Current Events > "Benevolent Dictatorship"

(+) Yeah! (+)

I had a debate here with someone almost 2 months ago, but it was more to do with me not believing in China's system, but he convinced me that China is doing pretty well for itself. During that debate, though, the term "benevolent dictatorship" sprang up.

For my country, Singapore, I admit that "benevolent dictatorship" is a rare term that might seem strange to many people. It was mostly used to describe the man (Lee Kuan Yew) who transformed Singapore from a third world, war-torn, poverty-stricken land into a first-world nation within just 3 decades during the latter half of the 20th century.

"Dictatorship" has a negative connotation to it, and for good reason. Dictatorships hardly work, if ever. However, if absolute power was used for good by an incorruptible leader, to guide a country and its people to better lives, is it necessarily always a bad thing?

It is extremely rare for a "dictatorship" to succeed, but if the word "benevolent" was added to it... The results are there in my country after decades of this system. One of the highest GDP per capita (PPP) in the world, one of the longest life expectancies, highly educated workforce, clean and green environment, peaceful, multiracial and multireligious society with no riots, no feeling of danger for a woman and child walking around the streets at 2AM after midnight, the ability to voice your displeasure at the government's policies and vote for an opposition during polling day, much higher degree of freedom compared to regular dictatorships etc.

Sounds like that was lightning in a bottle. Dictators eventually die. Eventually someone corrupt will take over.

Which is true for any style of government but others potential damage they can do to the country are lessened compared to a dictatorship

Sufferedphoenix posted...

Sounds like that was lightning in a bottle. Dictators eventually die. Eventually someone corrupt will take over.

Which is true for any style of government but others potential damage they can do to the country and lessened compared to a dictatorship

This, they used to be called kings and while one may be benevolent his little shit stain could be evil.

ATfire567 posted...

the ability to voice your displeasure at the government's policies

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/singapore

The Singapore government uses draconian criminal laws and civil defamation suits to harass and prosecute critical voices, including activists, bloggers, and journalists. There is little freedom of assembly.

The Hostile Information Campaigns provisions of the overbroad and ambiguous Foreign Interference (Counter-Measures) Act (FICA) went into effect on July 7. The law gives sweeping powers to the home minister to require removal or disabling of online content, publication of mandatory messages drafted by the government, banning of apps from being downloaded in Singapore, and disclosure of information by internet and social media companies. The ministers authority under the law is reinforced by severe criminal penalties and judicial review is limited to only procedural matters.

The government can also designate individuals as politically significant persons who can be required to follow strict limits on receiving funding and disclose all links with foreigners. The laws broad language encompasses a wide range of ordinary activities by civil society activists, academics, and journalists who engage with non-Singaporeans.

The government maintains strict restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly through the Public Order Act (POA), requiring a police permit for any cause-related assembly if it is held in a public place, or in a private venue if members of the public are invited. The definition of an assembly is extremely broad, and those who fail to obtain the required permits face criminal charges.

Attacks on Human Rights Defenders

Singapores restrictive laws are frequently used against activists and media critical of the government. On February 25, activist Jolovan Wham was sentenced to a fine of S$3,000 (US$2,100), or 15 days in prison in lieu of the fine, under the Public Order Act. The assembly for which he was convicted consisted of posing for a photo outside the courthouse while holding a sign calling for charges against journalist Terry Xu to be dropped. On September 9, a High Court judge dismissed his appeal. However, on March 3, the Attorney Generals Office withdrew charges of unlawful assembly against Wham for an earlier instance in which he stood in public holding a sign with a smiley face.

In April, Terry Xu, editor of The Online Citizen, a news website shut down by the government in 2021, received a jail sentence for criminal defamation related to a letter to the editor published by the outlet. The author was sentenced to three months and three weeks in jail.

In June, police called in for questioning activists Kirsten Han and Rocky Howe about a four-person vigil in March outside Changi Prison, and a photograph taken outside the prison in April. The vigil was held the night of Abdul Kahar Othmans execution, and the photograph was taken two nights before Nagaenthran Dharmalingams hanging. They are being investigated for violating the Public Order Act. Han potentially faces a fine of up to S$5,000 (US$3,500) and imprisonment for up to six months under Criminal Procedure Code section 39 for refusing to surrender passwords to her social media accounts.

I believe in the idea, however I feel like it is unrealistic.

Ultimate power can corrupt the purest of souls. Not saying it's not impossible just that it's not worth the risk.

