Benevolent Dicatorships

[columbus]

One would assume continuing to have the adoration of the people(by being the chosen successor of the Benevolent/Enlightened Ruler), and the lifestyle that affords you, would be enough. I am not sure as to why it does not work out that way more often.

Because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?
I can see one person learning how to rule benevolently, and still surviving a while. But that is the freakish exception to the rule. So two in a row isn't likely.
Tom

 

[Sunstone]

I think about a third of the population (at least) of any society or nation is comprised of people who are natural born followers. They instinctively prefer some kind of strongman to rule over them -- perhaps because they are incapable of ruling over themselves. To me, the notion of a "benevolent dictatorship" is romanticism, or perhaps escapism, that mostly appeals to folks who were born to follow.

 

[DawudTalut]

.......
What do you guys think about this concept? Is it possible to have a Benevolent Dictatorship? Are the words benevolent and dictatorship even compatible? If so, can you give (more) historical examples and support your decision with arguments?

Am very curious ^^

Peace be on all rulers and subjects:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayub_Khan_(general)

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I've just finish a biography of Louis XVI of France. He abolished torture, established regional assemblies, encouraged agriculture and industry, routed out corruption, cut public expenditure, etc. At every turn he was opposed by vested interests. The revolution broke out because he was too nice: if he'd crushed the Rohans and Orleans, followed the example of his father and suppressed the Parlements, and given rioters a whiff of grapeshot, the reforms could have been given time to succeed.