Dictators

how many dictators have there been in history ? Africa has had countless dictators , south america has had there bad share , europe and asia have had some , lets discuss every aspect of dictators .

 

They are usually small.
(Their driving force).

 

Yeah, right. :-?

If you wish to define a dictator as someone who has taken supreme power over a country without being a hereditary monarch, then there have been very very many throughout history; pretty much all the Roman emperors, for one thing. It is often a man who knows himself supported by the army, which has for centuries guaranteed many leaders' rise and keeping of power.

There is one peculiar type of dictator known from ancient Greece. When the democratic politics of the city-states meant that no very much needed reforms could be pushed through, the city would select a turannos, or tyrant, whom they gave supreme power over the city-state in order to make the necessary reforms work without opposition. He would be discarded by revolt or assassination as soon as he was no longer needed and democracy could return.

 

I seem to recall that the Roman dictator originally worked along the same lines as Roel has put down for the Greek turannos. Does anyone know for sure?

 

As far as I remember (and I could be wrong on this) Dictator was a position that could be given by the Roman senate in the days of the Roman Republic. Initialy it was a temporary position at times of national emergency though later men were appointed Dictator for life (Marius I think, and later of course Julius Ceaser). A dictator had the powers of a king but as it was a temporary (or at worst non hereditary) measure it did not mean the end of the republic.

 

Very true. The Romans usually only did this in the case of a national emergency, while the Greeks mostly did it because of a reform program that kept being blocked by influential groups (aristocratic families).

The Roman Emperors of the Imperial era were disguised by Augustus as mere leaders of the same republican system Rome had enjoyed for 500 years; he reinstalled the old institutions and electoral bodies, with the notable exception that the head of each council and chamber was the same man!

 

According to this, the American presidents become dictators in times of war. That´s why they like to make war not love so much. :lol:

One can also say that hitler was chosen, very democratically (1933) and assumed dictatorial powers with most citizens clapping their small hands.
It was a sort of emergency for Germany, also. Ruined economy, ruined power, as compared with 1914, ruined national Spirit.

The problem was just that he was so devilishly nice to the citizens: KdF, vacations and all that welfare they could dream of. And once he was no longer necessary, he had to find a new crisis after crisis to keep his retirement off. And that´s why Stalin liked his policies so much and KNEW 100% that hitler will swallow the bait on Aug 23rd, 1939.

Stalin was so confident that several days before the signing of their Pact he sent invitations to the deputees to Moscow to convene on Sept 1st, in order to tell them that WW2 has just started (imagine f.ex. a deputee from Eastern Siberia - minimum 10 days underway - and on the assigned day everybody came).

 

Fortunatley that's not the way the US system works.

 

It could be considered "unfortunately", since the appointment of a dictator-for-a-while has AFAIR always worked in a country's favour in times of crisis. The problem arises when a dictator gets accepted for life, or when he reshapes the system to be able to remain in office for life and appoint his own successor (Roman example).

 

...or Roosevelt.

But, right, some presidents do like to make love too, even if it may be by using some unconventional means (f. ex. some Cuban products). That is maybe what has saved the Planet so far. :lol:

 

Roosavelt died in office - a little different from being dictator for life

 

i agree , Hitler technically was a "semi-dictator" he got to power in an election , and then he turned germany into a totalterrian state(may be spelt wrong). Lets try to list every"known" dictator in history , it would be interesting to see how many there are , Heres another question "has every country in South America been ruled by a dictator at one point or another" ?

 

It's hard to determine, like you already note yourself, just when a ruler is a dictator. Is an elected leader who subsequently turns his government into a totalitarian state, a dictator? Is a man appointed for a temporary position of absolute power, a dictator?

 

someone who has totaltarrian control over a country at one point or another.

 

canadian, I for once, subscribe for your entry with all four extremities.

Dictator dictates everybody what to/not to do. No matter for how long or short time.

Conc. Roosevelt: Prior to becoming full time politician, he had been a major player in Wall St. blanding city offices (he had for some time also been vice Secr. of Navy) and business, his firm issuing bonds on public contracts (for which he had almost monopoly for some time, due to his pals in NY city council and other political bodies. All of this very, very corrupt.

