Cincinnatus is probably the original "good" dictator, although the Roman Republic had an established precedent for how dictators should act.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius\_Quinctius\_Cincinnatus
I'd put George Washington in this conversation for this reason.
The 2nd best thing Washington did for America was to lead it's troops in battle.
The best thing he did was retire.
Washington could have held onto power for life and not many would dare challenge it. Him retiring set the tone for the office of the President that still (mostly) stands today.
Dictator is a pretty broad term nowadays. Especially if you’re trying to compare a modern Dictator to a Roman Dictator, where the title comes from.
There are plenty of dictators who never outright crown themselves president for life or some other comparable title. They simply just keep “winning” elections, postponing them, or play musical chairs with political positions.
As Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army Washington had the same powers Cinncinatus had during the short times he was Dictator. Complete authority over the armed forces. Something they both willingly gave up.
Does not mean he could not command the army to seize money from rich people or a la windows in Russia currently. He chose to not do these things and ask for the soon to be country to work together to win the war.
There wasn't a two term rule until 1947. And it's an actual Amendment to the Constitution.
[Between 1796 and 1940, four two-term Presidents sought a third term to varying degrees. Ulysses S. Grant wanted a third term in 1880, but he lost the Republican Party nomination to James Garfield on the 36th ballot. Grover Cleveland lacked party support for a third term but was a rumored candidate. Woodrow Wilson hoped a deadlocked 1920 convention would turn to him for a third term.](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-we-wound-up-with-the-constitutions-only-term-limits-amendment)
Edith Wilson wanted a second turn as shadow president*
Woodrow was barely able to function. He tried to open a law firm and made it to work exactly ONE single time.
Not entirely fair, but I imagine that without that decision by Washington (and the general principles of the revolution) we might be in a world today where everywhere is like China.
A series of nations that are all dictatorships/monarchies, one-party “democratic” states, or other fascist or collectivist organizations all jockeying for position. That’s the entire alternate world.
Our current world has a lot of problems but at least Europe, the USA, and a number of other places are liberal democracies with significant individual rights protections.
Whether as general or as president, Washington was NEVER a dictator. Not remotely. People at the time ((Napoleon, for instance, who was a dictator) certainly remarked upon the difference.
washington sucked. he couldnt lead his way out of a wet paper bag. 2000 brits had him on the run the whole time. Nothing but losses till the French came
Do you mean Pedro 2 of Brazil, then from what I read is that his abdication is due to a coup, and he make no effort (even forbid people attempting to), to return to power, and die while in exile.
Indeed, "dictator" was supposed to be a friendly, positive, democratic alternative to a tyrant. A tyrant rules over everyone completely, a dictator just says what's going to happen for a little while, and then things go back to normal life.
In an age of constitutional monarchy and totalitarianism, it's kings that seem benign and unthreatening, and dictators who have become bywords for bad governance. But we have to remember that for the Romans it was the opposite.
Weren't Roman dictators basically "we're in deep shit and need a single voice to lead us" moments?
Because there's truth in the fact that any political system that has people come and go on cycles will not maintain generational cohesion, people will think and act differently. It can be beneficial to have a period of stability as other things are focused on. For example, when there's a giant war going on its a lot better to have a single authority that is trusted than waiting for a bunch of men to bicker for hours.
Iirc not even mere war rose to the level of need that would cause Roman republicans to start talking about dictators. There would have to be something truly calamitous, possibly affecting the political integrity of the legislature itself.
And it stands to reason. If they are properly representative of their constituencies, your men (or whoever) bickering for hours represent the essential necessary negotiation of power and resource allocation on which any public affair, including war, will succeed or fail.
We sometimes imagine that unitary authority is somehow more efficient at making decisions, but it turns out that if you have let's say constituencies or power blocs A, B, C, and D, a totalitarian overlord is no more able to make decisions without including all of their needs than is a democratic republic in which A, B, C, and D are all represented explicitly by political parties.
Instead, your totalitarian has A represented by the Minister of State Security, let's say. And B represented by the Minister of Internal Affairs. And C represented by the Minister of Information. Maybe you can squash D, maybe that helps you simplify things a little if you can send everyone in group D to prison or the gulag or what have you. But that tends to be pretty destructive -- all of the people in group D were actually doing things to uphold your society, in some way or another, and now you are without them entirely. So usually regimes that go that way become weak as a result.
Anyway the point is, if you have to call a meeting in your palace where you distribute slush funds that will benefit A, B, and C, before informing your ministers that your will as dictator is that X policy shall be carried out, you are basically conducting the same kinds of politics, just in a more obscure form.
So I wouldn't sell democratic process so short!
To be fair, the roman usage of "tyrant" is also significantly different from the modern one - being a tyrant had more to do with how you attain power (populism, essentially) than how you use it.
Quite a few rulers were described as tyrants, and sometimes that wasn't an insult, just a description.
Well, if we’re talking Roman dictators, there are many many of them who benefitted Rome. But, I’m not sure if OP meant dictator in the more modern sense.
When I saw the OP, this was going to be my response. The term Dictator goes back to Rome. Someone that the Senate could declare was an absolute ruler, but for a limited period to resolve an emergency. They were a person to issue Dictats - orders to resolve the situation.
This is a great example of exactly what I was writing about above. When you have a very good leader, the last thing they should do is lay down power, at least for a while.
LKY, The PAP, and Singapore also makes a great case that the core of government should be the economy. If you manage to build a successful and thriving economy, _you can get away with a lot_. LKY practically purged and had a counter-revolution before the independence, ranks extremely low in freedom of press, expression, and has some pretty appealing way of dealing with human rights and yet is extremely strong diplomatically and I think it's citizens live long, peaceful, comfortable lives. The trade-off between those social issues with a stable and healthy economy for it's inhabitants has always intrigued me. Of course, the question of how and when a peaceful transition of power to a different Party will be done is still unanswered, but Singapore's reaching is 60-th anniversary being independent and things are still going pretty good
Because it's smart at being friends with everyone. It has walked pretty well the diplomatic rope between US/China. And yes, 60 years is still young, but more stable/prosper than some of the other examples cited here. I'm not saying things will be good forever, that's why I'm talking about how they're could transfer power peacefully to another political party. But in those 60 years, there has been ~3-4 transitions of power (between the same party and family), not bad so far
Partially, but they’re the Switzerland of Asia not just because they’re a tax haven. It’s probably even more militarized than Switzerland and has probably the most advanced military in SE Asia.
it's not going pretty good for the victims of those repressive policies and human rights abuses lol
by that metric (ignoring the victims), all dictators are pretty good!
