As the thread title suggests, I’d like to see if we can agree on what characteristics distinguish a benevolent dictator from the usual run of dictators. It goes without saying that, in the modern world (which is what I’d like to restrict the discussion to: the last 100-150 years), any dictator must rule with a certain level of ruthlessness to continue to be a dictator. He must kill or imprison those who attempt to remove him from power, he must imprison the more trenchant critics of his regime, and in general he must suppress speech and assembly that might serve as a focal point for opposition to his regime.
That’s just the life of a dictator, period. If you don’t do those things, you won’t remain long as any sort of dictator. So if such a thing as a benevolent dictator isn’t to be defined out of existence, doing these things doesn’t qualify one from being a benevolent dictator.
OTOH, a benevolent dictator presumably doesn’t enrich himself and his cronies so much that such enrichment becomes a drag on his country’s economy and a significant detraction from its wealth. He minimizes his interference with personal freedoms outside of curtailment of criticism of and threats to his regime.
After that, I think it gets into iffy ground. I think a dictator can be benevolent while backing a wide array of economic systems, from nearly untrammeled free markets to massive land redistribution and near-total socialism; I’d say the proof is in the pudding - how well it works out for the large majority of his subjects - rather than what kind of oven it’s baked in.
So, I open up the floor to my fellow Dopers: what makes a benevolent dictator benevolent? Or is it silly to talk about such a thing? Should they be all but nonexistent by definition?
And if they do exist - if they aren’t mythical - then who (again, in the past century or so) qualifies? Was Franco a benevolent dictator? How about Castro? Who else?
Well, killing people hardly qualifies as benevolent, and that pretty much lets out the bulk of history’s dictators, who have mostly come to power by that expedient.
Persecuting the social or ethnic group in your power that is, or was in power before you took office, or repressing them, or just excluding them from normal social and legal systems is hardly benevolent, and there were very few dictators historically that didn’t do that.
Using your power to assure the continuation of your regime beyond the point when you are an effective and beneficial force for your people is not benevolent, and it is almost a prerequisite for being, and remaining a dictator.
On the whole, I think benevolent dictator is a term that is theoretically possible, but not real in any sense.
Hmmm. I’m not absolutely positive that a dictator ipso facto must imprison critics of his regime if they don’t rise to the level of active sedition. As a matter of practical realpolitik it may be beneficial to him to allow dissent a carefully limited opportunity to express itself, sort of a safety valve, and also makes him look much less, uh, “dictatorial” in the eyes of the outside world as a whole.
I know that many Latin American nations have a tradition of a military leader ousting an incompetent chief-honcho-of-the-government (by whatever title) who has allowed massive instability and resulting unrest by a classic coup d’etat, then putting in a non-representative interim government intended at stabilizing economy and social unrest, following which a constitutional change is made and the general either steps down or runs for office in a free election. This of course does not always happen – Lord Acton was correct on the corrupting influence of power, and sometimes they stay in office as full-bore dictators, or make it a “show” election with the outcome predetermined. But there are enough examples of the “patriotic strongman” devoted to stable, free government after interim non-representative stabilization, to make it worth mentioning as an example to the contrary.
I know that most African nations are either economically and socially unstable or else under a stereotype eeevul dictator (or both), but there have been a number of instances where an African equivalent to George Washington or Charles deGaulle have emerged – the guy who, despite some dissent as to his policies, is considered by his people to be head and shoulders above all competitors, a true leader of his whole nation as opposed to partisan choice for national leader. Some of these have had a varying degree of right to rule by fiat. Without intensive reading into post-1960 Africa that I haven’t done, I don’t have excellent examples, but two I think fit that role (subject to correction) would be Jomo Kenyatta and Leopold Senghor.
When I was growing up, it was “what everybody knows” that Gen’mo. Francisco Franco of Spain had brought stability and relative prosperity to that country after the leftist republic of 1931-36 had lost control of the country, at the cost of some freedom, but that the Spanish people generally supported him. Yet he’s traditionally viewed as a dictator in the Mussolini mold. I’d love to have people who know modern Spanish history “from the inside,” like Nava and Excalibre, address what is in fact the case there, how he was in fact viewed by various segments of the populace.
