Title: Are there any historical examples of a benevolent dictatorship? : AskHistorians
Headings: Are there any historical examples of a benevolent dictatorship?
Are there any historical examples of a benevolent dictatorship?
This thread is archived
Black Panther members once openly carried firearms and would stand nearby when the police pulled over a black person. They would shout advice, like the fact that the person could remain silent, and assured them that they'd be there to help if anything went wrong. Why did this stop?
Millennials in the US widely believe that getting hired was easier for their parents & grandparents, who are known such stories as “I walked right up to manager and said, ‘I’d like a job, when can I start?’ He hired me on the spot!” How true was this in, say, 1970?
Why did the US Government name its states after Native American tribes it was actively trying to wipe out?
In Mad Men the ad-men are always depicted with a decanter of whiskey in their offices and taking drinks in the afternoon. When did alcohol become a “thing” in the workplace and when did it stop becoming such a thing?
This list of causes of death for 1632 Londoners has some familiar causes (consumption, drowned, etc.) and others that are not so familiar, such entries for "Rising of the Lights" killing 98, and "Planet" killing 13. When did death records start being collected systematically in standardized form?
Why do Communist societies that we've seen tend toward authoritarianism and dictatorial-style arrangements?
A strange thing I noticed about US states is that usually, the capital of the state is not the largest city in it. Why is that?
When and why did the word "overmorrow" fall out of usage?

Content: For more on Peter, see James Cracraft's "Major Problems in the History of Imperial Russia"
So, as you see, 'benevolent' dictators do things that most people would find 'good' or 'needed' (such as uniting a disparate people, promoting secularism, or modernizing a society to be more competitive) but go about it in a ruthless and destructive manner which most people would find objectionable (killing political opponents, torturing, quashing dissent). Many historians argue that by enforcing such developments through brute force, the dictators gave up long-term progress for short-term visible gains and the foundation of deep divisions and suspicions were never healed, merely papered over. The Balkans erupted in discord after Tito's death, the Armenians and Kurds of Turkey still suffer from being "outsiders" in a Turkish nation, and Russia's social problems are quite evident in the years after the fall of the Tsar and the Soviet Union. 30
level 2
Misiok
7 years ago
In school they taught me that Greek city-states in dire times of need elected a dictator (AFAIK that was the first time when the word 'dictator' was not used in a negative way) to rule them with an iron hand or so (whatever the city-state needed as a whole) until the crisis was averted. Any truth in that? 5
Continue this thread
level 2
ezravbk
7 years ago
What about oliver Cromwell? 0
Continue this thread
level 2
mcr55
-5 points · 7 years ago More than 1 child
Continue this thread
level 1
toryprometheus
7 years ago
Tito was most definitely not benevolent, but there are plenty. Just in the 20th century, you have Ataturk, Deng Xiaoping, Lee Kwan Yew accepted pretty universally as benevolent and autocratic. 5
level 1
mcr55
7 years ago
From what ive read every dictator has some black marks on their record and some have some redeeming qualities. But this also true for democratically elected leaders.