Napoleon III wasn’t too bad-- his human rights record, particularly in the second half of his regime, was in many ways better than that of many other “democratic” 19th-century French leaders.
That was during the civil war, though.
From the article I linked:
Wrong.
When the romans got rid of their kings (509 b.c) they established the republic. The highest office of the state, in normal times, where the two consuls. They were suppose to balance each other, in order to prevent the return to monarchy. As every official of a republic they weren´t all powerfull.
But the romans soon realized that in certain extrordinary circunstances they needed to concentrate power in a single official: the dictator: cincunnatus was one of them.
In that sense the roman dictators weren´t anything like the modern ones (just as the greek tyrants weren´t like their modern counterparts).
Of course, as the republic degenerated, the office degenarated too: Caesar and Sulla were dictators in the modern sense.
Would about the British Empire? The colonies were definitely ruled by the Parliament in London and had no say in the government, so it was a dictatorship. But it was not generally a very oppressive one (admittedly there was a range of oppression depending on when and where the colony was). The British did make conscious efforts to improve conditions in the colonies.
If i may interject Hugo Chavez, into the fray.
He is constantly referred to as a dictator, but having watched a documentary on him, he does not seem to be a bad guy, unless you got rich by ripping off Venezuela’s people for your own wealth.
Am i grossly misinformed or since America('s leaders) dont like what he says/did/does do we call him that?
As my understanding goes, he overthrew the government, nationalised the oil fields, gave people rights, opened school,free health care for all and generally wants to help the countries people.
Whats the straight dope on him?
Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. As pointed out earlier, if you actively disagree with a dictotarial regime you might get yourself in trouble. My mom actually grew up in the Yugoslavia of Tito and always says it was great.
Especially compared to the Soviet satelite states there was (appearantly) more freedom and less opression. They could go abroad and had a reasonable standard of living. She went to language summer camps in Austria, interned in Switserland, bought her clothes in Italy and music in Austria. And I’m quite sure she spend more time on holiday then most of the people in the west (company beachfront (and mountainside) homes that let the children stay there all summer, while the parents came for a week of two. She also remembered how tourists from Czechoslovakia would travel in pairs of families - who didn’t know each other - as a socaial control mechanism.
About the lack of political freedom she always says that that it was clear what was allowed and what not. If you were politically active (against the party) that was a risk you (in her view) didn’t need to take. It was not like people were standing in line to get a tiny bit of bread.
I’m sure it is a bit of a biased view, but I spemd quite a lot of time in the former Yugoslavia and you would be surprised with how many people (especially old people) still go on about Tito; I have been to numorous houses where people still have portraits of him on the wall (in 2009!). Also, whenever my motehr meets somebody from the former Yuoslavia here in Holland the conversation inevitabilly ends up about how Tito kept the country together (in this setting I’ve actually seen a busdriver show her the backgrpound of his cell phone which consisted of tito’s portrait (mind you, he was from a different republic then my mom).
I don’t know if you can call him benevolent, as I’m sure he was tough on his enemy’s; but life could be quite good in Tito’s Yugoslavia.
Emperor Norton I of the United States was pretty mellow, as absolute rulers go.
You’re off the mark from the start. He tried to overthrow the government, was jailed, pardoned, released and eventually elected in a fair election. Since then he has made change after change to Venezuela’s laws to ensure he remains in power forever.
I don’t think any changes to Venezuela’s laws have added new rights to the people they did not have before, and as far as health care, it is free, but it also predates Chavez.
Still, it’s not fair (yet) to call Chavez a dictator. He has suffered some electoral reversals, proving that the opposition is not entirely suppressed or ineffectual. All elections since 1998 have been ruled free and fair by international observers. It appears that, for better or for worse, the majority of the people actually want Chavez and his “Bolivarian Revolution”.
And Paris as we see it today, the “City of Lights” with its broad boulevards and efficient sewers and multitude of city parks, resulted from a massive reconstruction by Georges-Eugene Haussmann, Prefect of the Seine, with Napoleon’s sanction and support. (Up to then, Paris was widely regarded as the foulest shithole in Europe.) You can read the (rather amazing) story in The City in Mind: Notes on the Urban Condition, by James Howard Kunstler.
