Talk:Benevolent dictatorship

.

Because open source software may be forked, such "dictatorships" are fully voluntary and incorporate the democratic ideal of "consent of the governed". This statement is highly POV. And it doesn't make sense. A dictatorship is by definition not voluntary for anybody but the dictator. A dictator may (needs to) enjoy some support, but even consent to be ruled over is not democracy. According to Popper, democracy requires that the leader can be overthrown, not that some subjects can sail off to an island and found a new state. There's a huge cost involved with forking. Unpopular forks and fragmented projects will just die and all effort will be in vain. "Benevolent dictators" are always self-appointed, they are alpha types who want to keep ownership and control, but offload the work to the crowd and get free publicity.--87.162.35.138 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a bad analogy that someone just made up. I've removed it. Recury (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That is of course wrong, elected dictators (both historic kings and modern rulers) are dime a dozen and history is full of people yearning to be ruled with a firm hand, whether they choke late or not is not quite the topic. 92.251.63.47 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Economic Modeling

I don't have any sources, but oftentimes economic modelers use the construct of a benevolent dictator to describe an altruistic planner who optimizes the entire economic system's operation for the common good. This probably could use some mention here if anyone has the relevant sources or experience. 129.186.252.43 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

benevolent dictator versus corrupted elected government

It would seem that a benevolent dictator does more good for his or her country than the waste that ensues when an elected government is corrupted by external money just to get elected. Dictators such as Castro, Khadafi and to some extent Chavez have put their lives on the line so that their homeland could be run more efficiently to the benefit of its citizens who receive free medical care, education and transport. In some cases, the dictator allows a government to be elected for the day-to-day decision-making and as in the case of Chavez allowed his dictatorship to be confirmed through general election. Compared to the prime example of "democratic" government, the United States of America, where more than half of the congress is indebted to the Jews of the U.S.A. and Israel and where more money is spent on overseas adventurism for the benefit only of major corporations to the detriment of its own people, the regimes of Castro, Khadafi and Chavez must be commended. In the case of the U.S.A. where the "elected" President caves in to the corrupted demands of his congress that has been bought by lobbyists, government is definitely NOT of the people, by the people for the people but for the Corporations instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.164.78.219 (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. --77.7.42.17 (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I agree as well, but wtf does that have to do with the article? Good paragraph, though. Xzpx (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Tone seems to be adequately encyclopedic

I came to this on the basis of the community pages, as an article needing style editing. I saw one sentence that was clumsy and adjusted it, but don't see problems with the tone or style. It seems adequately encyclopedic to me. So, I am removing the category that flags it for problems with tone. Of course, if someone disagrees, they can put it back, but if they do it would help to point out specifically what the problem is. AlbertBickford (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Kārlis Ulmanis

I know nothing about Kārlis Ulmanis (haven't even read the article), but I noticed that searching for 'Kārlis Ulmanis benevolent' via Google gives me several hits (some of them - several books - may be reliable). Maybe Google Books has more hits. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Article has been semiprotected two months per an edit warring complaint (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is not currently protected on any level, as far as I can tell, and many battles in the edit war have been conducted by named editors (I'm looking at you, Tuvixer). — Harry (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

So how have I edit warred? Please, if someone removes sourced material without explanation he is disturbing the article, and that edit has to be reverted. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Benevolent Dictators

This one sentence of the lead has caused like 90% of edits in the last year or so. In the aim of culling down the lead and adding an onus for evidence, I have removed many of the named leaders/dictators, leaving only three names on the basis of being well-cited or generally undisputed. These are Tito, Atatürk and Lee; these names are examples that illustrate the concept for uninitiated readers and are less likely to lead to confusion than others like Roosevelt or Marcos.

If you wish to restore other names, please do so in the new section (Benevolent dictators), providing discussion of their reign and the use of the term to describe it. I have added Tito to prompt people, but please do edit this section, as I'm by no means an expert. This approach should (fingers crossed) lead to constructive argument and a more informative article than the current bickering over a small (but growing) sentence of the lead.

In case you're looking to start sections on other leaders, I have transcribed the previous entries and their "citations" here: Bourguiba Park Chung-hee Roosevelt Qaboos bin Said al Said Kagame Abdullah II of Jordan Ferdinand Marcos

I will be playing gatekeeper for a while here. DO NOT mess with the names in the pertinent sentence in the lead without very good reason. If your favorite "benevolent dictator" isn't mentioned in the lead, add him(/her) in the relevant section, but be prepared to defend your claim with more than a token citation. (Might be worth seeing this Reddit thread for some examples, if not great citations.) — Harry (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

António de Oliveira Salazar should clearly be here. Fig (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not Hitler? Jakracer (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Western Dictators?

