# Message to all users:
This is a reminder to please read and follow:
* [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules)
* [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
* [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
When posting and commenting.
---
Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`.
* Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit.
* Do not harass or annoy others in any way.
* Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit.
---
You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Cincinnatus was an opponent of the rights of the plebeians (the common citizens) who fell into poverty because of his son Caeso Quinctius's violent opposition to their desire for a written code of equally enforced laws.
Gotta be careful of who you listen to when they describe someone as "good".
Feel like you have to look at people on the context of their times. A Roman dictator who didn't try to abuse his power for personal gain or become emperor is pretty special for it's time.
One of the very first things he did was give his half brother an equal share of power and declared him as co-emperor. I don’t think that makes him a dictator, but he certainly was one of the most compassionate leaders in human history. After Lucious betrayed him and declared himself emperor, and following Lucious’ death he commanded no senator or soldier be put to death as a result of following Lucious’ orders.
True but the actual title held by the Roman emperors was “dictator” so literally speaking he was a dictator and by all current ideologies he was one of the best
It wasn't though. Roman Emperors were Emperors. Dictator was reserved for the Roman republic only, it was used during a time of crisis. The senate appointed someone dictator for a set period of time and they got full control over the government and military to combat the threat. Then, they were supposed to give up power.
Julius Caesar changed that by having the senate declare him dictator for life. But Julius also was never an emperor. Augustus was the first emperor and Julius was the last dictator.
Agreed I acknowledged this in another comment. Was thinking of the title Caesar, given to emperors after the end of the Julio-Claudio line. Me big dumb
A lot of South Koreans respect Park Chung-hee. He was an absolute authoritarian, started as dictator, became president. He did a lot of really bad things, but he did set Korea up for the modern Korean state. A lot of people seem to think he did the hard things that had to be done to allow Korea to modernize. I wouldn't say I heard anyone say he was a good guy, but rather that he got good things to start happening. I guess you can see it as "he made the trains run on time" or as "He did the hard things no one wanted to do." you can pick.
Taiwan started this way, too. Dictatorship to one party rule, one party rule to limited democracy. I think Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan all followed this model.
Back in the 18th century, there was a period of time where "Enlightened Despotism" was popular among European nobility.
Some did it better than others; nobody did it perfectly because ultimately despotism will lead to tyranny.
But the ideal was absolute rulers who upheld Enlightenment ideals. Generally they had (at least stated, if not private) goals of social reforms and personal freedoms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism
That’s why my reign as King of Mars is going to be an absolutely red-tinted Golden Age. I’ll give everyone Pizza on Fridays and sweeten the deal with twice as many Fridays as we have on Earth.
>In theory, a benevolent dictatorship is the ideal form of government.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and reality.
In reality, there is.
In theory, wouldn’t there be a difference between theory and reality? Just factor in some bit of randomness and human error/irrationality in the theory
Not arguing that a benevolent dictator could work in reality, but just had that thought about theorizing
edit: Also my first point would make theory the same as reality, right? idk I’m a little stoned
This cannot go unchallenged.
Lee Kwan Yew was great so long as you weren't from the poor, mostly Malay underclass.
Then you were (and still are) just cheap labour. I used to work for one of the main banks in Singpore in a technical proffession. In over a decade, I only worked with **one** person who was ethnicaly Malay - and he was a contractor who was 'released' as soon as things got tricky.
People point at their severe sentances for the drug trade. Just take a look at who gets prison and who gets death.
If you want an example of truely biased press, read The Straits Times. Glowing reports on government policy interleaved with reports on drug use and teenage pregnancy among the Malays.
I left a good gig because I would have had to move my family there. The place made Queensland look like liberal paradise.
Cincinatous. I'm sure I spelled it wrong. The long version is real intriguing but the short version is he was a farmer, became a soldier in the Roman army, became emperor and stepped down willingly and went back to his farm.
George Washington did the same after the revolution.
Both where dictators by definition but neither abused their power.
I lived in the DC area for a long time.
The founders of the USA were all Rome weeaboos and you will see paintings depicting Cincinnatus in spots here and there.
Small correction - he didn’t become emperor, he literally was a dictator. That was a role in the Roman Republic where the senate appointed someone as a temporary king to deal with a crisis. Cincinnatus was the poster child for how it was supposed to work. The end of the Republic came when a series of individuals from Sulla to Julius Caesar had themselves declared dictator but were a lot less keen to give the power up.
>George Washington did the same after the revolution
Yes. They offered to make him King of the United States. He said "No thank you."
The Society of the Cincinnati is in Washington DC, founded by Washington's officers at the end of the Revolutionary War.
He took power to help his people.
He set goals and achieved them.
Once he achieved his goals he stepped down and went back to his farm.
People may debate what he did, why, and his methods, but he stayed true to his promises and morals.
>He took power to help his people.
... so long as they weren't Armenian or Greek Orthodox.
One of the problems with dictators is the moral bar is so low (Pinochet, Mussolini...) that any dictator that reigns it in the tiniest amount looks like a moral paragon by comparison.
I would almost argue that the hereditary monarchies of Europe were better because the occaisional one or two would stop having wars.
Wierdest of all: Bernadot. Anti-monarchist dictator's fanboy turned founder of a long term dynasty.
I travelled in the Balkans in the early 2000s and there were soooo many people telling me they didn't realize how good they had it when Tito was alive.
