Transcript
Dejan: Hello and welcome back to another episode of the Debatable Discussions podcast. Today it's just me and John and we're going to be tackling very interesting and sort of current topic after the very recent No Kings protests, which is dictators. So John, could you tell us first what a dictator actually is and what the framework will be for our discussion?
John Gartside: Yes, Diane. today we will be discussing dictators, but as you mentioned there, it's imperative when you discuss something like dictators to have a sort of broad definition of what they are.
Dejan: Thank you.
John Gartside: What a dictatorship is, is that it's an authoritarian form of governance where one person or a group of people hold absolute power. They hold total control over everything.
John Gartside: That control extends to things such as maintaining their own power. Thus, a dictator is not freely elected. Similarly, examples of dictatorship would involve perhaps a control over the army to remove any opposition which could challenge their power.
John Gartside: So it's this idea of having complete power. Diane, before we perhaps sort of delve into what defines a dictatorship even further, are there any benefits of dictatorship or most likely the negatives? Could you perhaps speak about some dictators?
John Gartside: Who comes to your mind as being perhaps a particularly notable dictator?
Dejan: Well, I think there's a couple of different types. And, know, you've got the sort of fascist European dictators with Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: You've got all the communist dictators, Stalin and... Mao and the like. And then you've got this other sort of type of dictator almost, which is this military sort of thuggish dictator a little bit who just is not very much ideologically sort of based in the two factions, but someone like Idi Amin.
Dejan: which is more sort ethnic, you know, situation. But then you've also got maybe, you know, and we can discuss this, the fourth type of dictatorship, which actually is the monarchy.
John Gartside: Hey.
Dejan: obviously not in the sort of way that it's implemented in Spain or Britain or sort of the Nordic states or, you know, Luxembourg and stuff. But the monarchy in its traditional form, which is hereditary system of absolute power.
Dejan: So would you classify monarch as a dictatorship? And what do you think there are? Are there any differences between one and the other?
John Gartside: Yeah, I think it's, I suppose it depends on the type of monarchy. So in the UK, sort of the Nordic States or the Nordic States and Spain, we have a constitutional monarchy.
John Gartside: And I think, you know, I'm a big fan of constitutional monarchy as a form of governance. It sort of maintains the symbolic power of the monarchy, but that's symbolic because it allows sort a democratic government However, you mentioned there, and I think there is a definite overlap between monarchy and dictatorship when it comes to absolute monarchies.
John Gartside: These are ones that pretty much all countries used to have. Constitutional monarchies are frankly, perhaps a more modern idea. I mean, I always think to Russia, Alexander II, Alexander I, Alexander III, and then their finals are, Saint Nicholas II.
John Gartside: These were authoritarian rulers who acted, I think, basically the same as a dictator would. they suppressed opposition, they put down revolutions until the final straw, obviously, Sir Nicholas II fell in the 1917 revolution. But they acted in a very similar manner to a dictator.
John Gartside: They held absolute power. What do you think, Diane?
Dejan: Yeah, I think to some extent, there is definitely overlap. I think for me, where the difference comes, and it's sort of not necessarily a sort of theory-based difference, but one that's a bit more practical, is that the monarchy has this sort of hereditary system where it passes from a generation to another.
John Gartside: So.
Dejan: And dictatorships don't really tend to get that way. It tends be much more likely what's to happen is the moment a dictator dies... there's this whole sort of upheaving society and either goes to a democracy or, you know, there's a new dictator in place.
Dejan: And we've seen this, you know, many, many times with, you know,
Dejan: dictators falling, them being killed or, you know, stuff happening, there's always something new. So, for example, you've mentioned Nicholas fell and then there was another second communist dictatorship that came in and then that fell and then, you know, fast forward, now we've got another dictatorship in Russia.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: So you've basically got this system where it's not hereditary. However, we do have an outlier, even today, Iran, The former Ayatollah's son is now the new Ayatollah in a controversial choice.
Dejan: Many sort of people familiar with the way Rahn operates and the way the Ayatollah gets chosen said that it was going to be a difficult choice to make because one of the main reasons for getting rid of the monarchy and getting rid of the Shah Iran is to replace the sort hereditary system, which they've seemed to repeat it. But I think that's the main difference. What do you think, John?
John Gartside: Yeah, I think there is some credit to that difference. I think a dictatorship is very difficult to maintain over successive generations, whereas with the monarchy, it's part of its ingrained structure for it to be maintained over generations.
