How can we prevent dictators from abusing their power?

  • News
  • Thread starter N_Quire
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation touches on the topic of dictatorship and the reasons why some dictators become corrupt and oppressive while others may have more benign intentions. The idea of absolute power and its corrupting influence is discussed, as well as the desire for control and the fear of losing it. The topic of gifts and exchanges in politics is also mentioned. Ultimately, it is suggested that giving people too much freedom can lead to resistance and challenges to a dictator's power, leading them to resort to oppressive measures.
  • #1
N_Quire
Give me almost absolute power along the lines of Saddam Hussein and it would interest me very little to collect fast cars, scantily clad mistresses, pistols, palaces and endless statues of myself.

If you are the dictator of a country, what prevents you from being at a benign tyrant interested in building schools and universities, sharing the wealth of the nation so that there's no grinding poverty, ending torture and encouarging tolerance and compassion?

Why is there this need to plunder the country, turn oneself into a demi-god and delight in torturing one's own citizens?

Something else which puzzles me is that these folks secretly love the things they despise in public. Saddam and his sons adored western movies, booze, pornogaphy, etc, etc, and yet it was a crime for other citizens to be in possession of this stuff.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Give me almost absolute power along the lines of Saddam Hussein and it would interest me very little to collect fast cars, scantily clad mistresses, pistols, palaces and endless statues of myself.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...

If you are the dictator of a country, what prevents you from being at a benign tyrant interested in building schools and universities, sharing the wealth of the nation so that there's no grinding poverty, ending torture and encouarging tolerance and compassion?
Most dictators in fact do go through a stage. It's need to cement their power. Consider Castro etc. Various kings also managed it. And it is still doubtful wether we are seeing the full unbiased image of these dictators. The truth usually only comes out decades later...

Something else which puzzles me is that these folks secretly love the things they despise in public. Saddam and his sons adored western movies, booze, pornogaphy, etc, etc, and yet it was a crime for other citizens to be in possession of this stuff.
Wrong country. You are thinking of the extreme islamicist government of Iran. Iraq was pretty tolerant of these things, if you stay out of the government's way...
 
  • #3
I am aware of the more extreme and religious anti-westernism of Iran and the Islamic fundamentalists. I even know that Iraq was secular and that Saddam might not have believed in god at all (he did when it suited his ends).

However, anti-Americanism became a strong feature of Baath culture and Iraqis officially were not openly supposed to like western culture. The leaders, of course, loved all things western, its films, its products, its music, etc. The hypocrisy is amusing.
 
  • #4
'Tis called geopolitics. What the rulers of a country actually think, and their real reasons for doing something internationally, are rarely the reasons or views they claim. It goes back to this guy called Machiavelli... :) well further in actuality.
 
  • #5
Originally posted by N_Quire


If you are the dictator of a country, what prevents you from being at a benign tyrant interested in building schools and universities, sharing the wealth of the nation so that there's no grinding poverty, ending torture and encouarging tolerance and compassion?


Because at some point, your people become free and happy, start becoming protective of their own interests, and the CIA engineers a coup.
 
  • #6
Originally posted by FZ+
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...Most dictators in fact do go through a stage. It's need to cement their power. Consider Castro etc.
I think you may have something with that second part, FZ+. Its not that power corrupts, its that corrupt people are able to gain power. Saddam (and in the tradition of Machiavelli, most dictators) was corrupt LONG before he ever became dictator.
 
  • #7
saddam hussein is not of the same faith as the vast majority of iraqis, the population of iraq, to saddam, consists of infidels, why would he ever want to be a benevolent dictator then?
 
  • #8
I don't think anyone needs to hate people of a slightly different faith or those from a different ethnic group. Even a dictator should have some level of compassion and feeling of humanity. Hussein treated his opponents as though they were subhuman. A benign dicator would at least treat all citizens equally. Have their been no reasonably benign, enlightened dictators in the world?
 
  • #9
it is politics

Exchange of gifts, that is all.

A tipycal aspect of a client/patron scheme is this kind of gifts; if you are playing the patron game, you are forced to collect a lot of absurd things. Just as any family in Xmas.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by N_Quire
I don't think anyone needs to hate people of a slightly different faith or those from a different ethnic group. Even a dictator should have some level of compassion and feeling of humanity. Hussein treated his opponents as though they were subhuman. A benign dicator would at least treat all citizens equally. Have their been no reasonably benign, enlightened dictators in the world?

Look, America can't even get a grip on respecting religious freedom!
 
  • #11
America's greatest intolerance is towards those who don't believe. I am so tired of having to join hands, say Grace and thank god for this and that when I don't even believe in the creature.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by N_Quire what prevents you from being at a benign tyrant interested in building schools and universities, sharing the wealth of the nation so that there's no grinding poverty, ending torture and encouarging tolerance and compassion?