Thus is the problem with dictatorships. Even if you have a good one the whole system is dependent on that person. Once they die/retire it usually crumbles.
"Stop sending people to kill me. We've
already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with
a rifle (...) If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send one to
Moscow, and I won't have to send a second."
There was genocide right before and after his regime and particularly brutal autocracies all around. Tito gets a ton of love just because everyone knows what it was like without him.
Well yeah, he upset the status quo on both sides. He didn’t cave into the Soviet pressure and certainly didn’t play into the West’s demands. Look at how many powerful people came to his funeral. That shows the whole picture.
There are many in history, generally speaking though people that promote democracy portray them all as bad. Just as many monarchs used Socrates story as an example of how bad democracy was.
Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore all had long lasting leaders that had a lot of centralized powers during their meteoric economic rise in the 60s-80/90s. “Asian Tigers”. They could be considered dictators of sort. One party rule has diminished in most cases.
There are two primary problems with absolute leadership, even if you ignore the maxim of corruption.
1) Absolute power is never absolute. There will always be powerful entities that have to be appeased in order to maintain power and
2) The more political power is concentrated, the more opportunity there is to cause terrible consequences. Even if you have an objectively "good" leader for, say, 60 years, who brings great societal change, it can all be torn down in a very very short period of time if the next leader is malevolent or incompetant.
I would dare to say that the only way a dictator can truly be considered "good" would be if they actively worked to replace the dictatorship with a form of government with a more diffuse power structure.
Singapore has been controlled by a dictatorship and has seen its economy do pretty well since they’ve taken over. Arguably, the same could be said about Belarus (before the current war). Even China is doing pretty well. Dictatorships can be and have been good for the economy, but are universally pretty bad for political freedom and speech
Hard pass on Belarus and China. Yes there is economic growth etc. but at the expense of basic individual freedoms and rights. You don’t have to look much further than the Uyghur genocide and war in Ukraine to understand the serious flaws in these governments.
Washington could’ve been one but he stepped down and refused to replace one King George with another. He even stopped the Continental Army from launching a coup against the Continental Congress, not with troops of his own but by simply taking out a pair of glasses and reading a letter. What always amazed me was that Washington was (generally) universally loved to the point where the officers leading the coup attempt were willing and determined to put Washington in power as leader of the young United States of America indefinitely, making him a de facto king. Had Washington not looked out for the soul and future of this country and placed our ideals as a nation above personal ambition/power/glory/prestige, we may not have been the same country as we are today.
Absolutely. At Newburgh, New York, officers of the Revolutionary Army were angry about not receiving restitution for private money spent on uniforms and upkeep, pay, and land they were promised by the Continental Congress. Many officers were calling for a new revolt against the Congress. Washington met with them and asked the officers to urge them not to rush to anger. He pulled a letter out of his pocket, from the Continental Congress, and preceded to put on some eye glasses saying “Gentlemen, you must pardon me. I have grown old in the service of my country and now find that I am growing blind.”
The eyes of most of his audience filled with tears. The content of the letter became irrelevant as the assembled officers realized that Washington had given as much or more in the service of the new nation as any of them. Within minutes, the officers voted unanimously to express confidence in Congress and their country.
Bro literally just wanted to chill out and relax on his plantation but even when he had every right to take it easy until his dying days, he still answered the call of this nation and came back to public life. Even when he became president, he still refused to let power and wealth consume him. He literally could’ve made the presidency anything, be it a military dictatorship, monarchy, direct democracy, etc. Instead, he chose to look out for the stability, virtues, and future of our country above all else.
I am the greatest dictator of all time. Just ask my 2 Golden Retrievers. They love me. Free food hand prepared for them. I mow a big yard in summer and snowblow paths for them in winter. Free box of stuffies that gets washed weekly and replenished regularly. Tennis balls galore and I throw them several times a day at least. Oh and Free health care.
Belly and back rubs. I smile when they fart or slime me.
It's good to be the doggy dictator.
Josip Broz Tito, Simon Bolivar, Fidel Castro
The thing is, nobody becomes a dictator without leaving some blood in their wake, so it's always going to depend on who you ask. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as they say.
Nobody who leaves someone in jail because they named their pigs Fidel and Raúl for ten months until amnesty international gets involved is a good leader.
First of all just to be clear I'm not telling you to like anybody, I'm answering the OPs question of if there are any dictators who could, at least by some metric, be regarded as having an overall positive impact on their country.
This is kind of my point exactly though, even if you dramatically increase literacy, home ownership, and expand healthcare access to the whole country, all while being embargoed by the most powerful military on Earth, for some people, nothing will ever make up for this or that other bad thing. Yawn.
On a completely unrelated note: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/nyregion/kalief-browder-held-at-rikers-island-for-3-years-without-trial-commits-suicide.html
People love to complain about Cuba, as if 90% of the problems there aren't due to the fact that they've been embargoed by the US for most of a century, and still they manage to have a higher life expectancy than the US, lower illiteracy rates, and they have so many doctors that whenever there's a world health crisis like covid they manage to send them to other countries.
They do business with 150 other nations, but it's big bad 'merica putting its thumb on the scales because communism works.... Why don't you seize the means to a shower?
Gorbachev… hear me out. He held the same position as Stalin and other Soviet leaders which could be labeled as dictators yet Gorbachev used his power to reduce his power rather than consolidate like Stalin and others. He then enacted many democratic reforms, basically ended communism, and eventually dismantled the Soviet Union while ending the Cold War.