Dejan: Yeah.
John Gartside: I think of For example, but it has happened with dictatorships where they have continued among over successive generations. The Duvalier family in Haiti, they were a particularly impressive dictatorship. They sort of are renowned as being perhaps one of the worst in the world.
John Gartside: The father there and the son, Francois and Jean-Claude, they were successive dictators of Haiti. However, it was incredibly difficult for them to maintain power. And I think it's perhaps a rarer form of dictatorship.
John Gartside: But another one that has also continued, and it shows how... for a dictatorship to merge upon successive generations, that each dictator needs really absolute power and no opposition, is the Kim family of North Korea.
John Gartside: Kim Jong-un, his father and his grandfather have ruled North Korea since World War II.
Dejan: yeah
John Gartside: And I mean, sort of contrary to what many would perceive, North Korea is actually, there's a sort of oligarchy in governance of North Korea.
John Gartside: And there have been times of instability in the 1990s, there was the Great Feminine in North Korea.
Dejan: yeah
John Gartside: But nonetheless, it's very difficult to maintain dictatorship over successive generations. There needs to be such absolute power that it often doesn't happen.
John Gartside: A final one I'll mention, Diane, because I think it's quite interesting. is the Philippines. So their famed dictator was Ferdinand Marcos, who was the dictator of the Philippines until their People's Revolution in 1986.
John Gartside: However, Marcos, who fled to Hawaii under the protection of Reagan, his son Bongbong Marcos actually eventually became the leader of the Philippines democratically.
John Gartside: So it's quite interesting, that example, in that that is successive generations of a family. Obviously, there was a gap in the middle, but it didn't continue, I suppose, hereditary like a monarchy.
Dejan: Yeah.
John Gartside: Perhaps could you touch more on, you mentioned dictatorships and communist governments. Could you perhaps touch upon those? You obviously Stalin and several of the leaders across Eastern Europe.
Dejan: I think, you know, communist dictatorships perhaps get a bit of a different rep than fascist dictatorships. If you think about fascist dictatorship, you immediately think about sort of barbarism and deaths and killings and massacres. And I didn't really know if that's the case of communist dictators, just when it should be, because some of the most bloody dictators are Mao and Stalin. And again, they sort of operate in the same way as the fascist dictators. So both are sort of equally as bad.
Dejan: But initially started this very sort ideological experiment. You know, it just didn't work.
Dejan: People got there and the moment they got there, they sort of, because the system was just sort of not working, there was a very high competition for resources.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: You got this sort stratification of classes, even larger than before, perhaps, in the way that if you sort of, if you were in the party sort of area, then you had these privileges. And if you weren't, you didn't.
Dejan: And Immediately that transformed. So the dictatorship in communist countries, I think, is some of the most abhorrent we've seen. You know, great famine under Mao.
Dejan: You know, the concentration camps under Stalin. I mean, you know, everyone talks a lot about concentration camps in Nazi Germany, and for good reason. But I don't think there is enough talk about concentration camps in Siberia under Stalin.
John Gartside: Yeah, I mean, I completely agree. And I think the failure of communism as a system is embodied by the 1989 revolutions that swept across East Europe.
Dejan: Yeah. Yeah.
John Gartside: And similarly, Stalin, I was recently reading something about who were the worst dictators in history. the worst dictators being a sort of idea which is very hard to define.
John Gartside: But the top two were Stalin and Mao, purely just because they were abhorrent people who killed a huge level, an unprecedented number of people.
John Gartside: Stalin killed millions across his programs of collectivization, also his aims to industrialize Russia. Similarly, collectivization, that was his communist agricultural policy, killed at least five million in Ukraine known as the Holodomor. And similarly, they were extremely oppressive towards opponents. Tens of millions in gulags,
Dejan: Yeah.
John Gartside: mean, it was a huge failure. His great leap forward as well was just a huge failure in sort of every single way.
Dejan: It's not a leap forward.
John Gartside: Yeah, it wasn't a leap forward. Actually, the GDP of China didn't grow in that period. It was until another perhaps dictator, Deng Xiaoping, until China really progressed economically.
John Gartside: So yes, I think communist dictatorships are a very interesting part of dictatorships. They sort of 19th, late 19th century thing. They only emerged really after the Second World War largely.
John Gartside: But they really do, I think there is a definite, one can definitely say communism failed because of the failure of some of those. Obviously in China, there's perhaps a far more revisionist version of their communist dictatorship.
Dejan: Yeah. Cuba.
