Dictatorship For Fun and Profit

There is an election coming up in this country in a few months.  Fortunately I'll be overseas but still the imminence of the event has turned my mind to things political.  After a manner of speaking.  To be specific I've been wondering what sort of dictator I would make.  You might think "seen one dictator, seen 'em all" but there are quite a few variants out there for the connoisseur to choose from.  There are the traditional military types like Pinochet and Stroesser, uniformed thugs dripping in enough gold braid to make Liberace wince and with more medals per square inch of chest space than seems humanly possible.  Then there are the dull bourgeois dictators like Franco and Metaxas who make you wonder not only how they kept the job but how did they get it in the first place (yes, I know Spain had a brutal civil war but seriously, Franco? When they had a gargling nutcase like Millan Astray just waiting in the wings).  Alternatively you could go with the cynical political manipulators like Stalin and Saddam Hussein or the ridiculously flamboyant posturers like Qaddafi and Mussolini.  Naturally you can just go for bat crazy from the get go like Hitler or Idi Amin.  Finally you can opt for the rarest type of all.  The kind of dictator whose stature actually grows after his death.  I can only think of one person in this category; Ataturk.  There can be very few ruthless dictators (and believe me Ataturk wasn't overly endowed with ruth) who are remembered seventy years later as the father of their country and the founder of democracy.

I suppose the choice of dictator type really depends on whether you're in it for the long haul or not.  If you're just looking for a few years of irresponsible fun before the resistance groups haul you out and shoot you then bat crazy may well be for you.  It isn't sustainable though.  Nobody can be that crazy for that long without fatal consequences.  It is significant that of all the names listed about only three died both in office and without external assistance.  They were Franco and Metaxis (the most boring) and Ataturk (the most exceptional).  All the rest were eased out of power, shoved out of power or dragged out of a sewer pipe, sodomised with a gold plated pistol and shot out of power.  You could make an argument for Stalin but shall we say that the medical help he required was surprisingly slow in coming when you consider that he died at the centre of Soviet power.

In moments of quiet reflection I like to think I could be another Ataturk benevolently ruling with an iron fist (yes, I spend my moments of quiet reflection contemplating being a ruthless leader with the power of life and death, how do you spend them?).  Sadly I have to admit that I would probably be one of the bat crazy ones.  I'm far too paranoid to be anything else.  This much I can guarantee, my rule would be remembered.

Dictatorship is one of those odd jobs where the qualifications required to get it are at almost total variance with the qualifications required to do anything useful with it.  Which is why dictator is ultimately a political job rather than a military or administrative one.  Rule by the gun as much as you like, if you can't balance the various power groups within your country your rule will be brief and messy.  This is probably why if dictators survive their first six months they tend to hang around for a while.  Its essentially party politics without the tedious interruption of elections.

However bad politics gets in this country (and right now its pretty dreadful) we do at least have elections to, if not keep our politicians honest then at least to keep them just this side of bat crazy.  We shall have to take from that what comfort we can.  Anyway, all this talk of dictatorship has prompted me to reread my biography of Ataturk.  Just out of general interest you know.  Not at all because I'm looking for tips.