English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-04-16 04:56:18 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

8 answers

In Roman terms a dictator was a man given absolute power by the Senate during a public emergency, after which he was quietly to retire. Cincinnatus is said to have done precisely this, twice.

In modern usage the word is applied to people who have no intention of retiring to their farms. Hitler and Stalin of course are the prime examples, though they are matched by others in Africa, Asia and Latin America, who have often been as cruel as those two, but lacked the resources to have anything like the same impact outside their own borders.

Still, there are degrees. Mussolini and Adm. Horthy of Hungary refused demands from Hitler to turn their Jews over to him, and Franco accepted as refugees most of those Jews who managed to reach Spain. As nasty as those regimes were, I think I would prefer them to a Pol Pot or an Idi Amin Dada.

It is, however, difficult to come up with a dictator I would consider benevolent, as they all do whatever is necessary to repress political opposition. Perhaps Batista, who allowed a degree of freedom of the press, was relatively better than Castro in terms of civil liberties, but it was not pleasant for a dissenter to live in Cuba under either. And, I don't know, by the stage the USSR had reached by his time, could Gorbachev even be considered a dictator?

2007-04-16 06:01:04 · answer #1 · answered by obelix 6 · 0 0

Well, maybe not in the beginning. Some dictators may have had good intentions in the beginning, fostered by love for their countries. But, somewhere along the way, greed and selfishness became the driving force behind their aspirations. The greed and selfishness is what is evil. Wanting to be the sole leader, with no checks and balances on their power, is the epitome of evil.

2007-04-16 12:03:35 · answer #2 · answered by monica_dietz@sbcglobal.net 4 · 1 1

No - the word "dictator" comes from Latin where it used to mean "authoritarian" or "strong man". Even though being an authoritarian is risky as having most power typically corrupts people (if they weren't corrupt or unethical to begin with), there are examples of strong, authoritarian leaders throughout history (Pericle in ancient Greece for one) who were not evil.

It's in the last century that people known as dictators have been pretty much evil (Hitler, Stalin, etc.)

2007-04-16 12:04:44 · answer #3 · answered by MaxO 2 · 1 0

I don't believe they set out to do evil things. They think they know what is right for everyone and to get people to act the way they want them to they sometimes have to use excessive force.

Most evil is caused by people who know they are right.

2007-04-16 12:02:14 · answer #4 · answered by asmikeocsit 7 · 2 0

yes, one has to have something mentally wrong, to have the mind set to strive to be a dictator in the first place. how many " nice guy dictators" have you ever heard of?? the sultan of bruni is not one, either.

2007-04-16 12:06:26 · answer #5 · answered by bghoundawg 4 · 0 1

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

http://www.bartleby.com/59/13/powertendsto.html

2007-04-16 12:10:17 · answer #6 · answered by MOM KNOWS EVERYTHING 7 · 0 0

No. The Sultan of Brunei treats his people well, for instance.

2007-04-16 11:59:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Well, yes. It's why they are referred to as same.

2007-04-16 11:59:52 · answer #8 · answered by cwoodsp 2 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers