Authoritarian autocracy is the most effective, quickest, and most efficient form of government. The primary issue is in so many cases that effective, quick, efficient path is to some form of harm or corruption. If this is evaded, then the secondary issue is the Benevolent Dictatorship only lasts one partial generation, until someone replaces them, who, historically speaking, have a 0% chance of continuing the vision in its purely benevolent form.
If a Benevolent Dictator can get in, make change for the better, improve the area, and then as their final duty set up a system to make it difficult for future elements to cause harm and then cede power to a wider base, well, that's an ideal-case-scenario. In that case, yeah, wonderful. But it doesn't happen often. President Bukele might be an example of this in El-Salvador, depending on if he sticks the landing: Unapologetically autocratic, oppressive, martial law, and everyone agrees is also completely necessary and literally saving their country from the grasp of death.
Empires are lesser versions of this: They keep the idea of the autocracy for the most part, if sacrificing some speed and efficiency for bureaucratic checks and balances, but they do tend to become bloated over time, and while it is slightly harder for a malicious actor to completely tank the whole thing, it is by no means impossible, for there is still usually a single weak point to go for.
The problem is that there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Or a dictator, for that matter. Just like there is no such thing as democracy. The only extant form of government is oligarchy.
Insofar as some oligarchies advance the public interest better than others, that is only because there are structures that make it in the self-interest of the oligarchs to do so.
Good counterpoint. I certainly agree that he was a very good 'dictator', if you want to call him that. But I'm not sure if any ruler deserves the title 'benevolent'.
Authoritarian autocracy is the most effective, quickest, and most efficient form of government. The primary issue is in so many cases that effective, quick, efficient path is to some form of harm or corruption. If this is evaded, then the secondary issue is the Benevolent Dictatorship only lasts one partial generation, until someone replaces them, who, historically speaking, have a 0% chance of continuing the vision in its purely benevolent form.
If a Benevolent Dictator can get in, make change for the better, improve the area, and then as their final duty set up a system to make it difficult for future elements to cause harm and then cede power to a wider base, well, that's an ideal-case-scenario. In that case, yeah, wonderful. But it doesn't happen often. President Bukele might be an example of this in El-Salvador, depending on if he sticks the landing: Unapologetically autocratic, oppressive, martial law, and everyone agrees is also completely necessary and literally saving their country from the grasp of death.
Empires are lesser versions of this: They keep the idea of the autocracy for the most part, if sacrificing some speed and efficiency for bureaucratic checks and balances, but they do tend to become bloated over time, and while it is slightly harder for a malicious actor to completely tank the whole thing, it is by no means impossible, for there is still usually a single weak point to go for.
The problem is that there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Or a dictator, for that matter. Just like there is no such thing as democracy. The only extant form of government is oligarchy.
Insofar as some oligarchies advance the public interest better than others, that is only because there are structures that make it in the self-interest of the oligarchs to do so.
Lee Quan Yew joins the chat
Good counterpoint. I certainly agree that he was a very good 'dictator', if you want to call him that. But I'm not sure if any ruler deserves the title 'benevolent'.