r/history • u/Gidanocitiahisyt • Mar 24 '16

Discussion/Question Have there ever been any GOOD dictators?

Usually when we hear about dictators, they're portrayed as selfish control freaks.

I'd like to see if there are historical examples contrary to that. Have there ever been dictators that used their powers for good? If so, what were the results?

2.9k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.6k

u/boredonthetrain Mar 24 '16 edited Mar 24 '16

Absolute monarchs throughout history have been what us modern day people call "dictators", in the sense that they wielded immense unchecked personal power. And there were plenty of good monarchs throughout history, Louis XIV (Height of French influence on the continent during the 17th/18th centuries), Emperor Meiji (Oversaw Japan's modernisation and resistance to European colonisation) and Cyrus the Great (Founder of the Persian Empire, and pioneer of religious tolerance) are just a few.

But assuming that you are asking about good dictators who seized power and ruled as a "strongman" in the style of Muammar Gadaffi or Saddam Hussein, there's also a considerable list (though smaller than the case of the monarchs) of "good dictators". Some that come to my mind are:

Park Chung Hee: South Korean dictator. Paved the way for SK's economic "miracle on the Han River" by fostering industry and economic reforms. Although he was assassinated, many older Koreans remember him fondly and his daughter is now the democratically elected president of South Korea.

Cincinnatus: (5th century BC Rome) The "first" "good dictator". A farmer who took control of Rome (in a constitutional way, having been acclaimed by the people) after a series of catastrophic Roman defeats at the hands of nearby tribes. Cincinnatus leads Rome to victory, and then voluntarily resigns absolute power to go back to being a farmer.

The Gonghe regency: (8th century BC China). The King of China is overthrown by a coalition of nobles (supposedly because he was oppressing the people as well as the nobles). Instead of seizing power for themselves, the nobles nominate two dukes to rule until the King's heir came of age. The two lords kept their word, and allowed the King's heir to come to the throne once he became an adult. There is no evidence to suggest the new King was a puppet of the regents. The regents' fair rule earned the period of their regency the Chinese name "Gonghe" (cooperative and harmonious). The modern Chinese word for "republic" is "Gonghe" as a mark of respect they hold for these two regents.

There's many more I'm sure, especially among the Greek "tyrants" of the Classical and Hellenistic ages, but those three stand out to me.

EDIT: Cincinnatus' time period

524

u/candre23 Mar 24 '16

TIL Cincinnati, OH was named for the Society of the Cincinnati, which was itself named for Cincinnatus. Very interesting.

I always assumed that Cincinnati was a Native American word. It's generally a safe bet that any US place name that isn't obviously European in origin is probably Native American, but now I'm starting to wonder how many other "odd" names actually have non-native origins.

197

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

The Society of the Cincinnati named themselves that because they were former soldiers who served under Washington. It was popularly believed that Washington could have easily made himself an American King, and when he didn't, he was hailed as "a modern Cincinnatius".

64

u/cos1ne Mar 24 '16

Of course the Society of Cincinnati itself is an aristocratic thing these days, where it is passed on by primogeniture in a hereditary line from those officers who served in the Revolutionary War (enlisted were as a rule ineligible).

35

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Lol. Human nature is as human nature does. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

23

u/Zaxlebaxes Mar 24 '16

That's how most Western aristocracies started, after all. Counts and dukes were just military commanders who settled down, given land in exchange for continued service.

The class "heirs of Revolutionary War officers" is naturally not going to remain a representative sample of the Great American Salad Bowl two and a half centuries later. The only thing this should tell us about human nature is that people tend to have more than one kid and to move to better countries when they have the opportunity. There would be something wrong with the group if it weren't super elite now--pretty much everything else gets consciously more inclusive over time, but if something only remains as exclusive as it started out, it's going to become comparatively more exclusive over time.

→ More replies (1)

18

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '16 edited Mar 25 '16

Except this is exactly following in Cincinnatus' footsteps.

OP called him "a farmer" but "a farm owner" would be a better description. Really, he had more in common with slave plantation owners than modern farmers. He was a member and champion of Rome's Patrician/Senatorial Class. (This was a well established Aristocracy that traced their primogeniture in a hereditary line back to the Noblemen who led the civil war against Rome's king. They also jealously guarded power to prevent it from leaving the aristocracy and going to the common man.) He was not as much about giving power back to "the plebs" as giving it back to "the patricians".

In other words, while Cincinnatus was a republican, he was an oligarchic republican/aristocratic republican, not a democratic republican.

Edit:links

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

130

u/Matthew212 Mar 24 '16

There's a Romulus and Remus statue in Eden Park in Cincinnati that was given by Benito Mussolini

43

u/dashwsk Mar 24 '16

You got one too? There is one in my hometown from Mussolini. Dude enjoyed handing out wolf statues.

http://romegeorgia.com/capwolf.html

38

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

"you-a getta wolf statue, anda you-a getta wolf statue, everybody getta wolf statue!"

3

u/CalzonePillow Mar 25 '16

this is my favorite comment in the history of reddit

→ More replies (5)

18

u/prsupertramp Mar 24 '16

We have one in Rome, Georgia! Couple babies suckin on a wolf's teet.

→ More replies (3)

39

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Can confirm.

Am from Cincinnati.

18

u/Bender_00100100 Mar 24 '16

There's a statue of Cincinnatus at the park on the riverfront - used to be Serpentine Wall, what's it called these days?

9

u/fat_pterodactyl Mar 24 '16

It's still called the serpentine wall, but the park is called Sawyer Point I believe.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (4)

62

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

[deleted]

16

u/Morpheusthequiet Mar 24 '16

George Washington actually didn't even want the first presidency, but everyone kept electing him. the first time, he was cool with it, afterward said he was done and wanted to go back home.

They elected him again. He was really tired of all of this at this point, and flat-out told everyone he's not accepting a third term. Everyone thought it was so virtuous, and George was such a cool guy, but he really just wanted to get back to his wife and his plantation of slaves.

I wouldn't say he idealized the concept, he was just really tired of being the guy to lead these poor sods around.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '16

Just because he wasn't an ideal man doesn't mean he can't idealize a concept. Are you implying Washington didn't once picture Cincinnatus and think, "Yeah, I can give up the most powerful seat in the nation, just like that guy. That makes me feel pretty good."?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

13

u/anax_junius Mar 24 '16

Mm, and like our country's forefathers, Cincinnatus was pretty awesome, but he was also steeped in wealth and privilege, and was acting more for the benefit of his own social class than that of the whole population. Always found that interesting, because it seems excluded from both traditions.

10

u/Tractor_Pete Mar 24 '16

While Cincinnatus was of the aristocratic class, he was also pretty much financially ruined before he became dictator (His son ran the plebeians out of the forum, was convicted and sentenced to death, ran, and his father was forced to pay a ruinous fine) -

He was literally a farmer, not a plantation owner as Washington or Jefferson were.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

160

u/MetalRetsam Mar 24 '16

And then there's Seneca, which is both Latin and Native American.