A benevolent dictatorship is probably the best form of government when it actually occurs. A competent leader that wants to help his people w/o the gridlock of a legislative body and political bs and arguing can do amazing things. Lee Kuan Yew is an incredible figure, probably one of the greatest men to ever live.
The problem is the VAST majority won't be "benevolent" and even the ones that are can easily change, especially when the original leader passes away and someone else takes his place.

IMO, the ideal government is a "constitutional monarchy", where one leader has control for the most part, but there's an elected legislature and courts to overrule or impeach him if he becomes evil.
Of course that term itself has a very broad meaning and a lot of modern Western "democracies" are actually constitutional monarchies except the monarch has little to no power.

Doe posted...

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/singapore

Singapore is still relaxing its laws after being a highly conservative country for a long time, but gay sex was finally decriminalised in late 2022. It will take time, but our country is becoming more open-minded in recent years.

As other people have pointed out, even if you allow the right person to have absolute power and they do an awesome job, eventually they are out of the job and theres now an opening that could be filled by somebody much less desirable.

streamofthesky posted...

A benevolent dictatorship is probably the best form of government when it actually occurs.

The problem is that there's a single point of failure

Replace this saint with someone else leas perfect, even someone making well meaning mistakes and it all falls down. Even a ruling council would at least have a better chance of not going all bad at once.

No system will ever work perfectly and the world is so socioculturally diverse there isnt a one-solution-fits-all system either. Democracy worked great in my country until people started voting for antivax parties so hard we reintroduced previously eradicated diseases. Thats no reason to immediately change the system though.

Zwijn posted...

No system will ever work perfectly and the world is so socioculturally diverse there isnt a one-solution-fits-all system either. Democracy worked great in my country until people started voting for antivax parties so hard we reintroduced previously eradicated diseases. Thats no reason to immediately change the system though.

.didn't americas forefathers realize this problem and said the system should be tore down and rebuilt every so often? History class was a long time ago

Ironically the magats tried this but for all the wrong reasons.

ATfire567 posted...

"Dictatorship" has a negative connotation to it, and for good reason. Dictatorships hardly work, if ever. However, if absolute power was used for good by an incorruptible leader, to guide a country and its people to better lives, is it necessarily always a bad thing?

yes

Papa Surf is the only one.

It a nice ideal but as pointed out in the thread its very temporary. Just hoping that politicans are nice is an awful foundation for a political system, especially in zero-sum systems or one that can be exploited.

Concentrating power is simply a bad idea that comes back to bite you sooner or later.

IceCreamOnStero posted...

It a nice ideal

no

China isn't benevolent though. At least, not to everyone. Tell your friend about the Uyghurs. They are being oppressed very harshly in China. They are Chinese minority ethnic group. Most Chinese are an ethnicity they call Han. But scattered around China are lots of minor groups of distinct ethnicities

Choco posted...

no

Having a society that will do all the good stuff is quite obviously a nice ideal. What is your argument against it?

IceCreamOnStero posted...

Having a society that will do all the good stuff is quite obviously a nice ideal. What is your argument against it?

people should have the freedom to choose who governs them
why do i have to explain that dictatorships are bad regardless of how nice a person the dictator is

Choco posted...

people should have the freedom to choose who governs them
why do i have to explain that dictatorships are bad regardless of how nice a person the dictator is

You think its preferable to have a bad leader who was democratically elected than a good leader who wasnt?

ATfire567 posted...

who transformed Singapore from a third world, war-torn, poverty-stricken land into a first-world nation

Ah yes you guys went from being unable to afford housing or a car to being unable to afford housing or a car. And in only 30 years! So amazing.

There's a reason other countries don't want to emulate an overpriced boring island where fun is outlawed.

Glob posted...

You think its preferable to have a bad leader who was democratically elected than a good leader who wasnt?

i'm not condescending enough to tell people what is and isn't good for them so yes

I do think that if you get the ideal leader, a dictatorship would be a good form of government. However that is obviously temporary and its just a matter of time until you get a corrupt leader

the best form of government needs 3rd party non-biased watchdog organisations with teeth, as these would help prevent corruption sinking in. However, governments dont typically want to give themselves those sorts of restrictions

El Salvador seems like its heading towards the direction of a benevolent dictatorship.

Choco posted...

people should have the freedom to choose who governs them
why do i have to explain that dictatorships are bad regardless of how nice a person the dictator is

People should have the freedoms to choose who governs them (or actually, they should just govern themselves) because that's the most reliable way of achieving good things and improving.

sfcalimari posted...

Ah yes you guys went from being unable to afford housing or a car to being unable to afford housing or a car. And in only 30 years! So amazing.