Ah, I don't seem to recall that the idea of a philosopher king from plato or in general the term benelovent dictator refers as stringintly as here to someone with "pro western" stances :-)! I do jest a little bit but it seems that many of the descriptions themselves seem to include this as an example of benelovency. Relativism much? Of course, you only take things sourced in western media. Honestly though I do not disregard the list. I might add the King of Bhutan to it who measures the success of his country in accordance to the standard "GNH" or "Gross National Happiness"! If someones intentions ever were enough at least I think he should have a place... 92.251.63.47 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benevolent dictatorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120201152634/http://portalimprensa.uol.com.br:80/colunistas/colunas/2009/02/25/imprensa374.shtml to http://portalimprensa.uol.com.br/colunistas/colunas/2009/02/25/imprensa374.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Shavkat Mirziyoyev (Exit visas)?

Could Shavkat Mirziyoyev be considered a benevolent dictator, or is it too early to tell? He has made efforts to abolish the Soviet-style exit visa policy. By no means a humanitarian, just a bit better than Karimov.PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Akbar "the Great" of the Mughal Empire

Would Akbar "the Great" also be considered a "benevolent dictator"? He did abolish the jizya and try to promote religious tolerance, creating the Din-e-Illahi faith.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

Pedro II of Brazil made efforts to abolish slavery, has been called benevolent dictator by some. Should be in article?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil actually ruled with an elected parliament and a Prime Minister. He held much power, but wasn't a properly said dictator. Vargas, on other side, was a dictator, but guaranteed rights to workers, poors and women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.11.40.111 (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gaddafi as a benevolent dictator?

The thread in this article that edits Gaddafi as a benevolent dictator had no citation at all; and the claim is quite hyperbolic. At best the claim for Gaddafi as a benevolent dictator should be controversial, and not worthy of a separate thread.WeifengYang (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

How was he not one? He built a lot for his people, and made Libya much more fair, and offered a strong standard of living to all in doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.228.5 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Muammar Gadaffi

I am aware there's another section for this, but it's two years old. There appears to be disagreement over whether Gadaffi belongs in this article as he was in fact a dictator who did many horrific things. Furthermore, the section in question (see below) used an RT article, which, according to WP:DEPS, is not valid beyond serving as a primary source. @98.202.127.55: (i do not know how to @ IP users) claims that the sources are opinion pieces, and are therefore invalid. I understand the sentiment here, and partially agree, but two of the articles are pure numbers. The HDI is solid, News24 less so. Another thing is that we are more documenting beliefs here than inserting our own opinions. I believe we shouldn't do away with the paragraph altogether because we are discussing "benevolent dictatorships" afterall, but I do believe we should make some heavy edits to the segment. Once again, thank you to 98.202.127.55 for pointing out these issues. puggo (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

After the overthrow of the Idriss Government in 1969, Muammar Gaddafi became the head of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. His reign lasted 42 years before his overthrow and death. Despite being a repressive and authoritarian leader, many of his actions have had positive effects on the country and people. Healthcare, education, and electricity were free for all people, newly-weds would earn 60,000 Libyan dinar (47219 USD) upon their marriage, housing was provided throughout the country, free of charge, and a river was constructed, connected to major cities throughout the desert country. Under his rule, the literacy rate of Libya was raised from 10% to 90%. The HDI of Libya was 0.801 in 1997, which would be considered "high human development", making it the most developed nation in Africa, and nowadays comparable to nations in Eastern Europe and South America in terms of development.

So, part of the problem is that "benevolent dictatorships" refer specifically to dictators whose rule wasn't marked by violent repression. That is, they had near-total power, but they rarely, if ever, significantly abused it. There are other segments of the article itself that discuss this, such as the segment referring to a benevolent dictator not as a wolf among livestock but a rancher herding them. Gaddafi's rule objectively fails that criteria. He killed people he labeled as enemies of the state vigorously throughout his reign, and this was extended to all sorts of innocent people who simply disagreed with his corruption or even just those who had things he wanted. He may have raised the country's HDI, but this was also while pilfering its coffers frequently for himself. He kidnapped foreign nationals and subjected them to torture in order to attempt to coerce sovereign nations to give preferential treatment to his friends and family. Any one of those tendencies would disqualify his rule as being classified as a benevolent dictatorship, but he fails all of those criteria. In addition, many of the claims made in the previously existing blurb were simply official state propaganda, and were revealed as untrue after he was no longer in power.

