History HubΒ permalink
What makes a dictator?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by baz (U14258304) on Sunday, 27th November 2011
I have read a few books on some of the dictators of the last 100 years( Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot) but haven't been able to come to any conclusion as to why they turned out so bad.
Mussolini and Franco, as well as any of the South American and Eastern European dictators, I haven't got round to reading about yet; but those that I have seem to have had a few things in common: a strained or abusive relationship with fathers; doting mothers and/or other females; a seeming inability or unwillingness to make a living for themselves.
Of course, these things may be just coincidences, so does anyone have their own views on how dictators are made? -
Message 2
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Monday, 28th November 2011
I think that dictatorships sometimes come about when military figures become civilian leaders, and they try to run the territory the way they would run the army, and it doesn't work that way....
Of course, you're referring to the famous dictators of recent times, and none of those names are British. I would like to raise the issue of a couple of British dictators in colonial history, and they were both military leaders appointed to rule islands who were recently conquered by the British from Spain. Edward D'Oyley became governor of Jamaica upon its conquest from the Spanish in 1655, and ruled with an iron hand, executing Majors Tyson and Raymond for daring to question his refusal to relax his grip. Eventually, this successful military leader, but resented governor, was recalled to England, after ruling Jamaica like a dictator.
Then there's the much-worse case of Sir Thomas Picton, who became the military governor of Trinidad after its conquest at the start of the nineteenth century. Like D'Oyley, Picton felt that he needed to impose a harsh dictatorial regime because of threats from freed and subjected slaves, as well as possible Spanish and French invasions. However, Picton's reign of terror went too far, and his civilian replacement, Fullarton, felt the need to collect evidence for the Crown to take legal action against him.
There was a nice episode in Garrow's Law last night on him, which was fairly close to the truth, though the real ending left one with an even greater taste of dissatisfaction than the way this TV show ended.... -
Message 3
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Monday, 28th November 2011
Being a total failure at everything - yet blaming everyone else for it?
Being anally retentive?
Refusing to listen to absolutely anyone else at all about anything, ever?
Having some psychotic fantasist dream about stealing land from other people?
Having homo-erotic fantasies about uniforms and exercise? -
Message 4
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Monday, 28th November 2011
Successful power-grabs on the scale required for a dictator, are probably only possible for people with a highly manipulative personality. There are serious limits to the amount of power an individual can effectively wield, so the dictator must somehow convince others to do his bidding. More, he must create (or inherit) a system in which this worship of the man in power ("Fuhrerprinzip") becomes pyramidal and all-pervasive. This is easiest, of course, for military dictators.
Probably most "great dictators" have psychopathic traits. But they need something more than that, because pure selfishness is not a good basis for a regime. It is important for the dictator to have a credible "mission statement" that justifies his rule. It often comes with a strong belief in destiny as an elevating force. Probably it is significant that most dictators insist on a quasi-religious worship that goes well beyond the demands of propaganda. Historically, religion has created fewer dictators than soldiering, but it has created some. (And communism counts as a quasi-religion complete with prophets and holy writ.)
Many but not all dictators have the mindset of addictive gamblers, taking huge risks (Barbarossa, the Great Leap Forward, the Hundred Days) without considering the consequences of failure. Regardless of losing or winning, they will raise the stakes the next time. Their capacity for long-term planning is low, instead they rely on their talent to improvise and their ability to squeeze more out of the population. -
Message 5
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 28th November 2011
Good points there shivfan re Edward D'Oyley.
And let's not forget that D'Oyley was himself a lieutenant of England's very own military dictator Oliver Cromwell. As Mutatis Mutandis rightly points out the conditions of a society are key to a dictator's ability to command authority. It is in no way ironic that Cromwell was initially offered the crown. His refusal was symbolic but ultimately cosmetic. To many at the time Oliver was king in all but name. To an ordinary peasant his new regime would have seemed no different to the new regime of Henry Tudor 160 years earlier or no different to the new regime of Henry Bolingbroke 90 years before that or the new regime of William of Normandy 330 years before that - and so on. -
Message 6
Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Monday, 28th November 2011
I went to a great talk analysing Gaddaffi recently where the very distinguished speaker said that there was essentially no point in trying to psychoanalyse dictators. It was all summed up, he said, by Lord Acton who wrote that 'power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely'. It corrupts absolutely in different ways with each dictator but it always does. It is absolute power that makes a dictator so grotesque.
-
Message 7
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 29th November 2011
For the grotesque aspects, perhaps yes; although there are many ways of being corrupt and dictators have more in common than statistics would allow by coincidence. And it fails to explain how people become dictators -- and why other people accept this process.
-
Message 8
Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Tuesday, 29th November 2011
'dictators have more in common than statistics would allow by coincidence' Such as what before they become dictators?
'And it fails to explain how people become dictators -- and why other people accept this process.'