There's a reason other countries don't want to emulate an overpriced boring island where fun is outlawed.

Its true that housing and cars are very expensive here due to a lack of space, but most people here already have homes in the first place. There are currently about 530 homeless people in Singapore, significantly less compared to other countries, and they are taken care of by the government.

Cars are a luxury item and and not a necessity, because public transport is cheap and efficient.

Saving, investing and insurance, along with our regular jobs are all managed by the government and banks, so we still can afford housing and cars with good financial planning.

Fun isnt outlawed. Just drugs, guns for civilians, and chewing gum. You still get to have a fun time with alcohol, nightlife, hobby gatherings, concerts etc. Its nowhere near as scary here as the media in other countries paint it to be.

Speaking of changing systems, Singapore has moved from an authoritarian system to giving more opportunities for the opposition to speak their mind, and members of opposition parties have been getting more seats in the parliament after recent elections.

There's no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship. There are only prosperous dictatorships. Maybe it's way better than what you had before but it's still not benevolent.

Choco posted...

i'm not condescending enough to tell people what is and isn't good for them so yes

Well, youre telling them that a leader they didnt elect cant be good for them, so you are a bit.

Dont get me wrong, I can see where youre coming from if you argue that the will of the people has some value. I just think that the people arent always right. Look at something like Brexit. The whole thing was the British people shooting themselves in the dick and then wondering why it hurts.

Thr only way I'd call a dictator benevolent is if he indeed does what's best for his people without oppression but then dissolves the dictatorship and sets up something else before their death. But only after the fact would I call them benevolent cause you never know how it's gonna play out till it actually happens.

Its called a benevolent dictatorship by some, but its still essentially a democracy, with increasingly viable opposition parties. Also, if the government does make questionable decisions, you can be sure that we will make them hear it, and we have done so before. The government has retracted many decisions due to rejection from the citizens.

ATfire567 posted...

Singapore is still relaxing its laws after being a highly conservative country for a long time, but gay sex was finally decriminalised in late 2022. It will take time, but our country is becoming more open-minded in recent years.

Clearly, a system that worked.

Unless you were gay at any point up until 2022.

Tyranthraxus posted...

There's no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship. There are only prosperous dictatorships. Maybe it's way better than what you had before but it's still not benevolent.

Absolutely and one hundred percent this.

Glob posted...

Well, youre telling them that a leader they didnt elect cant be good for them, so you are a bit.

no i'm not

Glob posted...

Dont get me wrong, I can see where youre coming from if you argue that the will of the people has some value.

saying it has "some" value is crazy to me

Glob posted...

I just think that the people arent always right.

the people don't always share your opinion and they don't always share mine but we don't matter

Glob posted...

Look at something like Brexit. The whole thing was the British people shooting themselves in the dick and then wondering why it hurts.

i don't like brexit either but the thought of a "benevolent dictator" saying "no, we won't do that, i know what's best for you :)" pisses me off even more

Seychelles had a similar situation on a much smaller scale. France Albert Ren was definitely a dictator, but he turned Seychelles from essentially a poor fishing island into one of the richest countries in Africa. And eventually after he stepped down they managed to get a functioning democracy rolling.

Choco posted...

no i'm not

Yeah, you are. If people are happy to submit to a benevolent dictator, and continue to do so, and youre telling them thats bad, theres a touch of hypocrisy there.

saying it has "some" value is crazy to me

Saying that it has more value than actual benefit is crazy to me.

the people don't always share your opinion and they don't always share mine but we don't matter

Are we not of the people?

That aside, not everything is a matter of opinion. Some things are quantifiable.

i don't like brexit either but the thought of a "benevolent dictator" saying "no, we won't do that, i know what's best for you :)" pisses me off even more

Seems like youre willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.

I am more than happy to tell people that wanting a dictatorship is bad and also dumb.

ATfire567 posted...

much higher degree of freedom compared to regular dictatorships

... that's certainly something to celebrate.

DrizztLink posted...

... that's certainly something to celebrate.

I feel really free living here, to be honest, though freedom may be relative.

I get to discuss matters like these with people from other countries like you guys and getting so many points of views. I get to express my liberal views on social media websites like Instagram and Facebook without getting into trouble, as long as Im not slandering other demographics or notable individuals (which I wouldnt). I get to travel regularly to other countries around the world and see how different every country is. I get to consume media from all around the world without much censorship.

Sure, the cost of living is very high here, but I get complete safety and a high quality of life in exchange. This is true for most developed countries. In fact, Singapore was listed as the happiest country in Asia on the most recent World Happiness Report.

