Who have been the benovolent dictators ?

August 11, 2006 9:25 AM

Who have been the benovolent dictators ?

ok we all know that democracy has its flaws. Democracy assumes that everyone who votes will select the *best* person for the job. But as we all know, this is not always the case. There will always be ignorant, uneducated people who will vote for politicians on the basis of their superficial qualities such as their charisma, looks, eloquence etc or will vote for them because they have the "common touch".

This does not always apply to a dictator. Recently, I was fascinated recently to hear the term "benevolent dicatator" - but who are the benevolent dictators from this century or the last one ? What good things did they do for their countries ?

posted by jacobean to law & government (51 comments total)

Maybe this guy? I'm not sure if a constitutional monarch can be considered a dictator (that implies fascism, right?).
Wikipedia says: "Such leaders as Franco, Pinochet, Sadat, Tito, Kaunda, Pilsudski and Omar Torrijos have been characterized by their supporters as benevolent dictators."
posted by mattbucher at 9:36 AM on August 11, 2006

During my divorce my ex-wife characterized me as a "benevolent dictator" in mediation.

My lawyer and I spent most of lunch trying to figure out if there were any benevolent dictators we could think of in the past. Napoleon Bonaparte was suggested but decided against eventually. After a half hour on the subject we decided that they only exist in fairy tales.
posted by DragonBoy at 9:38 AM on August 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

You may or may not feel that a Wikipedia link is a good answer, but the Benevolent Dictatorship page has a good list to get you started:

Like many political classifications, the title of benevolent dictator suffers from its inherent subjectivity. Such leaders as Alexander the Great, Ioannis Metaxas, Lee Kuan Yew, Benito Mussolini, Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon Bonaparte, Francisco Franco, Rahimuddin Khan, Kenneth Kaunda, Anwar Sadat, António de Oliveira Salazar, Juan Perón and Kaiser Wilhelm II have been characterized by their supporters as benevolent dictators...

posted by bcwinters at 9:39 AM on August 11, 2006

One problem with this question may be that the definitions for both "benevolent" and "dictator" can be subjective, though I guess more the former than the latter. Still, you can have a "strongman" who might be elected rather than coup-installed, the nomenclature depending on whether its user agrees with the person's policies or not. Or you might have a leader who was "elected' in a sham scenario. Or maybe they are legitimately elected and then flip out, assume more power than is legal, and do questionable stuff. Depending on on'e's political stripe, one might ponder George Bush or Hugo Chavez in that last respect, but I know you're probably talking more about people who most definitely took power undemocratically. And regardless of the method by which they took office, the person then can be seen from different perspectives. Benevolent to whom? Harmful to whom? Look at Pinochet, for example. Benevolent, or criminal? Depends on who you're talking to. Don't want to derail your thread with a semantics debate, but any responses here will need to be analyzed in that context.
posted by kookoobirdz at 9:40 AM on August 11, 2006

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk took his country from the potentially chaotic ruins of a failed, defeated empire to a modern (more or less) liberal democracy. His legacy is, of course, not exclusively benign (he preached a nationalist philosophy that was largely discredited by the wars of the 20th century, and his ideas about ethnic identity led to conflicts and humanitarian crises that are still being felt today), but he brought Turkey into the modern era, and its relative stability and success is largely his responsibility.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:40 AM on August 11, 2006

Lee Kuan Yew was one to some.
posted by nomisxid at 9:41 AM on August 11, 2006

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of modern Turkey.
posted by cillit bang at 9:44 AM on August 11, 2006

Attaturk, Musharrif, Chavez, Hu, Turkmenbashi, The Pope, and a lot of people in charge of incredibly small countries. All depend on the definition of "benevolent" and "dictator." The Pope probably comes the closest.
posted by klangklangston at 9:45 AM on August 11, 2006

Hu Jintao?
posted by riotgrrl69 at 9:46 AM on August 11, 2006

Tito is fondly remembered wherever you go in the former Yugoslavia.
posted by grahamwell at 9:47 AM on August 11, 2006

klangklangston writes "Turkmenbashi,"

Make an argument for this one, klangklangston. I don't think it's possible. The man is a joke, and his dictatorship has been nothing but a tragedy for "his" people.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:53 AM on August 11, 2006

He did build the world's biggest shoe.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 9:54 AM on August 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

