Originally posted by Teinosukeusing what criteria to evaluate "benevolent"?
What is the most benevolent dictatorship a) right now, and b) in history?
a) probably some unknown leader of a tribe who just knows how to care for the people.
b) probably some leader of a tribe who just knew how to bring along everybody.
Originally posted by PonderableCriteria are up to you. But it probably needs to be the leader of a nation state.
using what criteria to evaluate "benevolent"?
a) probably some unknown leader of a tribe who just knows how to care for the people.
b) probably some leader of a tribe who just knew how to bring along everybody.
Originally posted by TeinosukeTo start the ball rolling, I nominate the Sultan of Oman and the former (abdicated) King of Bhutan as figures who have probably done more good and less ill than most absolute rulers.
Criteria are up to you. But it probably needs to be the leader of a nation state.
Accepting that 'dictatorship' in the modern sense precludes kings, prelates, even classical tyrants: I'd go for Myanmar / Burma, because it seems to be cancelling some of its moral debt by preparing the path for democracy - except it's a junta, not a dictatorship, so scratch that.
No, really: I can't think of a single example of a benevolent dictatorship.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe OP did not ask for a dictatorship that was, on balance, benevolent, but for "the most benevolent" dictatorship, which one could interpret as "least destructive".
Accepting that 'dictatorship' in the modern sense precludes kings, prelates, even classical tyrants: I'd go for Myanmar / Burma, because it seems to be cancelling some of its moral debt by preparing the path for democracy - except it's a junta, not a dictatorship, so scratch that.
No, really: I can't think of a single example of a benevolent dictatorship.
What do you think of my suggestions, the Sultan of Oman and the King of Bhutan (the former one, before some democracy was introduced)?
Originally posted by TeinosukeCromwell didn't consider Irish to be "his people", or perhaps even "people" at all.
My housemate has just suggested, in the historical part of the question, Oliver Cromwell - since he appears sincerely to have tried to govern in what he perceived to be the interests of his people.
His record in Ireland is a bit of a blot, though.
Originally posted by normbenignNo He considered them to be allied to the Stuart Dynasty, but He did act like a barbaric sociopath toward them and any other perceived enemy of the Republic that He felt entrusted by His God to protect.
Cromwell didn't consider Irish to be "his people", or perhaps even "people" at all.
He was not very nice to the 'levelers' either.
What about some of the self proclaimed Enlightened Despots of Europe, such as 'Gustav the III' of Sweden.
"Voltaire was a prominent Enlightenment philosopher who felt enlightened monarchy was the only real way for society to advance"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_despots