Benevolent Dicatorships

[Nyiix]

Hej Peeps ^_^

Let's try to discuss a pretty controversial topic here, namely Benevolent Dictatorships

According to Wikipedia (best source), a Benevolent Dictatorships is a:

'Theoretical form of government in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power over the state but is seen to do so for the benefit of the population as a whole. A benevolent dictator may allow for some democratic decision-making to exist, such as through public referenda or elected representatives with limited power.' - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship]

On this same page a few examples are given including:

• Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (Turkey)
• Josip Broz Tito (Yugoslavia)
• Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore)
• Abdullah II (Jordan)
• Paul Kagame (Rwanda)
• Qaboos bin Said al Said (Oman)

What do you guys think about this concept? Is it possible to have a Benevolent Dictatorship? Are the words benevolent and dictatorship even compatible? If so, can you give (more) historical examples and support your decision with arguments?

Am very curious ^^

 

[Laika]

Hej Peeps ^_^

Let's try to discuss a pretty controversial topic here, namely Benevolent Dictatorships

According to Wikipedia (best source), a Benevolent Dictatorships is a:

'Theoretical form of government in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power over the state but is seen to do so for the benefit of the population as a whole. A benevolent dictator may allow for some democratic decision-making to exist, such as through public referenda or elected representatives with limited power.' - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship]

On this same page a few examples are given including:

• Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (Turkey)
• Josip Broz Tito (Yugoslavia)
• Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore)
• Abdullah II (Jordan)
• Paul Kagame (Rwanda)
• Qaboos bin Said al Said (Oman)

What do you guys think about this concept? Is it possible to have a Benevolent Dictatorship? Are the words benevolent and dictatorship even compatible? If so, can you give (more) historical examples and support your decision with arguments?

Am very curious ^^

Technically, all democracies are in some respects dictatorial (in being a form of majority rule that over-rides the wishes of a minority). Some democracies are more benevolent than others, as there is the danger of "tryanny by majority" when the majority decides they get to decide who does and doesn't have rights and what they are. So even a democracy is built on some level of coercion and violence even if it is simply observing the laws which were decided by a majority of representatives in an election. the degree to which a state uses Violence is probably the most common measure of whether a system is benign or not.

It is possible to have relatively benign or benevolent dictatorships, such as the "Enlightened Absolutism" of the 18th century, based on rationality, promoting education, religious tolerance, free speech and the right to private property. (Fredrick the Great of Prussia and Catherine the Great of Russia are given as examples but it can be debated of course). It is worth keeping in mind that the United States was founded as a Republic and not a Democracy and so it a successor to the model of Enlightened Absolutism, but minus the monarchy. The French Revolution put the idea of enlightened dictatorships to the test because the cliam that the government was "benevolent" was held to be the case irrespective of its actions, which is how it was able to justify the "reign of terror" to "clense" society of aristocrats representing the old regieme. It shocked the rest of Europe.

However, the "Totalitarian" dictatorships of the twenieth century were built on industrialisation, mass organisation and total war and they pretty much applied the tactics of total war within their own territories as if the government was engaged in a civil war against minority groups. So they weren't "benevolent" even if places like the USSR or the People's Republic of China became much more "liberal" later on without giving up their totalitarian pretensions to building a new society and using the state to mould the "new man" and "new woman" to populate it. The concept nowdays would most probably apply more to China if you were to use it at all- but its not very convincing because the technological capacity for power and coercion is so much greater than in the 18th century that its difficult to have a "light touch" approach to dictatorship that might be benevolent.

I would argue benevolent dictatorships are not impossible, but you have to be prepared to look the other way when they use force (or otherwise be in the dark about it so it "looks" benevolent). it isn't as much an issue to do with the selfishness of human nature, or as simple that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" or even unconscious, irrational and sadistic desires in the population- all of which are part of the picture but not all of it. the reputation of dictatorships as benevolent took a nose dive since Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and hasn't gained traction since. the memory of those regiemes, and the powerful ideological condemnations of those systems built on treating individual liberty as a natural right- irrespective of political, cultural context or the ability of governments to promote or safeguard personal liberties- has meant the concept does not have support. I guess even the idea that dictatorship is necessary in an emergency would be treated with great suspicion nowdays. I'm open to the idea of benevolent dictatorships on paper, but they are hard to find and given the power government can weild, its hard to trust them as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

Political representation is a major challenge, but I think dictatorships are hardly ever a good thing. That the idea is even presented shows how difficult some of the alternatives are.

