Cfrgtkky

In your specific case:

In your case, I think the new ruler is a new monarch, not a dictator. The new ruler doesn't have enough force or influence to rule with absolute power. Any of the other families could depose this new ruler in a heart beat. So I don't think they qualify as a dictator, unless one of the major families allies with them.

The problem is as follows:

Army beats Police Force.

Bankers + Money + Mercenary Army beats Police Force.

This specific scenario might make more sense if it was the army that took over and seized the whole nation. Or some group that can leverage extreme force.

In general:

That said, the ancient Greeks thought that a benevolent dictatorship would be one of the most ideal forms of government. They theorized many different ways to make this happen. But basically if you have a dictator who wants the good of their people, there are a lot of things they can do that traditional governments can't.

Income inequality, lack of jobs, civil rights abuses, almost anything can be solved with a hand wave and overwhelming force.

The problem is not having a benevolent dictator, the problem is that the people who tend to become dictators are not benevolent (usually traitors to begin with). And second, even if you get a benevolent dictator, as there have been in history, once they pass away their is no guarantee that the next person will be benevolent.

A common effect of political fragmentation is the imposition of economic barriers. Each subsection of the realm will institute trade barriers such as high tolls for transshipping goods, and possibly tariffs whose intent is to increase the prices of imported goods and make them less competitive with locally-produced products. The practice occurred, for instance, in many of the original American colonies.

This has a very bad long-term effect on the larger economy. Successful economies generally encourage specialization, with trade to distribute each specialized areas goods to the others.

It's entirely possible for a dictator to eliminate these barriers to the free flow of goods. This will have excellent consequences for the economy as a whole, although not necessarily for any particular realm.

Depending on the smarts of the dictator, it's also possible for him to institute (at least partially) a command economy, with resources devoted to projects with long-term payoffs which would otherwise not occur. An example might be investment in civil waterworks and piping, which will provide clean water to all, with an attendant drop in disease rates.

Of course, none of this is guaranteed to succeed. As the saying goes, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." This will apply to the dictator, and (importantly) to his advisors. Corruption in the application of otherwise well-intended projects can easily offset any benefits, and in the worst case produce a kleptocracy. This pattern is widely seen in third-world countries today.

The intent of this answer is not to glorify evil in any way. I simply wish to state some truth. It is true that Adolf Hitler did many evil things and I don't want to make him sound good. but it is also true that Germany and its allies got terrifyingly close to taking over the eastern world. Only were they stopped by a coalition of the greatest forces in the world and some battles won barely dangling by a strand. This occurred because of the dictatorship of Hitler. I suggest to find more information about this look up things like "how was Hitler so successful?" or "why did Hitler accomplish so much?". I can provide more information myself I just do not have the time to do so at the moment but leave a comment if you would like me to expound upon this answer.

After about half a century of attempting to absorb information about history and feeling I may have acquired what Oscar Levant referred to as a smattering of ignorance, I feel it possible, when evaluating the potential effectiveness of dictatorship, we may lead ourselves into an intellectual corner by the use of the word "absolute" when discussing the nature of dictatorship or what is referred to often as "absolutism".

I am left with the impression that no matter how effective a given individual has been in consolidating power, it is never literally "absolute". It is always dependent on factors that are essential for the acquisition and maintenance of the power, more often than not the interested loyalty of what Alexis de T. called "the organized adolescents of the world known as the military class". In some cases it may depend on having a wife who will not poison you or a Praetorian guard who will not slit your throat in that tunnel up on the Palatine Hill or having a populace that will tolerate the autocrat.

There seem always to be important and essential factors that limit an "absolute" autocrat, beginning with the degree of the individual´s competence/incompetence. (The last Czar of the Russian Empire is a good example.) I can think of a myriad of other examples, but, I recognize the degree to which my opinion may be well-received depends on not going on at length too much.

Suffice it to say, my point in answer to the question posed is that the success of any dictatorship (in the eyes of those of us who would judge him/her benevolent or tyrannical) in making a country successful, depends, in the first instance on what you mean by a successful country, (a Switzerland or a Norway or some totalitarian state that has temporarily defeated its competition, North Korea or Venezuela, perhaps.)

In the second instance, when a dictator is involved, it depends on the degree to which the dictator either cows opposition (using, deceit, intimidation, fear of violence or the use of it) or placates it, (using bread and circuses, munificence, permissiveness, public works, easy credit and other bribes) and uses scapegoats for whatever does not placate the unruly masses and whether there exist factors or institutions that limit the power. A good study on this is Rome under Augustus, the Pax Romana. (See, Stark, Rome on the Euphrates, page 149, "Augustus´Handling of Power" and page 153, Tragedy of the Facade".)

