Common characteristics of world dictators

It was hard to tell whether Hugo Chavez rigged the Venezuela recall vote in his favor. His supporters and his "Smartmatic" voting machines made it difficult to confirm anything about the real vote.

For the record, a dictator guarantees none of the following:

Freedom of speech.
Freedom of the press.
Free opposition political parties.
Independent courts.
Free, fair and regular elections.

Degrees of repression. Some dictators see themselves as a transition to democracy, but, in general, few eventually subject themselves to an election. In Chile, Augusto Pinochet did allow two yes-no votes on his rule, and he left office after the second plebiscite, in which 56 percent of the people voted "no."

Some dictators allow limited freedom of expression, as long the expression -- written or spoken -- doesn’t directly challenge the dictator’s rule.

The restrictions vary. In some dictatorships, the people can call for free elections or criticize the dictator. In the more repressive tyrannies, such speech could be punished by imprisonment or worse. Under the most severe oppression, a society may appear calm, but only because the punishment for dissent is swift, harsh and certain.

Totalitarianism. Totalitarian dictatorships, the most repressive of regimes, strictly enforce the absence of freedom, and relentlessly apply the power of the press, the courts, the bureaucracy, the army and the police against individual liberties. Totalitarian means total dictatorial control.

Most totalitarian police states have some form of neighborhood block watches, requiring residents to inform on neighbors who exhibit any democratic tendencies. Secret police also watch for anti-dictatorship activity. Religions often are not permitted to operate without a government license; dictators fear that worshipers might plot against them during private religious gatherings. In totalitarian theocracies, one religion is central to the dictatorship, which relentlessly tells the people that oppression is God's will.

In totalitarian societies, gross abuses of human rights are common. Totalitarian dictatorships also tend to justify their abuses by claiming the total repression serves a higher cause, like material equality or superficial stability. Totalitarian dictators regularly educate both children and adults that freedom is a scary thing, or they redefine "freedom" as equality or stability. The arguments for totalitarian control become an "ideology," a system of principles that average citizens are never permitted to question.

No named successor. One oddly common trait among dictatorships: The dictator almost never has a named successor. Most democracies have something like a vice president, to take over if the president dies. Dictators don't want their opponents to know who would succeed them. The uncertainty discourages the opposition from assassinating the dictator. To the would-be assassin, the successor could be worse, or the chaos of choosing a successor too dangerous.

In dictatorships, the ruling political party either restricts the activities of opposition political parties or outlaws opposition parties altogether. (Each "party" simply is a group of people who agree on and organize around a collection of political ideas.) Dictatorships also allow the courts little or no independence; judges are expected to issue rulings based on what the dictator wants, even if the dictator's wishes contradict the truth or the law.

Dictatorships are much more inclined to begin wars. Their secrecy and unaccountability place few restrictions on a dictators' war-making decisions. The same lack of openness and accountability makes dictatorships much more prone to mass murders of outcasts, political opponents and even people simply suspected of opposing the government. With no free elections, no strong opposition parties, no free press and no independent courts to challenge them, a dictator can order mass death at his whim.

Link to famine. Some political scientists argue that the lack of openness and accountability of dictatorships also is a major cause of mass famine. Democracies occasionally experience hunger and malnutrition, but democracies seldom experience the kind of famine that lets hundreds of thousands or even millions die of starvation. A government that faces a free press and free elections is much more likely to produce quick action to avoid famine.

A dictatorship is more inclined to cover up famine and look the other way. In fact, some dictators, including Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedung, intentionally have caused famines and let them linger. They cut off food to cities and provinces to punish people who called for freedom or independence. A dictatorship also is slow to admit when one of its food-production policies is failing, and may allow it to continue for years, even as it starves large numbers of people to death. (China's so-called Great Leap Forward is one example.)

A dictatorship commonly is thought of as one person, the dictator himself. Usually, there is one man at the top, but occasionally the top ruler answers to some extent to a dictatorial political party. Today's Chinese Communist Party is one example of this. It enjoys dictatorial power. It is not elected by the people, but it elects all of China's rulers.*

Hopeless oppression. The most common characteristic of a dictatorship: Hopelessness in the people -- no hope of a free election to change leaders, no hope of fairness in court, no hope of a life lived with the freedom to speak your mind or challenge a bad idea.

Frank Warner

* * *

*The Chinese Communist Party, embarrassed by Mao's deadly record and fearful of a repeat, took measures to prevent its top dictator from seizing all power to himself. They calculated that by limiting the top dictator to 10 years in office, that leader won't become so popular that he'll get away with killing and abusing millions whenever he feels like it. The 10-year term limit was added to China's constitution in 1982.

China's term limits have yet to be tested. It is still possible that China's president could demand total power and remove all who oppose him. It could take too much courage for his fellow Communists to demand he stop. UPDATE: On March 11, 2018, China's top dictator Xi Jinping armtwisted the weak Chinese Communist parliament removed the term limit. If history is any measure, this step raises the level of dictatorial danger.

* * *

See also: Dictatorships’ death toll: 262 million murdered in the 20th century -- and not by war.

Comments

[jack bauer]

we have one hell dictator in malawi,his name is dr wa mutharika

[brittany m]

You have named a few points about the characteristics but arnt their alot more????

[Frank Warner]

Brittany, their arnt enough hours in the day to tell you everything about dictators. You could write a whole term paper about it.

[jj mollo]

The thing about "No named successor" is very interesting. It's sort of like Saudi Arabia's economic suicide strategy. If you invade Saudi Arabia you'll get nothing but a pile of sand because the oil wells have been wired to self-destruct. Saddam tried something similar, and it did work to a large extent. His followers managed to keep Iraq from producing oil or electricity for some time. I think Mugabe must be doomed because people have caught on that his disappearance might lead to significant benefits. He's not holding up his end of the dictator strategy. This is why dictators really want to obtain nuclear weapons. Their demise might lead to loose nukes, or even nuclear events.

[jj mollo]

Here's a great interview with Christopher Hitchens where he tries to paint the full landscape of misery associated with the Axis of Evil. One thing you never want to say to Hitchens is, "Sure, Saddam was a bad guy ..."

[sam]

as i read your text i go that our president in eritrea is fullfills those craterias he do it very well so like all dictators of the world.

[God]

i created dicators for a reason

[The Devil]

No you didn't. I did.

[Ali Khalid]

There is a emerging dictator in the Maldives. Mohamed Nasheed the president of Maldives is systematically suppressing opposition, pressuring media to come to line with government and finally arresting political leaders without court order.
Moreover Mr.Nasheed is influencing the Police and Defence to act on his orders to harass civil order, and has mobilized a mob to harass the judiciary subsequently forming a public court giving verdict to opposition.

[Hitler]

Mohamed nasheed is not a dictator. he has done some very good things for the Maldives.

[Frank Warner]

Interesting. What kind of pressure does Nasheed apply to the news media? Is he shutting down TV stations or newspapers? Does he require licensing of journalists?

In the Maldives, can the political opposition criticize Nasheed without fear of arrest? Has he actually set up a court system directly dependent on his will?

On the other side, what good things has he done for freedom?

[dani]

eritrean president is absolutely diagnosed with these syptoms , i guess he has became absolutely all that any dictator can be....may God bless eritrea !