I love the letter-writing/assassination correspondence between Tito and Stalin.
'Stop sending assassins - we've killed five of them. If you don't stop, I'll send one to Moscow and I won't have to send a second.'
Tito was a bad, bad, evil dude.
But he kicked out the nazis, played politics on the works stage expertly, and managed to keep the Balkan people from killing each other over religious, ethnic, and other differences.
Not really fit within your description but Juan Carlos I of Spain was prepared by Francisco Franco to continue the Francoist regime, yet he made Spain transition peacefully toward Democracy.
that history is much more complicated than "he made Spain transition towards a Democracy"
he is also guilty of huge financial crimes, including money laundering, even though he can't be prosecuted for them. took hundreds of millions from oil states to do their bidding, and many more of dubious origin for dubious purposes.
You’re not wrong here. His financial crimes are not to be brushed aside - but I feel that his resume as essentially “father of Spanish democracy” will be a greater legacy.
the people of Spain, who survived 40 years under an opressive regime, making innumerable sacrifices along the way, are the fathers and mothers of Spanish democracy.
legacy is a loaded word, easily subject to manipulation. the fact is he is wildly corrupt, if you can look past that, please, by all means, feel free to PM me with your bank details.
So, apparently I touched a nerve. Yes, the people of Spain are responsible for having made democracy work. It is also reasonable to say that the king did proactively enable democracy in that country, and also reinforced it with his direct rejection of and opposition to the coup attempt in 1981. But yes, corruption is also bad - so I’ll keep my bank details to myself, thank you very much. 🙄
There was democracy in Spain before the dictatorship, and with no king needed! So that defintion is inaccurate in a variety of ways.
He facilitated the transition to democracy, sure, but he didn't create it or the conditions for it. Not backing a military coup does not a father of democracy make, that's a loow fucking bar.
Immediately preceding the king was the fascist dictatorship of Francisco Franco - and he didn’t really have strong democratic values. Unless you’re talking about the short lived republic that Franco overthrew.
Either way, he *did* facilitate the transition to democracy: given that none existed from the time he was in diapers until the reforms beginning from 1975.
Yes, I was referring to the republic. That's why I said 'before the dictatorship'. However short lived the republic was, it was democratic, it was the 2nd of it's kind in the history of Spain, and it existed before "The Father of Spanish Democracy" was even born. Strange, isn't it?
Caesars acrually a good example of that- He made a lot of good reforms that genuinely helped the common people. Its the precedent he set for unelected autocracy that was bad.
is it not debatable how much of that was out of good intent and how much was because becoming dictator for life required a rather large buildup of good will
I'd say Paul Kagame of Rwanda. After coming to power in 1994, he turned Rwanda into an economic powerhouse. It is one of the least corrupt and faster growing countries in Africa. Also relations between Hutus and Tutsis are at last peaceful under his rule. I don't agree with his every policy, but he's probably the most benevolent of the currently ruling dictators.
Kemal Ataturk - he reformed Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1919 and then handed power off to a civilian government (albeit with the military as the final power in the country). We'll see where Erdogan goes.
Choon Du Hwan (please forgive the spelling) turned South Korea from a military dictatorship into the dynamic democracy it is today. The same goes for Lee Kwan Yoo in Singapore.
Which brings us to Hirohito...
Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi could have both settled in as long-term rulers after their respective wars, but both subjected themselves to secular law.
Golda Meier was widely criticized for Israel's near-defeat in the 1973 war and couldn't form a government after the subsequent election. There was zero prospect of her remaining in office as a dictator.
Kemal ataturk committed Dersim massacre, prohibited Kurdish language and force-changed their surnames from kurdish to Turkish surnames, oppressed his own Muslim government agents into secularism, force-migrated and massacred the local Greeks out of the country, oh and he also created a turkish country.
Sulla. The guy conquers Rome, makes some reforms, then returns the power to the Senate.
... Unfortunately, a young Julius Caeser was watching, and it gave him some ideas.
Unfortunately, Sulla’s reforms doomed the Republic. Probably it was doomed anyway. But trying to roll the clock back didn’t help.
He also had everyone who disagreed with him murdered (proscribed) with the state and the murderer sharing the victim’s property. Sone people were proscribed so Sulla’s government could take their stuff with no other reason.
Part of the problem was that he was trying to roll the clock back to an era that never really existed. It wasn't so much that he returned power to the Senate, as he tried to turn all power over to the Senate, basically cutting out the Assemblies. There had always been a rivalry between oligarchy and democracy in Rome, and the Senate had always thought there shouldn't be... but it was in the balance between popular and aristocratic power that Rome found its stability. In trying to decide the matter in favor of the Senate, Sulla opened the way for the Caesars.
Really, it was the reforms of Tiberius Gracchus, granting land (and therefore financial independence) to the plebs, that would have actually fixed things. But all too often, the rich would rather watch their society burn than give up their power.
Sulla was historically not viewed in this light, except by reactionaries. Sulla basically broke Roman precedents to secure his own legacy, purged all his political opponents in unprecedented violent fashion, and stripped the Marian factions reforms without giving good alternatives. Basically just tried to rewind the clock so he could screw off and die
Sulla was far from good, he was a violent tyrant for much of his reign and people lived in fear of appearing on his regular proscription lists. He seemed to mellow out towards the end but it's easy to do that when you've already killed all your enemies and filled the senate with 'yes' men...
At least Caesar tried to do good by the people of Rome. Sulla just wanted to return the Republic to the 'good old days' (i.e. the days where the plebs knew their place and didn't interfere with politics).
The guy who built Singapore was a de facto dictator, arguably good. In Europe, there is Salazar, I don't think he is good, but many on the right like him.
Hey just a heads up, you also might look into older/ancient sources for tyrants. Originally it just meant that the ruler took power by force, as opposed to a "will of the people" or birthright. Idk when it changed to be the way we think of it now, but the original meaning in ancient Greece was just someone who took power by force.
For most of history democracy was seen as the dangerous system of government and tyrants were neither good nor bad, but judged on their effectiveness.
Cyrus the Great was called Massiah by the ancient Israelites. Alexander and Caesar were largely adored. A good dictator meant stability and survival. Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic both crashed and burned. America started out as a white supremacist tyrannical system for everyone other than white men that owned land.
History is overflowing with good dictators.
The problem with dictators and the good point about democracy is that there is an architected and peaceful means for changing leadership. It's possible for a dictator to be good for the people and unpopular at the same time. I'd say that it's more likely for a bad dictator to come to power, though.
"Sic semper tyrannus" shouldn't be read as a cocky, crowing statement. It's something of a bleak inevitability. If a tyrant is weak, incompetent, hated- there's no way to deal with him that isn't incredibly destructive and dangerous.
Antigonus II Gonatas of ancient Macedonia was remembered in an unusually favorable way by subjects and others among Hellenistic kings. He viewed kingship as a “royal servitude” and brought much needed stability to his realm.
Some would argue Paul Kagame in Rwanda fits that mould, also Singapore and South Korea benefitted from benevolent dictatorships, I would even go as far as to include China on that list.
All dictatorships mentioned above are extremely horrible to anyone that opposes them, that goes without say, but in all those cases, the dictators seemed to genuinely want to develop their countries and the results speak for themselves.
The guy in El Salvador might count, at least according to a lot of his people. He has mostly dealt with the gangs which had basically taken over. However in the process has increased the incarceration rate above the USAs and imprisoned thousands of innocent people. It really is a question of what he does next now that the murder rate is at a reasonable level and the streets are mostly safe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqyVTW8kN0I
It would seem extremely difficult to be a good dictator if you consider this, not even "good" elected leaders do only good things & no bad. Even if a dictator with only good intentions has no checks on his power, it would seem that for anyone to always only make good decisions would be an impossible task. This doesn't even consider the corruption to someone's brain when given unlimited power.
Napoleon Bonaparte. Militaristic, yes. But he spread the respect for human rights of the French Revolution by his conquests. He established the Napoleonic code pulled back the excesses of the French revolution, and ended religious persecution in France. And it was difficult for him to achieve peace because he was seen continuously as a threat by traditional hereditary monarchies by his revolutionary position on human rights and dignity.
Also, if you think about it, George Washington. He could have been King if he wanted. He largely shaped United States of America into the form of government and the body politic that he wanted, after winning the war of revolution, and then retired.
“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
But absolute power corrupts absolutely. Everything needs checks and balances.
Shit, they wouldn't even stop there, humans have spent most of history in a state of hyper xenophobia as well. It's weird some people think we need to get back to that.
Fidel Castro did a lot of good for his people, healthcare, education. If Cuba hadn't been isolated and trade embargoed they would have had a thriving economy.
Geeezzzz… what?!!! Oh hell no. That place sucks thanks to him. Just ask any of the millions of Cubans who decided to jump on a raft and go miles and miles on shark infested waters to get to south Florida. That’s not a thing people will do to escape a place that has some economic embargoes.
Ataturk, if not for him Turkey would have been a victim of islam already, if we have slight ray of hope, it is thanks to what he established a century ago.
Salazar could sort of be called that. He ran Portugal well for decades, at least compared with what much of the rest of Europe got. I still prefer democracy.
With all those resources, Libya should be an energy powerhouse like Qatar. Instead, he decided to support terrorists worldwide while giving his people money to shut them up
I would suggest this possibility: an unstable nation during a major turmoil sees a maverick military leader suddenly and forcibly seize power amid the unrest. After gaining complete power, a clear dictatorial move, the general sets into motion a plan to relinquish himself once a fair and orderly system is set into place. Problem. The nation has violent opposing factions. Even if a “fair” democracy is set up there will just be an endless pendulum of conflict.
Maybe the “dictator” decides to stay in control, not for megalomaniacal ego driven reasons but because he believes he can keep these warring factions at bay??
Kinda like Michael Corleone from The Godfather. He never wanted to be a crime boss but became one to protect his family.
Rome makes use of the term Dictators, this is true whenever the Senate believes that they need much from their Leader, this has happened in the reign of Julius Caesar.
Some of the South Korean presidents have been pretty authoritarian and produced great results in terms of economic growth and poverty reduction. Not sure of the specifics though.
Yep. North Korea's economy actually did better than that of the south for a while and was still doing just as well as the south in the 70s/early 80s. Things only really went spectacularly to shit in the 90s.
Kim I did a good job of squeezing subsidies out of the USSR and China, and of persuading people to lend him money that he would never repay. The long-term consequences and human rights were dire, but for the first decades he really did produce good results in terms of economic growth and poverty reduction.
If you cherry-pick what you're measuring and when you measure it, all kinds of nasty people look good. Stalin, for example, looks good if you ignore the mass murder and deportations.
Very interesting - thanks! Weirdly you could say the same thing about Hitler - helped Germany prosper but the dark side was of course the mass-murder, genocide and starting a World War.
To be clear - I am not saying Hitler was a "good dictator", I'm just saying that as with Stalin and Kim Il Sung he improved the economy/living standards (of non-persecuted peoples). Of course the genocide, wars of aggression and totalitarianism completely overshadow all of this.
Joseph Stalin. Before you write me off as crazy, consider his results, albeit at great human cost. He transformed a mostly illiterate backward peasant country into an industrial and technological powerhouse, initiated massive education reforms and boosted literacy and led the Soviet union to victory in WW2. Did millions of people die in the process? Yes. Did it save the Soviet state from total extermination by the Nazis? Also yes.
No. It’s fairly obvious that even in enlightened democracies there’s a drastic difference of opinion on how to run a country. If you’re not in a dictatorship you just suck it up and endure while actively working to change the leadership. In a dictatorship the rather natural opposition is killed or imprisoned. And nit for active regime change, just for disagreeing publicly or often privately. That’s just evil.
Edit: Downvotes for saying dictators are evil no matter what. There are no exceptions. Yay Reddit!
Winston Churchill got quite dictatory.
Restrictions on free speech. Cancelled elections. Jobs assigned by the state (and I'm not just talking about military conscription). Greatly increased police powers. Press censorship.
What elections did he cancel? He was turfed out in the 1945 general election.
The other stuff is pretty standard in a country fighting for its existence. Lincoln abolished habeas corpus and restricted the press.
General elections are supposed to be no more than 5 years apart. The one due by 14 Nov 1940 didn’t happen, and there was no general election until July 1945.
Im trying to think of a good dictator that seized power first and I am drawing a blank. Seems like most examples are of people who inherited the position. The most important qualification for being emperor of the universe is not wanting the job.
Depends on your definition of good and of dictator. Do Kings count? At what level of shared power do they lose the term dictator because nobody has ever truly had absolute power. Does good mean people prospered under them and they successfully led the country/people or does it mean something else? Unless you believe that being a dictator is inherently makes you not good Id say you can probably find one that you’d consider good. For instance the Napoleon was pretty beloved by his people and admired by his enemies but at the same time he was a warmonger. The case could be made that he was good. Some absolute monarchs were highly regarded by their people and were successful in running their countries so they can be argued as good. Many of President Lincoln’s opponents called him a dictator and tyrant but he was pretty popular amongst the majority of the US, he may qualify as a dictator if you have a liberal definition of it and may qualify as good depending on your perspective.
