Recently the President of Tunisia was ousted in blow for democracy everywhere. That’s great and all, but why do all media I’ve read and seen on the subject refer to him as President?
This trend is not unique to Tunisia. In fact, over the years, many dictators have been referred to as president or some other such moniker. Hosni Mubarak of Egypt is a president. Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are El Presidentes. Leaders of Yemen, Syria, and, in a lesser degree, China, are presidents. North Korea has a “leader” in Kim Jong Il (I actually don’t remember him being referred to as a president or anything except a “leader”)
It’s getting so that I’m craving for a good old fashioned King, like in Jordan!
Is this something dictators call themselves to look better? Is it a product of the Western media? Is it something we call them to make relations more cordial so we’re not introducing Religious Puppet Ahmadinejad at the UN?
Some of these guys exhibit all the traits of dictators, tyrants, warlords, and emperors. Why is it that even the more ostentatious ones don’t give themselves grand titles like King, Dictator, God Emperor, or something? Is “Dear Leader” the only thing Kim can come up with? If I were in his position, I’d rename my title the Grand Overlord or something. You’re telling me that Gaddafi, who can’t even agreen on his name’s spelling, who has an all-female personal guard and a “voluptuous” Ukranian “nurse” can’t come up better than President or General?
We call people “president” when the system the operate in designates them as such. “President” has no necessary meaning other than “one who presides.” How or under what circumstances the presiding is taking place isn’t specified.
Some of these leaders took charge through democratic means and they choose to keep the titles they gained that way to reassure the public or because they are nominally still elected officials even if the elections are rigged. It maybe help them tamp down international pressure.
Kim Jong-Il has a lot of titles, including ostentatious ones like “Supreme Leader of North Korea” and “Supreme Commander of the North Korean People’s Army.” He is “Dear Leader” because his father was the “Great Leader.” There’s a cult surrounding the two of them and Kim Il-Sung is still officially "Eternal President of the Republic."Maybe some of the other dictators don’t want to look like a nutjob. It doesn’t seem to bother the Kims.
The leader of Iran is Khameni, whose title is “Supreme Leader of Iran”, so he seems to be more of a case of dictators doing the opposite of what is bothering you in the OP. Ahmadinejad’s latest election was pretty sketchy, but in general Iranian Presidents have been elected in fair elections. They just don’t have any more power then the religious authorites decide to give them.
Gaddafi’s title is “Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution” which seems appropriately grandiose. Libya has a President, but its not Gaddafi. (also, Gaddai’s rank is Colonel, not General).
Yeah, my first thought was that they want to appear to be less totalitarian than they are, because that’s tied to international respectability.
And the term ‘dictator’ didn’t use to mean a totalitarian warlord who seized control through main force. Originally, it was a specific magistrate’s role in the Roman republic - but a special one, in that all other magistrates had to share power with others, to guard against corruption.
A dictator was named in the case of a dire emergency where one guy had to be giving undisputed orders - the name comes from the same root as ‘dictation.’ As soon as the state of emergency was over, the dictator stepped down and let the usual roster of magistrates take over administration again, IIRC.
And then Julius Caesar was named ‘Dictator-for-life’ in a total departure from tradition that marked the end of the old republic. The scandalous part wasn’t that he was named dictator, it was that nobody was ever supposed to be a dictator for that long.
It’s going to depend on the formal constitutional structure of the country concerned. Joseph Stalin’s positions were Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and People’s Commissar for the Defense of the Soviet Union. Of those, the most important one, and the one that he held the longest time, was General Secretary of the CPSU – a position that (strictly speaking) was outside the state structure of the Soviet Union. Muammar al-Gaddafi’s title for the last 40 years has been “Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution”. However, most dictators aren’t as original as that.
Not exactly. A lot of modern dictatorships were formed when liberal pro-democracy advocates and the national security apparatuses ganged up to overthrow the pre-existing gov’t (usually monarchies). Then the liberals would go write a constitution with elected offices and legislatures, which the military guys would use to get themselves in power through bullying, back-room deals or legitimate popularity to get themselves elected and then do what they could to defang any limits on their power from the constitution. But most of them don’t appear to have bothered actually scrapping the entirety of the constitutions, either because it was too much trouble, it would undermine some of the legitimacy or because they were aligned to western Democracies that appritiated the fig-leaf of a constitutional gov’t.
