In dictatorships, the leader has a tendency to oppress the people and strip their freedoms to secure his position. Do all dictators need to do this to prevent an overthrow? Let's say that there is a benevolent, good-intentioned dictator with absolute control over a country. Is it possible for him stay in power without using an iron fist against the country? If he allows the people to have rights such as freedom of speech and criticism, will that soft-handed approach likely lead to a revolution against him? Or can he still succeed even if he gives plenty of rights and freedoms to his people?
2007-03-23 08:17:04 · 3 answers · asked by bcwhite88 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
For the most part oppression is needed to keep the dictator in power. Only one dictator in my life time gave up his power as he promised he would. Augusto Pinochet held the free elections he promised after disposing of communist usurpers in his quick and almost bloodless take over of Chile. Only some 5,000 communists were made to disappear so they could not run off into the Andies and create havoc on the Chilean people. Pinochet lost in the election he held and gave up his dictatorship as promised. He is of course the exception, Castro, Stalin, Hitler, and now Chavez are the garden variety type dictators that need to be dead to be gone
2007-03-23 08:28:25 · answer #1 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its call a Kingdom. The King is the dictator. Many Kingdoms have been very benevolent, but many have been ruthless.
2007-03-23 15:25:02 · answer #2 · answered by LIL_TXN 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
An oxymoron. Eventually, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2007-03-23 15:21:20 · answer #3 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