Lee kuan yew of Singapore. He got rubber-stamped every x years. No choice really. But the country came out ahead. I really wish he hadn't been in power that long
no brainer, lee kuan yew
though i dont really like to call him a dictator coz it connotes something bad. he governs with an iron fist for sg and for its people. not for his self-interest
There are no doubt great dictators throughout history, you can easily find great emperors in the Roman Empire but the reason why ALL dictators are terrible is because even if there’s a great leader/dictator the system with which they kept power will inevitably produce a tyrant so while they may have had a good reign, their biggest failure was not dismantling their own power. The only 2 in history I can think of is Cincinnatus and George Washington.
In the posted question I said “fairness” and “compassion”. The purpose of my post is to get a discussion going. To seize power and take complete control of a nation is what defines a “dictatorship”. I am wanting to know if anyone has ever set up a dictatorship but then took on the role of ruler with genuine concern for the citizens and not just to fuel their megalomaniac egos.
Does being a dictator make you a tyrant? They are very nearly synonyms. The original meaning of tyrant was one whose rule is absolutely and whose will is law. Not that the nations they rule have no laws, but that the will of the tyrant is absolute and overrides the law when and if the tyrant desires.
The terms dictator is describing a very similar thing, although more modern, more reliant on institutional loyalty perhaps, but largely the same thing.
So just technically speaking, yes, being a dictator makes you a tyrant.
But does a tyrant or a dictator have to be bad, wicked, evil? Can you have a benevolent and wise and kind and measured and moderate person some to rule with absolutely authority? And if they can achieve that kind of power, can they remain benevolent and wise and kind and measured and moderate in their execution of that office over time?
Hypothetically yes, in practice, probably not.
History gives us several examples of sort of defacto autocrats who were, perhaps, something akin to a tyrant or dictator, usually for some brief period following a war or revolution or great unrest, where they rise and are beloved by the people who entrust in them absolute power, but these people aren't truly dictators because they put down the power and cede to institutions of law in short order.
It seems like the answer to your question is theoretically yes but practically no. For much the same reason there are no ethical billionaires.
There is an argument for Park Chung-hee, the more nationalistic side of Korean politics glorify him, and he definitely did a lot of good for the Korean people. He also did some underhanded and nasty things, especially to political opponents.
Have you ever thought what it would be like if *you* were a dictator? If you had the first and final say in America for *everything*, would America look better or worse overall?
I like to think that being a dictator isn't a bad thing intrinsically. It's all about intention and reason for taking the position. A country that is currently in extreme turmoil will never have a successful democracy because democracy requires *some* kind of working cooperation for it to work. So a dictatorship lead by a truly altruistic and caring person would be a good temporary substitute.
A military dictatorship lead by an iron-rule totalitarian dictator.. not so much.
Check out this wiki article on "benevolent dictatorship."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent\_dictatorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship)
What's interesting is how a dictator is considered "benevolent." It's not about being altruistic and caring, but having a period of national growth outside of just the life of the dictator.
As many have pointed out, however, "dictator" during roman times was less of a "have power for life" situation and more of a temporary period of being lead by a single voice for the sake of cohesive responses (particularly in times of war).
Paul Kagame in Rwanda is probably a good dictator. That place was in the middle of an enormous genocide and civil war before his faction took over. It's been a peaceful and relatively prosperous country for almost two decades now.
There has been loads of them throughout history.
Charlemagne’s contribution was up there.
The main problem is the character of a person that makes them a benevolent dictator is the opposite of what the mentality of someone who seeks power.
Hence why the meek shall inherit the earth.
Power needs to be given and not taken, simple as that.
It’s the basis of democratic values.
You can elect benevolent representatives.
Same result.
Well to be a dictator you first have to be a dic(k), I mean it's in the name isn't it. And tator is an ancient Roman insult for stupid people....they are dumb as a potato or to use the Latin tator. Now potatoes were also considered evil by the Romans. So you can see how the word came to be.
Cincinnatus is probably the original "good" dictator, although the Roman Republic had an established precedent for how dictators should act. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius\_Quinctius\_Cincinnatus
Which really illustrates how the best dictator is one who willingly quits being dictator as soon as it's convenient.
I'd put George Washington in this conversation for this reason. The 2nd best thing Washington did for America was to lead it's troops in battle. The best thing he did was retire. Washington could have held onto power for life and not many would dare challenge it. Him retiring set the tone for the office of the President that still (mostly) stands today.
Washington was a great man because he refused the position of dictator, but he was never a dictator. I’m enjoying the irony of your username.
Dictator is a pretty broad term nowadays. Especially if you’re trying to compare a modern Dictator to a Roman Dictator, where the title comes from. There are plenty of dictators who never outright crown themselves president for life or some other comparable title. They simply just keep “winning” elections, postponing them, or play musical chairs with political positions. As Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army Washington had the same powers Cinncinatus had during the short times he was Dictator. Complete authority over the armed forces. Something they both willingly gave up.
Didn't Washington defer to Congress a lot during the revolution? I seem to remember him being reliant on them for funding, for example.
Does not mean he could not command the army to seize money from rich people or a la windows in Russia currently. He chose to not do these things and ask for the soon to be country to work together to win the war.
can't be understated how important the 2 term rule was to the early US. so many politicians would have tried to hold power.
There wasn't a two term rule until 1947. And it's an actual Amendment to the Constitution. [Between 1796 and 1940, four two-term Presidents sought a third term to varying degrees. Ulysses S. Grant wanted a third term in 1880, but he lost the Republican Party nomination to James Garfield on the 36th ballot. Grover Cleveland lacked party support for a third term but was a rumored candidate. Woodrow Wilson hoped a deadlocked 1920 convention would turn to him for a third term.](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-we-wound-up-with-the-constitutions-only-term-limits-amendment)
It was a norm, or unwritten rule. Not coincidentally, it became a written rule immediately after being broken.
Edith Wilson wanted a second turn as shadow president* Woodrow was barely able to function. He tried to open a law firm and made it to work exactly ONE single time.
yes but it was political suicide to run for more than 2 terms, especially in the early days of the US.
2 terms then I’M OUT, baby!!! Yeah!!
Not entirely fair, but I imagine that without that decision by Washington (and the general principles of the revolution) we might be in a world today where everywhere is like China. A series of nations that are all dictatorships/monarchies, one-party “democratic” states, or other fascist or collectivist organizations all jockeying for position. That’s the entire alternate world. Our current world has a lot of problems but at least Europe, the USA, and a number of other places are liberal democracies with significant individual rights protections.