John Gartside: But in places like Russia, across East Europe,
John Gartside: There's been move slightly away, perhaps less with Cuba, that's more revisionist, but really in East Europe and Russia, they've moved completely away from the communism which used to there.
John Gartside: Dianne, another interesting idea regarding dictatorships is this idea of a benevolent dictatorship. Lee Kuan Yew, for example, the leader of Singapore between 1959 to 1991, is sometimes called benevolent dictator. So do you think such thing as a benevolent dictatorship exists?
Dejan: I
Dejan: think a dictator can be benevolent if they decide to stop the dictatorship and allow for democratic elections to take place. I think that's as far as benevolence goes.
Dejan: Because whether you oppress or not, whether you kill or not, whether you do these atrocities or not, I think benevolent is not the right hand because you're not allowing people to sort make their decision.
Dejan: And in some cases that decision may not be you, you know, you've got your own agenda and then by not allowing others with a different agenda to sort of run and to sort of express their points and address the large public and to allow that public to make a decision between the two candidates, I think you're simply not benevolent, right?
Dejan: On the other hand, if you've got free and fair elections and you don't have a term limit and you win four, five, six in a row because you're so popular, fine. I don't think there's an issue with that.
Dejan: I think some people may make an argument that, okay, it's slippery slope, sure. But let's say in an ideal world, if you've got fair and free elections every time and you win every time because you're just that good, I don't see a problem. But if you're actively not allowing people to basically fire you,
Dejan: that I did, I think you're benevolent.
John Gartside: Yeah, I think it's a really interesting notion, benevolent dictatorship. I think, as you mentioned there, the whole idea really focuses on the ends rather than the means. It doesn't focus as much perhaps on how they took power or how they ruled.
John Gartside: but rather the consequences. I think typically one could view a benevolent dictatorship as being characterised as such for someone perhaps as Lee Kuan Yew because of his economic success, which many will view makes him a benevolent dictator.
Dejan: Yeah.
John Gartside: mean, Lee Kuan Yew, for example, transformed Singapore's economy from a bit after World War II when he founded the People's Action Party in Singapore in 1953. And he led Singapore until 1991, he imposed strict policies, which some would view as being very oppressive and not benevolent.
John Gartside: However, his economic growth in Singapore, his public housing, which 80% of Singaporeans lived in, some would view as very successful.
Dejan: Yeah.
John Gartside: So what I think it shows is that, is what you effectively value more defines a benevolent dictatorship. If you value perhaps Western principles of a liberal democracy, of being able to freely have elections like we do, Diane, for some that is what benevolence is. However, for others, it is things like economic success, social policies. So I think this whole notion of benevolence dictatorship, it's what you value more, simply as we said. We in the West value liberal democracy as being more effective than autocracy.
Dejan: Yeah, I think you're definitely right there because benevolent can be interpreted in the sort of, as you said, in the results and that. Have you done...
Dejan: mean, it's what's good for the country and have you done that. But it also can be interpreted as, you know, have you acted morally throughout? And I think, especially these long sort of 35-year-old, 40-year-old terms and, you know, this long period of time, you're not going to be at the top of your game throughout.
Dejan: You know, just impossible. And yeah, you're going to gain experience, but you're also going to get physically more tired and also mentally more tired. It's tough enough.
Dejan: You know, we've seen presidents in the US, for example, after 10 years, and they look drastically different to when they first assumed office.
John Gartside: Joe Biden sort of in his four years, hugely changed.
Dejan: you know, completely different.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: Obama, completely different. And then you sort see them get rejuvenated a little bit after they finish. You see them three, four years later, you're like, okay, they look a bit better. I mean, can imagine that for 30 years and being that constant stress? I mean, you know...
Dejan: Singapore isn't the United States of America, so it doesn't have to deal with the same sort of pressures of having 50 different states with their sort of whole systems and, you know, all of that. But it's still a country nonetheless with its own problems and its own difficulties.
Dejan: So I just find it bizarre that you'd want to do that for that long, if you know what mean.
John Gartside: Yeah, and I mean, I think the difficulties of being a dictator as we've actually sort of evoked is an abhorrent sort thing for the people in so many cases. And I think another dimension of that, which almost alluding to that is how many dictators are kleptocrats.
John Gartside: They steal a lot from the state to effectively fund their own lifestyle. Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines is an example of this. I mean, billions he stole from the Philippine Central Bank.
Dejan: Yeah.
