John Locke addressed this question in one of his treatises on civil government.
His conclusion was that such a thing is a contradiction that doesn’t exist. Sooner or later a wish of the ruler will conflict with the wishes of a large fraction of the populace, if not the majority. In that case the ruler will either have to enforce the rules by coercion, hence not “benevolent,” or give in to the populace, hence not a “dictator.”
IMHO the benevolence is not that he never uses coercion, it’s fairly assumed that he uses coercion but in the best interests of the people.
But if he coined the term I spose we can say he’s allowed to say Benev Dictatorship means coercionless Dictatorship.
That’s it? “I question the numbers.” What about the three black guys shot for trying to escape recently? Did that happen?
FWIW, living in Florida, knowing dozens of first-hand witnesses – I don’t question the numbers.
Good point, Beagle. I hadn’t considered that. Really hadn’t considered that. 
So we have to add “omniscient” to “benevolent” and “dictator”?
Any discussion of improvements in Cuba, relative to the region, should take a historical perspective. While it is true that Cuba leads the region in some economic and health indicators, this was also true before Castro. This document (pdf file), has a good, if somewhat involved discussion on the subject. From that paper’s conclusion:
If you’re interested in the data supporting the conclusion please review the paper, and the data.
[aside]
When discussing “wealthy” nations like the United States one should consider why the nation is wealthy. In the case of the United States we’ve had a functioning constitutional democracy for over 200 years, excluding race or gender problems and the Civil War.
Nations that allow freedom of thought, politics, property, contract, religion, speech, and the rest, will soon be “wealthy” also. It’s no accident. You’d think that the US consisted of feudal lords and vassals enforcing Christianity the way some discussions go. Reality is acre-upon-hectare of residential subdivisons filled with middle class folks of all colors and religions, buying – literally – into the American Dream.
Many of these folks, in Florida especially, are from Cuba. In my neighborhood most of the residents are transplants from Puerto Rico. Fewer sad stories. They mostly just fly to NY and eventually move to Florida. Just in my tiny little section of middle class Burbia we have every racial or religious group in the world I can think of, excluding Innuits or other north-of-the-Arctic-Circle-type folks. Funny, they don’t like Florida. Or, duh.
In the case of Cuba, only Fidel Castro keeps Cuba from being rich. One year of “decadent capitalism” would transform Cuba. The whole Caribbean cruise industry is centered on Cuba, without really going there. It could get ugly how rich Cuba got, but for Castro. Instead, people flee into heavy seas of the Straits of Florida in floating death traps to get away from the “benevolent” dictator.
As noted, it can’t last. Efficient government (dictatorship) is very compelling to those with a lust to abuse power.
Well, the freakish hatred of Jesse Helms for Cuba and the political power of the Batista Cubans (esp. in Florida) in the Republican Party have combined to extend economic sanctions against Cuba far past the point at which Cuba is a threat. It could be argued that Cuba would be a LOT better off economically if it weren’t being economically harassed by the number one economy in the world.
Ok, I’ll play. For how long would you have kept economic sanctions on Cuba?
My concern is that if we open the doors to Cuba we’ll let in the Batista Cubans and their descendents who would return to Cuba and try to start up the old games that made Cuba under Batista ripe for revolution. I think we’d be well advised to keep an eye on Cuba after it opens up to democracy.
**As noted, it can’t last. Efficient government (dictatorship) is very compelling to those with a lust to abuse power. **
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I’m worried about Bush cocking up our democracy, too.
Not anymore so then saying “parents make decsions that are in a child’s best interests even if the child doesn’t like it” implies that all parents are omniscient.
Who wants to get rid of economic sanctions with Castro in power and Cuba in the grip of a one party tyrrany? Not me, for example. I guess that might stem the flow of “illegal” immigration [or, Monty Python: “Run away!”], at the expense of creating another China just south of the border: Commies supported by Cappies. Whodathunkit? Mao.
I knew when I said that someone would say that Bush is a dictator. That’s how far the level of discourse has sunk.
Maybe you would if you realized that economic sanctions only help castro matain his hold on power, hurting primarily the people of cuba.
Holding trade with people and raiseing their economic level is what gives them the ability to throw off dictatorship and achieve democracy the fastest ->
Taiwan, S. Korea. Isolating them leads to Cuba and N. Korea.
Interesting concern. This is where I like to ask, do you know of any “Batista Cubans”?
All of which would be great if an outside entity actually could trade with anyone in Cuba. In fact, since Castro’s government is a dictatorship, you’re only be allowed to trade with government entities, or those entities approved by the Cuban government. And further, let’s be realistic here, Castro is not a dumb guy, if he thought for a minute that foreign trade would in any way dimish his hold on power he would slam down the gate faster than you can imagine. As it is Cuba has been trading freely and happily with the rest of the world since about 1994, and Cubans are still mired in misery, and Castro’s hold on power is just as undiminished.
The discourse is just sinking along with the ship of state. And reading with comprehension will show that I didn’t call Bush a dictator. Nice try, though.
This is probably going to astound you – when the Cuban revolution occurred, not all the rich Batista cronies stayed in Cuba to have all their wealth and very likely their lives taken from them. Many of them took everything they could and moved to the U.S. Many of them took up residence in Florida. It’s history. YOu can look it up.
Soooo lemme get this straight. You’re saying that if the U.S. trades with Cuba, Fidel will personally show up on the docks and take all the U.S. merchandise and hide it in a warehouse to keep it out of the hands of his people. All checks will go straight to Fidel, all exports will be personally harvested, processed and shipped by Fidel.
Amazing guy, that Fidel.
Hello everyone. It’s nice to meet you all.
I don’t believe that a benevolent oppressive dictatorship would be possible. Even if the leader started with good intentions, we all know the cliche “Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Eventually the dictator in question would re-write the economic and law systems to best benefit himself. Even if this particular leader didn’t, his predecessors would, eventually falling much in the same way that communism did, promising bread to everyone but eventually starving everyone while the leader lived in the lap of luxury. Animal Farm by George Orwell would be a good example of how this would happen practically.
In summation, I don’t think it’s possible given the inherent nature in humans to do what would directly benefit themselves best (i.e. survival of the fittest, thanks Darwin).
Firstly: this all depends what you mean by “oppressive”. For me, “Benevolent oppressive” is an oxymoron. Saddam Hussein was oppressive, so is Kim Jong Il.
Can a benevolent (undemocratic) dictatorship work? Yes - where I live, it works excellently. The national population here are well looked after, have considerable personal freedom - within an Islamic framework which bear in mind is separate from the actual rulership - free health, education, housing, soft loans to start businesses, etc.
The reason this works? Money and monarchy. Enough easy money (oil) to buy these things, and employ a very low paid underclass (expat subcontinental labour) who aren’t given the same privileges as nationals, but enable those nationals to live as a permanent upper middle/upper class.
Monarchy, because with kings, there is generally a reasonably clear right of succession, far less need for political infighting and suppression of opponents, at least as long as the extended royal family is wealthy enough to be satisfied (money again).
The problem is when you get a wacko.