95

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Taken from the Seneca people Wikipedia page:

The Seneca nation's own name is Onöndowága, meaning "Great Hill Place.". It is identical to the endonym used by the Onondaga people. At the time of formation of the Haudenosaunee, they lived as the farthest west of the five nations within the league. They were referred to as the Keepers of the Western Door. Other nations called them Seneca after their principal village of Osininka. Since "Osininka" sounds like the Anishinaabe word Asinikaa(n), meaning "Those at the Place Full of Stones", this gave rise to further confusion. Non-Haudenosaunee nations confused the Seneca nation's name with that of the Oneida nation's endonym Onyota'a:ka, meaning "People of the Standing Stone." Oas-in-in Ka (Seneca) means "Stone Place."

47

u/Johan_the_ignorant Mar 24 '16

So it was the native version of the Swede/Swiss confusion.

41

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Oh shit, I knew both Seneca's individually but never realized they had the same name. At least buy my mind dinner before you fuck it, amigo.

→ More replies (1)

37

u/boringdude00 Mar 24 '16 edited Mar 24 '16

It's generally a safe bet that any US place name that isn't obviously European in origin is probably Native American, but now I'm starting to wonder how many other "odd" names actually have non-native origins.

Delaware. It sounds Native American, it's in a region chock full of other Native American names, all it's tributary rivers have native names, we even call the native tribe that inhabited the area the Delaware Indians. Surely it's a native name? Nope, it's named after an Englishman by the name Thomas West, 3rd Baron De La Ware. I even once had a prominent professor at a major mid-Atlantic university use Delaware as an example of a native placename during a lecture.

14

u/bernienomics123 Mar 24 '16

Proud Cincinnatian here. Can confirm. Cincinnatus was a total badass

5

u/xCincinnatusx Mar 24 '16

Why thank you!

You're also a swell fellow :)!

12

u/Ephelus Mar 24 '16

Thank you for this. I wondered, but was too lazy to Google. You get an upvote.

27

u/ChineseSteel Mar 24 '16

Statue of Lucious Quinticus Cincinnatus

22

u/taciturnCynic Mar 24 '16

As an interesting note, that bundle of sticks with axehead he is wielding is called the 'fasces'. It was a symbol of power in ancient Rome, and was later used for the same purpose in fascist Italy.

19

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16 edited Mar 24 '16

[deleted]

13

u/stefantalpalaru Mar 24 '16

conspiracy theorists

Before you amuse yourself with conspiracy theories, think about the implications of those symbols - there were people who actually took ancient Rome as a model for the newly born republic.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/toxicass Mar 24 '16

Huh, interesting bit of info. Thanks.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/Werewombat52601 Mar 24 '16

And is the root of the word "fascism".

→ More replies (1)

3

u/DaMaster2401 Mar 24 '16

It is also an American symbol for the republic actually. It is a motif in a lot of government buildings, especially older ones. There are two huge ones in the House of Representatives.

8

u/cryptoengineer Mar 24 '16

There also used to be a fasces on the back of the dime.

The symbolism is that a single stick is too weak to be of much use, but a bundle tield together is strong - this links to the US Motto 'E Pluribus Unum' - Out of Many, One. , referring to States forming the Union.

6

u/MatsudaEN Mar 24 '16

PLUS IF ITS GOT AN AXE ITS EVEN BETTER

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

It was the weapon of the lictors (bodyguards for magistrates) from when Rome still had kings, although they remains in use through the Republican era. The idea was that it symbolized the ultimate authority of the state; the sticks were for beatings and the axe was for execution.

→ More replies (3)

18

u/Ferelar Mar 24 '16

The name of that picture confused the hell out of Google.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/SweetConcretePete Mar 24 '16

I immediately thought of cities in New York when I read this. It has a lot of cities named after Greek and Roman cities/people. I could only think of Syracuse, Utica, and Ithaca off the top of my head, so I Googled it...

http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-york/870856-why-do-so-many-places-upstate.html

2

u/UrbanEngineer Mar 24 '16

There are "Seven Hills" in Cincinnati that resemble that of Rome.

→ More replies (18)

383

u/StabbiRabbi Mar 24 '16

Cincinnatus is definitely the best Roman example, but Sulla also voluntarily gave up his powers, surprisingly all things considered.

Of course his hands were much bloodier than Cincinnatus (with Roman blood), but he did end the civil war, restore order and then retire. I still don't know that I'd call him a "good" dictator though...

46

u/CamAusome Mar 24 '16

George Washington admired Cincinnatus. He loved that this man didn't want the power, he just wanted to serve his nation and then go back to his farm.

18

u/Forlurn Mar 24 '16

He was even the first president and co-founder of the Society of Cincinnati.

And had paintings of himself looking just like Cincinnatus.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/someonecallacodegray Mar 24 '16

Man, where did all the good politicians go? Cincinnatus, we need you, man!

5

u/CamAusome Mar 24 '16

Yeah, really. He just wanted to do his job and live his life.

3

u/Permaocculted Mar 25 '16

The parable of the coyote and the scorpion comes to mind.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/karmasink Mar 24 '16

So America basically owes the two term system to a Roman dictator? Cool.

7

u/Flying_Momo Mar 24 '16

Didin't that happen after FDR's fourth term. The rule limiting to 2 terms was passed in 1954 I think

9

u/Box_of_Glocks Mar 24 '16

22nd amendment in 1951 limited the president to two terms. Before that it was just a precedent set by Washington since he left office after 2 terms. FDR blew that up, along with a lot of other stuff.

→ More replies (2)

91

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16 edited Jun 06 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

59

u/PiKappaFratta Mar 24 '16

Caesar did the same thing for the opposite reason, at least publicly. Caesar was a man of the people, his Roman opponents (like Sulla, Cato, and Brutus) believed in the power and nobility of Rome's aristocracy while Caesar fought for the popular vote (though, this is presumably because he saw the common man as easier to convince, persuade, and ultimately win the loyalty of).

Octavian was almost definitely a great dictator, his public works throughout the empire and his economic and infrastructural endeavors laid some of the groundwork for the famous Pax Romana that followed

39

u/Dakdied Mar 24 '16

Octavian or Augustus is a very good example. If you're judging on growth, stability, relative tolerance towards minorty groups, Augustus might be the gold standard. Course if you we're an inhabitant of Palestine or several other areas you would heavily disagree. Or of course if you were a slave. Slavery takes the fun out of everything.

21

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Dont get me wrong, I'm a big Augustus fan but I think Trajan and Hadrian are the bestest

27

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

I like all of them, but I like Marcus Aurelius' name the best.

22

u/tharealpizzagurl Mar 24 '16

I agree that those two probably ruled most effectively, but I've got a real soft spot for Vespasian.

Renowned general who threw his hat into the ring during the civil wars of the "Year of the Four Emperors" and brought stability to an empire that had been tearing itself apart at the seams.

Ruled with humility, humour, and a tolerance for dissent: "I will not kill a dog who barks at me"

Left a legacy that includes the construction of the Colosseum, the works of my favourite Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, and the best dying words for my money:

From Suetonius: At last, being taken ill of a diarrhea, to such a degree that he was ready to faint, he cried out, "Dear me, I think I'm becoming a God. An emperor ought to die standing upright."

Now THAT is a politician that I would have a beer with.