Not really. Dictators are relatively commonplace in human history. People accept them because it is what they are used to: power in the hands of one man and a small group of his supporters. Their opponents very rarely want to get power in order to give it away, they want the power for themselves. -
Message 9
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 29th November 2011
No, that still doesn't make much sense. While dictators are "relatively commonplace" and have a high profile, they are not the most frequent or "preferred" government. Throughout history, the most common form of government seems to have been more "corporate" in nature, consisting of a ruler (who might be hereditary) balanced by the representatives of other powerful groups in society (the Roman senate, the most powerful feudal lords, the high priesthood). Dictatorships around a single powerful figure have been "relatively rare" and are probably most characteristic of societies disrupted by a deep crisis. They also tend to be unstable and relatively short-lived.
But even if we would accept the thesis that people are willing and indeed eager to accept dictatorship as a form of government, we would still have to explore the mechanism that brings some people to power as dictators. It collides too heavily with the facts to assume to the dictator is some random John Doe who gets accidentally propelled to power and develops specific personality traits only afterwards. Men like Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not elevated accidentally to power: They intrigued their way to the top with determination and ruthlessness. Gadaffi was a mere lieutenant when he staged a coup.
There may be some exceptions. Franco, for example, became dictator by the accident that killed the chosen leader of the military rebellion. But such cases are rare, and men who have no talent at all for dictatorship, usually don't survive long when they are shoved in one's shoes. -
Message 10
Posted by RusEvo (U2126548) on Wednesday, 30th November 2011
Well the reason a dictatorship is short lived must be because they often become more and more based around that one person in power. Cults of personality are created and the power base around that person is constantly built up. Then the only way out is death (by old age or assasination).
Would it right to imagine that the way they usually get into power is based on being part of a group and a cause (which many people will accept), but they evolve into dictators later rather than being a Stalin or a Mao on the first day on the job? -
Message 11
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 30th November 2011
Let us examine what is a dictator: I think it is someone who has unbridled power. He can get there by any stratagem or any prevailing philosophy. For example Stalin arrived as the personification of Communism; Hitler and Mussolini as fascists; Gaddafi originally through Arab Nationalism as did Nasser and Saddam Hussein.
Henry VIII was a dictator, particularly from 1533, when he became the unquestioned the supreme head of the English Church and shortly thereafter became a big executioner. No less than 27 beheadings took place from 1533 onwards. One of the first was of a young woman, known as the 'Maid of Kent.' She had delusions of being sent by God and talked to people about religion and about what was in the future. She started speaking about the King' s divorce from Catherine of Aragon and said some bad things about the consequences to the king if he persisted. She was arrested and questioned about who had listened to her. Sir Thomas More was one of the people who was under suspicion and Bishop Fisher. It took a long while to convince Henry to spare Sir Thomas, however, not for long.
Tas -
Message 12
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Wednesday, 30th November 2011
Henry VIII was a monarch not a dictator. The former rules by hereditary right and is restricted, to an extent, by the laws of the realm. The later does not rule by hereditary right nor is he restricted by laws.
Henry did have dictatorial personality though. -
Message 13
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 1st December 2011
Islanddawn,
Henry VIII was a monarch not a dictator. The former rules by hereditary right and is restricted, to an extent, by the laws of the realm. The later does not rule by hereditary right nor is he restricted by laws.
Henry did have dictatorial personality though.Β
You are not using your mind once again!
Of course we all know that Henry VIII was a monarch. However, as I said in several messages including the one you responded to, in 1533 Henry had made himself Supreme Head of the English Church, so there were no more restraints on him. For that reason, and perhaps others to do with his big accident while jousting; a big blow to the head; he had become a very changed person. Till then there were few be-headings; now he finds this innocuous maid, who had became a nun, who took herself, and a lot of people took her, seriously, I mean 'the Maid of Kent.' Henry unleashed all his sadistic inquisitors upon her, not only to get her to confess her sins but also to involve other important people, who had merely heard her. Eventually she was burnt at the stake.
This is a lot worse behavior than any dictator by birthright; Henry became a dictator by anointment. Do you see the subtle and dark humor there or are you just not able to understand and beyond salvaging?
Tas -
Message 14
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 1st December 2011
Island Dawn,
When you say: The former rules by hereditary right and is restricted, to an extent, by the laws of the realm. The later does not rule by hereditary right nor is he restricted by laws.Β
If you know anything about King Henry VIII's rule in the 1530s, the Parliament was just a big rubber stamp for him. There was no restriction to him by the laws of the realm. Every dictator has some kind of rubber stamp assembly; Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Gaddafi, Nasser, Hussein, whether they call it the 'National Peoples' Congress' or whatever. They all like to have all their bizarre decisions stamped with the approval of the appropriate assembly. That is in fact their modu operandi.
Tas -
Message 15
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Thursday, 1st December 2011
Oh lord help us, a monster has been unleashed. Half way through his first book and thinks he is an expert.
You can cut the condescending and patronization Tas, no-one is fooled. But if you really think Henry was a dictator and not a monarch, you must explain why, how and what made him so. As you have made the claim then the onus is on you to prove your contention, not merely say that he was and expect everyone to agree. Read the OP again. -
Message 16
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 1st December 2011
Half way through his first book and thinks he is an expert.
