Tooting Carmen's list of relatively benign dictators

[Sebastianus Rex]

Argentina's decline began before WWII, though even its supposed wealthiness is overrated - it was based mostly on the cattle/beef industry and the wealth was heavily concentrated in a few hands. While not 100% successful, under Peron there was a considerable degree of industrialisation and equalisation compared to beforehand.



Still has a better HDI than quite a few other supposedly freer Latin American and Caribbean countries.

And what do you think of the rest of my list?

I am not saying that some measures of Peron for more social/income equality were not beneficial for a while, just like the New Deal in the USA was for a time period, but on the long run it was nefarious for the Argentine economy and a main factor for stagnation of a once emerging economy.

The wealthiness was not overrated, it is statiscally proven by studies of comparative economics, you can see the tables of cadjusted comparative gdps at the Madison Project website.

[Andullero]

Yes I know the concept of a 'benign dictator' might sound oxymoronic, but my definition is one who commits relatively small-scale human rights abuses, which are vastly outweighed by social and economic achievements.

Antonio da Oliveira Salazar, Portugal
Before his rise to power, Portugal had by some distance the worst literacy rate in Western Europe, and its currency collapsed something like three times in fifteen years. However, after rising to the top in a military regime which originally appointed him Minister for the Economy, he stabilised the country's finances and instigated a large schoolbuilding and literacy campaign which proved highly successful. While there were cases of dissident students and intellectuals being imprisoned, in comparison to many other dictatorships in Europe - notably in neighbouring Spain - it was much milder.

Josep Broz Tito, Yugoslavia
Following his singlehanded victory in WWII (in the sense the Soviets never arrived), he instigated a relatively decentralised and open socialist system based largely on communal farms and workers' councils, and kept Yugoslavia out of the Warsaw Pact and the submissiveness towards the USSR which accordingly went with it. Whatever his periodically repressive actions, he managed to keep this most ethnically divided and unstable part of Europe peaceful and united.

Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore
Transformed this Chinese enclave city-state from an impoverished, decadent, drug-ridden, crime-ridden hellhole into an extremely prosperous, lawful and orderly state. His economic policies combined widespread state ownership with low levels of regulation and openness to foreign investment, and although his laws regarding things like drink-driving, litter and gum dropping might seem draconian, it cannot be denied that Singapore nowadays is a bastion of cleanliness, order and civic-mindedness.

Julius Nyerere, Tanzania
Unlike many African dictators, he lived simply and did not take one penny that wasn't his. To varying degrees of success, he tried to introduce a kind of rural socialism to Tanzania, and kept the country peaceful especially compared to nearby countries like Zaire, Kenya and Uganda. (Also, he invaded Uganda in 1979 to get rid of Idi Amin).

Muammar Gadaffi, Libya
Yes, he sponsored dodgy insurgent groups, but in fact so do many Western governments and allies. While at times oppressive, Libya under Gadaffi had the highest living standards in ALL of Africa and the Middle East according to the UN (even more so than the Gulf Arab kingdoms), everyone had education, healthcare, housing, and if a treatment wasn't available in Libya then the government would pay for its citizens to receive it abroad. Furthermore, in his final years in power, he built lots of solar panels in the desert and was planning to introduce a pan-African currency independent of the dollar.

Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt
He recovered the Suez Canal from the West, kept Islamists at bay and all Egyptians under him had access to good quality public services, especially compared to subsequent leaders who have increasingly privatised and marketised everything in the country.

Juan Domingo Peron, Argentina
Not actually a dictator as such - he was freely elected - but he did become an autocrat in the way he operated. All the same, after being appointed Minister of Labour by a pre-existing military regime, he rallied round the trade unions and became freely elected in his own right as a civilian with a political programme that vastly improved the living standards of ordinary workers, expanded the welfare state and for a number of years all but axed poverty and unemployment in the country.

Fidel Castro, Cuba
Particularly in the context of this forum, this is perhaps the most controversial of the list. Nevertheless, human rights abuses under him were on a far smaller scale compared to both most other Communist regimes and many Latin American military regimes. Furthermore, the improvements in health, education, science and sport were enormous, and certainly he rescued Cuba from the incredible corruption and decadence of the Batista period.

You forgot Chiang Kai Shek in Taiwan. Yes, I know the man had considerable financial help from the US, but the case of Latin America shows that this help doesnt mean squat if there isn't a plan and a will to really transform the society it is directed to.

[Cernunnos]

Now it's easy to talk because we know that in the end it was all for nothing since the morons who took power after 25 de Abril made a pathetic decolonization. But at the time the war started people did not think like that, there was hundreds of thousands of Portuguese there and they simply couldn't say, ok let's decolonize and go all back to Portugal because a few guerrillas started in the jungle.

Besides it's what I told you also, people who were living there were certainly not favourable to give up all their lives and what they've built for nothing. Don't buy that leftist cliché rethoric, those motherfuckers treated the retornados very badly and still say stuff like "my brother died in Africa so you -retornados- could keep enslaving the blacks and living large".

What we know is that the Portuguese Colonial Empire and Estado Novo wouldn't last long after 1974, in fact I say that at the best predictions it would fall with the colapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold war. Either that or after 1991 we would be a Colonial North Korea.... LOL!

[Tooting Carmen]

You forgot Chiang Kai Shek in Taiwan. Yes, I know the man had considerable financial help from the US, but the case of Latin America shows that this help doesnt mean squat if there isn't a plan and a will to really transform the society it is directed to.

So do you agree with the list then?

[Andullero]

So do you agree with the list then?

Somewhat, but I have ambiguous feelings about Fidel. I have the feeling Cuba would be the economic engine of the Caribbean archipielago instead of the DR had they remained capitalist/democratic, and that even with their then existing inequality they would have been in the Latin American top tier on par with the Southern Cone, as well as disputing Mexican cultural dominance regarding Latinoism in the US.

[Teutone]

I want more list posts of you.

[Andullero]

Taking a second look at the list, methinks mr. Lee takes the cake, specially since his work not only survives but thrives under the directives he left over.

Tito and the Yugoslavian debacle show that federalism can't survive under duress for long, and that nationalism will always rear its head no matter the lengths some states go in suppressing it.

[Tooting Carmen]

Somewhat, but I have ambiguous feelings about Fidel. I have the feeling Cuba would be the economic engine of the Caribbean archipielago instead of the DR had they remained capitalist/democratic, and that even with their then existing inequality they would have been in the Latin American top tier on par with the Southern Cone, as well as disputing Mexican cultural dominance regarding Latinoism in the US.

Cuba still outperforms even Mexico and DR on many social indicators, however poorer it may be in terms of GDP. Besides, as far as dominating 'Latinoism' in the US is concerned, they have become the dominant group in Miami, and have had far more of an overall impact there than have Mexicans in LA or PRs and Dominicans in NYC.

[Tooting Carmen]

N.B. and since when was there anything remotely democratic about the Batista regime?

[Mortimer]

Josef Stalin because he freed Europe from nazism terror and many russians still love him also he industrialised the ussr