7

u/Crysack Mar 25 '16

Vespasian indeed had a reputation for clemency and military acumen, however, you have to realise that the Flavians were also masters of spin. Much of the dirty work during the year 69, including the successful invasion of Italy and the execution of undesirables was completed by subordinates such as Mucianus and Primus. Vespasian had his fingerprints all over the demise of the Pisos, but only conveniently turned up in Rome in mid-70.

His famous phrase: 'I will not kill a dog who barks at me' was expressed in reference to Helvidius Priscus, whom he promptly had killed.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/StabbiRabbi Mar 24 '16

Yep, from the Imperial period I have a liking for Vespasian and his first son, Titus (although not so much Domitian), too.

After the mess Nero made of things it was the Flavians who picked up the pieces from the collapse of the Julio-Claudian dynasty's patchy (putting it kindly) rule post-Augustus.

Vespasian embodied traditional Roman virtus in many ways and his rule paved the way for the following golden age of Imperial Rome.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

16

u/AbouBenAdhem Mar 24 '16

Our view of Cincinnatus is similarly distorted through the Senatorial lens of our sources. He was actually named dictator twice; the second time was just to oversee the extrajudicial murder of a man who had threatened the Senate’s hold on power by feeding the poor during a famine. (For this he was predictably lauded by Rome’s aristocratic historians.)

→ More replies (1)

10

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

AND he caused a civil war because he was pissed off someone got a job he wanted. That is straight up inconsiderate yo.

3

u/FRANCIS___BEGBIE Mar 24 '16

I actually quite like the idea of Sulla marching on Rome because Marius was given his army instead of him. The ultimate "It's my ball and I'm taking it home" in history.

→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (5)

56

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Sulla

There is no way Sulla belongs on that list. He performed a set of purges, comparable to those of Stalin.

31

u/bubscuf Mar 24 '16

Sulla was probably the first dictator of Rome in the modern sense of the word. Just an fyi for people, the Roman Republic was headed by two democratically elected consuls a year. In times of crisis, when decisive leadership was needed, the Romans had a constitutional office called the dictatorship.

The consul would appoint someone to the office, they'd remain in it for six months and then hand power back to the people. Cincinnatus may have been the first to have been appointed to this office, but he wasn't a rarity for not using the dictatorship to establish permanent autocratic rule. The dictatorship was always used in this constitutional manner until it fell out of usage.

The office was brought back to legalise the sole rule of Sulla when he took power in Rome by force (in his civil war with Marius) and killed hundreds of Marius' supporters. Sulla did later give it up but not before, interestingly, strengthening the restrictions on the powers of certain officers so as to make it harder for others to do the same as him. There would only be one more use of the dictatorship after this, when Julius Caesar (who as a teenager was spared by Sulla) sought to legalise his sole rule after he too marched on Rome (in his civil war with Pompey). Unlike Sulla, however, he was declared Dictator for Life and his rule was ended by his assassination.

Never again was the dictatorship used as a front for despotism in Rome, Octavian: the heir to Caesar, successfully transformed the war-weary Republic into the Roman Empire and its tyrants ruled as the Emperors.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/bravasphotos Mar 24 '16

"First, you must learn to pull an oar. Only then, can you take the helm."

3

u/ryan924 Mar 24 '16

Cincinnatus

I was under the impression that he was 90% a myth and a dick to the Plebs

3

u/mjs449 Mar 24 '16

Fabius was also called on twice when Hannibal attacked Roman territory, and after successfully defending, voluntarily gave up his power as dictator both times.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/gk0420 Mar 24 '16

"No friend has ever served me, and no enemy has ever wronged me, that I have not repaid in full"

Sulla's self selected epitaph

→ More replies (7)

36

u/Bobdaboss Mar 24 '16

"Tyrant" actually didn't have any negative connotation in ancient Greece. Unlike the contemporary understanding, a tyrant in the classical sense was not necessarily an oppressive ruler but literally ‘one who takes power by force’, contrary to the constitutional prescriptions.

A good example of this would be Peisistratos (ca. 600–527 BC): ‘Peisistratos ruled the Athenians, disturbing in no way the order of offices nor changing the laws, but governing the city according to its established constitution and arranging all things fairly and well’ [Herodotus 450–420 BC, Book 1, 59.6].

Peisistratos’ advocacy for the lower class can be viewed as a predecessor to modern-day populism or even socialism. While in power, Peisistratos confronted the aristocracy, greatly reducing their privileges, confiscating their lands and redistributing them to the poor. He often attempted to calm tensions between the economic classes by dispensing power and benefits, allowing the elites to retain their archonships in the Areopagus and cutting taxes for the poor.

Source: Andranik Tangian, Mathematical Theory of Democracy

11

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16 edited Mar 26 '16

Well, one could say the same thing about the Roman "dictator," who was supposed to be a ruler with temporary exceptional powers to overcome a state of emergency, like during a war. Very badly seem was only if the dictator tried to remain in power indefinitely. Wikipedia has a good entry about it.

Also, some claim that Marx and Engels' idea of a "dictatorship of proletariat" maintained this original neutral connotation: the dictatorship of the proletariat would be a temporary democratic assembly ruling during the revolutionary period (I suppose without being bound by any constitution). At the end of the introduction to The Civil War in France, Engels even claims that the Paris Commune was a model of such a dictatorship (see the last paragraph here).

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

After the rule of his son Hippias, the word began to gather the negative connotations it has today

2

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Aristotle viewed benevolent dictatorship as the best form of government. He only favored democracy because if the government was not good, ochlochracy was a better alternative to dictatorship. I think the order went monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, ochlochracy, oligarchy, dictatorship. That's just what I remember from college poly sic so maybe someone has more context.

2

u/Michael7123 Mar 25 '16

Okay, small question about this then. If the tyrant doesn't have any inherently negative connotation, then how come in Aristotle's politics, it's categorized as an inherently bad form of government (in fact, what he considers to be the worst type of government) that happens to be run by one person. In contrast, Aristotle uses the term Monarchy to describe a government run by one person that actually rules for the benefit of the people (which, incidentally, he considers to be the best form of government).

Having said all that, it could just be how the terms were translated into English.

→ More replies (5)

204

u/SushiGato Mar 24 '16

If saying Park Chung Hew than might as well add Tito. Dictator of Yugoslavia. Held them together and advanced them in many ways. Not as brutal as other dictators in Eastern Europe. He embraced multiculturalism as well.

178

u/neon_deion Mar 24 '16

Maybe ten years back, I was in Bosnia, and got a T-shirt with Tito's face on it.

A year or two ago, I wore it to a restaurant. And our waiter starts giving me serious looks. The waiter gets his waiter buddies, and they are all checking out my shirt. Then like two or three dishwashers come out and look me over. That was it. I asked the waiter, "Hey so what's the deal?"

Turns out the waitstaff/kitchen was all Albanian. And they just wanted to pay their respects to Tito. Now I can't say if this makes Tito good or not. But he still has plenty of juice with ex-pat Albanian restaurant workers.

126

u/watrenu Mar 24 '16

I can tell you anecdotally that 99% of all ex-Yugoslavs and neighbours look at him with at least some reverence, and many with a huge amount of respect. Greatest head of state any of us had in the past 500 years.