It is certainly true that democratic elections in and of itself are hardly an assurance of peace, let alone of political maturity. But that can't be healed "top-bottom" style. At best one could argue that a dictatorship is better than annihilation, but that argument is abused far too often for confort.

Not sure Ataturk would qualify as a dictator of any kind, though. If anything, he ended a dictatorship.

 

[Nietzsche]

A benevolent dictatorship or enlightened despot or "philosopher king" is the ideal form of government.

No such thing.
It's just idealization.

edit: Although I would say of most statism

So there has never been an absolute ruler who was both capable, clever and compassionate? Because if that's what you're arguing, I'll need a few hours to collect all my examples.

 

[Nyiix]

So there has never been an absolute ruler who was both capable, clever and compassionate? Because if that's what you're arguing, I'll need a few hours to collect all my examples.

Please do! Am really interested ^^

 

[Brickjectivity]

What do you guys think about this concept? Is it possible to have a Benevolent Dictatorship? Are the words benevolent and dictatorship even compatible? If so, can you give (more) historical examples and support your decision with arguments?

Its not a new concept, but it doesn't work everywhere. Also, how do you know which leader will be benevolent? So..if you can't predict that a leader will be benevolent, then you cannot guarantee benevolent leadership.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Even if a dictator is well received and liked, eventually over time...

Dictatorship, like monarchy can easily go south.

 

[Koldo]

Technically, all democracies are in some respects dictatorial (in being a form of majority rule that over-rides the wishes of a minority). Some democracies are more benevolent than others, as there is the danger of "tryanny by majority" when the majority decides they get to decide who does and doesn't have rights and what they are. So even a democracy is built on some level of coercion and violence even if it is simply observing the laws which were decided by a majority of representatives in an election. the degree to which a state uses Violence is probably the most common measure of whether a system is benign or not.

It is possible to have relatively benign or benevolent dictatorships, such as the "Enlightened Absolutism" of the 18th century, based on rationality, promoting education, religious tolerance, free speech and the right to private property. (Fredrick the Great of Prussia and Catherine the Great of Russia are given as examples but it can be debated of course). It is worth keeping in mind that the United States was founded as a Republic and not a Democracy and so it a successor to the model of Enlightened Absolutism, but minus the monarchy. The French Revolution put the idea of enlightened dictatorships to the test because the cliam that the government was "benevolent" was held to be the case irrespective of its actions, which is how it was able to justify the "reign of terror" to "clense" society of aristocrats representing the old regieme. It shocked the rest of Europe.

However, the "Totalitarian" dictatorships of the twenieth century were built on industrialisation, mass organisation and total war and they pretty much applied the tactics of total war within their own territories as if the government was engaged in a civil war against minority groups. So they weren't "benevolent" even if places like the USSR or the People's Republic of China became much more "liberal" later on without giving up their totalitarian pretensions to building a new society and using the state to mould the "new man" and "new woman" to populate it. The concept nowdays would most probably apply more to China if you were to use it at all- but its not very convincing because the technological capacity for power and coercion is so much greater than in the 18th century that its difficult to have a "light touch" approach to dictatorship that might be benevolent.

I would argue benevolent dictatorships are not impossible, but you have to be prepared to look the other way when they use force (or otherwise be in the dark about it so it "looks" benevolent). it isn't as much an issue to do with the selfishness of human nature, or as simple that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" or even unconscious, irrational and sadistic desires in the population- all of which are part of the picture but not all of it. the reputation of dictatorships as benevolent took a nose dive since Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and hasn't gained traction since. the memory of those regiemes, and the powerful ideological condemnations of those systems built on treating individual liberty as a natural right- irrespective of political, cultural context or the ability of governments to promote or safeguard personal liberties- has meant the concept does not have support. I guess even the idea that dictatorship is necessary in an emergency would be treated with great suspicion nowdays. I'm open to the idea of benevolent dictatorships on paper, but they are hard to find and given the power government can weild, its hard to trust them as well.

A very thoughtful post.

