Defining a "Great Dictator"

by **rathersane** on Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:56 pm

In the "Saddam is Dead" thread, someone described him as the last of the great dictators, and I had to disagree, which led me to this:

How do we define a great dictator?

by **morph** on Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:04 pm

the only way to be considered a great dictator is one who is good to the people, helps the people of that country and got things going for the good of the people but did not really cause death and destruction, gives things to the people for knowledge, history and in general the good of the world... one that will inspire others to do great things, not evil... but good great things..

by **s.xkitten** on Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:07 pm

so hitler started as a great leader? it was only after he started killing people that he became a not good leader?

by **vtmarik** on Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:07 pm

Alright, allow me to clarify.

When I say great dictator, I mean he had notoriety as an evil-type man. Hussein was, I believe, of the same caliber as Stalin, Franco, and the other fascist/dictatorial figures that have lived and I believe that history will bear me out on that.

by **areon** on Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:17 pm

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator, many claim it. To be a dictator you have to want the power and it won't matter if you help some people. Dictators have a habit of having to oppress their people so it will be hard to sell any dictator as being "good" for their country.

by **rathersane** on Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:26 pm

Vtmarik has it on the nose... achieving greatness as a dictator doesn't require moral goodness, but it does require some ruthlessness, and a cult of personality never hurt either...

by **qeee1** on Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:57 pm

areon wrote:There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator, many claim it. To be a dictator you have to want the power and it won't matter if you help some people. Dictators have a habit of having to oppress their people so it will be hard to sell any dictator as being "good" for their country.

But what if your desire for power comes from your want to help people?

by **morph** on Mon Jan 01, 2007 11:28 pm

areon wrote:There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator, many claim it. To be a dictator you have to want the power and it won't matter if you help some people. Dictators have a habit of having to oppress their people so it will be hard to sell any dictator as being "good" for their country.

actually there were several dictators in england during the kings and queens age... that the people loved and wanted to be called king, and indeed the men were written down as a king, but it was shown that they seized power and were indeed dictators.. i think in roman times it happened as well... hell alexander the great was tech a dictator and the people loved him, he may have killed the kings, but the familys of the kings he did kill he actually treated well and helped them stay as a sort of figure head of his power in the area... soo there is such things as good dictator's...

by **rathersane** on Mon Jan 01, 2007 11:51 pm

Maybe the difference between goodness and greatness might be important here. I'm thinking that goodness means that you have virtue and behave morally, while greatness means that you achieve something noteworthy. For example, in Christianity, Satan has been great, but definitely not good.

by **areon** on Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:53 am

I honestly don't believe anyone with pure intentions could either control a military or gain control through populace movements. The likes of Evita and Stalin were loved because they convinced their people they were helping them when the exact opposite was going on. As you said these rulers get discredited after their deaths. Most of the time any dictator gives something to the non-elites it is to keep themselves in power.

Alexander was "nice" to the nobles because he wasn't thinking of ruling an empire at the time. He allowed them to keep their own laws and look what happened after his death, no stability. I don't know what kind of plans he would have come up with had he lived. There is a difference between the way his soldiers loved him and the people that didn't fight did.

What I'm saying is that no dictator will improve the quality of life for the majority of their people. Sometimes they can do great things, whether it is public works projects or ingenius military campaigns. I don't consider that justification for their rule. There are a few leaders I know such as Claudius(Roman emporer) and Akbar(Mughal emporer) that I would call good and great. The problem is that a single person's actions won't follow their death since most of the time their sons will be mediocre in their vision if they are lucky. Very few legacies last.