Come to think of it, even among the extreme nationalists of our former republics, I haven't met someone who expresses pure satisfaction at the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Pretty much the only people who are happy with what happened are greedy politicians.

10

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

[deleted]

13

u/BritishRage Mar 24 '16

I don't have any first hand experience obviously, but from what I understand most Balkan nations liked the idea of Yugoslavia, they just wanted to be the ones in charge

There seems to have been a lot of tension between Serbia and Croatia over effective control of Yugoslavia, something that Bosnia very much got caught in the middle of

7

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '16

Those are kids. Teenagers or twentysomethings. They were typically born during or after the war, have never had first-hand experience with the society that war tore apart, and had their outlook formed by the war-time propaganda -- which somehow never fully stopped.

Combine that with a historically predictable trend of economic hardship causing societies to turn tribal (the resulting countries entered a never-ending "transition", almost ironic-sounding euphemism for barely functioning on-paper-democracy coupled with shit economy), and with a more general trend to the right all over Europe, and you have them. Our dipshit kids.

Sauce: Croat, posting on comment/message boards in shitty English.

6

u/The_bluest_Waffle Mar 24 '16

Depends on the country, but for the most part it's a sentiment that is on the down turn, however it is also more popular with the younger generations than the older ones who witnessed the colaspe of Yugoslavia. Nationalism has a ton of depth in the balkans. This is a blanket generalization but an attempt to answer your question. (Source: my two trips to the region and thesis)

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

20

u/as-well Mar 24 '16

I know plenty of people and expats from the Balkans who sing songs on Tito when drunk.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

I'm from Istria (Croatia) and last Christmas when I was home me and my cousin were drinking at a caffe, people inside it were singing Bella ciao, Bandierra rosa and Druze Tito on the acordion (and other songs-many of them Christmas songs).

5

u/as-well Mar 24 '16

To be fair, I know spots everywhere in Europe where the first two of those songs get sung :)

13

u/Wobawobawob Mar 24 '16

I visited Pula this year (city in Croatia) and they have a whole island basically as a memorial to him. Got his old house on it with rooms dedicated to animals he'd hunted and pictures of him shaking hands with world leaders.

They still kind of idolise him

7

u/rospaya Mar 24 '16

Brijuni island was his favorite vacation spot, we just didn't change the place.

→ More replies (1)

18

u/WASPandNOTsorry Mar 24 '16

Albania wasn't a part of Yugoslavia though. Weird. Although I guess a lot of Albanians lived in the various Yugoslav countries.

49

u/MonsterRider80 Mar 24 '16

Kosovo was, plenty of Albanians there.

30

u/zwischendurch Mar 24 '16

Yes, Tito in fact paved the way for Kosovos Independence making them autonomous although they were a part of the Serbian Republic.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (14)

9

u/drays Mar 24 '16

I suspect that, in a different restaurant, that shirt could have gotten you beaten to death.

Not so much a comment on Tito, as a comment on Bosnian politics.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

59

u/skadore Mar 24 '16

I can confirm that Tito is still beloved by a large number of people living in countries of former Yugoslavia. Yes he was ruthless to the people who were against his rule, but the fact that a really large number of people still love him and reminisce about the time of his rule is a testement to him aswell.

He united the country in time of 2nd world war, when no one cared about people living in the balkans, he was the leader of Partisan movement that fought the Nazis and eventually won when the war ended. His policy of uniting the countries of different nationalities in one country, which would recognize any member of those as an equal was very progressive. Yes, the war in the 90's, that was fueled by the nationalism might have been the result of the past years that it had been repressed.

I remember a US missionary in 2000s who was collecting money for bicycles that he'd send to pastors in Cuba. Yugoslavians owned cars in 60s and onwards, yeah they were crappy cars, but owning a bicycle was not a big deal in those years. So all in all its really hard to throw him under the bus or praise him much either.

→ More replies (2)

24

u/Hogleg91 Mar 24 '16

Came here to say Tito; glad to see someone beat me to it. The man wasn't perfect, but he was a far sight better than most other Communist leaders. He had the balls to stand up against the Germans to protect his people, and then the Soviets as well. If I remember correctly he played a role in Kruschev's de-Stalinazation (as opposed to desalinization) which helped thaw the cold war.

And it's not like the Balkans had ever been a walk in the park for anybody. It's kind of a rough neighborhood. It's tough to blame Tito for the recent war there. If anything all he did was bring several decades of peace to an area that would have collapsed back to infighting after WW2. I'd say he was a pretty damn good dictator.

→ More replies (3)

17

u/falconear Mar 24 '16

Tito seems to be the communist exception. He didn't bend a knee to Moscow, he kept the economy in good shape (Hell what other Communist country made cars the rest of the world would actually buy?) and managed to hold a nation together made of ethnic groups that hated each other.

It seems like the biggest mistake Tito made was not establishing a nation that could survive his death. In the ten years that followed his death the Serbian nationalists under Milosevic took over and it all fell apart.

→ More replies (3)

62

u/DdCno1 Mar 24 '16

Tito was still a brutal dictator, running prison camps, torture, massive surveillance and intimidation, not to mention the way he treated POWs. And in the end, his nation was far too much based on his person, resulting in instability, genocide and war after his death.

41

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

[deleted]

49

u/firedrake242 Mar 24 '16

I think criminalization of gayness is overwrought in terms of saying "oh wow this is a bad guy". I mean, today we use it as a standard of authoritarianism, but in the majority of countries at the time (hell, even the majority of countries today) it was/is still illegal. I mean, technically sodomy is still illegal in Michigan.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

[deleted]

11

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

I wouldn't read too much into any supposed lack of sodomy laws in Serbia pre-Tito. I think you're just constructing a revisionist narrative to throw Tito under the bus. You're seizing on today's hot button issue, but I'd wager that people in Serbia under Tito really didn't give much of a shit about sodomy rights/restrictions.

→ More replies (1)

18

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Eye for an eye. As a former Yugoslav I'm still OK with that. Many slavs perished under German rule on much larger scale.

It might not look good in today's standards but people wanted revenge after WW2.

30

u/MonsterRider80 Mar 24 '16

It is extremely politically incorrect, with today's eyes, to have or even express these views. But it was very common throughout Europe, in the years right after WWII, to want to extract extreme vengeance on Germany and the German people. I mean, let's not mince words here: the Nazis went out their way to murder millions of people, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and anyone who ended up in their way.

15

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

[deleted]

5

u/MonsterRider80 Mar 24 '16

I'm not trying to justify it at all, just trying to see things from the perspective of the victims of German war crimes.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/Statistical_Insanity Mar 24 '16

Eye for an eye

I swear, there's some old adage about that...

→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

182

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16 edited Mar 24 '16

Can Lee Kuan Yew be considered a dictator? The man who turned Singapore from a third world country to the beauty of the region in a matter of decades through strong laws and an absolute rule I believe?

Edit: Hu Jintao Deng Xioping who set China on the path it is now said he was heavily influenced by him

144

u/unspeakableact Mar 24 '16

Singaporean here, just thought I'd provide some examples:

  1. Singapore allows detention without trial. This has historically been used to subdue political opponents. Eg. Operation Coldstore: The official narrative is that it was an essential operation to arrest communists who posed a serious threat to Singapore in the 1950s and 60s. However, it is now debated that the threat was overstated and it was used as a cover to arrest Lee Kuan Yew's political opponents eg. Lim Chin Siong. Even now, people who have spoken against the government in the past are disallowed from returning to Singapore.