 

[Nietzsche]

Go for it

Enlightened Absolutist Monarchs;

Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor & Archduke of Austria
Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia
Frederick the Great, King of Prussia
Frederick William, “Great Elector” of Brandenburg
Gustav III, King of Sweden
Peter the Great, Tsar of Russia
Gustavus Adolphus, “Lion of the North” King of Sweden
Charles III, King of Spain
Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria
Louis XVI, King of France
Joseph I, King of Portugal
Abdullah II, King of Jordan

Benevolent Dictators/Despots;

Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslavia
Deng Xiaoping, China
Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore
Kemal Pasha Ataturk, Turkey
Napoléon Bonaparte, France
Otto von Bismark, First Prime Minister of the Kaiserreich

The system works. The problem is that you run a high risk of the successor being an imbecile and ruining the advances made by the Benevolent/Enlightened ruler.

Something to be remembered; "Benevolent" and "Enlightened" does not mean 'nice'. Tito shot plenty of people. Frederick the Great began wars of aggression. But these actions generally are taken with an aim in mind dedicated to solving a tangible problem.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The system works. The problem is that you run a high risk of the successor being an imbecile and ruining the advances made by the Benevolent/Enlightened ruler.

Hear, hear. You're quoting from the Bible now brother.

 

[Nietzsche]

Hear, hear. You're quoting from the Bible now brother.

It's true of any system. Eventually, someone is gonna come along and **** it up for everyone. And, once in every million times, they might be actively malevolent. The world is full of hopeless, criminally incompetent people with good intentions.

 

[Laika]

A very thoughtful post.

Thanks.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Ok, ok; but look at...life extension technologies. What happens when your benevolent dictator gets their life extended by...oh 300 years. I suggest, without proof, that this much power in the long run would drive them away from the rest of humanity. Therefore perhaps benevolent dictators-for-life are no longer possible. The desire for immortality is no longer an impossible dream. It may actually be possible. So...what principle will save the benevolent from their own lifespan?

 

[Thanda]

Something to be remembered; "Benevolent" and "Enlightened" does not mean 'nice'.

I like this - very important to remember.

 

[Nietzsche]

Ok, ok; but look at...life extension technologies. What happens when your benevolent dictator gets their life extended by...oh 300 years. I suggest, without proof, that this much power in the long run would drive them away from the rest of humanity. Therefore perhaps benevolent dictators-for-life are no longer possible. The desire for immortality is no longer an impossible dream. It may actually be possible. So...what principle will save the benevolent from their own lifespan?

Y'know, I can tell you meant this mostly in a joking manner, but honestly? That should scare everyone. When we can live forever, or at least significantly longer than we do now, we're gonna get bored. Some of us already are. At no point in time has boredom ever led to someone making an altruistic decision.

 

[suncowiam]

Enlightened Absolutist Monarchs;

Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor & Archduke of Austria
Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia
Frederick the Great, King of Prussia
Frederick William, “Great Elector” of Brandenburg
Gustav III, King of Sweden
Peter the Great, Tsar of Russia
Gustavus Adolphus, “Lion of the North” King of Sweden
Charles III, King of Spain
Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria
Louis XVI, King of France
Joseph I, King of Portugal
Abdullah II, King of Jordan

Benevolent Dictators/Despots;

Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslavia
Deng Xiaoping, China
Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore
Kemal Pasha Ataturk, Turkey
Napoléon Bonaparte, France
Otto von Bismark, First Prime Minister of the Kaiserreich

The system works. The problem is that you run a high risk of the successor being an imbecile and ruining the advances made by the Benevolent/Enlightened ruler.

Something to be remembered; "Benevolent" and "Enlightened" does not mean 'nice'. Tito shot plenty of people. Frederick the Great began wars of aggression. But these actions generally are taken with an aim in mind dedicated to solving a tangible problem.

Isn't picking a successful successor part of the process so it is part of the problem. A system has to work in most to all cases IMO to be deemed successful. There's also a difference between f'ing it up accidentally and then on purpose. What checks and balances are there in place to ensure an ethical establishment is in power?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Y'know, I can tell you meant this mostly in a joking manner, but honestly? That should scare everyone. When we can live forever, or at least significantly longer than we do now, we're gonna get bored. Some of us already are. At no point in time has boredom ever led to someone making an altruistic descision.

