Benign

5 Comments

Was talking with Kam the other day about how effective benign dictatorships can be, and how much people like 'em. The problem with them, of course, is the danger that they will turn less benign; power corrupts, etc, so we generally try to prevent all dictatorships. But it occurred to me that if we want benign dictatorships, there's another option: give dictators and their successors more training in, and more incentive for, being benign.

I guess that sorta sounds like an opening thesis, to be followed by a supporting argument and implementation suggestions; but no, it's just an idle thought/punchline.

5 Responses to “Benign”

  1. David Levine

    I have the impression that “giving dictators training in being benign” is a big part of the way monarchy is supposed to work. In fiction, certainly, princes and princesses (especially the heir) get a whale of a lot of training in How To Rule, and in benign monarchies a lot of that training is intended to turn a person who, by default, would be the country’s biggest spoiled brat into someone whose priority is the good of the country as a whole.

    There are, of course, counterexamples. But one of the advantages of a monarchy is that you get to train your leaders from birth.

    reply

  2. Vardibidian

    Well, this is what Plato is on about, the creation of a philosopher/king, or a caste of philosopher/kings, who would rule justly.

    It’s also, in some sense, what the US was on about for years supporting dictators against communists; whether Marcos and the Shah (and, er, Saddam Hussein) were in fact benign sheds a certain light on the whole policy.

    I’m a democrat, of course (as well as a Democrat), but there’s no question that a good benign dictator can govern well. The other problem (other than power corrupting, as you point out) is that dictators tend to die, eventually. And then, usually, things get really ugly.

    Thanks,
    -V.

    reply

  3. Jed

    Well, presumably if you had our hypothetical benignolizer, the dictator could appoint a successor (before dying) and then benignify them….

    But yeah, very good point about dictators vs. communists; I’d never understood that policy, but it makes a great deal of sense when you put it that way (as long as the dictators really are benign, of course, which in practice they never turn out to be, sigh).

    reply

  4. Dan

    “Benignolizer.”

    I am unreasonably pleased with this word. Especially when pronounced naively: “beh-NIG-noh-lize-er”.

    reply

  5. Shannon

    Well, I think it comes down to how much work the “people” have to do. A benign dictatorship (or the democratic equivelent, one party rule such as the Democrats in Chicago at least on the local front) means that the people spend a lot less time thinking about (and working on) the government and government issues.

    If all goes well, this would seem to be a good thing.

    But when there is a problem – either a not so benign ruler, or external factors, or changing demographics etc, then the lack of involvement in the goverment on the part of the people becomes a real problem.

    Does definitely sound like a thesis for some long piece of writing… perhaps a book?

    reply

Join the Conversation

Click here to cancel reply.