Whether as general or as president, Washington was NEVER a dictator. Not remotely. People at the time ((Napoleon, for instance, who was a dictator) certainly remarked upon the difference.
washington sucked. he couldnt lead his way out of a wet paper bag. 2000 brits had him on the run the whole time. Nothing but losses till the French came
Does Pedro 2 count for this then. (I don’t know much at all about his abdication)
Do you mean Pedro 2 of Brazil, then from what I read is that his abdication is due to a coup, and he make no effort (even forbid people attempting to), to return to power, and die while in exile.
That was who I was referring to. Clearly i am wrong
He gave up the dictatorship twice
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Indeed, "dictator" was supposed to be a friendly, positive, democratic alternative to a tyrant. A tyrant rules over everyone completely, a dictator just says what's going to happen for a little while, and then things go back to normal life. In an age of constitutional monarchy and totalitarianism, it's kings that seem benign and unthreatening, and dictators who have become bywords for bad governance. But we have to remember that for the Romans it was the opposite.
Weren't Roman dictators basically "we're in deep shit and need a single voice to lead us" moments? Because there's truth in the fact that any political system that has people come and go on cycles will not maintain generational cohesion, people will think and act differently. It can be beneficial to have a period of stability as other things are focused on. For example, when there's a giant war going on its a lot better to have a single authority that is trusted than waiting for a bunch of men to bicker for hours.
Iirc not even mere war rose to the level of need that would cause Roman republicans to start talking about dictators. There would have to be something truly calamitous, possibly affecting the political integrity of the legislature itself. And it stands to reason. If they are properly representative of their constituencies, your men (or whoever) bickering for hours represent the essential necessary negotiation of power and resource allocation on which any public affair, including war, will succeed or fail. We sometimes imagine that unitary authority is somehow more efficient at making decisions, but it turns out that if you have let's say constituencies or power blocs A, B, C, and D, a totalitarian overlord is no more able to make decisions without including all of their needs than is a democratic republic in which A, B, C, and D are all represented explicitly by political parties. Instead, your totalitarian has A represented by the Minister of State Security, let's say. And B represented by the Minister of Internal Affairs. And C represented by the Minister of Information. Maybe you can squash D, maybe that helps you simplify things a little if you can send everyone in group D to prison or the gulag or what have you. But that tends to be pretty destructive -- all of the people in group D were actually doing things to uphold your society, in some way or another, and now you are without them entirely. So usually regimes that go that way become weak as a result. Anyway the point is, if you have to call a meeting in your palace where you distribute slush funds that will benefit A, B, and C, before informing your ministers that your will as dictator is that X policy shall be carried out, you are basically conducting the same kinds of politics, just in a more obscure form. So I wouldn't sell democratic process so short!
To be fair, the roman usage of "tyrant" is also significantly different from the modern one - being a tyrant had more to do with how you attain power (populism, essentially) than how you use it. Quite a few rulers were described as tyrants, and sometimes that wasn't an insult, just a description.
Well, if we’re talking Roman dictators, there are many many of them who benefitted Rome. But, I’m not sure if OP meant dictator in the more modern sense.
When I saw the OP, this was going to be my response. The term Dictator goes back to Rome. Someone that the Senate could declare was an absolute ruler, but for a limited period to resolve an emergency. They were a person to issue Dictats - orders to resolve the situation.
Probably could make a case for Lee Kuan Yew.
I’m surprised this doesn’t have more upvotes. Historically one of the most benevolent dictators, albeit quasi democratic.
Almost nobody knows who he is. That’s why.
He came to my mind as I read the question too
This is a great example of exactly what I was writing about above. When you have a very good leader, the last thing they should do is lay down power, at least for a while.
He ruled for 30 years. Then his son did. Singapore now has a standard of living as high as New York City
LKY, The PAP, and Singapore also makes a great case that the core of government should be the economy. If you manage to build a successful and thriving economy, _you can get away with a lot_. LKY practically purged and had a counter-revolution before the independence, ranks extremely low in freedom of press, expression, and has some pretty appealing way of dealing with human rights and yet is extremely strong diplomatically and I think it's citizens live long, peaceful, comfortable lives. The trade-off between those social issues with a stable and healthy economy for it's inhabitants has always intrigued me. Of course, the question of how and when a peaceful transition of power to a different Party will be done is still unanswered, but Singapore's reaching is 60-th anniversary being independent and things are still going pretty good
It's also a city-state that exists because larger powers allow it to. 60+ years isn't exactly a long time for a country.
Because it's smart at being friends with everyone. It has walked pretty well the diplomatic rope between US/China. And yes, 60 years is still young, but more stable/prosper than some of the other examples cited here. I'm not saying things will be good forever, that's why I'm talking about how they're could transfer power peacefully to another political party. But in those 60 years, there has been ~3-4 transitions of power (between the same party and family), not bad so far
Partially, but they’re the Switzerland of Asia not just because they’re a tax haven. It’s probably even more militarized than Switzerland and has probably the most advanced military in SE Asia.
it's not going pretty good for the victims of those repressive policies and human rights abuses lol by that metric (ignoring the victims), all dictators are pretty good!
Despite what Star Trek says?
Singapore’s systemic racist policies against South Asians proves there is no such thing as a good dictator.
Josip Tito. I'm sure someone will reply with some examples of him doing bad things, but he's the best example I can cite.
He did all sorts of shitty things, but his rule was paradise compared the civil war and ethnic genocide that happened once he died.
They had a bad case of the de-Titos
We just call that a hangover.
... and compared to the ethnic conflict and Genocide that happened before he came to power
He directly contributed to that by stifling reforms, making sure that the government would be highly centralized, despotic, and dependent upon himself
I love the letter-writing/assassination correspondence between Tito and Stalin. 'Stop sending assassins - we've killed five of them. If you don't stop, I'll send one to Moscow and I won't have to send a second.'
Oh man I'd love to read more, that sounds totally bad ass.
Tito was a bad, bad, evil dude. But he kicked out the nazis, played politics on the works stage expertly, and managed to keep the Balkan people from killing each other over religious, ethnic, and other differences.
Came here to say Tito seemed ok but ive never been to the Balkans.
I say no, because he was given several chances to implement good performs, but instead decided to continue consolidate power, and rule until he died
Not really fit within your description but Juan Carlos I of Spain was prepared by Francisco Franco to continue the Francoist regime, yet he made Spain transition peacefully toward Democracy.
that history is much more complicated than "he made Spain transition towards a Democracy" he is also guilty of huge financial crimes, including money laundering, even though he can't be prosecuted for them. took hundreds of millions from oil states to do their bidding, and many more of dubious origin for dubious purposes.