If you look through the edit history, you'll see that the article at one time included Hitler, under the argument that he massively improved the standard of living of his people and the state of the economy in his country. He was correctly removed from the article after it was pointed out that simply improving the standard of living of your country's citizens is not what turns a despotic dictator into a benevolent dictator. By definition, a benevolent dictator mostly avoids violently repressing or exploiting his people, as well as those belonging to other nations. Hitler's rule failed that criteria, so he was permanently removed from the article. Gaddafi's rule also failed that criteria, so it's not possible to rescue the section on him. He doesn't qualify for the definition of the article, and attempts to keep including him were what were opinion-based. So, any references to him must be removed from the article entirely. 98.202.127.55 (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree that Gaddafi does not meet the criteria as he lacked a political position in the first place. Being a "de facto" leader does not mean much in practical sense. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, some of the people cited as benevolent dictators lacked political experience. Gamal Abdul Nasser came to power from a coup and had no previous political experience. Same with Adbul Karim Qasim. So, that argument is kinda void. And over his 42-year rule, the guy probably gained a huge amount of political experience.

Honestly, I'd say we wait like a few decades for this. Like what his article says, it will take a lot of time to determine if Gaddafi was truly a despot or a benevolent authoritarian. We just have to wait to see what history sentences him to.

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Moamer el Gadafi (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is Chávez included in this article?

Claims regarding his supposed benevolence should be substantiated, as it has become clear that Bolivarian missions' main goal was electoral support, regardless of the effectiveness of the social programmes or of any other Chavista policy more generally. On the contrary, I cannot think of a more perfected klepto-kakistocracy when contemplating Venezuela under Chavista rule. The entry should be removed. GianXXIV (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

All of these leaders have major issues, and these should be presented, but criticisms need to be neutral in tone or a direct quote from a reliable source. No one is saying Chavez is a good guy (I certainly don't think so). Bacondrum (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see the biased tone or unsupported sentences of mine. What propositions, specifically, do you regard as non-neutral or unsubstantiated? GianXXIV (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

hey, I'm not accusing you of bias or making unsupported claims. Your prose are just not neutrally worded, not encyclopedic in tone. Also, much of the detail is undue here, more suited to the main Hugo Chavez article. This kind of language is not neutral: "In more precise terms", "it may be called into question", "was supposedly endowed with" - see WP:WEASEL. I've reintroduced two of your sources and improved the prose to reflect said sources better. Tone and due weight are this issues, hope that clears things up. Bacondrum (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Castro was a dictator

Hey JesseRafe, I'm personally a big fan of Castro, so much so that my first travel outside of my home country was a trip to Cuba. El Caballo was the very definition of a benevolent dictator, I have the highest respect for him, but he was a dictator without doubt. The following is a short list of academic papers that describe him as such:

• https://www.jstor.org/stable/26912705
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/26202013
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/27503672
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/40711988
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/27503659
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/42894754
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05069
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/4147547
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/27778586

etc. etc. etc. I reckon this list might be inexhaustible. There's a clear consensus in academic literature that El Caballo was in-fact a dictator. No matter how much one might appreciate what Castro achieved. Bacondrum (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I was away for a while and just did some random hit-and-run edits elsewhere since, as I didn't have the bandwidth to give this proper weight and didn't reply even if it looked like I was "active". Thank you for doing this legwork and starting the discussion below, looks like it's resolved (though I'd've liked to see some examples kept as they're well-sourced, alas). Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC - is it fair to describe Castro as a benevolent dictator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{For the purpose of inclusion in this article, do reliable sources support the description of Fidel Castro as a benevolent dictator?

• (A) Yes
• (B) No

Bacondrum (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• (A) Yes Not completely sure - If any examples are to be given at all, then yes. Castro was a dictator, single party state, no free elections, media suppression, human rights abuses, longest serving head of state in the century. But, much like the other examples given he was not necessarily the archetypal cruel and greedy tyrant. Just a cursory look through Jstor provides a seemingly endless list of academic papers that describe him as a dictator:

and more than a few academic and news sources that use the term Benevolent dictator:

Sources

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/980783 "The success of Cuba under the benevolent dictatorship of Fidel Castro" https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/90003823 "a regime which has “the benevolent dictator”, where there is a “reciprocal love” between the dictator and the people...even Cuba under Fidel Castro." https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Political_Economy_of_Dictatorship/o4G8SlNUROoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover "In any case the allure of the concept of benevolent dictatorship is well known - whether it is indeed the rule of a philosopher-king, an enlightened despot, Fidel Castro or the Nicaraguan Sandinistas..." https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/fidel-castro-en/article117187763.html "If Latin American history is any guideline, there are reasons to believe that Castro's image as a benevolent dictator who stood up against the United States — as he has long been seen in parts of Latin America — will be overshadowed by a cold analysis of the shattered country he left behind, and by his brutal repression of political and press freedoms." https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1977/06/19/the-other-side-of-castro/8d2e4a36-9244-4bcb-96c0-1d85b8f0cd92/ "Therefore, Castro can now afford to be the benevolent dictator." https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/07/28/state-of-the-revolution-production-is-high-in-milk-garlic-long-speeches/0c0fa40a-1c97-401a-a4b6-9dc243ec8a29/ "With all the self-assurance of a benevolent dictator 28 years on the job, President Fidel Castro once again managed to mesmerize the Cuban people with a 135-minute reading from his well-worn handbook." https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2000-02-08-0002080270-story.html "The photographs he took of the Cuban leader and his associates during the first years after the revolution are masterful propaganda; in them, the benevolent dictator presides over the grateful masses." etc. etc. etc.

