. It was a monarchy, after all, so rank and aristocracy were still the rule. He didn’t do too much to improve the lives of the serfs tied to the lands of the aristocracy. The serfs tied to his own land got better treatment; he may not have felt too comfortable about possibly angering the aristocrats, or just may not have thought the matter to be very pressing. His religious tolerance didn’t extend to Jews, who he viewed as “useless to the state.” His style of rule required a completely centralized government, and as far as having it on the ball he was something of an anomaly. His sucessors never could quite pull it off well enough to merit a “the Great”.