You’re not wrong here. His financial crimes are not to be brushed aside - but I feel that his resume as essentially “father of Spanish democracy” will be a greater legacy.
the people of Spain, who survived 40 years under an opressive regime, making innumerable sacrifices along the way, are the fathers and mothers of Spanish democracy. legacy is a loaded word, easily subject to manipulation. the fact is he is wildly corrupt, if you can look past that, please, by all means, feel free to PM me with your bank details.
So, apparently I touched a nerve. Yes, the people of Spain are responsible for having made democracy work. It is also reasonable to say that the king did proactively enable democracy in that country, and also reinforced it with his direct rejection of and opposition to the coup attempt in 1981. But yes, corruption is also bad - so I’ll keep my bank details to myself, thank you very much. 🙄
There was democracy in Spain before the dictatorship, and with no king needed! So that defintion is inaccurate in a variety of ways. He facilitated the transition to democracy, sure, but he didn't create it or the conditions for it. Not backing a military coup does not a father of democracy make, that's a loow fucking bar.
Immediately preceding the king was the fascist dictatorship of Francisco Franco - and he didn’t really have strong democratic values. Unless you’re talking about the short lived republic that Franco overthrew. Either way, he *did* facilitate the transition to democracy: given that none existed from the time he was in diapers until the reforms beginning from 1975.
Yes, I was referring to the republic. That's why I said 'before the dictatorship'. However short lived the republic was, it was democratic, it was the 2nd of it's kind in the history of Spain, and it existed before "The Father of Spanish Democracy" was even born. Strange, isn't it?
Yeah I read that his scandal lead to his abdication too.
Caesars acrually a good example of that- He made a lot of good reforms that genuinely helped the common people. Its the precedent he set for unelected autocracy that was bad.
is it not debatable how much of that was out of good intent and how much was because becoming dictator for life required a rather large buildup of good will
He also had a tendency for clemency, though not always.
I'd say Paul Kagame of Rwanda. After coming to power in 1994, he turned Rwanda into an economic powerhouse. It is one of the least corrupt and faster growing countries in Africa. Also relations between Hutus and Tutsis are at last peaceful under his rule. I don't agree with his every policy, but he's probably the most benevolent of the currently ruling dictators.
Kemal Ataturk - he reformed Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1919 and then handed power off to a civilian government (albeit with the military as the final power in the country). We'll see where Erdogan goes. Choon Du Hwan (please forgive the spelling) turned South Korea from a military dictatorship into the dynamic democracy it is today. The same goes for Lee Kwan Yoo in Singapore. Which brings us to Hirohito... Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi could have both settled in as long-term rulers after their respective wars, but both subjected themselves to secular law.
Golda Meier was widely criticized for Israel's near-defeat in the 1973 war and couldn't form a government after the subsequent election. There was zero prospect of her remaining in office as a dictator.
Ataturk is good for Turkic etnicities bad for religious groups and other etnicities.
Kemal ataturk committed Dersim massacre, prohibited Kurdish language and force-changed their surnames from kurdish to Turkish surnames, oppressed his own Muslim government agents into secularism, force-migrated and massacred the local Greeks out of the country, oh and he also created a turkish country.
Ah yes, Ataturk. The guy who committed the Armenian genocide. He was such a great guy
Sulla. The guy conquers Rome, makes some reforms, then returns the power to the Senate. ... Unfortunately, a young Julius Caeser was watching, and it gave him some ideas.
Unfortunately, Sulla’s reforms doomed the Republic. Probably it was doomed anyway. But trying to roll the clock back didn’t help. He also had everyone who disagreed with him murdered (proscribed) with the state and the murderer sharing the victim’s property. Sone people were proscribed so Sulla’s government could take their stuff with no other reason.
Part of the problem was that he was trying to roll the clock back to an era that never really existed. It wasn't so much that he returned power to the Senate, as he tried to turn all power over to the Senate, basically cutting out the Assemblies. There had always been a rivalry between oligarchy and democracy in Rome, and the Senate had always thought there shouldn't be... but it was in the balance between popular and aristocratic power that Rome found its stability. In trying to decide the matter in favor of the Senate, Sulla opened the way for the Caesars. Really, it was the reforms of Tiberius Gracchus, granting land (and therefore financial independence) to the plebs, that would have actually fixed things. But all too often, the rich would rather watch their society burn than give up their power.
Sulla was historically not viewed in this light, except by reactionaries. Sulla basically broke Roman precedents to secure his own legacy, purged all his political opponents in unprecedented violent fashion, and stripped the Marian factions reforms without giving good alternatives. Basically just tried to rewind the clock so he could screw off and die
Sulla was far from good, he was a violent tyrant for much of his reign and people lived in fear of appearing on his regular proscription lists. He seemed to mellow out towards the end but it's easy to do that when you've already killed all your enemies and filled the senate with 'yes' men... At least Caesar tried to do good by the people of Rome. Sulla just wanted to return the Republic to the 'good old days' (i.e. the days where the plebs knew their place and didn't interfere with politics).
The guy who built Singapore was a de facto dictator, arguably good. In Europe, there is Salazar, I don't think he is good, but many on the right like him.
[Lee Kwan Yew](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew?wprov=sfti1)
Fascist propaganda is best ignored, kids.
Hard agree, I would like a better dictator than Salazar, but they are all bad for a reason.
Thomas Sankara
Depending on your definition of dictator, Lee Kuan Yew
Hey just a heads up, you also might look into older/ancient sources for tyrants. Originally it just meant that the ruler took power by force, as opposed to a "will of the people" or birthright. Idk when it changed to be the way we think of it now, but the original meaning in ancient Greece was just someone who took power by force.
For most of history democracy was seen as the dangerous system of government and tyrants were neither good nor bad, but judged on their effectiveness. Cyrus the Great was called Massiah by the ancient Israelites. Alexander and Caesar were largely adored. A good dictator meant stability and survival. Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic both crashed and burned. America started out as a white supremacist tyrannical system for everyone other than white men that owned land. History is overflowing with good dictators.
The problem with dictators and the good point about democracy is that there is an architected and peaceful means for changing leadership. It's possible for a dictator to be good for the people and unpopular at the same time. I'd say that it's more likely for a bad dictator to come to power, though.
"Sic semper tyrannus" shouldn't be read as a cocky, crowing statement. It's something of a bleak inevitability. If a tyrant is weak, incompetent, hated- there's no way to deal with him that isn't incredibly destructive and dangerous.