Dictators are good at getting things done at the very least, since there is a lack of a bureaucratic system.

Dictatorship is nice when you're on top.

Considerably less nice the further down you are.

Like others have said its just a matter of time before terrible leaders start coming to power that will fuck up everything. May not come in your lifetime but they will.

Using Rome as an example out of the 70+ rulers they had only 5? I believe were considered good historically.

But this applies to all systems tbh. Even democracy hasnt proven to be much better outside of serious wartimes mostly.

Prismsblade posted...

Like others have said its just a matter of time before terrible leaders start coming to power that will fuck up everything. May not come in your lifetime but they will.

Using Rome as an example out of the 70+ rulers they had only 5? I believe were considered good historically.

But this applies to all systems tbh. Even democracy hasnt proven to be much better outside of serious wartimes mostly.

As I pointed out while true the damage leaders can cause is lessened in other forms of government since one individual doesn't hold all the power. It requires a lot more effort to do major damage like years and years of slowly getting supreme court judges that's on your side into the Supreme Court and having a congress that's on your side

Benevolent Dictatorship is an oxymoron.
You can only wield power ethically, if... it is given, voluntarily.
If it is not given voluntarily, then it requires violence and coercion to maintain, which are in no shape or form benevolent.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis

And, if the power is given voluntarily? Then it's not a dictatorship.

Prismsblade posted...

Like others have said its just a matter of time before terrible leaders start coming to power that will fuck up everything. May not come in your lifetime but they will.

Using Rome as an example out of the 70+ rulers they had only 5? I believe were considered good historically.

But this applies to all systems tbh. Even democracy hasnt proven to be much better outside of serious wartimes mostly.

Rome is a bit of a weird basket. Romans had a pretty big habit of making shit up about people they didn't like. Everyone knows the famous story about how emperor Nero played the fiddle as Rome burned. What people don't know is that never actually happened. Nero wasn't in Rome when the fire started. As soon as the news reached him he returned to Rome immediately and opened the imperial palace to let people inside who had their homes destroyed by fire. He then implemented new building codes to try and prevent more fires. I'd think that the Roman dictators treated their people considerably better than most recent or currently active dictators. Despite popularity from the people however, the Roman empire still had blood soaked hands.

ATfire567 posted...

I feel really free living here, to be honest, though freedom may be relative.

I get to discuss matters like these with people from other countries like you guys and getting so many points of views. I get to express my liberal views on social media websites like Instagram and Facebook without getting into trouble, as long as Im not slandering other demographics or notable individuals (which I wouldnt). I get to travel regularly to other countries around the world and see how different every country is. I get to consume media from all around the world without much censorship.

Sure, the cost of living is very high here, but I get complete safety and a high quality of life in exchange. This is true for most developed countries. In fact, Singapore was listed as the happiest country in Asia on the most recent World Happiness Report.

...I don't actually have a problem with Singapore but for some reason this has some serious "Written by the Ministry of Approved External Communications" energy to it.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

As I pointed out while true the damage leaders can cause is lessened in other forms of government since one individual doesn't hold all the power. It requires a lot more effort to do major damage like years and years of slowly getting supreme court judges that's on your side into the Supreme Court and having a congress that's on your side

Yes, but the opposite is also true. And changes for the better could be made exceedingly difficult if not nigh impossible. If not due to the numerous people, checks and balances but time constraints also. There are more issues but thats the gist of it.

Im not saying democracy is inferior btw. But every system has their pros and cons still. Even if they are the best.

Prismsblade posted...

Yes, but the opposite is also true. And changes for the better could be made exceedingly difficult if not nigh impossible. If not due to the numerous people, checks and balances but time constraints also. There are more issues but thats the gist of it.

Im not saying democracy is inferior btw. But every system has their pros and cons still. Even if they are the best.

Yes I can agree with that.

I do feel some fault is on the voters in a democracy though. Too many will keep voting the same fuck heads in despite them doing no good. They will just vote for whoever is representing the party they align with.

Recently had a sherif I voted for despite not being the party I typically voted for back then but he was the incumbent and we had no issues with him as sherif. Other dude won and he ain't too bad but he's had a couple or controversies and decisions I didn't agree with.

Like for instance he said he was gonna focus on arresting people buying drugs over the ones selling them... like wtf

"Benevolent Dictatorship" is a coping mechanism by people who lives under tyranny.

I think Plato went off about "philosopher kings" and how you'd have to basically isolate an entire generation to bring them up in a very specific manner to have the knowledge to rule benevolently.