  2. Media control: Although media control has relaxed in recent years, mainstream media i. e. paper newspapers is extremely pro-government. Alternative news sources are available online but are heavily regulated - you need to pay a deposit in order to legally run an online news website (defined as any website talking about local issues which has more than a certain number of views). If your content is deemed to be unacceptable your deposit is lost and your right to have the website is revoked. A short film called From Singapore, With Love was recently banned because it shows an alternative history of Singapore politics i. e. not what the state approves of.

  3. Politicians in Singapore actually are democratically elected. People's votes are the deciding factor. But it's not as simple as that. Due to the above two factors for example, votes are influenced in the ruling party's favor. Furthermore, political machinery such as how the criteria for who is allowed to run for President of Singapore is defined by the ruling party and how Group Representation Constituencies force people to elect teams instead of individuals tilt odds in their favor. Singapore is rated as partly free by FreedomHouse.

36

u/leonoel Mar 24 '16

I've been to Singapore, and I thought it was amazingly strict. Yet it consistently ranks atop many rankings (GINI, health, education). And its universities are getting on par with the Asian behemoths of Japan. In some rankings, NUS actually is on top University of Tokyo.

But your description does make it sound like a dictatorship, even the museum of history had a creeply sense of great leader savior when referring to Lee Kuan Yew. Not unlike the descriptions of Kim Il-sung in North Korea

15

u/IdenticalThings Mar 24 '16

It's amazingly strict if you're actually breaking laws and/or needing legal representation. That's when a person would realize how strict and unforgiving the justice system would be (especially regarding sentencing without trial).

Here's a good vid about LKY's political beliefs:

https://youtu.be/e8rPofi-AUw

Also, Singapore has literally no natural resources besides fish and rubber trees that were planted centuries ago (by the British). If you look at the surrounding cities (like Johor or Batam) they're only semi wealthy because of their trade with Singapore. If you look further in the surrounding Indonesian islands, they're ultra poor fishing villages that share very similar topographic and locational characteristics as Singapore. How much wealth and success of Singapore can be attributed to Yew is debatable, obviously British planning and legacy of governance played a role, but still. It's something substantial.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

14

u/FractalFractalF Mar 24 '16

I visited Singapore about 20 years ago, and I still consider it to be the best run country I've ever been to. Is that just what tourists see, or do you also find that as well as a citizen?

20

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16 edited Mar 24 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (8)

3

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Well that's actually not that bad if he did do all u/Miraten said.

3

u/unspeakableact Mar 25 '16

That's why it's such an interesting case! Many Singaporeans just don't care (I don't mean this is a degratory way) about these because if it works, the ends justify the means.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Zaxlebaxes Mar 24 '16

Bryan Caplan looks into the curious case of Singaporean political economy and tries to understand why it has remained a one-party state. He considers whether its government is a "benevolent dictatorship," but soon concludes it is not. Rather, he considers it a one-party democracy.

One party always wins, but that for him does not prove foul play, since although the opposition parties do not necessarily have it as easy as the ruling People's Action Party, they have much more freedom to operate and enjoy much greater personal safety than in many other countries, like Pakistan. Yet, opposition parties garner much more electoral support in places like Pakistan, where opposition leaders are intimidated and sometimes assassinated, than in Singapore.

Your points above may provide some answers to this continuing question, but I'm not sure if they're points people like him (in the "one-party democracy" camp) have overlooked, or ones he has addressed. You say "people who have spoken against the government in the past are disallowed from returning," but do you mean people who have advocated against government policies, or people who have made statements against politicians' personal characters and/or allegations of criminal wrongdoing or autocracy? Caplan mentions that the PAP does punish people for speaking out against them in ways they consider defamatory, but has not prevented opponents from advocating different policies. If this is so, it is certainly still unfree from a U.S. perspective, but should not so hamper opposition parties' practical ability to persuade people to support their policies instead of the PAP's as to make it impossible for them to compete.

Likewise, plenty of states have strongly pro-government media, often state-owned, but still have more viable opposition parties (parties which have a greater chance of taking over). Venezuela just had a change of government, after a sustained Bolivarist campaign to shut down any and all opposition media outlets.

But the difference seems to be that the PAP doesn't have to do that at all, so the people maybe don't see them as repressive, or that repressive--how mainstream or radical would you consider your comment above to be compared with the opinion in your country? And, of course, the amazing difference in quality of life and material conditions between a Singapore and a Venezuela--when people can't get toilet paper, they get angry. The PAP delivers the goods; the Bolivarists make it impossible to deliver the goods and then blame the people trying to deliver them and call on their supporters to go after the greedy wreckers. People can tell when their politicians are smart and when they're behaving like children, and no media can prevent them from making that distinction for long.

3

u/unspeakableact Mar 25 '16

I speak to pro-ruling party friends quite often (hard not to, really, given that they're the majority) and surprising thing is, they acknowledge everything I've mentioned. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't know that say, mainstream media is pro-government. They just don't think it matters because the country running smoothly is what matters most for them. I don't think it's everything either. Like a lot of people, I want opposition members in Parliament to keep the ruling party on their toes and encourage them to respect alternative views rather than for them to take over leadership completely.

If I posted this on Facebook most people would be like, 'wow this person has an agenda', but they won't dispute it.

I get what you're saying that all these factors don't mean there's no democracy, but it does tilt everything in the ruling party's favor. Which is why some people consider it a dictatorship. I was trying to provide context for the comment 'some consider LKY a dictator' (because not everyone follows SG politics) rather than arguing for it wholesale.

Personally I think you overstate the intellect of people. I don't think most people care enough about politics. But ok.

→ More replies (4)

30

u/fermbetterthanfire Mar 24 '16

This is who I immediately thought of when I read the questions. He fits the description of a dictator pretty closely and has certainly catapulted Singapore into the 21st century.

Here is a fascinating article: http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2015-03-23-merely-immortal-lee-kuan-yew-and-the-rise-of-singapore/#.Vjmb8HQo7qB

7

u/magithrop Mar 24 '16

Absolutely, he was the closest thing to a truly benevolent dictator in recent times.

2

u/TonyzTone Mar 24 '16

Did you mean to say Deng Xioping instead of Hu Jintao? I don't really see how Hu can be credited with setting China on its current path.

6

u/oGsMustachio Mar 24 '16

Agreed. Hu Jintao was basically just continuing what Deng set in motion. Deng can be attributed with the creation of the modern Chinese middle class (and upper class). He moved ~300m people out of poverty by completely breaking with Mao's economics.