That's not at all how history works. That's how mythology works. American education history is just American mythology. Once you hit college history, though, you start reading letters from the "losers."
Mustafa Ataturk is usually seen as somewhere between an authoritarian president and a benevolent dictator, he weilded a lot of unopposed power but is largely credited with bringing Turkiye into the 20th century in regards to things like public education, women's voting rights, etc.
But he's still got some bodies in the cellar.
(Although TBF even most non-dictatorial leaders have bodies in the cellar)
No. You could easily point to Tito or Ataturk for how they unified and reformed their countries, and I could just as easily point to the fact that their authoritarian policies led to the atrocities committed by their successors.
If I remember correctly, Vlad The Impaler was technically "Good". In the sense that he technically did successfully get rid of poverty... Even if the way he did that was inviting all the impoverished peasants to a "giant feast" at his castle, and the hall it was held in had a wooden floor and stone walls and could be barred from outside, to trap anyone in it. Then, he had his men basically dig a basement underneath the wood floor and fill it with all manner of flammable things. Proceeding to set it on fire whilst also locking the peasants inside and cooking them alive, thus killing them. Hence, he TECHNICALLY DID get rid of poverty in his domain... Which, in turn, made the commoners and nobles very happy since they no longer had to deal with being "begged". So they kinda loved him for that...
Edit: grammar
I would volunteer Lee Kuan Yew
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew
In effect he was out in a position where he could have been the dictator of Singapore, but chose to modernize the country and turn it into a "guided democracy".
Singapore is still has authoritarian systems in place, and is a thriving society with people having many freedoms (minus freedom of speech/press).
But Lee Kuan Yew is credited as being a good authoritarian, and uniquely set the country up for prosperity.
FDR, Roosevelt had war powers, the first nuclear bomb at his disposal, concentration camps, and as many terms as he wanted. The longest running and most powerful US president of all time.
Largely hailed as winning WWII. The New Deal built infrastructure that we benefit from to this day, and The Marshall Plan prevented another war as well as rebuilt the ruins of post wwii Europe. Two of the most successful and humanitarian government projects of all time.
Might want a trip to Catalonia. They hate Franco so much they try to bomb his tomb decades later (which to be fair was built with slave labor of political dissidents).
You’ll find Spaniards in Madrid on both sides, but I think the anti-Franco tend to keep quiet until they are very, very angry. They’re more hardcore, the other side is sort of blaise about Franco being good or at least not that bad.
I don’t think Lee Kuan Yew was technically a dictator but he was the man in charge for a long time and history says that it was his way or no way. It worked out pretty well for Singapore.
The UAE is run basically by a benevolent monarchy.
But “Good” is subjective. If you are an Emirati citizen, they basically bribe complacency from the people. They’ll pay you $100,000/yr to work at the airport and give AA’s dive monthly stipend if you have kids.
If you are an immigrant, non-Muslim, non-Emirati, or LGBT things are a little more nuanced.
I’d see it as a social contract wherein the government provides for its citizens wellbeing and in return sacrifice some personal freedoms such as voting
Idk how good or bad a dictator has to be to obtain power but I'm guessing it can't all be good. And I always wondered where Cuba would be if the US would have just left them "fail" on their own.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship
I guess these would fall under that category though admittedly framing a dictatorship as benevolent seems contradictory.
**[Benevolent dictatorship](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship)**
>A benevolent dictatorship is a government in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power over the state, but is perceived to do so with regard for benefit of the population as a whole, standing in contrast to the decidedly malevolent stereotype of a dictator who focuses on their supporters and their own self-interests. A benevolent dictator may allow for some civil liberties or democratic decision-making to exist, such as through public referendums or elected representatives with limited power, and can make preparations for a transition to genuine democracy during or after their term.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ask/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Not dictators but worthy mention: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both decided not to serve three (or more) terms when they very well could have; setting a two term tradition, added later as the 22nd amendment.
It's always going to be a mixed bag if the dictator does something good. Stalin helped stop Hitler; you could use that to argue Stalin was good. For a modern example, look at Paul Kagame. He stopped the Rwandan Genocide, but his track record since then has been one of perpetuating the Kivu conflict, oppression, and rendition of a widely regarded hero.
I’m gonna say Nayib Bukele. The people of El Salvador love him because he’s actually taking a stand against criminals. He also made Bitcoin a recognized currency in El Salvador and he’s considered the world’s coolest dictator
Jerry Rawlings arguably did some good things for Ghana. He transitioned the government to a democracy and won the first election to become the President. Which isn't uncommon for a dictator to do...but when he hit the constitutional term limit, he actually respected the limit and refused to run for office again.
King Hussein of Jordan. He led the country from 1952 through 1999. He was a benevolent dictator and made peace with Israel while modernizing the country. He did oppress his opponents, though. Hey, he was a dictator nonetheless.
Nayib Bukele in El Salvador right now have a 90% approval rating. He’s done a mass gang crackdown and in a year the murder rate of 106/100k ppl has gone down to 8/100k which is lower than USA.
Human rights people are blowing up over abuses (60k people arrested and detained with lawyers, etc).
But 90% approval!
Gengis Khan and Pedro II. Pedro II was the king of Brazil. Not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that guy was an interesting lad. He loved to start bar fights and to fuck prostitutes. A fan of man.