If this makes sense, then, to judge success, after defining what a successful country is, I suggest we may need to look less at the manners and mores of a putative dictator and examine closely his/her methods and the available factors that limit the exercise of the power. In the ultimate instance, it is the results that count and, looking at history, one might conclude that no dictator can make a successful country unless, over time, he/she becomes less and less of a dictator.

It's impossible because the intention to seize totalitarian power contradicts the intentions to do actual "good".

Let's take a more libertarian/philosophical approach. The types of relations humans can have are essentially this:

• Based on (continuous) negotiation and reciprocal benefit: "We both agree to benefit each other, and we both are free to stop."


• Based on power with winner and loser: "Obey or suffer the consequences. I command you, and if you refuse, I will destroy you."

What must a dictator be as a baseline in order to be a dictator before even actively "doing" anything specific?

• He must be willing to invoke taxes on all people he has control over.


• He must be willing to exert force and coercion over people who refuse to pay taxes or comply with his laws and demands.


• He must be willing to hold, perpetuate and benefit from a collectivist ideology, which promotes state power and the foundational idea that it is just and reasonable to initiate violence against people for the sake of the higher good.


• Along with that, he must be in opposition to individualism - he must be convinced that he can micro- and macromanage people (and the economy) better than they themselves, and that individuals would just "waste" their freedoms for things he doesn't deem useful.


• He must be complicit with the idea to hold power as centralized, undivided and undeluded as possible.

The magnitude of course matters - the same ruler could either starve its citizens or just take less from them. But the practice in essence is the same - and if he doesn't take enough, he can not be a dictator. So let's assume a high magnitude.

So - the question boils down to this at this point: What can a dictator, who is already exploiting and oppressing its people en masse to a large degree, prevent his economy to collapse too rapidly?

A significant correlation is this: The more individual liberties (free speech, property rights) and economic opportunities (less taxes, less restrictions), the more economic success and prosperity. And for the sake of definition let's say that is actual "good", along with having ethics, internal peace, more negotiation based relationships, less power based relationships.

Let's not expand on the reasoning, but let's assume it is true - can a dictator ever go towards these goals without ceasing to be a dictator, without removing himself from the power he once desired and succeeded to seize - or likely intends to hold as he might claim to "fight corruption" (which often is the result of special state and big corporation interactions in the first place)?

The answer is no. One would have to fight his own beliefs, his own being.

What can a "benevolent dictator" do? He can pursue planned economy or economic fascism. The best case scenario is that it works out on the short term - and as such probably even tremendously, mustering massive resources for war and major social plans - but will fail on the long term. "Success" would be merely temporary.

Also it causes major issues which slowly and inevitably lead to internal and/or external conflicts and issues - rendering the system and the regime highly unstable. Getting rid of "corruption" is also a questionable goal if state power is the soil it depends on, which is maximized in the first place. It's more likely to replace one type of corruption with another type (which can be just a different type of unethical practice).

Besides, if there is a regime which has a structure set up to serve the will of a benevolent dictator, it wouldn't be too difficult to replace him with someone who is more fitting to such a position of power - who would no longer be "benevolent".

A few good things can come from Palace coups d'etat. The most important are the churn in key personelle, if the new decision makers are competent, and the need to buy up popular feeling, which might lead to pay increases, redistribution of land or grain, the sacking of the outgoing title holders to pay promises to supporters, and perhaps reformation of banking and land title law, rental caps, employment incentives.

The bad aspects of dictatorships generally outweigh the good. The personalities of the Junta, in order to pursue absolute power, are not at all considerate or sensitive, but rather, murderously egoistic.

They are schooled and experienced in the emotional realities of dominance/ submission, and unlikely to engage in negotiations toward compromise, let alone collaboration. Avoidance of conflict is not on their radar.

Any good good that comes of them, with rare exceptions, is not by their own conscious design.

The success of the nation resulting from the coup d'etat could be the result of new personelle bringing creativity to old problems, and also from a freeing up of social mobility , at least for a select group. New business deals and management strategies from new relationships, with an aura of new beginnings, could perhaps create business optimism.

Rewriting of the official narrative, (ie, the deposed group will now be depicted as bad), could make many people more energetic for psycho-emotional reasons, as anyone who had sufferred under the last regime can speak out and direct their anger toward the past, also giving an aura of positive change.