3 ms·
Well, a dictator is almost by definition an oppressive leader - if he isn't oppressive enough, another more oppressive guy will come along and replace him. But
by rob74 3y ago
Well, a dictator is almost by definition an oppressive leader - if he isn't oppressive enough, another more oppressive guy will come along and replace him.
But yes, the observation you mentioned is indeed interesting. Hence the tendency of many people to think that states would also be better if run like a corporation, the desire to elect leaders that are (or pretend to be) successful managers, and that other observation that capitalism is not synonymous with democracy (and adopting capitalism does not automatically lead to democracy, as can be seen with China).
- brabel 3y ago> Well, a dictator is almost by definition an oppressive leader I think that you're making that up, dictators don't really need to be oppressive to remain in power. If that was true, most dictators would be quickly replaced early in their reign because there would be so many "more oppressive" people nearby, and that would only stop after "selection" done its job and a truly difficult to replace oppressive ruler was found. But that's never the case! When a dictator raises to power, usually chosen by the elite, they tend to remain in power for several decades.
- rob74 3y agoIf it doesn't happen that often that a new dictator manages to topple a current one, it's because the current dictator (a) already had a good power base/large support among the elite before he came to power and (b) because, as soon as he is in power, he's careful to keep his supporters among the elite happy and eliminate any possible contenders. Even Kim Jong Un, who had a good position by being built up as "heir" during his father's "reign", had to eliminate a few (true or imagined) competitors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong_Un#Purges_and_executions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong_Un#Purges_and_executi...).