history proves that dictatorship is not the correct way to govern, why support a mistake made in the past?

Answer 1

The reason is always the same; that an external threat is terrorizing the population, and only under the care of a strong authority can that threat be neutralized.

Typically, older titles are discarded or avoided in order to placate the people. For example, Caesar Augustus went to great lengths to avoid the title "Rex", which was Latin for king. Instead, he chose the title "Princep" which means First Citizen. It was a euphemistic title for an absolute monarch.

Even terms like dictator and tyrant were at one point in time not regarded as a bad term. A dictator came from Republican Rome, who was a person granted emergency executive authority in times of crisis, and would have abdicated his authority after a single year of being dictator. And often times, a Roman Dictator would have resigned from his position as dictator once the threat was neutralized, even if a full year had yet to pass.

The word tyrant comes from the Greek word "tyrannos", which was simply a governor of a Greek province. The word itself first became associated as being negative after a string of extremely autocratic Greek tyrants.

The word Emperor comes from the Latin word "Imperator", which means, quite modestly, Commander-in-chief. The first instance of the word Emperor being used in its modern context was the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 A.D as "Emperor of the Roman People".

Even in China the ancient term "king" was avoided. When Qin Shi Haung united China after the warring states period, the title he assumed was "Haungdi". which is commonly translated as Emperor, but literally means "above kings".

In modern terms, all of the above mentioned euphemisms have been phased out in favor of modest, Republican titles. Adolf Hitler may have been "Der Fuhrer", the Leader, but his official title was Chancellor. Benito Mussolini's official state title was Prime Minister.

Communism was built on the false pretense of being run by the people, so official titles of even the most tyrannical despots tended to be almost comically unassuming. Vladimir Lenin's title was Chairman of the Council of the People's Commissars. Joseph Stalin's official title: First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, often times abreviated in English to simply Premier. First Secretary, or General Secretary, was the title of choice for all Soviet dictators until Communism's collapse in 1989. General Secretary continues to be the official title of Kim Jong Ill, the North Korean dictator.

Even long time dictators like Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro go by (or went by, in the case of Hussein) the title of president. This seems to be the case with Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe, who despite being democratically elected officials who have seized complete executive authority, still cling to the title of President.

In all of the above mentioned cases, there is one thing in common; the person with aspirations of autocracy all insist on the presence of an outside threat that requires an executive authority, and in order to placate people and lead them to not detect that their society has fallen into autocracy, a modest and unassuming title is always selected, to give the illusion of a fair and just executive. In times of legitimate crisis, such as war, a strong executive authority which can make decisions on the fly is an essential component to the continued existence of the state and society. Therefor, perpetual crisis is an important aspect in the rise of a tyrant.

It is not very likely in the future for a leader to assume a title like King or Emperor or Dictator. If in the future cultural trends swing the world away from Republican government and more towards authoritarian ones, then modern titles such as President or Prime Minister, which to use do not put forth any negative connotations, are most likely to be used.

Who knows? Maybe in time the title "President" will come to be as revolted a title as, say, dictator...

Answer 2

Your question is a good one, so don't feel bad for asking it. The human race does not have a collective memory, nor a collective conscience. Therefore, when an event happens, we are likely to be reminded of it and learn from it the closer we remain to it. However, the further we drift away from that event, the more likely we are to forget its lessons and consequently make the same mistake again.

The same thing happens in an individual life, unless one has really internalized the lesson and thus will not make that mistake again. We wonder why certain people make the same mistakes over and over again in matters such as dating. Some of it has to do with the closeness of the event, while in other instances it has to do with the failure of learning from the first mistake.

In the case of dictatorships, we can have all the collective reminders we want - holidays, monuments, etc. But the fact remains that we don't have a collective memory and we don't control everyone's mind. We can only control our own and learn that lesson for ourselves. We can help others try to get there, but we can't force them to see it.

I would suggest reading Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It is in Book X of The Republic. You'll find it illuminating on this point.

Answer 3

I've lived in the Third World and I can tell you that despotism (not just dictatorship) SUCKS. I know it's corny, and I know it's been said before, but it's absolutely true that democracy is the better way. You don't even need to bring secret police and labour camps into the argument - despotism breeds a type of character that can never take the initiative.
BUT it's also true that 1. large parts of the world are for cultural or economic reasons not suited to democracy, and 2, the western world is entering a post democratic age, with people deciding about less and less under a dictatorship of the market.

Answer 4

The dictator doesn't think it's a mistake and the people have no say in the matter.
Most dictators take control by force and fear.

Answer 5

Most dictators don't believe that them gaining power is a mistake.

Answer 6

History also proves that the majority of people are stupid, easily controlled, and have short memories.