Just some thoughts on the complexity of how your question applies in the modern world.
I actually took a course on dictatorship about 12 years ago, and it was pointed out that almost every dictator is “unglorified” once their reign is over, their pictures removed, their statues toppled.
Except Ataturk, who wielded dictatorial-level power*, but is still Turkey’s national hero.
*According to the professor, although I confess I don’t know anything about Ataturk beyond this course.
That’s certainly not the case here in Panama with General Omar Torrijos, who is still widely revered in many circles. His (illegitimate) son Martin Torrijos is the current president; his political career almost entirely due to who his father was. The party that Omar founded, the Partida Revolutionaria Democratica, is one of the country’s two leading parties; the party flag is emblazoned with October 20, the day of the coup that eventually brought Torrijos to power. One of the major streets in Panama City commemorates the date, and another in the former Canal Zone is named after Torrijos.
In 1968 a military junta ousted elected President Arnulfo Arias after eight days in office. This was the third time that Arias had been deposed. Arias was literally a fascist, an admirer of Hitler who was first thrown out of office in 1940 with FDR’s backing. In one of his previous adminstrations he had implemented a constitution disenfranchising blacks and Chinese. Arias himself was no democrat, having led a violent coup in the 1930s that installed his brother Harmodio as President.
Torrijos eventually took over the junta. He was a populist, and his regime established schools in many remote and impoverished areas where they had never existed before, and worked to better the economic conditions of the poor. I do think he was genuinely concerned at some level with social justice. Torrijos is also revered because he secured the signing of the Carter -Torrijos treaties giving the Canal Zone back to Panama and providing for the transfer of the Canal in 1999. There is an enormous billboard at the border of the former Canal Zone with a picture of the General in front of the Canal, with the caption “Gracias, Omar!”
On the downside, there certainly was a degree of ruthlessness on the part of the regime in repressing opposition, and some critics were “disappeared” or turned up dead, notably a priest named Hector Gallego who was rumored to have been dropped out of a helicopter. But the repression and violence were nowhere near the level of other Central American countries. Victims of the regime were probably in the low hundreds, rather than the tens to hundreds of thousands elsewhere. There was also a degree of kleptocracy on the part of members of the regime, but not on the scale of some other dictatorships.
Torrijos was killed in a plane crash in 1981 on his way to visit Coclesito, a remote poor community he had “adopted” for special support. (The last time I was there a few years ago they still had a big billboard declaring it “Tierra de Omar!”) The regime was soon commandeered by Manuel Noriega (who some claim had planted a bomb on Torrijos’ plane), and descended in blatant repression and corruption. Noriega was unquestionably a malignant dictator. You know the rest.
This Wiki article has a fairly reasonable biography of Torrijos, though I would disagree with some parts:
Dictator as a word is not strictly defined. But my feelings have always been, dictators should be differentiated between other forms of autocratic rulers (like the absolute kings who ruled many countries during the Enlightenment and even later in some cases.) In general, while the great Kings (and Queens) ruled with an iron fist, they had passive legitimacy, whereas dictators do not. Until relatively recently, while monarchs might be deposed, it was always in favor of another monarch. Most did not question the validity of a monarchical system, and the idea that monarchs ruled by birth right was widely accepted by the peasants, merchants, and the aristocracy.
Why this is an important distinction is, because monarchs had “passive” legitimacy, due to the acceptance of their birth right, in general monarchs didn’t have to do a lot of the things that dictators do to stay in power. Their source of power was a society/political system that had at its core a hereditary monarchy. Historically Latin American/Eastern European/African/Asian countries which have gone through a lot of strife over the past 100-150 years have not had an entrenched political system, and rule was basically determined by whoever was strong enough to take and hold on to it.
So, by extension I don’t really view Popes as dictators, they rule their tiny state autocratically, but in a political system which exists in large part to house the Pope. Popes aren’t really that different from elected monarchs, and are fairly dissimilar to modern day dictators.