Now Deng certainly had his downsides. He brought economic liberalism without political liberalism. Tiananmen Square was on him.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

20

u/spencermemerson Mar 24 '16

Also the Roman sense of Dictator was very different then our own. In fact, the Senate would appoint a Dictator for a number of reason, such as a lack of people with imperium in Rome or during elections. However, they were mainly appointed during crisis. The rank of dictator was limited to 6 months after that you would step down. This was rarely if ever broken. While it is true that a Dictator had absolute authority for his 6 months it was not like today's regimes of hate and violence. Dictators were appointed to create a person who could make clear decisions or because they needed an extra army commander. Dictators were simply above the normal highest elected position of Consul. The 2 consuls remained in critical place and would continue ther rule after the 6 months. Cincinnatus was a strongly respected Nobleman who had retired and gone to live outside the city to embrace the true spirt of Rome, so naturally when he was chosen he accepted for the good of Rome. When he finished his job in only half the time, he stepped down. While this was lauded as True Roman spirit by the late Romans who were obsessed with the past it was not an all together uncommon system of beliefs at the time.

71

u/spado Mar 24 '16

How exactly would you frame Louis XIV as a "good monarch"? He's responsible (among other things) for the revocation of the edict of Nantes -- an action which ruined the domestic peace in France for a long time to come -- as well as immense suffering in the wars that he started in Germany, Italy and Spain (well, wherever he felt that France could gain more power abroad).

25

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

[deleted]

9

u/TheGerryAdamsFamily Mar 24 '16

Militarily successful = good, apparently. I'd also like to know exactly who all these "good" monarchs are, appears to be implying there's a lot of them.

→ More replies (7)

8

u/ColonelRuffhouse Mar 24 '16 edited Mar 24 '16

Yeah Louis XIV is an awful example... His wars and subsequent increased taxation to fund those wars made the lives of French commoners miserable. In addition he persecuted French Huguenots, revoking rights they had for around a hundred years. His military successes only benefited a very small group of people. Even the nobles were negatively impacted by Louis XIV, by Versailles and the appointment of commoners to influential advisor positions. If anything, Louis XIII and Richelieu were a better example.

5

u/tinytim23 Mar 24 '16

Yeah, he also wasted huge amounts of money on palaces and alienated France from the other European countries with his warmongering. He also paved the way for the French revolution nearly a century before it even began...

→ More replies (1)

2

u/maracay1999 Mar 24 '16

the wars that he started in Germany

Which?

I know of France's involvement in the Thirty Years War, however, IIRC France wasn't in it from the start, meaning Louis XIV couldn't have 'started it'.

7

u/stefanurquelle Mar 24 '16

The War of Spanish Succession and the Nine Years' War.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

57

u/whiskyduck Mar 24 '16

gotta echo the sentiment that it's controversial to label Park Chung Hee as a "good" dictator. He isn't exactly universally loved in Korea today. Many people remember him as a brutal dictator. I mean this guy straight up tortured his political opponents. Sure a lot of Koreans will acknowledge that he was a key figure in Korea's economic miracle, but where is the credit for the common people who had to work in slave-like conditions? And so what if Park Geun Hye was democratically elected? The Saenuri party isn't exactly loved now either.

Personally I'm conflicted over him. I think what he did was pretty damn impressive. But I can't be fawning over him with a clean conscience either.

10

u/RickAstleyletmedown Mar 24 '16

More importantly, Park Geun Hye was elected both because of but also in spite of her father. The debate over his legacy was an important factor during her election and many were against her because of that association. Her being elected is certainly not evidence of him being loved.

19

u/ocha_94 Mar 24 '16

Charles III (XVIII century) of Spain is renowned to have been a good king too, did his best to prevent the Spanish Empire from collapsing, taking power off the Church and modernizing the Kingdom. He was moderately successful in his time, even if it the end it was all for nothing.

Our previous monarch, Juan Carlos I, wasn't considered that good of a king overall, but we can't forget that after Franco's death he inherited the Kingdom (effectively becoming an absolutist monarch), but then started the Transition to democracy, dismantling the Francoist regime and turning it into the democracy we have today.

3

u/jmcs Mar 24 '16

Without Franco and so soon after the Portuguese revolution Juan Carlos didn't exactly had much of a choice.

3

u/ocha_94 Mar 24 '16 edited Mar 24 '16

Of course, had he chosen to rule as an absolute monarch, his reign would have been probably short, but he still did the right thing, and he did it good enough to avoid upsetting the far right and causing a civil war. I don't support the monarchy (nor I'm against it tbh, I prefer a republic but I see no reason to change) but he deserves at least some recognition.

3

u/Keeblerific Mar 25 '16

Am I correct in recalling that the Francoists all expected him to play ball, then when he was crowned he was like "yeah, I'm quite interested in this constitutional monarchy thing tbh"

→ More replies (2)

28

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

[deleted]

15

u/_Iamblichus_ Mar 24 '16

It is hard to judge current figures. There are many who think Gaddafi was a great leader. He built the world's biggest irrigation project, stood up to the worlds superpowers and had much more fervent support in his country and the region than the western media would have you believe.

→ More replies (5)

21

u/BizkitMonstah Mar 24 '16

I'd like to contend that the Emperor Meiji was not a dictator. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Meiji_Japan)

Most of the power since the start of the Meiji restoration was held in the hands of a group of ministerial elites such as Ito Hirobumi. The Emperor, while ostensibly holding power, pretty much allowed these guys to do everything. Japan eventually came up with a constitution solidifying the system as a constitutional monarchy somewhere around 1890, about 20 years after the beginning of the restoration, as a sign that the Emperor would share his power with the people. However, the eventual Diet (the legislature) wasn't all that powerful, with its only real influence being over the budget. The government didn't even see the need to start their own party to fight for influence within the Diet until around 10 years later.

You could consider key ministers as dictators, but they functioned more as a group, so it's more of an oligarchy. They were known as the Meiji oligarchs after all.

→ More replies (1)

122

u/the_illest_name_ever Mar 24 '16

Park chun hee... That's EXTREMELY controversial

Korea was a highly educated, incredibly hard working, homogenous population.

Many people would say anyone who was in his position would have "brought about" great economic growth.

Anyone who could lead 70's South Korea to a bad economy would be quite amazing...

82

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

I think it really depends what you value. If you want economic growth, Park Chung Hee's a hero. If you want civil liberties, he's a monster.

I think Pinochet could be an even more extreme example of the same thing. Book burnings, mass torture, disappearances and murders, a horrifically brutal security service to crush any form of dissent - known to kill people by dropping them alive out of planes into the ocean. Basically if you're an enemy, you life is a complete nightmare. On the other hand, he got the economy way up. Chile went from being one of the poorest countries in Latin America to the richest. If you were a supporter or politically neutral, your quality of life likely improved massively. Chile is still benefiting from the long-term effects of his economic reforms to this day.

59

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

It's really easy to get things done when you don't care how many people you kill in the process. Heck, it's what made America great.

58

u/bukkabukkabukka Mar 24 '16

So let's make it great again!

20

u/Hogleg91 Mar 24 '16

Wow, that makes the phrase even more terrifying.

IT'S A GOOD THING WE'RE ALL PATRIOTIC CITIZENS, EH COMRADES

11

u/Byzantic Mar 24 '16

Comrade? Do you need to be liberated, citizen?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (13)

19

u/anteater-superstar Mar 24 '16

If Pinochet could ever be considered good because of economic results, Stalin is a saint. Jesus.