Why? It is because once you become I totalitarian ruler you have absolute power, however this also means that your subjects will have no power. Unfortunately if you start building schools ,people will start thinking. Giving out wealth means that people will not be hungry. Thus they will start demanding things. Once you start giving them a little freedom they will want more and more. This is why dictators want to keep their people on a shortleesh , if they are hungry and dumb , there is no way for them to resist. Many dictators such as Saddam probably have learned about the mistake of tasar Alexander II of Russia , the only tsar who tried to make reforms for the peasants , and was assassinated.

Why is there this need to plunder the country, turn oneself into a demi-god and delight in torturing one's own citizens?

It is not a need to torture and portraying one self as a God , it is the need to control your people and keep things under control .. for your own safety.


It goes back to this guy called Machiavelli... :)

"It is better to be feared than loved" --- The Prince by Machiavelli.
 
  • #13
Actually, being an Iraqi under Saddam, so long as you were in the Baath party would not have been so bad. As I understand, there was a thriving 'middle class' of Baath party aparatchiks. To be a university teacher, a cop, or in the army, you joined the Baath party.

Found this during a search for Machiavelli, because I didn't get what you were talking about...
http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/machiavelli.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
From what I see there are several main goals that different types of leaders try to achieve in order to maintain order and security.

Dictators/Tyrants goals are to keep their people dumb and hungry. So long as the majority of their subjects are dumb and hungry there is little chance that they will revolt so long as the tyrant is strong and powerful.

"Enlightened"/ Enlightened despots goals are to keep their people happy and full. As long as the people stomachs are full and they are happy with their lives , there will be little chance that there will be revolts. When people are living wealthy and happy lives they will tend to have the tendency to be conservatives and will reject change.

This is why there wasn't communist revolution in the United State , even though Karl Marx predicted that the US would be one of the first country in the world to have a communist revolution because people were suffering. He said that these "prolitariates" or class consious workers would revolt against the government and the upper classes. However what he didn't put into consideration was that there would be reforms such as allowing Labor Union that would defuse these revolutions. Not only that the reforms eventually built up a nation where the majority is the middle class. Thus , in free states or nation where people are prosperous and happy there would be no rebellions. However to my observations , the US is making too many laws that are detrimental to the middle class and is shrinking the middle class in the country. I fear that if the US continues this trend the middle class will eventually collapse and so will the country... but that's another topic.



Found this during a search for Machiavelli, because I didn't get what you were talking about...

I am not sure if you're referring to me or not , but "It is better to be fear than loved" was the main idea of Machiavelli's book the Prince it which he believed that rulers should be ruthless rather than peace loving. He said that as long as the people fear you they will not be defiant. And if they aren't afraid of you , they will walk all over you.
 
  • #15
Heh, yeah I read about 5 chapters from "the Prince" last night, very interesting, highly practical how to guide for conquering principalities. Wistfully I thought of Rumsfeld. BTW, Rumsfeld=german name eh?
 
  • #16
Funny how it becomes so easy to portray Saddam as the evil incarnate.

Before sanctions were imposed, Iraq was actually doing quite well. It even won a UNESCO award for best education. Health care was good too. Industry was also performing decently.

I don't deny that Saddam has commited some atrocities but which dictator hasn't ? Or for that matter, which democracy hasn't ? You must have heard the horror stories from CIA, compares with the worst atrocities commited. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... just because it was done in the guise of war, doesn't make it any less atrocious !

The parameers for judging a ruler should be multiple. And social indicators like education and healthcare are far more important IMO.

- S.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Education and health care are certainly two factors to consider while assessing the palatability of dictators. But it is reasonable to work torture, gassing and repression into the equation. Saddam was more skilled than most at those activities and he was at it long before America made him an enemy.

As the citizen of a country I might well value being taught to read and write to university level, but I would not particularly like having to join a party into to climb the career ladder and nor would I be overly keen on the idea of torture for daring to express opposition to the regime.

One cannot let a dictator off the hook simply because he does what all dictators do while being better at teaching the populace to read and write and being clever at duping the UN.

America picks its fights, and the way it chooses to fight, out of a mixture of idealism (often misguided) and self-interest. Saddam was not the first in line, that honor was Afghanistan's. And I prefer the new policy of toppling dictators to the old one of supporting fascists in Latin America.
 
  • #18
Originally posted by Siv:
I don't deny that Saddam has commited some atrocities but which dictator hasn't ? Or for that matter, which democracy hasn't ?


You're right even democracy has commited atrocities , let's face it no single type of government on this Earth is perfect. It is after all , run by human beings.