You can cut the condescending and patronization Tas, no-one is fooled. But if you really think Henry was a dictator and not a monarch, you must explain why, how and what made him so.Β
Islanddawn, on my worst day I can give you a course on History.Although I say I am not a historian, which I am not;( I do not pretend to be well-read like you) I am completely at peace with myself, because history is not the only area of endeavor for me; it is the realm of ideas.
I quote: - "Elizabeth Barton, also known as the Holy Maid of Kent, and five others-two benedictine monks, two observant friars, and Barton's confessor- were taken to the Royal killing ground at Tyburn. There Barton, perhaps because she was a woman and allegedly confessed to being " a poor wench, without learning" having fallen into " a certain pride and fantasy with myself," was shown the mercy of simple death by hanging. The priests endured a good deal more. They too were hanged, but before the full fate of traitors; cut down while still alive and brought to consciousness, they had their genitals cut off and stuffed into their mouths, their intestine torn from their bodies and thrown into the fire, their beating hearts pulled out of their chests and held up where they could see them. Finally their bodies were cut into four quarters for display in different parts of London, their heads boiled and put on stakes. AS THEY HAD NEVER BEEN TRIED it was impossible to know how exactly, they had committed treason, or whether given the opportunity, they might have been able to establish their innocence. The public was left free to conclude that they had died for displeasing the King. The king, no doubt, wanted it to conclude exactly that."
Now suppose you were to be charged with listening to an uneducated peasant girl and was to be sentenced to the Gulag (Stalin), or Dachau (Hitler) or be given the sentence given to the benedictine monks, say, which would you chose? The sentence form the Dictator or you very legitimate and much loved king? Answer me that.
Tas -
Message 17
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 1st December 2011
The distinction between a dictator and the leader of an oligarchy seems difficult to draw. At what point do bodyguards and henchmen then become a clique and at what point does a clique then become an oligarchy and at what point does an oligarchy then become an aristocracy or even a ruling class?
Benito Mussolini, for example, was always technically and officially inferior in the Italian constitution to King Victor Emmanuel II. At the end of the day 'Il Duce' was no more than a glorified prime minister. And it was Mussolini's own Fascist Grand Council which eventually deposed him. Yet Mussolini is one of the first names which springs to mind whenever the word 'dictator' is mentioned.
In French history, both Napoleon I and Napoleon III are sometimes referred to as dictators and yet both also took on the titles and trappings of monarchy. In the case of Napoleon III he in fact morphed from republican politician to dictator and then to emperor in the space or 4 short years.
The term 'dictator' seems to be highly subjective and overlaps with other notions of government. There probably aren't any easy answers to the opening poster's question. It's a fascinating topic though. -
Message 18
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Thursday, 1st December 2011
You are funny and are still avoiding the OP's question Tas. All kings had people killed, there are no big relevations there. But it did not make them dictators.
Just to refresh your memory, here is Baz's question
I have read a few books on some of the dictators of the last 100 years( Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot) but haven't been able to come to any conclusion as to why they turned out so bad.
Mussolini and Franco, as well as any of the South American and Eastern European dictators, I haven't got round to reading about yet; but those that I have seem to have had a few things in common: a strained or abusive relationship with fathers; doting mothers and/or other females; a seeming inability or unwillingness to make a living for themselves.
Of course, these things may be just coincidences, so does anyone have their own views on how dictators are made?Β
As you don't accept the dictionary definitions that I gave of the differences between a monarch and a dictator, perhaps you could explain to exactly how, why and when Henry became a dictator, instead of a monarch. And in light of the OP. -
Message 19
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Thursday, 1st December 2011
Always check before pressing the button.
Read revelations in the above and not relevations. -
Message 20
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 1st December 2011
All kings had people killed, there are no big relevations there. But it did not make them dictators.Β Aren't unchecked executive powers make anyone a dictator, no matter what the title is? I don't think that any of the post-war European monarchs killed anyone - at least without due process, - but the're basically just figure-heads, with no real executive power.
-
Message 21
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 1st December 2011
Hi Suv,
Aren't unchecked executive powers make anyone a dictator, no matter what the title is? I don't think that any of the post-war European monarchs killed anyone - at least without due process, - Β
You have hit the nail on the head, absolutely. bravo!
Tas -
Message 22
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 2nd December 2011
Aren't unchecked executive powers make anyone a dictator, no matter what the title is?Β
Does it? If we work according to the dictionary definitions of dictator and monarch (as we must) then no, they are different. As I said previously, Henry was certainly dictatorial, but he was still a monarch and I don't think one who could be placed in the ranks named in the OP.
I don't think that any of the post-war European monarchs killed anyone - at least without due process, - but the're basically just figure-heads, with no real executive power.Β
Yes, you are correct to point that out Suv. I had realised I should have excluded the modern era as soon as I had pressed the post button, an edit function on this board would be a wonderful thing. And too much to hope for in light of current Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ cut backs, I suppose. -
Message 23
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 2nd December 2011
By coincidence today is the 160th anniversary of Louis Napoleon's famous 'coup d'etat' of 2nd December 1851:
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.