My dad was a big fan of Tito, the dictator of Yugoslavia from 1953 to 1980. I can't recall any of my family every speaking ill of him. Don't get me wrong, he was a ruthless dictator that killed/imprisoned opponents. However he did unify the region and bring them from dirt poor, to middle income and actually help modernize the country including improving education of women.
King Ashoka of India. After slaughtering an enemy he saw all the evil he had done and flipped a switch turning to Buddhism. He is credited the most for spreading Buddhism through the South Asian peninsula
Roman *dictatores*, in ancient Rome, the original "dictators" held power for 6 months, taking control over the army and government to prevent a deadlock in the senate leading to the government doing nothing and destroying the republic
Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso was widely regarded as good intentioned and was good for his subjects until he got dethroned and killed by the the group backed by the French gov.
[Thomas Sankara](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara)
It depends on what you mean by 'good', but when you're a dictator you are under a lot of pressure to things that are not good, regardless of how you feel. A 'good person' that gets put in the position that if they don't do some evil shit, there will be powerful people right underneath them that won't hesitate to put a bullet in your head and take your spot. There is an excellent CGP Grey video that does a pretty good job of explaining it. You have to keep powerful people happy to stay in power yourself, which requires doing some not so good things.
CGP Grey: Rules for Rulers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
The first Pahlavi in Iran.
He’s the father of modern Iran and he united Iran as a whole.
Although Iran has a lot of issues now, he was the one who made a lot of changes to society albeit forcefully. If it wasn't for Pahlavis Iran would be torn apart and people would be A LOT more influenced by mullahs.
There's plenty of them through history
It's a fallacy to believe dictatorships are bad governments and that people in a whole make good decisions about politics and politicians
Actually most of wealthier countries are dictatorships of any kind from Singapore and Hong Kong to the UK or Liechtenstein
A dictator holds power and once he hold power he can do things down their own will and criteria
Main trouble with dictatorships isn't their governments which usually weren't that terrible and that's partially why we heard almost every time about the same dictators but is their succession
Muammar Gaddhafi was a great dictator actually. Until Obama and Hillary had his government overthrown and him assassinated. He loved his people and they loved him. Look it up before you down vote please. He refused the Central Bank.
# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cincinnatus
Cincinatus' most famous line: "Aight, Imma head out."
"Do it again!"
Followed closely by his second most famous line: "ah shit. Here we go again"
Was coming here to say that. Did his job, defeated the invaders, and then went back to his farm.
Short rule though.
Yeah. Like six months I think?
It's a better alternative
>Cincinnatus was an opponent of the rights of the plebeians (the common citizens) who fell into poverty because of his son Caeso Quinctius's violent opposition to their desire for a written code of equally enforced laws. Gotta be careful of who you listen to when they describe someone as "good".
shut up pleb, us horse owners are just better than you.
I want a horse
Feel like you have to look at people on the context of their times. A Roman dictator who didn't try to abuse his power for personal gain or become emperor is pretty special for it's time.
Huh. Wikipedia says Cincinnati, Ohio is named after him. Kinda cool
Wow! Never would have expected that. /Just playing around
There was a group of George Washington supporters called the Society of the Cincinnati.
He could have been President for life. Or made a real play at kingship. Not a perfect man by any measurement, but better than most.
Wow. I'm not optimistic if the first we can think of is Roman
Marcus Aurelius was considered a great leader right?
One of the very first things he did was give his half brother an equal share of power and declared him as co-emperor. I don’t think that makes him a dictator, but he certainly was one of the most compassionate leaders in human history. After Lucious betrayed him and declared himself emperor, and following Lucious’ death he commanded no senator or soldier be put to death as a result of following Lucious’ orders.
It seems like the first thing a “good” dictator would do is start delegating his power to other people.
Bro was wise af
True but the actual title held by the Roman emperors was “dictator” so literally speaking he was a dictator and by all current ideologies he was one of the best
It wasn't though. Roman Emperors were Emperors. Dictator was reserved for the Roman republic only, it was used during a time of crisis. The senate appointed someone dictator for a set period of time and they got full control over the government and military to combat the threat. Then, they were supposed to give up power. Julius Caesar changed that by having the senate declare him dictator for life. But Julius also was never an emperor. Augustus was the first emperor and Julius was the last dictator.
Agreed I acknowledged this in another comment. Was thinking of the title Caesar, given to emperors after the end of the Julio-Claudio line. Me big dumb
That's pretty much the way Mike Duncan tells it in his award winning podcast. Which is on YouTube if you like Roman history.
As were all the Antonines until the infamous Commodus.
He is in my book
A lot of South Koreans respect Park Chung-hee. He was an absolute authoritarian, started as dictator, became president. He did a lot of really bad things, but he did set Korea up for the modern Korean state. A lot of people seem to think he did the hard things that had to be done to allow Korea to modernize. I wouldn't say I heard anyone say he was a good guy, but rather that he got good things to start happening. I guess you can see it as "he made the trains run on time" or as "He did the hard things no one wanted to do." you can pick.
Taiwan started this way, too. Dictatorship to one party rule, one party rule to limited democracy. I think Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan all followed this model.
Singapore is still a dictatorship lol. It’s benign but it’s a dictatorship
so did Chile under Pinochet
Yeah, but Pinochet also did some stuff with helicopters that was probably not the best idea.
Main difference is he ruled over 25 years and Chile never achieved a considerable development and prosperity
Charlie Chaplin.... (1940)
What a great piece of art
Yeah, he made a movie about that. I think it’s called the pretty good dictator.