That’s one of the reasons why I restricted the discussion to the past 100-150 years. Another is that if you go much further back than that, you’re in a time when practically everyone was ruled by some sort of monarch. In a way, I’m asking, “do benevolent dictatorships meaningfully exist in a world where democracy and self-determination are widely known alternatives?”
FWIW, this thread was inspired by a variety of other threads, including discussions about whether a benevolent dictatorship would be the best thing for Iraq right now, and discussions of whether Hugo Chavez was so evil that it was hypocritical of lefties not to routinely denounce him.
Within the context of the modern world, I’m not defining ‘dictator’ narrowly; if a legislature and courts exist, but power overwhelmingly resides in the executive, then that’s close enough, AFAIAC.
And the Pope? I know Vatican City is technically a nation, but for all practical purposes, isn’t it more like a private compound owned by the RCC, that has been exempted from the laws of Italy? It’s smaller than a 120-acre farm. Maybe J.R. Ewing was a dictator.
William the First, King of the Netherlands from 1815 to 1840, qualifies, if 1840 isn’t too long ago. William took absolute power, but everyone agrees he used it for the best. Nick-named “the King-Merchant”, he took a sleepy backward poor country and firmly dragged it into industrialization.
Well, one also has to question how benevolent/evil the Pope could even be in his rule of the Vatican, the treaty that establishes the Vatican limits the size of its citizenship. The only people who are Vatican citizens are the Pope, and religious and security officials who work in the Vatican. Once you retire (if you’re a member of the Swiss Guard) or are assigned elsewhere (if you’re clergy) your citizenship is revoked–it’s only there as long as you work at the Vatican. Plus, while the Pope theoretically is an autocrat, he’s one without any real teeth since he can’t actually stop anyone from just leaving his tiny city-state, and since no one has natural citizenship there.
One person who comes to mind (but who is slightly outside the 100-150 year range) is Simon Bolivar. While his ultimate efforts at a general South American federation failed, he did hold power for some time as a dictator (he declared himself dictator in fact, albeit temporarily.) My view of his governance is that he was fairly benevolent. Of course, part of the problem with Bolivar’s claim to “benevolent dictatorship” is his power was always shaky and he had to allow quite a lot of internal dissension and et cetera because he did not have the sort of political power within the country(ies) he was leader of the rule with a truly iron fist.
A modern-day dictator who qualifies is Museveni, president of Uganda. He has proclaimed himself ‘president for life’, even though elections are held in the country. He has certainly improved conditions in Uganda, although anything would be an improvement over Idi Amin and his immediate successor. It remains to be seen what would happen if Museveni lost an election, but his presidencies have been marked by economic growth and a noted lack of oppression. He is probably the antithesis of the African “big man”.
And I get the suspicion that in the case of Bolívar, when he used the word to identify his office he was trying to draw upon the classical, old-Roman-republic sense of “dictator”, meaning a head of state that was legally and constitutionally given temporary absolute rule for the purpose of resolving a crisis. Faced with societies where Spanish colonialism had NOT planted the social bases for real republican conctitutional governeance, he and others felt they had to reinstate the figure of what during the Enlightenment had been called * “Enlightened Despot”*, only clothed in “republican” verbiage. Problem was, what if the crisis never really went away (And in any case, by the end of the Roman Republic, the concept had degenerated and Caesar himself drove the final nail by having his post extended to a lifetime appointment). Succesors used it gratuitiously and eventually its meaning became what we now use.
Now, the extent to which a dictator’s benevolence or the despot’s enlightenment may be recognized, involves a certain relativism on the part of the population and the historians. If the situation before the BD/ED’s rise was one of rampant crime and vice, worthless currency, famine and plague, military beat-downs, etc., and Mr. Strongman brings paved roads, clean running water, schools, hospitals, jobs, opportunities for social mobility, secure borders, and a feeling that you’re safe in your own house, then for quite a few years the People will be unlikely to care if some “troublemakers” get put in their place. However, while we’re at that, that support will last much longer if the suppression of the troublemakers happens through such means as repeated tax audits, denunciations in the official press, denial of promotion/tenure/license renewal/zoning variances, blog reports that they took money from shady types, pictures of them with their mistresses, nuisance lawsuits, fines for attempted mopery, etc.; rather than if the suppression involves businesses burned down, doors kicked down in the middle of the night and entire families disappearing, whole towns forcibly relocated, and critics being fed into woodchippers. (The Prince says: Ideally you want to be BOTH loved and feared; but since the first you can’t force, work to be feared, being ruthless if you must; yet don’t be gratuitious at it, you want to be feared, NOT HATED.)