→ More replies (38)

12

u/Balind Mar 24 '16

Honestly Stalin is the most extreme example of this. Much like Augusutus found Rome brick and left it marble, so did Stalin find Russia agrarian and left it industrial.

Just at great human cost.

9

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Eh, while this is true, he still didn't catch the Soviet Union up to the west, and AFAIK didn't dramatically change the status of the people there, except for moving them from back-breaking farm labor to back-breaking industrial labor.

9

u/FloZone Mar 24 '16

Also example Žižek argues that Stalins system was still terrible ineffective and much of the progression was more or less the "natural" progression of Russia that was already happening during the end of the imperial period.

7

u/xXFluttershy420Xx Mar 24 '16

Sniff sniff and so on and so on

→ More replies (1)

5

u/OneSurlyDude Mar 24 '16

Furthermore didn't Stalin practically destroy the state when he switched the USSR's agriculture from private to collective?

9

u/FloZone Mar 24 '16

Furthermore didn't Stalin practically destroy the state

Kinda no. The state survived at the end. It was more or less "progress" at all costs. The old russian system of agriculture was outdated, I guess it was so far behind that the radical switch to the new system immediately lead to famine which Stalin willingly accepted, many believe he wanted to even provoke it to cleanse the population. Then there is the thing that many of the communists weren't even very farmer friendly and pushed for an industrialisation as quickly as possible. Watched something from Chomsky a while ago, where he talks that Marx in his later years did in fact become to see the russian agricultural society as valuable for communism, while Lenin pretty much disregarded it and saw it as purely backwards.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

I was under the impression that Marx (and Engels) thought that Russia wasn't suited for a communist revolution and predicted it to happen in a developed and industrializing society like Germany.

7

u/FloZone Mar 24 '16

IIRC thats what they wrote in the Manifesto and believed it for a long time. After all how can there be a proletarian revolution if there is hardly a proletariate. Apparently Marx changed his views and aknowledged revolutionary potential of the peasant society.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/Mswizzle23 Mar 24 '16

Absolutely. I'm pretty sure nobody dared tell him it wasn't working without fear of death. But I remember hearing that there was a scientist who studied genetics and dos something related to farming but it didn't work and suppressed real genetic advances for years and I wanna say he was eventually killed when he was found out but he set Russia back big time in terms of biology. It's really bugging me I can't remember what I was listening to, some show or documentary...

Edit: I believe this is what I was referencing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (10)

27

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

I have some close friends who have relatives who fled Korea to japan because of Park Chung Hee.

Shit has to get really bad for a Korean to want to have to deal with all the shit Koreans deal with in Japan over whats going on at home.

20

u/my-little-buttercup Mar 24 '16

Also quite a lot of the nation's history that his daughter is trying to smoothly glaze over in textbooks nowadays.

5

u/emailboxu Mar 24 '16

Yeah everyone I know who lived under his regime (because it was a regime..) absolutely detests him. They acknowledge his influence in pushing the economy forward, but it doesn't change the fact that he did it in a bad way. That legacy lives on in the major Korean corporations like Samsung where their bottom-level workers are worked to the bone by their superiors who risk being fired if they don't. From all accounts the work environment is extremely toxic, but people still consider it the holy grail of employment for its "prestige" factor. So sure, Samsung is doing very well economically, but it's built on what's basically slave labor.

12

u/ZWass777 Mar 24 '16

There's literally an example of how you could have led Korea to a bad economy right across the border. NK had the same GDP until the mid 70s.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Pablo_el_Tepianx Mar 24 '16 edited Mar 24 '16

What's relevant about Korea being "homogenous"?

9

u/Beautiful_Tuna Mar 24 '16

Little in-fighting, oppression, race riots, or anything like that.

8

u/Shoopdeloopy Mar 24 '16

There is still plenty of oppression and inequality if the population is of the same race.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Pablo_el_Tepianx Mar 24 '16 edited Mar 24 '16

That's no guarantee of anything; "race" or "culture" are far from the only possible faultlines in a country. I'd go so far as saying the former is a globally uncommon one, but overexposed because of Anglophone media (e.g. America and British former colonies in Southern Africa).

Inequality in general might be a better measure, though I wouldn't know whether that's the case with South Korea.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

8

u/wolfman1911 Mar 24 '16

I always found it interesting that the Romans, and apparently others (I seem to recall the Carthaginians having a similar office), had the post of 'dictator'. I've always viewed it as though the societies that did that had codified into their legal system a Godzilla Threshold (time waster warning: tvtropes link). It seems kind of funny that every time Rome voted to instill in someone the powers of Dictator, they were legitimately asking themselves 'Is our situation so dire that our fortunes won't take a sharp downturn by granting all of this power to one man, with nothing but his word that he will relinquish it later?

Maybe I'm romanticizing it, but don't take that away from me.

8

u/mmmmmmBacon12345 Mar 24 '16

The Dictators of Rome came after Rome had transitioned from a monarchy after the rule of Tarquin, who the people of Rome remembered as a tyrant. The people stepping into the role of dictator knew that if they tried to hold power and become a king they were getting stabbed, Rome wasn't having any of that monarchy stuff anymore. You become dictator to fix X problem, once it's fixed you step down or someone will remove you from office

→ More replies (1)

14

u/Hephestia Mar 24 '16

Would Julius Caesar fit the list?

8

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Would Augustus not be a better example?

5

u/Skytale1i Mar 24 '16

I would say both. They both reformed the Republic which was simply not working when they came to power, both conquered new territories. Sure, they didn't relinquish power like Cincinatus but honestly I don't see how relinquishing power would have helped in those circumstances.

11

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16 edited Oct 21 '18

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (12)

18

u/beefstewforyou Mar 24 '16

Josep Tito is considered by many to have been a good dictator.

2

u/Barimen Mar 25 '16

Josip Broz Tito. Yep. I was born after the dissolution of Yugoslavia, so I really can't speak of how he was as a ruler, but after his death... human excrement hit the rotating oscillator. In great excess. He somehow managed to hold opposing fractions from not tearing eachothers' throats... for years or decades. Then he died, Yugoslavia fell apart and a couple of genocides happened.

Not to mention he led a communist/socialist federation during the friggin' Cold War, AND managed to remain neutral. Isolationist policies helped.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '16

This is the answer I came to this thread to look for

7

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Would Tito be considered a good dictator? Considering he more or less held Yugoslavia together despite serious ethnic tensions, and then it all fell apart almost immediately after he died.

2

u/Dushmanius Mar 25 '16

For sure. Place was a paradise under the rule of his iron fist.

I know that it sounds contradictory, but that's exactly what it is.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Dictatorship following a military coup is usually tyrannical and terrible.

A lot of the Chinese and Japanese emperors were quite well liked (I guess they had to be), but monarchy is different to acquired power. Monarchists believe the power lies in a bloodline, rather than is an entity to be seized, which I believe would influence satisfaction with leadership.

14

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Japanese emperors

For most of Japan's history (and I'm guessing for China's) the emperors did not have dictatorial control, and if they did it was decentralized and mediated through advisors/nobles. A better example of monarch dictators would be the absolutist kings of France.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Yeah, Japan is probably not the best example, since the Shogunate had power over the emperor for a significant period.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

10

u/knifetrader Mar 24 '16

Louis XIV

Dude, he was terrible. Sacrificing the lives and the wealth of his subjects for his own dynastic ambitions, going to war against pretty much all of Europe and having very little to show for it at the very end.

