None that are particulary plaguing, no. He was given the regnal epithet "The Great" while he's still alive...that's usually a good indicator that he's well-liked by pretty much all Thais. Did you even read the article?
Oh, almost forgot: Emperor Haile Selassie I of Abyssinia (Ethiopia). National Geographic once commented on Ethiopia during his reign: "it is nominally a constitutional monarchy; in fact [it is] a benevolent autocracy." That's pretty fuckin' good, IMHO.
Baron Max: Yes, you are. You're also engaging in semantics, as usual. Whenever you disagree with someone, the first thing you always do is quibble over the definitions of words. Even worse, you NEVER supply YOUR definition of the word, but merely leave you opponent hanging. Actually, benevolent dictators can favour one group over another. The key word here is 'if'. Yes he can. You can't please everyone. Ahh, but you assume that benevolent = perfect, which once again is shifting the goalposts. You're defining your own terms. Nobody here would dare claim that there is such a thing as a 'perfect' dictator, so you're effectively inventing a straw man argument. Here is a more accurate definition from wikipedia: As I demonstrated above, your definition for 'benevolent dictator' is made-up. Benevolent dictator =/= perfect dictator. Quite simply, you're being rather foolish by merely focusing on the weaknesses of a country during the rule of a dictator. No ruler is perfect. It would be far more accurate to determine whether the dictator done NET GOOD for his country. In otherwords, he improved its success, or maintained its level of success. Both of the above. A nation which provides adequately for all or the majority of its people could be termed as successful. It's not what we'd 'like to say', but that doesn't change the fact that Hitler was a wonderful dictator until he started WWII, and engaged in a suicidal war against Russia. Nevertheless, Hitler initially gave the people what they wanted. Law and order, and employment.
on castro: wrong. the correct answer is: the reason for most of the sanctions is because of his unwavering adherance to communism. also his loyalty to our enemy during the cold war...the USSR. im sure you remember how castro ok'd nukes to be placed 90 miles from usa soil? read a history book for god's sake.
Well, Napoleon is reckoned to have been responsible for the deaths of at least four million people -- so this is a strange interpretation of "benevolent". However, he did round up all the jailrats and vagabonds in France, enrol them in his Grand Armée, take them to Russia and kill them (mostly from starvation, disease and cold). Getting them killed in pursuit of war was regarded as morally acceptable, whereas gassing or impaling (for example) would definitely have been regarded as wrong. The benefit to France in genetic terms may have been considerable, perhaps comparable with Sweden's programme of eugenics (1934-76).
Napoleon waged his wars to help improve the lot of his people, which is what an enlightened/benevolent despot does...sometimes at the expense of other nations' peoples...but not usually his own, at least not intentionally. Another one of my favorites: Maria Theresa of Austria...did some serious reforms for her people's benifit during her rule.
So ...from that definition, in particular the part that says, "...for the benefit of only a small portion of the people", Saddam Hussien is/was a benevolent dictator. So, too, was Hitler. So, too, was Stalin. And if you think about it much, haven't all dictators catered to a small portion of his people? And if so, then all of the dictators in history have been "benevolent dictators", right? Hey, you did say that was a accurate definition, didn't you? Baron Max
Do you know how to read? Did you notice the phrase "rather than" in that definition? Here, I'll highlight it for you: Meaning a benevolent dictator is someone who does not excercise his/her political power for themselves or for a small group of people.
Come off it! He grew up among the militaristic Maniot (Greek) population of Corsica and dreamt of becoming another Alexander the Great. Afterwards he had "La Gloire" drilled into him at Brienne Military Academy. His motivation was ambition and personal glorification. His ultimate failure (Waterloo) led to the end of 167 years of France at top dog in Europe, and the restoration of the Bourbons.
I agree. She and her son Joseph II really did a lot. Unfortunately none of their reforms held; perhaps they were just ahead of their time.
Yeah, that and also Francis II/I was a bit of a reactionary. I personally think Leopold II was better than Joe Two...he reconciled with a lot of the higher-ups that Josef II pissed off. Not to mention that, under his tenure as Grand Duke, Tuscany flourished, as much as a sattelite state can. Heh. Benevolent my ass. They're even cruel, abusive, and malevolent to thier own leaders (JFK)... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