John Gartside: So they're an example of kleptocracy, which is evident in so many dictatorships across the world. And I think really that symbolises how failed the system of dictatorship is. Simply if leaders are having to steal from the state,
Dejan: Yeah.
John Gartside: something that is usually against the wishes of their people, it shows that it's not truly a fair system of governments. If you've got people stealing from the state, it's bizarre.
Dejan: And also, you know, I think it's almost impossible not to take advantage because if you're in this position, you know you can't be sort of taxed by the public.
Dejan: So right now, for example, if you're a public official, and you get caught embezzling funds. Let's assume you can't go to prison. Let's assume you go prison. But there is no way you're winning the next election. You know you'll be kicked out of government as soon as the next election comes.
Dejan: Whilst if no one can kick you out because there's no mechanism in place, you're going to live the way you want to without much respect or regard for the people. And, you know, does everyone do that? No. And I'm certain throughout history some have genuinely cared for their people. But it's very difficult sort of sphere to police, you know.
John Gartside: Yeah, yeah. And obviously, as you're describing there, this lack of accountability is a key factor dictatorship. I think sort of material obsession is evident in so many dictatorships, but there's one where it interestingly isn't.
John Gartside: That is Ho Chi Minh, the leader of North Vietnam and then Vietnam after the Vietnam War, who interestingly enough was known to be extremely humble. So I think the Vietnamese Communist Party built him a huge palace, but he effectively refused to live in it. And he also abstained from materialism.
John Gartside: That though, I mean, Hong Chemin had many other flaws, but that isn't true to say though for other communist dictatorships like him.
Dejan: Yeah. Yeah.
John Gartside: We've actually seen with most communist dictatorships that this idea of, you know, equality in possessions and, you know, not having private ownership really is not evident at all.
John Gartside: I mean, could you touch on Ceausescu, Diane?
Dejan: Yeah, mean, you know, you've got many like him, but, you know, him in a time of sort of famine and, you know, great difficulties for the larger population.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: So, you know, just lived in a palace. Biggest, heaviest building in the world. Yeah. always had, you know, and everything and helicopters and everything a head of state would have, but sort of a bit counterintuitive to sort of what he preached.
Dejan: And then, you know, even let's talk about modern day people, you know, like Nicolas Maduro, you know, his palaces and everything.
John Gartside: Yeah. Yes.
Dejan: And, you know, he's not the only one. So do think... You know, and I think the head of state should live very well because don't think it's actually productive for them to sort of be worried about food and about other stuff. You know, I...
Dejan: I actually am quite against this whole thing that's happening sometimes nowadays with people like, oh, why do you hesitate to fly privately or whatever? It's not important.
John Gartside: yeah.
Dejan: Let them do their job. But what's not okay is when that... actually transcends from I'm just doing my job to I want to live in sort of extra luxury because you know you don't you don't need to live in the heaviest building in the world you know Kim Jong-un famously he's you know he plays video games and he's the only one in his country who can play video games if you want to play video games like allow everyone to do so you know that's not you know you playing video games and you doing your job aren't two things that you
John Gartside: yeah. yeah.
John Gartside: Yes.
Dejan: are dependent on one another.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: You can do your job without actually playing League of Legends or whatever. So I think there is that line, which most of them have crossed.
John Gartside: Yeah.
John Gartside: Yeah, yeah. And I agree that I think in democratic systems, as we're saying that leaders should be able to have a comfortable lifestyle.
Dejan: Yeah.
John Gartside: However, in dictatorships, it's all too often that we see that dictators, especially communist systems of government, have just been hugely indulgent and in a total sort of juxtaposition to their beliefs or what they preach.
Dejan: Yeah.
Dejan: And, yeah, and also, I mean, you know, even on the other side, you've got people like Mussolini, famously, you know, womanizer, lived in the palace and had all these sort of, you know, luxuries and really sort of took as many of them as he could.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: So it's not, you know, it's sort of universal thing with dictators, I think, yeah.
John Gartside: That's all. Yeah. Yeah. And so with that, we'll conclude the episode. So today, Diane and discussed a few themes around dictators, what characterizes a dictator? Can there be a benevolent dictatorship? And we also sort of at the end transition, transition to the failure of communist dictatorships, using examples from throughout the world in the episode.
Dejan: If you enjoyed the episode, do leave us a comment, a review, like if you're watching on some platforms that allows you to do so. And we'll see you next week.
Dejan: Bye-bye.
John Gartside: We'll see you then.