Would Trujillo count? Yeah the Haitians have reason not to like him, but he left a relatively positive mark on the Dominican Republic.
posted by nathan_teske at 9:57 AM on August 11, 2006

My professor in Comparative National Systems was quite fond of the King of Morocco.
posted by kittyprecious at 10:04 AM on August 11, 2006

There were quite a few in Rome after the Republic fell, the most obvious of which might be Augustus.
posted by hoborg at 10:12 AM on August 11, 2006

Jósef Piłsudski, who was dictator of Poland's Second Republic from 1926 until his death in 1935, is often refered to as on of Poland's greatest leaders. It was a unique time in a nation's history though, Poland had regained statehood after centuries of being broken up.
posted by jedrek at 10:24 AM on August 11, 2006

After reading this book, I think one could make the claim that Genghis Kahn (and possibily Khubilai) were benevolent dictators, especially for the time.
posted by RobotAdam at 10:32 AM on August 11, 2006

has no one mentioned the british monarchy (up thru victoria)? That was mostly benevolent.
posted by mdn at 10:48 AM on August 11, 2006

Another vote for Tito. St. Louis has a pretty large Bosnian population and I drink with them quite a bit and they all say Tito was a-ok. Some even say things were better under him and that Yugoslavia was pretty lax during cold war.
posted by pieoverdone at 10:51 AM on August 11, 2006

Tim Yohannon of MRR?
posted by Smart Dalek at 10:51 AM on August 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

jellicle: "Well, here's a list of the dictators supported by the United States of America."

Nevermind that the list includes Pol Pot, among others...
posted by Mr. Gunn at 10:54 AM on August 11, 2006

Mr. Gunn, I think he was being sarcastic. The US has a long history of supporting evil evil peoples.
posted by chunking express at 11:00 AM on August 11, 2006

Tito was as benevolent as the Turkmenbashi, of whom both can be said that their egoism and incompetence mitigated some of their malevolence.
posted by klangklangston at 11:05 AM on August 11, 2006

Haile Selassie?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:14 AM on August 11, 2006

has no one mentioned the british monarchy (up thru victoria)? That was mostly benevolent.

Mary Queen of Scots might have had a different opinion.

How about Abraham Lincoln? I'm tap dancing a little here, because my Civil War knowledge isn't what it should be, but my understanding is that, during the war, Lincoln declared Martial Law. By doing so, he instantly took away many civil liberties. He's probably mostly remembered as a "benevolent dictator" (though few use the "d" word when referring to him) in hindsight (and mostly in the North). His contemporaries had much more mixed feelings about him. Please, if someone here knows more about Lincoln, correct my mistakes.

I've heard few comparisons of Lincoln and Bush, but it seems to me like they are behaving in similar ways.

Also, many companies are run by benevolent dictators. Mine is. My boss is a pretty nice guy, and he seems to try very hard to do what's best for his employees -- and for the company. But he IS a dictator. It's not a public company. He owns it and can do anything he wants with it.

Finally, most collaborative art projects are run by benevolent dictators. When I direct plays, I take on that roll -- at least I HOPE people think I'm benevolent.
posted by grumblebee at 11:14 AM on August 11, 2006

Plaek Pibulsonggram wasn't the nicest guy in the world but he did preside over a long period of development and progress in Thailand.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 11:16 AM on August 11, 2006

mdn writes "has no one mentioned the british monarchy (up thru victoria)? That was mostly benevolent."

As with many of these, none of those monarchs ruled in "this century or the last one", as the question stipulates. It's pretty easy to find a good king or emperor from the days when kings and emperors were the norm; it's much harder to find a benevolent dictator in the modern era.

pieoverdone writes "Another vote for Tito. St. Louis has a pretty large Bosnian population and I drink with them quite a bit and they all say Tito was a-ok. "

Try asking a Serb about him some time.

Tito was an interesting guy, and he definitely deserves respect for standing up to the Soviets, but given what happened to Yugoslavia after his reign, I think he has to be viewed as ultimately a failure. The governmental structures he established could not stand without him.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:23 AM on August 11, 2006

klangklangston writes "Tito was as benevolent as the Turkmenbashi, of whom both can be said that their egoism and incompetence mitigated some of their malevolence."