But that raises a question about the notion in the OP… if you actually *are * supported by a large part of the people and they don’t particularly care if you have to bust a few heads to keep them safe and healthy and living decently, and the head-busting is moderate and narrowly targeted… are you being really a “dictator”?
And what if it’s not a PERSONAL autocracy? What if the regime has succesfully established an institutional structure to further the Enlightened Despotism platform for a considerable time(), and Chairmen/Presidents/General Secretaries can comfortably and safely retire and have no need to chain themselves to the chair until death? Because then theoretically you could imagine that the period of PRI one-party rule of Mexico for most of the 20th Century, specially the 30s to 70s, was close to a “benevolent dictatorship” (by an institution rather than one person) in the sense that the rule was not particularly tyrannical * to the generality of the population, it did advance in a limited manner some social and economic improvements, and critics and opposition were allowed a voice. BUT the system was rigged just so that PRI always won, no other platform had any chance of being put into effect and if you wanted reform you had to do it from within PRI and if the institution did not want your reform, well tough luck; you had episodes like the Cristeros, or the Tlatelolco massacre in 1968, or the murders of political candidates in state elections, where you could see that the powers-that-be or their proxies were not hesitant to just shoot whoever rocked the boat; and there was wide-ranging graft, from the cop on the beat shaking you down for “mordida” to high officials’ relatives depositing serious millions of unexplained origin in foreign banks. Main difference with a conventional dictatorship, however, was that the PRI’s control of the process only held up for as long as it could command enough support among actual people to make their ballot-stuffing sound plausible. Once they lost that, they could no longer hold on.
(*That’s another thing. Is it a requirement for a “dictatorial” or depotic regime to purport to establish itself for all perpetuity, or can there be one that **sincerely ** intends to just rule until the agenda is completed, even if it takes more than a lifetime?)
Also, another one I’d like to throw up there is Perez Musharraf of Pakistan. Although like many other leaders he claims to be democratically elected, his legitimacy is, ahem, suspect.
However, I think that he’s generally working hard to both improve the economic and social conditions of his nation while also threading a very fine line between growing Islamic radicalism in his nation, the virtual takeover of Waziristan and North Waziristan and other “tribal areas” by either the Taliban or blatantly pro-Taliban individuals, and hopes of keeping Pakistan within the orbit of first-world nations like the United States to eventually make it a modern and prosperous nation.
Not that any of it excuses being a dictator, mind you, but here’s an exceptional Frontline on some related issues:
I’ll suggest that Josip Broz Tito belongs somewhere in this discussion. I’m only starting to read about the history of the Balkans though, so I’m not sure. He did hold Yugoslavia together despite ethnic and religious divisions in the country, and after his death these divisions led to the breakup of the country. Based on the little I know, it seems he might fall more towards the benevolent side.
Anecdotally, we lived in Kampala for a year. One evening, as we were driving to a restaurant, we ended up in a long string of vehicles, some of which were armored personnel trucks. I backed off from them, as one never knows what may go down. As we rounded a corner, I could see a limousine behind the lead truck full of soldiers. As they attempted to make a turn through a break in the median, a car stalled in their path. I hit the brakes, thinking “oh, shit, assassination time”. Obviously, the soldiers assumed the same thing, swarming out of their vehicles and providing a human wall around the limo. A woman stepped out of the car and began pleading with the soldiers. One of the limo doors opened and out stepped President Museveni, who walked over, spoke with the woman, then helped the soldiers push her car out of the way. A terrific display of ‘common man’ thinking.