Then he was backed by his pals form Wall St. for president, because Hoover was considered not tough and dependable enough. For almost 4 terms in office he promoted monopoly, cartels, huge public spending and war: everything on what the high finance could make huge amounts of money, and did. That´s the secret of his huge popularity and election victories time after time. But it was not him who was dictator of the US those days: it was his promoters. IMHO.

 

No, that is how you spell state. :lol:

 

Izaak,
You are describing a politically savvy person who knew how to create an image that the voters approved of; knew how to garner support amongst the powerful elite while maintaing the appearance of a populist man of the people. Any successful politician fits that description to some extent.
I disapprove of Roosevelt's policies and programs and am aware of how inconsistent they were with his previous philosophy however it is hyperbole to describe him as a Dictator. As with many discussions of this nature one must first define your terms. A Dictator does not have a political party( that wields power- not merely a puppet party), nor a Congress with a strong opposition party nor a Judiciary with the power to override his decisions and he does not have to please the voters to maintain his hold on power. These are just the most obvious differences between a powerful politician and a Dictator not all of them.

The temporary expansion of the powers of the President during wartime are unpleasant but necessary according to most everyone who has studied the question regardless of their political orientation.
Exceptions are made under exigent circumstances however his powers are not unlimited. A US President who attempted to fight an unpopular war without significant support of the people would not likely remain in office.

 

So, was Margaret Thatcher a Dictator?
she had enough of a majority in Parliament, plus enough support in the House of Lords etc to basically pass any legislation she felt like.
And she did.

 

Hi Grieg,
I was just hoping to get you out of f your lair.
I am happy you share my view on Roosevelt. Of course, he was not even remotely a dictator. For me (as always ) is the people BEHIND - a problem. The unseen but almost palpable alliances of high finance and big corporate business.
Will you deny that such alliances largely decide who is going to run for which office? Who is going to get a lot of money for campain?

Corporate socialists do still exist and expand their influence through numerous foundations etc. which they control (and not officially possess, due to taxes). I would tend to call the American system an oligarchy of the super-rich.

As to the popularity of a war - everything is a question of media coverage. Properly "embedded" media can do almost anything with public opinion. And the failure to properly supply Hawaii with recon aircraft an send the message of impending war and the armada under way to Kimmel and Short is just another example how to successfully turn public opinion in the desireddirection. IMHO. This is not democratic system, if you see away from the very fact of voting. In USSR there was also secret voting every 4th year - but not a real democratic rule. Otherwise - very similar systems. One party or two - what difference? The fact that people drive SUVs and not Ladas does not mean that the American system is vastly better. Economically yes, but both were (are) far from truly democratic elections of peoples´representatives.

(I am aware that you are likely to disappear again, I know you! :lol: )

 

Izaak Stern wrote:

Absolutely I deny it based on what I know of the system. There is corporate money donated to both sides of virtually every political contest of any consequence in the US. Most often how those donations are decided is the result of the opinions of the current leadership of the organization. Sometimes they donate to both sides. There are restrictions as to the size of contributions and all contributions (above a trivial amount) must be reported and become public record. Do corporate (and special interest group) donations influence politics in the US? Absolutely. Do they control and decide? No.
The US Constitution guarantees people's right to participate in the political process. Despite the presence of weaknesses and abuses in the system the outright banning of people's right to support whatever cause (or candidate) they choose would be repugnant to many Americans.

Several "theories" are implicit in these remarks. One is that the corporate ,Wall street fat cats are secretly controlling the US government and US public opinion. This of course implies collusion and a conspiracy since they must cooperate in order to achieve these ends. Do you have any credible evidence of this conspiracy?
Another refers to the Pearl Harbor attack as a deliberate manipulation of public opinion. Books have been written on this subject, proposing this theory. Although interesting to consider the evidence is not convincing.
One is left with nothing but speculation, which for some people is more than enough.

Similar how? the US doesn't have "secret voting" (except each individuals ballot is known to him alone).

Truly democratic? Are you suggesting that the Soviet system was a democratic system? As to the US sytem how would you suggest that it could be made more "truly democratic"? The electoral college system of voting almost always reflects the popular vote so can hardly be considered undemocratic.

I've not disappeared and have continued to post periodically. I have this constant annoyance (some people call it life) that consumes most of my time