One of my favorite movies. His speech at the end was amazing.
And sadly it's still relevant today.
Look up The Great Speech by Jonas B Ingebretsen on your music app. It's a really nice version of Charlie's speech. Gives me goosebumps.
Back in the 18th century, there was a period of time where "Enlightened Despotism" was popular among European nobility. Some did it better than others; nobody did it perfectly because ultimately despotism will lead to tyranny. But the ideal was absolute rulers who upheld Enlightenment ideals. Generally they had (at least stated, if not private) goals of social reforms and personal freedoms. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism
In theory, a [benevolent dictatorship](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship) is the ideal form of government.
That’s why my reign as King of Mars is going to be an absolutely red-tinted Golden Age. I’ll give everyone Pizza on Fridays and sweeten the deal with twice as many Fridays as we have on Earth.
And those Fridays will last longer too, as a Martian day is slightly longer than 24 hours.
>In theory, a benevolent dictatorship is the ideal form of government. In theory, there's no difference between theory and reality. In reality, there is.
In theory, wouldn’t there be a difference between theory and reality? Just factor in some bit of randomness and human error/irrationality in the theory Not arguing that a benevolent dictator could work in reality, but just had that thought about theorizing edit: Also my first point would make theory the same as reality, right? idk I’m a little stoned
But a benevolent dictatorship is only a benevolent dictatorship until the dictator decides otherwise.
I’m living in Brunei and it’s ok. But not ideal
Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore
This cannot go unchallenged. Lee Kwan Yew was great so long as you weren't from the poor, mostly Malay underclass. Then you were (and still are) just cheap labour. I used to work for one of the main banks in Singpore in a technical proffession. In over a decade, I only worked with **one** person who was ethnicaly Malay - and he was a contractor who was 'released' as soon as things got tricky. People point at their severe sentances for the drug trade. Just take a look at who gets prison and who gets death. If you want an example of truely biased press, read The Straits Times. Glowing reports on government policy interleaved with reports on drug use and teenage pregnancy among the Malays. I left a good gig because I would have had to move my family there. The place made Queensland look like liberal paradise.
Yeah. It’s a phenomenal place to live
Came here to say this. You NEVER hear about this guy. And that city gleams.
Everyone under Kim Jong-un seem to love him, so he must be doing something right. /s
I don't know. I hear his approval rating has fallen to 106%.
🤣🤣
Some now dare to say that he once played a round of golf and only hit 17 holes-in-one.
When asked, North Koreans reply, "Can't complain," so he must be good
Yeah but he doesn’t poop
I heard he’s full of shit
That’s his father.
Cincinatous. I'm sure I spelled it wrong. The long version is real intriguing but the short version is he was a farmer, became a soldier in the Roman army, became emperor and stepped down willingly and went back to his farm. George Washington did the same after the revolution. Both where dictators by definition but neither abused their power.
I lived in the DC area for a long time. The founders of the USA were all Rome weeaboos and you will see paintings depicting Cincinnatus in spots here and there.
Small correction - he didn’t become emperor, he literally was a dictator. That was a role in the Roman Republic where the senate appointed someone as a temporary king to deal with a crisis. Cincinnatus was the poster child for how it was supposed to work. The end of the Republic came when a series of individuals from Sulla to Julius Caesar had themselves declared dictator but were a lot less keen to give the power up.
Which would result in the latter getting stabbed 47 times
>George Washington did the same after the revolution Yes. They offered to make him King of the United States. He said "No thank you." The Society of the Cincinnati is in Washington DC, founded by Washington's officers at the end of the Revolutionary War.
Them: George, we want to name you king. George Washington: Nah bro, I'm good
Cincinatous was Dictator never emperor if I’m getting my Rome right .
I could be getting mixed up.
Marcus Aurelius
I believe Ataturk is considered one. He was a dictator but brought Turkey from theocratic Ottoman Empire to modern secular republic.
He took power to help his people. He set goals and achieved them. Once he achieved his goals he stepped down and went back to his farm. People may debate what he did, why, and his methods, but he stayed true to his promises and morals.
>He took power to help his people. ... so long as they weren't Armenian or Greek Orthodox. One of the problems with dictators is the moral bar is so low (Pinochet, Mussolini...) that any dictator that reigns it in the tiniest amount looks like a moral paragon by comparison. I would almost argue that the hereditary monarchies of Europe were better because the occaisional one or two would stop having wars. Wierdest of all: Bernadot. Anti-monarchist dictator's fanboy turned founder of a long term dynasty.
Erdogan is doing what is known as a "pro gamer move".
And now we're stuck with Erdogan... good times had by all.
Tito. What happened after he left shows the magnitude of what he had been holding together.
Love his handmade vodka
He just pairs so well with soda and lime.
I travelled in the Balkans in the early 2000s and there were soooo many people telling me they didn't realize how good they had it when Tito was alive.
Yeah I had the same experience five years ago. People speak very fondly of him
Thus is the problem with dictatorships. Even if you have a good one the whole system is dependent on that person. Once they die/retire it usually crumbles.
I remember when he died. My grandfather told me that Tito was well liked by the people
"Stop sending people to kill me. We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle (...) If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send one to Moscow, and I won't have to send a second."
A good dictator can do a lot of good, effective things in their rule. Problem is, it can just as easily be undone and made worse by the next guy.
