I could simply snap at you with "so said the dictator"... but I don't feel like burning away karma with a cheap shot. Instead, I will point out that most dicta

I could simply snap at you with "so said the dictator"... but I don't feel like burning away karma with a cheap shot. Instead, I will point out that most dictators in the world rationalize their actions as necessary to ensure a greater good that will ultimately outshine whatever it is they know they should not be doing. I don't have the time or interest to provide a peer reviewed article about how this pattern repeats over the last 5,000 years of World history, but I will provide an example form my home country. You may google for other examples if you feel it's due. Porfirio Diaz came to power in Mexico in 1876, under the platform of "no reelection" due to the recurrent problem of 19th century Mexican politicians running for office multiple terms (last example was Benito Juarez, who died during his 4th term, but there are others). After this he: 1. Appointed close friend, Manuel Gonzalez, as successor in 1880 election. 2. Amended the constitution to allow a non consecutive 2nd term reelection. 3. Came back to rule in 1884. 4. Extended the presidential term from 4 years to 6 years (which remains the norm in the country to this date). 5. Removed all restrictions to reelection and remained in office through electoral fraud and assassination of political rivals for the next 27 years. 6. In 1908, he claimed that Mexico was "ready for democracy" and organized an election that allowed other candidates for the first time in two decades. 7. However in 1910, he had the other candidate, Francisco I. Madero, put in jail. Then the election was carried on, and he claimed to have won by "overwhelming advantage". 8. This fact triggered the civil war know as the Mexican Revolution, which forced him to flee to France in 1911, leaving behind a country drawn in open warfare for 6 more years (and in the ballpark of 25 years of instability and low intensity conflict).