I would say Ataturk. He is literally perfect. The ratio of the good he did to the bad, if any, stands unsurpassed in history. And he's cool, too. As President Franklin Roosevelt said, "My sorrow is that, there is no more possibility to fulfil my strong wish about the meeting with this man." Cool, isn't it.
Perhaps. But what did he leave in his wake? What happened when he died? Benevolent? If so, he should have provided for the future of his nation ...which he did not. That being said, I don't think the Earth has ever seen a "benevolent" dictator ...at least one that was human! Baron Max
Under Lenin, Russia was not a very good place to live and raise a family! There was lots of starvation, hunger, disease, sickness, poor education, poor living conditions, etc. So how do you figure that Lenin was such a benevolent dictator? Baron Max
i live in a family that has 4 generations going back to lenin. he was a benevolent dictator. a true humanitarian, whether history books paint him as such or not. his concern was truly for the people of the russian nation.
Lee Kuan Yew is an interesting choice -- though I am not sure how he would feel about being described as a dictator. But it is interesting to consider how far Singapore's undoubted success is down to him. Maybe Stamford Raffles continues to deserve a lot of the credit, for believing in "location, location, location" (to borrow a phrase). Singapore is a prime piece of real estate and only the Japanese invasion has badly interrupted a long history of fairly continuous commercial success. Maybe the success of Singapore (like that of Hong Kong) also speaks for the utility of the City State. Generally, urban clusters are what people live in. Anything bigger (nations, federations) is by way of being a political invention and imposition upon the geographical reality. City States can respond to problems more quickly; officials are not forever engaged in communicating between national and local levels; key individuals can know each other personally; people can better assess what is really going on. Long Live the City State! Independence for Cheltenham now!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej King Rama IX, the current King of Thailand. Quite the benevolent, progressive, and beloved monarch, as noted that he is still alive, and is already gained the epithet "The Great". Also, Prince Hans-Adam von und zu Liechtenstein. I likes him, he's a good ruler.
Is there no internal conflicts and political problems in Thailand? And if so, doesn't that mean that there are some Thias who don't like what the king is doing? and if so, if he was a benevolent dictator, then he'd solve their problems, right? Why don't he? Baron Max
Baron Max: Since when does benevolent = all powerful and perfect? You really are shifting the goalposts, Baron. NO leader or political body in history could fit your requirements, including governments elected by indirect democratic processes. It's also amusing how you fob off Ataturk, conveniently ignoring all the good he done for Turkey. A leader is responsible for ruling their nation after they are dead? That's... fascinating, Baron. In the following, I'm going to assume that benevolent dictators = dictators who made or maintained a successful country/nation/empire. Success hinges on a number of factors, including population happiness, strength of the economy and military, land available, life expectency, etc. Personally, I think that the first 10 Ottoman Sultans were quite 'benevolent' for their time. They built and maintained a brilliant empire which incorporated many people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Persia and the Arab Empire also had their far share of benevolent dictators. Julius Caesar was a wonderful dictator. Many of the Roman emperors were quite impressive, although Augustus and Vespasian seem to come to mind most readily. António de Oliveira Salazar was also a rather good dictator, although he did lose Portugal's colonies (but then again, who wasn't losing their colonies in the late 1900's?)
No, I don't think I'm shifting goalposts. For one thing, benevolent does NOT mean being partial to one group of citizens, while ignoring the needs/wants of another group. Thus, if Thailand has political turmoil and insurgent rebels, then the leader can't rightly be called "benevolent". Perhaps, "pretty damned close to benevolent, but not quite"?? No, they're not MY requirements, they're requirements of the definition of "benevolent leader". And ye're right, no leader in history would or could qualify for that term in my humble opinion. Successful in what terms? For all of the people? Or just most of the people? I would also question your idea of "...made or maintained..." I.e., Hitler made and maintained a successful nation for a while, didn't he? So by your definition, Hitler was a benevolent dictator. And there have been many such "benevolent dictators" who have had some short-term successes. So now we have to limit the times involved? Can we call Hitler a benevolent dictator ...for a few years?? I don't think that's what we'd like to say, is it? Baron Max
General Castro seems to be loved by most Cubans, even though they're poor. If the USA didn't impose so many sanctions against them, it may have been a different story, but the fact still stands.
And just where have you gotten that impression? I will say that, in the beginning, Castro WAS loved ...but in later years, as his power became more and more dictatorial and tyrannical?? No, I don't think so. But if you can show some evidence, I'd love to read it. The reason for most of the sanctions is because of Castro's horrendous human rights abuses. Surely you can't abide by that, can you, and want the USA to tacitly approve of the abuse by trading freely with him? Baron Max