I cannot fathom what this means. Are you being sarcastic?
posted by mr_roboto at 11:32 AM on August 11, 2006

Sulla ?
posted by rfs at 11:45 AM on August 11, 2006

Genghis Khan was not benevolent. He was a wanker, a tosspot and a very tiny piece of turd.
posted by ND¢ at 11:46 AM on August 11, 2006

I've only heard the term used to refer to a management style of a corporation, a la Steve Jobs is a benevolent dictator.
posted by Gucky at 11:48 AM on August 11, 2006

Obligatory Emperor Norton Link
posted by lekvar at 11:52 AM on August 11, 2006

Despite his demonization by successive US administrations, surely Castro would qualify. Best education system in the Latin American world, best medical system, highest literacy rate, lowest infant mortality rate (lower than the US)
posted by Neiltupper at 12:03 PM on August 11, 2006

Smart Dalek: Ha.
posted by huskerdont at 12:08 PM on August 11, 2006

There were Argentines who thought Perón qualified.
posted by booksandlibretti at 12:16 PM on August 11, 2006

Try asking a Serb about him some time.

I have. She said he was pretty well-loved. In fact, I'd say he comes the closest I can think of in modern times.

And Musharref is so not benevolet.
posted by dame at 12:24 PM on August 11, 2006

I was also going to suggest Castro. Though he has jailed a lot of political prisoners no?
posted by chunking express at 1:05 PM on August 11, 2006

Castro was mostly benevolent, except for all the political opponents he had offed.
posted by phrontist at 1:14 PM on August 11, 2006

Jimbo Wales, mostly.
posted by beerbajay at 2:07 PM on August 11, 2006

Moses Sr.
Moses Jr.
posted by rob511 at 2:29 PM on August 11, 2006

What about a living one? Sheikh Mohammed of Dubai.

He's created the conditions for unimaginable wealth for the locals of Dubai and quite a few lucky expats too.
posted by selton at 3:14 PM on August 11, 2006

selton writes "What about a living one? Sheikh Mohammed of Dubai. "

Good thinking, there. But I would have gone with Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan, President of the UAE 1971-2004. Awsome picture. Wikipedia entry. He played a much more fundamental role in creating those conditions...
posted by mr_roboto at 3:26 PM on August 11, 2006

How about Emperor Meiji? He just made it into the twentieth century. Not sure whether he was really a 'dictator', though.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:27 PM on August 11, 2006

We Brits haven't had a dictator since Charles II (29 May 1630 – 6 February 1685). The Glorious Revolution saw to that. Much of the hatred for George III would properly be directed at the colonial British Parliament.

The fact that a constitutional monarch has some minor powers does not make them dictators in the sense we use that word today.

In terms of the overall health & well-being, I would also say Castro. However, I'd rather have the right to free speech than universal health care.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:03 PM on August 11, 2006

Oops - that should been James II.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:08 PM on August 11, 2006

No such thing. To the extent they're dictators, they're not benevolent (except when they feel like being, which doesn't really count). Power corrupts. And please, "characterized by their supporters as benevolent dictators" is ridiculous. If you're serious about it, you need to find ones so characterized by their opponents. Even the most vicious dictators have supporters who love them. (Plenty of Russians still wish Stalin would return.)
posted by languagehat at 5:32 PM on August 11, 2006

Another vote for Lee Kwan Yew.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 5:33 PM on August 11, 2006

Don't forget Mussolini and what he did with the trains.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 6:35 PM on August 11, 2006

The sultan of Brunei is OK. Pretty easy to be OK when you're very very rich.

Lee Kwan Yew tops a lot of lists.

Mahatir Mohammud (Malaysia) was alright in the 80s. So was Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe). Both of these guys got worse as they got older. Suharto of Indonesia was reasonable if you were an indon (not so hot if you were Timorese, Acehnese, Papuan).
posted by wilful at 12:48 AM on August 12, 2006

there used to be a running joke in political circles in germany some time ago that Helmut Kohl was the closest thing to one, which he of course wasn't. but he was the german chancellor for next to forever.

I am not sure about Otto von Bismarck. known as the iron chancellor, he was elected... but it was a fledging republic on its way to democracy.
posted by krautland at 8:52 AM on August 19, 2006

Rainier III of Monaco most probably qualifies.
posted by stereo at 1:42 AM on November 21, 2006