Bacondrum (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No per WP:WIKIVOICE, we avoid stating opinions as facts. Here are some examples of the opposite opinion, together with supporting evidence. "Surviving Castro's tortures"[1] Also "As the tensions of the Missile Crisis escalated, Castro wrote Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev urging him to use the missiles and to sacrifice Cuba if necessary."[2] Yes, the PBS source is saying that Castro advocated starting a nuclear war. See also the article Human rights in Cuba for a list of further examples. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Adoring nanny, I don't necessarily disagree. What do you think of the others listed as examples at this article?

• Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
• Josip Broz Tito
• Lee Kuan Yew
• France-Albert René
• Gamal Abdel Nasser
• Paul Kagame

I don't know much about René or Ataturk, but I know that the others have also overseen serious human rights abuses. Perhaps there shouldn't be "modern examples" given at all, as they are all contestable. What do you think?

Nasser no way. For one thing, see Johann von Leers. For another, see Palestinian fedayeen. For a third, see Six-day War. Lee Kuan Yew did play a significant role in raising Singapore from absolute poverty to the level it is at today. And Tito did excellent work fighting the Nazis, then managed to stay out of the Soviet orbit, and freed up his people significantly far earlier than did the Soviet bloc. That said, I don't have enough familiarity with the sourcing related to Yew or Tito to form a strong opinion.Adoring nanny (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the entire section, it's a POV nightmare. Thanks for the feedback. Bacondrum (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• No per WP:WIKIVOICE Idealigic (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Absolutely Not- This is pure opinion and violates NPOV and Wikivoice. Even some of the supposed sources saying such are editorial opinions while the Miami Herald article only states bd and counters with highly negative comments regarding castro. Benevolent is an opinion that can be countered with 5x stories of torture and abuse so unless it's the murderous, torturous, benevolent dictator which has equally as many sources it should not be included. SailedtheSeas (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• No. Per WP:V. I couldn't access all of the sources, but the ones I could access were either unreliable opinion sources, or did not state in their own voice that Castro was a benevolent dictator. It seems highly unlikely we'll be able to find sufficient sourcing for this exceptional claim no matter how hard we look. R2 (bleep) 22:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think this is actually two separate questions: whether Castro was benevolent and whether Castro was a dictator. I think that the sources describing Castro as a dictator are pretty strong. But I would definitely hesitate to describe him as "benevolent" with the current sources. (For that matter, I'd hesitate to describe any dictator as "benevolent" and view the entire examples section as a giant NPOV violation.) Loki (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that no dictatorship is truly benevolent, or desirable in any way, shape or form. But for the purposes of this article Castro was the first to come to mind, I've seen and heard him described as such more than any other leader besides Marcus Aurelius. I think if Castro is not a good example of a benevolent dictator then none of the others presented are either - I do have questions as to whether any examples should be given, perhaps only the concept should be presented as examples are always contestable. Bacondrum (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Another idea would be to merge this article with Philosopher king, what do you think? Bacondrum (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to just rip out the examples section. I agree the concept is notable, and distinct from the concept of a philosopher king. But I don't see any reason to include examples, nor do I think examples can be given neutrally even if we had a good reason to include them. Loki (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Bacondrum (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Supplementary question

Should any examples of modern "benevolent dictators" be given at all? Bacondrum (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• No. Wikipedia is not TV Tropes in the sense that there's no expectation or desire that an article about a concept will contain a list of examples of that concept. And even TV Tropes balks at lists of real-life examples of "tropes" like this. This looks like a giant violation of NPOV to glorify a bunch of dictators to me. Loki (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool, Do you think I can just be bold and remove them all? Or should I wait for more feedback? Bacondrum (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• If there are good sources, however- I had looked earlier at the ones listed and the only one that I'm a little familiar with is Tito. They each definitely have sources that say they are bd's, but there are also many sources that are critical of Tito's brutality and that is actually why I was a bit familiar with him and was surprised to read its source. I think the problem is that the sources even if not obvious are effectively opinions and like some body parts everyone has one. So I'll limit myself to Tito and don't think he should have this descriptor because there are far more sources that describe him as someone who put the hammer down on his people. So having said that, I would tend to lean that unless there is no counter argument about the person being other than a bd, then they should not be listed. It's kinda of like the old Mussolini joke, at least he got the trains running on time however his people definitely had an opinion as to how his life should end.SailedtheSeas (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)}}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.