I was going to suggest Qatar. It is one of the few remaining absolute monarchies in the world. (Quaint, I know. In my political philosophy class I have to photocopy the sections of Hobbes, etc., on monarchy because anthologies omit those parts of the reading as no longer relevant.) But the emir has been good about making sure the country’s immense oil and gas wealth is used for the benefit of the nation, liberalizing various laws (like allowing for women’s suffrage in local elections, which is the only kind of elections there are here), founding Al Jazeera, Education City, and engaging in a good deal of liberalization. So unless you just equate dictatorship with tyranny, then Qatar seems to fit the bill; and it’s about as benevolent as can be expected, all things considered.
I dunno if it is “wrong” - the benevolence of Cincinnatus lies particularly in this fact – that he gave up absolute power when it could have, in theory, been in his grasp to sieze it a la Sulla or Ceasar.
It is true as you point out that the constitutional powers of the office of “dictator” did not allow for absolute power, but the potential for abuse was obvious (amnd indeed that is how we got the modern term - by the corruption of this office at the end of the Roman Republic).
In effect, Cincinnatus was praised for upholding the real meaning if the office of “dictator” (that is, appointed for a limited office on behalf of the state) and not using the power granted to him illegitimately or corruptly (that is, appointing himself ‘dictator for life’, using that power to crush his political enemies, etc.)
In that sense, the question more or less answers itself - I think a case can be made that the only “benevolent” exercise of dictatorial powers is to use them to overcome a pressing emergency that can’t be handled otherwise, and to give them up immediately on that emergency being overcome. The problem, as always, is the natural tendency on the part of the dictator to see the emergency as ongoing and to never give up power … certainly most modern “dictators” are of the dictator-for-life variety. Have there been any examples of people in the last century or so who have willingly given up absolute power without coersion because “my job here is done”? Find one, and you may have your benevolent dictator.
Frederick the Great might qualify.
My household growing up was a benevolent dictatorship…
I remember suggesting that I should have a vote in the things going on in the household. My mother always replied, “This is not a democracy, it is a benevolent dictatorship!”
'Course, the reconstruction was accomplished largely by bulldozing the poor quarters and building opera houses, but what’s a little gentrification among friends?
It should be noted that dictators do, on the whole, produce some kick-ass architecture - profligate use of eminent domain makes for great sight-lines.
Thats is exactly my point, he does not seem to be a dictator to me, In the previously linked documentary the people of the country want him to be in charge, even when the CIA and the old government overthrew him, the people rose up and demanded he be reinstated. The CIA connection is mentioned in the documentary IIRC and there does not seem to be any bias or falsehood in the film, it is not propaganda. It seems as if it is just the realistic view from the street, and does mention both sides.
Assuming the film is unbias, and is not merely some trick to garner favor from anyone who might watch it who doesnt fully understand the situation or the history of the land, Chavez does not look like he is a bad guy, and that the people loves him and trust only him to protect their interests. They seem to fear anyone else taking over simply because they do not trust anyone else to do for them as much as Chavez has, or it going back to the way it was.
The only evidence i have from on the ground there is American news reports, and that documentary, or else online.
From what i have seen and heard myself, someone is not telling us the facts without distortion. And as i said, assuming the documentary is not propaganda and the film makers were not threatened with death unless they spun the truth. The documentary seems to indicate that he is not the “dictator” he is made out to be.
Tito’s Yugoslavia had a better human rights record, and was arguably better run, than some nations of “free” Western and Southern Europe. The quality of life was mediocre compared to the best of Western democracies, but as far as dictatorships and cults-of-personality go (and President-For-Life Tito was definitely that) Yugoslavia was a veritable worker’s paradise, and not in the ironic sense. Of course, it is just about the only avowed Communist nation that can claim that; Castro can’t even come close.
And this is all relative; if you look back through history you can find relatively benevolent “dictatorial” leaders whose abuses were, if not benevolent by modern standards, far less excessive than their contemporaries.
Stranger
Modern Popes? The current Pope? Come on, that’s silly. Benedict is dictator of what? A few square blocks of Rome, with really crappy border control? And over whom is he exercising this dictatorial authority? The populace of the Vatican?
I was startled to see so much emphasis in the Wikipedia article on Cincinnatus’ opposition to equal rights for the plebians. He fought against legal reforms, he opposed plebian tribunes in the senate, his son fled Rome after being brought up on charges for driving plebians out of the Forum by force to prevent them from voting, he later put down a revolt by the plebians.
If one was a plebian, Cincinnatus might not seem so benevolent.