3 ms·

Inspiring, famous, influential, and powerful are not synonyms. The Ceaucescus exercised a lot of raw power.

• kspacewalk2 5y ago
  Surely Indira Gandhi with her authoritarian tendencies held more "raw power" than Thatcher, elected in a stable parliamentary democracy with proper rule of law.
• simonh 5y ago
  Within Romania yes, but India dwarfs it geographically and demographically, and internationally I think Gandhi had a lot more influence.
• nmridul 5y ago
  Indira Gandhi was instrumental in the creation of a new country - Bangladesh - by waging a direct war with Pakistan. Not a small matter considering Bangladesh is the 8th most populous country in the world. This is in addition to influencing the second most populous country in the world (India). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Freedom_Honour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Freedom_Honour
• djrogers 5y ago
  In a tiny country. Imelda Marcos exercised a similar level of power in a country >5x the size of Romania. The fact that he threw in Margaret Thatcher (who was not a dictator, and thus didn’t have as have much raw power) kinda shows that the author was just pulling opinions out of thin air, or exaggerating for effect, rather than carefullly measuring ‘raw power’.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • Beldin 5y ago
    On the other hand, Tatcher was a world leader (behind Reagan and Gorbatsjov). Her power to dictate the life of civilians in her country was less than that of dictators; her ability to influence the world beyond her country's borders far greater.
    • tptacek 5y ago
      I think the point here is that Elena Ceausescu wasn't a world leader. Nobody is disputing Thatcher's importance.
• adolph 5y ago
  In Romania certainly. Outside Romania?