Could there ever be a benevolent dictator?

[Quintus Ennius]

We are talking about Hobbes in my school and i'm just wondering if it is possible to even have a benevolent dictator?

[Darcy88]

Marcus Aurelius was a good guy if we are to judge from his Meditations. I am not up on my imperial Roman history too good, only in spots. As greedy and power-hungry as Julius Caesar was, he enacted some much-needed populist reforms. Sulla was a blood-thirsty man, but he also implemented some positive legislation as dictator and then simply handed over power. I don't see why a benevolent dictator wouldn't be possible. Nowadays though just for the simple fact that we are used to democratic freedoms, any dictator who arose would have to kill and confine an endless number of political activists, would have to put in place a merciless comprehensive police-state, and so "benevolence" wouldn't be possible for such a leader. I like democracy, it has so many great faults but its imperfection is a reflection of our imperfection. Idealism is for fools . Hobbes was no fool but his philosophy was a product of the time. Its been so long since I read it but I remember thinking how plainly wrong he was on this issue.

[Bad Grass]

In the sense of the term, of course there can be a benevolent dictator…in its own sense.
One man rule doesn’t mean there isn’t a just man.

But then comes the catch-22.

Since a dictator is not elected, the seating of such is enforced, typically by a form of para-military.

At this stage, show of force has been exercised, although confrontation is not necessarily present.

Good governance can still be had. Depending on the society under such a regime, the dictator may show concern for the people. If his efforts are for the further advancement of the state and seeks to be recognized as a sovereign nation then yes, he could indeed be popular. Which is the other part of the catch-22. If the interest is toward the people, then ultimately, some form of democracy will be sought.

Now, if it’s a religious state, then there will more likely be factions, and resistance will surely be inherited. Saddam Hussein was a prime example. He took command via a coup. But he inherited two factions against him. In such lays irony. To rule was to rule by iron fist, which is bloody – but it was rooted in religious belief.

Governance for the people tends to give way to democracy.

Governance which doesn’t embody the people leads to animosity.

So can there be a benevolent dictator? Yes. Will he stand true? Not likely.

[Paulclem]

I think think there's a dictator myth, just like there's the kingship myths - divine right of kings and all that.

[Bad Grass]

Excuse me Paul. A dictator myth? Okay.

Since no one is posting. Somalia is an awful regime. Something has to give with that country.

It’s funny how the U.S. can declare war on terrorism, but not drugs.

Oh, they take out Bin Laden. But not the Kingpin. Really?

[cacian]

No.
Benevolent is one word and
Dictator is another.
It is a bit like saying you cannot have beautiful and ugly at the same time and in one word.
The beauty and the beast?
Well that is a myth/ a fairy tale isn' it?

[Darcy88]

No.
Benevolent is one word and
Dictator is another.
It is a bit like saying you cannot have beautiful and ugly at the same time and in one word.
The beauty and the beast?
Well that is a myth/ a fairy tale isn' it?

The words "benevolent" and "dictator" are not contradictory. It is not an oxymoron. Marcus Camillus was a benevolent dictator in the Roman sense of the word dictator. There is absolutely no reason why it would be impossible for a dictator to be benevolent. A man wise and able as Solon could arise somewhere and be popularly proclaimed leader of the state for life. Why not? Its unlikely, very much so, but by no means is it impossible.

[cafolini]

The words "benevolent" and "dictator" are not contradictory. It is not an oxymoron. Marcus Camillus was a benevolent dictator in the Roman sense of the word dictator. There is absolutely no reason why it would be impossible for a dictator to be benevolent. A man wise and able as Solon could arise somewhere and be popularly proclaimed leader of the state for life. Why not? Its unlikely, very much so, but by no means is it impossible.

Obviously a dictator can be benevolent toward those he favors and protects with his rulings and policies.
He could be a nepotist whenever he wished to be so. History is full of them and today, history on the make is full of them.

[Darcy88]

Obviously a dictator can be benevolent toward those he favors and protects with his rulings and policies.
He could be a nepotist whenever he wished to be so. History is full of them and today, history on the make is full of them.

A benevolent dictator could actually favour the state and people as a whole. Be fair in adjudicating class conflicts and such matters. It sounds shocking and beyond reality and may never happen, but it could, however unlikely, in fact occur.

[FranzS]

There are entrenched power structures at the top of every society, and always have been. This is as true of democracies as of dictatorships. Anyone who wants to attain power has to either remove these power structures (usually very difficult) or compromise with them. Typically, both are required, because while you can cut the head off the monster, you can't establish your own power without winning over the people (civil servants, military etc.) who actually know about the day-to-day business of running a country. These people will typically have blood on their hands when you take over.

Then, once you're in power, from the very outset there will be people who want to take it away from you, because however decent your own intentions, there will always be others who seek power for its own sake. The only language these people will understand is force.

Hence, power compromises everybody who attains it.

One can theorise about the possibility of benevolent dictatorships all one likes, but one can't duck the issue of human nature.

[Jair]

I don't understand the logic of saying that at the moment an individual gets a certain job he is barred from being able to be benevolent.

If I can be benevolent, why can't he?

[Darcy88]

There are entrenched power structures at the top of every society, and always have been. This is as true of democracies as of dictatorships. Anyone who wants to attain power has to either remove these power structures (usually very difficult) or compromise with them. Typically, both are required, because while you can cut the head off the monster, you can't establish your own power without winning over the people (civil servants, military etc.) who actually know about the day-to-day business of running a country. These people will typically have blood on their hands when you take over.

Then, once you're in power, from the very outset there will be people who want to take it away from you, because however decent your own intentions, there will always be others who seek power for its own sake. The only language these people will understand is force.

Hence, power compromises everybody who attains it.

One can theorise about the possibility of benevolent dictatorships all one likes, but one can't duck the issue of human nature.

This is a great post. In the ideal a dictator can be benevolent though. If he or she governed with a very very strong mandate from the people then anyone who attempted to usurp the power of such a dictator would be attempting to usurp power from the people, from the majority of citizens, which, in modern democracies, is where power ought to lie.

[OrphanPip]

Hobbes meant a benevolent dictator not really in the sense of being compassionate or good, but in the sense of an aristocratic ideal of rule for the good of a nation or people rather than the individual.

Although, I tend to agree with Mill that there is a sort of violence inherent in the idea of dictatorship, that even ruling over others sincerely with their best interest at heart means that one must first reject the right of self-determination. Of course, democracy doesn't mean the individual is fully enfranchised in society, but they are at least insured a certain voice.

[Harlow58]

In the sense of the term, of course there can be a benevolent dictator…in its own sense.

[Lokasenna]

Not that I know much about the subject, but Mustafa Kemal Atatürk strikes me as a prominent and relatively recent real-world example of a benevolent dictator. He seized power through military means, and his hegemonic rule of Turkey was undisputed. But his actions deliberately laid the seeds of democracy, to come into effect upon his death. Also, Turkey's relative peace and prosperity, particularly compared to some of its neighbours, can be directly attributed to policies he laid down in the formation of the state.