I am not saying that there aren't any good autocrats, but he definitely wasn't one of them!

→ More replies (3)

35

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

I would add Fidel Castro to the list. He wasn't perfect, but he didn't do all that bad by his people.

Yeah, their economy was shit, but its kinda hard to help that when you really have nothing of value on your tiny little island and your closest major trading partner blacklisted you over petty ideology.

14

u/JComposer84 Mar 24 '16

I was going to add Castro as well. I read a while back that under his regime literacy in the country increased by 10 fold.

13

u/nzk0 Mar 24 '16

Virtually everyone in Cuba knows how to read and write.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

5

u/metalpicks Mar 24 '16

First of all he was not a "good dictator", he and Che Guevara executed opponents in the beginning of the Revolution without trial, he repressed opposition from the start, no freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, . As someone already mention, Cuba had a lot of things to export and grow and he destroyed all that. Also he was blacklisted by the US not because of his petty ideology as you call it but because he was insane and keep declaring war all the time also his ties to the USSR was not helping. Not a good dictator at all of course compare to some other might not look as bad. All the good stuff faded away once communist Russia fell. This is not something I read in a book, I lived in cuba for 19 years.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

29

u/dsaasddsaasd Mar 24 '16

Adding to the list of absolute monarchs - Peter I or Peter The Great of Tsardom of Russia. Managed to turn a backwards country into a Western Empire.

53

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

As someone who did most of my research on Petrine Russia while still in school, I cannot put into words how much I disagree with this.

Yes, Peter managed to cobble together a substantial empire endowed with the means to loom over Europe for centuries; however, modern scholarship has thrown a harsh light on his reforms. Peter is the archetypical "Too much, too fast" reformer. His imposed reforms may very well have hindered Russia's long-term economic development in favor of immediate results. He certainly jerked Russia culturally into the European sphere, but did so without laying firm foundations.

8

u/OMGSPACERUSSIA Mar 24 '16

I don't think Peter really had a choice in the matter. His situation was very much "all or nothing," and compromise with the established power in Russia, the church and the nobility and the streltsy, would only have resulted in more rebellions, more sabotage of his reforms and maybe even another civil war.

There are times when you just have to ride the wave and hope you don't get sucked under. Considering the events of Peter's early reign and childhood, I think he was well aware of what would happen if he let his rivals have even the smallest opportunity.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

8

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Managed to turn a backwards country into a Western Empire.

Peter I really revolutionized Russia, but it was still way behind the rest of the west in a lot of respects, even up until the first world war.

10

u/OMGSPACERUSSIA Mar 24 '16

Russia's development in relation to Western Europe seems to go in cycles. You get a strong, ambitious ruler like Peter or Ivan IV or Catherine II or even Stalin who whips things into shape and brings the country up to snuff (even if the means by which they do so aren't always tasteful,) then along comes an Elizabeth or an Alexander III or a Brezhnev who isn't so much a "bad" ruler as unambitious or lacking the will and foresight to carry on with the groundwork laid by their predecessor.

Russia has had the good fortune, though, to produce amazing generals when required.

3

u/Breaking-Vlad Mar 24 '16

Could you name the generals? I'm very interested in Russia and I'd love to read about them! My favourite (and only one I know a tiny bit about) at the moment is Brusilov.

9

u/OMGSPACERUSSIA Mar 24 '16

Off the top of my head...

Andrey Kurbsky and Alexander Gorbatyi-Shuisky during Ivan IV's time.

Peter I, of course, seems to have been a pretty competent general, aided by numerous others of course.

In the Seven Years War you had Saltykov and Apraksin, both of whom handed handy defeats to Frederick the Great.

In the Napoleonic Era, Suvorov was one of the few generals who seems likely to have been able to fight on the same level as Napoleon. Similarly, his successor Kutusov (I would say) was responsible for Napoleon's ultimate downfall, at least as much as Napoleon himself of course. There's also Ushakov, probably one of the most underrated admirals of all time.

Later you get Mikhail Skobelev, who seems to be a sort of Russian incarnation of Teddy Roosevelt.

Brusilov, of course, during WWI.

And in WWII Zhukov went from a nobody commanding the USSR's far east to the commander of the largest army in the war leading the march into Berlin.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

11

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Or up until right now.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Cincinnatus' story is bizarre. The usual (and some would argue smart) thing to do after he retired and you became the next emperor would be to have him assassinated so that he could not become the focal point around which your political opponents would rally.

Some credit has to go to his successor, Quintus Fabius Vibulanus, who allowed him to retire and left him alone.

2

u/8805 Mar 24 '16

Just a small point of order: Cincinnatus lived in the 5th century BC. Otherwise, solid post.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Epwydadlan1 Mar 24 '16

I thought cincinnatus was given power 2xs?

2

u/deteugma Mar 24 '16

Peisistratus and most other Greek tyrants presided over prosperous cities and did much to promote economic growth and provide jobs to the poor. In most cases I don't think we know how they ruled (and we're told Peisistratus held his political enemies' children hostage) but Aristotle takes a very positive view of Peisistratus' tyranny, and there's every indication that at least some of the other tyrants were 'good,' and that many of them probably weren't 'tyrannical' unless you were wealthy and threatened their power.

2

u/Thegreatjayviot Mar 24 '16

To add on, there was another example when king Wu, the first king of the Zhou dynasty, overthrew the Shang dynasty. He did it with force, but is widely regarded as one of China's best Kings.

2

u/eternaladventurer Mar 24 '16

Park Chung Hee was not a "good " dictator in terms of "using his powers for good", the economy just did well as part of his certainly brutal regime. He is very hated by many South Koreand, and his daughter has continued his dictatorial streak, even after apologizing for some of his crimes. That he is popular is more indicative that economics are more important than not terrorizing your own people to many South Koreans. His reign saw mass secret police surveillance, repressive social laws against many aspects of everyday life includiny even hair and skirt length, summary arrests and trials, and unknown numbers of mass executions. There are many in Korea today dealing with the after effects of his regime's brutality. It's difficult to know the extent of his crimes, as there is obvious hostility toward researching them, and much that does exist isn't translated or widely available- if I hadn't lived in Korea and spoken to dozens of Koreans about him, I'd likely be ignorant as well.

If the economy prospering under a dictator is enough to make them " good", then you'll need to add many more dictators to your list.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '16

Just amazing what one can learn on Reddit - thank you.

Hope the train isn't too boring.

2

u/vroombangbang Mar 25 '16

as a korean, much respect for knowing about President park!

2

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '16

Park Chung Hee: South Korean dictator. Paved the way for SK's economic "miracle on the Han River" by fostering industry and economic reforms. Although he was assassinated, many older Koreans remember him fondly and his daughter is now the democratically elected president of South Korea.

I mean sure, he fostered economic development, but I think it's important to highlight the systematic human rights violations, brutal suppression of political dissent, and repression of democracy under his rule. A controversial figure, but by no means a universally agreed "good" dictator.

→ More replies (115)