However, at least with a democracy others are able to at least correct the mistake that were made, and that those who purposely commit these actions don't stay in power forever. Unfortunately what I fear is that Oligarchy (although not as bad as a dictatorship) might take place in a republic.
 
  • #19
Originally posted by Siv
The parameers for judging a ruler should be multiple. And social indicators like education and healthcare are far more important IMO.

- S.
That works for me. Let's start with literacy...
And I prefer the new policy of toppling dictators to the old one of supporting fascists in Latin America.
Ditto.
 
  • #20
Originally posted by N_Quire
Education and health care are certainly two factors to consider while assessing the palatability of dictators. But it is reasonable to work torture, gassing and repression into the equation. Saddam was more skilled than most at those activities and he was at it long before America made him an enemy.
Chuckle chuckle ... America made him an enemy when he linked his oil prices to the Euro. Thats when he changed overnight from being a good man to a bad man.
Well, if my number one position in the world economy was being threatened, I might go to war too. But I won't justify it with self-righteous crap.

If we're looking at torture, gassing and repression, let's first look at the atrocities commited by the US, under the guise of the CIA, shall we ?? And the atrocities commited in Nam. The bombing of 2 whole cities ...
and then you can start waxing sanctimonious !

- S.
 
  • #21
Siv, I'm pretty sure you have hit the nail on the head as far as the TIMING of the invasion.
 
  • #22
Siv,
Please feel free to chuckle, though it makes your argument no more convincing.

I don't think you've got the timing quite right. Saddam was targeted by elements within the administration before the last Gulf War, back in the late 70s in fact by, among others, Paul Wolfawitz. They then had a job to convince the president that Saddam should be removed. They almost succeeded with Bush's father but caution, or cowardice, won the day.

Your pet theory about the Euro, which you've found in some digest does not explain very much. Nor do I think you understand the nature of conservative idealism of the sort espoused by Wolfawitz and Rumsfield. I can agree that their idealism is misguided and naive but it must be taken into account as a factor.

Your notion of ranking atrocities is laughable. All arocities are despicable, those in Nam, those committed by the USA in Latin America, etc, etc. But the atrocities in Vietnam do not mean that a different administration some years later has to feel that its hands are tied with regard to atrocities today.

Saddam was a worthwhile target. Nothing wrong about that. The world is better off without him. And when the next election comes, we can hope that the electorate votes out Bush and elects someone less inclined to unilateralism.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by N_Quire

I don't think you've got the timing quite right. Saddam was targeted by elements within the administration before the last Gulf War, back in the late 70s in fact by, among others, Paul Wolfawitz. They then had a job to convince the president that Saddam should be removed. They almost succeeded with Bush's father but caution, or cowardice, won the day.

Saddam was a 'target' pre 91, a sales target, as Rumsfeld was a part of the group of people selling him arms, to help him to defeat Iran, when he was your friend (The US's) as part of the "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap.

Not so long ago, in a Canadian news publication (newspaper) one of the journalists called the Canadian Prime Minister a 'Dictator', BECAUSE, as the ability to rule is assigned powers, it must be done in a manner that permits the person, who is then "The Authority", to be able to behave in such a fashion, without the fear of immediate removal.

Otherwise we would never keep any leaders past any descisions that they make that we didn't like. You can always find the vocal groups who dislike(s) your policy, suporters are not always as simply obvious.

The right to the "Exersize of Power" is, and must be, the right to dictate. (to some extent)

John Luke Picard; "Make it so!"

It is when those policies go awry, when the head of your 'secret police services' takes it into his own hands to resolve the problem that you didn't even know about, and it later, splashes all over the papers, and guess who is to be held accountable, guess who now looks like the Dictator, even if they are actually not one!

BTW, I agree with Siv's assertion of the Euro thing, (as I am already 'on the record' for) it makes the most sense
 
  • #24
Mr. Robin Parsons, what about impeachment?
 
  • #25
Mr Parsons, Even when Iraq was a "friend" of the United States during the Iran-Iraq war, there were thinkers/politicians such as Mr Wolfawitz who considered Saddam a greater long term threat than Iran and who were working back then to get him eliminated.

Siv's theory is interesting and oil is, of course, a factor. One of the problems with it as a 'theory of everything' is that it's a lot less ambitious in scope than the actual Wolfawitz program/doctrine of preemptive action plus democratization of the middle east, starting with the elimination of Saddam. That doctrine is not a conspiracy theory, it's now government policy.

So, the Siv theory is at best only a tiny part of what is going on. Also, America can sort out its oil problems without going to war. In other words, there is more than oil at work here.

Both you and Siv appear to like accusing others of talking "crap". That's your privilege. I prefer to avoid the foul language.
 