On a serious note I agree partly, however it isn't boredom that kills you. You will lose your ability to learn and to have original thoughts eventually. Rather than becoming bored you will remain fascinated by the same thoughts for all eternity.

 

[Nietzsche]

Isn't picking a successful successor part of the process so it is part of the problem. A system has to work in most to all cases IMO to be deemed successful.

Depends on the system. For the monarchs, there was nothing they could really do to change the laws of succession, not without risking an armed dispute. For the others, well. Singapore didn't do too poorly. Ataturk's system has worked up until now. Napoleon was ousted by foreign powers(because of the wars he declared on them granted), Tito was running the Balkans and no system there has ever survived more than one generation because I swear to god they were the prototype for the Middle East's ethnic disputes...

There's also a difference between f'ing it up accidentally and then on purpose. What checks and balances are there in place to ensure an ethical establishment is in power?

One would assume continuing to have the adoration of the people(by being the chosen successor of the Benevolent/Enlightened Ruler), and the lifestyle that affords you, would be enough. I am not sure as to why it does not work out that way more often. The only thing I can figure is that, because these forms of government are very personalized, that is they rely on the charisma and talents of the person running the show, they break down when they die because you've got underlings who all think they would be better at running it than whoever the Ruler picked.

 

[Nietzsche]

Catherine was an imperial tzar who was involved in war throughout her reign. Far from benevolent.

Admittedly, I don't know much about most of the people on this list. However they all appear to have run imperialist powers with feudal systems. They are far from benevolent in my books.

I wasn't aware you had a plan for how to immediately turn a feudal society into a modern industrialized one. Care to share this with me? Because otherwise, you're just enforcing a standard that could not exist when they were ruling.

Deng threw all socialist progress Mao created out the window and made things much worse for the average worker than they would have been.

Deng is the weakest link of the dictators, I will be happy to grant you that.

I don't know enough to say anything about most of the above.

Fair enough.

Napoleon and Otto were imperialist powers as well.

And? Using this logic, no one has ever been benevolent. Their actions resulted in a better life for the people they were ruling. Someone, somewhere, is always going to get the short end of the stick.

The google benevolent definition:

Spoiler

be·nev·o·lent
bəˈnevələnt/
adjective
adjective: benevolent
well meaning and kindly.
"a benevolent smile"
synonyms: kind, kindly, kindhearted, big-hearted, good-natured, good, benign, compassionate, caring, altruistic, humanitarian, philanthropic; More
generous, magnanimous, munificent, unselfish, openhanded, beneficent;
literarybounteous
"a benevolent patriarch"
antonyms: unkind, tightfisted
(of an organization) serving a charitable rather than a profit-making purpose.
"a benevolent fund"
synonyms: charitable, nonprofit, not-for-profit, noncommercial, uncommercialized;
formaleleemosynary
"a benevolent institution"

You say benevolent doesn't mean nice, but give no other definition to suit your points.

State-level benevolence is about the larger picture, ensuring a working society than it is about being particularly nice. Some of Tito's actions were brutal. But they prevented the area from falling back into sectarian violence and ethnic dispute.

 

[suncowiam]

Depends on the system. For the monarchs, there was nothing they could really do to change the laws of succession, not without risking an armed dispute. For the others, well. Singapore didn't do too poorly. Ataturk's system has worked up until now. Napoleon was ousted by foreign powers(because of the wars he declared on them granted), Tito was running the Balkans and no system there has ever survived more than one generation because I swear to god they were the prototype for the Middle East's ethnic disputes...


One would assume continuing to have the adoration of the people(by being the chosen successor of the Benevolent/Enlightened Ruler), and the lifestyle that affords you, would be enough. I am not sure as to why it does not work out that way more often. The only thing I can figure is that, because these forms of government are very personalized, that is they rely on the charisma and talents of the person running the show, they break down when they die because you've got underlings who all think they would be better at running it than whoever the Ruler picked.

As the name implies, it is very dependent on the dictator, so it leaves it to chance on the moral and ethical values of the dictator. There is no process to ensure that a good dictator is given power.

Personally, I can live under a "good" dictator but I can't live within a system that could allow a bad one for the sake of generations to come.

Plus, haven't you seen enough movies of evil princes and princesses trying to kill their siblings. Disney has enough of those with Frozen being the most recent one. =P