I just read that article, too, and ISTM that not only was he not that benevolent in his politics, he also seemed less-than-benevolent in his reasons for giving back the dictatorship: because he did not want the risk that he would be overthrown again by his political opposition and this time killed rather than exiled. Which isn’t to say that there weren’t purely benevolent reasons for it just that they may not have been the only reasons.
Not if the people really believe in the ruler and in the ruler’s right to rule, which is often the case – but that works best with monarchs who have some traditional, legal or sacred claim to the position; any dictator who came to power in some other way is probably going to encounter dissent or resistance, which might well overthrow him if he doesn’t quash it.
Well, certainly the fellow had political enemies, and maybe he was totally in the wrong in his battles with them - I’m not well enough versed in the history of the time to know.
But what we do know is that, having been exiled by his enemies to a tiny farm, then brought to the pinnacle of absolute power by a political shift - instead of using that power to crush his enemies (as Sulla was later to do), he … dealt with the problem, surrendered power, and went back to the tiny farm.
I think if you were one of his plebian enemies, you’d find that pretty benevolent. Compared to the alternative.
Juan Carlos the I of Spain?
Groomed to take over as sole ruler on Franco’s death, he pretty much turned Spain into a constitutional monarchy instead, staring down a military coup in the process.
I don’t think anyone in this thread has called Chavez a dictator, except you saying that he does not seem like a dictator. He is not a dictator, he wanted to seize power illegally in Venezuela through a coup, but he failed and was then elected democratically. He has been reelected since.
Like any ruler he has to deal with an opposition, and his manner of dealing with that opposition is getting more and more worrisome, but so far there is still free speech in Venezuela, as well as a right to free association, multiple political parties, multiple media sources, and just about everything else that is associated with a free society.
I did not indicated anyone had called him a dictator here Lalenin, i was asking if anyone had information regarding why the American media constantly refer to him as a dictator, is there anyone in the straight dope which has any information about him from the ground, as it were.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
While not actually a dictator in name he did rule Turkey.
I’ve been to Turkey twice and all the Turks I’ve spoken to speak very highly of Ataturk
The colonists living here in America didn’t seem to feel that way; as they said
From the document they wrote about it, called the Declaration of Independence. Most of that document was devoted to listing all the oppressions they felt.
Did you speak to any Kurds? Or anyone who was particularly religious?
Ataturk had many good qualities, but he certainly wasn’t entirely benevolent.
Ok, of course Mussolini was a disaster for Italy (after 1939); but before? He probaly did a lot of good:
-he suppressed the Mafia in Sicily (the only man known to hav done so)
-he built the autostrada (highways)
-he made the trains run on time
Had he allied himself with Great Britain and France (instead of Germany), he probably would be fondly remembered today.
With the possible exception of Greece under the millitary junta, which ones? Yugoslavia was a one party state where press and speech were censored, dissidents were regularly locked up, sent to slave labor camps, or executed without trial, and religion was tightly controlled.
Maybe he’s counting Spain?
I’d put Tito’s Yugoslavia and Franco’s Spain at about the same level of human rights violations. Spain might have been slightly more free, but it’s pretty much a wash.
Silly me, I forgot to ask them of their ethnicity:smack:
It’s been pointed out upthread that no dictator can afford to be entirely benevolent
What about Indira Ghandi?
All of which actually seems like a good idea in hindsight, when we consider what happened there after the lid was ripped off.
But the real casus belli went unlisted. The Americans knew what had happened to the Scots and the Irish after they were integrated into the English system: Not only did they lose their political independence, but most people were reduced to the status of tenant farmers for English absentee landlords. That’s what the Americans really feared.
Furthermore, the DOI blasted only the king when the Americans knew perfectly well their beef was with Parliament. But the common people of the colonies had no traditional sense of loyalty to Parliament – it was from the king that they needed to be detached.
Right, because brutal repression always makes stuff better, that’s my motto.