  • #26
Originally posted by N_Quire
Mr Parsons, Even when Iraq was a "friend" of the United States during the Iran-Iraq war, there were thinkers/politicians such as Mr Wolfawitz who considered Saddam a greater long term threat than Iran and who were working back then to get him eliminated.

Siv's theory is interesting and oil is, of course, a factor. One of the problems with it as a 'theory of everything' is that it's a lot less ambitious in scope than the actual Wolfawitz program/doctrine of preemptive action plus democratization of the middle east, starting with the elimination of Saddam. That doctrine is not a conspiracy theory, it's now government policy.

So, the Siv theory is at best only a tiny part of what is going on. Also, America can sort out its oil problems without going to war. In other words, there is more than oil at work here.

Both you and Siv appear to like accusing others of talking "crap". That's your privilege. I prefer to avoid the foul language.

Please show me where I have accused anyone of talking "Crap", as I simply stated that the Idea of "enemy of my enemy is my friend" is CRAP! as in 'crappy', 'NO good', 'NOT useable', 'BAD', nothing foul about that, is there?

Just because someone thought of something, 'years ago', doesn't make that the policy that was employed at that time.

The idea of Saddam as being seen as a threat, back then, is sort of ridiculous, as why would you be selling him armaments if you saw him as a threat? (does NOT make any sense!)

As for what Siv has pointed out, it was already in this forum, posted by Boulderhead, and as she said, it follows piece by piece all along the route, till you get the relization that it is probably the major reason for the war just past.

It is abetted by what you state, as a part of a plan of democratization of the middle east, cause that is exactly how you accomplish those goals of securing a safe supply of oil from one of the two largest known reserves of oil in the world, plant a 'friendly government' in there, as opposed to Saddam whom you could no longer trust.

Why do you think they even had a plan to democratize the middle east, they don't really care about the people there, they care about the oil, as proven by the simplest of facts of just how many other repressive 'regimes' they could have gone after, and didn't, haven't, and won't!

Saddam had already gone to the use of the Euro, if the rest of OPEC followed that lead, well, America's ability to be "Monetarily Imperialistic" would be severally curtailed.

You can't 'Kite' cheques, if you haven't got the bank account.
Simple as that!
 
  • #27
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Russ, as you may recall, (Clinton) it is very difficult to impeach, you need really good reasons, crimes actually, and the proof thereof!
Thats the point - you can be impeached therefore you don't have absolute power. But there has to be a good reason, therefore impeachment can't be abused.
 
  • #29
Originally posted by N_Quire
Siv,
Please feel free to chuckle, though it makes your argument no more convincing.
Well, like most other people, I chuckle when I find something amusing ... does that bother you ? :wink:

I don't think you've got the timing quite right. Saddam was targeted by elements within the administration before the last Gulf War, back in the late 70s in fact by, among others, Paul Wolfawitz. They then had a job to convince the president that Saddam should be removed. They almost succeeded with Bush's father but caution, or cowardice, won the day.

Your pet theory about the Euro, which you've found in some digest does not explain very much. Nor do I think you understand the nature of conservative idealism of the sort espoused by Wolfawitz and Rumsfield. I can agree that their idealism is misguided and naive but it must be taken into account as a factor.

It aint my theory, N_Quire, although I wish it was ... so brilliantly analysed and logically and evidentially sound. But unfortunately the credit must go entirely to Geoffrey Heard. Thanks anyway :smile:

Lets not try and make things black and white here. Nothing in life ever is.

There are 3 reasons for this war ... in order of priority.

They are ..

1. The threat to the US economy
2. Bush winning the next election
3. Control of the world's second largest oil reserves.

While 2 and 3 were the reasons for earlier sanctions and Liberation Acts, 1 is the most pressing now and the prime reason for this latest terrorism against Iraq.

I don't deny that Saddam is no Saint. But the world would be far more better off without the Bush's and Rumsfields of this world than without Saddam.
Because the Bushes and Rumsfields terrorise the entire world.Saddam, at his worst, terrorised only a part of the population of Iraq.

- S.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats the point - you can be impeached therefore you don't have absolute power. But there has to be a good reason, therefore impeachment can't be abused.

And it is paralleled, in history, by a much simpler principal, of the Rule of Kings, Assassination of a King that is seen to be 'insane', or gone beyond reason in the application of power.

That is why I like Democracy, so much better, they do not have to die, you simply fire their *****!

Here in Canada, four ways of removing a Prime Minster, #1) They retire, #2) They lose a vote in the house, #3) Their party ousts them as leader, #4) Or a criminal charge against them. (That MUST be Defacto, self-evident, and undeniable, from the beginning, same as for a Judge!)
 
Back
Top