Are (were) there ever any "good "dictators?
Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia is/was considered by some to be an “Enlightened Despot”:
“A sovereign is not elevated to his high position, supreme power has not been confined to him in order that he may live in lazy luxury, enriching himself by the labor of the people, being happy while everyone else suffers. The sovereign is the first servant of the state. He is well paid in order that he may maintain the dignity of his office, but one demands that he work efficiently for the good of the state, and that he, at the very least, pay personal attention to the most important problems.”
More from that political testament: link
Depends on how you define “good,” however. . .
I think Tito was considered a “good” dictator. Maybe Franco, too.
And, despite being a definitely “bad” dictator, Ceausescu was sorta “liked” by the US at various times because he occasionally bucked the Evil Empire.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that US approval makes them “good” (cough Saddam cough Pinochet cough etc.)
Of course, being monopolitical, they tend to act rather nasty towards their oppositions, but in the pantheon of dictators, some of the least bad are Goh Chok Tong of Singapore; Mohammed Mahathir of Malaysia; the Sultan of Brunei; the Emir of Qatar (do the last two count, as they’re ‘royal’?).
What about Kemal Ataturk ?. He dragged Turkey into the 20th centuary . His pictures and statues are still to be found all over the country so he still must be well thought of by the citizens.
More of a GD than GQ, but a dictator can only be “good” if he or she is better that the possible alternative. Only under those conditions can I allow Franco or Attaturk or my boss.
no
Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley?
I think one of the best measures of how enlightened a despot is comes from how well one could breathe after voicing opposition.
So, how do those yahoos fit in under that rubric?
For more views, also consult the recent GD thread, Are there any “good” dictators?
King Aleksandar of Yugoslavia,
King Boris of Bulgaria
Beside the question as to the definition of ‘good’ asked above, there is also the question as to what you mean by ‘dictator.’
In Roman history, Sulla held that title for a periood ending in 80 BC with his retirement. During his dictatorship he instituted many oreforms aimed at restoring the Roman Republic to its former state after some major disintegration of the republican institutions.
Similarly, after the breakdown of the First Triumvirate, C. Julius Caesar was named dictatorfirst for one yer, then in 46BC for 10 years, and finally dictator in perpetuo (in 44BC). Caesar planned or passed many reforms such as debt reform, colonization to reduce poverty, the extension of citizenship, massive public works, etc.Of course, he was assassinated in 44BC so we’ll never know what his ultimate intentions were.
Tito was a murderous desport. He could hardly be considered “good” under any rational terminology.
Tito was a murderous desport. He could hardly be considered “good” under any rational terminology.
This isn’t really a General Question with a factual answer. Since there’s a recent GD thread on the subject, I’ll close this one and direct further comment to the other, linked to above by tomndebb.
bibliophage
moderator GQ