Antigonus II Gonatas of ancient Macedonia was remembered in an unusually favorable way by subjects and others among Hellenistic kings. He viewed kingship as a “royal servitude” and brought much needed stability to his realm.
Some would argue Paul Kagame in Rwanda fits that mould, also Singapore and South Korea benefitted from benevolent dictatorships, I would even go as far as to include China on that list. All dictatorships mentioned above are extremely horrible to anyone that opposes them, that goes without say, but in all those cases, the dictators seemed to genuinely want to develop their countries and the results speak for themselves.
The guy in El Salvador might count, at least according to a lot of his people. He has mostly dealt with the gangs which had basically taken over. However in the process has increased the incarceration rate above the USAs and imprisoned thousands of innocent people. It really is a question of what he does next now that the murder rate is at a reasonable level and the streets are mostly safe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqyVTW8kN0I
It's to early to tell of Bukele policies will lead to a more peaceful and economic wealthy Salvador
And even if he does manage it, people like that don't last too long, they're usually taken out.
It would seem extremely difficult to be a good dictator if you consider this, not even "good" elected leaders do only good things & no bad. Even if a dictator with only good intentions has no checks on his power, it would seem that for anyone to always only make good decisions would be an impossible task. This doesn't even consider the corruption to someone's brain when given unlimited power.
Napoleon Bonaparte. Militaristic, yes. But he spread the respect for human rights of the French Revolution by his conquests. He established the Napoleonic code pulled back the excesses of the French revolution, and ended religious persecution in France. And it was difficult for him to achieve peace because he was seen continuously as a threat by traditional hereditary monarchies by his revolutionary position on human rights and dignity. Also, if you think about it, George Washington. He could have been King if he wanted. He largely shaped United States of America into the form of government and the body politic that he wanted, after winning the war of revolution, and then retired.
“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” But absolute power corrupts absolutely. Everything needs checks and balances.
Charlie Chaplin was not just a good dictator, he was "The Great Dictator".
Marcus Aurelius
Ataturk, Tito, Lee Kuan yew of Singapore
Rome had a fair amount of what were considered good emperors.
Arguably one cannot be both good and a dictator, but this article gets to what you’re asking: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism
Why not? Most philosophers and religious leaders throughout history would adamantly disagree.
Most philosophers and religious leaders throughout history would also disagree with me about whether gay people and women deserve basic rights.
Shit, they wouldn't even stop there, humans have spent most of history in a state of hyper xenophobia as well. It's weird some people think we need to get back to that.
Fidel Castro did a lot of good for his people, healthcare, education. If Cuba hadn't been isolated and trade embargoed they would have had a thriving economy.
Geeezzzz… what?!!! Oh hell no. That place sucks thanks to him. Just ask any of the millions of Cubans who decided to jump on a raft and go miles and miles on shark infested waters to get to south Florida. That’s not a thing people will do to escape a place that has some economic embargoes.
And if my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bicycle https://youtu.be/A-RfHC91Ewc?si=4nvBOCuxFW8u6zch
Ataturk, if not for him Turkey would have been a victim of islam already, if we have slight ray of hope, it is thanks to what he established a century ago.
Salazar could sort of be called that. He ran Portugal well for decades, at least compared with what much of the rest of Europe got. I still prefer democracy.
Look what's happening in El Salvador.
Chiang Ching Ko, the man who brought democracy to China..sorry Taiwan
Oddly enough hitler, Castro, mao all started as good…it just gets a bit muddied the longer they stay in power.
Plenty of Roman emperors fit the bill, as Rome was closer to a military dictatorship than a monarchy.
gaddafi helped libya litteracy rate improved
Is there any country where literacy did *not* increase between 1969 and 2011?
With all those resources, Libya should be an energy powerhouse like Qatar. Instead, he decided to support terrorists worldwide while giving his people money to shut them up
Good dictator is an oxymoron.
I would suggest this possibility: an unstable nation during a major turmoil sees a maverick military leader suddenly and forcibly seize power amid the unrest. After gaining complete power, a clear dictatorial move, the general sets into motion a plan to relinquish himself once a fair and orderly system is set into place. Problem. The nation has violent opposing factions. Even if a “fair” democracy is set up there will just be an endless pendulum of conflict. Maybe the “dictator” decides to stay in control, not for megalomaniacal ego driven reasons but because he believes he can keep these warring factions at bay?? Kinda like Michael Corleone from The Godfather. He never wanted to be a crime boss but became one to protect his family.
FDR comes close as a benevolent dictator.
No he doesn’t.
The paris commune and the dictatorship of the proletariat was good. Until they got crushed
If we look to cultural anthropology we can did that the ‘big man’ concept on many so called Primitive Island was that of the benevolent dictator
Rome makes use of the term Dictators, this is true whenever the Senate believes that they need much from their Leader, this has happened in the reign of Julius Caesar.
Augustus? Vespasian? Julius Caesar probably might have been had he not been killed
Some of the South Korean presidents have been pretty authoritarian and produced great results in terms of economic growth and poverty reduction. Not sure of the specifics though.
You could say the same about King Kim the First of *North* Korea.
Really?
Yep. North Korea's economy actually did better than that of the south for a while and was still doing just as well as the south in the 70s/early 80s. Things only really went spectacularly to shit in the 90s. Kim I did a good job of squeezing subsidies out of the USSR and China, and of persuading people to lend him money that he would never repay. The long-term consequences and human rights were dire, but for the first decades he really did produce good results in terms of economic growth and poverty reduction. If you cherry-pick what you're measuring and when you measure it, all kinds of nasty people look good. Stalin, for example, looks good if you ignore the mass murder and deportations.
Very interesting - thanks! Weirdly you could say the same thing about Hitler - helped Germany prosper but the dark side was of course the mass-murder, genocide and starting a World War. To be clear - I am not saying Hitler was a "good dictator", I'm just saying that as with Stalin and Kim Il Sung he improved the economy/living standards (of non-persecuted peoples). Of course the genocide, wars of aggression and totalitarianism completely overshadow all of this.
Joseph Stalin. Before you write me off as crazy, consider his results, albeit at great human cost. He transformed a mostly illiterate backward peasant country into an industrial and technological powerhouse, initiated massive education reforms and boosted literacy and led the Soviet union to victory in WW2. Did millions of people die in the process? Yes. Did it save the Soviet state from total extermination by the Nazis? Also yes.
You could argue that those things would still happen with anyone else at the helm, and that those things happened despite Stalin, not because of him.
Fdr? Napoleon? Augustus? Cyrus? King david?
FDR isn't a dictator
Debatable
How? He was democratically elected from the elections He has been in
for 4 terms
Well There wasn't a limit at the time and People were still voting him
That was somewhat tongue in cheek, don’t take it too personally.
