Abenevolent dictatorship is a government in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power over the state, but is perceived to do so with regard for the benefit of the population as a whole. It stands in contrast to the decidedly malevolent stereotype of a dictator, who focuses on his or her supporters and his or her own self-interests. A benevolent dictator may allow for some civil libertiesordemocratic decision-making to exist, such as through public referendumsorelected representatives with limited power, and can make preparations for a transition to genuine democracy during or after his or her term.[1][need quotation to verify]
Economist William Easterly defines benevolent autocrats as "leaders in non-democratic polities who receive credit for high growth." He notes that it is a popular and politically convenient story but goes on to argue that the concept is not supported by theory or evidence.[2]
Modern usage of the term in a world society where the norm leans much more toward democracy can be traced back to John Stuart Mill in his classic On Liberty (1869). Although he argued in favor of democratic rights for individuals, he did make an exception for what he called today's developing countries. He wrote: "We may leave out of consideration those backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. Despotism is ... legitimate ... in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement ... . Liberty ... has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion."[3]
Benevolent dictator was a popular rhetoric in the early 20th century as a support for colonial rulings. A British colonial official called Lord Hailey said in the 1940s: "A new conception of our relationship...may emerge as part of the movement for the betterment of the backward peoples of the world". Hailey conceived economic development as a justification for colonial power.
In the Spanish language, the pun word dictablanda is sometimes used for a dictatorship conserving some of the liberties and mechanisms of democracy. The pun is that, in Spanish, dictadura is "dictatorship", dura is "hard" and blanda is "soft". Analogously, the same pun is made in Portuguese as ditabrandaorditamole. In February 2009, the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paulo ran an editorial classifying the military dictatorship in Brazil (1964–1985) as a "ditabranda", creating controversy.[4]
Mancur Olson characterized dictators as "not like the wolf that preys on the elk, but more like the rancher who makes sure his cattle are protected and are given water", arguing that they have an incentive to provide public goods at the same time they extract the largest possible surplus for themselves.[5]
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was an opponent of the rights of the plebeians (the common citizens) who fell into poverty because of his son Caeso Quinctius's violent opposition to their desire for a written codeofequally enforced laws. He worked his own small farm until he was called upon to provide leadership during an invasion by the Aequi, Rome's neighbors to the East. An initial Aequi victory caused panic in Rome, whereupon the Senate voted to appoint Cincinnatus as dictator for six months. A group of senators was sent to Cincinnatus' farm to inform him of his new role, finding him while he was ploughing his farm. On learning of the military reverse, Cincinnatus put on his senatorial toga and went to Rome, where he organized a relief force. Sixteen days later,[6] Cincinnatus's army defeated the Aequi and ended the war. Cincinnatus then gave up his dictatorial powers and returned to his farm. His success and immediate resignation of his near-absolute authority with the end of this crisis (traditionally dated to 458 BC) has often been cited as an example of outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue, humility, and modesty.
|
| |
|---|---|
| Forms |
|
| Ideologies |
|
| See also |
|