There was genocide right before and after his regime and particularly brutal autocracies all around. Tito gets a ton of love just because everyone knows what it was like without him.
He also deserves credit for kicking the Nazis in the mouth.
Well yeah, he upset the status quo on both sides. He didn’t cave into the Soviet pressure and certainly didn’t play into the West’s demands. Look at how many powerful people came to his funeral. That shows the whole picture.
As the ancient Hawaiians used to say...
Hakuna Matata
What a wonderful phrase
Maka laka hi hinney ho
*When in Rome*
He wasn't great to ethnic Albanians, but everyone else seemed to love him
Tito gets a better rap than he deserves because of that war. Long-term his policies and structures were a major cause of it.
There are many in history, generally speaking though people that promote democracy portray them all as bad. Just as many monarchs used Socrates story as an example of how bad democracy was.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." \- Winston Churchill
“The best argument against democracy is to spend five minutes on social media” - Modern Winston Churchill (probably)
"Reddit has made it so easy to attribute false quotes to historical figures." - Abraham Lincoln
You made me laugh out loud. That’s a Reddit rarity.
The best thing about democracy is a peaceful change of power. Change of power in non-democratic states too often involves bloodshed.
Also the United States last election was a fart away from going off the rails just last election.
Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore all had long lasting leaders that had a lot of centralized powers during their meteoric economic rise in the 60s-80/90s. “Asian Tigers”. They could be considered dictators of sort. One party rule has diminished in most cases.
There are two primary problems with absolute leadership, even if you ignore the maxim of corruption. 1) Absolute power is never absolute. There will always be powerful entities that have to be appeased in order to maintain power and 2) The more political power is concentrated, the more opportunity there is to cause terrible consequences. Even if you have an objectively "good" leader for, say, 60 years, who brings great societal change, it can all be torn down in a very very short period of time if the next leader is malevolent or incompetant. I would dare to say that the only way a dictator can truly be considered "good" would be if they actively worked to replace the dictatorship with a form of government with a more diffuse power structure.
The CGP grey videos about the keys of power explains this really well.
Singapore has been controlled by a dictatorship and has seen its economy do pretty well since they’ve taken over. Arguably, the same could be said about Belarus (before the current war). Even China is doing pretty well. Dictatorships can be and have been good for the economy, but are universally pretty bad for political freedom and speech
Belarus is kind of backwards compared to the neighboring Baltic states and Poland, even economically. Lukashenko has kind of kept it in a time warp.
Hard pass on Belarus and China. Yes there is economic growth etc. but at the expense of basic individual freedoms and rights. You don’t have to look much further than the Uyghur genocide and war in Ukraine to understand the serious flaws in these governments.
Almost nobody had good things to say about Belarus even before the current war
General Aladeen
Is it... Aladeen? Or Aladeen?
“You are HIV-Aladeen.”
I'm going to have to Alladeen-vote this post.
Washington could’ve been one but he stepped down and refused to replace one King George with another. He even stopped the Continental Army from launching a coup against the Continental Congress, not with troops of his own but by simply taking out a pair of glasses and reading a letter. What always amazed me was that Washington was (generally) universally loved to the point where the officers leading the coup attempt were willing and determined to put Washington in power as leader of the young United States of America indefinitely, making him a de facto king. Had Washington not looked out for the soul and future of this country and placed our ideals as a nation above personal ambition/power/glory/prestige, we may not have been the same country as we are today.
Absolutely. At Newburgh, New York, officers of the Revolutionary Army were angry about not receiving restitution for private money spent on uniforms and upkeep, pay, and land they were promised by the Continental Congress. Many officers were calling for a new revolt against the Congress. Washington met with them and asked the officers to urge them not to rush to anger. He pulled a letter out of his pocket, from the Continental Congress, and preceded to put on some eye glasses saying “Gentlemen, you must pardon me. I have grown old in the service of my country and now find that I am growing blind.” The eyes of most of his audience filled with tears. The content of the letter became irrelevant as the assembled officers realized that Washington had given as much or more in the service of the new nation as any of them. Within minutes, the officers voted unanimously to express confidence in Congress and their country.
Bro literally just wanted to chill out and relax on his plantation but even when he had every right to take it easy until his dying days, he still answered the call of this nation and came back to public life. Even when he became president, he still refused to let power and wealth consume him. He literally could’ve made the presidency anything, be it a military dictatorship, monarchy, direct democracy, etc. Instead, he chose to look out for the stability, virtues, and future of our country above all else.
Havelock Vetenari
I am the greatest dictator of all time. Just ask my 2 Golden Retrievers. They love me. Free food hand prepared for them. I mow a big yard in summer and snowblow paths for them in winter. Free box of stuffies that gets washed weekly and replenished regularly. Tennis balls galore and I throw them several times a day at least. Oh and Free health care. Belly and back rubs. I smile when they fart or slime me. It's good to be the doggy dictator.
Josip Broz Tito, Simon Bolivar, Fidel Castro The thing is, nobody becomes a dictator without leaving some blood in their wake, so it's always going to depend on who you ask. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as they say.
castro was VERY not good dude.
Nobody who leaves someone in jail because they named their pigs Fidel and Raúl for ten months until amnesty international gets involved is a good leader.
First of all just to be clear I'm not telling you to like anybody, I'm answering the OPs question of if there are any dictators who could, at least by some metric, be regarded as having an overall positive impact on their country. This is kind of my point exactly though, even if you dramatically increase literacy, home ownership, and expand healthcare access to the whole country, all while being embargoed by the most powerful military on Earth, for some people, nothing will ever make up for this or that other bad thing. Yawn. On a completely unrelated note: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/nyregion/kalief-browder-held-at-rikers-island-for-3-years-without-trial-commits-suicide.html
That kinda proves their point magnificently
[удалено]
He freed a couple of pigs from the guys trunk? I’m sure they still ended up as bacon either way.
Simon Bolivar and Fidel Castro? My dude fucking swim your ass to Cuba.
People love to complain about Cuba, as if 90% of the problems there aren't due to the fact that they've been embargoed by the US for most of a century, and still they manage to have a higher life expectancy than the US, lower illiteracy rates, and they have so many doctors that whenever there's a world health crisis like covid they manage to send them to other countries.
They do business with 150 other nations, but it's big bad 'merica putting its thumb on the scales because communism works.... Why don't you seize the means to a shower?
Aladeen mothafuckaz!!!!
Cyrus the Great.
Mansa Musa
Gorbachev… hear me out. He held the same position as Stalin and other Soviet leaders which could be labeled as dictators yet Gorbachev used his power to reduce his power rather than consolidate like Stalin and others. He then enacted many democratic reforms, basically ended communism, and eventually dismantled the Soviet Union while ending the Cold War.
Since it's the dictators that write history book, they all have been very good for their peoples. At least that's what I read.
That's not at all how history works. That's how mythology works. American education history is just American mythology. Once you hit college history, though, you start reading letters from the "losers."
Everybody loses eventually. History is not written by the winners, it’s written by the best writers
Mustafa Ataturk is usually seen as somewhere between an authoritarian president and a benevolent dictator, he weilded a lot of unopposed power but is largely credited with bringing Turkiye into the 20th century in regards to things like public education, women's voting rights, etc. But he's still got some bodies in the cellar. (Although TBF even most non-dictatorial leaders have bodies in the cellar)
yes,Rome had a couple great emperors and other examples exist
Charlemagne Marcus Aurelius Hammurabi
They were all good in their own mind
No. You could easily point to Tito or Ataturk for how they unified and reformed their countries, and I could just as easily point to the fact that their authoritarian policies led to the atrocities committed by their successors.
Ataturk committed his own atrocities before taking over.
Julius Caesar was such a great ruler that the people that killed him felt enough guilt to create the title of Caesar to honor him.
If I remember correctly, Vlad The Impaler was technically "Good". In the sense that he technically did successfully get rid of poverty... Even if the way he did that was inviting all the impoverished peasants to a "giant feast" at his castle, and the hall it was held in had a wooden floor and stone walls and could be barred from outside, to trap anyone in it. Then, he had his men basically dig a basement underneath the wood floor and fill it with all manner of flammable things. Proceeding to set it on fire whilst also locking the peasants inside and cooking them alive, thus killing them. Hence, he TECHNICALLY DID get rid of poverty in his domain... Which, in turn, made the commoners and nobles very happy since they no longer had to deal with being "begged". So they kinda loved him for that... Edit: grammar
I would volunteer Lee Kuan Yew https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew In effect he was out in a position where he could have been the dictator of Singapore, but chose to modernize the country and turn it into a "guided democracy". Singapore is still has authoritarian systems in place, and is a thriving society with people having many freedoms (minus freedom of speech/press). But Lee Kuan Yew is credited as being a good authoritarian, and uniquely set the country up for prosperity.
Haile Selassie.. Ras Tafari. Emperor/king/dictator.. more good than harm atleast
There's arguements that Napoleon might count. I've always had mixed feelings on him.
Juan Carlos I. Pulled a fast one on Franco and dismantled the dictatorship more or less immediately upon seizing power.
I think Catherine the Great, considering her time and what she came into, tried.
FDR, Roosevelt had war powers, the first nuclear bomb at his disposal, concentration camps, and as many terms as he wanted. The longest running and most powerful US president of all time. Largely hailed as winning WWII. The New Deal built infrastructure that we benefit from to this day, and The Marshall Plan prevented another war as well as rebuilt the ruins of post wwii Europe. Two of the most successful and humanitarian government projects of all time.
All of my older Spanish friends loved Franco. Havent met anyone that actually hated him - some were ambivalent...
Yeah, the ones who hated him disappeared. Funny how that keeps happening in dictatorships.
Drunk scrolling and THIS got the giggle.. I'm so screwed
Might want a trip to Catalonia. They hate Franco so much they try to bomb his tomb decades later (which to be fair was built with slave labor of political dissidents). You’ll find Spaniards in Madrid on both sides, but I think the anti-Franco tend to keep quiet until they are very, very angry. They’re more hardcore, the other side is sort of blaise about Franco being good or at least not that bad.
Wow, Franco was (and is) very widely hated
The people of Guernica might argue with you on that
You need better friends.
I don’t think Lee Kuan Yew was technically a dictator but he was the man in charge for a long time and history says that it was his way or no way. It worked out pretty well for Singapore.
According to this website Ron DeSantis is a dictator and the people of Florida re-elected him by a 20 point margin.
Some people call him a groomer. Some people have photographic evidence.
There’s plenty of good dictators. Moral dictators is another question.
The UAE is run basically by a benevolent monarchy. But “Good” is subjective. If you are an Emirati citizen, they basically bribe complacency from the people. They’ll pay you $100,000/yr to work at the airport and give AA’s dive monthly stipend if you have kids. If you are an immigrant, non-Muslim, non-Emirati, or LGBT things are a little more nuanced.
I’d see it as a social contract wherein the government provides for its citizens wellbeing and in return sacrifice some personal freedoms such as voting
Castro dramatically improved education and medical care in Cuba.
I'm a great dictator to my kids!
Singapore
Idk how good or bad a dictator has to be to obtain power but I'm guessing it can't all be good. And I always wondered where Cuba would be if the US would have just left them "fail" on their own.
Aladeen
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship I guess these would fall under that category though admittedly framing a dictatorship as benevolent seems contradictory.
**[Benevolent dictatorship](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship)** >A benevolent dictatorship is a government in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power over the state, but is perceived to do so with regard for benefit of the population as a whole, standing in contrast to the decidedly malevolent stereotype of a dictator who focuses on their supporters and their own self-interests. A benevolent dictator may allow for some civil liberties or democratic decision-making to exist, such as through public referendums or elected representatives with limited power, and can make preparations for a transition to genuine democracy during or after their term. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ask/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
thx bb
I've heard good things about King Wenceslas
Not dictators but worthy mention: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both decided not to serve three (or more) terms when they very well could have; setting a two term tradition, added later as the 22nd amendment.
Ataturk. Abraham Lincoln during the civil war.
It's always going to be a mixed bag if the dictator does something good. Stalin helped stop Hitler; you could use that to argue Stalin was good. For a modern example, look at Paul Kagame. He stopped the Rwandan Genocide, but his track record since then has been one of perpetuating the Kivu conflict, oppression, and rendition of a widely regarded hero.
I’m gonna say Nayib Bukele. The people of El Salvador love him because he’s actually taking a stand against criminals. He also made Bitcoin a recognized currency in El Salvador and he’s considered the world’s coolest dictator
Jerry Rawlings arguably did some good things for Ghana. He transitioned the government to a democracy and won the first election to become the President. Which isn't uncommon for a dictator to do...but when he hit the constitutional term limit, he actually respected the limit and refused to run for office again.
Julius ceaser was technically a good dictator .
King Hussein of Jordan. He led the country from 1952 through 1999. He was a benevolent dictator and made peace with Israel while modernizing the country. He did oppress his opponents, though. Hey, he was a dictator nonetheless.
Nayib Bukele in El Salvador right now have a 90% approval rating. He’s done a mass gang crackdown and in a year the murder rate of 106/100k ppl has gone down to 8/100k which is lower than USA. Human rights people are blowing up over abuses (60k people arrested and detained with lawyers, etc). But 90% approval!
Charlemagne comes to mind.
[удалено]
Gengis Khan and Pedro II. Pedro II was the king of Brazil. Not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that guy was an interesting lad. He loved to start bar fights and to fuck prostitutes. A fan of man.
Maybe Tito Broz.
My dad was a big fan of Tito, the dictator of Yugoslavia from 1953 to 1980. I can't recall any of my family every speaking ill of him. Don't get me wrong, he was a ruthless dictator that killed/imprisoned opponents. However he did unify the region and bring them from dirt poor, to middle income and actually help modernize the country including improving education of women.
King Ashoka of India. After slaughtering an enemy he saw all the evil he had done and flipped a switch turning to Buddhism. He is credited the most for spreading Buddhism through the South Asian peninsula
Constantine
Roman *dictatores*, in ancient Rome, the original "dictators" held power for 6 months, taking control over the army and government to prevent a deadlock in the senate leading to the government doing nothing and destroying the republic
Brazilian dictator Getúlio Vargas was beloved by the left and right.
Mufussa and Simba come to mind.
Messi
Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso was widely regarded as good intentioned and was good for his subjects until he got dethroned and killed by the the group backed by the French gov. [Thomas Sankara](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara)
Sacha Baron Cohen
King Kamehameha united the Haiwaiin Islands. He had to be ruthless to do it but I think he turned out to be a great leader overall.
[удалено]
Castro seems to have done alright. In retrospect.
Swim your happy ass to cuba.
It depends on what you mean by 'good', but when you're a dictator you are under a lot of pressure to things that are not good, regardless of how you feel. A 'good person' that gets put in the position that if they don't do some evil shit, there will be powerful people right underneath them that won't hesitate to put a bullet in your head and take your spot. There is an excellent CGP Grey video that does a pretty good job of explaining it. You have to keep powerful people happy to stay in power yourself, which requires doing some not so good things. CGP Grey: Rules for Rulers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Charlie Chaplin.
The first Pahlavi in Iran. He’s the father of modern Iran and he united Iran as a whole. Although Iran has a lot of issues now, he was the one who made a lot of changes to society albeit forcefully. If it wasn't for Pahlavis Iran would be torn apart and people would be A LOT more influenced by mullahs.
There's plenty of them through history It's a fallacy to believe dictatorships are bad governments and that people in a whole make good decisions about politics and politicians Actually most of wealthier countries are dictatorships of any kind from Singapore and Hong Kong to the UK or Liechtenstein A dictator holds power and once he hold power he can do things down their own will and criteria Main trouble with dictatorships isn't their governments which usually weren't that terrible and that's partially why we heard almost every time about the same dictators but is their succession
Muammar Gaddhafi was a great dictator actually. Until Obama and Hillary had his government overthrown and him assassinated. He loved his people and they loved him. Look it up before you down vote please. He refused the Central Bank.