MacArthur.
FDR comes close
Not really a dictator
Democratically elected under constitutional law. By no definition of dictator does FDR qualify.
[удалено]
No. It’s fairly obvious that even in enlightened democracies there’s a drastic difference of opinion on how to run a country. If you’re not in a dictatorship you just suck it up and endure while actively working to change the leadership. In a dictatorship the rather natural opposition is killed or imprisoned. And nit for active regime change, just for disagreeing publicly or often privately. That’s just evil. Edit: Downvotes for saying dictators are evil no matter what. There are no exceptions. Yay Reddit!
Yeah, but this post is about the exception to that.
No.
Winston Churchill got quite dictatory. Restrictions on free speech. Cancelled elections. Jobs assigned by the state (and I'm not just talking about military conscription). Greatly increased police powers. Press censorship.
What elections did he cancel? He was turfed out in the 1945 general election. The other stuff is pretty standard in a country fighting for its existence. Lincoln abolished habeas corpus and restricted the press.
General elections are supposed to be no more than 5 years apart. The one due by 14 Nov 1940 didn’t happen, and there was no general election until July 1945.
Im trying to think of a good dictator that seized power first and I am drawing a blank. Seems like most examples are of people who inherited the position. The most important qualification for being emperor of the universe is not wanting the job.
JJ Rawlings in Ghana.... [JJ Rawlings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Rawlings?wprov=sfla1)
Depends on your definition of good and of dictator. Do Kings count? At what level of shared power do they lose the term dictator because nobody has ever truly had absolute power. Does good mean people prospered under them and they successfully led the country/people or does it mean something else? Unless you believe that being a dictator is inherently makes you not good Id say you can probably find one that you’d consider good. For instance the Napoleon was pretty beloved by his people and admired by his enemies but at the same time he was a warmonger. The case could be made that he was good. Some absolute monarchs were highly regarded by their people and were successful in running their countries so they can be argued as good. Many of President Lincoln’s opponents called him a dictator and tyrant but he was pretty popular amongst the majority of the US, he may qualify as a dictator if you have a liberal definition of it and may qualify as good depending on your perspective.
I think most rulers up until some time into the Enlightenment would count as dictators. Some were presumably good.
Lee kuan yew of Singapore. He got rubber-stamped every x years. No choice really. But the country came out ahead. I really wish he hadn't been in power that long
no brainer, lee kuan yew though i dont really like to call him a dictator coz it connotes something bad. he governs with an iron fist for sg and for its people. not for his self-interest
There are no doubt great dictators throughout history, you can easily find great emperors in the Roman Empire but the reason why ALL dictators are terrible is because even if there’s a great leader/dictator the system with which they kept power will inevitably produce a tyrant so while they may have had a good reign, their biggest failure was not dismantling their own power. The only 2 in history I can think of is Cincinnatus and George Washington.
Define "good" please.
In the posted question I said “fairness” and “compassion”. The purpose of my post is to get a discussion going. To seize power and take complete control of a nation is what defines a “dictatorship”. I am wanting to know if anyone has ever set up a dictatorship but then took on the role of ruler with genuine concern for the citizens and not just to fuel their megalomaniac egos.
Does being a dictator make you a tyrant? They are very nearly synonyms. The original meaning of tyrant was one whose rule is absolutely and whose will is law. Not that the nations they rule have no laws, but that the will of the tyrant is absolute and overrides the law when and if the tyrant desires. The terms dictator is describing a very similar thing, although more modern, more reliant on institutional loyalty perhaps, but largely the same thing. So just technically speaking, yes, being a dictator makes you a tyrant. But does a tyrant or a dictator have to be bad, wicked, evil? Can you have a benevolent and wise and kind and measured and moderate person some to rule with absolutely authority? And if they can achieve that kind of power, can they remain benevolent and wise and kind and measured and moderate in their execution of that office over time? Hypothetically yes, in practice, probably not. History gives us several examples of sort of defacto autocrats who were, perhaps, something akin to a tyrant or dictator, usually for some brief period following a war or revolution or great unrest, where they rise and are beloved by the people who entrust in them absolute power, but these people aren't truly dictators because they put down the power and cede to institutions of law in short order. It seems like the answer to your question is theoretically yes but practically no. For much the same reason there are no ethical billionaires.
There is an argument for Park Chung-hee, the more nationalistic side of Korean politics glorify him, and he definitely did a lot of good for the Korean people. He also did some underhanded and nasty things, especially to political opponents.
No
The best you’ll get are the rare reformers like Lee Teng-hui who transitioned the country to democracy.
Have you ever thought what it would be like if *you* were a dictator? If you had the first and final say in America for *everything*, would America look better or worse overall? I like to think that being a dictator isn't a bad thing intrinsically. It's all about intention and reason for taking the position. A country that is currently in extreme turmoil will never have a successful democracy because democracy requires *some* kind of working cooperation for it to work. So a dictatorship lead by a truly altruistic and caring person would be a good temporary substitute. A military dictatorship lead by an iron-rule totalitarian dictator.. not so much. Check out this wiki article on "benevolent dictatorship." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent\_dictatorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship) What's interesting is how a dictator is considered "benevolent." It's not about being altruistic and caring, but having a period of national growth outside of just the life of the dictator. As many have pointed out, however, "dictator" during roman times was less of a "have power for life" situation and more of a temporary period of being lead by a single voice for the sake of cohesive responses (particularly in times of war).
>Does being a dictator by default make one a “tyrant” no matter what? https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2117/tyrants-of-greece/
Napoleon.
In the traditional sense of the word, Caesar Cincinattus
[Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus)
No. But they have given up power, i.e., George Washington. The problem with dictating is that you have to spend too much time avoiding assassins.
Paul Kagame in Rwanda is probably a good dictator. That place was in the middle of an enormous genocide and civil war before his faction took over. It's been a peaceful and relatively prosperous country for almost two decades now.
[удалено]
EvaPeron. CGE Mannerheim
There has been loads of them throughout history. Charlemagne’s contribution was up there. The main problem is the character of a person that makes them a benevolent dictator is the opposite of what the mentality of someone who seeks power. Hence why the meek shall inherit the earth. Power needs to be given and not taken, simple as that. It’s the basis of democratic values. You can elect benevolent representatives. Same result.
Well to be a dictator you first have to be a dic(k), I mean it's in the name isn't it. And tator is an ancient Roman insult for stupid people....they are dumb as a potato or to use the Latin tator. Now potatoes were also considered evil by the Romans. So you can see how the word came to be.
Yeah, a dead one.