Which of the following leaders or regimes were/are dictatorships in your opinion?

[Tooting Carmen]

- Argentina under Juan Peron. (1946-55).
- Dominican Republic under Joaquin Balaguer (1966-78).
- Mexico under the PRI (1929-99).
- Nicaragua under the Sandinistas (1979-90/2006-).
- Singapore under the PAP (1950-).
- Uganda under Milton Obote (1962-71/1980-85).
- Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan (2003-)
- Russia under Vladimir Putin (1999-).

[Tooting Carmen]

Anyone?

[Cristiano viejo]

Turkey, Singapore and Nicaragua.

It is an insult that you includes Russia of Putin, The Dominican Republic and the Argentina of Perón.

No idea about the rest. In my fuckin life heard about Uganda.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

None of them but all were or are autocracies.

[Incal]

All of them were/are rotten, corrupt regimes except for Singapore.

[axel.aleman]

Only Nicaragua under Sandinistas And Uganda under Obote

[Tooting Carmen]

None of them but all were or are autocracies.

In other words, they have/had democratic elements but also behave(d) similarly to (stereotypical) dictatorships much of the time?

[Andullero]

None of them but all were or are autocracies.

^This. Some democratic forms and rituals are kept, but the plebs aren't given "space to destroy" a la BLM. The farthest they are given is the right to do some strikes, the definition of peaceful being subject to the discretion of the authority of course.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

In other words, they have/had democratic elements but also behave(d) similarly to (stereotypical) dictatorships much of the time?

Many of them were democratically elected although mostly with little transparency and irregularities. I cannot say they were dictatorships because none of these regimes had power centralized exclusively in a single figure, but rather distributed among a selective circle of politicians, elites, or oligarchs. In some cases like Erdogan's or Putin's, it may even appear that their figures overlap and are synonymous with the State, but behind the curtains they have to keep a certain elite satisfied and another elite under constant threat of purges if they wish to perpetuate themselves in power for as long as possible. But of course, there is an overlap between autocracy and dictatorship in certain respects, although autocracies tend to be more benign than dictatorships as a rule.

[Tooting Carmen]

^This. Some democratic forms and rituals are kept, but the plebs aren't given "space to destroy" a la BLM. The farthest they are given is the right to do some strikes, the definition of peaceful being subject to the discretion of the authority of course.

Well according to Freedom House's annual report Freedom In The World, Turkey and Russia are nowadays Not Free, but in the earlier years of Erdogan and Putin they were Partly Free. As for the others: Peron well-preceded the charity's first report in 1972 anyway (although when he did briefly return to the presidency in 1973 before dying, Argentina was classified as Free just for that year); DR was classified as Free in 1972 and 1973, but IIRC there was a dodgy election in 1974 which from then on meant that DR was classified as Partly Free until Balaguer finally was convinced by Jimmy Carter to stand down in 1978, making DR Free again; Mexico was always classified as Partly Free until the PRI's rule came to an end; Nicaragua under the Sandinistas was Partly Free every year during their first stint and during the earlier years of their current stint, but is now Not Free; Uganda was classified as Partly Free under Obote's second stint in the 1980's (even though he actually killed more people then than even Idi Amin did!); Singapore has always been classifed as Partly Free.