There is no real reason why justice and democracy should go hand in hand. There have been enough examples of democracies committing injustice.
So how many examples can we come up with of countries that are not ruled by the will of the people, but that don’t commit atrocities? Are there, or have there been, dictatorships that respect human rights?
From what I’ve read Kemal Ataturk, who ruled Turkey in the 1920s and 1930s, probably comes closest to the benevolent dictator ideal. Modernized the country, expanded women’s rights, reformed the education system, but he basically ran the country as a single party state.
The recently re-elected president of Rwanda (his name escapes me at the moment) was referred to as a “benevolent dictator” on NPR this morning. He’s done a remarkable job of helping Rwanda recover from the tribal atrocities of the '90s and formulate a relatively peaceful country, and currently one of the most prosperous in Africa. However, he won the recent election by something like 90% and most observers say that the election was a sham.
There have been many “Enlightened Despots” in history, with variable results, the problem is that even if Emperor X is just (and just is a subjective measure, so if you cant vote you dont know just how just he is…) his heir may not be, an then… what do you do?
Frodo, I could have sworn… did you edit that from saying “his HAIR may not be”?
well, depends how you define “democratic government.” If the franchise is restricted to less than half the total population, with females and blacks excluded, as was the case in the early years of the United States, was the federal government a democratic government? was it a just government?
Singapore in the 1900s and Britain in the 1800s were pretty non-representative by presided over great economic growth and increases in the well-being of their subjects.
What about some of the great British monarchs, like Elizabeth or Victoria?
The term you’re looking for is probably “liberal autocracy” - that is, an autocratic government that respects the rule of law and human rights. Fareed Zakaria wrote about liberal autocracies (and illiberal democracies) in his “The Future of Freedom.” Zakaria argues (in a very tiny nutshell) that democratic governments in countries without strong middle classes and respect for human rights can produce real nightmares, whereas liberal autocracies can build national economies and education systems as a stepping-stone to democracy. http://www.amazon.com/Future-Freedom-Illiberal-Democracy-Abroad/dp/0393047644
Zakaria also points out - correctly, I think - that one of the distinguishing features of modern democracies is the extraordinary power they give to their least democratic institutions: the courts. By doing so, they establish a check against the illiberal impulses of the masses.
He’s also taken Rwanda’s military on a remarkably bloody frolic in the DRC. Some of that is legitimate - fighting the remnants of Hutu militias - but much of it almost certainly isn’t.
Further, bad things tend to happen to Kagame’s political critics.
I respect much of what Paul Kagame has accomplished - but I certainly wouldn’t want to live in, or in proximity to, Rwanda under his government.
They are/were both ‘constitutional monarchs’ that were/are the figureheads of democratic governments.
QEII, although the person who signs laws into effect always acts upon the advice of elected ministers.
To some degree, it depends what you call just. If the benevolent despot only shoots people you don’t like, that may seem entirely just to you. Many elderly Russians still revere Stalin - a man who killed more Russians than Hitler’s army.
The main problem is when the despot stops being benevolent, or passes power to to his nutty child. There is no procedure for changing government except spilt blood.
Remember the old adage - “Democracy is a lousy way to run a country. Unfortunately, all other ways are far worse.”
I don’t think Queen Victoria fits the bill, since one of the reasons she’s fondly remembered is because she was no longer an autocrat by the end of her reign. Plus, while her British subjects might not have minded her, she ruled rather a lot of other people, too, many of whom were less than happy about it.
I don’t have any cites and don’t know enough about it, but there have been many times in recent history when a democratic government is overthrown by the military due to claims of corruption and abuse of power. However how often does the military actually follow up on their claims of combatting corruption and then handing power back to civilian government? If they actually follow through with that, then that would be a benevolent autocracy. But who knows how often that happens.
The Emir of Qatar may qualify too. He oversaw social liberalization and economic growth. However I have no idea what the human rights situation is.
hehe, yep. check the ETA in my post.
The Turkish military seems to do this once a decade or so.
Vlad Tepes wouldn’t be called just by his nobles (the boyars), many of whom he dispossessed or killed while consolidating power.
But after consolidation of power, he did many things to improve life for the peasantry, and there are many stories of how crime was virtually unknown in Transylvania during his reign (a solid gold drinking cup sat unguarded in the town square for decades, a woman could walk unescorted across his domain, and so on). This lawful behavior supposedly arose because of the savage public way the Impaler dealt with criminals, the Turks, his internal enemies, and so on. It may not be true that crime was all but abolished, but I think some of the modern belief that a sufficiently fierce central government deters crime comes from memories of Dracul.
The Turkish army overthrows the democratically elected government every time the Islamists take over*. Typically, they hold new elections within a few years. It’s a quite amazing system that doesn’t work anywhere else in the world.
Sultan Qaboos of Oman has to qualify.
His predecessor, Taimur, was basically a crazy person who (correctly) believed that the British, Saudis, Egyptians and various other ne’er-do-wells were Out To Get Him.
Partly, this was because he refused to modernize the country, and basically treated it as though it existed for his convenience. If there was somewhere he found he wanted to go a lot - say, a beach - he would have a road built from his palace to it. On the other hand, if commerce demanded a road be built between two places, he generally didn’t bother unless he wanted it built too. Imports of modern contrivances like cars, radios and electric lighting were banned, unless they were for the Sultan’s personal use.
In 1970, Qaboos, with the aid of British forces (who were tired of Taimur shutting down oil wells whenever he felt like it) overthrew his father and unified the provinces of Oman, which were effectively one country anyway.
He liberalized much of the country, build roads, schools, universities, hospitals, modern armed forces, and so on, and reestablished the traditional Islamic leadership philosophy of shura (basically, listening to one’s subjects).
Oman now has a democratically elected parliament, which even has women in it.
However, he’s still unquestionably a despot, from whom all political power flows. He just happens to be a nice one.
ETA: I see Frodo already addressed the Turkey thing.
Pistols at dawn, sir.
They have pistols in The Shire, do they? 
I suppose there may be some of those things in the House of Mathoms…