This is why a lot of dictatorships not only have Presidents, but also the whole range of vestigial democratic institutions from elected legislatures to Vice-Presidents to terms of office.
So Mubarak in Egypt for example, is President because that was the title created for the leader of Egypt by the post-revolution constitution. He also has to stand for re-election every so many years (after throwing any real competition in prison) and work with a legislature (thats dominated by his own party).
Yeah, I guess that’s true. It was one month (exactly, or approximately?) between his appointment as dictator-for-life and his assasination, compared to the ten years maximum for a regular dictator appointment.
That one I never seemed to get, if you’re the supreme dictator, why settle for just “Colonel” and not give yourself a promotion to “General”?
Obligatory Simpsons quote - Homer (after founding a home-based Internet company): “What really matters is my title. I think I’ll make myself… vice president. No, wait! Junior vice president!”
He didn’t even decide to make himself Chairman of the Council of People’s Commisars/Ministers until WWII. Before that he wasn’t officiall part of the government at all. This is also why Soviet leaders after him were usually refered to as “Premier” in English even though only Khrushchev actually followed Stalin’s example and made himself head of government. The other General Secretaries prefered to make themselves the nominal head of state (Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) instead. Gorbachev finally simplified things and became “President of the USSR” shortly before it dissolved.
Back to the OP, dictators giving themselves unique titles (mainly varients of the word “leader”) went out of fashion after WWII when Der Führer and Il Duce died. Franco (who came to power in the '30s) remained El Caudillo until he died in the '70s.
Most of these Presidents like to cover themselves with the trappings of democracies to show how much the peoples love them.
In Tunisia, you had an elected parliament and official opposition parties. In Iraq, Saddam Hussain had elections only a few months before we invaded where he won about 99% of the vote.
It’s the implementation where things go awry. In Mexico in the old elected dictator days, the Institutional Revolutionary Party simply used threats, bribes, and policy to keep itself reelected for almost 70 straight years. They even had two official opposition parties throughout the entire time although most of the time, neither of these two parties managed to win anything more than a few seats in Congress.
Heck, even in communist countries, there were multiple parties which were in league with the Communist party.
The Presidential system makes it easy to run as a dictator. As the chief executive, they have control over the police and army. They have the power to use bribes and threats to keep the population under control. However, not all dictators with the trappings of democracy called President.
In Singapore, Peoples Action Party was headed by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who pretty much ruled as he wished from 1965 to 1990. His son is now Prime Minister. The Government of Singapore uses its courts and liable and defamation charges to keep dissidents under control. Basically, any criticism of Singapore’s government leaders is considered defamation and can results in thousands and sometimes millions of dollars in fines.
What he said. Just as a business can have a boss who is the private proprietor, but titles himself President-CEO of the company instead of just “owner and boss”, so can a state. Being a republic has no necessary connection to being a democracy, it’s just a descriptor of the form of the organizational chart. Somewhere, the flowchart points to a person or institution on whom “the people” vest power – whether that actually happened or not.
Plus like Estilicón says, it is good street sense to address a supreme honcho by his preferred styling.
As for understated titles, another example from relatively recent memory is Chairman Mao. Chairman of the Party, no need to explain any further who is in charge.
As for G/Kh/Qad(d)afi, the original Lybian revolutionary junta abolished general grades and cleared the colonels list to eventually replace them with their own people (Moammar was a Captain, field-promoted to LTC during the revolt). After some time as PM in the early 70s he became “Guide and Leader”, supreme over the formal command structure, and simply kept affecting his colonelship as the last grade he held in active duty.
Actually, Sulla was named dictator for life (or at least, his elevation didn’t put any limits on his term) prior to Julius Caesar, but resigned the position relatively quickly.
Although ordinarily fair - that is, the votes are counted accurately and voter intimidation is rare - Iranian presidential elections have never been free - that is, open to all regardless of political ideology. The Guardian Council, headed by the Supreme Leader, has to approve all candidates for the Presidency. Sometimes they allow a moderate reformer to run, but never anyone who seriously proposes unfettered democracy.
Shame, too - other than the Supreme Leader and Guardian Council, Iran actually has a damn fine set of democratic institutions. Smash the Islamist shackles, and you’d have the makings of a thriving multiparty democracy.
